Well, I've done it. I have finally been accepted as a contributor to iStock!
My stock photography history:
February, 2008: Thought to myself: "Hey! Some of my digital point-and-shoot photos are quite good (ha ha! right...). I know! I'll submit to iStock!" Dumb. So dumb.
Later...2008-2013:
iStock Rejection 1
" Rejection 2
" Rejection 3
" Rejection 4
" Rejection 5
" Rejection 6 (Late April, 2013. They made me wait 6 months to submit again!)
September, 2009: Purchased first DSLR (Nikon D90). Husband hogged it 98% of the time we were in Europe from Sept. - Nov. 2009.
(I shot a handful of images on that trip. They all sucked.)
September, 2010: Joined this wonderful site!!! Learned heaps and heaps about photography.
Made the top five for "egg theme" with this photo:
June - August 2011: Hubby and I went on a road trip around the USA. This time, the D90 was hogged 98% by ME. Hubby had to use Canon Powershot, ha ha! How does it feel?! Huh? Huh? ;-)
(Shot this image in DeSmet, South Dakota at sunset. Realized, hey! I don't hate doing portraits! Maybe I could get good at this!)
January 2013: Enrolled in my first ever photography class at a local Junior College. Got to use the dark room for the first time ever! Exciting! Entered the "Student Art Show" in May.
(Received an award for this photo:)
(Realized I LOVE portraits. Should it be my new thing? Hmmm...)
July 2013: Returned from 2 back-to-back summer trips. Germany/Austria in June and Minnesota Wilderness in July (canoeing through the Boundary Waters). Husband and I shared the camera almost equally this time. ;-)
Late July 2013: Submitted myself like crazy to the following microstock sites: Bigstock, Fotolia, Crestock, 123RF, Dreamstime, Alamy, Deposit Photos.
(Got accepted to all.)
October 2013: Made first sale at Bigstock for 25 cents! Lol
October 2013: Was finally accepted to Shutterstock (after about 5 or 6 tries since 2011).
October 2013: Made about 6 sales in a week at Shutterstock!
(First photo that sold was the eggs).
(Second photo that sold -- and first portrait sale -- was this shot of my handsome hubby):
(It's weird that someone wanted this photo! Makes me wonder where it will end up...)
October 28, 2013: Submitted AGAIN to iStock -- with trembling fingers. If I got another rejection, who knows how long they would make me wait again...
October 29, 2013: After only ONE day, I received my acceptance email. ONE DAY! I admit, I danced a little, and sort of whooped.
(These were the photos I submitted to iStock as my "sample work." I chose them because they were all accepted immediately by the other sites, AND I had not previously submitted them to iStock:)
1. The Eggs
2.
3.
I am sharing this topic because I hope that my experience might help anyone else who is pursuing (or considering pursuing) stock photography. It CAN be (but not always) a very long, tedious process. You have to learn to have thick skin, not take criticism or rejection personally, AND be able to learn (and grow) from constructive criticism.
Good luck to anyone who is interested in submitting to Stock!
Also, if anyone wants to chime in here and share their experience, I think we could all benefit from that.
And finally, if any seasoned (iStock) contributors have advice for me or anyone else who is interested, I would be so grateful to hear it.
Thanks to all who were tenacious enough to read this to the end! If you managed that, then you have the tenacity to endure the long process of selling your photos as stock. Ha ha! Good day to all.
interesting post . . . and article link . . . do you get to "sign" stock photos or you have basically sold the image to whoever buys it so they can use it without copyright permission?
@jyokota Hmmm...I'm afraid I don't know exactly what you mean by "sign." Sorry!
But, what I do know about copyright stuff is this: YOU will always own the rights to your photos, period. Unless you sell those rights, I guess...but why would you?? I'm not sure, do people do that??
When people buy your photo, they are downloading it for commercial or personal use. They can use it as many times as they want, per their particular download plan. They cannot, however, re-sell it and make money from your photo. The stock companies are re-selling it. That's how they make money. You only get a percentage of what the customer pays the stock company for your the download. BUT, the customer downloading it cannot sell it elsewhere. If they do, iStock's legal team will take action.
Also, you can if you want (although, I haven't), make your image "exclusive" to a particular stock company (example: iStock). That way, only iStock has the right to sell your image. So, you cannot sell it on any other site. The benefit to this is that you will make more per download. But, you cannot earn from other sites for that particular image.
