Imgembed Helps You Make Your Photos Easily Embeddable and Monetizable


Freshly launched over at SXSW 2013 in Austin, Texas, Imgembed is a new startup company that aims to promote the legitimate use of photos online. Well, it’s actually the latest in a string of companies to tackle the embeddable photo concept. For photo purchasers, it’s an easy way to find, pay for, and use images. For photographers, its an easy way to make your images available for purchase.

Two similar companies we’ve featured in the past are Stipple and Picuous. Stipple is still in the game, while Picuous has already tapped out (it’s domain name is currently for sale, priced at a little under $5K).


The basic problem all of these companies are/were trying to solve is this: photographers have a much harder time controlling the use of their content than video creators. Videos are generally uploaded to one of the major video sharing sites on the web (e.g. YouTube, Vimeo), and then used across the web by embedding the original video from the original source. The creators can control whether their video is embeddable or not, and the embedded videos still make money based on how many times they’re viewed. Everyone wins.

For photography, on the other hand, photographs are almost always download and uploaded to private servers, taking control out of the hands of the photographers and placing it into the hands of the users. Once it’s rehosted elsewhere, the photographer cannot take down or watermark the image without things getting messy (e.g. contacting the user, threatening legal action).

Imgembed wants to change the paradigm by becoming a central source of images. Photographers upload their images to Imgembed servers, where they’re displayed with embed code, just as YouTube videos are.

Content users can then copy-and-paste the embed codes onto their own websites if they’d like to display the photos, and pay a price depending on how the images are displayed and how many times they’re shown.


Photos are free to use for up to 10,000 views as long as you’re willing to display attribution alongside them. If you’d like more views or want to show the photos without attribution, you’ll need to pay a price for every 1000 views.


On the photographer’s end, they’re given the ability to set CPM (how much money they’re paid per thousand views), watermarks, and permissions from their Imgembed dashboard. Want to add a watermark to certain photos on a certain website? A single click will make it happen.



Want to see who’s embedding your images? The service provides detailed analytics that include where your images are being used, how many times they’re being viewed, and how much money you’re making through them.



Here’s a video that gives a basic introduction to how the service works from both a photographer’s and a publisher’s point of view.

If you’d like to get started as a photographer, head on over to to the Imgembed website, where you can have all your photos from certain photo sharing services (e.g. Instagram, Flickr, Facebook) automatically uploaded to Imgembed servers.

Imgembed (via DesignTAXI)

  • Frank McKenna

    Looks like a super cool concept. The sign up screens and updating profiles doesn’t seem to be working correctly yet but a great idea that should catch on.

  • David Liang

    It’s not a bad idea in itself but as a start-up they need content, and it’s very hard to get users away from a Google+ or Flicker or 500px. Their best bet would be to try and sell or license this technology to one of those above, who already have content and users, far easier integration and deployment.
    In today’s market if something is even remotely hard to integrate it generally doesn’t get integrated.

  • ietion

    +1 Frank – it seems to be having issues with both chrome and explorer

  • Neil

    Good idea, not ready for prime time though, very buggy. I joined, uploaded and deactivated already…next!

  • Scott Verge

    Definitely an interesting idea but I’m not getting the paid for clicks thing. Are blogs and such that might want to share your picture really going to pay you for it’s use?

    I mean right now you can embed a youtube video in your blog or page and you don’t have to pay for it right?

    I can certainly see it as a great way to keep track of how popular your images are and who’s viewing them and leading potential clients and prints customers back to your page but besides that I’m skeptical.

  • ranhoff

    who said ‘img’ can be pronounced ‘image’? With out the video i’d be telling my friends about this new site called “I’m Gem Bed”

  • Mansgame

    I’ll give them 4 months before they close up shop and go back to working at Starbucks. Flickr and pretty much every other picture sharing site has an embed feature that links back to the original image.

    Of course, that’s not a paid concept but no self respecting webmaster is going to emed and image to another site and take the risk of the image being removed or altered without their knowledge. And what about print media? They tend to use graphics too.

    And please guys, don’t screw up my latte.

  • Eziz

    It’s a pretty neat idea. However, one crucial difference between video and a still image is that you can always take a screen shot of the image. Well, you can actually download the video stream as well, but it’s a lot harder. Hope this factor won’t be detrimental to their success.

  • Gregor_Albrecht

    Arrogant much?

  • Alexey Pedosenko

    Stock-photo agencies? No, haven’t heard about them.

  • James

    “no self respecting webmaster is going to emed and image to another site and take the risk of the image being removed or altered without their knowledge” He makes a good point.

  • James

    Well with youtube, you don’t get an option for professional use, IE with out overt accreditation.