Author Topic: finding your images (Read 7511 times)

Phil · « **on:** July 01, 2008, 06:04 »

I was sent a copy of the international journal for high energy physics as they used a pic of a gecko of mine (my eldest daughter rather proudly told her science teacher she was in the journal, then showed the pic of gecko on the tip of a finger

(she should have said her finger is in the journal

and I subscribe to a kids science magazine, and last issue my youngest came running in yelling that it is my pic in the magazine which was cool (another lizard pic)

and then I did some searching for my images and found a nice landscape pic of australian rainforest being used in a discussion about amazon rainforest. pic of grape vines in the barossa being used to advertise french wine

and then saw this thread on shutterstock

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40834&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=karin+lau&start=45

so then I got thinking book publishers were paying $300++ each for images a few years ago. now they get them for $0.25c but book prices haven't dropped at all... at least the ones I seem to buy seem to have gone up??

this made me not so happy and I realised that my commission on the total sales of that lizard pic across 10-14 sites doesn't even cover the cost of a single issue of the magazine....

think I should stop looking for my pics

leaf · « **Reply #1 on:** July 01, 2008, 06:11 »

well microstock definitely doesn't lend itself well to looking at things sale by sale. I think it would be nice if sites charged more for big production items, but as it is now, that is not the case.

However, looking at things in the big picture (which i think is the only way to look at microstock) I find the income per image average acceptable.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #2 on:** July 01, 2008, 06:14 »

Yeah, I found one of my micro pics used by a news website which I thought was pretty cool.

Then I found the exact article with the same pic used by a couple dozen different news websites.

Apparantly a content provider bought the pic so they get to buy it once but make money from every feed they sell to all of the other sites. And because of the RF model the other sites get to use the pic but not pay extra for usage.

Yeech. Not so cool. Another reason for me to spend more time on RM.

Phil · « **Reply #3 on:** July 01, 2008, 08:00 »

Quote from: leaf on July 01, 2008, 06:11

well microstock definitely doesn't lend itself well to looking at things sale by sale. I think it would be nice if sites charged more for big production items, but as it is now, that is not the case.

However, looking at things in the big picture (which i think is the only way to look at microstock) I find the income per image average acceptable.

yeah I know, just sad when you look at some individual images (esp favourite images) that shot (about 10-15 in the set) took 5-6 hours waiting over 4 days to get, then it barely sells. I knock something out in 2 minutes that looks (to me) like garbage and it sells every day

and of course I cant really complain about overall $$ per month

Phil · « **Reply #4 on:** July 01, 2008, 08:01 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on July 01, 2008, 06:14

Yeah, I found one of my micro pics used by a news website which I thought was pretty cool.

Then I found the exact article with the same pic used by a couple dozen different news websites.

Apparantly a content provider bought the pic so they get to buy it once but make money from every feed they sell to all of the other sites. And because of the RF model the other sites get to use the pic but not pay extra for usage.

Yeech. Not so cool. Another reason for me to spend more time on RM.

ouch! you'd think it would at least be an EL sale

madelaide · « **Reply #5 on:** July 01, 2008, 16:42 »

Quote from: clearviewstock on July 01, 2008, 08:01

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on July 01, 2008, 06:14
Yeah, I found one of my micro pics used by a news website which I thought was pretty cool.

Then I found the exact article with the same pic used by a couple dozen different news websites.

Apparantly a content provider bought the pic so they get to buy it once but make money from every feed they sell to all of the other sites. And because of the RF model the other sites get to use the pic but not pay extra for usage.

Yeech. Not so cool. Another reason for me to spend more time on RM.

ouch! you'd think it would at least be an EL sale

I had the same, an image sold to AOL in Germany, the same article reproduced in many sites. I was going to check FT's license terms to see if that was ok, but I never did.

Regards,
Adelaide