If you have a decent camera and an eye for design, you can turn your photography hobby into what I believe the youths these days call a ‘side-hustle.’
Selling microstock images probably won’t lead to a comfortable retirement at the age of thirty-seven unless you’re a magical photo wizard, but it is a nice way to share your collection and make some coffee money at the same time, and rest assured: your collection remains your collection. What you sell through stock photo sites are licenses to use work of which you retain full ownership (selling rights is an option if you want, though: see the Dreamstime section below).
One can also sell illustrations and videos on stock photography platforms, and video sales, particularly of the high-quality variety, sell for a pretty penny compared to standard stills.
I currently license on four different online platforms, none of which require exclusivity:
Shutterstock
I began with Shutterstock in the early days. Even though I now have almost a thousand more photos up on Adobe Stock, I still have a higher quantity of sales and total revenue some months on Shutterstock.
Shutterstock has some issues. In June 2020, the minimum commission was reduced from $0.25 to $0.10. Shutterstock apologists will tell you that the change in commission structure helps you earn more. Part of this argument is that there are now more tiers of purchasing options. This must increase quantity of sales, right? Sure. Whatever. It doesn’t, and loads of contributors have been vocal about earning less. Imagine needing to sell three items to make as much as you once made by selling one. It doesn't feel great, and Shutterstock has been remarkably obtuse in the implementation and defense of the policy.
The other issue introduced at the same time as the June 2020 minimum commission reduction is the yearly commission rate reset. Long-standing contributors and top earners on Shutterstock appear to be even more upset about this one. Starting in 2021, the commission rate for every single contributor resets to the lowest tier every January 1, no matter how many lifetime sales or lifetime earnings the contributor has. In actuality, this isn't a terrible hit to those who sell hundreds or thousands of files per month, but it's not great for lesser contributors, and it's insulting. What better way is there to tell long-time contributors that you don't value their contributions than to restart their commission schedules every year?
All in all, though -- you can make money on Shutterstock. I and many others do. Some left because of the June 2020 shenanigans, but most haven't. Information on the website is easy to find. The interface is clear and easy to use for contributors and subscribers. The Catalog Manager page lets you easily organize your files into categories, and Shutterstock has a very large subscriber base. Quality files sell, payments are smooth, and tax forms are easy to manage. I've had some pretty decent commissions as well - $10, $11, and $17 - so not all commissions are $0.10.
If you're interested in licensing your work on Shutterstock, please give Globepouncing an assist and become a contributor through this link.
If you want to purchase stock photos for use on your website or for any other purpose, you can also help Globepouncing out by becoming a Shutterstock customer through this link.
Adobe Stock
Adobe Stock commissions are some of the best in the business for photos and videos. Most photo sales on Adobe net the contributor between $0.33 and $3.30. With stock photography licensing being a business of quantity, seeing frequent commissions of about a dollar feels pretty good, especially when sales on Shutterstock and Getty are often a fraction of even Adobe's minimum $0.33 tier.
Adobe also tends to approve far more photos than Shutterstock at the moment. Shutterstock has been weird about approvals in the last year - they often give rejection reasons that don't make any sense. Many have wondered aloud on message boards whether Shutterstock even has real people reviewing the files anymore. I don't think they do. Adobe doesn't have that issue, so I now have nearly a thousand more files up on Adobe than I do on Shutterstock.
Contributors on Adobe Stock are given an Adobe Portfolio website to display 'Collections.' This is one of the best features of licensing your photos through Adobe. The portfolio site is a great way to display your photos how you want. I love the simple, elegant look of Globepouncing's Adobe Portfolio. Also, your Adobe Portfolio isn't restricted to the photos you have for sale. The Globepouncing Adobe Portfolio has a 'For the Fam' page for nice photos that aren't for sale on Adobe and photos of us for our family to see.
Although I do have some lean months on Adobe Stock, I have some great months, too. Adobe Stock is a quality operation.
iStock (Getty Images)
Getty Images has several subsidiaries to which a contributor might be assigned depending on the type of media one intends to sell and one’s exclusivity status. I license photos through Getty's iStock service because I am not exclusive with Getty.
Getty is a bit more relaxed than most other platforms regarding approval, and Getty's 'Contributor' app is solid and easier to use than the website. In my estimation, the website is Getty's weak link. Sales data and statements are a month delayed. Also, the statements themselves are hard to read - the formatting is terrible. I find myself checking the app for sales and views numbers and the website for earnings numbers. Why all the numbers aren't in the same place in real time is unclear.
Quantity is Getty's forte. The subscriber base is enormous, and the files fly off the screen. What's discouraging is that you'll have penny sales on Getty. For all the bad press Shutterstock has received since last June, Getty commissions can take some getting used to. You'll regularly find commissions of $0.01, $0.03, $0.07...you get the idea. A fair amount net commissions of about $0.50, though, which isn't bad, and, considering their scale and volume, the sales add up. I wouldn't ever give Getty my ring, but I don't mind our open relationship.
January 2022 update: Even though I only have about half as much stock up on Getty as I do on Shutterstock (to date - good things take time, and keywording takes forever), my Getty account now out-earns my Shutterstock account every month, and it's not close. By the time my uploads for Getty match my Shutterstock - or even my Adobe - uploads, comparing my Getty earnings to my Shutterstock earnings will be like comparing the Yankees payroll to the Pirates payroll. It's not that the Pirates don't ever beat the Yankees, but...y'know.
Dreamstime
Dreamstime is a smaller operation than any of the other outfits listed herein, but its quality standards and commissions are relatively high.
Three attractive features make Dreamstime different from the other platforms:
One: You can sell the rights to any photo you wish. People have mixed opinions on selling rights because then you can't ever license the photo again because it's no longer yours to sell, but the sale of the rights to a photo comes at a price of your choice with a 50% commission. It's something to consider.
Two: Dreamstime lets you be exclusive AND see other people. You have the ability to mark individual images as exclusives and still work with other sites using any images that you don't mark as exclusive. Exclusivity on other platforms typically means that you can't sell on competing sites. Dreamstime lets you indicate exclusivity image by image. Yes, I've sold exclusives on Dreamstime, and yes, the commission is better.
Three: The more times a photo sells on Dreamstime, the higher the commission on that photo. Love it.
As of right now, the Dreamstime 'Companion' app is out-of-date and pretty glitchy. Stick with the website.
I'm also on a fifth platform, Alamy, but it hasn't borne any fruit. The Alamy website isn't terribly user-friendly, and my photos just don't sell there. Maybe they will - we'll see. Chances are I'm probably not shooting what Alamy customers want. Some people have success with Alamy, though, so I wouldn't necessarily discard it out of hand.
No matter what photo-selling platform(s) you use, once your photos are up and moving, you have a passive income stream - and who doesn't love passive income?
The quality of my photos has markedly increased since I began selling. Practice does make perfect, especially with a bit of extrinsic financial motivation. These days I use a Nikon D7200 DSLR with an 18-300mm lens, which is probably about as much camera as I'll ever need. Past DSLRs I've used include the Nikon D5500, Nikon D3200, and Olympus E-500. Honestly, though, I've sold photos taken with a tiny Kodak point-and-click with a high megapixel count, and I've even sold some photos taken on my phone. It certainly doesn't hurt to use a big camera, play with manual focus, and learn how to manipulate ISO and white balance, but a knack for framing is intuitive and invaluable. You have to learn what to shoot, so you just have to keep shooting. Much like the 76ers, it's a never-ending process.
It does take a lot of time and patience to build up your inventory and upload and keyword everything on each platform, but if you enjoy the process, why not profit a smidge, eh?
Thanks to Joanne (@simplyputjo) for telling me that selling my photos is a thing to do.
If you found this article helpful, sign up to become a member and find us on your favorite social media platform. Paws for travel!
Comments