Nav: Home
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 25, 2012, 19:00

Login with username, password and session length

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors


« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print

Topic: Fotolia Being Investigated for Fraud in France?  

(Read 5588 times)
Ed


« on: July 18, 2011, 08:16 »

I don't speak French, but was advised of this article.

http://www.upp-auteurs.fr/actualites.php?actualite=560

It appears that Fotolia is being investigated by the "Service de répression des fraudes".  Was wondering if anyone else had any details?


Ignore | Logged


DepositPhotos.com
BaldricksTrousers

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2011, 08:38 »

Interesting - can anyone explain what is happening? I can't make out exactly what they are suspected of doing.


Ignore | Logged


CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production

iStock Gauge
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2011, 09:37 »

They are being investigated for selling intellectual property at unrealistic low levels i.e. too cheap.


Ignore | Logged


leaf
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2011, 09:56 »

Here is the english version of that article

Quote
Fotolia under review

Good news!

We learn that following a meeting of leaders of the association with the PAJ services of the Ministry of the Digital Economy, business practices Fotolia should be considered by the Fraud Service (at the request of the Ministry Industry and the Digital Economy) and the CSPLA (at the request of the Ministry of Culture and Communication) could contribute to an analysis of the conditions of transfer of rights on the websites and their problems related the Commercial Code and the Code of intellectual property.

We can only rejoice in the hope of those decisions that lead quickly to positive results for all authors photographers.

The UPP is aware of the work remaining to be done in many areas of professional photographers, and thank PAJ for this contribution and support to our fighting.

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upp-auteurs.fr%2Factualites.php%3Factualite%3D560

Anyhow, very strange....


Ignore | Logged


jm


Dreamstime Gauge
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2011, 10:03 »

I hope it's not the beginning of story "European Commission for regulation of size of pockets for pocket-sized cameras in cooperation with french photographers labour union destroyed microstock business in Europe.".


Ignore | Logged


jsnover
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2011, 10:38 »

It seems to it's very unlikely to be successful - it's not the same as selling a product lower than the cost of goods or other unfair trading practices. How do you determine what the fair price of a royalty free license is?

And even if you you were to go after this, why just Fotolia? They're in the same position as all the other microstock agencies with regard to pricing models, no?


Ignore | Logged


etienjones


« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2011, 10:42 »

I hope it's not the beginning of story "European Commission for regulation of size of pockets for pocket-sized cameras in cooperation with french photographers labour union destroyed microstock business in Europe.".

OR . . . . . . .  it is indeed Fraud that all I received for my hard work is 22 cents for my last download.


Ignore | Logged


pancaketom


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2011, 11:22 »

If I were able to investigate places I'd investigate the credit levels and currency conversion exchange rate monkey business as well as if sales are actually being recorded and paid. I guess the moving goalposts and "promises" to contributors would be worth a look too. Also maybe if the contract is legal.

The actual sales price seems like something less legally problematic unless you believe it is some sort of product dumping to drive the competition out of business.


Ignore | Logged


stockmarketer


« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2011, 13:32 »

OK, I think we're all agreed that if there's something legally wrong with the agreement, or if actual deception and law breaking is taking place, then justice needs to be served.

BUT... I consider myself an adult.  I read an agreement and accepted it.  I submit to FT under the terms I accepted, and I feel satisfied getting my .38 or whatever per download.  It is an arrangement that works well for me.  If it stopped working well, I am free to no longer participate.  I don't need some governmental body to protect me from the big bad stock agency that wants to stick it to me.  I don't cry to my mom (or government protectors) every night that the big mean world is taking advantage of me.  I participate while it makes sense for me until I feel I'm getting the raw end of a deal, at which point I'll walk away.    This slavery mindset is maddening.  If you don't like it, grow up, take your marbles and go home.


Ignore | Logged


Artmyth



« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2011, 13:36 »

isnt this a continuation of the France Photo Union's action? http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/is-it-the-end-of-microstock-and-royalty-free/msg189576/#msg189576


Ignore | Logged


cthoman



« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2011, 13:40 »



Thanks. I was wondering where I had read this before. I'm glad someone remembered. I thought I was having deja vu.  Grin


Ignore | Logged


gostwyck

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2011, 13:45 »

... I don't need some governmental body to protect me from the big bad stock agency that wants to stick it to me.  I don't cry to my mom (or government protectors) every night that the big mean world is taking advantage of me.  I participate while it makes sense for me until I feel I'm getting the raw end of a deal, at which point I'll walk away.    This slavery mindset is maddening.  If you don't like it, grow up, take your marbles and go home.

