Author Topic: Dreamstime Introduces Unlimited Extended Licenses (Read 21093 times)

Justanotherphotographer · « **on:** March 09, 2016, 03:32 »

"Dreamstime Introduces Unlimited Extended Licenses - Users can Reproduce Unlimited Copies of Print or Web Images

NASHVILLE, Tenn., March 8, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Dreamstime, the world's largest community in stock photography, announced today it made changes to its Extended Licenses by allowing users to produce unlimited copies with purchased media. Previously, customers purchased extended licenses for print or web usage of an image and were restricted by limits on the number of copies they could reproduce, for example for t-shirts, on-demand printed items, or e-cards.

Extended Licenses from Dreamstime are available with either credits or through one of the flexible subscription offerings. The new change went into effect March 1, 2016 and also to Extended License purchases made within the past thirty days.

"Every change we make to our stock image services is customer centric and designed to fit the widest array of client needs," said Serban Enache, CEO and co-founder, Dreamstime. "By expanding our Extended Licenses to unlimited copies, our millions of customers have yet another option to choose from. They no longer need to buy the print or web license again just to produce their needed number of copies. Because simplicity is best, they buy the EL once, and then can satisfy all of their print on-demand needs and electronic image requirements. It's just the latest example of Dreamstime's commitment to the customer which has positioned us as the leading stock image firm."

The Web Usage Extended License applies to electronic items that are for resale, such as web templates, screensavers, e-cards or PowerPoint presentations. The Print Usage Extended License covers physical items for resale, including the right to use the images for t-shirts, mugs, posters, and other similar promotional marketing items.

To read more details about the various Dreamstime licensing and terms options, visit http://www.dreamstime.com/terms.php#extended.

About Dreamstime
Dreamstime is a distinguished leader in stock photography, a major supplier of high quality digital images to the world's largest advertising agencies, national and international magazines, and film and television production companies. With over 41 million images online, Dreamstime has the largest customer base in the world (over 13 million users to date) and more than 20 million unique visitors monthly to the site. The acceleration in numbers overall makes it the fastest growing stock photo agency worldwide. In addition to the almost one million free images available, Dreamstime's active gallery is updated by the second with photos from the site's nearly 300,000 contributors. For more information on Dreamstime stock photos, please visit: http://www.Dreamstime.com.

SOURCE Dreamstime"

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dreamstime-introduces-unlimited-extended-licenses---users-can-reproduce-unlimited-copies-of-print-or-web-images-300227988.html

andy_arden · « **Reply #1 on:** March 09, 2016, 03:37 »

"It's just the latest example of Dreamstime's commitment to the customer which has positioned us as the leading stock image firm."

Where the f is the commitement to us photographers that supply you with material?

Mantis · « **Reply #2 on:** March 09, 2016, 09:00 »

I just turned off all my WEB and PEL licensing.

Gel-O Shooter · « **Reply #3 on:** March 09, 2016, 09:10 »

"The new change went into effect March 1, 2016 and also to Extended License purchases made within the past thirty days. "

I would think that might be a violation of our contract, since we never agreed to it. Anything sold in the 30 days prior would be under a limited license as far as our end of it?

Me · « **Reply #4 on:** March 09, 2016, 09:15 »

Quote from: Mantis on March 09, 2016, 09:00

I just turned off all my WEB and PEL licensing.

Same here, only get them once in a blue moon from DT anyway so no big loss. Pretty poor regarding lack of communication to us though

panicAttack · « **Reply #5 on:** March 09, 2016, 10:13 »

easiest way to turn all WEB and PEL licencing off?

PhotoBomb · « **Reply #6 on:** March 09, 2016, 10:24 »

Manage Licenses
http://www.dreamstime.com/extended_license.php

panicAttack · « **Reply #7 on:** March 09, 2016, 10:32 »

Quote from: PhotoBomb on March 09, 2016, 10:24

Manage Licenses
http://www.dreamstime.com/extended_license.php

thanks, done!

Mellimage · « **Reply #8 on:** March 09, 2016, 10:33 »

Thanks, PhotoBomb, turned mine off too. I think 50 credits is way too little money paid for the amount of rights granted by the license agreement. Might rethink that if Dreamstime changes the prices to a fairer deal for photographers!

