| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/15/2007 05:14:15 PM · #1 |
I've been selling images with Dreamstime for almost a year and a half. I haven't made a whole lot of money, but the more images I upload, the more frequently I make a sale.
Lately I've been visiting the site several times a day to see what sales I've made.
It's almost as addictive as the DPC update button!
Message edited by author 2007-11-15 19:14:37. |
|
|
|
11/15/2007 05:35:06 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
11/15/2007 05:49:34 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by CalamitysMaster00:
.26 cents a photo??? |
No, 26 cents/photo. :) |
|
|
|
11/16/2007 09:40:22 AM · #4 |
| Well technically, 26 cents per sale rather than photo - a small but fairly crucial difference! |
|
|
|
11/16/2007 09:47:56 AM · #5 |
I admit the allure of selling a photo for 26 cents is enticing but the more I think about and realize that once the use of an image is purchased by a company, they can use that image as often and for as long as they like, its not quite as appealing.
Message edited by author 2007-11-16 09:48:12. |
|
|
|
11/16/2007 10:17:00 AM · #6 |
well I see you guys don't submit to microstocks :)
I can't ever remember selling an image for 26 cents on dreamstime.... they are between 50 cents and $3.00 usually unless you get an extended license in which case it is significantly more.
If you look at it on a per sale basis, then no- it is not worth it
If you look at it on an earnings/photo basis it is well worth the effort. If it wasn't how could an increasing number of people make a full time income from microstock earnings.
edit: I hope i didn't turn this into one of those threads where people bring out the little popcorn eating happy face :)
|
|
|
|
11/16/2007 10:24:20 AM · #7 |
The thing about Dreamstime is that the more times an image sells, the more it earns. Once it has sold ten times, it doubles...and so on.
Also, the buyer purchases under specific licensing restrictions. The images can only be used as specified in the license. The more they pay, the wider the use. Photogs can also sell exclusive rights. I think an image recently sold for around $4000.
It's definitely worth it if you have hundreds of high-quality images to upload, and the patience to leave them there long enough to start earning.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2007 10:35:05 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by leaf:
If you look at it on a per sale basis, then no- it is not worth it
If you look at it on an earnings/photo basis it is well worth the effort. If it wasn't how could an increasing number of people make a full time income from microstock earnings.
|
I've put 11 pictures up on Alamy. I've made 3 sales this year. $600.
I don't quite get the earnings/photo basis argument for microstock either. It just looks like y'all are getting ripped off. I realise many people are happy to be doing it, but it just doesn't seem to make any economic sense at all, when people are willing to pay $200 for similar images.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2007 10:40:34 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I've put 11 pictures up on Alamy. I've made 3 sales this year. $600.
I don't quite get the earnings/photo basis argument for microstock either. It just looks like y'all are getting ripped off. I realise many people are happy to be doing it, but it just doesn't seem to make any economic sense at all, when people are willing to pay $200 for similar images. |
How many times can you sell those same images? At $200, is the buyer purchasing a license for unlimited use? |
|
|
|
11/16/2007 10:47:38 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Fromac:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I've put 11 pictures up on Alamy. I've made 3 sales this year. $600.
I don't quite get the earnings/photo basis argument for microstock either. It just looks like y'all are getting ripped off. I realise many people are happy to be doing it, but it just doesn't seem to make any economic sense at all, when people are willing to pay $200 for similar images. |
How many times can you sell those same images? At $200, is the buyer purchasing a license for unlimited use? |
It depends. Onalamy you have the choice of selling images as rights managed or royalty free. Royalty free isnt much different than the micros in terms of how an image can be used, you just get paid more, a person purchases the right to use an image as often and for as long as they like.
Rights managed, they purchase the image for a specific use and if they want to use the image again for something else they relicense and repay a license fee and its pretty common for images to be licenses multiple times.
I look at it this way, in the overall cost of things asking a company to spend a few hundred dollars each time they use an image isnt unrealistic and is justified.
Im not a pro photog by any stretch. I think a lot of non pros (ie people who make their living by selling photos) look at micro as just a means to make a little extra money from their hobby. This in my opinion devalues photgrahy in general. Weather its a hobby or not we should ask for what our images are worth.
Just my 2 cents.
Message edited by author 2007-11-16 10:49:10. |
|
|
|
11/16/2007 10:48:20 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Fromac:
How many times can you sell those same images? At $200, is the buyer purchasing a license for unlimited use? |
At $200 the buyer is purchasing a very restrictive, limited license for a single use and no exclusivity. Also only a small reproduction in a particular region. So I can sell the images multiple times.
Royalty free starts at $85 for a web sized version and goes up to about $300 for a print size. I've sold a few that way too (one today when I just checked)
These are very generic images, nothing very special either. Stuff that I wouldn't normally even bother putting on my web site. The main barrier to entry is their image size/ quality requirements though.
