Well this confirms what the "database cleanup" is actually about.

The 'database cleanup' line is mostly BS.  I'm a software developer and I work with databases.

First, a database doesn't require cleanup, it's just data on a hard drive.  Actual cleanup might be required if the amount of old data was so large, in relation to the currently active data, that it was slowing down operations. That's clearly not the case here.

Second, note that they're not actually removing these images from their database, just marking them 'free'.  Nothing is being 'cleaned up'.  

It's just a gimmick to get more free images to attract new buyers.

Oh and Warren, don't mess with the DT forum.  Anything remotely negative will be deleted and the guy will do weird stuff, like leave snarky replies attached as comments to your photos.

It's just a gimmick to get more free images to attract new buyers.

Not even that. Freebee hunters almost never become buyers. Whoever wants a usable well licensed shot will go to the paying images since the choice is much wider there and the time searching through sub-par images isn't worth the time/money of the possible gain of 2-3$. For an independent contributor, the larger market share of site A vs. site B doesn't matter, since it's a zero sum operation for his pocket.

Let's see. DT has a long history of a having a good attitude towards its contributors, so it's just a storm in a glass of water. 

Let's see. DT has a long history of a having a good attitude towards its contributors, so it's just a storm in a glass of water. 

It is that, but it's also a part of microstock's relentless march towards free images.  The subtle pressure to make your images free, or to sign on to other gimmicky discount plans, won't let up.

It is that, but it's also a part of microstock's relentless march towards free images.  The subtle pressure to make your images free, or to sign on to other gimmicky discount plans, won't let up.

If that might become the norm, the agents are very vulnerable since they rely on the contributors. One idea: what if contributors bundle their free images on one site and share the ads revenue themselves?

I'm coming to the conclusion that I should contribute to only a couple of microstocks and dump the rest, because I can't trust them and can't spend time monitoring all the changes they announce.   They're rewriting contributor "agreements" every other week, whenever they come up with a new marketing gimmick or sign up a new partner site.   My images are on God knows how many of these snaky "partner" sites already.  I assume the partners don't actually get the image files, just the right to display thumbnails and resell them - but who knows.    My images might even be offered free, if I overlook an email announcing the new rules.   

If the sites really are marching us towards free images, can someone please explain the business plan?  I think they make more money selling our images than they would giving them away.

So why are they so eager to tout about it?

Quote from: FD-amateur on October 30, 2009, 11:17

Let's see. DT has a long history of a having a good attitude towards its contributors, so it's just a storm in a glass of water.  

It is that, but it's also a part of microstock's relentless march towards free images.  The subtle pressure to make your images free, or to sign on to other gimmicky discount plans, won't let up.

That's wrong. Free images just are possible in the way and "quality" they exist now, for instance, at stockechange. Free images will always have the quality of the begginings of microsctok. Certanily, you'll always will be able to find some gem (snapshots, scenery or monuments made by amateurs), but what you willl mostly get is poor stuff, brother in-laws acting as models, cats, pets, nothing worth. Who is going to spend 2,000, or 200 or even 50 dollars in a session to, then, give away the images?

Cheepo suscriptions plans, free images... all this doesn't cntribute to brigthen the prestige of micro agencies. At the end, they can find that serious paying customers flee and are repaced for freebie-hunters.

I can't find it either, after 5 minutes of searching.

I created a new thread on the DT forum, asking where that specifically is located. I'll post any response.

Thanks a lot Cathy.  I would like to know where that is too.

sharpshot, you're thinking these guys are visionary businessmen, intent on building a sustainable model for the long haul?  And not just more dot-com entrepreneurs?   

Twenty-five cents is already pretty close to free.

I think they have done well so far and I don't think they are suddenly going to try to ruin a business that is worth millions.  A lot of us don't like free images but several sites have said it is a way to bring in new buyers and I doubt they would do something that would lower the overall amount buyers spend.  The sites that have free images are doing well and there is no sign that buyers are using the free images instead of buying, I don't see why that should change now.

The sites that have free images are doing well and there is no sign that buyers are using the free images instead of buying, I don't see why that should change now.

As mentioned above, DT is a successful site. If they think a free area is good for business, that's ok by me. I STILL don't want them taking my images without my permission and giving them away. That's just wrong.

It was either in this thread or the thread that got locked on the DT forum where a poster kept saying how we should all support this free image section because after all, they inspect our photos for free, blah, blah, blah. It bothered me that the poster thinks that DT is inspecting FOR FREE and out of the goodness of their heart and we should in turn be willing to give up stuff for free. They don't inspect our images for free...they get paid a huge percent of the sale for that! Inspecting is a cost of doing business for them...they don't do it for free! I couldn't believe somebody actually said that!

