Demand for images is higher than ever, however, the security of many photo jobs is in jeopardy more than ever. One of the most heavily influenced genres of the past few decades has been stock photography. Is AI going to kill the genre altogether?
The Decline of Stock Photography
There was a time when stock photography was a viable profession from which one could make a living or a substantial side income. The ability to produce a large amount of technically suitable images quickly and consistently can mean building a large library from which one can enjoy a large license income. The studios have been looking for talented photographers they can trust to consistently produce stylish contemporary work that is sure to be sought after by publications. Good photographers understand editorial trends and developments, and can anticipate and respond to needs. And, unlike many other genres, once a photographer has built a large library, they can enjoy a substantial residual income for years to come. However, over the past decade, the viability of stock photography as a primary source of income has declined for a variety of reasons.
How to add pictures from amateurs
Simply put, the digital era has made it easier to get into stock trading. Anyone can upload a few additional pictures of themselves to earn some income. Multiply that by thousands upon thousands of photographers, and the contribution of stock photographers has dwindled.
Few photographers took the time to submit just a few shots in the film era, and that’s assuming they’ll even get a chance. More images means less chances of your photos being found and less total license earnings.
Changing attitudes and expectations
The advent of technology that allows even novices to take great pictures means that the group of “photographers” that can provide images has skyrocketed in size, thereby reducing demand for dedicated professionals. That comes with a shift in attitude: publishers know they can capitalize on amateurs or non-photographers excited about the idea of their images appearing in a publication. products to get photos at a significantly reduced price or even for free. Just go to Twitter and look up any trending event image, and you’ll see tons of news outlets replying with something like, “Hi, I’m from [news station]. Can we use this on our broadcast with your credit?” Most of the time, excited users gave their consent enthusiastically.This was only exacerbated by the decline of the printing medium.
Support reduction
The support agencies that provide the stock of photos to photographers have largely evaporated. While historical photographers working in agencies used to be able to expect their work to be actively marketed and advocated, today dealers are mostly middlemen providing large libraries for publications but do not do anything to support the individual’s cause. photographers’ the images they use.
Wage cut
And, of course, there have been repeated and severe pay cuts that photographers see. I won’t go into detail about how much wages have fallen since the 1980s, suffice it to say it has been substantial. Prices used to be based on circulation, intended use, print size, etc. That model has been greatly simplified, with most licenses covering only a handful of cases. What’s more, agencies often have a big cut these days. Many ads have a high percentage, usually around 40%, but you have to upload a large amount of files to get there, usually around 25,000. Typically you start at around 10-15%, which will generate a lot of ads before they reach sustainability.
Along with that decline came the rise of free securities, micro-stocks, and free securities. Royalty free started in the 1990s as a way to meet the needs of customers on a tight budget. Images are intentionally made very small so they can only be used for things like sub. These often come in a few hundred discs in a single disc, and as you might expect, buying images in bulk and at lower resolutions means lower prices for consumers and less for photographers. photographer. Moreover, the logistics of this system are not efficient or cheap. Customers often use expensive print catalogs to decide which royalty-free fusion discs to order, which are then burned onto a relatively new and expensive storage medium and shipped. These production costs mean lower pay rates for photographers.
This was superseded by the end of the decade by the internet, which solved the aforementioned production issues, but it’s no surprise that agencies have established lower royalty rates for photographers. have kept that lower even as costs come down, which means they will make more profit. Managed license rights still exist but royalty free continues to evolve. And then there’s microstock.
Perhaps the biggest blow to stock photographers, microstock started appearing in the 2000s for customers who wanted images that were cheaper than royalty-free. Microstock is still essentially a royalty-free repository, but there are a few key differences: resellers accept work from a wider range of photographers and often at a much lower quality standard and sell the work. That’s for a significantly lower price, which means paying less for photographers. Notably, some photographers still manage to make a living from it, playing number games and letting the payments of one cent or 50 cents per image multiply in libraries of tens or even hundreds of thousands of images. photos to generate a reasonable income. However, it’s not hard to see where it all started, and with publishers moving from the “good” to “good enough” era, things look bleak.
Since then, we’ve also seen an increase in subscriptions and even freebies. Stock subscriptions, such as the first royalty-free collections, further cut the photographer’s share, while the stock is free, well, not paying.
AI stocks
And that brings us to what could be the nail in the dedicated stock photographer’s coffin: AI. Image creation with AI has exploded in popularity recently, and the quality of the results can be called amazing or amazing, depending on your perspective. With just a few keyword prompts, the generator quickly pops up a bunch of images. Some can even incorporate pre-made images into the final output.
And before you think it’s just a hoax, note that the two main players saw the potential. In late October, Shutterstock announced a partnership with OpenAI, with plans to integrate DALL-E 2 into their platform. Adobe recently announced that they will now allow AI-generated artwork on their stock website that meets certain criteria. Undoubtedly, the major agencies see the potential of AI-generated images and are trying to figure out the best way to navigate today’s shady intellectual property issues to ensure they remain intact. get a piece of cake. And who is the loser when that happens? Personal photographers.
What used to be the biggest benefit of archival photography for advertising becomes its biggest drawback. Stock photography is inherently designed to create more generic images. This used to mean that skilled and market-savvy photographers could create large photo libraries that could generate a good income from royalties. Now, that means it’s the genre most vulnerable to AI-driven paradigm shifts. AI may not be able to produce a portrait with all the stylistic intricacies of an Annie Leibovitz work. But an office worker at a desk with a few specific requirements, such as their expression and the weather outside the window? Sure. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see companies move towards a system where they can quickly generate the exact image they want based on a text prompt instead of searching for something close enough in a library of certificates. securities.
What can save the stock photographer?
I do not know. I don’t think the stock photographer can save himself. They are (through no fault of their own) trapped in a system where they depend on agencies and agencies capable of acting in the best way for their profit. There will need to be a pledge to ban the use of AI images, but then there will always be people showing up to take advantage of its lack of monetization. I don’t think the monetization can be stopped. And the companies and businesses that buy the stock may not even be aware of what’s going on behind the scenes. They will likely see the growing convenience of AI generation and embrace it.
To be clear, I don’t think the stock photographer is going away completely. However, I really think it will continue to become a less and less viable full-time career until it becomes the best side income for anyone involved in it.
