Author Topic: Press Release: Fotolia Launches PhotoXpress (Read 32212 times)

oboy · « **on:** May 21, 2009, 12:42 »

PhotoXpress
Fotolia
Photo Infos: Fotolia Launches PhotoXpress

Microstock photography pioneer launches free, premier-quality RF image bank

HARTFORD, Conn., May 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, PhotoXpress announced the launch of the world's largest free, premier-quality image bank, offering creative professionals Royalty Free image licenses for personal or professional use -- from Web site design and brochure illustrations to advertisements and editorial imagery.

"Small businesses, home businesses, consultants and students need images to help improve the look of their marketing campaigns and presentations. They struggle to find high-quality, affordable images for their company brochures, Web sites, advertising and newsletters. Today, the struggle is over," explains Patrick Lor, President, PhotoXpress North America. "PhotoXpress has created the largest free collection of high quality images on the web that allows these professionals access to the imagery they need -- without the standard licensing costs associated to other sources that would make use of stock imagery cost-prohibitive."

At launch, PhotoXpress will feature a collection of more than 350,000 images and vector illustrations. Members will be able to license up to 10 RF images daily, free of cost. The images were sourced through a number of partnerships from throughout the world, and the image library will grow daily by the thousands as additional images are sourced.

Images in the collection span more than 22 categories, ranging from images of people in professional settings to scenic shots from around the world. All images have accompanying model releases and may be used for any personal, commercial or professional use.

About PhotoXpress

PhotoXpress.com is the world's largest free image bank, providing creative professionals a vast and legal image library for both personal and professional use -- including Web site design, brochure illustrations, advertisements and editorial illustrations. Launched in May, 2009, and based in Hartford, CT, PhotoXpress.com features more than 350,000 images in 22 categories, with subjects ranging from people in professional settings to international scenic shots.

Press Contact:

Michael Conner
Director of Communications
PhotoXpress, LLC
P: 541-704-0800

RacePhoto · « **Reply #1 on:** May 21, 2009, 14:07 »

Have to go with you on this one. If photographers hated subscription sites, they are really going to hate this.

http://photoinfos.blogspot.com/2009/05/fotolia-launches-photoxpress.html

Free to get people to come to the site, and then buy? Or free because some folks will just take the ten free a day and leech the collection for as much as they can.

null · « **Reply #2 on:** May 21, 2009, 14:19 »

Quote from: oboy on May 21, 2009, 12:42

They struggle to find high-quality, affordable images for their company brochures, Web sites, advertising and newsletters. Today, the struggle is over," explains Patrick Lor, President, PhotoXpress North America.

Today, the struggle is over for a good laugh, looking at the result of some test searches.
Like this one by the keyword "Chinese".

bittersweet · « **Reply #3 on:** May 21, 2009, 14:49 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on May 21, 2009, 14:19

Quote from: oboy on May 21, 2009, 12:42
They struggle to find high-quality, affordable images for their company brochures, Web sites, advertising and newsletters. Today, the struggle is over," explains Patrick Lor, President, PhotoXpress North America.

Today, the struggle is over for a good laugh, looking at the result of some test searches.
Like this one by the keyword "Chinese".

oh my. Thanks in advance for the nightmares I shall surely have as a result of looking into the purple eyes of that "music musician baby"

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** May 21, 2009, 14:52 »

"Small businesses, home businesses, consultants and students need images to help improve the look of their marketing campaigns and presentations. They struggle to find high-quality, affordable images for their company brochures, Web sites, advertising and newsletters. Today, the struggle is over," explains Patrick Lor, President, PhotoXpress North America.

If they're struggling, they must not know how to use google. The microstock RF model is squarely aimed at those people. I don't see this as being able to gain new buyers for regular sales, which is the stated goal.

alias · « **Reply #5 on:** May 21, 2009, 15:10 »

I hope that people will leave Fotolia in reaction to this.

gbcimages · « **Reply #6 on:** May 21, 2009, 15:16 »

another free place, you got to be kidding! We make very little for our photos as it is now.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #7 on:** May 21, 2009, 15:21 »

I pulled my images off their site a couple of days ago. Even more of a reason to do this.

oboy · « **Reply #8 on:** May 21, 2009, 15:23 »

I think that Fotolia is loosing sales with this.

ThomasAmby · « **Reply #9 on:** May 21, 2009, 15:36 »

iStock launching the Photos.com deal, Fotolia lowering prices on vectors, Fotolia giving images away for free, StockXpert being choked to death by Getty...

Only bad things are happening in microstock

melastmohican · « **Reply #10 on:** May 21, 2009, 15:37 »

At least Mexico called off swine flu alert :-P

ThomasAmby · « **Reply #11 on:** May 21, 2009, 15:42 »

One more bad announcement and I'll convert into a buyer instead of a contributor

I think that would be more profitable...

helix7 · « **Reply #12 on:** May 21, 2009, 15:46 »

I'm not worried about it. SXC isn't really canabalizing sales from StockXpert. Buyers know that free images won't cut it for most commercial projects. This free thing is only going to be useful for home users, students, etc., people who wouldn't ordinarily pay for images anyway.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #13 on:** May 21, 2009, 16:32 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 21, 2009, 12:28

As long as the free sites are just full of sub standard images, I don't see it as a big problem.

