Talk:Stock photography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personally I think it would be really cool if we could set up something that compared types, availiability, count, and specialization. This way people could use this Wiki to find the exact type of Stock Photo site they need. --Brandalone 04:28, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't meant to be used as a sort of "yellow pages" directory, instead more as an summary of relevant information. I'm not sure listing companies is really the intent of wikipedia, but the topic is a valid one and the list suits its context. - Romann 04:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I dont see why somthing similar to Comparison of text editors (etc) isnt in order... how would a table of comparing major stock photo outlets be "advertising" any more than the other comparison articles that deal with comercial products? ._-zro 06:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Also known as comps, complimentary images are lower-resolution versions of an actual photography that can be used for the purpose of preparing a demonstration of a design. Comps are usually downloadable for free from any given stock photography site."

"Comp" does not stand for "complimentary," it stands for "comprehensive layout." Richard K. Carson 08:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

THIS PAGE IS ONE BIG ADVERT! - max rspct 21:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is the Awesome photography (http://www.spaces.msn.com/members/cotas/) link supposed to just go to some guy's MSN group. I dont think the images are really up to a licensable standard. IMHO. --Pypex 23:07, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

______________

I agree and it really isn't stock photography since there are no images which can be licensed. It ought to go under recreational photography==--Pixpixpix 00:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Photographers Direct

I'm not sure if listing major stock agencies is appropriate for Wikipedia, but it helped me researching them (which was the reason I looked for the article). Photographers Direct [1] is probably another one worth including. Cheers.

Why Photographers Direct Specifically? If were going down this route, Shutterstock and Fotoliaare both worth mentions...

[edit] Tables

Yes, Wikipedia shouldn't be like a yellow pages. It is important to list the main players here though, and, to me, the tables should be set up like this:

  • Stock Agencies (just the main players) plus what is the commission they pay out to photographers?
  • Microstocks should be in their own table and also include their "cut" plus if they sell just royalty free or also rights managed
  • Non-commissioned agents (the photographer pays a monthly fee only) - StockPipeline and PhotoTool, Smugmug come to mind
  • Software for photographers to sell their own photos from their own website

I'd also like to know if a website sells prints (some do some don't and that distinguishes them, to me). I might start working on this but it's a big job so jump in if you are interested! cda

[edit] Unbiased MicroPayment Discusion

I removed this link because it was broken and the front page of that site does not have a working link to it. Maybe it is a work in progress? If it is your site and it is working again feel free to put it back.

--cda 16:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microstock site experiences

I removed this. Maybe this link would be appropriate on the microstock page.

[edit] list of notable stock photographers

I started a list of notable stock photographers because I think that is something extremely hard to find on the internet. But it was deleted for being too small. Argh. If you know of a notable stock photographer could you please add it here so I can try again?--cda 14:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My two (or three) cents:
Tom Grill [2], a founder of Comstock, very successful
Charles (Chuck) O'Rear, creator of the "Bliss" background for Windows [3], which sold for six figures
Ralph Clevenger, creator of the very popular iceberg image discussed at Snopes [4]
Richard K. Carson 05:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks Richard --cda 12:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stock sites list request

Here should be a list of Stock web sites.

  • Fotolia - in 4 languages
  • www.fotolia.co.uk - UK
  • www.fotolia.com - USA
  • www.fotolia.fr - France
  • www.fotolia.de - Germany
  • www.fotolia.es - Spain

[edit] agency - library

I changed the word "agent" to "library" as Stock libraries are no longer the photographer's agents. An agent has the legal responsibility of using their best efforts to license all the images. However agencies took this agent language out of photographer's contracts long ago. Stock libraries now compete with their contributing photographers and often use their best efforts to promote their own work. (I moved this anonymous post to the bottom where it should be. You must be new here : ) --cda 14:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

That's a really good edit, anonymous. I see someone reverted that - I vote it should be "library" with an explanation. --cda 14:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Stock Photography Archives

I'm moving the List of Stock Photography Archives to my user pages because I have to agree that it doesn't fit Wikipedia's rules. (and it has been deleted) Mainly the rule that Wikipedia is not a link list. Feel free to continue to edit it at the new page. --cda 01:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)