| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/12/2006 07:35:32 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
psst brent NOONE is taking about selling the SAME image on micro sites as they are on macro sites. |
Do you think the macro sites want to police this just to make sure? And I've heard a few people on this site say the exact opposite. ;o)
|
|
|
|
01/12/2006 07:38:12 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Nope. Your failing to see the picture. If this happens when you sell a RF image for $300 a hundred times, imagine how more likely this becomes when you sell the same image a thousand times for a $1.
I understand the stock and photography pricing market VERY well. |
Nope. You're failing to make your point clearly.
You were describing a situation caused by Royalty Free images, and tying it into a (rather familiar) cry against the evil of microstock. The point is, the very instance you were holding up as an example of what a terrible thing microstock is for the industry could well have (indeed, most likely DID) come from a traditional stock agency.
Pick your fight and stick with it. Is it microstock you are arguing against today, or Royalty Free? If it's just the former, then all your earlier stuff about Dell is meaningless. |
Your still missing my original point. If this can happen with an RF image that costs several hundred dollars that's sold maybe a hundred times, imagine how more likely it is for a $1 image sold thousands of times.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2006 07:40:43 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
psst brent NOONE is taking about selling the SAME image on micro sites as they are on macro sites. |
Do you think the macro sites want to police this just to make sure? And I've heard a few people on this site say the exact opposite. ;o) |
and again i say to you should a pastry chef be refused a job for making cupcakes for her kid?
|
|
|
|
01/12/2006 07:43:13 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
psst brent NOONE is taking about selling the SAME image on micro sites as they are on macro sites. |
Do you think the macro sites want to police this just to make sure? And I've heard a few people on this site say the exact opposite. ;o) |
and again i say to you should a pastry chef be refused a job for making cupcakes for her kid? |
That statement doesn't even fit the topic at hand. That would be like myloupe.com turning me down for making prints for my family. ;o)
|
|
|
|
01/12/2006 07:45:59 PM · #55 |
| kids school you saw the quote earlier youre just messing around with sematics now. |
|
|
|
01/12/2006 07:52:03 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
psst brent NOONE is taking about selling the SAME image on micro sites as they are on macro sites. |
Do you think the macro sites want to police this just to make sure? And I've heard a few people on this site say the exact opposite. ;o) |
and again i say to you should a pastry chef be refused a job for making cupcakes for her kid? |
It's different.
It's more like getting paid as a chef to make pastry for a high end eatery, then making the same pastries and selling them for a penny out of the back of her station wagon parked in front of her employer.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2006 07:52:36 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Nope. Your failing to see the picture. If this happens when you sell a RF image for $300 a hundred times, imagine how more likely this becomes when you sell the same image a thousand times for a $1.
I understand the stock and photography pricing market VERY well. |
Actually, you're jumping to conclusions about WHO is buying the images sold by micro stock agencies and you are not allowing for the fact that the concerns of these customers may not be the same as the concerns of traditional macro stock agency customers.
Let's imagine an image that has sold on traditional stock agencies under a royalty free arrangement. There's certainly a possibility that customers who have bought the image are hoping that there won't be too many others who have bought the same image, especially customers that have nationwide or international campaigns. To be honest, I don't have huge sympathy - if they want any kind of exclusivity of use, either just within their sector or wider than that, they shouldn't try and save money by buying a royalty free image, they should opt for rights managed images instead. That's kind of the point of them. But there may indeed be some who didn't bother to do the research. Let's imagine that they are successful and reasonably sized businesses that are paying more precisely because they need an image of a higher quality. Tney may well be national or international and the image may be seen by lots and lots of people.