Maybe, but "they" said this about RF about 10 years ago and then said this about Micro a few years ago.

lisafx · « **Reply #14 on:** May 21, 2009, 16:41 »

Quote from: helix7 on May 21, 2009, 15:46

I'm not worried about it. SXC isn't really canabalizing sales from StockXpert. Buyers know that free images won't cut it for most commercial projects. This free thing is only going to be useful for home users, students, etc., people who wouldn't ordinarily pay for images anyway.

This is my perspective too.

I don't see in the announcement anywhere whether this will link back to better images on Fotolia. Hopefully it will. If so, it may just be clever marketing. Like the way Apple gives computers to schools to build brand loyalty in students so that when they can afford to buy a computer they will be more inclined to buy a Mac.

I have donated a few old unsold images to Dreamstime's free image library and it links back to my portfolio. I don't know for sure if it has brought me any traffic, but it certainly hasn't hurt my sales. I am on track for another BME there.

I don't see a problem donating images that are already free on DT to Fotolia as well.

lisafx · « **Reply #15 on:** May 21, 2009, 16:44 »

For anyone who doubts free users can turn into paying buyers, check out the posts by Perry and Whatalife in this thread:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/wherehow-did-you-hear-about-microstock/msg98969/?topicseen#new

madelaide · « **Reply #16 on:** May 21, 2009, 16:51 »

Quote from: helix7 on May 21, 2009, 15:46

I'm not worried about it. SXC isn't really canabalizing sales from StockXpert. Buyers know that free images won't cut it for most commercial projects. This free thing is only going to be useful for home users, students, etc., people who wouldn't ordinarily pay for images anyway.

Funny that I know people who buy in microstock for their kids' school projects. These small buyers should be the main target of microstock, IMHO, not big corporations who can afford to pay much more. Anyway, that's life.

Now, whose images are in the free collection?

PS: oboy, the FT link is not correct, there is a double "http" in it.

stockastic · « **Reply #17 on:** May 21, 2009, 16:56 »

"Today, the struggle is over"

Yeah, I guess.

These companies will take stock photography to its natural price point, which they believe is zero. They plan make it on ads.

madelaide · « **Reply #18 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:01 »

Good news: their search results sucks.

Bad news: unlike SXC links to StockXpert, there are no links to similar photos to buy from FT.

lisafx · « **Reply #19 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:21 »

Quote from: madelaide on May 21, 2009, 17:01

Good news: their search results sucks.

Bad news: unlike SXC links to StockXpert, there are no links to similar photos to buy from FT.

This is bad news. Kind of takes whatever paltry benefit there might have been and shoots it down.

If they aren't trying to convert the free users into paid buyers I don't see any up side to this.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #20 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:27 »

I think I'm gonna puke

sharpshot · « **Reply #21 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:36 »

Perhaps when people register they then see the links to the FT site? They must be mad if they are not using this to bring new buyers to FT.

madelaide · « **Reply #22 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:43 »

They should have links to FT even if the person doesn't log in.

The next step is having a link to PX in FT!

No thread about this at FT forum yet? I don't see any announcement in their website either.

RT · « **Reply #23 on:** May 21, 2009, 18:01 »

Quote from: madelaide on May 21, 2009, 17:43

No thread about this at FT forum yet?

Strange they're normally so open to discussions like this.

madelaide · « **Reply #24 on:** May 21, 2009, 18:09 »

Quote from: RT on May 21, 2009, 18:01

Quote from: madelaide on May 21, 2009, 17:43
No thread about this at FT forum yet?

Strange they're normally so open to discussions like this.

I don't expect FT opening the discussion, but a member.

However I don't have a FT announcement to begin with.

madelaide · « **Reply #25 on:** May 21, 2009, 18:11 »

One more con: the author's name is not shown, although they show images by the same author.

lisafx · « **Reply #26 on:** May 21, 2009, 18:18 »

Quote from: RT on May 21, 2009, 18:01

Quote from: madelaide on May 21, 2009, 17:43
No thread about this at FT forum yet?

Strange they're normally so open to discussions like this

Kngkyle · « **Reply #27 on:** May 21, 2009, 18:20 »

What a disaster.

Magnum · « **Reply #28 on:** May 21, 2009, 18:41 »

I wish this business will stabilize soon.... Bad news every week. The´re like rats

microstockinsider · « **Reply #29 on:** May 21, 2009, 21:17 »

I guess we'll see how this plays out. I donated those images to the 'free collection' with the seemingly incorrect assumption that images would be given for free in return for links to my profile or my other paid works, when if first saw photoxpress I noticed I was on the front page, clicking on the image I could see a larger version

http://www.photoxpress.com/Content/free-alps/145143

and 4 thumbnail images of mine beneath - GREAT! I thought, that will be like StockXpert where they show some paid images along side... nope it's just 4 more of my free images. no mention of me as a contributor by name and no links to my fotolia work

serves me right for making assumptions.

