Well, skipping past Nullix's sarcasm, he's right that there's a lot of info out there.
From what I've gathered, creative professionals like designers, advertising firms, graphic artists, etc. look for images they can use. They could work with a photographer directly, but it's often easier and cheaper to buy images sold by central warehouses. I'm guessing that before the Web, there were books you'd flip through. When you found an image you wanted to use, you paid a small fee. The book publishers would sign agreements with various photographers, and they'd split the money. The exact split depended on lots of things.
Now, there are several stock photography sites. You sign their agreements, and then they feature your photos on their site. When someone wants to use your image, they still pay a small fee (as low as a few cents per download), and over time, the idea is that your share would amount to something.
The debate Nullix mentioned is that some people think it's devaluing to sell your photos for such low amounts. Others argue that they take loads of photos, not every one of them is worth hundreds of dollars, and they get good exposure.
And that's just two of what are probably dozens of viewpoints.
Stock is also seen by some as devaluing art in general.
Message edited by author 2007-07-13 15:46:53.
|