Now let's imagine a similar image sold on micro stock agencies. So the image sells 1000 times instead. Is this a problem? My contention is that the kind of businesses buying small-size files from micro stock sites do not have the same requirements as the big boys buying from macro stock sites. You suggest that surely this is a problem because it means the chances of two competitors using the same image is higher? I say not necessarily so. Why would I say that, surely it's a numbers game? Because... many of the customers in this latter example will be SMALL and local businesses and organisations. A local newspaper or club or society newsletter or website/ advertising/ poster for a local business. And I doubt a local business based in New York is too worried even if a business in the same sector, but over in San Francisco, has used the same image. So although the image may well sell 1000 times, the chances of a clash are not necessarily that high.
Those customers who require an image at smaller sizes and for smaller scale usage (more local, lower distribution etc) will likely find royalty free micro stock suitable.
Those customers who require an image that's available in a large enough size (and with sufficient quality) to be reproduced at large sizes and in superb quality will likely find traditional stock more suitable. And if they want exclusivity of use in a certain sector or region then they will find the rights managed rather than the royalty free portfolios of said stock sites most suitable.
I really do think the potential customers are two different beasts entirely. A little crossover at the edges but mostly different people entirely.
Message edited by author 2006-01-12 19:53:53.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2006 07:57:42 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Your still missing my original point. If this can happen with an RF image that costs several hundred dollars that's sold maybe a hundred times, imagine how more likely it is for a $1 image sold thousands of times. |
And you're still missing mine. It makes no difference whether it's microstock or traditional, whether the end user has paid $1 or $500.
In either case you can (and do) end up with the situation you described as a result of RF licensing. It has NOTHING TO DO with which kind of agency sold it - it's purely a function of the license type.
For someone who "understand[s] the stock and photography pricing market VERY well" you seem to either have trouble getting, or are deliberatly ignoring, that point.
Still, we won't achieve anything by carrying on. We're all painfully aware that to you microstock is the devil, and now we know that you view RF licenses in a similar light. I'm starting to wonder if I'm allowed to sell my pictures at all in your world :-) |
|
|
|
01/12/2006 08:00:08 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Nope. Your failing to see the picture. If this happens when you sell a RF image for $300 a hundred times, imagine how more likely this becomes when you sell the same image a thousand times for a $1.
I understand the stock and photography pricing market VERY well. |
Actually, you're jumping to conclusions about WHO is buying the images sold by micro stock agencies and you are not allowing for the fact that the concerns of these customers may not be the same as the concerns of traditional macro stock agency customers.
Let's imagine an image that has sold on traditional stock agencies under a royalty free arrangement. There's certainly a possibility that customers who have bought the image are hoping that there won't be too many others who have bought the same image, especially customers that have nationwide or international campaigns. To be honest, I don't have huge sympathy - if they want any kind of exclusivity of use, either just within their sector or wider than that, they shouldn't try and save money by buying a royalty free image, they should opt for rights managed images instead. That's kind of the point of them. But there may indeed be some who didn't bother to do the research. Let's imagine that they are successful and reasonably sized businesses that are paying more precisely because they need an image of a higher quality. Tney may well be national or international and the image may be seen by lots and lots of people.
Now let's imagine a similar image sold on micro stock agencies. So the image sells 1000 times instead. Is this a problem? My contention is that the kind of businesses buying small-size files from micro stock sites do not have the same requirements as the big boys buying from macro stock sites. You suggest that surely this is a problem because it means the chances of two competitors using the same image is higher? I say not necessarily so. Why would I say that, surely it's a numbers game? Because... many of the customers in this latter example will be SMALL and local businesses and organisations. A local newspaper or club or society newsletter or website/ advertising/ poster for a local business. And I doubt a local business based in New York is too worried even if a business in the same sector, but over in San Francisco, has used the same image. So although the image may well sell 1000 times, the chances of a clash are not necessarily that high.
Those customers who require an image at smaller sizes and for smaller scale usage (more local, lower distribution etc) will likely find royalty free micro stock suitable.
Those customers who require an image that's available in a large enough size (and with sufficient quality) to be reproduced at large sizes and in superb quality will likely find traditional stock more suitable. And if they want exclusivity of use in a certain sector or region then they will find the rights managed rather than the royalty free portfolios of said stock sites most suitable.