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #9 on:** March 09, 2016, 10:55 »

lol,
step by step into the sewer, comatosetime!!!
history of what they did to bring them lower and lower down the right column...
-fb likes
-rejection of 2 or more similars
-persistent email to donate no sales in 3 years images
- ... oh well, you know the rest of it!!!

i suggest a name change next,.... to .... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz microstock agency
-

Elenathewise · « **Reply #10 on:** March 09, 2016, 10:56 »

Extended license sales on DT are not frequent for me. Even though, I am uncomfortable giving customers unlimited print run for such a low price. Here are examples of my recent EL sales on Dreamstime. Looks like for as little as $13.20 someone can have unlimited print run with my images. This is not acceptable to me, so I disabled the ELs as well.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #11 on:** March 09, 2016, 10:58 »

Quote from: Mantis on March 09, 2016, 09:00

I just turned off all my WEB and PEL licensing.

I did when they announced that this was coming as of March 1st.

As almost everything has dried up (for me) on DT in the last few months it's an easy call to make. Even if they "punish" those who opt out with lower search position, the drop won't hurt anything like as much as it would have in the past

sharpshot · « **Reply #12 on:** March 09, 2016, 11:18 »

I opted out. If they had much higher EL commissions, it might of been worth considering.

douglas · « **Reply #13 on:** March 09, 2016, 11:28 »

Can’t imagine anyone aware of the change not opting out.

They really are the Titanic of agencies, 'iceberg, what iceberg?'

The reviewing too seems to have deteriorated in the last few months. Not very picky about image quality but ‘image is too niche’ is a bit of a joke. Other than reviewers having no clue about important subject areas like architecture, if they are so smart at picking what sells, why are earnings plummeting and why do they have a ‘hasn’t sold in 3 years’ standard email?

masterlu · « **Reply #14 on:** March 09, 2016, 11:59 »

My first post here, hello to everyone!
opted out too!

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #15 on:** March 09, 2016, 12:05 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 09, 2016, 10:58

As almost everything has dried up (for me) on DT in the last few months it's an easy call to make. Even if they "punish" those who opt out with lower search position, the drop won't hurt anything like as much as it would have in the past

so true. even if they banned me, my loss in being with them earnings per year
is made up by a handful of days in ss. it has already come to be almost laughable ...
but as pixelbytes said before, why delete your dead port, it's already there.

Nikovsk · « **Reply #16 on:** March 09, 2016, 12:16 »

DT trying to stay relevant by devaluing our work, since they don't have anything else worth mentioning.
Bad reviews, bad search, bad sales. Pathetic little site.

obj owl · « **Reply #17 on:** March 09, 2016, 12:17 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on March 09, 2016, 12:05

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 09, 2016, 10:58
As almost everything has dried up (for me) on DT in the last few months it's an easy call to make. Even if they "punish" those who opt out with lower search position, the drop won't hurt anything like as much as it would have in the past

so true. even if they banned me, my loss in being with them earnings per year
is made up by a handful of days in ss. it has already come to be almost laughable ...
but as pixelbytes said before, why delete your dead port, it's already there.

"why delete your dead port, it's already there."

Because of changes like this, you still have to monitor it, because of dodgy partnerships you might not be aware of, because it might get sold to the Chinese. That's off the top of my head, do you really need the hassle if it ain't earning?

trek · « **Reply #18 on:** March 09, 2016, 12:20 »

Opted out.

dpimborough · « **Reply #19 on:** March 09, 2016, 12:33 »

Never had an EL at Dreamstime but I've turned them off anyway

dirkr · « **Reply #20 on:** March 09, 2016, 12:44 »

opted out, can't even remember when I last sold an EL on DT.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #21 on:** March 09, 2016, 13:16 »

Quote from: obj owl on March 09, 2016, 12:17

..."why delete your dead port, it's already there."

Because of changes like this, you still have to monitor it, because of dodgy partnerships you might not be aware of, because it might get sold to the Chinese. That's off the top of my head, do you really need the hassle if it ain't earning?

