YOUR ULTIMATE GUIDE TO SELLING STOCK PHOTOS & HD / UHD VIDEO FOOTAGE AS
EDINBURGH SCOTLAND UK - October 29 2014: Soon to be Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon address SNP supporters in Edinburgh, Scotland, UK shortly before becoming First Minister of Scotland. With IndyRef2 (a second Scottish Independence Referendum) possibly on the cards, this set has been doing so-so, unlike other stock on Shutterstock! My apologies for not posting much in the past few weeks, as I have been very busy editing new stock images and I thought it would be more concise to talk of periods of three months, rather than one.
I have now been submitting images and video to Royalty Free Microstock since August 2016. The image above is something of an experiment, as although I am represented globally by Avalon, through a network of sub agents, I have never seen any of the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum images sell through Avalon (formerly Photoshot). While tantalising, I am still not entirely sold on the RF Microstock license model, as it appears to be mainly subscription downloads, which do of course, add up - to a fairly small sum. The following is a month by month breakdown of sales from Shutterstock: Last Quarter of 2016 September 2016 - A handful of files live on the site = US$2.00 for 8 downloads October 2016 - Approx 50 images = US$6.76 with 14 downloads with two $1.88 sales November 2016 - Approx 70 images = US$11.77 with 21 downloads with four $1.88 sales December 2016 - Approx 100 images = US$4.50 with 18 downloads (all subscription) First Quarter of 2017 January 2017 - Approx 150 images = US$7.30 with 21 downloads (all but one subscription) February 2017 - Approx 180 images = US$12.44 with 36 downloads with two $1.88 sales March 2017 - Approx 200 images = US$19.87 with 48 downloads with one $1.88 sale and another for $4.86 (the first I have ever seen). As March 2017 is not quite over yet, I will update this stat in a day or two. Total Shutterstock sales thus far = US$64.64 One big problem I have with Shutterstock, is that their picture editors on the whole seem to be chosen from well, people who are very poor picture editors. According to my statistics, some TWO THIRDS of the images I submit are rejected, often on spurious grounds. I get the impression they are more interested in their server fees than helping contributors. A total lack of understanding exactly what editorial stock is and it's market is given over to priority for model-released stuff by the looks of things and this means I have wasted more than the sum you see above in precious time editing for them. This is so bad - I've been in stock photography for over 20 years and have seen pros at work - that personally, I would not hire anyone who has Shutterstock Photo Editor on their CV, as they are probably useless as a photo editor. That issue aside (it is their company and if they hire picture editors with poor skills, then that will impact on their profits too and doubtless put off a lot of good contributors), the problem with this license model is that simply put - at present - it does not generate enough revenue for me to cover one event like the one where I took the image of Nicola Sturgeon which is posted here. Getting a quarter - just $0.25 per image - does not cover costs, hence, at the moment on Shutterstock, I am making a loss. This is of course, where capitalism in it's western form, comes a serious cropper and enters lala land. However, keeping the aforementioned in mind, it is instructive to take the long-view. How much royalties could these images have over a 2-4 time period after being edited and - with luck - accepted and published on Shutterstock? Does it rack up eventually as a day rate like you would get off a news agency? Maybe it does. With the IndyRef2 - as it is termed on Twitter - a possible second Scottish Independence Referendum possibly on the cards, there has been sustained demand for these Nicola Sturgeon images and for ones of her campaigning with Alex Salmond in Perth High Street. Bloggers, news sites and others have been busy downloading these images, which have made up over 50% or so of my total revenue from Shutterstock. My time is worth money and compounded by being medium anaemic, which means I burn out quickly on the energy front. I do resent it when perfectly usable images are declined by an editor who seems to lack any knowledge of the stock image market - especially editorial. Shutterstock are completely anal about captions and get them precisely right for editorial and they can help raise that acceptance statistic. But with these peanuts, is it worth it? That of course, depends on your circumstance. For some it may be. Sadly, as the editorial market is terrible these days, I don't seek out such subject matter so much these days, as the up front cost is quite high. Maintaining a car, fuel, coffees, food, not too mention computers, cameras, mobile phones and lenses all cost