Hi all,

Does anyone know if there is any stock photo agency out there where you can set up rules for which type of customers that are not allowed to buy/access your photos?

To me moral issues are more important than any money I may receive from my photos.

For.ex.:
I don't want to sell photos of animals to hunting magazines.
I don't want to sell nature shots to oil companies.

Those are just a couple.
I only photograph nature and wildlife and certain companies and publications are not something I want to receive money from or have anything to do with.

How about Getty, do they give the possibility to restrict in this way?
Any others?

Thanks,
Mats

Excellent question and one I also struggle with. I have asked my agency (allcanadaphotos.com) that very same question. And they partner with Getty and assorted other agencies, so some of my images are sold through those as well. The head guy at All Canada Photos is sympathetic to my concerns and said that, although he cannot micromanage images that way in terms of buyers, he could put a note with them listing the sorts of buyers I am opposed to. But I gather that is not necessarily binding. He can probably honour that himself when an image of mine is bought directly from All Canada Photos. But if the sale is through one the partner agencies, he does not have that sort of control and often he cannot even tell me where exactly my image was used. I find that very frustrating, so if anyone knows of a stock agency that only deals with animal and environmentally friendly (or at least neutral) clients, let me know.

In the meantime, I donate at least 10% of all image sales to animal advocacy and environmental groups and hope that at least compensates somewhat in case any of my images were used by the "bad guys". But so far, whenever I have been able to find out where my images sold through my agency have been used, it has always been something OK, and often great (like my image of a prairie dog used by the Humane Society of the US in their work to protect these often maligned rodents.

Roberta Olenick
Vancouver, BC
www.neverspook.com

Not as many replies as I would have thought on a site like this.
I was very afraid of coming back her first time after posting as all I've had as reply on other photography forums have been stupid comments from immoral individuals that live by the notion that no individual can make any changes and that it's futile and foolish to not want to maximize your income from the oil industry and other, in my view, immoral industries.
I was SO happy to see this like minded person, you Roberta, responding
So, thanks Roberta for your support and for informing me on how you've taken on this issue.

I guess one has to have a like minded agency owner or a very service minded agency to get some help on this. I do understand that it's impossible, under current world society values, to go all the way. I'll ask around and see if I can find an agency that want to help me with this.

As with every change, it has to start with a few individuals and grow. As demand grows, in this case demand from photographers, a solution will come, probably in the form of a niche agency and some smart software/databases that will assist in this kind of filtering. Decades ago there weren't that many photographers selling photos and therefore less power in demanding changes. With digital exploding there is more power to the photography community and changes will occur if we demand/ask for them.

I think you have very nice little compromise in donating percentage of revenues. I will copy you on that. I'm of course also willing to donate any photos to conservation efforts and relief efforts in the nature/wildlife sector.

I do not know the answer, but you might try this smaller company that deals mostly in nature photos:
http://www.animalsanimals.com/Index.asp

Thanks Stephen, I will.

I have been with various stock agencies for about 20 years, they are large and small reputable agencies and I know they would not probably do that. Stock agent busineess is really on a major downswing and sales are really minimal and when sold the dollars is much lower than 10 years ago. So to put additional limits on stock sale would not be a good business decision for an agent. I would recommend that to just sell on yoiur own, I sell many photos to hunting magazines, but again I am a hunter and I also drive a vehicle tha tuses gas and oil. My stock sales on my own is multiple times greater than through my two agents. More work involved but the dollars are also greater.

I think Roberta has put it nicely. Just look for an agency that will accommodate your wishes. It's good to see some folks where money isn't the goal (unless it's what you do for a living). Sometimes I get requests to use a photo of mine for a painting, etc. What I have done is ask them to forward a check to an organization like the local WildBird Care Centre for use of the photo.

There are few things. First, it's very hard to put limits like this. When it goes for commercial usage, most of sales doesn't go directly to end user, but to agency doing campaign for particular client. Often, these agencies don't even disclose for which campaign/client they are working.
And second... no matter how bad it will sound, personally I need to live from this. If this means BP (or any other oil company) will pay for my lunch, so be it. Afterall, I'm still driving around with car, or fly with plane, or even use electricity coming from thermal/hydro/nuclear power plants..., so if we want to be so strict, we should reconsider whole bunch of other things in our life too.

As a hunter, I would prefer that none of my images be used by any agencies that actively oppose hunting or trapping . . . but as far as I know, there are no stock agencies that allow you the option of limiting who can use your images.