The end of professional stock photography

I was in Baltimore yesterday, shooting city coverage for one of the universities I’m on assignment for on this East Coast tour. I was up on Federal Hill at dusk, along with a gang of a half-dozen other photographers. I tend to be avoidant of photographers when I run into them (the Delaware Water Gap waterfalls were lousy with them the other day)—they tend to remove me from the moment, and there’s all the checking out the pecking order business that I’d just as soon avoid. These were a sociable bunch, and it turns out they were on an Istockphoto gang shoot.

This got my dander up, as I regard the microstock concept, where clients can buy stock photography for $1 to $5 a pop, as a potentially devastating force to professional stock photography. What they told me only supported my bias. "I know someone who’s making $2000 a month!" someone said. "I’m making several hundred a month." Tell me now how that pays for a digital habit, much less the mortgage. "Well, I have a day job, of course." This is stock photography sourced by hobbyists, and it’s the fastest growing segment of stock. As someone who once drew a six figure income from stock (and still draws in the mid fives), this is not good news.

Here, though, is another opinion on the usefulness of this business model for the décor market photographers, from the Inkjetart newsletter.

Comments

[Bob]

It's "dander" not "gander."

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/5/messages/289.html

http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/740/dandruff/

[Bryan]

I wonder, does the early 90's copyright extention to architecture bother anyone?

And: This take on the stock photo market sounds like another long tail scenario.

Sure puts a damper on the high end market by limiting it to those who can tell the difference and have a need for it.

[lpkb (shutterstock user)]

I've heard this argument before and would be interested in hearing from a professional photographer whether you think these models of business are not just "stealing" clients, but also opening up new markets--people/organizations who wouldn't have purchased imagery before but can now afford it?

Most of the big companies will still pay for exclusivity (or much closer to exclusivity than these models!) won't they? I guess I wonder if it is just a way to help the little guy (small organizations, non-profits, churches...whose budget doesn't include line items for photos).

Thx,
lpkb