I get occasional outside interest in my photographs, and a few people have even suggested I try selling some. So Wired’s recent article on crowdsourcing caught my eye when it mentioned the burgeoning low-cost stock photography sites. As an amatuer photographer, it’s a tempting premise: upload a few photos with commercial appeal and occasionally collect a few bucks.
The reality, at least from taking a look at istockphoto is a little different. You have to be initially approved as a contributor and then have each photo manually approved. That tends to rule out being able to easily upload a large library with pre-attached metadata (ie. IPTC). The payout is only 20% of the $1-5 per image customers pay. And while they tout micropayments as making the system work, you won’t get a check until you’ve accumulated $100.
On the plus side, they do respect your ownership of your photos. You merely grant them a non-exclusive right to license your photos. The license allows use in advertising and commercial work, but no reselling of any product that’s primarily your photo (ie. posters, mugs, etc.).
A few other sites mentioned in the article offer more favorable payments, but similar hurdles to uploading and ultimately getting paid. Ultimately, it doesn’t seem like the infrastruture supports micropayments for microcontributions to the extent that it would be worthwhile for the more casual photographer.
My portfolio, meanwhile, will continue to be featured here exclusively, and I’ll consider reasonable offers for commercial licensing.
