Important Dreamstime Announcements - New Pricing Structure

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #25 on: April 01, 2011, 07:20 »

#link

it looks like the free part was the april fools lightbox
http://www.dreamstime.com/april-fools-day-rcollection15635-resi146

haha.. ok ok.. maybe not.. just go to Dreamstime and try and download one of the free photos on the site.. they are all free today. Wink

.. you'll understand.


« Last Edit: April 01, 2011, 07:24 by leaf »	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #26 on: April 01, 2011, 07:24 »

#link

Quote

This license represents an exclusive right to use the downloaded image, but such exclusivity will only last for a limited period of time. The buyer can use the image exclusively (exclusivity applies from the moment that the file was downloaded using this license) during the time period selected, and include it in any type of design with just a few restrictions: sensitive subjects may still apply and the buyer may not claim that the file was created by him nor resell it as a photo.
Dreamstime will disable the image immediately after the buyer acquired this license. The Contributor will be required to disable the file permanently from all other places where he or she may sell it, as soon as possible after the sale occured, but no longer than 72 hours. The Contributor acknowledges and agrees to provide the buyer with the exclusive right to use the file retrieved using the SR-EL1 or SR-EL3 licenses, for the duration of the selected exclusivity period.
The length of time for the exclusivity period depends on which license is selected. SR-EL1 will grant an exclusive right to use the image for one year. Similarly, SR-EL3 will grant an exclusive right to use the image for three years. At the end of the exclusivity period, the buyer`s license will continue as before, with all of the same rights, except for the right of exclusivity, and the image will again be added to the available library of images on Dreamstime.com and again be made available to all users for purchase. After the end of the exclusivity period, the Contributor will also be free to offer the image for download from other places where the Contributor sells his or her images.

This whole thing is a lie. Unless, the image is a 0 download and loaded exclusively and for the first time on DT, there is no way they can offer exclusivity. Maybe they can call it "Have us remove this image from the site for X years".


	Ignore \| Logged

BaldricksTrousers

« Reply #27 on: April 01, 2011, 07:31 »

#link

Quote from: sjlocke on April 01, 2011, 07:24

Quote

This whole thing is a lie. Unless, the image is a 0 download and loaded exclusively and for the first time on Dreamstime, there is no way they can offer exclusivity. Maybe they can call it "Have us remove this image from the site for X years".

They are serious about that. It's irrational and could cause them all sorts of legal problems but I'm assured that this part is real. Just not thought out correctly, I suppose. They seem to be mixing up "selling the rights", which can happen at any time in an image's history if the buyer accepts that other people have pre-existing usage rights with "exclusive usage rights" which require full knowledge of the image's history (which isn't available).


	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #28 on: April 01, 2011, 07:42 »

#link

Maybe someone could query over there how they could be so blatantly wrong in claiming to be able to give exclusivity to someone.


	Ignore \| Logged

luissantos84

« Reply #29 on: April 01, 2011, 08:10 »

#link

I like it! But honestly the new level 0 is only good for buyers.. I guess when a buyer look into a picture (a level 2) try to look at a level 1 (and he would buy that) not the new level 0 (cheaper).. but overall prices have raised a lot, let´s see


	Ignore \| Logged

LSD72

« Reply #30 on: April 01, 2011, 09:48 »

#link

Quote from: sjlocke on April 01, 2011, 07:42

Maybe someone could query over there how they could be so blatantly wrong in claiming to be able to give exclusivity to someone.

Paulcowan is asking that question Sean.

"Is the SR-EL a joke, too? Because you can't sell exclusive usage rights to an image if it has already been sold RF. It's a complete contradiction and is absolutely different from selling the copyright."


	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #31 on: April 01, 2011, 09:51 »

#link

I wonder if they'll answer. That page looks awfully official to be a "joke".

Now that I read it, "Sell the Rights" is bogus too.

Quote

This license represents a full ownership of the downloaded image. The buyer can use it exclusively (exclusivity applies from the moment that the file was downloaded using this license), and include it in any type of design with just a few restrictions: sensitive subjects may still apply and the buyer may not claim that the file was created by him nor resell it as a photo.
The agency will disable the image immediately after the buyer acquired this license. The photographer is required to disable the file permanently from all other places where he may sell it, as soon as possible after the sale occured, but no longer than 72 hours. The photographer acknowledge and agrees to provide the buyer with full ownership for the file retrieved using the SR-EL license.

