Forget porn- get into mainstream stock photos
 

http://www.acclaimimages.com/_galler...1713-2200.html


Look at these prices!

Nice , wonder how many they actually sell for that price ?:winkwink:

that's funny that they are selling an image of a box and their home page says "Copyright Safe" images . .

Stock images can't have pictures of a product, brand names , logos, etc. It's a violation of copyrights

i smell a ban

I think that it might be a violation of trademark (ie: duncan hines)
but the copyright belongs to the photographer, unless he has transferred his copyright to someone else.

I wonder that myself:winkwink:

stock photos huh? Funny, I was actually thinking of that myself. Although, something more along the lines of this...

http://www.x0rs.com/voyeur/scenery/04-04-10/015.jpg

WTF 99.00 for a picutre of a GD TREE???

$129.95 for a picture of a girl crying

http://www.acclaimimages.com/_galler...1211-0031.html

You think that's nuts? At gettyimages.com I got a quote on one of their stock pictures, just a standard face shot of a woman, and for a 5 year license (the longest they have) it was going to cost over $2,400! For ONE PICTURE!!! And that's NOT exclusive! :eek2

http://acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_p...2609-2138.html

$100 for a very blurry pic

Seeing this, I have decided that I need to review my recycle bin and undelete some of my "oops" pics. :winkwink:

The problem is you might only sell one or two of those images over the life of the image (years!). I talked to one stock photographer who in the pre-internet days was aiming to make $1/year/photo. He had a libary of 20K photos so we're not talking big bucks here.

Perhaps the quote fell through a time wormhole... you were accidentally quoted pre-dotbomb pricing

(For $2400 you could probably commission an entire dedicated shoot yourself, right?)

What's new ...

One of Andy Warhol's pics is his Campbells Tomato soup.. Prices for art pics are higher as they sell less copies...

I prefer to shoot art pics to porn but they won't pay my bills as the porn does.. I know quite a few photographers in the UK who only shoot porn to make a living and this also supports the times they pay a model for an art shoot which they hope might sell one day :)

http://www.sahara.ukethnicmodels.com/SD04b.jpg


http://www.sahara.ukethnicmodels.com/SD05.jpg


http://www.sahara.ukethnicmodels.com/SD01D.jpg

art = porn for chixxx

No reputable party will buy from an agency selling copyrighted material like that. I sell photos thru a stock photo agency. $2400 is a bit high, but it isn't unheard of to get $1800 for unlimited rights for an image. The problem is that these type of requests are not that common. To have a good variety you need to have hundreds of thousands of images for them to choose from, the number of categories of different types of pictures to stock is not small.

The industry doesn't quite trust digital yet, so you'll need to send your customers dozens or hundreds of slides to choose from via mail. After all the time involved and royalties you pay your own photogrpahers you aren't going to be a millionaire, sorry.

I was going to suggest that you could take some mainstream stock shots prior to your (nude) model taking her clothes off, but then I realised that if you used it on a mainstream site some people may recognise her. :Graucho I wonder how often that crossover happens, without the mainstream side realising she's got her gear off elsewhere on the web?


I had some vague plans to shoot and sell stock photos a little while ago, but I think I'm better off just selling a limited set of scenic shots as prints to consumers, just something extra on the side...

wow, just buy a cake box, and take a pic yourself. Hell, by 10 cake boxes.

\


WTF??