I'm all behind giving images away for free, I have a site with 1000's of them on there, it's works well so long as you have some compensation in from of links or adversing revenue. I'm not going to jump into a snap decision of deleting the free stuff at fotolia just yet (but i'm not exactly happy). The photoxpress download agreement at http://www.photoxpress.com/Info/RFLicense includes

" (k) Use the Work in an editorial manner, without the following credit adjacent to the Image: "© [Photographer's name] / [Name of the agency providing the Image];"

Question: how is someone who uses the images going to know my name?

??

fotolia talk of their free API, which sounds good, but how exactly will it work in their advantage if there is no need to link back to fotolia (as seems to be the case in photoxpress)

null · « **Reply #30 on:** May 21, 2009, 21:28 »

Quote from: photohome on May 21, 2009, 21:17

I guess we'll see how this plays out. I donated those images to the 'free collection' with the seemingly incorrect assumption that images would be given for free in return for links to my profile or my other paid works

Very dirty trick. I don't have free images, not on Fotolia and not on other sites. If I give away images for free, it will be on a site under my control where I can set the ads and the links.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #31 on:** May 21, 2009, 21:40 »

Wow. So let me get this straight.

Patrick Lor makes big headlines and everybody gasps about him joining Fotolia and this is his brilliant first move? A free stock site?

What a great way to devalue Fotolia, pay photographers nothing, and give free stuff to struggling designers who aren't sharp enough to charge their clients for $1 images.

This sounds like a real winner all the way around.

lisafx · « **Reply #32 on:** May 21, 2009, 21:57 »

Quote from: photohome on May 21, 2009, 21:17

I guess we'll see how this plays out. I donated those images to the 'free collection' with the seemingly incorrect assumption that images would be given for free in return for links to my profile or my other paid works, when if first saw photoxpress I noticed I was on the front page, clicking on the image I could see a larger version

I did exactly the same thing, with the same expectation. Stupid me. Won't get fooled again, at least not on something like this.

As for deleting the images, I believe those free images are locked in for a long time - can't remember offhand if it is 12 or 18 months, but it is too long considering there is no up side for contributors.

null · « **Reply #33 on:** May 21, 2009, 22:39 »

I just had this crazy idea. As the Independent Photographers Collective seems to die softly, why not start a common site with a site name like Free Masters where we put up our decent (not crap) leftovers or LCVs for free?
Every thumb should have the clickable name of the artist to a page on the site where the links to her/his port can be found on the microstock sites, along with some thumbs of linked images on that site.

A modified Coppermine install would do the trick.

Benefits: we control the ads and the links ourselves, no fuzz with paypal etc..., no accountancy, free SEO, no messing with thumbnails, size 550px: large enough for school projects and small bloggers. We can keep the same free images on sites that treat them well, like DT, so the initiative is not competitive with our established agents and they will get increased exposure.

Just a thought...

microstockinsider · « **Reply #34 on:** May 21, 2009, 23:11 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on May 21, 2009, 21:40

Patrick Lor makes big headlines and everybody gasps about him joining Fotolia and this is his brilliant first move? A free stock site?

What a great way to devalue Fotolia, pay photographers nothing, and give free stuff to struggling designers who aren't sharp enough to charge their clients for $1 images.

Oh I think this has been a long time in the coming - we've been offered the option to 'donate images to the free collection' for years when uploading - just the way is been done that's bad.

It's upset the some of the contributor community (but then a lot of things seem to do that), apart from the press release the average buyer will no noting of a connection between fotolia and photoxpress, fotolia have offered their rejects at a suitable arms length. With the press release they have launched 'yet another free photo site' (albeit a large one) with some level of credibility - I guess they had too - imagine contributors response if we just stumbled across it?

I'd at least of expected that my name was listed with my image!? either that or a share of revenue from the site proportionate to downloads (it would be very little per download but something at least)

grp_photo · « **Reply #35 on:** May 22, 2009, 04:43 »

Quote from: RT on May 21, 2009, 18:01

Quote from: madelaide on May 21, 2009, 17:43
No thread about this at FT forum yet?

Strange they're normally so open to discussions like this.

LOL

designalldone · « **Reply #36 on:** May 22, 2009, 06:23 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on May 21, 2009, 21:40

Wow. So let me get this straight.

Patrick Lor makes big headlines and everybody gasps about him joining Fotolia and this is his brilliant first move? A free stock site?

What a great way to devalue Fotolia, pay photographers nothing, and give free stuff to struggling designers who aren't sharp enough to charge their clients for $1 images.

This sounds like a real winner all the way around.

Totally agree, you've really got to wonder how desperate Fotolia are when this is the only innovation they can come up with

Randomway · « **Reply #37 on:** May 22, 2009, 07:40 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on May 21, 2009, 22:39

I just had this crazy idea. As the Independent Photographers Collective seems to die softly, why not start a common site with a site name like Free Masters where we put up our decent (not crap) leftovers or LCVs for free?
Every thumb should have the clickable name of the artist to a page on the site where the links to her/his port can be found on the microstock sites, along with some thumbs of linked images on that site.

A modified Coppermine install would do the trick.

