Stock photography's role in the Fishing Industry
- This topic has 61 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated May 28, 2008 at 12:30 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
I’ve been curious about this for a while, but what role does stock photography play within the Fly Fishing Industry? I’m sure a fair amount of the photography used is stock, but from where and by who?
I know of a few photographers that specialize in outdoor adventure stock or underwater fish photography, so is it the elite few that make the sales. Do these photographers pitch the work do manufacturers and retailers or do those companies come to them (through agencies and rep agents?) I’d assume most larger companies within the industry have a lot of work shot for them on assignment, but maybe I’m wrong. Maybe its a mixture.
What about smaller companies, if they want high quality stock where do they go? And what about magazines, catalogs for retailers, etc. Does anyone have any insight on this?http://society6.com/grainfarmer Fly Fishing and Landscape open edition Photography prints.
http://grainfarmer.vsco.co/ iPhone photos
http://instagram.com/chad_simcox InstagramChad –
It’s actually pretty minimal, at least in the sense of fishing magazine editors calling on stock agencies to look for particular images.
Most editors in fly fishing have a certain number of photographers they know they can call on when they need an image.
Thanks for the info Zach.
I’m actually not a pro in the photography world. I’ve worked in Television for a number of years, so I’m coming in from a video production background. That experience is what feeds in to my lighting and composition and what not. But for now, photography is mainly a hobby.
I’m somewhat familiar with the process of submitting examples and query letters to magazines through photo editors, though I actually haven’t done it myself. Right now I do not have a large enough portfolio of fly fishing related shots that I would feel comfortable submitting. Plus it seems like in guidelines from most magazines, they request you do not submit photos without a manuscript. I’m a horrible writer so that is out of the question.
As far as submitting and showing on a portfolio site, I do not watermark photos that go on my site. However, when put in a public forum or on flickr they do get watermarked with rather intrusive copyright info. Unfortunately that is something I feel like I need to do. When submitting a disc, I’d hope photo editors would know that as a photographer I’d require a license agreement and compensation for usage. And if they ran a photo without that, they’d get the standard 3x invoice for copyright infringement.
Building a stock archive is something I need to do. But first I need to shoot a lot more!Thanks.
http://society6.com/grainfarmer Fly Fishing and Landscape open edition Photography prints.
http://grainfarmer.vsco.co/ iPhone photos
http://instagram.com/chad_simcox InstagramI’m curious what do these publications pay? What do they pay for a cover, 1/2 page 1/4 page etc. Do they pay ASMP standard. Scott Bourne said on the This Week In Photography podcast that he earned 64k off 1 image back in the day. Now thats what I would call a good sale!!! I think some people are making some money on IStock Photo and I have a friend that has sold some stuff on Alamay. I get the feeling the Beck’s etc make most of their money on hosted trips tackle endorsements etc. The only full time pro shooter that I see in fly fishing circles frequently is Val Atkinson the rest are part timers and people selling pictures as a by product of participation which isn’t a bad gig as long as they aren’t being suckers and getting used.
With the proliferation of distribution venues there has been a lowering of business standards and the value of images have gone down. If you have a really good image and a company wants to publish or use it for advertising remember that they are going to profit from its use and you should share in that profit.
If your dealing with a professional organization they will have a budget. If you have images that you think have sales potential learn how to register and copyright them. The copyright symbol and your name isn’t enough. A local guy had a printer infringe upon 1 of his registered images and he asked the printer to pay him the usual usage fee and the printer told him to kiss his ass! The image was registered and the photographer sued and collected a hefty settlement. I have heard of some images being pilfered off of flicker too.
Speaking as someone whos currently learning all of this first hand all I can say is that it really depends on who exactly your selling yourself to.
[font=Arial:2ol8rp5y][glow=yellow,2,300]”Fly fishing writers and photographers just don't do it for the money. I personally don't do it for the money – I do it for access. Writing opens a million doors and lets me fish in cool places with cool people and has made me a much, much better angler. I suspect most of the other dudes feel the same way
Couldn't have said it better Zach.
If I could offer one peice of advice and do consider this is from a neophyte who just entering my first season as a “Freelancer” for a magazine. Appoach it no differently than you would a job search. Target a specific magazine, learn all you can about their needs, their content, audience and distribution and then try to establish a relationship.”
[/glow][/font:2ol8rp5y]
There is a lot of great advice in these 2 quotes. I can’t add much more than what has already been stated. I can’t speak much about the fly fishing magazines, Zach knows that sector best, but to add a bit more about magazines and advertising assignments in general, I will add this.The art directors and editors are very busy people, as they are constantly up against dead lines. Most of the unsolicited emails are dismissed or trashed, due to the extremely high volume that they receive from photographers that want to get published. Due to their very limited free time, they don’t like long emails and really hate fancy websites that take way to long to view and don’t allow them to take control of how fast and easily they can view the portfolio and/or book.
As has been stated, relationships and then networking is essential; this and a very good portfolio. A web site full of a bunch of images is really nothing more than a web site full of images, takes to much time for them to exhaust on a photographer that they are not familiar with. Most art directors want to see your best images and/or tear sheets. The tear sheets carry far more weight as it shows not just how many of the photographers images have already been published. It serves more as a verification of how consistent the photographer is.
It really is amazing at how many emails, from photographers submitting images or portfolio links, are received by editors and art directors in a given day. And believe this or not, they are commonly dismissed as the art directors and editors seek photographers that they have discovered through networking or word of mouth. The key is getting published once or receive some national and/or international awards and/or recognition, of at least one image. Again and very important, the portfolio must be outstanding and not just crammed with a bunch of images.
I recently had 2 art directors, in Eastern Europe, contact me and asked if I would supply access or a folder of my stock photography images. I didn’t know them but from accidental conversations from an art director and from previous publications, they contacted me out of the blue. The first thing that they wanted to see was the original files, of published images and then some of my reserve images. After that, they asked for the available stock images. Even other photographer/writers, that might want to use you for supplemental assignments, will first ask for a book and/or website of published images and then images for a certain discipline. As Zach and John mentioned, all of this starts from one contact and then networking it as a true business and not just a photographer that is really nothing more than, “a dime a dozen; in this new age of digital photography.
Speaking for myself, I first got noticed after receiving a NAPP editor’s choice award. This gave me exposure to the who’s who in 105 countries and with in one month another one of my images was published on a book cover in Europe. From leveraging this and networking, I now spend 6 months a year in Europe shooting in places like Vilnius, Paris, Brussels, Luxembourg and Germany. I consider myself blessed as one of the luckiest photographers in the world, for several reasons and one is that I never had to create my own web site (I will as it is stupid not to have one) but I am nowhere near the best photographer nor will I ever allow myself to think that I am even close to that point.
Again, John and Zach put it best in stating that it doesn’t pay much, in the beginning, and treat it a real businessperson would. Don’t ever plan to make a lot of money from stock photography though and remember that it is more about just getting recognition of a passion.
I know that you already know this, Chad, and I know that you have experience with it: Never give up and be prepared for a lot of disappointments: Just don’t give up as you have a great eye for very good composition. I know that you are very familiar with the copyright laws too but for a bit of updated information. A copyright image infringement might bring up to $500.00 in a court ruling while a registered copyright may bring up to 150,000.00 in court rulings.
As far as copyrights go, the advice regarding the law is good, but…
Look guys, I’m a defense lawyer.
Zach – I agree that it is a case by case bases but there is new precedence in court ruling. Recently, a case was taken against a company that decided to recirculate several images. The use license had expired and when the photographer tried to get a new license contracted, the company basically told the photographer to forget about it. The photographer decided to take court action and not settle. There were many images that were violated and for each one that was not registered, the photographer got $500.00 per. For each image that was also registered with the Library of Congress, the photographer was awarded $149,000.00 per image for copyright infringements on registered copyrights. The final ruling was in the millions and the photographer has been paid.
Like you said though, it depends on the size of the company and what the actual damages were. There is another case where a small magazine stole another photographers “registered copyright” images and even though this was a smaller magazine, the courts ruled $13,000.00 per image.
I think that the unauthorized use of images and copyright infringements were getting to the point that they are violated on such a regular bases that now the court systems are setting precedence in making sure that copyrights infringements do not become an economic tool for cutting image cost to companies.
Erik, I personally research that magazine to see what kind of images they most commonly use and will send accordingly.
You birdie guys might find this site interesting http://www.avianstock.com/ Its Scott Bournes site, nice bird photography and a interesting sales model. http://www.asmp.org/ and http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/ are good resources for professional standards and copyright info.
I think as A Professional Photographers of America member you get some legal services for copyright issues.A woman once told me “a man that loves his work never works a day”.
I was talking with Zach about one of the cases that I had mentioned, he made me aware of the fact that it was more of a contract violation and association with copyright laws. I agree that one can be over zealous in this copyright law stuff, especially for a photographer that is just starting out in the publishing arena. In most cases, just a simple copyright symbol and photographers name will suffice. Along the lines of what David was saying, if I get this correct, the best way to protect an image is to never show it. Truth of the matter is, one must take chances and exposure is necessary. As Zach also mentioned, an intrusive watermark does nothing for the image except really get on the bad side of an editor or director. Someone once told me, “If you want to walk in the rain, better expect to get wet”. With the proliferation of digital and new photographers, call that the rain and expect the fact that one has to take risks of possible image theft. Just make sure that you deliver the best-unobstructed images possible and know that the rewards are more in the passion of photography.
Of course now that the P on a DSLR apparently stands for Professional its getting harder and harder to make a decent living.
Lol, I hadn’t heard that before 🙂
Everyone has to start somewhere though. Most will probably be content to use DSLRs largely as PnSs and not bother to learn anything about composition and light. Some will take to the next step and fewer still will put the effort into really trying to learn the craft. Yes, technology has no doubt made things alot tougher on Pros but speaking as someone who is trying to take it as far as I can. Theres a still a world of difference between myself (Id classify myself a serious amateur) and a Pro.With regards to copyright infringement. I don’t worry about it, in truth I think I’d be flattered. That said it is rife and more I get into this, the more I see and hear about it. Some of the guys I’ve mentioned are having their work turn up all over the net, especially in Asia.
Ive seen a thread recently, where someone was ripping images and using them on some web based photogrpahy contest site where winners got 20-100 bucks per.
And if you want a good chuckle, Ive mentioned this before read this link/story. To truly appreciate it check the imbedded links near the bottom about the images and Grahams work
http://bluecollarscientist.com/2008/01/09/atlas-of-creation-by-harun-yahya/Somehow, I suspect infringement is alot worse than people think. Id never watermark any images going to an editor but for what I upload to the web I do. It may not stop the truly determined but if it stops people like the person who was ripping images, entering them in offshoot contest and pocketing a few hundreed bucks then its worth it.
The P for Professional thing came from Jay Meisel or some other famous photographer. A lot of Pros have lost income and others have benefited. I was a early adopter of digital workflow and it has helped me somewhat. I hear a lot of complaints and when peoples incomes are on the line it can get serious.
I would register anything that I thought had any real long term repeat sales potential just in case. I think it cost 10 dollars and you can register a whole group of photos in like a proof sheet form. Sueing over copyright infringement I would think would be the last option and would of course kill any future sales. The only case I know of here locally, the photographer asked for a usage fee when his photo when used again from a previous project and the printer was such a jerk about the whole thing that the guy sued him and won. Off course there have been bigger cases reported in Photo District News etc but it seem to be pretty rare.
The P for Professional thing came from Jay Meisel or some other famous photographer. A lot of Pros have lost income and others have benefited. I was a early adopter and it has helped me somewhat. I hear a lot of complaints and when peoples incomes are on the line it can get serious.
I don’t for a moment doubt that advancements in technology haven’t seriously put a crimp in alot of Pros incomes. Just look at any number of “contest” the ensuing rights grabs and just how many people still submit images and you start to get a sense. Likewise theres no shortage of people willing to “sell” images at rock bottom prices. My goal this year is to get a few images published, only time will tell whether I make or succeed that but yes, money isn’t part of the consideration for me. Its the experience and gratification from making/exceeding that goal I really want.
However, consider a publications PoV, the net is killing print mediums. They to, have to adapt and if part of that is saving a bunch of money on their photo purchasing cost who can blame them. If its a choice between accepting less money for my images, assuming in a year or twos time I’m somewhat established vs magazines I like going the way of the dinosaur I wont blink an eye.
In fact it can be argued that websites just like Zachs are causing alot of publishing “Pros” to lose money. How often have you seen in response to book recomendation questions…Save yourself money and Google it on the net
🙂I guess what I’m driving at is I’ve read from Pros on various sites the harsh economic realities of being a Pro and I can see and emphasise but its not unique. The only winners are Canon and Nikon 🙂
John that Blue Collar scientist story is a scream! The Hummingbird pictures used in the Aperture 2 intro are great! Who shot them?
Yeah, its hilarious 🙂
I knew Grahams work was good but thats unreal. Oh the irony 🙂The shooter who caught Apples eye is Keith Rankin. He lives in Alberta Can and primarily shoots Birds of prey. He has some unbeleivable Hawk, Snowy and Great Grey Owl work.
J
My site has certainly drawn criticism from a pro or two regarding our giving away of “pro” information.
I long less for the extermination of wedding photographers shooting in P mode than I do for the day that we look at cell phone cameras with the same stigma as the old instant Poloroids and a future where National Geographic cover shots once again pay their creators more than they could get for a candid shot of Brittney Spears’ vagina.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.