I really do think the potential customers are two different beasts entirely. A little crossover at the edges but mostly different people entirely. |
Here's an another example of a past egg in your face.
Same photo of a pregnant teen used in both a pro-choice and a pro-life ad. Do you think these to sides care about being on different coasts?
|
|
|
|
01/12/2006 08:05:27 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Your still missing my original point. If this can happen with an RF image that costs several hundred dollars that's sold maybe a hundred times, imagine how more likely it is for a $1 image sold thousands of times. |
And you're still missing mine. It makes no difference whether it's microstock or traditional, whether the end user has paid $1 or $500.
In either case you can (and do) end up with the situation you described as a result of RF licensing. It has NOTHING TO DO with which kind of agency sold it - it's purely a function of the license type.
For someone who "understand[s] the stock and photography pricing market VERY well" you seem to either have trouble getting, or are deliberatly ignoring, that point.
Still, we won't achieve anything by carrying on. We're all painfully aware that to you microstock is the devil, and now we know that you view RF licenses in a similar light. I'm starting to wonder if I'm allowed to sell my pictures at all in your world :-) |
It has everything to with the agency that sold it.
With microstock, companies odds are increased that others will have the same image since the per image volume is increased over basic RF sold at higher prices that logically won't have the same volume of sales.
The more an image is used the quicker it devaluates. Do you understand now?
|
|
|
|
01/12/2006 08:52:28 PM · #61 |
A lot of the problem I can see with a fair and respectable stock site accepting photos that may have, at one time, appeared on a micro-stock site, is legal issues.
A respectable stock company selling rights-managed images has to invest a lot more in legal services, as there is more to track, more infringements to fight, more to lose, and more to gain from fighting in court in most cases.
If, for example, an infringement occurs, and that rights-managed company goes to court with the infringing company, and it turns out that photo was also sold at a micro stock site as royalty free, at one point or another, it's probably going to mean a lot of wasted time and money on the stock company's part.
Just something to consider.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2006 09:01:39 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Why would they ASSUME I would do that rather than ask me not to or have me sign exclusivity with them for the shots I submit to them? |
Because it's elitist crap is why.
What they really want is to screw enough photogs until the word gets out that you can't have tainted yourself with icky microstock if you want to play with the pure and holy macro stock agencies.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2006 09:10:42 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by dpaull:
A lot of the problem I can see with a fair and respectable stock site accepting photos that may have, at one time, appeared on a micro-stock site, is legal issues.
A respectable stock company selling rights-managed images has to invest a lot more in legal services, as there is more to track, more infringements to fight, more to lose, and more to gain from fighting in court in most cases.
If, for example, an infringement occurs, and that rights-managed company goes to court with the infringing company, and it turns out that photo was also sold at a micro stock site as royalty free, at one point or another, it's probably going to mean a lot of wasted time and money on the stock company's part.
Just something to consider. |
Any legal issues are abated if the photog is signed into an exclusivity contract concerning the images that they submit.
If, then, the photog breaks that agreement, the liability is on the photographer, not the agency. As large RM agencies have actually invest in lawyers, they know that they can pass on the liability in the end. Since they have these lawyers on retainer, they're just sitting about waiting for work anyways.
In the end, this become a rant about how much they suck, because in reality they can do whatever they want, and they don't have to take you on if they don't want.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2006 10:26:04 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
[quote=dpaull] A lot of the problem I can see with a fair and respectable stock site accepting photos that may have, at one time, appeared on a micro-stock site, is legal issues.
A respectable stock company selling rights-managed images has to invest a lot more in legal services, as there is more to track, more infringements to fight, more to lose, and more to gain from fighting in court in most cases.
If, for example, an infringement occurs, and that rights-managed company goes to court with the infringing company, and it turns out that photo was also sold at a micro stock site as royalty free, at one point or another, it's probably going to mean a lot of wasted time and money on the stock company's part.
Just something to consider. |
Any legal issues are abated if the photog is signed into an exclusivity contract concerning the images that they submit.
