Francis Moran wrote:
What kind of stock photos are you looking for?

I'm in the consulting business now (ie SAP) ... looking for business/technical/consulting type stock photos. I'm not looking for lifestyle shots.

On the other hand, these guys could use a serious injection of creativity around here. But as in every industry, most are too nervous to range too far afield of the norm.

*sigh*

Francesca G wrote:
I have rather a lot - what exactly are you looking for?

Scroll up a few.

However, since you are the model, unless you could prove you have the copyright and/or the right to sell the image, this would not be the preferred avenue of choice.

Mayanlee wrote:
I guess I should point out that I'm looking for CONVENTIONAL (*ack!*) business-type situations/people.

I'm an exclusive photographer on istockphoto. I understand that you already went that route, but I just wanted to point out that I have some new uploads with a diverse business group using models from here on Model Mayhem.

Here's a link to that specific part of my portfolio there:

http://www.istockphoto.com/my_lightbox_ … =sdominick

glenn usdin wrote:
i know someone who would love to sell you some stock business photos!

and the best part is he thinks you are one of the coolest people in the world!

[email protected]  is the place...I'll be in NYC tomorrow, are you in NY or closer to home?

loveya!

I'm closer to home... in fact, I work out of my home (can't get closer than that and the commute is sweet!)  Whatcha got for me, Glenn...?? 

Mayanlee wrote:
Thanks everyone for the resources. I was looking for readily available resources, not seeking to commission stock work as my project deadline was essentially yesterday (ain't it always).

But, now that I'm an end-user, I'm noticing a woeful lack of ethnic representation for the tech solutions consulting/corporate genre, specifically in the use of Indian (as in India), Middle-Eastern and Asian models (well, plenty of those, but not together with the aforementioned) to be featured in shots with white and black models. (Hint, hint)

The tech solutions (ie. Oracle, SAP, Microsoft, Peoplesoft) software and service providers get an inordinate number of employees from the above-mentioned ethnic groups (I think someone once mentioned that India produces some 1,000,000+ engineers per year vs. 70,000 annually in the USA). Most of my company consultants are Turkish. We have one token white guy.

Characteristics sought for consultant-types: clean cut (we ARE geeks, after all), mid-20's to 30's, fairly conservative but polished, and professional (tired of the rumpled look but that's a personal beef).

Also, looking for interesting angles and perspectives, polished backgrounds and surroundings.  This is high tech, after all. And the customers of said tech solutions and providers include Fortune 100 companies. (Does anyone know that SAP AG's annual revenue alone is over $10 billion? There's money in them thar hills....) I'm looking for images to reflect these numbers and the countless images of the guy-in-the-suit-in-front-of-white-seamless need to be rethought. I'm sure other marketing people in the field are looking for the same thing.

Just thought I'd put that out there.

Well Mayan, you say there's money in them thar hills and cite revenue in the billions and fortune 100 companies to paint that picture.... but you're telling us that you want royalty free work and have been shopping at Isuckphotos.... so uh, NO, in fact there is essentially ZERO money in them thar hills! It really doesn't matter how much the client has or makes as long as they're only willing to spend a dollar on a photo with unlimited use, of which the photographer gets a whopping 20 cents!!!!

Thanks for the suggestions on the unfulfilled market niche, I hope a lot of photographers run right out and fund big production stock shoots to fill those needs in the hopes that they might license some work to those fortune 100 companies at 20 cents a shot.... this is tremendous news for the aspiring or working photographers and models on this site... I wonder how much the shooters will be able to pay the models on these shoots as they chomp at the bit in anticipation of those 20 cent checks rolling in???

A. KAYE wrote:
I DO

Rock on! Start making plans now, just think, if you can interest her company in TWO photos you'll be able to buy a gumball and have change left over to boot! woo hoo!

Aaron_H wrote:
It really doesn't matter how much the client has or makes as long as they're only willing to spend a dollar on a photo with unlimited use, of which the photographer gets a whopping 20 cents!!!!

You should probably do a little research on the license restrictions and royalty structure before putting out incorrect information.

There are use restrictions on all images available through the RF sites and the .20 you quote is only for small images that are only suitable for web use. Larger print runs and unlimited use are available through extended licensing which pays significantly more than .20 cents.

Mayanlee wrote:
I'm looking for stock photos ... c'mon... I know some of you shoot them. Where's your stuff distributed? Give me an alternative to www.istock.com and getty .... royalty-free style ... no, no one's going to get famous ... simply for presentations and intra-house use ....

What type of stock Mayan? If you can give me some idea of what your looking for I'll look through my back up images and see what I have...

Rich

StratMan wrote:
MayanBaby....

As with most things, I tend to delve bit deeper to get to the creamy center. In saying this, I'd like to thank you for presenting this post and sharing it with the creative masses. Some WILL "get it" and some surely won't. As it seems to be with many things in life...no? 


Missin'YaMadly*


Strat

you're sure right about that Strat, unfortunately I get the impression that you've got it twisted 180 degrees as to who gets it and who doesn't....

I guess owners of Isuck got it alright, they just got 50 million bucks for selling the biz, but how many of their tens of thousands of shooters that have contributed millions of images have gotten more than a few hundred tops for licensing thousands of images?

Eric Foltz wrote:

You should probably do a little research on the license restrictions and royalty structure before putting out incorrect information.

There are use restrictions on all images available through the RF sites and the .20 you quote is only for small images that are only suitable for web use. Larger print runs and unlimited use are available through extended licensing which pays significantly more than .20 cents.

Gosh, you're right, it's up to 3 bucks for print ready and 5 bucks for full page ready! woo hooooooooo! As for the licensing, I don't have time to read it all now, but in looking at it briefly it seems that you're wrong, looking under permitted uses they spell out all sorts of advertising and editorial uses without mentioning any restrictions on print runs or time periods. It seems that most of the prohibited uses are related to using the shots on reproducable retail goods like t-shirts and mugs.... who cares? What does that have to do with the bulk of commercial and advertising photography or even editorial photography? We're talking about permitted advertising uses that previously had established market values in the hundreds minimum for minor uses on up into the thousands, tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands. There are already several examples of giant multinationals such as Coke and others using Isuck work in advertising, essentially for free!!!! And the fools that get exploited that way and help speed the profession ever faster toward extinction are proud of it!!!!

Aaron_H wrote:
As for the licensing, I don't have time to read it all now, but in looking at it briefly it seems that you're wrong, looking under permitted uses they spell out all sorts of advertising and editorial uses without mentioning any restrictions on print runs or time periods.

Maybe you should go back and read the whole thing. Then so you can speak intelligently on the subject. All of the uses you you describe have limits on the  print runs. To exceed those limits you need to purchase an extended license. Extended license pricing runs all the way up to the pricing you see on Rights Managed images (hundreds of dollars).

Aaron_H wrote:
It seems that most of the prohibited uses are related to using the shots on reproducable retail goods like t-shirts and mugs.... who cares? What does that have to do with the bulk of commercial and advertising photography or even editorial photography? We're talking about permitted advertising uses that previously had established market values in the hundreds minimum for minor uses on up into the thousands, tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands. There are already several examples of giant multinationals such as Coke and others using Isuck work in advertising, essentially for free!!!! And the fools that get exploited that way and help speed the profession ever faster toward extinction are proud of it!!!!

How about a little history: Stock as we know it is a fairly new concept (maybe 30+ years) before that everything was done on assignment. When stock started, it was primarily outakes from assignment work that shooters put into libraries (it should be noted that at the time many photographers thought stock would be the end of the industry). These images weren't the best quality and offered buyers an alternative to paying big money for assignments. Eventually photographers started seeing checks coming in from the libraries and some started shooting specifically for stock. Image quality went up and so did the prices. Eventually, pricing for RM stock approached the cost of just assigning the shoot. At the same time, the internet (lets call it the great equalizer) emerged, making it possible for images to be shared outside of a printed catalogue. Photographers started selling stock from their own websites, libraries went online, image sharing sites emerged. Add to this the advent and improvements in digital imaging and a whole new generation of photographers who were more than willing to give their work away just to see it in print and you have an entire industry in transition. You have a choice, jump on board or sit and complain while someone else makes money.

As far as being exploited, I look at it this way, each of us is free to determine what we will sell our work for. I've spent years dealing with traditional stock houses, all of whom had minimum initial submission requirments and quarterly requirments after you were accepted. I don't shoot specifically for stock, so I don't turn out that kind of volume. With the micros, I can submit as many or as few images as I want and while I may not get the huge payout you see at the RM sites, it is more than those images make stored in a file cabinet or on a hard drive.

Eric Foltz wrote:
You are aware that by having your images on this site, you are essentially giving them away free. See the ads at the top of the page, that is revenue coming into the site.

If Tyler ever sold the site, do you think there would be a distribution of funds to the contributors?

You can say that being here is self-promotion but I don't know of anyone getting hired by commercial clients from here (or any of the other model sites) and I don't know of anyone making real money off models.

So essentially, you are allowing this site to use your images for free so that they can make money off your images. Granted, you get the entertainment of participating on the forums, finding models, etc... but you still aren't getting paid for the use of your images.

wow, you can't be serious if you think that's even remotely similar!