A new online stock agency called ImageBrief recently launched in Australia. What’s different about this stock agency is that a photo buyer posts a description of the picture(s) they want along with the price they’re willing to pay. Interested photographers can then post any of their stock pictures which meet the buyer’s description. The photo buyer chooses the “winning” picture(s) and pays the photographer. The stock agency gets a commission.
So far, so good.
Look at some of the photo buyers:
• A coffee shop/bakery was looking for a picture to market its store. Rather than hiring a photographer to produce authentic photography of the store’s own products, the shop bought a stock photo which featured another company’s coffee and someone else’s baked goods.
Is this misleading advertising by the coffee shop?
• A pharmaceutical company was seeking a photo to promote how well its anti-cellulite cream works. Instead of hiring a photographer to shoot someone who actually uses the product, the company bought a stock photo of a model who has never used the product.
Is this misleading advertising?
• A cosmetic company, about to launch a new line of skin care products, was searching for a photo of a beautiful woman to advertise its new products. Rather than hiring a photographer to photograph a model wearing its new line of cosmetics, it bought a stock picture of a model wearing another brand.
Will this mislead consumers?
Purchasing commercial photography should never be just about cost. It’s about business message, company reputation and, in some cases, staying on the proper side of consumer laws.
Stock photography has its uses but a business must think twice about the true cost of using stock images for its marketing. If a company thinks cheap photography is the answer then it’s only fooling itself.
Added February 2015: For photographers, here’s a blog post about ImageBrief by John Harrington.
Added March 2018: The stock agency failed and shut down.