If the sites really are marching us towards free images, can someone please explain the business plan?  I think they make more money selling our images than they would giving them away.

Giving your images away for free to pull in new customers is cheap low cost marketing for the websites.

Next step there are a few others services that serve 'free image' that have an advertisment below, so if a Blogger who is writing a recipe for a cake, they can insert a free image with an ad for a white goods company linked.

The sacary thing about some of these start-ups like PicApp is the images are sourced from Getty and Corbis 'wholly owned' content, cutting the artist out of any ad revenue.

We could see a service like Google Ads, where each click earns you $0.01 paid for by advertisers, where you images are used to get the viewers attention.

David  

I guess next we will see free images inserted into the an ad created for free and there will be the free image with the ad plus logo, also for free .......

The sites that have free images are doing well and there is no sign that buyers are using the free images instead of buying, I don't see why that should change now.

As mentioned above, DT is a successful site. If they think a free area is good for business, that's ok by me. I STILL don't want them taking my images without my permission and giving them away. That's just wrong.

It was either in this thread or the thread that got locked on the DT forum where a poster kept saying how we should all support this free image section because after all, they inspect our photos for free, blah, blah, blah. It bothered me that the poster thinks that DT is inspecting FOR FREE and out of the goodness of their heart and we should in turn be willing to give up stuff for free. They don't inspect our images for free...they get paid a huge percent of the sale for that! Inspecting is a cost of doing business for them...they don't do it for free! I couldn't believe somebody actually said that!

This opinion is what I expressed in DT.  It was deleted and followed by an "offline" exchange of comments between Achilles and myself.  When I posted "online" about this thread and the subject press release, he went ballistic. 

No matter how DT tries to SPIN this, the simple solution is to offer a choice.  Let ME and every contributor decide what WE are willing to give away.

BTW:  he kept denying that there was any preconceived plan linked to that press release.   HUH???

WarrenPrice, in all fairness, IS does the same thing. Approach touchy subjects and the threads get locked or disappear.

I am hoping that they are reconsidering their position on this whole thing. I really don't get what the big deal is from DT's point of view is. Most people aren't disputing the free section. They can have it, they just need to make it voluntary and NOT mandatory. I personally don't believe it works, but if others think it does and they want to participate, I'm ok with that.

Did they think they were going to be able to just take our images and give them away for free? what?

Frankly, I am so tired of all the bullying from credit card companies, employers, banks, etc. etc. (and now the microstock companies are going to try to intimidate their contributors?) but that is another rant for another forum.

edit: this is funny. I typed double-u tee eff with a question mark (the letters, not the whole words) and it automatically changed that to "what?" LOL.

Quote from: gostwyck on October 30, 2009, 11:59

I much prefer IS's solution to this issue of the Dollar Bin. At least the contributor (and the agency) gets some money out of the deal.

Is anyone actually making much from iStock's DB? Since the price hike there, my images have mostly been moribund, and it's what I'm hearing from others, but hardly a representative sample.

Not doingn much, ok, but not doieng nothing, or not doing less than nothing because some regular customer steps on a free photo that by chance meet his needs, and  gets it instead for free of buying some other one.

I was sad to read in the DT forum that free image donators will have a better placement in searches.

I have no data to back me up, but I think that most of the "free images" clientelle are not people who would pay for photos. 

I was sad to read in the DT forum that free image donators will have a better placement in searches.

I have no data to back me up, but I think that most of the "free images" clientelle are not people who would pay for photos.  

Can someone tell me - are the images moved to free and removed from the regular search?  Is that photo "benefiting" in searches, or is the photographer?

I have enjoyed the use of "free images", but I don't think I will ever donate one.  But then again I buy images also, I'm guessing most freebie hunters have never made a purchase.

Terrible.

I red a thread about Roberts Mizerek:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/photoshop-tutorials/the-miz-his-memory-lives-on-through-his-tutorials/msg0/?topicseen#new
His great portfolio is still at Dreamstime. Without any FREE images. I'm curious if DT will respect his wills.

actually, not too bad a deal

Unless you're a buyer, and ideally would like to see images ranked in some relation to relevance and quality, and not based on contributors paying the agency to push their images...  that used to be how records got played on the radio. It was called "payola".

I really doubt that the promised boost in search ratings would be delivered.  I'm sure no specifics are being offered as to the amount or duration of the boost.

I may be wrong, but it looks like my acceptance ratio has suffered for not offering my old photos for free. Anyone else notice something similar?

Quote from: stockastic on October 30, 2009, 21:15

Quote from: madelaide on October 30, 2009, 18:17

It was said that being a donator would help in search results - in the main collection...

