PDA

View Full Version : How To Make Money Selling Your Photos!


ooartist
Dec 28, 2004, 07:53 PM
I thought I would let everyone here know about this place I found(ShutterStock). You join and you can upload photos that you have taken (must be at least 2.5MP). The photos go thru a approval process and if they get approved they get added to a stock photo library of 55K+ photos that get searched by subscribers. If your photo gets downloaded you get .20 cents (thats per download)! I have uploaded a lot of my shots (55) just in the past 2 weeks and I have already made $4 dollars! I know your thinking "dude that's not a lot of money". Think about it thats off of 55 photos in just 2 weeks. I have about 1000+ photos that I have taken and the more I put on there site the more downloads I get and more money!

Well anyway I have become addicted to taken stock photos now so I thought I would try to get some of the Mac-Heads (usually aspiring photographers) out there addicted too.

Check it out:

http://submit.shutterstock.com/

Enjoy!

ooartist

Capt Underpants
Dec 30, 2004, 09:26 PM
I don't know whether or not to think this is legit. It seems too good to be true, but then again... it looks legit...

Has anyone else had experience with these people?

mkrishnan
Dec 30, 2004, 09:56 PM
Seems like a really good idea! Assuming their quality process is any good, and they have at least vaguely google-worthy searching technology, then it would be a real boon to SOHO or educational uses of stock photography, like student newspapers and so on....

Kwyjibo
Dec 30, 2004, 10:23 PM
I think he gets some money for reffering people too.

mkrishnan
Dec 30, 2004, 10:34 PM
Oooh, in that case, can we get a couple of funny and mildly insulting images in this thread before it gets wastelanded? :p

Mechcozmo
Dec 30, 2004, 10:35 PM
Sounds too good to be true. Then again, it is a really good idea. Who wants to be the Guinea Pig?

CubaTBird
Dec 30, 2004, 11:13 PM
TINSTAAFL

"their is no such thing as a free lunch"

economy class 101 ;)

Capt Underpants
Dec 31, 2004, 08:36 AM
Sounds too good to be true. Then again, it is a really good idea. Who wants to be the Guinea Pig?

I officially nominate Mechcozmo.

pseudobrit
Dec 31, 2004, 09:09 AM
I think he gets some money for reffering people too.

Yup. Hence the "ref=1585" code in his link.

superfunkomatic
Dec 31, 2004, 11:50 AM
there are other services that let you submit your digital photos, or professionally scanned ones and sell them online for a profit -
check out - http://www.istockphoto.com.

i don't get money from any referrals, just a cool site and cheap for stock photos and royalty free.

ooartist
Dec 31, 2004, 12:37 PM
Yup. Hence the "ref=1585" code in his link.

I get a whole .03 for ever download that a person I refer gets.

This is not a scam. I made the top 50 downloaded pictures this week at ShutterStock.

This is the photo that got me to the top 50:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?&id=74390&searchterm=LapTop&searchtermx=&anyorall=all&attr=&value=


ooartist

Mechcozmo
Dec 31, 2004, 01:51 PM
I officially nominate Mechcozmo.

I officially nominate Capt Underpants. You posted first, you should try it first. Its an honor.

mkrishnan
Dec 31, 2004, 02:02 PM
I think someone should upload one of edesignuk's funny pictures and then see if he changes it into something evil! :p

Capt Underpants
Dec 31, 2004, 02:40 PM
I officially nominate Capt Underpants. You posted first, you should try it first. Its an honor.

If I ever did decide to try it, I would take the "ref=1585" out of the link. :D This should really be counted as an advertisement, given that the poster is making money off of very person that signs up via his link. I wish this deal could be true, though... but we won't know until someone guinea pigs it. I wonder who's willing to do that :confused:

The poster does have some credibility, though, because he/she is a macrumors "member", and not just a n00b.

Sun Baked
Dec 31, 2004, 02:58 PM
If I ever did decide to try it, I would take the "ref=1585" out of the link. :D This should really be counted as an advertisement, given that the poster is making money off of very person that signs up via his link. I wish this deal could be true, though... but we won't know until someone guinea pigs it. I wonder who's willing to do that :confused:

The poster does have some credibility, though, because he/she is a macrumors "member", and not just a n00b.Yes, that refer number makes it sound a lot like a multi level marketing plan.

CanadaRAM
Dec 31, 2004, 03:10 PM
Let's see: I currently charge between $25 to $175 for a single use of one of my flower photos in a magazine or a book (which is already well below the professional photography standard prices), and that's limited to a single use with a defined print run. People pirate photos from my website www.everyrose.com all the time, but they're at least getting only a 40 Kb low res.

With this online stock photo plan, someone could download my 2.5 Mb photo and do WTF they like with it, and I would get $0.20.

Yeah, I'm going to be all over this opportunity, yessirree.

Thanks
Trevor
CanadaRAM.com

Sun Baked
Dec 31, 2004, 03:37 PM
Though it's an awsome deal for the person downloading the stock photos from this site...

For one low price... ie, instant advertising campaign for $129.

If you grab all the pictures you'll need for the year during the first month. ;)

maya
Dec 31, 2004, 04:03 PM
Let's see: I currently charge between $25 to $175 for a single use of one of my flower photos in a magazine or a book (which is already well below the professional photography standard prices), and that's limited to a single use with a defined print run. People pirate photos from my website www.everyrose.com all the time, but they're at least getting only a 40 Kb low res.

With this online stock photo plan, someone could download my 2.5 Mb photo and do WTF they like with it, and I would get $0.20.

Yeah, I'm going to be all over this opportunity, yessirree.

Thanks
Trevor
CanadaRAM.com

CanadaRAM, this might sound like a silly question however I hope you are watermarking your images even the low quality ones, much better to be safe than sorry.

Even if the image is low quality I can still enlarge it with a few photo magic tricks and even if its has watermarks I can do a few tricks the as well. ;) However the point is to make it as difficult and a trying process to the end users not that I would rip someone creative hard work(s), however just a thought for the future.

If you have watermarks then I apologize for taking your time. Nice images though it bring me back to my memories of BC island and mainland. :)

Daveman Deluxe
Dec 31, 2004, 04:13 PM
Let's see: I currently charge between $25 to $175 for a single use of one of my flower photos in a magazine or a book (which is already well below the professional photography standard prices), and that's limited to a single use with a defined print run. People pirate photos from my website www.everyrose.com all the time, but they're at least getting only a 40 Kb low res.

With this online stock photo plan, someone could download my 2.5 Mb photo and do WTF they like with it, and I would get $0.20.

Yeah, I'm going to be all over this opportunity, yessirree.

Yes, but what about all of the other photos in storage that you could never sell for any price? That's the purpose of submitting photographs to stock photo companies--they're a convenient way to get photos out to places that need such photos, but would never contact photographers individually.

maya
Dec 31, 2004, 04:16 PM
Yes, but what about all of the other photos in storage that you could never sell for any price? That's the purpose of submitting photographs to stock photo companies--they're a convenient way to get photos out to places that need such photos, but would never contact photographers individually.


I disagree to a point here, even if the photos that (s)he does not sell the whole reason here is $0.20 USD for a single image is way to little considering what they might be making on it maybe. Maybe a higher price $1.00 USD maybe sounds better then again we all have our price. :)

And also the lack of control on your images/photos, no way of knows who will do what or make X amount of prints for $0.20 USD.

CanadaRAM
Dec 31, 2004, 05:46 PM
>And also the lack of control on your images/photos, no way of knows who will do what or make X amount of prints for $0.20 USD.

Yeah, that's the thing.

Traditionally, the payment to the copyright owner for use (not ownership!) of a photo is scaled to the image size, the number that will be published, the number of times it wil be used and what the intended use is.

The publisher of a limited run book that publishes a 1" square photo pays less than a corporation would for the same image that would blown up to full page size and be the centre of an advertising campaign in millions of newspapers published worldwide.

For $0.20 I am giving away complete creative control and the right to negotiate the terms of use of the image?

Not even for a photo of my cat's litterbox. If it's worth publishing, it's worth paying for.

You know what a viable market would be -- $0.20 for a web-only image - low res, not suitable for print work - sure; people would buy it to put it on their web page or make a inkjet greeting card. But the outfit wants 2.5 Mb images. That's a no-go for me.

Thanks
Trevor
CanadaRAM.com

Doctor Q
Dec 31, 2004, 07:07 PM
We don't allow people to advertise commercial sites (without paying arn), but we'll give ooartist the benefit of the doubt and assume that the purpose of this thread is to alert you to a site you might find interesting. I removed the referrer code from the link.

CrackedButter
Jan 2, 2005, 05:07 PM
>And also the lack of control on your images/photos, no way of knows who will do what or make X amount of prints for $0.20 USD.

Yeah, that's the thing.

Traditionally, the payment to the copyright owner for use (not ownership!) of a photo is scaled to the image size, the number that will be published, the number of times it wil be used and what the intended use is.

The publisher of a limited run book that publishes a 1" square photo pays less than a corporation would for the same image that would blown up to full page size and be the centre of an advertising campaign in millions of newspapers published worldwide.

For $0.20 I am giving away complete creative control and the right to negotiate the terms of use of the image?

Not even for a photo of my cat's litterbox. If it's worth publishing, it's worth paying for.

You know what a viable market would be -- $0.20 for a web-only image - low res, not suitable for print work - sure; people would buy it to put it on their web page or make a inkjet greeting card. But the outfit wants 2.5 Mb images. That's a no-go for me.

Thanks
Trevor
CanadaRAM.com

I'm glad you posted what you did, I was tempted but you gave me room for thought. I have loads of photos which I have sitting on my drive doing nothing, some which I cannot take to my university interview. I was going to look into it but not now.

Sir_Giggles
Jan 2, 2005, 05:36 PM
I see nothing wrong with linking it to a referral. I would not have known about it otherwise, and if I find it profitable, the person who made the attempt to introduce it should be fairly compensated. No ulterior motives.

Now the question of the site, too bad there is now way to order single photos. In a typical month, I may only use 4-5 images in my design work so paying $129 USD seems excessive.

Sun Baked
Jan 2, 2005, 05:46 PM
I see nothing wrong with linking it to a referral. I would not have known about it otherwise, and if I find it profitable, the person who made the attempt to introduce it should be fairly compensated. No ulterior motives...Just part of making people advertising for cash to pay for a banner/ad on the site.

The majority of people here don't see anything wrong with that, people can introduce their Mac-related Website in MacScene (once) -- as long as they don't make it smell like they are spamming out an advertisement.

However, it was the referral numbers with the freeiPod stuff, which basically made referral numbers a bad word -- which can quickly get you banned.

The mods gave the member the benefit of the doubt, by only removing the referral number and not banning him.

Sir_Giggles
Jan 2, 2005, 06:47 PM
Website looks interesting. I will investigate further.