You can't promise exclusivity on something sold already, and ownership and copyright of the image does allow one to resell it as a photo or do whatever they like with it. So that's a "joke" too.

Unless "Sell the rights" is only available on non-downloaded exclusive images. Is it?


« Last Edit: April 01, 2011, 09:55 by sjlocke »	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #32 on: April 01, 2011, 09:56 »

#link

Is that an admin responding?

Quote

The new limited licenses allow the same usages and have the same specifications as the regular Sell the rights license. The only difference is that they provide usage rights for a limited period of time. Instead of being lifetime granted, the exclusive usage is granted for one and three years. During this time, the images are withdrawn from all sale venues - as it works with the regular SR-EL. We have had the sell the rights license active and available on our site for four years now. And there have been very many sales of this type.

So, even they seem to be ignorant of the fact that you can't grant exclusivity to anyone for RF work.

The tooltip over SR-EL on an image page says: "Full buyout of the content, images are wholly owned and can be modified and used exclusively in any type of design or product. (restrictions regarding sensitive subjects still apply)."

And that's on an image with downloads.


« Last Edit: April 01, 2011, 09:59 by sjlocke »	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #33 on: April 01, 2011, 10:46 »

#link

Well, I got my blog post topic for today...

http://bit.ly/eA0v5t


	Ignore \| Logged

bhr

« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2011, 11:05 »

#link

Quote from: sjlocke on April 01, 2011, 09:51

ownership and copyright of the image does allow one to resell it as a photo or do whatever they like with it.

It is a sale contract with conditions. That often happens with every other sort of property sale I can think of - including intellectual property where copyright may still exist.

I don't see the problem there but maybe I am missing something.

Quote from: sjlocke on April 01, 2011, 09:51

You can't promise exclusivity on something sold already

My guess would be that the contract makes clear somewhere that this is from now on and that others may already have existing rights to use the image.


	Ignore \| Logged

BaldricksTrousers

« Reply #35 on: April 01, 2011, 11:20 »

#link

Looks like an own goal in the April Fool department. The key is their usage of the word "exclusive". Sean's a fast writer.


	Ignore \| Logged

rubyroo

« Reply #36 on: April 01, 2011, 11:31 »

#link

I'm intrigued by this part:

"The Contributor will be required to disable the file permanently from all other places where he or she may sell it, as soon as possible after the sale occured, but no longer than 72 hours. "

How could a contributor possibly guarantee that this happens? It's dependent on the other agencies responding to their request within that time frame.


	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #37 on: April 01, 2011, 11:32 »

#link

Quote from: bunhill on April 01, 2011, 11:05

Quote from: sjlocke on April 01, 2011, 09:51

ownership and copyright of the image does allow one to resell it as a photo or do whatever they like with it.

Well, either you're selling ownership and copyright and what goes with that, or you aren't. When I buy a hammer, they don't say "you can't build houses with this". Like I said though, that wasn't really the main problem I saw.

Quote

Quote from: sjlocke on April 01, 2011, 09:51

You can't promise exclusivity on something sold already

My guess would be that the contract makes clear somewhere that this is from now on and that others may already have existing rights to use the image.

It doesn't though. The terms say nothing about "from now on".
http://www.dreamstime.com/elterms.php#sr-el


	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #38 on: April 01, 2011, 11:37 »

#link

Someone on the forum says: As for your statement above, the SR-EL license does NOT transfer copyright, so they are not eligible to resell the image, or claim ownership: "the buyer may not claim that the file was created by him nor resell it as a photo"

What does "ownership" imply, if not a transfer of copyright. What do you get from the word "ownership", that would be more than just a combination of all the other EL offerings?


	Ignore \| Logged

lisafx

Premium Member

« Reply #39 on: April 01, 2011, 11:42 »

#link

Overall this looks very good to me. Dreamstime is the only site that has announced increase in prices without taking anything away from contributors. When they make more money, we make more money. It feels like more of a partnership.

I will probably give some more thought to submitting some exclusive images there.

I don't quite understand all the details of the new SR-EL license, but I don't sell the rights to any of my images, so I guess it doesn't affect me.

I don't have a problem with the addition of the level 0. It may encourage sales of new, or older undiscovered images. Perhaps we will get fewer deactivation notices. Either way, one sale and they are back to level 1 where we will see an increase in their price.

I expect I will see my income at DT grow this year. Finally something to feel good about!!