money. It looks to me, in any license, that the Internet providers get a lot of the license fee and agencies take the lion's share and the photographer is thrown some crusts. Some crusts can be full of gold and diamonds, metaphorically-speaking, though mostly are just some change. Indeed, begging on the street with the appropriate sign reading: "I'm a microstock photographer: Please give generously" - is probably a better income stream. As far as other Microstock outfits have performed, the answer is not very well with a mix of editorial and commercial stock images. BigStockPhoto - which owned by Shutterstock, sell some $1 and $2 sales - more so than Shutterstock since I began uploading, I have earned just $15. Results from Dreamstime have been quite bad, with several hundred images online, they have only sold $25 thus far - around a third of what Shutterstock have done. Of course, stock photography is not a predictable business, though usually some averages on a high quality bar do arise and Dreamstime have a $100 payout threshold (versus $35 from Shutterstock) - so I am still very far, it seems from seeing a cent from them and I have not been active on the site for some time, as I loose money when I do so, as I contribute to Getty Creative, which is more profitable than the agencies above, for me, at least. Dreamstime charge a little more, though it seems clients are so penny-pinching - and I mean penny-pinching that Scrooge himself would wince at - that no one wants to pay photographers anymore. Perhaps we could try this with bankers? I also signed up to Adobe Stock some months ago and they have a higher rejection rate than Shutterstock. This is a bit more understandable as they are NOT looking for editorial and seeking to establish themselves in the market, though some of their decisions are also no brainers. Adobe Stock is integrated into the Adobe Creative Cloud plans for those using their software, which are often people who need images. I have had four sales over the past quarter totalling £2.17, two for £0.74, one for £0.50 and one for £0.19 all on subscription. I suspect that Adobe Stock (it is also Fotolia) will do quite well with the right portfolio - which would be on-trend model-released stock sets of trending themes in advertising. Mostly, I put nature and wildlife images on, as I am not usually in an easy position to organise model-released shoots. Though the returns are slightly encouraging, as there is only 45 images that they have accepted and put live on the site. In conclusion, two quarters and a new collection is not exactly a scientific study of the sales performance of a given RF Microstock agency and it will be interesting (from an academic, rather than financial point-of-view) to see how these agencies perform over 2017. Though with a Rights Managed collection on Avalon with over 11,000 press / editorial (and some commercial stock) images is not much better, with an average return per image / per year of under £0.20. Scaling the numbers up is also instructive. With 200 images on Shutterstock, I earn $64.64 in seven months, which is an average of $9.23 in royalties per month. Taking the last six months to be more accurate, this is $10.77 a month. Imagine that the portfolio is 10 times that, at 2,000 images - same mix of editorial and commercial stock - then the numbers are a bit healthier. Taking the past two months as a base for this calculation, I made $12.44 in February 2017 and $19.87 in March 2017. Added together this is $32.31 times 6 (to make up a fictitious year) is $193.86. If we take this sum and divide the number of images on Shutterstock (201 at the time of writing), then we get an average of $0.964/per image/per year. So a good estimate of Shutterstock revenue from 2,000 images (editorial and commercial - if you only produce commercial stock, it is likely to be higher) is 2,000 x $0.96447761 (to be precise) = $1,928.95 in royalties. These averages can be deceiving, as stock photography is a rapidly-changing marketplace with little in the way of continuity. Therefore, this is a good average to work on - though could be a few hundred dollars more or less. Due to the ludicrous rejection rate of high-quality images submitted to Shutterstock, I would need to upload some 6,000 images to make this happen. Even with very slick workflow, it is not easy to produce more than 12 images per hour (not including upload to Shutterstock, tweaking before final submission, etc) and therefore 6,000 / 12 = 500 hours of basic editing time, double it for actually capturing the images and add on 100 hours of Shutterstock site work and you arrive at the figure of 1,100 hours of work. On the basic minimum wage in the United Kingdom of £7.20, if you were to employ someone, it would cost £7,920. Assuming that you don't, 1,100 hours of work equates to 27.5 full 40 hour weeks of work. Therefore, you would need some four years of strong sales to make up the same money that can be earned in the British economy on the minimum wage. So, there is money in RF Microstock, but it does not arrive overnight (unless you are extremely lucky) and you are looking at putting in respectable part-time job type hours to make it work - presuming that is you are a good photographer and remember this is not counting all the other work you need to do, such as studying trends, research of subject and equipment, etc, etc. While in the short-term, most Microstock agencies are a zero-hours contract from the devil's anus itself, over the medium to long term, it can pay OK. But really, these rates are so bad and the return on investment so long, as not to make it viable for many photographers, especially younger ones. And of course, I have not factored in income tax and national insurance contributions, shoot expenses, equipment, etc. Hence, to conclude. While the first quarter of 2017 in the weird world of RF Microstock has been interesting, it certainly has not been profitable or particularly encouraging and one does indeed wonder how anyone can upload 60,000 images, to get 20,000 on the servers, to get something approaching a not-so-good salary, unless you live in an economy which is like Burkino Faso or Nepal. It does somewhat, of course, depend on your needs. Those approaching retirement may find it alluring, others for whom photography is a serious hobby may view it as useful for buying cameras and lenses. If you live in Europe or the US or Japan or another economy which is sort of rich, then it may not be such a great bet and you may find EyeEm (whom supply Getty and Alamy with commercial stock mostly) a more fun and perhaps more lucrative option. It is worth keeping in mind that the above analysis is talking of still images, if you produce HD / UHD video clips or illustrations, then it may be a different story (perhaps better, perhaps worse). I hope to go into more depth about all this in my new ebook on RF Microstock which is currently in production and is scheduled to be published later this year.
0 Comments
The US Internal Revenue Service has for some years been asking for foreign contributors to companies which sell stock images to fill in various forms to prove that they are not liable for taxation in the USA. This is perhaps understanderable given the sums that large photo agencies like Getty Images generate.
I have had a Getty Creative contract for the past 12 months or so and passed the tax interview, as I am a British Citizen and there is a treaty which states that we do not pay tax on revenue from images and video who are US corporate entities. I do now. 'Stand and deliver!' in effect, says the IRS and well, like someone on a English country road meeting Dick Turpin, Getty Images and iStock are forced by the US government to pay a 30% "witholding tax" on my commissions from image licenses sold - even though the paperwork is incorrect and that I am not liable for any! Naturally, the IRS is well-known for being somewhat ruthless with US citizens over taxation (it is one of the few countries that taxes you if you are resident abroad for long periods), though I personally find it ridiculous that Uncle Sam - without any right to do so - holds 30% of my very meagre income in perpetuity - until that is I pay a lawyer who specializes in US tax law to recover it for me. I have encountered this issue before and it is highly absurd, unfair and extremely detrimental to small micro photography businesses. Though this has been through the US based site Smashwords - which distributes eBooks - and over the years, I have had around $500 witheld by the IRS and I am too poor to hire a lawyer to get it back and that itself probably does not happen very quickly and with such small sums, of course, it is likely the lawyer's fee is larger than the actual amount you are trying to claim back and on top of all that, these forms need renewing from time to time and hence you are on a merry-go-round which is akin to censorship of writers, videographers and film makers. It seems to be a huge problem with Getty Images and iStock, as on most other sites, I answer the questions in the same manner and pass the tax interview. 0% witholding tax then now, 30% of my earnings filched by Uncle Sam with Getty and iStock. As I balk at the idea of paying tax in the US (as I am not a resident or company owner or related directly to any Americans), I have no other option aside from to cease working with Getty Images and iStock (which is going to cost me and them a lot, as they are dominant market players), as the economics of stock photography do not support a 30% tax rate (which is more than I would pay - if at all - in the UK tax jurisdiction). I post this to warn other contributors to Getty Images and iStock (many of whom have already come across this problem and also been unable to resolve it) - that it could cause serious problems for your business and cash flow. It could also potentially put some photographers and writers (in the