I have read a whole think about microstock sites on photographersdirect, I must agree that there is some true in this. But suddenly I remember that without microstock someone like myself, a computer science student with passion for photography, never and never would begin to sell its photo to raise some money. Why? just because I have no professional experience, no contacts with pro photographer, no idea at all about this market. Microstock sites give me the possibility to trust in my work (just a passion before), telling me since the beginning that experience is not important if the photo sells. If after only one month of submitting photos to a "macrostock" site I would have noticed no sales, thing that is common, surely I would have give up with this business.
So, again, what do you think about this?

"Why will Photographers Direct not represent photographers who have images on micropayment / microstock sites?

Because they are the antithesis of Fair Trade Photography. Micropayment sites (which sell Royalty Free images for 1 to 3 dollars) prey on the lack of industry-experience of amateur photographers.

The only people who benefit from these sites are:

   1. The site owners, because they make money from the images and do not care about the damage they are doing to professional photographers' livelihoods.
   2. The buyers, who cannot believe their luck at being able to get images for a few dollars, and being able to use them as often as they like, for as long as they like, wherever they like.

The people who lose out every time are the photographers. Almost every photographer we have spoken to on this issue has expressed regret at placing their images on micropayment sites. Initially they are excited at people taking an interest in their images and paying for them. Of course they like making an income from their images, but here are the facts:

    * The average fee for an image licensed through Photographers Direct is about 200 dollars, of which the photographer will receive 160 dollars. Images have been licensed for up to 5000 dollars. These license fees are usually for a single usage, not a Royalty Free license. The photographer can license the same image again and again for similar fees.
    * To make the same average amount through a micropayment site you will have to sell anywhere between 200 and 800 images. These images can be used anywhere at any time and cannot realistically be traced. You are not 'selling' your images, you are not 'having success'; you are giving away your images, and the buyers cannot believe their luck.

Imagine the day when you see one of your images on a book or magazine cover. You will probably be very happy and proud, until you realise you earned one dollar from an image that is helping to generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in publishing sales. Is this fair?

A lot of people will respond that this will not happen, that images off micropayment sites are only used by designers for initial layouts and by 'mom and pop' businesses who would never pay more for images. This is simply not true - a quote:

"SAA executive director Betsy Reid pointed out a discussion board on iStockPhoto where members were congratulating photographer Lise Gagne, who wrote that she had just seen one of her stock images on IBM's web site.
'Once you're done celebrating, is anyone going to stop and think that you got 20 cents for that image?' Reid asks."
Quote from Photo District News.

Can IBM afford to pay market rates for images? Of course! Would they pay 500 dollars for this same image if that was the price? The odds are they would. So why did they pay 1 dollar? Because that was the price it was offered for. The photographer has thrown away 499 dollars.

Surely photographers should have the right to market their images where they like?

Of course, but we also have the right to make conditions on who we will and will not represent, and we have a duty to protect the livelihoods of all our photographers who agree that micropayment sites are just downright bad. Here is an example from a micropayment newsgroup of the perils of playing 'boths sides of the fence':

"I signed up to Photographers Direct and was right on the point of selling 6 of my images at $120 each. I then received an email from the guy politely saying that he had found my images on Shutterstock and would I mind if he used them instead before he downloaded them. I politely declined and removed all of them [from Shutterstock] before he could use any, I was fuming at my own stupidity."

In this case the photographer was lucky that the buyer was honest enough to tell him he had found the same images on a micropayment site. The buyer could have just cancelled the sale through Photographers Direct and downloaded the same images from Shutterstock. Rather than (80% of) $720 (which the buyer was clearly happy to pay!) the photographer would then have earned 1 dollar and 50 cents for the use of his images.

Further damage is caused because any buyer who uses a micropayment site will begin to see it as the norm. Whenever they get a normal quote from a photographer for an image, their response will be 'but I can get images at microwhateverstockphoto for 1 dollar!' Where does this leave the photographer?

For these reasons Photographers Direct cannot represent photographers who have any images on micropayment sites. This is part of our Fair Trade policy.

"Micropayment sites sell your work for peanuts and give you the shells"
Quote from World of Stock.

Examples of microstock sites are: istockphoto, canstockphoto, shutterstock, dreamstime, bigstockphoto, crestock, fotolia, 123rf, stockxpert, gimmestock, scandanavianstockphoto, usphotostock, areaimage, shuttermap, stockphotomedia, luckyoliver.com."

Regards

PS: someone could "patch" my English? please

Hi madelaide, I totally agree with you!  but, maybe it was not clear in what I wrote, the question was about photographersdirect's decision to make business with everyone but not with those who submit photos to microstock sites. Just because those "help" microstock to go on in the business?
I would be pleased to choose my best photos and to submit them only to photographersdirect, but I can't. For their policy, right?
Regards

Both are prostitutes, but with a very different clientelle, and people will seldom call the second one a whore. 

I disagree, many if not everyone will call both whores.

I signed up for Photographersdirect and still get their photo request emails. Chances are, I could've submitted to about 1% of their requests and even then I would not be certain of selling the shot. They are after RM style images in most cases, which would require a large investment in terms of time/models/location and to do that without the security of a sale is madness.

I discounted doing any work for PD a long time ago and do not regret for a single second the decision to sell to microstock sites rather than them. Let the whinge and whine - who cares! It's not like they are going to save the world (or the industry)!

Adelaide, I just submitted to FeaturePics this weekend and am still waiting review. I was at a loss as to what to charge.  What's reasonable, what's not? What license to go with.... 
      Do you mind if I ask how you rate your images?      peace - tom

Adelaide, I just submitted to FeaturePics this weekend and am still waiting review. I was at a loss as to what to charge.  What's reasonable, what's not? What license to go with.... 
      Do you mind if I ask how you rate your images?      peace - tom

Hi Tom

I never sold one at FP, so I may not be the best reference, but all my images there are priced at 5 with the option for diferent prices to diferent sizes.
I really don't know why I keep feeding FP as I never sold one (my only income there is one referal) but I guess that's just because it's easy to upload and they don't reject my images too much.

thanks for the info, folks!!      peace - tom