Then there's the whole issue of licensing, which I admit I know next to nothing about. I think it means that a customer can have exclusive use of your image, and you would therefore make significantly more money for it. But, I'm no expert.
For now, since I'm a newbie, I make all of my images non-exclusive so that I can sell them at as many sites as I want. But, if iStock makes me more money than the rest (after some time), I may switch over to exclusive at iStock.
Love to hear about the process. I keep thinking that I need to be getting paid for all of the time and work I put into my photography. I wish that faves on here paid something;-).
Congrats to you and thanks for the kick in the pant to me to start trying to put my stuff out there!
@allegresse Congratulations! I have to say I was surprised to see you more excited about iStockPhoto than Alamy, as for me, Alamy is the more prestigious name, but very well done for getting into both of them!
Regarding re-sale, a few clarifications for anyone else thinking of getting into stock photography. Almost all stock companies will allow clients to resell images -- this is a key business area for stock photography. What most stock companies do not allow is for clients to sub-license images -- so they cannot buy your image from Stock Site A and list it themselves on Stock Site B, or license it directly to someone else.
For some microstock companies, there will be two difference licensing levels, a cheaper option where the client is not allowed to resell the image, and a more expensive option where the client can. For example, on iStockPhoto, a high-resolution image that wasn't for re-sale would cost around $75, whereas a high-resolution image with re-sale rights would cost around $275.
Some stock companies may allow you to disable extended or royalty-free (RF) licensing for an image, but this is very much limiting your target market.
As an example of how photos from stock companies are resold, virtually every image you see on or in a calendar or postcard will have been purchased from a stock photography company for a one-off fee. Obviously this may then be reproduced thousands, tens of thousands, or more times. If that's not something you're happy with, then stock photography probably isn't for you. Similarly, prints that you can buy ready-framed in stores will, if they don't include an artist name, almost always be stock photography.
It is very important to understand exactly what stock photography is before you get into it, as it's very easy to see it as a simple way to make extra cash for your photography, but in actual fact you are giving away a huge amount of control of your photo to the stock photography company and the buyer.
Additionally, special care needs to be taken with any images including people, as again, these can be used in any way. A model release is always required if you have a recognisable person in your shot, but many people, especially non-professional models, will not understand exactly what this means.
There have been many cases over the years of non-professional models who have signed a model release for a photographer (who may be a friend or family member), had the photo listed on a stock site, and later found that their image is being used in a way that they did not realise would happen (such as in a full-page magazine advert for treatment of a sexually transmitted disease). Such uses need to include a statement to say the model has been used for illustrative purposes only, but of course, this text is very much 'small print', and of little consolation to the model. When an image goes up for sale as stock photography, it can be used for almost any purpose provided it's not defamatory or pornographic.
This is not to in any way suggest that stock photography is 'all bad' (or even slightly bad, provided you understand the implications), or to take away from @allegresse's excellent news, but just to advise that anyone interested in getting involved with stock photography should make sure they have both eyes open and understand exactly what they are signing up for. It can be a nice way to bring in a secondary (or if you're really good, primary) income, but if you want full control over how your work is used, it's definitely not for you.
@allegresse One thing I would recommend is that you start to arrange your portfolio on the various sites to not compete with itself. For example, if I look to buy one of your images for a promotional campaign on Alamy, I would pay $149, whereas I could buy the exact same image for the exact same use on 123RF for $7.50. If the Alamy buyer discovers that, they are understandably going to feel like they've received poor value for money, and may return the image, or make sure they don't buy from you again.
I remember you excitement at your first sale! So happy for you that this is taking off and so glad you posted this thread - read it all and learnt a lot!
@abirkill thank you for the excellent information......I'm also an iStock contributor, but haven't really done too much with it yet, so the information is good to know :-)
@abirkill Alexis, thank you so much for your detailed information. You've definitely given me lots to think about. I will reply properly when I'm not so tired. But, for now, thanks!
@allegresse@abirkill Thank you both for sharing some experience it would have taken years for us to figure out on our own. Very much appreciated you time and your willingness to share you hard earned knowledge!!
So after reading and thinking about this thread and Alexis' response it makes me wonder even more about where you will find your husbands image being used.
