Culture Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Photography High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Stock Market

Untitled

I worked for The Stock Market (TSM) NYC until 2003 and they were a big deal and were bought by Corbis and now my stuff is in Getty. I don't have any academic bona fides about this but I didn't want all y'all to miss one of the big ones, if it's relevant. Chrisabraham (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison =

Personally I think it would be really cool if we could set up something that compared types, availiability, count, and specialization. This way people could use this Wiki to find the exact type of Stock Photo site they need. --Brandalone 04:28, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't meant to be used as a sort of "yellow pages" directory, instead more as an summary of relevant information. I'm not sure listing companies is really the intent of wikipedia, but the topic is a valid one and the list suits its context. - Romann 04:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see why somthing similar to Comparison of text editors (etc) isnt in order... how would a table of comparing major stock photo outlets be "advertising" any more than the other comparison articles that deal with comercial products? ._-zro 06:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "comp"

"Also known as comps, complimentary images are lower-resolution versions of an actual photography that can be used for the purpose of preparing a demonstration of a design. Comps are usually downloadable for free from any given stock photography site."

"Comp" does not stand for "complimentary," it stands for "comprehensive layout." Richard K. Carson 08:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Advertising

THIS PAGE IS ONE BIG ADVERT! - max rspct 21:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Link

Is the Awesome photography (http://www.spaces.msn.com/members/cotas/) link supposed to just go to some guy's MSN group. I dont think the images are really up to a licensable standard. IMHO. --Pypex 23:07, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and it really isn't stock photography since there are no images which can be licensed. It ought to go under recreational photography==--Pixpixpix 00:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photographers Direct

I'm not sure if listing major stock agencies is appropriate for Wikipedia, but it helped me researching them (which was the reason I looked for the article). Photographers Direct [1] is probably another one worth including. Cheers.

Why Photographers Direct Specifically? If were going down this route, Shutterstock and Fotoliaare both worth mentions...

Tables

Yes, Wikipedia shouldn't be like a yellow pages. It is important to list the main players here though, and, to me, the tables should be set up like this:

Stock Agencies (just the main players) plus what is the commission they pay out to photographers?
Microstocks should be in their own table and also include their "cut" plus if they sell just royalty free or also rights managed
Non-commissioned agents (the photographer pays a monthly fee only) - StockPipeline and PhotoTool, Smugmug come to mind
Software for photographers to sell their own photos from their own website

I'd also like to know if a website sells prints (some do some don't and that distinguishes them, to me). I might start working on this but it's a big job so jump in if you are interested! cda

Unbiased MicroPayment Discusion

I removed this link because it was broken and the front page of that site does not have a working link to it. Maybe it is a work in progress? If it is your site and it is working again feel free to put it back.

Unbiased MicroPayment Discusion

--cda 16:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microstock site experiences

I removed this. Maybe this link would be appropriate on the microstock page.

Microstock site experiences A list of microstock sites with the author's experience with them

list of notable stock photographers

I started a list of notable stock photographers because I think that is something extremely hard to find on the internet. But it was deleted for being too small. Argh. If you know of a notable stock photographer could you please add it here so I can try again?--cda 14:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Haas

My two (or three) cents:

Tom Grill [2], a founder of Comstock, very successful

Charles (Chuck) O'Rear, creator of the "Bliss" background for Windows [3], which sold for six figures

Ralph Clevenger, creator of the very popular iceberg image discussed at Snopes [4]

Richard K. Carson 05:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Richard --cda 12:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agency - library

I changed the word "agent" to "library" as Stock libraries are no longer the photographer's agents. An agent has the legal responsibility of using their best efforts to license all the images. However agencies took this agent language out of photographer's contracts long ago. Stock libraries now compete with their contributing photographers and often use their best efforts to promote their own work. (I moved this anonymous post to the bottom where it should be. You must be new here : ) --cda 14:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

That's a really good edit, anonymous. I see someone reverted that - I vote it should be "library" with an explanation. --cda 14:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stock Photography Archives

I'm moving the List of Stock Photography Archives to my user pages because I have to agree that it doesn't fit Wikipedia's rules. (and it has been deleted) Mainly the rule that Wikipedia is not a link list. Feel free to continue to edit it at the new page. --cda 01:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is H. Armstrong Roberts

"One of the first major stock photography agencies was founded in 1920 by H. Armstrong Roberts, which continues today under the name RobertStock." Gonna need a source on this one since the last editor specifically mentioned this person as a pioneer of stock photography. Google search and Google Scholar search returns very limited info. Pixy132 (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For me, Google Search returns some galleries of his photos and stuff like that, but no biographies on history websites or anything like that. Can't find birth/death date, personal life information, or anything like that. He seems to be a real person, but the fact that GS only returns stuff about his photos and not anything else about him seems odd. Hop on Bananas (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about Roberts inventing stock photography in 1920 was added in this edit with no source. Check the date-might be a candidate for longest undetected dubious statement. Hop on Bananas (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: A search for "history of stock photography" reveals that whoever added the bit was taking the piss and now what they wrote is everywhere. The most useful result was this which has some interesting info on Roberts's life, but not enough. That being the closed thing to a Roberts biography is a tipoff to something, but I don't know what. Hop on Bananas (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2: A search for "h. armstrong roberts biography" returns no actual biography, but found the webpage which reveals he lived from 1883 to 1947. Also see my link above. Hop on Bananas (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stock photography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t explain stock photos

This article does not actually explain stock photos! Ripleysnow (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Free stock websites

When did free stock websites start/become good? I remember it being really hard to find good photos on them 10ish years ago. Tiggeritian (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stock Photography and AI

There has been a lot of discussion about stock photography and AI. It would be a good thing to add. Tiggeritian (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]