case of Smashwords) out of business entirely. It seems clear to me that this policy was initiated with the aim of 'witholding' millions of dollars intentionally to help pay off the US government's huge defecit (which is the fault of us poor writers and photographers of course!). With the IRS making it extremely complicated and expensive to recover the money that they 'withold' - one has to wonder if it is now time to boycott companies who are unable to deal with the IRS in a fair way on behalf of their contributors. For me, it is the final straw with Getty Images Creative and iStock, the former selling a low volume to begin with and the latter taking a long time - usually - to edit images and put them in the collection and both paying very low commissions on what they do manage to license (not much on Getty Creative, I can tell you, barely US$300 from around 400 of my best images - though that will be the subject of a more detailed post in the future). The only way around this is to lobby the IRS (or you could just try shouting outside of Fort Knox and hope that someone gives you a block of gold bullion maybe?). This is quite difficult, as of course we are 'aliens' as the Americans like to term it. Though perhaps if artist's around the world raised a storm about this in the form of peaceful demonstrations outside of US Embassies, letters to the senior people in the IRS (I regard this as an open one), then perhaps this idiotic and highly unjust piece of legislation may get amended. Please share this article widely if you are in agreement. Until then, if you are not a US citizen, I would give both Getty Images and iStock a wide berth as a contributor until the behemoth agency can manage this issue better for other agencies who can, as it could take years for any change in policy at the US Internal Revenue Service. You have been warned! With Rights Managed sales and licenses mostly heading south in recent years, it is no surprise that many Microstock agencies are now accepting and in some cases welcoming editorial image submissions. But does the Microstock model fit in with editorial? Is it worth taking seriously? Or is is better to concentrate on producing more traditional Microstock images which are mainly aimed at the commercial use market? These are of course, complicated and not easy questions to answer. Though, after several months of submitting a lot of editorial images to agencies like Shutterstock, Depositphoto, Bigstockphoto and Dreamstime, some vague patterns are beginning to emerge. Shutterstock's photo editing system is fairly efficient and notoriously difficult with editorial images, with quite a few being rejected for usually fairly spurious reasons. Though what does make it on to their servers can do moderately well as editorial stock. This is not quite the case - at the time of writing with Dreamstime (which have the largest amount of editorial stock of any Microstock agency I supply), who have only sold a few downloads. Probably due to the Shutterstock sales and marketing machine (they sell far more than any other Microstock agency I supply), Bigstockphoto roll in at number two on the best for sales agency list and in third place is Dreamstime - though a few bucks from several hundred images is not impressive. Of course, this may not be the case in the future, though early sales with a new agency can be a good way of figuring out what sort of client base they have and whether they are worth paying much attention to. Fourth place is Depositphoto, who have done just three downloads of $0.90 - however this is with under 100 images on their servers, so is one to watch in the future! Editorial images have always been worth less than commercial stock, though editorial images are - generally-speaking - much easier to produce. Although I have a contract with Getty Images Creative, it does not allow much in the way of editorial through and despite repeated requests, Getty Images have ignored any requests from my part to get an editorial contract as well. The mind often boggles in professional photography! An increasing problem with putting editorial images out is the lack of outlets, particularly for Rights Managed images. Getty's agressive dominance of this market does not leave a lot of room for smaller agencies and it is natural that - to claw back some revenue at least - many photojournalists and photographers with editorial stock will turn to RF Microstock outlets to license this work. Many image researchers and photo editors would be surprised what is on sites like Shutterstock in terms of editorial content. A few years ago, the submission process was fussy and they still cherry-pick images to some extent. Now submission of editorial images is more streamlined, increasing amounts of useful imagery are ending up on RF Microstock sites with editorial use RF Micro licenses. Having uploaded several old assignments, mostly from 2011-2014, it is interesting to see what sells and while the