MicrostockGroup

There has been a couple of threads discussing photo comparison websites.  Here and Here for example.  

I also did a blog post comparing image sizes here

And Lee Torrens did a pretty extensive review of a number of comparison websites here

Then, today I just saw Lifehacker, a popular blog, do a post on SpiderPic

How long is it going to take before people start really using these sites.  I wonder how many buyers really shop around and have credits on all the sites.  I would think that they have their site they like and are willing to pay $1.00 extra for using that site - but who knows.

Perhaps things like this are going to force us to remove images from the cheapo sites or force them to raise their prices to keep us.

A worst case scenario is it forcing the expensive sites to reduce their pricing to be inline with the cheap sites.  

While I think a number of artists will probably remove their collections from the lower-priced sites, history has shown that as a whole the microstock artist community rarely does anything together. If it had, the current pricing structure would not be in place and artists would have more clout in the industry.

The agencies are in control, so the best thing to do is just keep on producing new content and get it online...

That puts a much different light on the value or effectiveness of SpiderPic or any of the "find-it-cheaper" sites.  It seems you get what you pay for.  

That's true, but if you don't want or need the additional rights that Alamy offers in their license, you're much better off buying at a micro where you can unbundle the components and pay for those portions you actually can use.

Given the number of existing price comparison sites on the web for all sorts of products and services, I can't see why stock imagery should be a special case and publicizing prices be a no-no. I can't see Alamy having more than the proverbial snowball's chance in h#*l of succeeding with a lawsuit.

Ok... lets say your "comparison site" earns commissions from some of the products it sells, then presents those products as being significantly cheaper than a competitor's product (which incidentally they don't earn a commission from) in a comparison that is potentially misleading, possibly deceptive and probably libelous.

Add that fact that the comparison site is accessible and accessed world-wide and compares companies that are headquartered in several different jurisdictions, each of which have different trade practices, disclosure and libel laws.

Notwithstanding the disclaimer, assuming Alamy is serious about pursuing something, I'd hate to be defending Spiderpic.

Interesting read, Richard.  Thanks for posting it

ditto

Totally agree, from what I've seen so far Spiderpic are on very dodgy ground and unless they expand their results to show an exact like for like price for the licenses available on each site featured they could be in real danger of misrepresentation.

Add to that the legalities of copyright that Sean mentioned above not just in terms of the contributors work but also that of the agencies concerned, the information the agencies publish on their sites is subject to copyright, not to mention the sites watermark that is on every image, they'd win on that issue alone.



Comparing prices for stock imagery is nothing like comparing prices of products, the buyer is not buying an image they are buying a license to use an image and each site has different variations and terms of usage on their licenses, so in theory Spiderpic saying that item A is available on site X for $8 and the same item available on site Y for $365 is misleading because they are not the same item at all.

The way Spiderpics present the results is not only misleading, but could almost be seen as defamatory and manipulative, seriously damaging the image of an agency based on distorted results.

I'm not  a lawyer but I think Alamy can make a good case in court, as the agency and its contributors risks serious damage based on a partial information provided by Spiderpics.

People tend to interpret that an image placed in five agencies is the same product, but nothing is farther from the truth. In fact, due to the licenses differences it's like it were five different images. Unless we get the exact same licenses they are not comparable.

Stock photography is not the same as comparing a Coke bottle in different supermarkets.

won't the agencies that charge more just block them from accessing their database if they don't provide correct and comparisons.

I could see the "Mom" looking for that perfect photo on her Christmas card using SpiderPic....but your big business who have subscription's to the various sites probably wouldn't put much thought in it, because of the quantity of the images they buy and their clientele, it don't know they would want to buy a lower end image even if it is cheeper simply because they are lower. If I was a buyer I would perfer to buy a subscription at an agency that has more of the quality that is needed than at an agency that has junk that you have to dig through. Does that make sense?

Is it possible that Spiderpics is already damaging Alamy? I have not had a single sale for lost month or so, and it used to be much better.