While there's been much ado about the death of stock photography in the wake of AI-based imagery, there are still many photographers earning passive income from the trade. Just how are they doing that, though?
Full-time stock photographer and videographer Luka Ažman made this video that shares a few tips on how he makes money on his stock images and video.
First, it's important to distinguish the passive income of stock photography, where you upload an image to a service and it generates revenue over time without further input from you (i.e. you can be asleep and people can buy your images and make you money) versus active income, such as freelancing or working for a newspaper or magazine as a photographer, where if you don't work, you don't get paid.
Ažman notes that many images and video that he uploads follow a curve. At first, they're not purchased much, followed by a period of decent sales, and then a tailing off as the image gets purchased less and less.
Part of the reason for this, Ažman surmises, is the opaque algorithms governing these sites. Sites want to reward active contributors by pushing their new photos forward, but at the same time, want to keep popular, older photos at the forefront since they're, well, popular. Therefore, it's important to get thrown into the mix often by constantly uploading new photos, lest you get bumped by the algorithm.
A better tip than shoveling photos non-stop onto a site is to research new and emerging trends, such as activities or items that don't have a lot of stock photography available to illustrate them. Ažman throws out an example of a unique activity he found that hasn't been truly discovered by the stock photography. Looking for keywords can be helpful here, he says.
While it may not be as lucrative as it used to be, there's still some money to be made with stock photography work. Check out Ažman's tips above, and if you're a stock photographer yourself, share some of your tips in the comments below.
Wasim Ahmad wrote:
"if you're a stock photographer yourself, share some of your tips in the comments below"
I have done fairly well selling stock passively by shooting things that relatively few people shoot well, and that there is a high demand for. For example, fully mature Whitetail Deer bucks.
I have had stock agency administrators call me and ask if I could shoot more dogsled racing events and more ice fishing. This is because there is are not many people shooting these activities well and submissions are low. Yet there is a modicum of a demand for images of these activities.
I want to make a point that was not mentioned in the article:
Not all stock sales are passive. I mean, many full time professional wildlife photographers spend a lot of time each week actively marketing their images by calling and emailing Art Directors, Photo Editors, publishers, Tourism Councils, Chambers of Commerce, advertising agencies, etc. And they spend a lot of time making image submissions that are for a particular need that a client has at that time. Just because it is stock does NOT mean it is at all passive. Only when one uses an agency is it passive.
It used to be a good source of passive income. But now it's the complete opposite. It's too saturated by other photographers, low quality requirements and lots of competition amongst companies. Plus the payouts have significantly decreased over the years. The new nail in the coffin for stock photography is A.I.. Now anyone can create stock photography without ever touching a camera or editing software. Unless your work is either incredibly good, or specialized...stock photography isn't worth the time.
There are some who make a good living shooting stock. They manage well because they understand how the market works, and they direct their efforts that way.
It is a business, not a pasttime, nor hobby. Anyone, and there are many, including a commenter here, who maintain that is doesn't work, are usually abject failures at making it work . . . so they proclaim it as no longer working, when the reality is they never did anything right themselves.
That is not stock photography's fault, nor any agencies fault . . . it is simply their incompetence.
Back in "the good old days" it was extremely difficult to be accepted at agencies that mattered . . . Tony Stone, Image Bank, Masterfile, etc.
Then along came the (already existing) juggernauts called Corbis and Getty who bought out many of their top contributors catalogues for enormous sums (more than any of you will earn in your lifetime).
They basically went to war with all of the small nickel and dime outfits that flogged royalty free, which in the beginning were the haven (and still are) for the no talent hacks and business vacant wannabees that populate these lists. Eventually they were all absorbed. There still exists a large base of specialty agencies though that produce healthy incomes for photographers who actually work.
Stock is not dead. Not by a long shot. Getty still bills hundreds of millions a year . . . and pays out to it's contributors.
Major distinction though is that Getty, and they are not the only ones, pay a higher rate to photographers who work . . . which means producing pictures that customers want to buy . . . not what your granny told you was a nice snap.
Very well explained. Thank you.