DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Royalty Free Stock
Showing posts 1 - 17 of 17, (reverse)
12/17/2005 05:15:29 AM · #1
Hi all,

I just checked out www.dreamstime.com terms and conditions and it allows buyers of images to make fine art prints from them. Now given that you only get 50 cents an image, this seems ridiculous. Which brings me on to the bigger question of all these Royalty Free Stock sites.

What is to prevent anyone, anywhere, from purchasing a good image for one or two dollars and printing and framing it to resell in there shop or at other outlets. None of these sites, regardless of their terms and conditions or any other wording on their sites, can realistically enforce such rules legal or otherwise. Which brings me to another question, is it legal to present terms and conditions on a web site that cannot possibly be enforced, or is it a pass the buck thing whereby the responsibility is with the buyer? Interesting!

I draw the conclusion that the cheap image sites and the image buyers are the only benefactors in these one or two dollar deals popping up all over the place.

If an image is good it deserves a fair price and I for one will not participate in this rip off.

Now don't get me wrong I know it is up to the individual and if you don't care then that's fine. But if you put a lot of time and effort into your photography then you should care.

And besides there are numerous Fair Trade Stock sites and Rights Managed Sites out there, both commision and subscription based.

Thoughts anyone?
12/17/2005 05:18:17 AM · #2
Here we go again.
12/17/2005 05:22:26 AM · #3
Ok, point taken, probably, in fact has been discussed, but keeping these issues to the for is important in a free and democratic community :) Anyway, it touched a nerve, and yes I know it is the way of the world...

But it pi.... me off.

Message edited by author 2005-12-17 05:24:58.
12/17/2005 05:28:00 AM · #4
Until we can all afford high-pixeled cameras, have enough money to travel around to take pictures, have lights and studio space, etc. Some of us can't even get into the so call REAL stock sites.
12/17/2005 05:36:37 AM · #5
That's hardly the point is it! My main point was regarding enforcement and how these sites actually enforce their terms and conditions.

And besides, your camera is 6.1 Megapixels, not too bad is it?
12/17/2005 05:44:06 AM · #6
Just like CD's; charge too much and people will find a way to get it free. Make it a reasonable price and people will buy(Ipod).

It's impossible to say what people will do with the download. Who's to say that purchasers at DPCprints can't make reprints and sell them at fairs or whatever.
12/17/2005 05:44:53 AM · #7
Originally posted by Chez:

That's hardly the point is it! My main point was regarding enforcement and how these sites actually enforce their terms and conditions.

And besides, your camera is 6.1 Megapixels, not too bad is it?

Won't get you into Alamy unless it one of the listed cameras.
12/17/2005 10:03:49 AM · #8
I benefit from these one or two dollar deals very nicely!
It works for me great!

12/17/2005 10:14:24 AM · #9
Originally posted by Chez:

That's hardly the point is it!

How are you enforcing protection of your photos on dpc? I could make an 8x10 out of your 640px entries pretty easily if I were that kind of guy.
12/17/2005 10:18:03 AM · #10
I bought my new camera with money from these. It works for me.
12/17/2005 10:19:41 AM · #11
If morals and philosophy pay your bills, chez, I'm with you. I need money to pay mine though. Tell my landlord to accept goodwill in lieu of cash and I'll make sure my images come off SS.
12/17/2005 11:11:10 AM · #12
Ok well maybe I'm in the corner on this one, and yes Mavrik there is nothing stopping you printing one of my images, it's all a matter of trust, but you won't get the qaulity for anything like a good fine art print from a 640...image at 70 percent quality. On the other sites I would be uploading full size images. Also DPC is not in the Royalty Free Stock Market and therefore does not offer fine art prints of my work for 50 cents a pop.

It is not a question of morals, but responsibility. I do find it irresponsible for a company that is providing such cheap access to images to set out terms and conditions which they have no way of enforcing.

Anyway at the end of the day it is a matter of personal choice and I choose not to participate, but good luck to all who choose otherwise.

Buy the way, if you do nick one of my pics Mavrik, make sure you frame it nicely.

Message edited by author 2005-12-17 11:26:17.
12/17/2005 11:21:58 AM · #13
Originally posted by Chez:

By the way, if you do nick one of my pics Mavrik, make sure you frame it nicely.

lol I will. ;)
12/17/2005 01:58:20 PM · #14
I guess I am just taking the chance that people will not use my images in the wrong way, but I guess alot of things are like that!

12/17/2005 02:09:13 PM · #15
Hmmmm ... thinking I may start selling fine art prints at the local flea market ;-) *runs for cover*
12/17/2005 03:42:02 PM · #16
I could be wrong, but my impression is that for the most part (I'm sure there are some exceptions) the kind of images that people shoot for stock are not the kind of images that people would want to frame and hang on a wall as fine art? Unless they are really into product, advertising, marketing, graphic type stuff.

I certainly don't mean to put down stock photography at all, that is NOT my point. I am trying to aspire to stock stuff myself :-) It takes talent and know how to be effective. I've been doing a little research to see what 'sells', I'm just saying it seems like a different breed of image.
12/18/2005 03:49:15 AM · #17
Ok, just to round this off. My major point was not against stock. I have sold stock images myself for a reasonable sum, and hope to continue to do so. In fact two images I sold a month ago paid me the equivalent of selling a thousand uploads on dreamstime.com.

The two points I was trying to make were:

1. If you have a set of terms and conditions regarding useage of your materials on a web site, surely you must be reasonably capable of enforcing those. Isn't that the law? (Serious Question)

2. Although much of stock isn't suitable as fine art print material, the companies that sell your stock at such ridiculous prices, do have particularly high standards as to what they sell, and should therefore offer a more reasonable payment for those expected standards.

Now I know you lot are tired of the whole stock talk thing, but this is something to think about, and my advice is to try the Fair trade stock sites, such as photographersdirect.com, alamy.com, imagevortex.com, etc. etc. There's numerous ones out there.
Current Server Time: 09/26/2021 08:08:59 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.

Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/26/2021 08:08:59 AM EDT.