MicrostockGroup

I know 123Rf is owned by inmagine and i saw some of my images there. But is it normal that there is no reference to me the photographer. http://www.inmagine.com/alamy/c94952-photo
Will i be paid 50% if an image of me is sold there ?
Since Alex http://my.linkedin.com/pub/alex-p-ng/24/ba1/a71 is involved in both sites can he make something clear on this ?

Some more links to pictures of me

http://www.inmagine.com/alamy/c94k4h-photo
http://www.inmagine.com/alamy/cbf85p-photo

Did some more investigations seems pictures are coming via Alamy on Inmagine without reference to photographer ?

123RF (Inmagine) offers this really "handy" tool for buyers to check if an image on Alamy is also available for less $$$ on 123RF.

The URL that you posted showed one of your images with the Alamy reference ID in the URL.

I was also wondering why I couldn't see a watermark on that image as well, which is not cool.

It appears that images that do match with the Alamy database are automatically displayed without the watermark or do all images on Inmagine lack a watermark?

I tried it with one of my images and it also shows up without a watermark, so there are several issues going on here.

Could you contact 123RF about this issue? Or at least let us know if you write them or not so we can follow up.

It appears that our entire 123rf portfolios are on Inmagine -- as a "value" collection - although only one size - scaled up a bit for $10. No credit there except that the 123rf user name is in the URL so you can find yourself. See an example with the 123rf version and the Inmagine version.

Couple of things: no credit, as you mentioned; they note on Inmagine that the compressed size of an enlarged (from my 21MP original) download is 1MB! The JPEG I uploaded (with metadata and an ICC profile) was 9.7MB.

The lack of a name is pretty standard for the macro agencies - Getty does it with the collections it ships off to other distributors (Ocean images for some of the iStockers' content, I think).

I'm not sure but you could be right as we get $4 on the $10 sales, as far as I know. I think I forgot or wasn't aware that inmagine and 123rf were the same company when I commented here.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/123royaltyfree-com/different-sales-prices-at-123rf

I can't even find it in the Wayback Machine, thinking there might have been an oversight or something during the last site revamp.  Um...I'd kinda like to know what I'm authorizing 123RF to do on my behalf.

Back at the beginning of 123rf, (2005) you signed the contract with inmagine because there wasn't any online signup. 123rf is wholly owned by inmagine and my entire 123rf port is on inmagine (those files aren't on Alamy at the moment so they can't have come from there).

 For there to be other than a 50/50 split of the $10 when you have two web sites from one company seems to me to be a really unreasonable sleight of hand that stiffs contributors out of $1 per sale.

Perhaps I should start a separate thread if it's too confusing to put the two issues in one - I definitely want to get details on the royalty to 123rf contributors from sales via inmagine's Value 10 collection.

Thanks for the link to the agreement - it might be good to have it on the site somewhere other than as part of the upload process. Have we all missed where there's a link to it from the contributor's section?

And as far as Inmagine being separate, I have a hard time accepting that if they have the same owners as 123rf. This just means the agency is pocketing 60% instead of 50% on those transactions and that's not right. As contributors, perhaps we don't have the right to know about the ownership of both companies, but when you say "for all intents and purposes" that sounds like same owners two legal entities (parent - subsidiary, common owners). What's to stop Inmagine from deciding that of the $10, only $5 goes to 123rf, thus leaving contributors with $2.50? If it were a separate company with separate owners you'd not want to do that as the agency would loose as well as contributors. When your own parent is acting as a distributor you have no incentive to minimize the cut the distributor gets.

This is just wrong.