If, then, the photog breaks that agreement, the liability is on the photographer, not the agency. As large RM agencies have actually invest in lawyers, they know that they can pass on the liability in the end. Since they have these lawyers on retainer, they're just sitting about waiting for work anyways.
In the end, this become a rant about how much they suck, because in reality they can do whatever they want, and they don't have to take you on if they don't want. [/quote
You sound a little bitter. If a major site turned you down, keep practicing and striving to be better. ;o)
Message edited by author 2006-01-12 22:29:10.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2006 10:38:08 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
You sound a little bitter. If a major site turned you down, keep practicing and striving to be better. ;o) |
Heh, well sounds is kind of subjective in prose, eh?
I've never submitted, so I have nothing to be bitter about really, except that I have to use a psuedomnym if I submit to a microstock site for practice... I still think the practice sucks, and it seems as if it is an underhanded tactic to keep people from submitting to micro in hopes that they'll get on macro some day if they hold out.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2006 11:02:26 PM · #66 |
I might be wrong but...
once a photographers sees his or her images being sold via a micro site they will understand that there are buyers out there for their images.
I hope it wont be long before most will want to earn a little more for their photos and head down the traditional stock agency road.
Not 100% sure about the info but there are figure about that state the stock photo market is worth around 4 billion dollars a year.
Quite believable when you go in to your local news agengy / paper shop / deli / drug store and count the magazines published every week/month.
Most mags have dozens of stock images in ads / stories and as 'fill' shots.
If you count the stock images in a few magazines and get an average
then times it by the amount of magazines in your local shop
then times it by 12 months
then times it by the countries in the world you get quite an impressive figure.
I know there are lots of holes in this exercise but I did it once to get a rough idea of amount of stock images sold to magazines every month.
It is a massive market.
I hate seeing photographers with heaps of talent selling themselves short.
I know Ive said it before but the designers, marketing people and the companies using our images to sell products, books, magazines, promote holidays, produce web sites, sell travel deals and the list goes on.......dont work for a couple of dollars a day.
I would love to see all photographers earn their share.
Message edited by author 2006-01-12 23:15:04. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 02:29:37 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by John White:
I would love to see all photographers earn their share. |
Best phrase I've heard all week!!
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 03:13:07 AM · #68 |
| The trouble is, Brent, that you don't want to allow photographers to choose WHERE they earn their share. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 09:20:10 AM · #69 |
I totally agree with John White's commments. As you suggested, John, I too began selling with micro sites to see if there was a market for my images. I almost immediately realized there IS a market, but I want MORE..... thus my search for larger, more "standard" agencies.........
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 09:28:22 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by ganders:
The trouble is, Brent, that you don't want to allow photographers to choose WHERE they earn their share. |
No, it's a choice between being able to earn their share and getting ripped off for the major portion of their share.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 09:34:47 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No, it's a choice between being able to earn their share and getting ripped off for the major portion of their share. |
Isn't someone who purchases an xbox 360 on ebay for $900 on Dec 20th getting "ripped off"?
Isn't that their choice? It made THAT person happier.
Micro makes some people happy - it's not for everyone. I think we're established, reestablished, beat the dead horse, beat the dead horse beaters, and come back to the same topic again. Some people like micro and do not FEEL ripped off. They feel like they got something they wouldnt or couldnt have otherwise gotten ( like the xbox ) and now they want you to just let them play the damned thing without sitting behind them saying "yeah but you paid $900, yeah but you paid $900, yeah but you paid $900."
"Look, this game rocks!!! It's the best ever."
"Yeah, but you paid $900!"
"yeah, but I had it on Christmas."
"yeah but you paid $900!"
"Yeah, but I wanted it for Christmas and I GOT it! I RULE!"
"Yeah, but you paid $900!"
It's redundant. We KNOW you don't want to work for microstock prices. We just.simply.don't.care.what.you.want. We care what we want. And we want to do shutterstock, istock, myloupe, alamy AND anywhere else that will have us.
If we're getting ripped off, we'll figure it out. Or we won't, and we'll live in comfortable bliss.
I applied to Alamy, they couldn't read my dvd theoretically because I burned it at 8x instead of 1x or something. I could reapply - and I probly will - but who cares at this point? I've made $500 on stock and I haven't done a THING since last May. I haven't uploaded a new stock image since May. In 7 months, I've made 100s of dollars with NO work.
"I LIKE my xbox. I don't care it was $900. I have it. That's what matters TO ME."
End.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 09:43:12 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
I've made $500 on stock and I haven't done a THING since last May. I haven't uploaded a new stock image since May. In 7 months, I've made 100s of dollars with NO work. |
The depressingly repeated point is that you could have made 1000s of dollars with NO work.
These always strike me as weird arguments when people are defending their right to make as little money as possible. Sure you can if you like, but I don't understand giving the guy trying to multiply your income by 10x a hard time.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:22:58 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by mavrik:
I've made $500 on stock and I haven't done a THING since last May. I haven't uploaded a new stock image since May. In 7 months, I've made 100s of dollars with NO work. |
The depressingly repeated point is that you could have made 1000s of dollars with NO work.
These always strike me as weird arguments when people are defending their right to make as little money as possible. Sure you can if you like, but I don't understand giving the guy trying to multiply your income by 10x a hard time. |
You can lead a horse to water...
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:30:48 PM · #74 |
I don't know what part is confusing - Alamy rejected my cd. If I sent another, it would likely be rejected for quality instead of technicality. Does it matter? I tried at Alamy and it didn't work. I could waste time trying again, but it's just that - a waste - unless I get in.
I do understand Brent's (and the other macro supporters) point. It just doesn't seem to apply to people who get rejected by the other companies. Why would I remove my images from micro to apply to MyLoupe to get rejected? So instead of theoretical 1000s and real 100s I get real 0s? That I don't get.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:34:49 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No, it's a choice between being able to earn their share and getting ripped off for the major portion of their share. |
Isn't someone who purchases an xbox 360 on ebay for $900 on Dec 20th getting "ripped off"?
Isn't that their choice? It made THAT person happier.
Micro makes some people happy - it's not for everyone. I think we're established, reestablished, beat the dead horse, beat the dead horse beaters, and come back to the same topic again. Some people like micro and do not FEEL ripped off. They feel like they got something they wouldnt or couldnt have otherwise gotten ( like the xbox ) and now they want you to just let them play the damned thing without sitting behind them saying "yeah but you paid $900, yeah but you paid $900, yeah but you paid $900."
"Look, this game rocks!!! It's the best ever."
"Yeah, but you paid $900!"
"yeah, but I had it on Christmas."
"yeah but you paid $900!"
"Yeah, but I wanted it for Christmas and I GOT it! I RULE!"
"Yeah, but you paid $900!"
It's redundant. We KNOW you don't want to work for microstock prices. We just.simply.don't.care.what.you.want. We care what we want. And we want to do shutterstock, istock, myloupe, alamy AND anywhere else that will have us.
If we're getting ripped off, we'll figure it out. Or we won't, and we'll live in comfortable bliss.
I applied to Alamy, they couldn't read my dvd theoretically because I burned it at 8x instead of 1x or something. I could reapply - and I probly will - but who cares at this point? I've made $500 on stock and I haven't done a THING since last May. I haven't uploaded a new stock image since May. In 7 months, I've made 100s of dollars with NO work.
"I LIKE my xbox. I don't care it was $900. I have it. That's what matters TO ME."
End. |
Think about that lady from Canada who makes like $160,000 / year that everyone keeps talking about. Now multiply that by 4. $640,000 she made that microstock site, when she should of pocketed $400,000 (being ultra conservative of the highest macro percentages). So that's $240,000 dollars they ripped her off for. No small amount of change.
Message edited by author 2006-01-13 13:36:52.
|
|