You can opt out of partnerships at DT (I did that years ago). If it gets sold, we'll all know. And I didn't say it wasn't earning, just that earnings had fallen dramatically from what they were. ELs were few and far between, but once opted out, no further monitoring is needed.

kevinbrine · « **Reply #22 on:** March 09, 2016, 13:39 »

Opted out.

Ides · « **Reply #23 on:** March 09, 2016, 13:54 »

Ok, opted out too. There are other micro and macrostock that give due value.

Smilla · « **Reply #24 on:** March 09, 2016, 16:01 »

Out. Can't remember the last time I had one anyway!

Rinderart · « **Reply #25 on:** March 09, 2016, 16:46 »

such a shame. used to be a great site. Have no Idea what happened. I wrote last week asking them to lower there payout amount to 50 instead of a 100. They said no way. well Pretty soon it's gonna be should I waste time uploading anymore?? Gonna be NO WAY.

Sad. Im out also. Almost 11 years down the drain.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #26 on:** March 09, 2016, 16:57 »

Quote from: Rinderart on March 09, 2016, 16:46

such a shame. used to be a great site. Have no Idea what happened. I wrote last week asking them to lower there payout amount to 50 instead of a 100. They said no way. well Pretty soon it's gonna be should I waste time uploading anymore?? Gonna be NO WAY.

Sad. Im out also.

Good to have the opt out, but Rinder is right. DT should lower their payout amount. Their sales dropped so much that $100 is not reasonable anymore.

theendup · « **Reply #27 on:** March 09, 2016, 17:58 »

Quote from: Mantis on March 09, 2016, 09:00

I just turned off all my WEB and PEL licensing.

same here...

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #28 on:** March 09, 2016, 18:14 »

Quote from: Rinderart on March 09, 2016, 16:46

such a shame. used to be a great site. Have no Idea what happened. I wrote last week asking them to lower there payout amount to 50 instead of a 100. They said no way. well Pretty soon it's gonna be should I waste time uploading anymore?? Gonna be NO WAY.

Sad. Im out also. Almost 11 years down the drain.

for the way they have been going 10 bucks would be more like it, since ss has it down to 30.
ss i am sure has paid off 90% each month, while these guys are sitting on a lot of other ppl's money...
even at 10-90 dollars a piece

MarcvsTvllivs · « **Reply #29 on:** March 09, 2016, 18:32 »

Opted out. Thanks for pointing this out.

spike · « **Reply #30 on:** March 09, 2016, 18:42 »

Opted out.

Gel-O Shooter · « **Reply #31 on:** March 09, 2016, 19:43 »

Is it even legal to retroactively change the terms of a license that was sold under different terms 30 days before .....on content that they don't even own? OPTED OUT.

andy_arden · « **Reply #32 on:** March 10, 2016, 02:11 »

why didn't they announce this on their forum? i bet 99% of the contributors there don't have a clue about this. thei don't give a s*** on us.

i also like this from the communicate it says everything about their relation to us photographers
"Every change we make to our stock image services is customer centric "

eyewave · « **Reply #33 on:** March 10, 2016, 02:49 »

opted out

rene · « **Reply #34 on:** March 10, 2016, 04:40 »

Opted out EL
Opted out 'partners programme' as well

Sebastian Radu · « **Reply #35 on:** March 10, 2016, 04:51 »

So do I.

mike123 · « **Reply #36 on:** March 10, 2016, 05:03 »

I used to get ELs on Dt from time to time. Last one was in February, which was a P-EL and netted me 15,77$.
I only used to manually activate ELs for images in levels 3, 4 and 5, because in lower levels the contributor share is just pathetic.

Now I deactivated ELs for all of my images.

P.S. I just checked my earnings from extended licences on DT. Got one P-EL sale on a level 5 image last year, which was paid with 50 credits and only netted me 8.10$. I would say not much to lose by deactivating ELs

mantered · « **Reply #37 on:** March 10, 2016, 06:02 »

ELs deactivated for all my images

Dt is still living in the stone age. The site interface is older than hot water and the upload process, image by image is a big joke. Not to mention the stupid reasons for rejections.
They are set on the road to hit rock bottom :|

Mantis · « **Reply #38 on:** March 10, 2016, 08:17 »

Funny thing. I get sales every day on DT. As soon as I turned off EL's I have yet to get a sale. Probably coincidence, but he's see what happens over the month.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #39 on:** March 10, 2016, 08:57 »

Quote from: Mantis on March 10, 2016, 08:17

Funny thing. I get sales every day on DT. As soon as I turned off EL's I have yet to get a sale. Probably coincidence, but he's see what happens over the month.