Benefits: we control the ads and the links ourselves, no fuzz with paypal etc..., no accountancy, free SEO, no messing with thumbnails, size 550px: large enough for school projects and small bloggers. We can keep the same free images on sites that treat them well, like DT, so the initiative is not competitive with our established agents and they will get increased exposure.

Just a thought...

That actually sounds like a really good idea. It would give everyone the chance to promote their stock images without feeling taken advantage of. I do a lot of variations for illustrations that never end up on a stock site. Being able to use those as promotion on a big site would be great.

madelaide · « **Reply #38 on:** May 22, 2009, 15:57 »

Quote from: photohome on May 21, 2009, 23:11

Oh I think this has been a long time in the coming - we've been offered the option to 'donate images to the free collection' for years when uploading - just the way is been done that's bad.

In FT? Aren't you making a confusion with DT?

airphoto.gr · « **Reply #39 on:** May 22, 2009, 17:40 »

A very bad move.

They'll get the traffic, the members' emails, maybe the right to make them offers (permission marketing), maybe some ads...

They haven't showed us what we'll get out of it.

They're devaluating the concept of microstock to zero.

DECISION: As the simplest "penalty" possible, we stop uploading there. They don't deserve our photos

dirkr · « **Reply #40 on:** May 22, 2009, 17:49 »

Quote from: madelaide on May 22, 2009, 15:57

Quote from: photohome on May 21, 2009, 23:11
Oh I think this has been a long time in the coming - we've been offered the option to 'donate images to the free collection' for years when uploading - just the way is been done that's bad.

In FT? Aren't you making a confusion with DT?

You could always send rejected photos to the free section on FT...

microstockinsider · « **Reply #41 on:** May 22, 2009, 18:46 »

Quote from: madelaide on May 22, 2009, 15:57

Quote from: photohome on May 21, 2009, 23:11
Oh I think this has been a long time in the coming - we've been offered the option to 'donate images to the free collection' for years when uploading - just the way is been done that's bad.

In FT? Aren't you making a confusion with DT?

DT have the option too, but no I think FT have been doing it for years also? in quite sure (perhaps I'm going mad?) Some of the images on photoxpress were uploaded back in 2006 I think, and I haven't chosen to opt them in recently so it must have been done at upload time. I've always opted in to many (not all) of them for free, I thought there must be some good reason why FT track downloads from 'paid, subscription and free' and total them all together in 'sold files'?. I seem to remember deleting a file that was in the free section once and watching it affect all the totals at the left of the screen (vague I know, but I don't spend too much time over analysing things like that)

madelaide · « **Reply #42 on:** May 22, 2009, 18:52 »

I really don't remember seeing that option - but I can be certainly mistaken, as I also haven't been uploading to them lately - until they recently offered paying 50c for those old images to be put in the free collection. In DT I remember more clearly.

photoshow · « **Reply #43 on:** May 22, 2009, 20:31 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on May 21, 2009, 14:19

Quote from: oboy on May 21, 2009, 12:42
They struggle to find high-quality, affordable images for their company brochures, Web sites, advertising and newsletters. Today, the struggle is over," explains Patrick Lor, President, PhotoXpress North America.

Today, the struggle is over for a good laugh, looking at the result of some test searches.
Like this one by the keyword "Chinese".

Patrick Lor? As in Patrick Lor formerly of IStockPhoto? What a match made in heaven Patrick Lor and Oleg Tscheltzoff, these two deserve each other for sure but as one is a proponent of open scource and one a greed driven capitalist it ought to be a nice and rocky relationship while it lasts.

Nice to see Patrick putting the screws to the photographers that made him a wealthy man yet again. I wonder if he brought his HAMMER with him to the new company.
These guys build a database they buy some servers, get us to fill them with images and then sell the servers and DB to the likes of Getty for multi millions, pass nothing on to the true owners of what they sell and then turn around and shoot us in the foot by regressing to the beginning all over again. What a POS!

stockastic · « **Reply #44 on:** May 22, 2009, 21:29 »

The key is to keep moving the price down in small increments over time, so there's never a point at which contributors get angry enough to pull their photos. The net effect of all these increasing convoluted pricing and marketing schemes is that we gradually accept lower and lower average returns per image.

Here's the story you'll read a year from now:

"Google today announced the launch of its new GoogleStock service, a free source of over 10 million stock photographs and images, all searchable by keywords, topics and categories. Google has completed marketing agreements with the major existing "microstock" sites who will now make their entire archives available through GoogleStock in exchange for a share of advertising revenues, which will be generated by targeted banner ads for products related to the search terms entered by the user."

Phil · « **Reply #45 on:** May 23, 2009, 01:10 »

well it isnt much in the whole scheme of things but I'm now pleased I ignored the emails for my unsold images to go to the free collection at $0.50 each

funny it is 'high quality images' yet these are the rejects and unsolds. I'm sure for many people they will be high enough quality though.

just went and had a look, yep there is some bad ones, but there is plenty of half decent stuff.

cant see any good reason for this, would love to hear from fotolia how this may benefit them (certainly no way it can benefit photographer) as I didnt see any links or mention of fotolia, didnt even see any ads - edit oops adblock so maybe not.

borg · « **Reply #46 on:** May 23, 2009, 02:03 »

Can somebody explain me...

