pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: DepositPhotos and Shotshop- standard purchases gives only subscription amounts?  (Read 55649 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: February 13, 2014, 10:23 »
+2
Got pretty much the same response from DP.  Here's how I understood it.  DPs contention is that they are selling at Sub rates and paying us accordingly.  However the buyer/vendor (in this case Shotshop) is selling at rates fixed by them (much higher) as - 'it is up to our partners to set their prices (sic)' . 

So on the one hand we have a sub sale in a 'new market'  which we otherwise would not have (the gist of DP's contention).  But we are only getting a tiny fraction of the actual sale price - making this an abysmal deal for us.  They have the legal/ contractual right to do this, according to the quoted text in DP's response.  And finally, we can take it or lump it!  We can't opt out of individual partner programs - but we can opt out of all their partner programs if we wish to. 

The ball rests squarely in our court.

Welcome to microstock 2014!   :(


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #51 on: February 13, 2014, 10:28 »
+8
Got pretty much the same response from DP.  Here's how I understood it.  DPs contention is that they are selling at Sub rates and paying us accordingly.  However the buyer/vendor (in this case Shotshop) is selling at rates fixed by them (much higher) as - 'it is up to our partners to set their prices (sic)' . 
And no doubt, as with all these deals, DP got a good price for brokering the deal with Shotshop, which they aren't sharing with contributors.

farbled

« Reply #52 on: February 13, 2014, 10:53 »
+7
The plus side is that they are not (for me) a strong enough player for me to worry about pulling my portfolio from them. I don't make enough from their site with just a handful of sales each day. Looks like its a going to be a "fool me once" instance for me, plus I'll have to do a better read when I submit to any new agencies.

I also think any new agency could potentially have a gold mine of disgruntled microstockers willing to go exclusive for a generous commission deal, if they had enough buyers, were upfront and transparent, and were focused on more than just volume of images in the db...

« Reply #53 on: February 13, 2014, 11:18 »
+5
"Depositphotos reserves the right to determine the conditions of its cooperation with Partner companies. We sell those files by subscriptions (under the standard license), but it is up to our partners to set their prices and the way to sell them as long as they stick to license terms."


Regarding the mail of Deposit that would mean that Shotshop is a Subscriber. That's nonsense!

« Reply #54 on: February 13, 2014, 11:32 »
+8
"Depositphotos reserves the right to determine the conditions of its cooperation with Partner companies. We sell those files by subscriptions (under the standard license), but it is up to our partners to set their prices and the way to sell them as long as they stick to license terms."


Regarding the mail of Deposit that would mean that Shotshop is a Subscriber. That's nonsense!

That is indeed complete nonsense. Someone "subscribing" photos does not receive a license for resale. I am done with Depositstock.

« Reply #55 on: February 13, 2014, 11:46 »
+3
Today i received the same Mail from Deposit.


I opted out of their partner program in August 2013.
In December 2013 i told Deposit that my complete portfolio is on shotshop.
The answer form Deposit was that im opted out of their partner program but shotshop is a reseller.

In their mail for today they say:

"If for some reason, you would like to opt out of our partnership programs, just let us know and we will comply with your request. However, please keep in mind, in that case you will be excluded from all our partnership programs and your images will be sold solely on depositphotos.com "

i don't get it. What is, in their opinion, the difference between a Partner and a Reseller?

« Reply #56 on: February 13, 2014, 11:51 »
+2
[quote author=MarcvsTvllivs link=topic=21952.msg365311#msg365311 date=1392309127

That is indeed complete nonsense. Someone "subscribing" photos does not receive a license for resale. I am done with Depositstock.
[/quote]

Precisely. A subscription download does not allow the resale of the file. That is what special extended licenses are for.

« Reply #57 on: February 13, 2014, 12:03 »
+3
[quote author=MarcvsTvllivs link=topic=21952.msg365311#msg365311 date=1392309127

That is indeed complete nonsense. Someone "subscribing" photos does not receive a license for resale. I am done with Depositstock.

Precisely. A subscription download does not allow the resale of the file. That is what special extended licenses are for.
This thing could become a case for a lawyer!

MxR

« Reply #58 on: February 13, 2014, 12:12 »
0
If we still have our pictures there is because we are stupid and we deserve the 1% commission and we like spanking.

Right now I run to buy a subscription of your photos on Shutterstock. These photos I sell them on my own website to my 20 euros, you will have 025-38 dollars and me 19, 60-70 euros .... this is business and not take pictures

« Reply #59 on: February 13, 2014, 12:14 »
0
This thing could become a case for a lawyer!

Oooh yes! There is many things to do for lawyer, and not even one lawyer ready to go for it... Strange... And I mean all stock agencies, all market is full of surprises, not only DP, CanStockPhoto or IS....