Might not be a coincidence. For people who haven't opted out yet you may want to do some test searches for some of your images. Then opt out and check if your search position changed. It would make sense that they would give search position preference to images that have the most license options and revenue potential.

andy_arden · « **Reply #40 on:** March 10, 2016, 09:06 »

i only left the sell the rights licence enabled. at 10k for an image. ha ha

Lana · « **Reply #41 on:** March 10, 2016, 09:18 »

What a crappy way to treat contributors!
The lowest of low earners (soon to be) now cheating with ELs and still refusing to lower their payouts!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #42 on:** March 10, 2016, 10:04 »

Quote from: Mantis on March 10, 2016, 08:17

Funny thing. I get sales every day on DT. As soon as I turned off EL's I have yet to get a sale. Probably coincidence, but he's see what happens over the month.

I think it's coincidence. I opted out Feb 23rd when they first announced this and I've seen no obvious change in sales since. There are days (particularly weekends) without sales (which never used to happen before things tanked last year) but there seems to be no increase in that since Feb 23

Mellimage · « **Reply #43 on:** March 10, 2016, 10:22 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 10, 2016, 10:04

Quote from: Mantis on March 10, 2016, 08:17
Funny thing. I get sales every day on DT. As soon as I turned off EL's I have yet to get a sale. Probably coincidence, but he's see what happens over the month.

I think it's coincidence. I opted out Feb 23rd when they first announced this and I've seen no obvious change in sales since. There are days (particularly weekends) without sales (which never used to happen before things tanked last year) but there seems to be no increase in that since Feb 23

yeah could really be a conincidence - I opted out yesterday and after not having sales for a few days before opting out i had two this morning.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #44 on:** March 10, 2016, 11:04 »

Opted out of all EL options.

DT is losing their game more and more these days.

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #45 on:** March 10, 2016, 12:37 »

Quote from: PhotoBomb on March 09, 2016, 10:24

Manage Licenses
http://www.dreamstime.com/extended_license.php

Whew. It's a little convoluted, but I'm glad DT makes it easy for us to opt-out. I never get ELs, but I'm glad to join the protest and have opted out of ELs.

BD · « **Reply #46 on:** March 10, 2016, 14:50 »

I opted out

Ides · « **Reply #47 on:** March 10, 2016, 16:43 »

Quote from: Mantis on March 10, 2016, 08:17

Funny thing. I get sales every day on DT. As soon as I turned off EL's I have yet to get a sale. Probably coincidence, but he's see what happens over the month.

Same here,

LSI · « **Reply #48 on:** March 10, 2016, 20:44 »

Opted out... One more agency going down the drain.

marthamarks · « **Reply #49 on:** March 10, 2016, 20:53 »

Quote from: Kuzeytac on March 10, 2016, 20:44

Opted out... One more agency going down the drain.

+1 I'm out too.

Blammo · « **Reply #50 on:** March 11, 2016, 07:31 »

Opted out of all EL options.

ravens · « **Reply #51 on:** March 15, 2016, 05:48 »

Quote from: andy_arden on March 10, 2016, 02:11

why didn't they announce this on their forum? i bet 99% of the contributors there don't have a clue about this. thei don't give a s*** on us.

i also like this from the communicate it says everything about their relation to us photographers
"Every change we make to our stock image services is customer centric "

Exactly! A lot of contributors don't have time for this crap. I just found out about this change today. Quite sickening.
Have you emailed DT directly and what has their response been?

dpimborough · « **Reply #52 on:** March 16, 2016, 12:20 »

Well DT just got dropped in to the "Do not upload to" category the number of agencies I submit to is getting smaller and smaller.

Nikovsk · « **Reply #53 on:** March 19, 2016, 08:58 »

Just got 0.15 for a XS credit sale. No even IS went that low.

I think I will close my account when I reach $ 100 next year.