What are these images in Photoexpress, 50 cents unsold files or rejected but exquisite images?

Also, I have same conclusion like John from Cutcaster...

FT isn't in problems, they sell better than ever and this is "drug dealer" business...

"As always , first crack is for free"

Will be good!

null · « **Reply #47 on:** May 23, 2009, 02:09 »

Quote from: Phil on May 23, 2009, 01:10

just went and had a look, yep there is some bad ones, but there is plenty of half decent stuff.

Sure, I just found my grandpa reading the Hiphop Gazette with a sixties transistor radio in the back. It was on the front page. The Marie Tussaud's wax museum pose doesn't bother me that much, but I feel that the lighting is not totally optimal.

borg · « **Reply #48 on:** May 23, 2009, 02:46 »

Another source:

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photo-news/stock-and-syndication/e3i82a4bef380199312e8e5a30d29baaf68

...Lor says contributors will be paid when their images are downloaded from the new service, but wouldn’t say how much, noting that it varies depending on the source of the images. For now, most of the photographs are files that Fotolia members have agreed to opt-in to the service, Lor says. Fotolia plans to add more images from other collections.

...Lor says some photographers may try uploading popular work as a way to get their names out. “It’s really an exercise in seeing what works and what doesn’t,” Lor says.

P.S.

(Different conclusions about pricing,also in contradiction)

...The average price of stock image licenses has fallen drastically in the last few years. At one large stock agency, Alamy, the average price of a royalty-free image is down 21 percent in the last year.

But, Lee said:

I conclude that if my income isn’t declining in line with this trend (which you can see in the top chart), then the sale price must be rising. That is, rising prices are the only reason I’m not earning less and less in microstock. As I’ve uploaded very little over the past two years, such a trend is to be expected.

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/page/2

WHERE IS THE TRUTH!??

Milinz · « **Reply #49 on:** May 23, 2009, 05:11 »

Well people,

If you are content with 25 cents from Crestock on non-volume sales it is logical that you don't need to be payed at all for some images that doesn't sell at all... So, why you need any credit for not sold images for two years?

The future step is prices down by 50% and also inflation... So all we will earn much less than today...

Hurry up there are new 20 microstock agencies - just upload and be happy for 20 cents they give you.

microstockinsider · « **Reply #50 on:** May 23, 2009, 05:39 »

Quote from: borg on May 23, 2009, 02:03

Can somebody explain me...

What are these images in Photoexpress, 50 cents unsold files or rejected but exquisite images?

To clarify, None of my unsold images are opted in for the 50 cent offer that was announced recently, my images on photoxpress are images that I opted into the free section as I uploaded them (i.e. I donated the rejected images)

Now...

I'd not seen that PDN interview until now, Why was the statement "Lor says contributors will be paid when their images are downloaded from the new service, but wouldn’t say how much, noting that it varies depending on the source of the images" not in the press release? or sent to us all via the site email? I understand if it's an experiment, and if they earn nothing from photoxpress then we won't get anything, that's fine, they are exploring new ways to earn from the arse end of the market and I think that's a good thing, BUT there should have been more transparency!

Instead of we heard that clap trap about "They struggle to find high-quality, affordable images for their company brochures"... yeah 5 million images for a couple of dollars does make life hard for some buyers

Phil · « **Reply #51 on:** May 23, 2009, 06:56 »

I like the "creative professionals" <- professional can't afford $1

re quality - I looked at backgrounds and textures, lots of garbage but there is the coffee beans, parchment papers, brick walls, wood textures a bit of wading through the garbage and there is some decent stuff (sounds like my portfolio LOL) - a few years ago the micro's were just considered full of garbage.

madelaide · « **Reply #52 on:** May 23, 2009, 12:38 »

Using the PDN article, I started a thread in FT forum.

http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=206316#p206316

Maybe they can explain us something good that we fail to see.

MatHayward · « **Reply #53 on:** May 23, 2009, 22:00 »

This is going to shock you I know, but I'm going to play devil's advocate

I never opted to have my images offered for free when submitting them originally. When the offer was presented to sell the right to offer my images that have remained unsold for 2 years or more to an unknown free site for $.50 each I balked and waited. When I looked at my unsold images I realized 2 things...

1: I had a crapload of unsold images after two years. Somewhere around 1,000
2: Most of those unsold images were unsold for a reason. The low acceptance rate gripes you find today, you did not find 2 years ago as some of you may recall. Most images were rejected because they had a date stamp in the corner or something. If I had to guess, I would say 75% of the photos I had in the "unsold" category would not be approved today.

So with no gun to my head and absolutely no idea where my photo's would end up I opted to sell the pics for $.50 a pop. I took the $500 I was paid for them and spent it with no qualms whatsoever. It would be a bit hypocritical for me to get worked up about it now. I read the word "donate" when referring to offering their images for free. I was paid. If you were not and you opted to give your images for free originally..I'm sorry, but that's on you. The only incentive I can see to do that would be to simply have bragging rights that your images may be used by somebody somewhere for something. I would rather get paid.