Before you guys close your accounts, what about talk to them about changes? Maybe they'll be interested in sharing good % of re-sell price? Lets say image was sold for 69$, so you (author) get 40%, and they share the rest - DP and PP site? ;)

« Reply #60 on: February 13, 2014, 12:52 »
+1
It's a game of semantics -  partners or resellers. Years back I used to license photos with Gamma. If they had another agency sell an image for them (which I had to approve) Gamma got 50% and the other agency got 50%. I received my 50% (25% or the gross) of Gamma's take. Pretty simple math.  These convoluted partnership arrangements are just unfair to the photographer. I guess better quit living in the past!

« Reply #61 on: February 13, 2014, 13:03 »
+2
This thing could become a case for a lawyer!

Oooh yes! There is many things to do for lawyer, and not even one lawyer ready to go for it... Strange... And I mean all stock agencies, all market is full of surprises, not only DP, CanStockPhoto or IS....

Before you guys close your accounts, what about talk to them about changes? Maybe they'll be interested in sharing good % of re-sell price? Lets say image was sold for 69$, so you (author) get 40%, and they share the rest - DP and PP site? ;)

After getting "the letter" this morning I emailed them back and told them to remove me from all Partner Programs and specifically Shotshop. I'll have to see if there is any fancy footwork involved stating that Shotshop is not a partner but a buyer. If so I'll remove my entire (small) portfolio.

I am afraid as someone else stated that this may be a case of a contract between DP and Shotshop whereas as Shotshop paid DP a sum to have access to DP's images under a subscription license. So DP gets a large sum upfront which they do not have to share with artists because it is not a licensing contract but simply a contract that allows them access to the images at a set price. This is the only reason why I would think DP would do such a deal. I obviously do not know if any of this is true, but it certainly is food for thought.

« Reply #62 on: February 13, 2014, 13:17 »
+8
And whoever is on the fence about staying with DP, don't forget about this
http://www.microstockgroup.com/depositphotos/deposit-photos-extended-licence-$2-64!!!!!!/.

« Reply #63 on: February 13, 2014, 13:24 »
+2

« Reply #64 on: February 13, 2014, 14:02 »
+3
Interestingly, if one looks at the DP Standard and Extended License Agreement:

http://depositphotos.com/license.html(link)

It is clearly noted that - The Standard License allows the use of the purchased File for the creation of different kinds of items (except Items for Resale or Items for Free Distribution, where the File plays a major role in the item and adds value to it) (sic).

Its also noted that items for Re-sale require an Extended license.  Isn't Shotshop re-selling?  So why is this treated as a Standard license for payment of (sub) royalties to contributors?

So now I'm really confused??  If Shotshop sales are a re-sale (as it clearly looks to be) then WHY aren't we paid Extended license commissions?  That would seem to be the correct and fair thing, isn't it. 

Or am I missing something here??!

« Reply #65 on: February 13, 2014, 14:14 »
+8
All this sounds incredibly bad. Anb, btw, what happens if this partner agency sell one photo mre than one time? Do you just get the first 0.30?

Maybe I should thing of buying subscriptons from DP and start my own "reselling" site...

« Reply #66 on: February 13, 2014, 14:24 »
+6
I always wondered why the percentage of credit sales on DP was so much lower than the percentage of ODDs/SODs over on SS. I guess this explains it.

I'll give DP a couple weeks to find an acceptable solution that fixes this situation. If they don't I'll pull my port and be done with them.

Big THANK YOU to everyone involved uncovering this scam.

« Reply #67 on: February 13, 2014, 14:25 »
+1
All this sounds incredibly bad. Anb, btw, what happens if this partner agency sell one photo mre than one time? Do you just get the first 0.30?

Maybe I should thing of buying subscriptons from DP and start my own "reselling" site...
Actually a great idea.

« Reply #68 on: February 13, 2014, 14:41 »
+3
LOL I started to post that earlier but erased it :)  If I can ever make a payout - that's 19 subs away ... you won't shouldn't be able to include mine.   I hated to walk away from the money on the table, but I should have grown a pair and left the first time they peed me off.

« Reply #69 on: February 13, 2014, 15:02 »
+7
My images are up there too.  I've emailed to see what the deal is.

« Reply #70 on: February 13, 2014, 15:04 »
+1
Excerpt from DP's API PROGRAM AGREEMENT: (text bolded by me)

Quote
Reseller API. The Reseller API enables the sale of the File Providers Files on the Resellers website and offers the greatest price flexibility to the Reseller. Buyers are not redirected to the File Providers website for payment. This method is designed for a Reseller to create his/her own stock file website in order to sell Files acquired either wholly from the File Provider, or in conjunction with Files from other databases.

The File Provider delivers Files to the Reseller at standard prices or via a subscription plan. The Reseller sets the price of Files resold to Buyers.

The File Provider reserves the exclusive right to change the price of Files delivered to the Reseller through the API Program, upward as well as downward, at any time and at its sole discretion, with or without prior notification to the Reseller.

« Reply #71 on: February 13, 2014, 18:16 »
+15
This small print means they are a bottom feeder agency. Nobody can take them seriously with a deal where the artist is paid 30 cents and the content is then resold with a 6000% markup. It makes absolutely no sense.