Aspenphoto · « **Reply #54 on:** March 19, 2016, 16:44 »

Quote from: PhotoBomb on March 09, 2016, 10:24

Manage Licenses
http://www.dreamstime.com/extended_license.php [nofollow]

Thanks for the link - just opted out as well.

Pixart · « **Reply #55 on:** March 19, 2016, 17:05 »

Sigh. Opted out as well.

Lecaro · « **Reply #56 on:** March 19, 2016, 17:20 »

i have a question....
Before this change... it was someone that could control how many copies the buyer makes?

Mantis · « **Reply #57 on:** March 19, 2016, 18:03 »

Quote from: Lecaro on March 19, 2016, 17:20

i have a question....
Before this change... it was someone that could control how many copies the buyer makes?

The license controlled how may copies they could make. They took away that limit and buyers can now print your work indefinitely with one single purchase.

Lecaro · « **Reply #58 on:** March 19, 2016, 18:33 »

Quote from: Mantis on March 19, 2016, 18:03

Quote from: Lecaro on March 19, 2016, 17:20
i have a question....
Before this change... it was someone that could control how many copies the buyer makes?

The license controlled how may copies they could make. They took away that limit and buyers can now print your work indefinitely with one single purchase.

Yes i understand... they bought the photo and the licence told that you can use it for 100 times (example) but was something stopping them use it for 200 times? Is someone whi can verify this?

I am just asking... I don't understand how it works this really...

Sent from my HUAWEI GRA-L09 using Tapatalk

ShadySue · « **Reply #59 on:** March 19, 2016, 18:51 »

Quote from: Lecaro on March 19, 2016, 18:33

Quote from: Mantis on March 19, 2016, 18:03
Quote from: Lecaro on March 19, 2016, 17:20
i have a question....
Before this change... it was someone that could control how many copies the buyer makes?

The license controlled how may copies they could make. They took away that limit and buyers can now print your work indefinitely with one single purchase.
Yes i understand... they bought the photo and the licence told that you can use it for 100 times (example) but was something stopping them use it for 200 times? Is someone whi can verify this?

I am just asking... I don't understand how it works this really...

There is very little apart from buyer honesty which stops any sort of misuse, whether using files bought without ELs in ways which require ELs, giving credit to the author for files used editorially (which some sites require, but is often ignored), or 'sensitive use', which certain agencies forbid and certain others require buyers to pay more for.
Also some sites make it difficult for a buyer to know that they are supposed to buy extended licences for certain purposes.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #60 on:** March 19, 2016, 19:03 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 19, 2016, 18:51

There is very little apart from buyer honesty which stops any sort of misuse, whether using files bought without ELs in ways which require ELs, giving credit to the author for files used editorially (which some sites require, but is often ignored), or 'sensitive use', which certain agencies forbid and certain others require buyers to pay more for.
Also some sites make it difficult for a buyer to know that they are supposed to buy extended licences for certain purposes.

i think that is the problem ... ie. many users, or even myself... , do not even understand what EL is about.
i believe those 28 to 102 dollar commission for single dl are the only honest buyers for
such usage. which we all suddenly find vastly missing these days for many months already
with ss.

back to dt, i once found a book with my image on the front cover, to which i don't even remember
getting an EL from dt. it's been years since, and i still have not known of getting an EL
and i still see that book cover on amazon.
so far as i know, i think i got paid same as a single dl from dt for this. i know it is from dt
because it's the only place i have a dl for that image .

it all still goes back to the word, "royalty free", which to many still means, "use without paying".

ShadySue · « **Reply #61 on:** March 19, 2016, 19:28 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on March 19, 2016, 19:03

Quote from: ShadySue on March 19, 2016, 18:51
There is very little apart from buyer honesty which stops any sort of misuse, whether using files bought without ELs in ways which require ELs, giving credit to the author for files used editorially (which some sites require, but is often ignored), or 'sensitive use', which certain agencies forbid and certain others require buyers to pay more for.
Also some sites make it difficult for a buyer to know that they are supposed to buy extended licences for certain purposes.

i think that is the problem ... ie. many users, or even myself... , do not even understand what EL is about.
I believe those 28 to 102 dollar commission for single dl are the only honest buyers for such usage. which we all suddenly find vastly missing these days for many months already with ss.

