Stock Photography
Quick note: I'd like to point my readers to the comments under the missions statement. Several stock photographers (or people with a knowledge and interest in the industry) have been posting some great stuff in that section. Stock photographers are deeply engaged in the crowdsourcing debate, for the excellent reason that stock photography is serving as something of a crowdsourcing beta run. As one of the posters, Russel Cord, points out in his comment, "More than any other business the stock photography industry should yeild insights into crowdsourcing unavailable eleswhere." This is, by my lights anyway, because the microstocks have advanced the crowdsourcing model more than companies in other industries (with the exception of some software development applications, which is a bit of the elephant in the room – more on that later). After a fairly rigorous scanning of the blogosphere for crowdsourcing commentary, I can honestly say some of the most provocative, interesting thinking is taking place in the give-and-take on this site between the photographers closely examining some the issues at hand in their field. Much gratitude to posters like Russel, Alan and others. Thanks to you, I'm learning more about this subject every day.
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the complement. Could you please spell my name right next time? Photography's a competitive profession, there's probably 100s of Russel Cords out there...
Say anything about me but please get my name right!
Posted by:Russell Kord | June 05, 2006 at 09:08 PM
Sorry Russel! Fixed.
Posted by:Jeff Howe | June 06, 2006 at 07:53 AM
Jeff,
Your breath of crowdsourcing examples from many industries is illuminating, especially for photographers who can sometimes be most wraped up in their own industry.
I would like to propose a further word in your new lexicon ... "Crowddumping". If going to the crowd for goods and services is renumerated at a rate close to that industry;s standards of compensation, there is, what for over a century, we have come to call "fair" competition. If going to the crowd results in renumeration far below levels common within an industry or service, thats "crowddumping".
Unfortunately its unlikely the WTO or anybody is going to be able to enforce dumping on this scale or at the levels of the individual producer. Its not like going after far east steel producers in the 1970s.
Also its seems to me the person going to the crowd is the Crowdsourcer, doing the crowdsourcing. The person doing the work for less than prevailing industry standards is the Crowddumper. The person who is making real money off all of this, by rights should be the Crowdsorcerer!
You might want to consider the issue of dumping in your next articles.
Have a good summer.
Posted by:Russell Kord | June 16, 2006 at 06:28 AM
Russell, Thanks for another great comment. I like crowddumping, and it points to the tricky issue of compensation levels. My experience from looking at various models is that compensation levels are proportional to (duh) skill level, and the relative scarcity of those skills. The fact is: a lot of people can take moderately good photographs, clean them up in Photoshop and post them online. Not so many people can solve a complex scientific problem, which is why Innocentive pays far more than iStockPhoto. Good food for thought, Russell, and thanks for posting.
Posted by:JeffPHowe | June 16, 2006 at 10:13 AM
"Quick note: I'd like to point my readers to the comments under the missions statement. "
Am I missing something? Where is the mission statement and the comments you are refering to? A link would be nice, because I'd like to read them.
Posted by:Andrew | July 11, 2006 at 11:20 AM