>Would you please explain me what is stock photography/photographer ?
>Is it some sort of 'free lance' photographer ?
Stock photography is in essence taking pictures that you hope you can sell
in the future but have absolutely no current customer for. There are
categories of stock photography, such as nature, sports, fashion,
lifestyles, etc. Typically, a stock photographer will get a speculative
assignment from some publication that may or may not use the
story/pictures. This publication representation is important, though, for
both tax purposes (otherwise it can be viewed by the IRS as a vacation) and
it gives you press credentials. If an "assignment" will call for 3-5
published pictures the typical stock photographer will shoot 300-500
pictures for each assignment, but all pictures remain the property of the
photographer. The publication that assigned you the 'spec story' gets
first dibs on the pictures, but all others are immediately available for
sale to whomever wants them. Even the published shots will revert to stock
as per the agreement (6-month exclusive, etc).
An ages old estimate of stock photo income is $10 per year per photograph
for five years. I don't think that is very true today and depending on the
photographer and agency it will vary from $1 per year per image is probably
as high as $20. There are always exceptions, with some lifestyle
photographers averaging $250,000 annual income on an active stock library
of 5000 images, but those are very rare. Stock photography is a numbers
game. The more images you have the more money you make. However, most
stock photographers will earn 500f their income off of less than a dozen
images. (how many of us have seen the picture of the sunflower pointed the
wrong way?)
Stock photography has really gotten screwed up the past five years as
agencies have, in essence, taken ownership of the photos and are paying
less and less money to the photographers. There is a revolt going on and a
number of top photographers are now self-marketing their best work and
giving their agencies the scunge shots and also-rans. In the meantime,
publications have dropped their picture needs by 50% and what pictures they
do print are the same worn out ones from image-CDs or lowcost agency
rejects. The multimedia world dried up so there went another market.
Annual reports are now handled through advertising agencies and use images
taken as part of other advertising projects so another market is dying.
Educational publishing has gone cheap and is paying less and less for
images. All isn't negative, though. Religious publications are gobbling
up images faster than they can be produced, but pay less than regular
publications--at least there is a market!
>> BTW, I consider myself a pro, and so does the IRS.
>
>Do you mean by Internal Revenu Service ? If so, why IRS comes
>into this thread ? Sorry, I do not understand.
Yes. If even a part of your photography is a business you must report
income. Self-employment taxes must be paid, along with any federal and
state taxes on the income. However, costs associated with the income are
deductable and equipment can be ammortized as a legitimate business
expense. Film/processing costs for stock photography is a hazy area that
can still, after all these years, trigger audits and you must prove that
the photos are for business and not hobby. That's where the publication
speculative assignments come in. I shoot enough weddings, corporate
assignments, etc., enough to make my photography a legitimate business. My
trip to the Badlands and Wyoming, although, triggered by personal needs,
may turn into a full-blown stock photography trip and if I can find a buyer
for a set of pictures will be a complete business writeoff. I will be
tracking ALL expenses.
It used to be that a certain percentage of income was required to be
considered a professional photographer. Not anymore. Any income from
photography must be reported and if your purpose is to make money (which
you must prove), it is a business. As meager as it was, I made over 950f
my total income last year as a self-employed audio/broadcast engineer and
photographer. I think that qualifies me as a "professional." Oh, to put
it in perspective, I still netted more money from photography last year
than 900f all professional sports photographers.
Ken Norton
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|