http://techdirt.com/articles/20091124/0318437068.shtml

I'm not sure there is a "right" to have cheap images - the author says "Compare that to the situation seven years ago when we were working on a revamp of our corporate website. We went in search of a photo to use, and the licensing deals we saw wanted about $1,000 for just one year of usage. That meant we spent nothing, because that just doesn't make sense. "  I guess that means they could not derive that value or more back from their usage of the image on their website.  Well, that's tough, isn't it?  Just because you _want_ something for pennies doesn't mean you have a right to _get_ something for pennies.

I certainly don't agree with the posters who seem to think that just because IP has no replication costs, that it should be free.  That's just silly.  As the one poster pointed out, there are costs in time and production inherent in each piece of IP that we produce.  Tossing copyright laws out the window to "encourage production" is a ridiculous idea.  Most of that drivel comes from "Anonymous Coward".  Sigh.

Also bits like this are just sour grapes: "I think most TD commenters are people who work every day, are paid for the work they do that day, and have to work again the next day to keep getting paid. And we don't see why artists should be able to work once and live off the income from it for the rest of their lives. And we really don't see why artists' children and grandchildren should be getting income from that work."

And of course, the nonsense about giving away IP "free" to get exposure is nonsense as well.  From many stories posted in many forums, we know the "great exposure you get from giving us your image for free", is worth nothing.

In the end, the comments are more about IP, then about micro.

.......causing immensely talented photographers to close up shop.

Please pass on my congratulations to whoever said this for winning the 'dumbest statement of 2009' award.

Here's the link to the first article with the comparisons:

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2009/11/microstock-creates-new-markets-no-it.html

Seriously a discussion about that topic is quite useless. Though it's interesting/funny to get links about macrosaur thoughts. It's like someone say, I used Web Crawler in 1998, why do everyone use Google. Look like redundancy to me

I can't be bothered to read anti-microstock nonsense any more.  Times have changed, I wish I could go back to the 80's but time only moves one way.  I would like to see microstock sites increase subs prices, give us at least 50% commission and charge a lot more for some licenses.  Other than that, I love microstock.

Oh come on Lisa, Big hair was cool  I had an afro in the seventies. I was so skinny I looked like a giant dandelion.


Cheers,
J

No, I don't think that Sean was ever a lipstick wearing sort of guy. 

is that you sean?!  

Oh come on Lisa, Big hair was cool  I had an afro in the seventies. I was so skinny I looked like a giant dandelion.


Cheers,
J

Screenshot or it didn't happen
I was cuddly and cute in my cradle in the seventies... I have photographic proofs.

Quote from: sharpshot on November 30, 2009, 18:34

I can't be bothered to read anti-microstock nonsense any more.  Times have changed, I wish I could go back to the 80's but time only moves one way.  I would like to see microstock sites increase subs prices, give us at least 50% commission and charge a lot more for some licenses.  Other than that, I love microstock.

Well...at least read Fastmedia's blog post.  He used one of your photos.  :-)

http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/?p=2440

Thanks for pointing that out.  A great example of how microstock has opened up a new market for cheap blog photos

ooops

At least I had hair!
Smiling Jack

That's what I was thinking, don't let the glare from my forehead distract you. Maybe consider it a reverse Mohawk? 

The person who compared it to the gold rush was closest. The people selling supplies made the money, a few miners who got in early made some returns, and in the end many people went searching and found nothing.

Microstock, the agencies make money, the new agency of the month club is prospecting, staking claims and going bust, some photographers are making the profits and most are searching but find it's like wandering in the mountains, finding just brown rocks or Fools Gold.

Microstock isn't the problem, it's the reaction to a world market and inexpensive good equipment. It is crowd sourcing and a solution to a problem created by a worldwide web economy and demand for reasonably priced images. While we see a Time cover, or some billboard, most of the sales are economically driven. Ask yourself what sells best on Micro? (don't think too hard, after headsets and handshakes) It's designs and graphics, not photographs!

While I'll never make much on Micro and I think it's fools gold or a MLM kind of atmosphere, with things like "sell those snapshots on your hard drive" being used to lure in photographers, the top is still like anything else. It's professionals who work hard and invest large amounts of time on equipment and editing and work hard to make what they EARN. The tale of how many make nothing, make no payout and may never get accepted, is true. Most will fail.

This forum is the cream of the crop. Like Las Vegas, you don't have people coming back bragging about how they lost thousands gambling, you only hear from the winners. The casinos don't put pictures on the walls of people who lost a fortune, they show the lights and glamor of the few who win big. Same with Microstock. The people here, for the most part, are making some returns, the other 90% aren't writing messages saying, "I sold $20 in two years with 200 images." which is closer to the truth. Not that the successful people are lying, it's just that they are the minority.

Most of the comments on the blogs and articles, about how Micro-payment has ruined the market, are alluding to profits, earnings and income. Or about making a living shooting quality images. I'm of the belief that people shooting quality images are hardly impacted by micro, while the economics of micro are targeting people who would never, in most cases, every... buy one of the high priced photos. What website or blog can afford $400 for a photo the size of a stamp, that's up in the corner, illustrating a concept?

Has McDonald's driven steak houses out of business? Has Long John Silvers caused seafood specialty restaurants out of business? I could go on, but I think I already have. Top of the line photos and specialty images will never be replaced by micro. Have you seen a NFL game lately with someone running along the end zone with a P&S shooting for micro? National Geographic?  The fashion industry hasn't been swamped with people shooting in the corner of their living room or garage studios. In the end, the high end is still there and the market has sorted out based on supply and demand. Plain simple economics drove the buyers to micro. The people crying have been hit the same as many other industries, by mass production and global economics adjustments.

Micro-payment wasn't invented and forced into the marketplace, it was discovered to be successful at filling a need and demand. It's not going away! The top conventional stock shooters can still sell and have a good market and demand for their work. It may not be as large as it was, but it's still there. As some have pointed out before, there's room for all of us. As always, the best will prosper the rest will either adjust and adapt or become extinct. In this case, go find some other way to make a living. It isn't really the dinosaurs, wiped out by lack of food caused by an explosion. It's more like one species that adapted better, take a giraffe, which can reach the food supply, while the short necks became extinct.

In stock, the food supply is marketing and changing and reaching for the buyers in new ways and new places with multiple agencies.

But believe it or not that's not what got me started writing.  

Everyone is talking profits, sales, income, making a living. (or how it has negatively impacted their ability to make a living as they used to) Then they point out that the collections are being filled by hobbiest photos. In fact they are right about the free sites and people giving away images on sites like Picassa, Flickr or maybe you haven't seen that MSN has one that's also free and really well done. FREE! But wrong about comparing what was film, expensive, analog and high priced, maybe over priced, to the modern era of digital.

What about me? I'm in it for the personal reward, not the money. Seems that the artistic aspects of photography have been completely ignored by the money in stock photography. There's much more to taking pictures than money. There's news, documentary, art, and many other reasons for taking photos. That's why I take photos. I shouldn't even be here because I'm not a micro shooter and never will be. I can appreciate the way people work and the success of the few, but it's not what I do and not what I want to do.

When I become a SS exclusive, I'll write and explain it all.   (maybe not?)