I guess this will be subjective? My thoughts are even if I can make a bit of pocket money I wouldn’t have had before then that’s OK, but if you’re only going to get a couple of quid over a year then it’s pointless.Funnily enough I was just chatting to a friend about this last night.
About 10 years ago I uploaded a whole back catalogue of images to various stock photography websites.
A really awful photo from years ago of the cranes at Harland & Wolff in Belfast has been sold over 10k times. It's awful image, embarrassing to look back on now, way oversaturated colours a huge vignette etc. All the bad stuff photographers do when they are newbies. It has been sold for use on everything from keyrings, mugs, t-shirts, postcards. large gallery style prints etc.
Have no idea why anyone would pay money for it.
I also have another photo of a local flute band that has also been sold thousands of times.
Even then with maybe 40k odd sales in total the income from it has been quite small and probably not worth the hassle of uploading them in the first place.
Does always give me a giggle when you see what people buy the images for.
One lady in Scotland orders 100 Christmas cards every year with the photo of the local flute band on them. Have no ides why anyone would want a Christmas card with a photo of a flute band on the front or why she would want to send the same card every year.
With the stock photo sites policy varies, on Adobe you wouldn't be able to sell that without a consent form most likely but e.g. Shutterstock that would go through as an editorial with certain conditions of use attached - there isn't much difference in how much they would pay you it is usually peanuts like $0.10 but odd ones do sell for much more.In relation to selling images online, if they have people in them (e.g. Motor Racing drivers) do you need to get consent? Also are you allowed to post images to sell that were taken at events such as F1, Moto GP, Goodwood FoS or would you need consent for these too?
Thanks, so with certain sites you can restrict usage so they’re not used for commercial purposes?With the stock photo sites policy varies, on Adobe you wouldn't be able to sell that without a consent form most likely but e.g. Shutterstock that would go through as an editorial with certain conditions of use attached - there isn't much difference in how much they would pay you it is usually peanuts like $0.10 but odd ones do sell for much more.
The key thing alluded to above is that unlikely images sometimes sell many times over and if you have already got them why not upload if you have time.
Video clips are still making reasonable money and if you know what you are doing and have a fast upload speed you can upload short clips in 5 minutes or less.
You can expect at least $20 as a rule for video clips. I use BlackBox for video and about 100 clips have made 10x more than 500 stills on Shutterstock.
Again it is the same handful selling multiple times.
Another area to consider is short shelflife newsworthy clips there are agencies specialise in that too e.g. Newsflare.
Sooner or later most of us happen to be near some kind of incident with unexpectedly good access such as a fire or road crash.
For the great majority it is only ever going to be a bit of extra pocket money.
For example I get paid by paypal and leave the $ in there as a rule to buy odds and ends on ebay or whatever.
I concure.In short NO, complete waste of time that only enriches the 1% of the 1% and further sinks the market through your hard work that could be put to a much better use elsewhere
At least 50% of Scotland loath them.And who doesn’t love a flute band
Hi Toby, you have some amazing images, have you tried selling direct from your website?I've recently been considering selling some of my images online using sites like those mentioned in the title and was wondering if it's worth doing, or whether you get so little it's not worth the effort?
Is there a better way to sell online?
Thanks Tim, I appreciate your comments. I've not as I'm not tech savvy when it comes to things like SEO and directing traffic to my site.Hi Toby, you have some amazing images, have you tried selling direct from your website?
I sell using shootproof but it's linked to specific events and getting traffic to the website is supported by the event organizers. I doubt it would be worth it for general images unless you had a way to bring lots of potential buyers to view. I've not tried the stock sites as I fear I've missed the boat on that.
tech savvy maybe helps. As I've heard from people's experiences, it's hugely time-consuming too. I may be thinking about it entirely the wrong way though. To my mind, events are much easier, people have the motivation to come and look and the organizers are happy to direct them to the right place.Thanks Tim, I appreciate your comments. I've not as I'm not tech savvy when it comes to things like SEO and directing traffic to my site.
So as I am unable to limit the market to UK, those that could cause an issue need to be removed?The images don't need permission in the UK as we have 'freedom of panorama'. However, that's not going to stop stock agencies requiring them to cater for the global market.
So as I am unable to limit the market to UK, those that could cause an issue need to be removed?
It can seem a bit pathetic with their $0.10 sales but every now and then you can get a much more substantial amount with no real explanation.Does that relate to any worthwhile amounts of money? I've only dabbled in this with Shutterstock with a dozen images or so, and not reached a threshold for payment. Probably my images are unwanted but also the rates are pretty poor. But I know someone on TP has made a decent side income from pictures of EV charging points (as I recall).
In fact 'illustrative editorials' are among my best sellers this is basically pictures of almost any object either as new or in use - someone might buy to illustrate their own product or web page.