Perhaps there is a flaw in the photo industry itself? Is the current model of licensing and selling photographs viable? What is the best way to sell your photos? Will open resource photo stocks increase supply growth until the number of photos reaches a level where photographers could not even sell good photos very cheaply and make money? money on those who sell them? Theoretically, this horrible scenario is likely to come true. Already, Shutter's stock alone offers more than 5 million photographs, which do not require royalty payments, and, as CEO John Orangey said, every month the number of new revenues is in the millions. The number of images in the Dreamtime bank also exceeded 5 million. Because old photos - sold or not - remain in their databases, the photo stock will continue to grow indefinitely. Since the proposal is ahead of demand - there have always been more photos than buyers in the world - prices will become lower and lower. In fact, this is something that has already given rise to micro-stocks. Between the licensing fee, a portion of $1 (the photographer only gets a few cents) and their photos, there is almost no difference. But photographers shouldn't just worry about the total number of photos available. In the end, it's hard to imagine prices falling even further. They should also be concerned about increasing competition. As the proposition continues to grow, each individual photographer's contribution to that proposition diminishes, as do their chances of becoming an author who has sold their work. In the photography industry, the same amount of money can be rotated, but this amount will be divided among an increasing number of photographers, while each photographer will receive less and less. At a minimum, these considerations...... middle of paper ......if photo banks increase, No Equivalents' own research has shown that buyers are willing to pay varying amounts of money depending on future use. They already have the opportunity to choose from almost 100 million photos with free Creative Commons licenses on Flicker, but if they want to receive commercial photographs they turn to microstock, but for more substantial purposes they are always willing to pay for traditional stock. runoff.More importantly, photobank runoff can grow indefinitely, but the buyer does not have the patience to choose for a long time. Unsold photos soon fall into oblivion, and old ones go out of fashion. Photographers who are satisfied with their income from sales quickly lose their earnings if they do not offer new photos. The photo industry itself may be flawed, but the problem probably lies in the idea of ​​countless thin sales photos..