@sianipops I know! I have to admit, that part of Alexis' reply scared me a little. I hope nothing weird seeing as it's just a portrait, but who knows! =/
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Thanks! I applaud your patience with the long read. ;-)
Here's an interesting little article I found about how much money (on average) you can make at iStock.
http://www.photos4u2c.net/2010/08/10/how-much-money-can-you-make-at-istockphoto/
But, what I do know about copyright stuff is this: YOU will always own the rights to your photos, period. Unless you sell those rights, I guess...but why would you?? I'm not sure, do people do that??
When people buy your photo, they are downloading it for commercial or personal use. They can use it as many times as they want, per their particular download plan. They cannot, however, re-sell it and make money from your photo. The stock companies are re-selling it. That's how they make money. You only get a percentage of what the customer pays the stock company for your the download. BUT, the customer downloading it cannot sell it elsewhere. If they do, iStock's legal team will take action.
Also, you can if you want (although, I haven't), make your image "exclusive" to a particular stock company (example: iStock). That way, only iStock has the right to sell your image. So, you cannot sell it on any other site. The benefit to this is that you will make more per download. But, you cannot earn from other sites for that particular image.
Then there's the whole issue of licensing, which I admit I know next to nothing about. I think it means that a customer can have exclusive use of your image, and you would therefore make significantly more money for it. But, I'm no expert.
For now, since I'm a newbie, I make all of my images non-exclusive so that I can sell them at as many sites as I want. But, if iStock makes me more money than the rest (after some time), I may switch over to exclusive at iStock.
Hope that helps!
Congrats to you and thanks for the kick in the pant to me to start trying to put my stuff out there!
I just browsed through your project, and I think you have many photos that would work as stock (there is a type).
Dooooo iiiiit! :-)
Regarding re-sale, a few clarifications for anyone else thinking of getting into stock photography. Almost all stock companies will allow clients to resell images -- this is a key business area for stock photography. What most stock companies do not allow is for clients to sub-license images -- so they cannot buy your image from Stock Site A and list it themselves on Stock Site B, or license it directly to someone else.
For some microstock companies, there will be two difference licensing levels, a cheaper option where the client is not allowed to resell the image, and a more expensive option where the client can. For example, on iStockPhoto, a high-resolution image that wasn't for re-sale would cost around $75, whereas a high-resolution image with re-sale rights would cost around $275.
Some stock companies may allow you to disable extended or royalty-free (RF) licensing for an image, but this is very much limiting your target market.
As an example of how photos from stock companies are resold, virtually every image you see on or in a calendar or postcard will have been purchased from a stock photography company for a one-off fee. Obviously this may then be reproduced thousands, tens of thousands, or more times. If that's not something you're happy with, then stock photography probably isn't for you. Similarly, prints that you can buy ready-framed in stores will, if they don't include an artist name, almost always be stock photography.
It is very important to understand exactly what stock photography is before you get into it, as it's very easy to see it as a simple way to make extra cash for your photography, but in actual fact you are giving away a huge amount of control of your photo to the stock photography company and the buyer.
Additionally, special care needs to be taken with any images including people, as again, these can be used in any way. A model release is always required if you have a recognisable person in your shot, but many people, especially non-professional models, will not understand exactly what this means.
There have been many cases over the years of non-professional models who have signed a model release for a photographer (who may be a friend or family member), had the photo listed on a stock site, and later found that their image is being used in a way that they did not realise would happen (such as in a full-page magazine advert for treatment of a sexually transmitted disease). Such uses need to include a statement to say the model has been used for illustrative purposes only, but of course, this text is very much 'small print', and of little consolation to the model. When an image goes up for sale as stock photography, it can be used for almost any purpose provided it's not defamatory or pornographic.
This is not to in any way suggest that stock photography is 'all bad' (or even slightly bad, provided you understand the implications), or to take away from @allegresse's excellent news, but just to advise that anyone interested in getting involved with stock photography should make sure they have both eyes open and understand exactly what they are signing up for. It can be a nice way to bring in a secondary (or if you're really good, primary) income, but if you want full control over how your work is used, it's definitely not for you.
@allegresse One thing I would recommend is that you start to arrange your portfolio on the various sites to not compete with itself. For example, if I look to buy one of your images for a promotional campaign on Alamy, I would pay $149, whereas I could buy the exact same image for the exact same use on 123RF for $7.50. If the Alamy buyer discovers that, they are understandably going to feel like they've received poor value for money, and may return the image, or make sure they don't buy from you again.
@abirkill thank you for the excellent information......I'm also an iStock contributor, but haven't really done too much with it yet, so the information is good to know :-)
Thank you! :-)