Message edited by author 2007-11-16 10:50:00.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2007 10:53:05 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
These are very generic images, nothing very special either. |
care to share ?
|
|
|
|
11/16/2007 10:57:47 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by goc:
Originally posted by Gordon:
These are very generic images, nothing very special either. |
care to share ? |
here's one
5 minutes in a zoo. Sold for $340 for a school textbook.
Message edited by author 2007-11-16 10:58:15.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2007 01:02:23 PM · #14 |
This leads on perfectly to a question I was about to ask.
I have a number of shots from Berlin Zoo that I have uploaded to Alamy and passed QC. I now have to set the keywords and details and want to know if I need to state that it should have a property release but doesn't?
Would I need to do this for ALL my zoo shots and more importantly would I need to limit the licence to editorial only for each of them? This would take forever for the 60 odd pics I have! |
|
|
|
11/16/2007 01:25:27 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by kevip6:
This leads on perfectly to a question I was about to ask.
I have a number of shots from Berlin Zoo that I have uploaded to Alamy and passed QC. I now have to set the keywords and details and want to know if I need to state that it should have a property release but doesn't?
Would I need to do this for ALL my zoo shots and more importantly would I need to limit the licence to editorial only for each of them? This would take forever for the 60 odd pics I have! |
You should check the Zoo policy actually. I know some Zoos explicitely state that photography on their premises is not to be used for commercial purposes. |
|
|
|
11/16/2007 01:27:56 PM · #16 |
| .......file size of at least 17MB at 8 bit :( ..from Alamy faqs. |
|
|
|
11/16/2007 01:31:21 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
.......file size of at least 17MB at 8 bit :( ..from Alamy faqs. |
I dont understand the releveance?
You can easily interpolate to the required file size with most prosumer or better 6+ mpix DSLR's. |
|
|
|
11/16/2007 01:38:22 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Kaveran:
Originally posted by faidoi:
.......file size of at least 17MB at 8 bit :( ..from Alamy faqs. |
I dont understand the releveance?
You can easily interpolate to the required file size with most prosumer or better 6+ mpix DSLR's. |
That is only for people that have a 6+ megapixel cameras and the software the interpolate. Not everybody can afford this and micro will get your feet wet. |
|
|
|
11/16/2007 02:28:28 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Kaveran:
Originally posted by kevip6:
This leads on perfectly to a question I was about to ask.
I have a number of shots from Berlin Zoo that I have uploaded to Alamy and passed QC. I now have to set the keywords and details and want to know if I need to state that it should have a property release but doesn't?
Would I need to do this for ALL my zoo shots and more importantly would I need to limit the licence to editorial only for each of them? This would take forever for the 60 odd pics I have! |
You should check the Zoo policy actually. I know some Zoos explicitely state that photography on their premises is not to be used for commercial purposes. |
This is true, though if you have really tight shots of the animals it shouldn't matter -- what you can't do is sell pictures identifying the zoo -- no identifiable parts of the structures or signage, etc. I would keyword the shots describing only the animal subject -- nothing at all about the zoo/location ... |
|
|
|
11/16/2007 02:37:49 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Kaveran:
Originally posted by kevip6:
This leads on perfectly to a question I was about to ask.
I have a number of shots from Berlin Zoo that I have uploaded to Alamy and passed QC. I now have to set the keywords and details and want to know if I need to state that it should have a property release but doesn't?
Would I need to do this for ALL my zoo shots and more importantly would I need to limit the licence to editorial only for each of them? This would take forever for the 60 odd pics I have! |
You should check the Zoo policy actually. I know some Zoos explicitely state that photography on their premises is not to be used for commercial purposes. |
This is true, though if you have really tight shots of the animals it shouldn't matter -- what you can't do is sell pictures identifying the zoo -- no identifiable parts of the structures or signage, etc. I would keyword the shots describing only the animal subject -- nothing at all about the zoo/location ... |
Even if its a tight crop and most people cant identify the zoo, selling an image if its explicitly against the zoos rules is still a no no.
A zoo is technically private property and so are the animals. If they say no pics for commercial purposes and you use one for commercial purposes its pretty cut and dry that you broke the rules regardless of whats identifiable. |
|
|
|
11/16/2007 02:43:54 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Kaveran:
Even if its a tight crop and most people cant identify the zoo, selling an image if its explicitly against the zoos rules is still a no no.
A zoo is technically private property and so are the animals. If they say no pics for commercial purposes and you use one for commercial purposes its pretty cut and dry that you broke the rules regardless of whats identifiable. |
It should be OK to sell individual prints, but not to distribute as stock. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 09:52:58 AM EDT.
