You beat me to this! I was just going to post the same question. They said they found my images through photo.net (I've only posted 3 there) and asked if I wanted to submit photos to them as well. They advertise heavily as a royalty free agency but actually seem to have quite a few rights managed images as well. I'll be curious to see if other's have been contacted as well.
Posted by Richard Wong on April 26, 2007 at 6:36 PM
I looked at the guy's portfolio site and resume, it seems like he is involved in the San Francisco ad and design industry. He refers to himself as a motion graphics and design person on his bio, so I wonder how much of his business actually deals with photo buyers.
Posted by Chuck Beatty on April 26, 2007 at 7:23 PM
I received the same email today. I checked their site (http://www.juicystock.com) and found that they must be fairly new to the stock image game. None of the categories I checked had more than a few pages of images. Many of the images were from the Middle East and Asia.
My guess is they're trolling through NPN looking for people to participate. Not sure what criteria they're using to determine who to contact.
I suppose it would be a good way to increase exposure (pardon the pun), but I don't have any experience with this. Anyone out there want to comment on the pros and cons of stock photography?
Posted by Randy Beacham on April 27, 2007 at 1:02 AM
I've been with several online stock agencies or web portals over the past seven years. Out of maybe seven or so sites there's only a couple that I would say are worth the time and effort. The first online stock agency I signed up with made me maybe only about three hundred dollars over the course of about five years. It was finally gobbled up by istock and I chose not to have my photos included with them.
The only site that I make a steady income from is AGPix and that's because they have been involved in the outdoor photo industry for decades so photo buyers are used to using them, plus I've spent countless hours uploading over 600 photos with keywords since it's my main website (I don't have a personal website).
For outdoor photography in my opinion you're far better off by marketing your photos yourself, either with your own website or a portal like the one here on NPN. I've made several sales with the NPN site after directing photo buyers here--not by someone searching the site and contacting me.
I've never gone the royalty free route but from everything I've read and heard it's a waste of time for outdoor photographers. You may make a few more sales that way but the money earned just won't cover all the time and effort you'll take in uploading photos. Plus the biggest negative is that once you go that route you can't use the same photos for rights-managed sales.
With outdoor photography I think the only people who might make money with online stock agencies are the ones running the sites. Randy
I received a JuicyStock e-mail inquiry today. They made no reference as to how they found me. They simply said they enjoyed my photos on my web site. Has anyone done any more follow-up on them?
I also received an email from them and took a quick look at the site. I replied and ask that they take me off their email list since I wasn't interested, primarily because it looks like the majority of the images are royalty free and I think it would be hard to compete on a site that sells both if you're like me and only sell rights managed. The other problem I had and mentioned was their indemnity clause, which basically says that the individual photographer would be financially responsible for defending both themselves and the agency from lawsuits that may arrive over images on the site. For the small amount of money that might be gained on a site like that it just isn't worth the financial risk. Randy
My guess is that they contacted everyone who has a portfolio on NPN. After checking the content of their website I can only guess that they want to upgrade to better quality images.
Discussion
7 replieswww.juicystock.com
You beat me to this! I was just going to post the same question. They said they found my images through photo.net (I've only posted 3 there) and asked if I wanted to submit photos to them as well. They advertise heavily as a royalty free agency but actually seem to have quite a few rights managed images as well. I'll be curious to see if other's have been contacted as well.
My guess is they're trolling through NPN looking for people to participate. Not sure what criteria they're using to determine who to contact.
I suppose it would be a good way to increase exposure (pardon the pun), but I don't have any experience with this. Anyone out there want to comment on the pros and cons of stock photography?
The only site that I make a steady income from is AGPix and that's because they have been involved in the outdoor photo industry for decades so photo buyers are used to using them, plus I've spent countless hours uploading over 600 photos with keywords since it's my main website (I don't have a personal website).
For outdoor photography in my opinion you're far better off by marketing your photos yourself, either with your own website or a portal like the one here on NPN. I've made several sales with the NPN site after directing photo buyers here--not by someone searching the site and contacting me.
I've never gone the royalty free route but from everything I've read and heard it's a waste of time for outdoor photographers. You may make a few more sales that way but the money earned just won't cover all the time and effort you'll take in uploading photos. Plus the biggest negative is that once you go that route you can't use the same photos for rights-managed sales.
With outdoor photography I think the only people who might make money with online stock agencies are the ones running the sites. Randy