	Ignore \| Logged

bhr

« Reply #40 on: April 01, 2011, 11:54 »

#link

The 'exclusivity' thing is definitely interesting. But I have read questions before on forums where people have been contacted by buyers asking for more or less that - and the buyers have gone ahead with the 'sale' even whilst knowing that others already have an RF license.

Quote from: sjlocke on April 01, 2011, 11:37

What does "ownership" imply, if not a transfer of copyright. What do you get from the word "ownership", that would be more than just a combination of all the other EL offerings?

I guess that's a different question again. I suppose a buyer has to use their judgement and decide whether the contract offers them the sorts of benefits they are looking for. I guess that is partly down to them researching it.

You quite definitely can attach conditions to how content can be used whilst still basically transferring ownership. Then it looks something like a perpetual lease with conditions. But still a 'sale'. I can think of several cases like this involving quite well known work for example.

Also - you can transfer ownership without transferring copyright. Certainly in this jurisdiction. I say this as someone who is in the middle of formally aquiring a body of work. The contract which the law firm has drafted describes the work and then specifically details that it is the transfer of both the physical content AND any copyright.

You have to assume that Dreamstime have talked to their lawyers.


« Last Edit: April 01, 2011, 11:56 by bunhill »	Ignore \| Logged

cclapper

Premium Member

« Reply #41 on: April 01, 2011, 11:55 »

#link

I hate April 1st. I too will be glad when it's over. All it does is cause panic and/or confusion. So not funny.

Quote from: lisafx on April 01, 2011, 11:42

Overall this looks very good to me. Dreamstime is the only site that has announced increase in prices without taking anything away from contributors. When they make more money, we make more money. It feels like more of a partnership.

I will probably give some more thought to submitting some exclusive images there.

I don't quite understand all the details of the new SR-EL license, but I don't sell the rights to any of my images, so I guess it doesn't affect me.

I don't have a problem with the addition of the level 0. It may encourage sales of new, or older undiscovered images. Perhaps we will get fewer deactivation notices. Either way, one sale and they are back to level 1 where we will see an increase in their price.

I expect I will see my income at Dreamstime grow this year. Finally something to feel good about!!

It sounds very encouraging. I am hoping that April 2nd doesn't bring the real joke and part 2...the lowering of contributors' royalties. Roll Eyes

I have had a couple requests for "sell the rights". Dreamstime suggests $3000, so that's what I ask. No one has been willing to pay, so far. And I haven't submitted any exclusive images yet, but I appreciate that some of you guys are reading it all over and pointing out the issues.


« Last Edit: April 01, 2011, 12:02 by cclapper »	Ignore \| Logged

pancaketom

« Reply #42 on: April 01, 2011, 12:01 »

#link

I do wonder exactly which parts of this are true and which are jokes. I don't have any SR images (I think?) so that doesn't concern me.

In general I think the level 0 idea is a decent one. I wish they didn't have to drop the commission % AGAIN to an even lower 25% (although istock does put even that into perspective). At least it will be only one sale per image at that level. I'd rather see a lower price with a higher %, but that is my take on it, at least the sub return doesn't drop.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #43 on: April 01, 2011, 12:08 »

#link

Quote from: rubyroo on April 01, 2011, 11:31

That's why I never tick off "sell the rights" box except very few exclusive images. If I rememeber well for example at Zoonar you must keep your images there for 6 months before deleting.


	Ignore \| Logged

cthoman

« Reply #44 on: April 01, 2011, 13:02 »

#link

This kind of seems in poor taste even for April fools. Maybe, I'm just losing my sense of humor. Grin


	Ignore \| Logged

rimglow

« Reply #45 on: April 01, 2011, 13:04 »

#link

Dreamstime down for maintenance.


	Ignore \| Logged

cthoman

« Reply #46 on: April 01, 2011, 13:05 »

#link

OK, now DT is down. Now, that is funny. Grin


	Ignore \| Logged

jamirae

Premium Member

« Reply #47 on: April 01, 2011, 13:18 »

#link

I will wait until tomorrow, April 2nd, to make a judgment on this one.


	Ignore \| Logged

jamirae

Premium Member

« Reply #48 on: April 01, 2011, 13:23 »

#link

Quote from: cthoman on April 01, 2011, 13:05

OK, now Dreamstime is down. Now, that is funny. Grin

I bet too many people were pissed off at their stupid "free- but not really - but we'll give you 10% off insead" sale - - and whatever else was supposed to be funny that is just causing outrage instead so they took the site down quickly to fix it.

but geez, I'm not even getting a "down for maintenance" message - just a 'unable to connect - problem loading page' error.