sums are not huge, it does show there is a slow-burn sales average on good-quality editorial stock from certain news events, entertainment and sport. This is an interesting development in Microstock and could help many editorial photographers and photojournalists, who have found market conditions increasingly tough over the past two decades and many of whom can benefit from additional outlets. Which is nice. But does it pay? Well, on what I can analyze at the moment, the answer is possibly, but it is still too early for me to say for sure. Two portfolios have been doing well of late, one is portraits of Nicola Sturgeon giving a speech to SNP supporters in Edinburgh, shortly before she became the First Minister of Scotland and another has been images from the Jarlshof archaeological site in the Shetland Islands of northern Scotland. On Rights Managed licenses, these pictures have rarely, if ever, sold (aside from the initial story I did on the site back in 2011), so it is nice to see them earning revenue and being used. So far that revenue is still low, around $10 per subject I mention above. However, if these images had been on longer, then they may have yielded more sales, which is something I can only provide conjecture about at present. The best sales have been from Shutterstock, though Bigstockphoto are also doing moderately well with my editorial and commercial stock images. My conjecture is this. If you pick the right event to photograph, then these images may have good potential after their news potential has faded, which is usually between a week or two after the photos were taken. This may work as a way of covering expenses to cover an event or something which is editorial subject matter. Thus far these two sets have clocked up a fair number of subscription downloads - which is very low revenue - and have done better from the on-demand downloads, which pay the equivalent of around 7-8 subscription downloads. Hence, while it is too early for me to say if it is a good bet, certainly editorial stock for Microstock agencies is something those who are still actively archiving their work should look at quite closely, as the market for RF Microstock Editorial looks relatively healthy and has many non-traditional clients, plus the usual publishing customer base. You can view my portfolio of RF Microstock on Shutterstock here. If you would like to submit your images to Shutterstock, you can apply here. Welcome to Microstock Insight! It is a new site to help provide photographers with some insight into the difficult, but sometimes lucrative world of Royalty Free Microstock Photography. I will be posting quite regularly on this blog articles about Microstock strategy, sales data and also information on existing and new players in the market. My background in Stock Photography is mostly with Rights Managed agencies and in recent years, that license model has suffered a lot at the hands of Microstock licenses. Hence, I have been uploading since the summer of 2016 to several Microstock agencies, such as Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Depositphotos, iStockphoto and Bigstockphoto. it is early days, so income is small, as are my portfolios (you can see what I have on the best-selling Microstock portal Shutterstock here) - though I am very curious to see how it pans out and will help you understand better which agency/agencies are good for your work. I shoot a lot of reportage material, which is mainly editorial, though I also shoot commercial stock images when circumstances allow. This gives me a good insight into the market for editorial microstock. So far, in just three months, a few trends have emerged. Two sets of images sold relatively well, one being portraits of Nicola Sturgeon shortly before she took up the position as first minister of Scotland which earned around $10 and another set from Jarlshof in the Shetland Isles of an archaeology site sold about $12. Of course, this fees are very small, though covering expenses for editorial work is becoming difficult and perhaps with certain sets it is better to put them out under a Royalty Free Microstock licensing model. It is still early days and a better analysis should emerge in the spring, when I have more sets of images of an editorial nature and more time to see levels of sales. Since 2009, I have also been filming HD Stock Footage clips in 720p and in recent years on 1080p. Hence, I upload video and images to Microstock sites and will be writing articles about both experiences. If you maintain an interest in the subject of Royalty Free Stock Images and HD / UHD / 4K video stock footage, then you may want to bookmark this page and check back regularly for the latest insights into the RF Microstock industry. |
AuthorMicrostock Insight is written and edited by Jonathan W Mitchell, a seasoned stock photographer and photojournalist with over 20 years experience submitting images to photo and video agencies. Categories
All
Archives |