It is generally accepted that capitalism needs to be regulated by governments. It cannot be left simply to the market. When regulation is ineffective or inadequate ... well, we all know what happened next.


Ignore | Logged


stockmarketer


« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2011, 13:53 »

It is generally accepted that capitalism needs to be regulated by governments. It cannot be left simply to the market. When regulation is ineffective or inadequate ... well, we all know what happened next.

I'm all for regulation to prevent things like monopolies, insider trading, etc... any cases in which a company or parties within a company can take advantage of loopholes resulting in those people or companies becoming richer while customers or competitors are unknowingly deprived.  Governments must take an active role to prevent these abuses.

But I think we're discussing a different general concept here... should a company be able to sell a product at a low price when there are other types of businesses offering similar products at higher prices?  Should your supermarket be able to sell a frozen salisbury steak dinner for $2 when your corner restaurant would like to charge you $10 for it?  (Yes, there's a quality difference, but I think the French photographers union will also tell you there's a quality difference between their work and the microstocks.  Who is to decide when the difference in quality crosses a threshold that makes the price difference between two products illegal?  Nicolas Sarkozy?)  

What are you eating for dinner tonight?  If you're eating at a fast food restaurant or heating up something cheap you picked up at a grocery store or big chain store, aren't you committing the same wrong?  Should the government decide what you can eat tonight?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2011, 14:00 by stockmarketer »

Ignore | Logged


gostwyck

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2011, 14:00 »

But I think we're discussing a different general concept here... should a company be able to sell a product at a low price when there are other types of businesses offering similar products at higher prices?  Should your supermarket be able to sell a frozen salisbury steak dinner for $2 when your corner restaurant would like to charge you $10 for it?  (Yes, there's a quality difference, but I think the French photographers union will also tell you there's a quality difference between their work and the microstocks.)  

What are you eating for dinner tonight?  If you're eating at a fast food restaurant or heating up something cheap you picked up at a grocery store or big chain store, aren't you committing the same wrong?  Should the government decide what you can eat tonight?
Can you or anyone actually explain what this dispute is about? The thread title says 'fraud' which obviously is something that does need regulation.


Ignore | Logged


WarrenPrice

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #14 on: July 18, 2011, 14:03 »

It is generally accepted that capitalism needs to be regulated by governments. It cannot be left simply to the market. When regulation is ineffective or inadequate ... well, we all know what happened next.

I'm all for regulation to prevent things like monopolies, insider trading, etc... any cases in which a company or parties within a company can take advantage of loopholes resulting in those people or companies becoming richer while customers or competitors are unknowingly deprived.  Governments must take an active role to prevent these abuses.

But I think we're discussing a different general concept here... should a company be able to sell a product at a low price when there are other types of businesses offering similar products at higher prices?  Should your supermarket be able to sell a frozen salisbury steak dinner for $2 when your corner restaurant would like to charge you $10 for it?  (Yes, there's a quality difference, but I think the French photographers union will also tell you there's a quality difference between their work and the microstocks.  Who is to decide when the difference in quality crosses a threshold that makes the price difference between two products illegal?  Nicolas Sarkozy?)  

What are you eating for dinner tonight?  If you're eating at a fast food restaurant or heating up something cheap you picked up at a grocery store or big chain store, aren't you committing the same wrong?  Should the government decide what you can eat tonight?


There certainly needs to be some regulation on what they can serve. 


Ignore | Logged


stockmarketer


« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2011, 14:11 »

There certainly needs to be some regulation on what they can serve. 

Certainly regulation is needed for health matters, or protecting endangered species.  The analogy here, I'm sure you understand, is the pricing.


Ignore | Logged


RacePhoto



« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2011, 14:12 »



Thanks. I was wondering where I had read this before. I'm glad someone remembered. I thought I was having deja vu.  Grin


Same here I was searching and came back, to see it was already posted.

Even stranger I was the one who posted the link last time. LOL
« Last Edit: July 18, 2011, 14:16 by RacePhoto »

Ignore | Logged


stockmarketer


« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2011, 14:16 »

Can you or anyone actually explain what this dispute is about? The thread title says 'fraud' which obviously is something that does need regulation.

The blog referenced in the other post describes it this way:

"French law designated as void  any sale of goods, product and services that is priced at infinitesimal price.  For example, if one was to purchase one image on Istockphoto for let’s say $5 and use this image for a book, a magazine, an ad campaign, a brochure, on a TV set, in a Movie set, over and over again for 70 years ( life of a copyright), it would amount for less than a cent per usage. Under this law, that pricing is so low that it would not constitute a sale. Thus become illegal."

So let's debate that... should the very principle of microstock be illegal?  Is it the role of governments to protect us from entering into agreements that we otherwise feel will benefit us?  Should government protect aging niches of sellers from lower priced competitors?  You brought up capitalism, rightly so.  To me, this gets to the heart of "is capitalism legal?"


Ignore | Logged


gostwyck

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2011, 14:25 »

So let's debate that... should the very principle of microstock be illegal?  Is it the role of governments to protect us from entering into agreements that we otherwise feel will benefit us?  Should government protect aging niches of sellers from lower priced competitors?  You brought up capitalism, rightly so.  To me, this gets to the heart of "is capitalism legal?"
I think there are laws in most countries preventing big players deliberately selling at or below cost price in order to damage their competitors. I'd assume from what you written above that a similar regulation in France is being somewhat 'stretched' to cover stock photography. I can't see it being successful in what is obviously a global marketplace.


Ignore | Logged


stockmarketer


« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2011, 14:37 »

Predatory pricing is what you describe.  A new competitor will price a product or service so low, often taking a loss on it, to take market share from established players.  I believe the notion of taking a loss on the sold item is often what's at question. 

But this idea can't even be applied to microstock.   When we produce images -- photos, illustrations, etc. -- we don't expect the first sale to compensate us for our cost, time, etc.  Of course the individual commissions are far too low to offset our investments.  We know it will take multiple sales to get us to the point of break even and then profit.  If the French government is going to hit microstock with the "predatory pricing" stick, it's applying a measurement that is not applicable.


Ignore | Logged


stockmarketer


« Reply #20 on: July 18, 2011, 14:43 »

Another analogy... let's say I pay someone $50 to be an extra for a scene in my movie.  He's happy to do it, and I'm happy to employ him.  Then the movie becomes popular and thousands or millions of people see it over the course of several years.  The French government would divide the $50 by the number of eyeballs that saw the movie over time and determine that the amount was too small and therefore illegal.   So now every extra in every movie production would have to be paid the salary of what a unionized, speaking-role actor would make, anticipating that the movie MIGHT end up being popular.


Ignore | Logged


madelaide
« Reply #21 on: July 18, 2011, 15:02 »


Exactly what I was thinking.
But it can not be called "fraud", can it? One may even consider it dumpibg or some form of market strategy, but not fraud.


Ignore | Logged


etienjones


« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2011, 15:14 »

I find it ironic that after all the discussion here on this forum about how to protect photographer's livelihood against corporate greed, when an action is taken then there are those who oppose that possible protection.


Ignore | Logged


BaldricksTrousers

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2011, 15:26 »

It makes no sense. If a company can sell a product at a profit at a low price then it is not competing unfairly. If microstock is illegal because the cost per license is less than the total production cost of the image, then macrostock is illegal, too, unless prices are kept at the level a photographer would charge  for producing the image on a contract basis, because he is no longer allowed to average costs over multiple licenses.
The argument would mean every cinema would have to charge enough to cover the entire production costs of a film at every viewing. Or maybe every film buff would have to stump up millions to be allowed to see it.
What about dance or theatre... it's just crazy. So is claiming that it is "protecting photographers".


Ignore | Logged


stockmarketer


« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2011, 15:41 »

I find it ironic that after all the discussion here on this forum about how to protect photographer's livelihood against corporate greed, when an action is taken then there are those who oppose that possible protection.

You will find a variety of viewpoints in this forum.  To put it in black and white terms (though there's plenty of gray area in between), there are those here who want to be protected (pro-union) and those who believe in personal responsibility.  The pro-union folks are probably happy with the French government action, while those who believe in the individual prospering or floundering by his own work and ideas are finding this whole idea ludicrous.   I think you know which camp I'm in.


Ignore | Logged


Envateo Photo ToolsMicrostock Insider
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
France Bans Citizen Photo Journalists
Microstock News
Dreamstime News 9 1487 Last post March 08, 2007, 04:06
by CJPhoto
Petition in france
Fotolia.com
roro 0 711 Last post June 11, 2008, 04:41
by roro
Cannes, France GTG and Shoot - April 27, 2010 « 1 2 »
Microstock GTG / Workshops / Events
leaf 37 5000 Last post May 28, 2010, 17:05
by leaf
Tour de France
General Photography Discussion
LostOne 5 881 Last post July 26, 2010, 15:04
by epantha
France - regulations
General Stock Discussion
ShadySue 10 633 Last post March 30, 2012, 18:41
by ShadySue

TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc