Stock Library Launched
It’s been quiet for the last month and in that time I’ve set up my own Stock Resource for images to be licensed from me directly.
Why?
When any photographer, graphic artist or videographer put content on an online agency, they have to hand to the agency 50%-92% of the fees they should have received on each license sold.Not only does this mean that the creator only receives 8-50% of the work’s worth, they also have no say if the agency negociates a lower fee which means you get even less.
Recently iStock made a change to their terms where they said they weren’t able to survive on their current income and so were going to take a higher percentage.
This finally pushed contributers beyond breaking poins and instigated a backlash.
*strong language* : https://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=1My stock library is online now (see the menu) … and new items will be added regularly, especially over the next few days
[photoshelter-img width=’300′ height=’219′ i_id=’I0000dKKXOrD02Z4′ buy=’0′]
Why you should hire a photographer for your marketing material
I’ve seen a run of articles recently which re-enforce the value of working with a photographer to create an image and marketing material that’s right for you, rather than purchasing stock images, regardless of them being Rights Free (RF) or Rights Managed (RM).
What’s the difference between RF and RM?
Simply put, Rights Free means anyone can buy and use the same image concurrently. You could be sharing the same image for your Children’s Nursery service as another company selling Bondage Gear. You have zero control over it’s use.Rights Managed usually means that you license the image for a specific use + time so that the same image may not be used in the same arena or publications during your purchased license term (the more it costs, the more exclusivity you have).
This gives you some control of who else uses that particular image, but there’s nothing stopping an almost identical image from the same set being used elsewhere as you only licensed one shot.So … here are some examples of what happens when people try to save a few bucks on their overheads.
An example image of a call center person on a stock website
The same girl on the website of "a global business and IT consulting firm"
The same girl on a major UK Brand website:
And … oh dear! The same girl on an adult toy website
(clicking in this image reveals a clear image):
The above are examples of website use only, but it also extends to print too.
The next example was found and shared on the blog of BobballsBillboard Poster from The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)
"The larger of the two main unionist political parties in Northern Ireland" (Wikipedia)
Within hours, someone from a rival party found the stock image source and used another image from the same set to completely discredit the DUP – and there’s nothing they could do about it …
(except work with a photographer in the first place)
While we may laugh at the above, the actual implications of these "shortcuts" for these companies, designers (and political parties) are extremely severe and embarrassing, not to mention potentially costing them revenue or credibility should both marketing campaigns be effective in the public eye.
The reality is that if you work with a photographer to make one picture, then yes this is going to cost more than a generic stock image.
But if you work with the photographer to make a series of images for you then it works out cheaper than stock pictures.So the question is .. is your public image only worth £2?
