These are all fascinating questions that deserve a lot of thought. I remember a time back in the 1900’s when only the best of the best images made it to stock. They had had a high value because the right stock image could save an ad agency a lot of time and thousands of dollars on an from-scratch photoshoot. It was a win win situation because the agency saved time and money for it’s client and the photographer who provided the image made a fair sum for the use of his work. Maybe not as much as if he/she had been hired to do a fresh shoot, but fair none the less.

Now with technology being what it is, everyone wants to jump on the band wagon. Anyone with $500, can go out and buy a DSLR and call themselves a photographer. They may not know an f’-stop from a bus stop but they have a camera and a business card and they are off and running.

Sadley many consumers of photography are poorly informed. The feel that intellectual property laws are a bother, outdated and need to be ignored. They don’t understand the value of protecting another’s rights, perhaps because they have never created anything of value themselves.Whatever their reasoning it is shortsighted and uninformed.

I know the industry is changing, and while I appreciate the value companies like the micro-stock companies bring to the industry they should not be seen as a replacement or even a substitute for rights managed agencies. There is room for both, each in their place and more people would be well served to learn more about both.