Photo Business News archive, 2006–2026. New writing is at Substack.

ImageBrief: A scourge on the photographic industry

by
In May of 2011, self-proclaimed “…world’s first crowd-sourced image library…” launched. Since then, their speculation-based model of soliciting work has eroded the value of assignment-based photography and diminished the overall value of photography in the process. In 2007, Photo Business News published this article “nOnRequest – This is Not Your Father’s ‘Agency‘” where we outlined the failing idea of a “custom stock” business model. PBN wasn’t alone in this perspective. Photo District News, in an article titled “Revolutions that never happened” took a similarly dim view of the model, writing “Sometimes bad ideas take care of themselves. OnRequest Images never backed down from custom stock, but the idea was hard to explain and held little appeal to art buyers…Another custom stock service, iStockPhoto.com’s BuyRequest, also failed to capture much interest and was quietly discontinued last year.” A few weeks later, on stage at the Microsoft Pro Photographers Summit held on the Microsoft campus in Redmond Washington, we posed the question about the problems with OnRequest and their “custom stock” model. The head of OnRequest, David Norris, said “that model was interesting, but didn’t pan out.” We wrote about this in a follow-up piece titled “OnRequest – Realizing the Obvious“. I remain convinced that these people are following through on my anti-maxim “don’t let common sense get in the way of a good idea.” ImageBrief published quotes from their clients that appeared on the website around their launch such as “We’ve used ImageBrief for our ad campaigns and have had great results every time” but when we followed up with this user, he responded to our inquiry saying he’d used the website twice by that time and that “it was just much easier for us to pick from a tailored selection of images from pro-photographers than have to go through stock libraries like Getty who I found to be very expensive.” Another user was quoted on their website as saying “No more searching random library images.” When we followed up with them, they noted “…yes I still use the ‘image libraries’, just depends what I’m doing.”
(Continued after the Jump)
Sources in the industry have suggested that the CEO of ImageBrief, Simon Moss, cares about photographers and sustaining their craft, and that he is opposed to micro stock, and that he wants fair paying deals for photographers. Here’s an example of a problem with this:
A photograph is needed that does not exist. According to one of the quoted users we contacted, “if I do a search in Corbis for “businesswoman presenting” I get over 2000 search results.” He then said “If I need an image of a ‘businesswomen presenting in a white suit” I get zero search results. The benefit of ImageBrief to me is that I can ask for exactly what I want“. Ok, so we’re not talking about a stock image marketplace of already existing images, we’re talking about the appeal of ImageBrief being custom stock shot on spec by more than one photographer with maybe only one getting paid. Setting aside the earlier points by OnRequest and BuyRequest that this model does not work, consider this:
A license for an image like this could garner, let’s say, $400 for a simple use. That’s probably a fair licensing fee in a number of arenas. Oh, and if that’s the fee via Getty, the photographer will take home about $100 (making it decidedly less reasonable). Now, let’s say the businesswoman presenting in a white suit is the shoot. Someone has to produce the shoot, putting in time, getting the wardrobe, model, and doing the post production on the image. Let’s say four photographers then decide to produce the job on spec, in response to the “buyer brief.” ImageBrief’s client then cherry picks the work of one photographer. The selected photographer gets 70% of $400, or $280 and receives exactly $0 towards reimbursing production expenses, and the other three photographers get no fee and no reimbursed expenses. Consider the law of averages – if 4 photographers repetitively produce and bid on 20 shoots, they will only get selected 5 times. In this example, that would mean there’s 75% of available overhead, again, using the law of averages. I don’t think there’s anyone in the industry that will tell you there’s even 50% overhead in the business. The numbers get worse once you realize that the prospective buyer can also choose to not use any of the images that were produced, or if more than one photographer “bids” on the project.
According to an ImageBrief FAQ, when asked “Do image buyers ever commission photographers for shoots”, responded “not yet – but it’s coming.” I would ask – When? It’s been four years. Supposedly, according to this Huffington Post article where Moss was interviewed, he states “we recently began enabling buyers to hire photographers directly through ImageBrief. When a photographer books a job through ImageBrief, they keep 100% of the fee. ” But ask yourself, why would they commission a shoot when they can get multiple shoots commissioned for free with no obligation to actually buy/license a photo!
In a comment in response to criticisms that were made about this model, CEO Simon Moss wrote “One of the absolute key things I must stress is that we have definitely NOT built an ‘on-spec’ commissioning platform.” Moss wrote this in a comment on the APhotoEditor blog article “ImageBrief – Crowdsourcing Image Requests” back in June of 2011 shortly after their launch. Moss also seems to misunderstand what “spec” work is, when in a later comment he writes “Crowdsourcing photography is very different to graphic design though. Graphic design is almost always spec work… ie a business needs a custom logo developed and designers must create very specific work for the buyer.” Graphic design is almost always NOT “spec” work, because “spec” is short for “speculative” or on “speculation”, and NOT “specific”. One can only hope that since 2011 his understanding of this has been corrected. Yet, perhaps Moss and the rest of the ImageBrief folks need to review their official marketing materials. Deborah Kolb, in the Los Angeles area, is promoted by ImageBrief as “one of the most successful photographer on ImageBrief”, in a video here that was posted in January 2015, where she states in the video “sometimes I’ll look at a brief and I’ll say to myself ‘Wow, I might as well just shoot that instead of going through my computer and finding something that might match’” then they feature her shooting on spec for a brief. Later in the video she states she’s been on ImageBrief for about a year, and has “won 14 briefs.” The question is – how many has she shot? She states that the total gross for all the shoots shes “won” is close to $20,000 in sales, and states she would receive $14,000 in gross income, for ads that include clients like a billboard for a Las Vegas hotel and a Costco cover. She also states, as the “most successful photographer on ImageBrief”, that there’s something different “about shooting for ImageBrief.” So, it’s unclear how Moss can state they are not promoting spec photography and then put out videos where they are holding up those that do as the most successful on ImageBrief. On the ImageBrief blog here, they are now promoting more royalty-free buyer briefs because they are “responding to client demands and listening to the market.” They characterize RF as “RF is a perpetual license, with unlimited usage, worldwide.” Back in 2011 American Photographic Artists (then Advertising Photographers of America) issued an APA Alert warning photographers of ImageBrief as “a service that we recommend you avoid.” APA stated “We feel that this type of business scenario where photographers shoot on “spec” in hopes of having their work used will only further erode the hiring/licensing model that APA supports.” Some things never change. APA was right then, and the warning rings true still.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you’ve got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

Originally published on Photo Business News & Forum on February 13, 2015. Comments are closed; this post is part of the archive.

5 thoughts on “ImageBrief: A scourge on the photographic industry”

  1. ImageBrief’s model is certainly a struggling one. I have been in the licensing space for many years and believed from their outset that they would go nowhere fast with such a “spec” based model. There is so much mistrust in the image licensing business right now, I am sure their new 100% “giveaway” for commissions is going stir up a whole load of suspicions, especially as to get it one has pay for a rather expensive monthly or annual subscription, with no guarantees at all. They need do something, this is not it
  2. I just quit Imagebrief. I had been one of the “founding” member or whatever they call you. My thoughts are that after seeing most of the briefs are wanting high production value/cost images for less than what they cost to create. It also appears that creatives are using the system to get ideas. There isn’t a comp or layout, just some random thoughts that need everything released. Really?! It’s a great business model for the entity that is the middleman, they get paid by wishful thinkers and the image buyers get the image they want from time to time for way less than it would cost them otherwise. When I saw that there is some woman that they say is successful at shooting the briefs on spec and she really didn’t have much revenue, it got me thinking and as time went on, I got to the point that it’s the disrespect of what we as photographers bring to the table that enable entities like Imagebrief to assist in making photography an unsustainable business model. You really want great looking people in a setting where everyone is released and exactly done as you need with lighting and huge file sizes? Hire a team to produce it for you. Why should photographers be the one that take it in the shorts because they need to spend more on online/social media placement? Let them find alternatives to Google/Facebook/Twitter/Vine or whatever the platform of the week is that is more cost effective at reaching the audience. The people making the requests expect to be paid well, why should photographers be any different?
  3. Beware of Imagebrief ripoffs. After a year with Imagebrief it is apparent that unless you pay the $60/month premium membership, your images will never sell. Nor will Imagebrief ever respond to any emails or questions you have. If you do try to contact them you will receive a reply that they do not have time to get back to you unless you are a premium (paying) member. They also go thru your images and submit to vendors without your permission, only notifying you after the fact that this is what they did. I am quitting as there are other organizations out there that surely must not scam people like Imagebrief does.
  4. On the basis a month later you’ve enjoyed your Christmas & New Year travelings and back in the office, I’m re-sending the email for your comment. And by the way, the email address on your website – team @, never gets a reply other than ‘we’re very busy’ etc. Not a very satisfactory method of a supplier being responded to my mind. Below is the email I sent to you and ImageBrief in general in November twice, in December, now January and yet to receive either an acknowledgment, let alone an answer. Although I’ve only submitted to a few briefs that have emanated from ImageBrief, I’ve been in the business as a professional photographer for over 30 odd years supplying most of the International agency groups. Prior to becoming a photographer I was on the otherside of the fence and spent 8 years working for two of London’s top agencies – one of which is still the most highly awarded agency ever. Based on this, I feel I have enough knowledge and experience to pass comment. Lets look at one of the briefs I’ve been shortlisted on – Surfer with a missing limb. A very specific request and not one found easily in any stock library. I know, as I conducted an extensive search though all the usual suspects along with a few others and came up with nothing. The fact it is apparently for an advertising agency, for who knows what eventual client/product, suggests it’s a legitimate requirement. The timing from ImageBrief announcing this request with the closing date for entries, suggested some urgency was needed. However, some 4 weeks after the close of this, your client hasn’t made a selection from the four shortlisted images. What’s going on? Is this some kind of fishing exercise to get a few ideas in for them to shoot independently without having to go through the expense of accessing Getty? It certainly seems so from my side of the equation. And, from some feedback I’ve had from a couple of very senior art buyers in London, I’m having very serious doubts about the integrity of ImageBrief. You will not allow a watermarked image to be submitted by the photographer for initial selection. Why? I know you watermark them after you’ve got them. That doesn’t protect the photographer one iota from you doing anything with his initial image. I appreciate you being supplied is based on mutual trust, however the last two briefs I’ve supplied and been shortlisted for, both of them are on an unreal timescale of your client selecting anything. Having spent nearly 40 years working in and shooting for advertising agencies, along with supplying both corporations and editorials client direct, something is not right here. Perhaps you can persuade me to the contrary. Finally, I would like to know that any images that have been uploaded to your servers and then removed by myself, are permanently deleted off your servers and that no duplicate files have been made or being stored elsewhere. I look forward to hearing back from you, but I’m not holding my breath.
  5. For those of you who don’t know it, ImageBrief officially closed for business a few weeks ago. Upon notification I contacted them with concerns about collecting money they owe me for usage fees. I was promised someone would contact me within a week and I never heard. I sent additional emails but received no response. I expect they were already paid for the usage since it was months ago the photos were licensed. This obviously leaves me with a very negative impression of ImageBrief and the people who used to run it. Not very honorable at all. If by some miracle I receive payment I will let the Forum know. Mark Weidman

Comments are closed.