This article will not give you all the information necessary to entirely eliminate the need for stock photos in every situation. However, this article will give you some ideas and strategies to wean yourself and perhaps altogether eliminate your need for stock photos. I firmly believe that if you put your intentions behind the idea, you can make huge strides towards eliminating the need for stock photos altogether.

The very first thing you need to think about is whatever media project you are working on is, do you truly need a photo at all? Chances are that you are working on a website, book, magazine, brochure, news story, banner, or some other media project. Alternatives to photos might be diagrams, cartoons, illustrations, and drawings that you or a graphic artist you hire can create. Can you take your own photo to fit the need?

If you hire a graphic artist to create your own artwork, do not hire anyone in China or India where there is very little respect for intellectual property. They may be inexpensive but you can never be assured that their work is original. There is little recourse for their bad behavior because they are so far away. I recommend hiring graphic artists from the U.S. because as a professional community, they have a greater respect for intellectual property than their Chinese or Indian counterparts. They will think twice before using pirated material.

I would avoid hiring any company that outsources their work to graphic artist worker bees. In other words, I always want to deal and negotiate with a graphic artist professional themselves, not some agent or agency that farms out graphics art work.

If you do want to use and take your own photos, I highly recommend investing in a good digital camera so that you can begin taking your own photos. I also recommend getting to know amateur hobbyist photographers who have access to good cameras and enjoy taking photos. Very often, amateur photographers with good cameras are trying to find a way to justify the costs of their hobby. By hiring them inexpensively, you can get some great looking photos but also help the amateur photographer pay for his hobby. Make sure they understand that you are they are working for hire and that you will have full ownership and rights to the photos.

Professional photographers can be expensive depending on what you want and who you use. For these folks, I recommend bartering with them for exchange of services if you have talents in your profession. I find many professional photographers finicky. They will sometimes not give you full ownership or rights of the photo even though you paid them to take a photo. They are quite protective and their thinking is aligned to many in the stock photo industry. Admittedly, this is a broad generalization and based only on my experience. I am simply not optimistic that you will get good value from a professional photographer but it certainly does not hurt to try and negotiate with them.

Another source of quality photos is product photos from product manufacturers. Often, they are happy to have their products publicized and placed in a positive light and will give you free rights to use their photos. Product companies mostly police and control their photos because they don’t want their photos used in a manner they did not intend or in a way that paints their company or products in a negative light. Many will grant you free usage of their photos if you approach them the right way. However, large companies can be a challenge sometimes because of their size. They may be so large that they may not even get back to you. Again, it never hurts to try. Product companies are in the business selling more of their products, not sue people who use their product photos.

If you choose to take your own photos, invest in a digital camera that can take a resolution of 4 megapixel images or higher. You want to take high-resolution photos as your master copy. You can then “downsize”, crop, and enhance the photos for your websites or other uses. I recommend buying an easy-to-use photo editor such as Adobe Photoshop Elements 7 or Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 that allows you to crop and resize photos easily. The photo editor can greatly enhance the quality of the master photos you take. You can also enhance colors and adjust lighting with the software. Special effects such as blurring, stretching, pixelating, framing, adding captions, etc. are included with photo editing software.

I truly believe that with the increasing power and technical capabilities of digital cameras, cell phone cameras, and camcorders, the value of stock photos and stock photo companies will eventually decline. It is going to be a losing business to be in. This whole notion of extorting your way to profitability is distasteful and eventually will fall by the wayside much like what has occurred in the music recording industry. One only has to look to RIAA for that lesson.

Along the “do-it-yourself” philosophy, you should have the mindset that you will fit images or photos you create to your media project, not let your media projects deciding the specific images you need. Stock photo companies are trying to brainwash you the idea that THEY have the “perfect photo” for your particular needs. If you are creative, imaginative, and resourceful enough, you will almost always find an alternative or work-around solution that does not require the use of stock photos.

