One of the things that your agency may suggest to you (or you may find for yourself) is a “stock photography” assignment.
If there is one subject that is likely to cause great disagreement in the modeling business it is agency models shooting stock. There are valid arguments that a model should never shoot stock, and also that they should. Many agencies refuse to accept stock assignments for their models; others will pass stock offers on to the models for a decision.
What Stock Is
No, it isn’t pictures shot by photographers with two heads, horns and a tail even though that is the reaction some people have to it. “Stock” photography is a form of commercial photography: pictures taken with no known use in mind and put into a “stockpile” of photos that clients can choose from when they need a picture to illustrate an ad or story. Quite a few photographers make their living entirely from stock photography; many commercial photographers do it to supplement higher-paying commercial jobs. Stock photographs can literally be of anything (usually are not of people), and there is a robust need for models for stock.
Stock normally uses “real people” or “character” models, although some fashion model types may be used from time to
time. As a rule it pays much less than a commercial assignment. The photographer is betting that he can find a market for the pictures, but it may be months, years or never when he gets paid.
The vast majority of stock photos never sell; it is the few that do which the photographer lives on. Even though the pay is low, the “usage rights” needed by stock agencies are unlimited. So the model (and model agency) are in the strange position of being asked to accept a lower than normal fee for greater than normal rights. That doesn’t sound right, and so begins the debate.
