Chris Dickman (bio)

While you could buy your way into the first two directories, the ODP was and remains a special case. Launched in 1987, this categorized site directory owned by Netscape Communications (AOL) differs in that each category is maintained by one or more volunteer editors, within a framework that includes more than 74,000 editors and 590,000 categories. The math makes the fundamental problem faced by the ODF brutally clear—there are simply not enough editors to adequately maintain the categories. And of the editors, some simply do not pull their weight. How do I speak with such assurance? Well, I was a volunteer ODP editor for several years.

Wait, that didn't sound quite right, let me back up a bit. At the time, one of the main reasons for getting a site listed in the ODP was not the resulting traffic (since it was virtually nil) but rather that Google attached a lot of importance to such listings. Google not only factored such a listing into calculating its coveted PageRank, but also displayed information from the ODF listings within the actual search results on Google.com itself. While it no longer displays such information, it still maintains the Google Directory, which is basically just the Resource Description Framework dumps from the ODF with the listings displayed in PageRank order, rather than alphabetical. The dumps, by the way, can be downloaded and used by anyone, and a fair number of sites make use of a subset of the listings, often spruced up with site screenshots from Thumbshots.org.

So I duly submitted Photos.com to the royalty-free stock photo category of the ODP, and waited... and waited... and resubmitted... and waited. And then as the months went by I finally gave up and applied to join the existing editor, an easy enough process. I had planned to simply add Photos.com, help out a bit and then discretely head for the exit as soon as possible. But once I got access to the admin back end I discovered, to my horror, a backlog of sites stretching back more than a year, with more piling up every day. Many listed sites had also submitted requests for updates, while other listings were dead or redirecting to inappropriate locations. In short, it was a mess. It seemed to me that the burgeoning royalty-free stock industry deserved better than this. So I stuck around, eventually leaving the category (I would hope) in better shape than I found it, before simply not having the time to continue keeping things shipshape.

After an absence of some years, I visited "my" old category recently and was chagrined to find that time had not been kind to it. There were more than a few dead links, some dubious listings and many of the newer royalty-free sites hadn't been added. I checked the bottom of the listings and, sure enough, there was currently no editor for the category. Abandon hope all ye who submit here! It was déjà vu all over again. This time my response was to simply construct a new, comprehensive listing of royalty-free image sites, something I've been working on for the last few months with the blessings of Jupiterimages.

What I've been struck with as I've searched for sites to add to Royalty-Free-Stock-Images.com, and its footage sibling Royalty-Free-Stock-Clips.com, is how much the current state of the RF market echoes Newton's Third Law of Motion. We've seen the rise of huge portals providing a vast range of images, but there has also been a corresponding increase in the number of highly-specialized sites, such as those with photos devoted to gambling, food, underwater photography, countries (Guatemala!), cities, fashion and even cannabis. The same holds true for stock footage sites.

While I've already added almost 300 sites to the Images and Clips directories, every time I go hunting I manage to bag some new ones. And I expect to see even more new niche photo and footage sites in the future. So if you drop by the Images and Clips sites and notice one that's missing, don't hesitate to let me know.

Chris Dickman
Graphics.com