Back to dt, i once found a book with my image on the front cover, to which i don't even remember getting an EL from dt. it's been years since, and i still have not known of getting an EL and i still see that book cover on amazon.
so far as i know, i think i got paid same as a single dl from dt for this. i know it is from dt because it's the only place i have a dl for that image .

it all still goes back to the word, "royalty free", which to many still means, "use without paying".

DT is one of the agencies which doesn't make it easy for a buyer to know that there is such a thing as extended licences, they have to know about it to think to look for it. However, even if they find the Terms of Use page, I don't see that they have to buy an EL for a book cover:
http://www.dreamstime.com/terms

I know that iStock doesn't require it (I have several book covers that I have randomly happened to find online).
SS doesn't seem to need it: http://www.shutterstock.com/license-comparison
You also have to make an effort to find info about ELs on Fotolia, but they also don't require an EL for a book cover.

ShadySue · « **Reply #62 on:** March 19, 2016, 19:34 »

BTW, although I think that RF was an extremely bad idea from the suppliers' position, RM doesn't guarantee that a file won't be misused.
I have an RM file on Alamy which has been licensed 22 times, but online alone I found over 50 separate uses, and that was up til two months ago, 45 of them different uses from one company over two websites, yet each sale, under the UKNS, was for a 'single article only'. Still waiting for that to be resolved.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #63 on:** March 19, 2016, 22:24 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 19, 2016, 19:34

BTW, although I think that RF was an extremely bad idea from the suppliers' position, RM doesn't guarantee that a file won't be misused.
I have an RM file on Alamy which has been licensed 22 times, but online alone I found over 50 separate uses, and that was up til two months ago, 45 of them different uses from one company over two websites, yet each sale, under the UKNS, was for a 'single article only'. Still waiting for that to be resolved.

could it also be that some of them picked the image up from someone who paid for it???
i was thinking especially for those sites that put the image in a large size. what's there to stop
someone else to right click save the image and then insert it in their own site???

i guess there is really no guarantee of who paid and who didn't. .. unless there is some sort of a
serial # for usage or whatever. but that would be too troublesome...huh?

ShadySue · « **Reply #64 on:** March 20, 2016, 07:42 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on March 19, 2016, 22:24

Quote from: ShadySue on March 19, 2016, 19:34
BTW, although I think that RF was an extremely bad idea from the suppliers' position, RM doesn't guarantee that a file won't be misused.
I have an RM file on Alamy which has been licensed 22 times, but online alone I found over 50 separate uses, and that was up til two months ago, 45 of them different uses from one company over two websites, yet each sale, under the UKNS, was for a 'single article only'. Still waiting for that to be resolved.

could it also be that some of them picked the image up from someone who paid for it??? i was thinking especially for those sites that put the image in a large size. what's there to stop someone else to right click save the image and then insert it in their own site???

Yes, of course, this is always the case. That's why you can often find dozens of hundreds of uses of a file online when you've only sold a very few licences.
In this particular case, however, at least 23 uses have been unreported/unpaid uses from one specific company (who have a history of under-reporting) - who possibly don't keep records of which of their files are RF and which are RM (or else they're just trying to see if they can get away with it).

Quote

i guess there is really no guarantee of who paid and who didn't. .. unless there is some sort of aserial # for usage or whatever. but that would be too troublesome...huh?

That would work for RM, but not at all for RF - iS do it, or at least used to do it, for exclusives, but IME they never got payments, just a takedown, which is still a result of sorts.
RM prices are falling, in general, especially with Alamy's UKNS, so again it's probably not worth the cost of investigating. However, if they would impose punitive payments (which they don't, the very opposite, in fact) for under-reporting, it would pay for the investigating and serve as a warning. Or maybe they're just too scared to tackle a large customer.