Ok, I get it now.  They're offering higher search ranking in exchange for images.  Hey why not just accept cash?

actually, not too bad a deal -- let your rejects and non-sellers go in the free pile while your good stuff gets higher search visibility

i agree, of course, that the default should be NOT free, with any donations being voluntary

If they give higher search ranking in exchange for donations, there's nothing voluntary about it. Anyone who "chooses" not to donate will have their search ranking suffer compared to someone who does.

I'm not directly affected by this any more (although I did go to check that my old DT images were still disabled and hadn't somehow been made freebies behind my back) but the problem with viewing this as "not too bad a deal" for independents is that you rarely have the same sales patterns across all sites.

I would often find an image that took off on one site (and we can speculate about the timings of various search engine changes, a fortunate early sale one place but not another...) didn't do well on another. You'd be insane to let one site give away for free something that was selling OK elsewhere.

And if the image is so awful that it isn't selling anywhere, how will someone downloading an awful image free help you sell your portfolio of current and stellar images?

It seems to me that if you rank the search results usefully to buyers they aren't in any way hampered by the fact that there are some so-so images on page 4,395 of the results - which they'll likely never get to.

And if for whatever reason they don't like any of the high ranking images and find their way to a low-seller towards the end, perhaps it's what they're looking for and it's purchsed. This whole notion of buyers having to wade through mountains of dreck to get to the good stuff - if it is a real issue - isn't solved by moving files to the free section, "voluntarily" or otherwise. It's solved by improving your search engine.

Quote from: jsnover on October 31, 2009, 17:12

I'm not directly affected by this any more (although I did go to check that my old DT images were still disabled and hadn't somehow been made freebies behind my back)

Strange. You have deleted-disabled your images over one year ago and they are still there? Theses images should be DELETED now.

Achilles from Dreamstime said:
... we don't touch those files, they are offline. They are permanently deleted after a few months."[/i]

I don't know if I could renable the images - but the button is there if I wanted to push it. I just wanted to be sure I wasn't going to inadvertently end up in violation of my exclusivity arrangement over free RF licenses flogged without my consent at DT.

Perhaps they should clean up the old accounts if they want to clean up something

I just went over to the free section of DT and by my count, they have 14,360 free images for sale. I don't get the big push to add more.

edit: let me rephrase...I do get the push to add more...drawing in more buyers at no extra expense to the company is a great marketing concept. What I meant to say is that seems like a pretty big database of free images to me...if free images draw in buyers, wouldn't that be enough?

I hate it when agencies try to convince you that it's a good thing to add shots to the free section. I got the DT email that I had 20 shots from 3 years ago that had never sold .. I disabled them all. I don't care if they didn't sell on DT. They sell on other sites. They sure wouldn't sell anymore if I gave them away for free. Piss on the Free Pics trend. It's even more stupid than the subscription trend.
What's worse is when you hear people say .... oh I don't mind because I just do this for a fun hobby anyway. I don't care how much money I make ... If you want to join a business model designed to make money then do it to make money. If you want to just play around go join flickr. 

I'm coming to the conclusion that I should contribute to only a couple of microstocks and dump the rest, because I can't trust them and can't spend time monitoring all the changes they announce.   They're rewriting contributor "agreements" every other week, whenever they come up with a new marketing gimmick or sign up a new partner site.   My images are on God knows how many of these snaky "partner" sites already.  I assume the partners don't actually get the image files, just the right to display thumbnails and resell them - but who knows.    My images might even be offered free, if I overlook an email announcing the new rules.

I am rapidly coming to the same conclusion. I'm not sure I could make the distinction, though, between which companies are NOT rewriting contributor agreements every week.

If 76% (I think that is the number that I read somewhere) of contributors never reach a payout, that only helps the rest of us by providing more income to the agencies so that they don't lower our commissions even more!

That's one of those myths forever to be quoted. It's not true.

There are about 30K people on multimedia's Isock Contributor list and more than 50% of them already have more than 90 sales, which should be comfortably enough for a payout. Of the others some will clearly make payout at some point even if they haven't already. The real figure is probably more like 30% and even then their cumulative sales are so small as to make little difference to the profitability of an agency. Of the 15K people yet to make payout (say fewer than 90 sales) then the average will be 45 sales x 15K = 675K sales in total. That's the equivalent of about 1 week's sales at IS's current rate out of a history of 6-odd years. By the time the agency has paid the admin costs of reviewing, etc they probably lose money on 'contributors who never make payout'.

^ Sorry cannot help you there as I have stopped uploading because of the increase in free Images and a couple of other reasons, just to much for me considering the six month tie in of Images

Can say that my Sales are way down which I guess is not surprising with no new uploads. Old non sellers have been disabled