They gave such a good presentation in Berlin. Why would they ruin their momentum with such "deals"?

Do they really think we will not find out? That they can hide deals, the way getty thought they can hide the goggle deal?

I am really disappointed, because in Berlin I thought they really want to grow and be a serious agency with longterm plans.

Thank you Robert for discovering this. It shows how important it is we keep checking on the agencies by buying our own files to see the results.

« Reply #72 on: February 13, 2014, 18:35 »
-1
My images are up there too.  I've emailed to see what the deal is.

I thought your files weren't available at DP for subscription sales.

« Reply #73 on: February 13, 2014, 18:50 »
+3
Interestingly, if one looks at the DP Standard and Extended License Agreement:

http://depositphotos.com/license.html(link)

It is clearly noted that - The Standard License allows the use of the purchased File for the creation of different kinds of items (except Items for Resale or Items for Free Distribution, where the File plays a major role in the item and adds value to it) (sic).

Its also noted that items for Re-sale require an Extended license.  Isn't Shotshop re-selling?  So why is this treated as a Standard license for payment of (sub) royalties to contributors?

So now I'm really confused??  If Shotshop sales are a re-sale (as it clearly looks to be) then WHY aren't we paid Extended license commissions?  That would seem to be the correct and fair thing, isn't it. 

Or am I missing something here??!


Yes, you are missing something.

Even under the extended license the sub-licensing of the file is not allowed. The scenario that Shotshop "buys" the files (e.g. under a subscription plan) and then "sells" it again is not allowed with neither the standard nor the extended license.

Shotshop is licensing those files to their customers, that is not a re-sale.
The only way that this is not conflicting with the DP license terms is that the transaction is between Shotshop's customer and DP (and not between DP and Shotshop, because that would require Shotshop to sub-license the file).

And this is why I cannot understand how they legally can create a situation where we only get paid a subscription royalty (as Shotshop does not offer subscriptions, so the Shotshop customer can only have bought a single license).

I am now waiting if they comply with my request to remove my portfolio from all partner programs.

« Reply #74 on: February 13, 2014, 19:53 »
0
Interestingly, if one looks at the DP Standard and Extended License Agreement:

http://depositphotos.com/license.html(link)

It is clearly noted that - The Standard License allows the use of the purchased File for the creation of different kinds of items (except Items for Resale or Items for Free Distribution, where the File plays a major role in the item and adds value to it) (sic).

Its also noted that items for Re-sale require an Extended license.  Isn't Shotshop re-selling?  So why is this treated as a Standard license for payment of (sub) royalties to contributors?

So now I'm really confused??  If Shotshop sales are a re-sale (as it clearly looks to be) then WHY aren't we paid Extended license commissions?  That would seem to be the correct and fair thing, isn't it. 

Or am I missing something here??!


Yes, you are missing something.

Even under the extended license the sub-licensing of the file is not allowed. The scenario that Shotshop "buys" the files (e.g. under a subscription plan) and then "sells" it again is not allowed with neither the standard nor the extended license.

Shotshop is licensing those files to their customers, that is not a re-sale.
The only way that this is not conflicting with the DP license terms is that the transaction is between Shotshop's customer and DP (and not between DP and Shotshop, because that would require Shotshop to sub-license the file).

And this is why I cannot understand how they legally can create a situation where we only get paid a subscription royalty (as Shotshop does not offer subscriptions, so the Shotshop customer can only have bought a single license).

I am now waiting if they comply with my request to remove my portfolio from all partner programs.


According to a previous post Shotshop is a reseller and NOT a partner (whatever the fk that means).  So even if you opt out of PP, BFD. You will still get hosed unless you simply cut your losses and close your DP account.  At least that's how I read this.

"We disabled the Partnership program for you when you required. The websites you mentioned ( newbielink:http://www.ibudgetphoto.com [nonactive] and shotshop.com) are our resellers. They sell your files under the same License agreement as we do and you get the same commission for each sold file as you get on our website.

If this comment were true I'd breath a little more easily.  But according to yet another post in this thread, someone purchased a $19 euro file and received 30 cents commission.  How is that happening? DP being deceitful? They've been caught with their dicks in their hands before. 


"We tested this too.

For a 19,90 single purchase at Shotshop you will get a 0.30$ Sub sale on Depositphotos !!!

I wonder what you'll get for an EL ... if this isn't a bug, it's a complete rip-off.
[/b]"
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 19:59 by Mantis »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
2040 Views
Last post January 12, 2013, 16:06
by cardmaverick
0 Replies
1254 Views
Last post March 28, 2013, 13:35
by tomac
41 Replies
7643 Views
Last post April 08, 2015, 14:54
by Noedelhap
12 Replies
3020 Views
Last post March 17, 2016, 12:17
by Noedelhap
5 Replies
1583 Views
Last post January 30, 2016, 13:39
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors