Rarely do photo editors have the opportunity to make explicit statements for themselves. Always in the shadows, struggling to support the ideas of others, the photo editor, like the film editor in cinema, is the unheralded voice and often the heart and soul of a publication. Time magazine put photo editing at center stage when it went frugal on its cover design for 'The New Frugality' issue, acquiring the cover photo from a microstock agency which, according to the photographer, cost them $30.00 for the license. King Kaufman at salon.com summarized the situation well.

Photographers and pundits everywhere took the opportunity to eulogize the stock photography industry whose death knell is almost out-tolled.

Here is a random sample:

Mark Stout: ripoff
JC Ridely: schmuck
Richard Sharman: microstock is ruining the business of photography

Those ready to throw in the towel on stock photography, to declare its demise, are mourning a fantasy—a golden age of the industry where one could take a few photos and retire on the royalties. Stock photography has always been a numbers game and has always rewarded those who could create a huge number of generic, rather bland, but masterfully produced and marketed images. Like everything else, the photography industry is undeniably changing, and quickly. But those who are willing to work creatively, not just in their images but also with their business model, and acknowledge the industry as it is rather than how they wished it was or how it used to be, are finding a niche for themselves. The real problem with the stock photography industry is the same as it's always been—that you have to work so damned hard. If you are considering making a living with stock photography or you're redrafting photography's seasonal jeremiad, you might stop and reflect on this video from Yuri Arcurs.

Perhaps competing with Yuri dissuades you from your master plan of uploading snapshots to alamy.com and waiting for the cash to roll in. There are other models for getting rich in photography. Consider the model of photographer Phillip Brunelle who won $1000 from an instant lottery ticket bought in a Massachusetts convenience store and then, in an act of chutzpah typical of successful people in this field, immediately purchased another and won one million dollars. The odds of winning a million in this lottery are 1 in 436,800 according to the Massachusetts State Lottery, or about the same as retiring on licensing fees from shots of daisies and blus skies. (Addendum: it appears Mr. Brunelle has mysteriously not turned in the winning ticket and might be keeping his day job)

And then there is photographer François-Marie Banier who is making his billion the old fashioned way: by charming rich widows. And he knows how to pick them. The widow in this case, 86-year old L'Oréal heiress Liliane Bettencourt, is the richest woman in Europe, third richest person in France, and according to Forbes magazine, her wealth, estimated at $13.4 billion ranks her as the 21st richest person in the world. Mme Bettencourt's daughter François-Marie Banier is accusing the photographer of taking advantage of her mother's age and mental state and making off with almost a billion euros in gifts and life insurance policies. Mme Bettencourt for her part says nothing could be further from the truth, that M. Banier is like a son to her and despite her daughter's protestations, she knows exactly what she is doing. M. Banier will be required to appear before a French court in September to face criminal charges. If found guilty he could be looking at three years in prison, and even worse, he would have to give the money back. If you've been getting a little tired of hocking images, dealing with nervous brides, and showing your portfolio to every photo editor in town, Forbes has compiled a list (complete with headshots) of heiresses you might consider should you want to follow in M. Banier's footsteps: In Pictures: World's Richest Women. Personally, my choice would be Jacqueline Mars (as in the candy bar). Her dad invented nougat.