If there are 350,000 images available that means they paid $175,000 for them. I can't help but think there must be some thought that has gone into this as to a tangible return.

Mat

snaprender · « **Reply #54 on:** May 24, 2009, 00:39 »

Quote from: MatHayward on May 23, 2009, 22:00

This is going to shock you I know, but I'm going to play devil's advocate

I never opted to have my images offered for free when submitting them originally. When the offer was presented to sell the right to offer my images that have remained unsold for 2 years or more to an unknown free site for $.50 each I balked and waited. When I looked at my unsold images I realized 2 things...

1: I had a crapload of unsold images after two years. Somewhere around 1,000
2: Most of those unsold images were unsold for a reason. The low acceptance rate gripes you find today, you did not find 2 years ago as some of you may recall. Most images were rejected because they had a date stamp in the corner or something. If I had to guess, I would say 75% of the photos I had in the "unsold" category would not be approved today.

So with no gun to my head and absolutely no idea where my photo's would end up I opted to sell the pics for $.50 a pop. I took the $500 I was paid for them and spent it with no qualms whatsoever. It would be a bit hypocritical for me to get worked up about it now. I read the word "donate" when referring to offering their images for free. I was paid. If you were not and you opted to give your images for free originally..I'm sorry, but that's on you. The only incentive I can see to do that would be to simply have bragging rights that your images may be used by somebody somewhere for something. I would rather get paid.

If there are 350,000 images available that means they paid $175,000 for them. I can't help but think there must be some thought that has gone into this as to a tangible return.

Mat

From what I understand, there are photographers that opted rejected photos into the free section that are now on the new site, so Fotolia didn't pay anything for all those photos....that would make the $175,000.00 way off - it would be much lower. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.

airphoto.gr · « **Reply #55 on:** May 24, 2009, 03:17 »

Your link to PDN at the Fotolia forum was removed.

Quote from: madelaide on May 23, 2009, 12:38

Using the PDN article, I started a thread in FT forum.

http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=206316#p206316

Maybe they can explain us something good that we fail to see.

madelaide · « **Reply #56 on:** May 24, 2009, 08:45 »

Quote from: airphoto.gr on May 24, 2009, 03:17

Your link to PDN at the Fotolia forum was removed.

I wonder why public information is censored. And I wasn't offensive. And no admin gave answers to the questions. Tell me about hypocrisy.

Mat,
Since you were the person who edited my post, maybe you can explain it to us?

As snaprender said, not all images there were paid for. Everyone who gives images for free sections expect some positive side effect - more views to his portfolio, eventual sales from them. In PhotoXpress, there is no copyright information - this is highly unnacceptable to me.

And there is no link at all at even to FT. You probably know that in SXC every search result shows also results from StockXpert, in order to attract potential buyers to what are probably much better images. THAT makes sense.

What kind of interest FT has in simply giving away images? And if you consider YOUR observation, FT spent a lot of money buying people's low quality images, and now they simply give these images?

And what about the statement in PDN article: "Lor says contributors will be paid when their images are downloaded from the new service, but wouldn’t say how much, noting that it varies depending on the source of the images." This is NOT real, is it? People who sold their old images for 50c or even gave them upon rejection will never earn anything, right?

Regards,
Adelaide

ShadySue · « **Reply #57 on:** May 24, 2009, 08:56 »

OK, I'm a high school teacher with an insatiable wish for images and no way of buying them except out of my own pocket. The few times I've been desperate enough to try that, I haven't found anything suitable.
But for free, I can satisfice, and often do that at Microsoft Clip Art anyway.
So I followed the link and signed up.
Firstly, you can only get 3 downloads until you give them a lot of personal information, including your mobile phone number. Hell, only my husband, my sister and my parents know my mobile number - I don't even know it. Forget that.
It's a big con, though. Before I discovered that you have to type in your mobile number (it's hidden until you get to that bit, which is the last field) I had typed in the other info, as vaguely as possible. But I bet they have that info when I clicked on the 'click here to get your registration number', which was the only way to find out that you must give them your mobile number.
Well, even three downloads is better than nothing. Think about the first lesson I'll be doing on Tuesday morning and look for a suitable image. First of all, the keywording and/or search engine is pretty useless, but at last I found an image I could use. Click to download it. 404 not found error, but they system says I've had one download. Try again, still 404 not found error, so I haven't downloaded anything, but I'm still only showing as one download.
Try another search. Search results are totally bizarre, and 6 search pages later, I haven't got what I want.
I don't think you need to worry about too many people downloading your images for free.

null · « **Reply #58 on:** May 24, 2009, 11:20 »

Quote from: MatHayward on May 23, 2009, 22:00

If there are 350,000 images available that means they paid $175,000 for them. I can't help but think there must be some thought that has gone into this as to a tangible return.

Harvesting and monetizing personal data?

I just registered, under an anti scam and anti spam disposable email address of course. There is a total absence of any privacy statement on the site as to email and personal data. In other words, your data can (and probably will) be sold to "subsidiaries", included spammers and obnoxious "advantage" sites. PhotoXpress qualifies itself by this practice as a borderline personal data harvesting site.

Quote

By using this Website you acknowledge and agree that PhotoXpress may, in its sole discretion, preserve or disclose your personal information to its subsidiaries and/or parent companies for commercial purpose

You will get "free photos", yeah right. Three to be exact. Then you have to fill in your personal data (which can be faked) but you will have to fill in your cellphone number to receive the activation code and to have the chance to obtain "more" pictures (how many? 3? 2? 1?). Right.

(not a problem here where you can buy off the shelf anonymous sim cards from any small convenience store for 0.10$ - but how can they protect the authors by such a scheme?)

This actually looks like a shark site that will harvest your data and pass those to "subsidiaries" that can be anything, included more sharks. The authors are the prime victims. I would urge nobody to give his real cellphone number since I have been victimized before by telecom sharks that drained my simcard dry (luckily it was a prepaid card) by sending unwanted SMS that were 0.5euro every time. And no way to stop them.

I can't imagine that a serious site like Fotolia and a cofounder of iStock lend themselves to such a sharkish scheme. Are they that desperate?

Now the funny news:
They can terminate your account at their sole discretion (keeping your data), but

Quote

Termination of this Agreement shall not relieve you from any payment obligations that may have arisen prior to such termination, or any other obligations pursuant to any other agreement that has not been specifically terminated, such as a Content Upload Agreement or Content Download Agreement. The provisions of Sections 8, 10, 11, 13 and 15 shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

Payment obligations? I thought the site was "FREE".

Maui · « **Reply #59 on:** May 24, 2009, 11:37 »

Yeah, it is completely clear to me that the site is intended for data harvesting only. Otherwise there would be no business model behind it.

lisafx · « **Reply #60 on:** May 24, 2009, 13:11 »

Well, I am sorry there was not more disclosure about how the images would be used. I did collect my .50/image "donated", and they were only images that are already available for free on 123 and DT so I am not completely worked up over it.

My own fault for not checking out the details and just assuming there would be links back to my port on Fotolia.

Thanks Shadysue and FlemishDreams for checking out PhotoXpress from the buyer's perspective. I am sorry to have my images connected with a data mining site, on the one hand, but on the other hand I am very relieved this is not going to be just wholesale distribution of free images.

The worse deal it is for buyers the more likely they are to license images at legitimate micro outlets and pay the (very reasonable) prices that help us afford to keep making good images.

madelaide · « **Reply #61 on:** May 24, 2009, 14:57 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on May 24, 2009, 11:20

I can't imagine that a serious site like Fotolia and a cofounder of iStock lend themselves to such a sharkish scheme. Are they that desperate?

Thanks ShadySue and Flemish for the detective work. Now I am starting to think it was a good idea not to have a link to FT!

Hmm. Maybe it's a company that purchased those images FT "paid" contributors for, with a nice profit to FT, so they can have content for their little scheme?

ThomasAmby · « **Reply #62 on:** May 24, 2009, 15:38 »

I DON'T GET IT!

Why would Patrick Lor even expect contributors to upload their quality work 'to get out their names' if there IS NO NAME ON THE SITE?

ProjectPlus · « **Reply #63 on:** May 24, 2009, 19:32 »

Well nothing surprises me with Fotolia as I mentioned in my previous thread.
I do not trust them one bit.

It's a real shame that good peoples work is being associated with a data capture scam. It's probably a good thing though that images are not credited.

stockastic · « **Reply #64 on:** May 24, 2009, 20:19 »

What really bothers me about this is: companies turn to tacky borderline scams like this when they're on the ropes. This is a bad indication for Fotolia.

null · « **Reply #65 on:** May 24, 2009, 21:23 »

Nothing suggests it's a scam or fraudulent. Yes you will get free images (3), and if you want "more", well, you have to give your cellphone number. It's clearly stated in their TOS they can commercialize this content (your personal data) through "subsidiaries". These "subsidiaries" are just what they are. There is no guarantee at all they are related to photography. It can be a real estate "bargain" company selling beach property in Nevada.

This "fine print" trick is a very well established procedure outside the net too, and it works with (a small?) percentage of gullible people that fail to read that "fine print". Many travel and luggage insurance contracts have a small clause at the back that laptops, jewelry, cash, cameras etc... are not covered by the contract.
Is that scam? No, since those clauses are there to read for all. They even make some sense, since not only big bad companies are after our money, but there are many consumer-sharks around too. It's all too easy to walk to a police station and claim your laptop has been "stolen", then cash in. In Europe, it was estimated that about 10% of the reported "theft" of luxury cars was insurance fraud.

It seems that PhotoXpress is just a clever way to monetize content on the outskirts of the Internet. For instance are "domain snatchers" sharks? Not really because they operate within the rules and regulations of the system in a very creative and slick way. A lot of money on the net is made by these players, but it's not scam.

For those interested how these clever players / soft sharks work, this story about awsurveys is quite instructive. It catched my attention since my collaborator here spent half a day writing reviews for them, "earning" 27$ quickly, then I googled on them... and he found out he wasted half a day.