If you want to show the stock photo industry you don’t need them, the best way is to simply generate more of your own photos to devalue theirs and then use your own. I have published two books recently and have been able to successfully avoid using stock photos of any kind. I used my own photos as well as authorized product photos. I created my own artwork. If more publishers, graphic artists, and graphic designers started doing this, I truly believe the stock photo industry could be brought down to their financial knees very quickly.

Many years ago, people said that we would run out of .com domains available because all the good ones were taken. It is true it has become more challenging to find a good .com domain name. However, I have made it my policy to not deal with any domain speculators or domain squatters. I won’t be extorted into paying thousands of dollars for an available domain I can register for less than $10. And because I have set that restriction and policy for myself, I have always been able to find many suitable .com domain names for my various websites.

It is the same principle here. Think abundantly. Think creatively. Tap into your imagination. There are many ways to implement a visual concept besides a specific photo you might have in mind. There are many ways to implement a concept visually. Do not let the stock photo companies brainwash you into thinking you have to use their particular photos because there are no other ways of finding an image for your particular website, logo, banner, sign, book, magazine, or other product.

The best kept secret that the stock photo industry hates are government websites and their photo collections. Great public domain photos can be found from U.S. government agency websites. “The people” own the photos, not any one individual or organization. USA.gov is a government-operated website that was launched to help U.S. citizens have better access to various government agencies and resources. Specifically, USA.gov has a page called U.S. Government Photos and Images which contains links to government agency websites that have public domain images. The diversity of images available is quite impressive. An off-shoot of that page is the State Photo & Multimedia Galleries which links to public domain images at the State level.

Some of the more notable ones I like and found impressive are listed below:

• NASA Images has space-related photos.
• Our Earth as Art has photos relating to the earth, weather, oceans, and nature.
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s National Digital Library has photos relating to animals, plants, nature, and wildlife.
• NOAA Photo Library has several collections of photos relating to nature, weather, oceans, and wildlife.
• U.S. Department of Defense DefenseLINK has photos relating to the military, war, politics, and the President.
• Library of Congress Geography & Map Reading Room has images relating to historical and current maps.
• National Archives America’s Historical Documents has images relating to history, politics, and historical events.
• National Park Service Digital Image Archives has images relating to nature, history, and national parks around the U.S.

Are you impressed with these websites? I was. It is all free and much of it is available in high-resolution. However, you should realize that not all images from government websites are public domain. You will need to seek out the image usage rights notices on each website. As I said USA.gov is a great starting point to a wealth of high-quality public domain photos.

If there are any other great public domain or government photo sites, please let me know and I will add them. If you have any additional tips to stop using stock photos and boycott the stock photo industry, send them to me and I will incorporate them into this article.

Heck, they may not want to renew my membership after what I have to say about them in this post.  Admittedly, I am a new member of IBPA and have not quite figured the culture of that association but I quickly figured out much of the membership are smaller publishing companies and self-published authors that are not very business or legal savvy.  Many are quite vulnerable in my eyes.

Because of this membership profile, I felt it was highly likely someone in its membership would one day receive a Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter like I did.  Most people receiving this letter uninformed and unwarned, would be intimidated by this letter.

I explained to Terry, both by email and by phone, why I thought the membership should be made aware of this.  He said that the newsletter editor was not interested in the story.  I am thinking to myself, whether you agree with me or not on my take on the Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter, that it would be worthwhile for the members to know about it.  Who the hell wants to receive a legally threatening letter?

If publishers and authors knew, more people would either be more careful about the images they use, the graphics they buy, the contractors they hire, and so forth.  No one has to agree with my particular position to appreciate the fact that being loose with image usage can bring about a high price to pay either in time, money, and/or aggravation.

After all, almost every publisher, large or small, hire either employees or independent contractors to create websites, book covers, graphics, page designs, etc.  Almost all of them use images in some way, shape, or form.  A lot of the publishing business is hiring independent contractors to help create and produce a product.  One of the biggest reasons I am publicizing my own involvement with the case is to both educate and warn others.  I also believe that getting publicity for your case helps in supporting and defending it.

And yet, here is Getty Images, one of the largest providers of stock photos in the world runs an underground mail letter campaign to alleged copyright violators.  A casual search of the subject, reveals a ton of information on the subject.  And yet, IBPA didn’t think it was even worthwhile for a mention in their newsletter.

Terry Nathan was pleasant and professional but was pandering to me.  I told him if he thought it was unimportant or irrelevant to tell me directly.  Don’t just be nice to me.  The conversation was becoming painful as I listened to him try to say something that would appease me.  But I am not stupid, a no is a no and it was a waste of time to talk anymore.  I quickly figured out he is an administrator of a non-profit organization that really has no teeth.  They are bottle-necked by their bylaws and committee.

A casual search on Google reveals that my websites are among the dominating sites informing the public about the Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter.  The traffic hits coming in are increasing and so are email submissions.

My gripe is centered on Terry Nathan and IBPA, Independent Book Publishers Association. I told Terry that he didn’t have to do anything and I am not overly concerned about my own situation because I feel confident in my ability to defend my position.  However, I told him don’t ever say that I wasn’t try to help the membership.  And if a member in the near future runs into this situation, don’t every say that the IBPA did not have the opportunity to prevent getting a Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter.

If you happen to be an IBPA member reading this, you should realize that they chose not to pass along the information I provided.  I was even willing to be anonymous and let them take credit for reporting this story.  But since they have chosen to turn a blind eye, I am using this blog, my online platform, to get the message out.

Terry mentioned that maybe an article about copyrights would be helpful.  I could not have strongly disagreed more.  It is too generic and too broad.  People want to know about real-life case studies and situations like I am involved with.  If people choose to ignore the lessons that is their choice.  However, I feel a duty to let people know and let people draw their own conclusions.

This is one example why I launched TurnKeyPublisher.com and this TurnKey Publishing Blog.  I don’t need someone’s permission to let people know about what I know.  I can provide the information directly to the readership.  I don’t have to “make space” in some printed newsletter.  The power of the Google search lets people find the information they need directly from the people who live it, not hope or pray that some writer or editor will write about it.  People need to be informed.  Not everything is roses out in the real world.  I like talking about positive things but I won’t shy down from “negative topics” as well.

Terry said he was personally interested in receiving more information from me.  I believe he is only interested in the “soap opera” of it all, not passing the lessons to its members.  As such, I see no point in hand-delivering any more information to him since he has no authority or willingness to share the information.

Given this incident, my lone membership fee will not make or break them.  But I will be watching more carefully what they do and how they do things and I will be reporting information if they don’t.

Chloe Surdyk called late Wed. afternoon.  It was actually a cordial conversation.  I did my best to find common ground.  I understand their need to protect their copyrights and go after people but I did not agree with their tactics.

I told her I especially did not agree with her rationale that victims of Indian web designers should have to pay Getty Images especially when I contracted for a web banner, not specific images.  I also had little or no say in the selection of any images, only whether I liked a web banner or not.

She offered me a lower settlement (from the original $1,300) of $800-something.  I told her I did not agree with her and it was likely we would have to agree to disagree.  In the conversation, I told her I was not ignorant of the law and due legal process.  I have been to court many times to be a plaintiff and occasionally a defendant.  I was not simply going to “roll over”.  I told her I did my research on the Internet on Getty Images and I was informed of their upcoming tactics.  I told her I was not going to sit still and that I would likely publicize my interactions with her and her company.

My sense of embarrassment over this is substantially lower than my sense of outrage at their attitude.  Surprisingly, during most of the conversation, Chloe was cordial.  Even towards the end of the conversation, she said she would put into her notes to give me another 14-days to consider her offer.  Chloe even gave me her direct phone office line:  206-925-6779.

In my mind, there was no way I was going to “settle” with them.  I mentioned to her that she would likely have to sue my company if she wanted anything.  For now, I told her we would simply agree to disagree.

My next move is to get my “official reply” sent out by Certified Mail within the next couple of days.  I am biding my time as I continue to do more research.

=================================================

If you want to learn more about this case, visit ExtortionLetterInfo.com.

In fact, this whole fiasco is so outrageous that I have named this the Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter Extortion Scheme.  I think this term truly fits what they are doing.  The information I am finding on the Internet is simply outrageous.

I have launched ExtortionLetterInfo.com so that my blogs don’t get overrun with the Getty Settlement Demand Letter discussions.  If you are interested in what is happening with this, go visit the website.  Otherwise, I will keep this blog focused on what it was meant for, commentary on the publishing industry.

==========================================

Today, I received a Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter basically trying to extort from me a payment of $1,300 for a bird image that was used on theintrepidway.com website.  If I pay that amount, basically they agree not to sue me or my company.  However, suing and winning are two entirely different issues.

TheIntrepidWay.com currently looks bare because I immediately took down all the web banner graphics to comply with the Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter.

For most of you reading this, you will be like me earlier today.  I had no clue what this was all about.  It would be many hours later until I discovered this extortionistic practice by Getty Images.  But, believe it or not, this issue is relevant to anyone who wants to put up their own website and intend to hire someone to design their graphics and images.

The “short version” of all this is that “Getty Images”, a photo-licensing company, actively sends out Settlement Demand Letters in the U.S., U.K., and Australia to unsuspecting website owners that have intentionally or unintentionally infringed on their copyrighted images.  ON the surface, this sound fine.

In my research, so many website owners are small-business people or companies that contracted web site templates and graphics from graphic artists/designers in India.  Well, apparently, the folks in India have a terrible reputation of stealing U.S. images and incorporating them in their web graphics and template design.

Unsuspecting U.S. website owners who want to improve the appear of their websites buy these web templates and graphics and use them on their websites.  However, months and years later, Getty Images sends this very nasty and threatening letter out essentially holding you fully responsible even if someone else did the crime.  I understand that employers are held responsible for many issues, however, what comes is on the verge of insanity and certainly not even close to reasonable.

If you are legally uninformed, I will tell you, it is a very intimidating letter unless you think this through carefully.  After I calmed down, I took the time to do a Google and Yahoo search on “Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter”. I think if you do the same, you will get a very interesting education.  It is actually devious because Getty Images do not do anyone the courtesy of a Cease and Desist Letter.  Basically, let people know that they did the wrong thing and allow them to correct the situation before you get nasty.

However, in one mailing, they ask you to remove all the infringing images AND ask you to pay this extortionistic amount so they won’t sue you.  What a great scam.  Start sending letters to anyone who made a mistake to correct the mistake but also demand a huge cash payment while you are at it in exchange for you to NOT sue them.  What a great way to make money.  Why bother going to court when you can simply instill the fear of a lawsuit into people?

And even if you have to go to court, there is this small matter of preparing and proving your case.  Is Getty Images (based in Seattle) really going to hire an attorney and sue me in Columbus, Georgia over a $1,300?  Perhaps they will sue for more.  But for what damages?   Punitive damages?  You want to punish someone for doing something they did not intend to do or know it was even occurring?  Those attorney fees might get expensive trying to sue a corporation over state lines.

I have been to court many times as a plaintiff.  It is not easy to simply make stuff or puff your case up.  The judge is usually smart enough to temper a case and not let a ruling get too ridiculous especially in a small claims case.

If it sounds like I am being cavalier, I am not.  I am treating this seriously.  However, I am not simply going to roll over.  I also have a few tricks up my sleeve if they truly decide to push the matter into the court system.  I won’t get into specifics but let’s just say the word will get out very quickly and wide to people, companies, and agencies I have never communicated to before.

I felt the need to post this warning message to warn others.  There are many, many angry people who have received similar letters from Getty’s Images.  I suspect they will want one more web source to consult and discuss this situation.

==================================================

If you want to learn more about this case, visit ExtortionLetterInfo.com.