MicrostockGroup

Me, too.

I believe that this fair agencies and all that should be made by top contributors, other like myself will follow after, first thing might be leaving all top agencies that are paying low but real stuff is that they are the only one actually selling..

Yeah it is admirable but will never work.  I'm not seeing a lot of commercial benefit for the big sites or buyers in signing up unless a critical mass of contributors are prepared to sacrifice immediate short and medium term income for possible long term gain and move en masse.

Thats just it and agencies know this:  in order to gain something you have to scarifice something,  nobody is prepared to do this. Speaking abot this. I was a member of AFAEP, Association of fashion, advertising and editorial photographers, for years. They never got their finger out to do anything.

Thank you everyone for support and comments. You're all right that it's difficult to change things and customer behavior. Still I believe it will work. Somebody have to try it! :-) Fitst, the target of the initiative is split into phases.

1. To attract contributors as you guys here. Get your feedback, implement that into the code of conduct and have it as a simple page that says what's right and what's wrong. It's target is not to say "all agencies should pay 50% royalty" but rather say this is current status of revenues and rules. And for agencies that would follow that code, it would be like a "This agency is OK" sign. Some agencies would be below average and some above. Still some might be great volume sellers as China is great volume producer.

2. If agencies and contributors will be OK with such a document (I'm also a designer even that I'm CEO of an agency) it would be a "widely agreed" guide for agencies how to make their contributors happy and therefore attract more of them. Later on we can rank/audit agencies to help you guys decide.

3. In the end contributors are the major power in the microstock market. And only contributors can decide if they will stay with an agency that generates a huge profit or with an agency that does balanced stuff. Look in the future and change it! Guys at Google made it even that AltaVista was a star at that time. The page I've made just collects the facts and should help you guys.

Finally

I believe that crowdsourcing has a brilliant idea in itself. And if the agency becomes just an effective connector between the artist and the user/buyer then everything is perfect. It would be so nice if the oldest agency in this industry would be able to keep that spirit alive. I think that would made it unbeatable. Still, I'm just a designer, so I might be wrong with how I see the world of microstock ;-)

I think it is an admirable idea, but why does there have to be a "good housekeeping seal of approval" for agencies or contributors...why can't leaving metadata in and providing opt-outs just be SOP?

What are the consequences going to be for an agency who "pledges" to do the right thing to reel in more buyers and contributors, then down the road changing their Agreements and only announcing the changes buried somewhere on their forum? (And of course we all know that THAT never happens).

What are the consequences going to be for contributors who keyword spam after they have "pledged" not to do so? Those things are already written into Agreements but some contributors submit images with good keywords, then once the image is approved, go back and spam keywords.  (And of course we all know that THAT never happens). The "seal" just makes the unscrupulous appear honest.

Is there going to be someone hired that will constantly monitor both contributors' and agencies' behavior? I doubt it. Unless all parties are monitored on a consistent basis, I can't see this as being effective. Are there going to be serious consequences to those who do not abide?

Glad you said something, that bugged me when I read it too.

I'm all for stopping keyword spamming, and I'm all for giving an agency a fair amount of time to rectify a problem, but I would never pledge not to post the problems on the forums. That's one of the benefits of the internet. Gone are the days when companies can treat customers/vendors like dirt and get away with it...the little guy finally has a venue to report problems and provide feedback to others. I'm sure this bugs the heck out of said companies.

I must be missing some important information and maybe someone can fill me in here but I was wondering why the very company that lost many affiliations with major stock agencies over the issue outlined in the article is actually the founder of this initiative...

If Pixmac now understands why it is important to be fair to its contributors, why did we have so many issues with them in the past?

Was it the affiliated agencies' fault and not Pixmac's for stripping the copyright info? And if so, why would Pixmac lose those affiliations if they are the ones who try to be fair? Political issues?

Sorry for asking potentially dumb questions but I'm kind of lost here.

I think that if a "fair trade commission" is going to be founded to provide honesty and transparency to buyers, contributors and agencies, a simple answer like "political issues" isn't going to fly. Who was responsible for stripping out the copyright? Someone has to know, but no one wants to claim responsibility. What has been done since to remedy that situation? Apparently nothing, because just 2-3 weeks ago, my images were on a partner site with copyright info stripped out. Nobody's talking. Nothing has changed.

Why don't contributors have the right to answers to those questions, when it is their work that was infringed upon?

This is why the whole "fair trade" thing, IMHO, won't work. When it comes down to claiming responsibility, answering tough questions, possibly losing money, nobody's going to want to step up to the plate. Sounds good on paper, in theory a great idea, in reality, not so much.

edited to say this just doesn't apply to pixmac either. I haven't heard any "truths" from the other entities involved either.

Yes, it's like buying from local producers to help jobs in your area and reduce transportation costs and emissions. It's a matter of attitude.

I think it is a nice idea but I strongly oppose the "secrecy passus" that problems should not be discussed openly in the forums.

It is the transparency of the internet that is bringing out the best in communities. It is even bringing down dictatorships and empowering oppressed people.

And for business it is the same. Transparency keeps everyone on their toes and their best behaviour. No more behind closed doors wheeling and dealing.

Please, look into history of MSG forum, Shutterstock's forum and our blog before you say this about Pixmac.