Of course it's very easy to 'take' images once they're online, and the constant social media 'share' buttons beside photos on many sites certainly give the impression that a photo is free to share, therefore to use, wherever. That's what I'd have assumed before I was in stock, at least as a non-commercial use.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #65 on:** March 20, 2016, 08:26 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 20, 2016, 07:42

Of course it's very easy to 'take' images once they're online, and the constant social media 'share' buttons beside photos on many sites certainly give the impression that a photo is free to share, therefore to use, wherever. That's what I'd have assumed before I was in stock, at least as a non-commercial use.

ah yes, social media... theft by small-print authorization!!!
eg. fb ... users unknowingly allow fb to use their private photos, and cousins' cousins' cousins
unknowingly spread their "authorized" usage with their tagging,etc.
the plague is so subtle that before you know it, your family's private album is proliferating all over
the internet... and fb flickr,etc... churn in the bucks from ads.

i see the agencies going that way too, starting with dt who was the first to use fb "like",
and then there is the "donate" button, or you auto-donate by not responding to their email
to take down your non-sellers.

are we not surprised agencies do nothing about theft. even social media encourages theft
by having you authorize them to be able to use your photos you add to fb, flickr,etc.. right???
and then there 500px who is still haven't decided if they want to
be a stock agency or a social media,...

mike123 · « **Reply #66 on:** March 20, 2016, 09:18 »

Quote from: Lecaro on March 19, 2016, 17:20

i have a question....
Before this change... it was someone that could control how many copies the buyer makes?

I have an image that sold multiple times in a row as an extended download 1-2 years ago. I guess the buyer wanted a certain number of copies, which was not covered by a single extended licence. Sure, the buyer must have been a honest one, but I also have the feeling people buying extended licences are more "serious" about their business then the average buyers.

Compared to the unlimited usage Dreamstime introduced recently, back then me (and also the agency) got 4-6 times as much as if the sale would have happen now.

I'm staying opted out of extended downloads on DT, unless they drop the unlimited number of copies (which I don't believe).

cathyslife · « **Reply #67 on:** March 20, 2016, 10:33 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on March 20, 2016, 08:26

i see the agencies going that way too, starting with dt who was the first to use fb "like",
and then there is the "donate" button, or you auto-donate by not responding to their email
to take down your non-sellers.

Not to mention their big push with Pinterest, which is when I bailed from DT when they wouldn't provide an opt-out. (other agencies also use the Pinterest model) Because even if someone does purchase a license for an image, it gets repinned hundreds of thousands of time...free. Not to mention watermarked versions.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/dreamstime-com/dreamstime-and-pinterest/
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/pinterest-22696/msg380879/#msg380879

Pixart · « **Reply #68 on:** March 21, 2016, 10:09 »

It's pretty sad when I've earned more on Canstock than I have on Dreamstime so far this month.

Mantis · « **Reply #69 on:** March 22, 2016, 07:52 »

Quote from: Pixart on March 21, 2016, 10:09

It's pretty sad when I've earned more on Canstock than I have on Dreamstime so far this month.

WOW. I've noticed an uptick in sales for the last three months, like $50 a month from $20. Wonder if this is part of their new model. If so, good job Duncan.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #70 on:** March 22, 2016, 11:16 »

Quote from: Blammo on March 11, 2016, 07:31

Opted out of all EL options.

I've opted out of all DT options, they can rot.

Rinderart · « **Reply #71 on:** April 01, 2016, 20:02 »

Tragic what has happened to DT. Im opting Out also. I wrote them last month asking to Please drop the min Payout to 50 Bucks instead of 100. They said no. well...Im saying no to EL's. such a shame. It was a monster site for me at one time. I have 250 Images in the to be submitted area. Just zero Motivation to spend the time tagging and submitting them. Never thought I would say that about DT.

Rinderart · « **Reply #72 on:** April 01, 2016, 20:17 »

What I don't understand is why are they Listed as #6 in the poll.

stockVid · « **Reply #73 on:** April 01, 2016, 20:24 »

Opted out. Thanks for pointing this out.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #74 on:** April 04, 2016, 20:12 »

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on March 16, 2016, 12:20

Well DT just got dropped in to the "Do not upload to" category the number of agencies I submit to is getting smaller and smaller.

I have more of those myself, DT was already one of them.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Dreamstime Introduces Unlimited Extended Licenses (Read 21093 times)

Justanotherphotographer

dpimborough

Rinderart

marthamarks

dpimborough

Rinderart

Rinderart

stockVid

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors