While very few photographers make a full-time living shooting stock photography, it can be a decent way to supplement your main work and provide some additional financial security by diversifying your income streams. This excellent video goes in depth to show you how two photographers sold $47,000 of their photos on stock services.
Coming to you from Mango Street, this great video discusses how they sold $47,000 of stock photos. One thing that I really appreciated about this particular video is the hard data on the sales and an inside look at the sort of photos that sold well. Certainly, making a full-time living shooting stock photography is not as easy as it once was, but depending on what you shoot, you can often create a lot of assets on a job without a lot of extra work. If you already have the set, equipment, and talent there, snapping a few extra shots you can then use to build out a stock portfolio can be a straightforward way to create an extra passive income stream. This can also make getting the model clearances a bit easier since you are already on a job. Check out the video above for the full rundown.
LOL Yes, there is that perspective to take into account.
Real article is How Two Photographers Made $8,500 Selling Stock Photos Each Year.
Why would you break it down into a year-by-year thing? I am interested in the total amount that they made over their lifetimes, not in how much per year it divides out to.
Still it's something you upload one time for the most part. This is additional income on top of what they earn from their paying clients for portraits, etc. Of course no one is going to live off $5k/year but I wouldn't mind that additional money to buy new gear or something.
"This excellent video goes in depth to show you how two photographers made $47,000 selling their photos on stock services."
I am confused but maybe I missed something?
Rachel billed $43,559 in sales and received $24,491 in royalties and he received $1969 from $3500 -ish in sales...so the headline while not a lie, it's a bit misleading because of the agency commission.
It seems like together they "made" like $26,460.
It's better than a sharp stick in your eye, but it ain't $47,000.
If what you describe is really the case, then yes, the video is very misleading. It is unethical to misrepresent the amount of income in that manner.
The only thing a photographer makes selling via agencies is the commission that they are paid. If Alamy licenses an image of mine for $150, and pays me a $60 commission, I did NOT make $150. I made $60.
If the video makers did not figure it this way then they arrived at the $47,000 figure, then they intentionally misrepresented the truth and lied to their viewership on purpose, to make their endeavor seem more successful than it was. I sure hope this is not the case, and that the $47,000 is the total of the commissions that they were paid.
Maybe I misunderstood the explanation, take a look at the "final sales numbers" around 8 minutes in. When I used to do work with picture agencies I would get a document saying I was getting $350 royalty or fee from a $500 sale.
He says, she earned _as royalties_ $ 24.5k at 8:57.The title is more than misleading. Tom is probably right with: "on purpose, to make their endeavor seem more successful than it was".
I just watched that part again, and you were right. They do indeed lie in the title of the video. Saying something that is false to get more people to click on the video ..... what a shameful and dishonest way to try to grow their YouTube channel. Doesn't anyone think that the simple, unembellished truth is good enough anymore?
Hi guys. We never said we made $47k selling stock photos. We said we sold that dollar amount in stock photos, which is absolutely true. The wording of this article was a little misleading, but in our video we didn't present it that way.
Yeah, I reworked the wording.
Thanks for the clarification. I really appreciate you getting on here and explaining that.
I should have ignored the title of this article, and only paid attention to the wording you used in your video. Titles here on Fstoppers can tend to be misleading, not entirely accurate, or clickbaitish.
In any case, it was wrong of me to condemn you so harshly, and I apologize for doing so.
No worries, Tom. Thanks for your thoughtful response.
No matter what numbers they claim, this is still a gross income before factoring in all the expenses, including internet subscriptions not to mention all the processing and key-wording time.
I had my images on some stock agencies for ten + years, easily a couple thousand images, RM never came close to pulling in a $1000 a year. RM yet the agencies always found a reason why world wide advertising rights should only net a photographer $40.
The amount of time and effort to upload and keyword is not a minor endeavor. When I finally quit and removed my images there was evidence that the A agency kept making sales on the images. Including me finding an image in an editorial story years later
It is not about uploading images you already shot - you will see that the images need to be completely tailored to generic commercial applications. Basically spec concepts that need quite a bit of production. Model releases need to be obtained and the photographer still has a bit of liability, In the 90s this was fine when photographers received a fair share today it is a complete scam. I can't believe the author doesn't know the difference between gross income and actual income, after all the expenses have been paid and time accounted.
These stories and the defense of selling stock is just internet hogwash trying to advertise to young naive photographers that it's a viable option. It is not! The only people that make any money to justify the effort are the scamming agencies. Fstoppers should be ashamed for not calling out deceptive ploys trying to sucker in naive young people. There are plenty of seasoned photographers who not only left this industry but also see it for the scam it's become, Why not balance the story with their opinion?
Answer is clicks and nothing else. Reality has no meaning, clicks are everything.
This.
It seems like a bulk of your issues was with your agency. Stocksy is a co-op, which gives the members say in how the business operates. Sorry you have not had a good experience w/ stock. For us, it's been a nice little source of recurring revenue over the years and has been worth our efforts.
Could not figure out the stock agency you use. What is the name?
Stocksy