Although perfectly legal, no serious company that is built on trust, like a microstock site, would take the risk being associated with these gray practices. It's still not understandable why Fotolia did it.
As Deep Throat said: follow the money. If PhotoXpress paid a lot of money for those images (as Matt claims) and they have no ads on the site and they give away their content for free, there must be a catch or the business model doesn't work. Will anybody with a better explanation than data mining please stand up.

lisafx · « **Reply #66 on:** May 25, 2009, 08:32 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on May 24, 2009, 21:23

Although perfectly legal, no serious company that is built on trust, like a microstock site, would take the risk being associated with these gray practices. It's still not understandable why Fotolia did it.
As Deep Throat said: follow the money. If PhotoXpress paid a lot of money for those images (as Matt claims) and they have no ads on the site and they give away their content for free, there must be a catch or the business model doesn't work. Will anybody with a better explanation than data mining please stand up.

This is what I still don't understand either. Why Fotolia would do this. Perhaps they don't believe there will be any risk to their reputation? Assuming (probably correctly) that buyers who are gullible enough to be sucked in to their data mining operation won't realize Fotolia is associated with PhotoXpress?

In addition to reselling the data acquired, perhaps their ultimate goal is to get a list of people who need low cost images and market Fotolia to them. Could this be a way of opening up new buyer markets? If so it would make more sense to offer the three images and then link to Fotolia if they want more.

ShadySue · « **Reply #67 on:** May 25, 2009, 08:54 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on May 24, 2009, 21:23

Nothing suggests it's a scam or fraudulent. Yes you will get free images (3),

Maybe you will, or maybe, like me, you'll get a 404 not found but it shows you've had a download.
Looks like a scam to me; but I'm not about to try again to be sure.

null · « **Reply #68 on:** May 25, 2009, 09:06 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 25, 2009, 08:32

In addition to reselling the data acquired, perhaps their ultimate goal is to get a list of people who need low cost images and market Fotolia to them. Could this be a way of opening up new buyer markets? If so it would make more sense to offer the three images and then link to Fotolia if they want more.

That makes sense.

kgtoh · « **Reply #69 on:** May 26, 2009, 03:41 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 25, 2009, 08:32

Why Fotolia would do this. Perhaps they don't believe there will be any risk to their reputation?

...they have a reputation? When did this happen?
Do you mean positive reputation?

lisafx · « **Reply #70 on:** May 26, 2009, 09:13 »

Quote from: kgtoh on May 26, 2009, 03:41

Quote from: lisafx on May 25, 2009, 08:32
Why Fotolia would do this. Perhaps they don't believe there will be any risk to their reputation?

...they have a reputation? When did this happen?
Do you mean positive reputation?

Yeah, I meant reputation among buyers.

Obviously they haven't been concerned with their reputation among contributors for a long time

Of course the buyout rumors posted in another thread could be the thing to shed light on all this...

Lee Torrens · « **Reply #71 on:** May 28, 2009, 18:40 »

Quote from: borg on May 23, 2009, 02:46

Another source:

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photo-news/stock-and-syndication/e3i82a4bef380199312e8e5a30d29baaf68

...Lor says contributors will be paid when their images are downloaded from the new service, but wouldn’t say how much, noting that it varies depending on the source of the images. For now, most of the photographs are files that Fotolia members have agreed to opt-in to the service, Lor says. Fotolia plans to add more images from other collections.

...Lor says some photographers may try uploading popular work as a way to get their names out. “It’s really an exercise in seeing what works and what doesn’t,” Lor says.

P.S.

(Different conclusions about pricing,also in contradiction)

...The average price of stock image licenses has fallen drastically in the last few years. At one large stock agency, Alamy, the average price of a royalty-free image is down 21 percent in the last year.

But, Lee said:

I conclude that if my income isn’t declining in line with this trend (which you can see in the top chart), then the sale price must be rising. That is, rising prices are the only reason I’m not earning less and less in microstock. As I’ve uploaded very little over the past two years, such a trend is to be expected.

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/page/2

WHERE IS THE TRUTH!??

Daryl has misinterpreted Pat's statements. The compensation in reference is the $0.50 donation fee Fotolia is offering of non-selling images.

The explanation for the opposing statements about pricing is that the first one is referencing "stock photos" while my reference is just "microstock". Macro prices are dropping while micro prices are rising.

Lee Torrens · « **Reply #72 on:** May 28, 2009, 18:54 »

The absence of links to Fotolia is part of a strategy to build the site before putting on the "hard sell". It will come later.

All agencies offer free photos as a lure. Fotolia are taking it up a notch with PhotoXpress, and it'll eventually do the same as what Stock.XCHNG does for StockXpert. The only real innovation here is the way it self-promotes through the Facebook integration and Refer-a-friend form.

I know Fotolia's reputation among contributors, and I've written some highly critical stuff about their practices in the past, but I don't have too much of an issue with this one. If they can make it work (and it's within their capabilities) then it'll help Fotolia and (to a lesser but substantial extent) their contributors - us.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Press Release: Fotolia Launches PhotoXpress (Read 32212 times)

RacePhoto

bittersweet

alias

gbcimages

helix7

lisafx

lisafx

lisafx

lisafx

lisafx

grp_photo

Milinz

lisafx

lisafx

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors