What this whole microstock thing reminds me of is the advent of napster, mind you those artistic files were free to every college student in America, who gladly downloaded them for free, ripping off the artist. Now, media is doing similarly and the true artists are being edged out by some pretty meager talent.

The question this whole scenario begs to me, is why are the fine arts in general being marginalized in our society to something for the hobbyist? This all goes back to the final destination that is the information age. A new enlightment will have to come before art regains some foothold as valuable. When was the last time you saw a major movie studio put out something truly artistic and amazing?? I thinks it’s true to say that for “everyman” this is an exciting time, but again he’s numbed to the absence of art.

If you feel that you are not being properly compensated for your equipment and time, perhaps you should be able to produce quality images with cheaper equipment and less time involved. Efficiency is key in microstock.

While I don’t make all of my living from photography, it certainly comprises a good portion of my total earnings.

Regarding the “driving down of prices of photography in all areas”, does anyone think that other industries have not suffered from the global availability of knowledge? How many people are now self-taught at web development, illustration or other fields that in the past required a degree? I’m sure that colleges and universities are feeling the pinch as well.

All in all, I can’t think of a way other than microstock to make a few extra hundred dollars a week from approximately 4 hours each week of work. Just my two cents from the other side of the fence.

As distribution of virtually all forms of media move from fungible goods to digital/internet (newspapers, magazines, music and movies) the margins and ability to compete in the marketplace of those who continue to distribute via physical medium, have declined dramatically (as we all know). This is further complicated by the fact that most internet content is free. The necessity to cut costs pushes all players (digital or print) towards RF/Microstock content, particularly when, to the publication, the value differential between RF and RM is minimal which the $ differential is large (ie. yes the RM is better, but does the consumer really care/notice?)

The microstcock industry has been able to capitalize on this transition and turmoil due to (i) the number of people who have digital cameras and access to the internet, (ii) the aforementioned industry demand for cheap media to control costs, and (iii) the willingness/ignorance of an ever growing number of individuals to participate in the system.

This willingness/ignorance to participate comes from two main sources: (A) the few professionals who are able to make good money in MS are used as posterchildren for the industry to convince others that they too can make good $, and/or (B) those whose only motivation is to see their work used commercially/portfolio/want some extra $ but have day jobs.

The vast majority of the (A) participants quickly realize the low return and exploitive nature of the system and stop contributing, but the number of (B) shooters is large, growing, and quickly becoming a virtually limitless source of content, as many other posters have mentioned.

There is no way to put a stop to this… it is the nature of economics. Unfortunately we are the inefficiency in the marketplace. As such, we are witnessing the elimination of our ability to maintain the prior value of our product as the market evolves… it is the Wal-Martization of the Photography Industry and we are the corner hardware store.

In the spirt of full disclosure, I fall into the B category, and shoot for the love of the craft I make a little money every now and then, but do not participate in microstock and charge a proper price when I sell/license an image.