One point to consider: A good stock image can easily generate more then $500-800 USD during its "lifetime". Considering that the submitter only gets 40% of this at your site that would mean $200-320 USD commission per sale. I am only a mediocre contributor but I have a few images that have already earned me more then this amount across all the sites, without loosing the copyright! SY
It is true that a single image can generate this type of return over its lifetime but industry statistics show that the average stock image in today’s stock industry earns a photographer about $11 a year. (This number might even be on the high side since researchers admit that people making more money are more likely to participate in such surveys) We offer photographers to earn 20 years worth of income in one sale.
If you take all the images you have/had posted in the past 10 years and total the income you have received from them. Then divide this income by the number of images that you have/had posted during this time so you can see how much money you are really making on a per image basis. If you end up with a large number then I congratulate you as you are probably in the top few percent of the industry and I encourage you to continue doing what you are doing. On the other hand, if you are part of the ninety-some percent of the photographers that struggle to make money in the industry you will understand why keeping the product in its status quo is not working.
My ultimate dream in photography is that a museum recognizes the art aspect in such a way that they want to owe one of mine. They don't even have to hang it on their wall as long as the recognize it as art and see the value of its ownership. I am very afraid that selling my art through this stock compared system that I am destroying my artist name at the same time, thus killing my chances of reaching my ultimate goal.
Then next point. Is art still art and is exclusive still exclusive when they suddenly appear on t-shirts, cups and mousemats and are being marketed as commercial stock again?
A lot of art is art because the limitations it has to it, because the buyer knows that it is the only piece on his/her wall that exists.
There is a lot of value in what you are talking about Frenk and you should know that we have taken this feedback to heart. I would just like to tell you that we are not trying to compare stock and art as the two are quite distinct. We will be selling the two separately and an artistic image will never be displayed beside a business targeted work.
From the artist perspective, we do believe that there is a unifying factor and that there are a lot of skills and artistic fundamentals that are shared when creating both types of work; they are just applied toward two distinct purposes.
From a product perspective, we are simply applying the same concept of “uniqueness” to the two distinct products. The meaning of this concept is quite different when discussing it in reference to art and stock but the underlying message is the same; you are buying ownership of a unique work. Unfortunately, even in reference to art, it wouldn’t be the same if instead of assigning copyright we were to grant a buyer exclusive rights to hang the picture on their wall. The buyer will not be the sole owner of the image as the artist has a version in his/her possession over which the buyer has no control. Also, if you were to buy an original “Frenk” work, you might want to use it as an investment so you can resell it later; when Frenk becomes famous. And if, at that time, the buyer does choose to print the image on mugs and mouse pads, is that really so different when compared to having Van Gogh’s Starry Night mugs and mouse pads?
I do understand that these questions do not have black and white answers and so each artist needs to make this decision for himself/herself. An artist that joins NoEquivalent needs to be comfortable with selling the images they upload with no restrictions attached.
Eugene
Downloads
New Forum Feedback
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM