Author Topic: Vivozoom (Read 32830 times)

sjlocke · « **Reply #175 on:** February 20, 2009, 11:25 »

If you can't be profitable at allowing the client access to 750 images a month, why don't you change your terms, and get rid of the "stockpiling" protection clause? Why not 500, and not worry about it? Does anyone need more than 500 images a month? You're trying to gain customers with your warranty advertising, yet you'll annoy them with your 750 a month (don't check the fine print) advertising. Speaking of warranties....

Sorry, why don't we go with the basics.

1. What is a warranty?
2. What does your warranty offer a buyer?
3. What are you backing this warranty up with?
4. If you are sued for violating this warranty, who pays?

donnelt · « **Reply #176 on:** February 20, 2009, 11:30 »

Quote from: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 11:14

Stockpiling: If we notice a client regularly downloading full quota of images we'll investigate under our EULA provisions for the prohibition of stockpiling. Nothing magical. Each case on its merits. Sorry I don't have a better answer for you.

Warranty: We do the same as every one else who offers a warranty. Again nothing magical. Take a look at Getty's or Corbis' EULA. Would you like Getty to offer a warranty on istock images?

To understand the magnitude of what we're doing - here is the section covering clients' Sales Warranty - this is in draft, but we're not anticipating any changes to this wording as it stands:

We are guaranteeing that the ownership of the image and its use (so long as it's within the terms of the license we grant you) will not result in a legal problem for you. For example we guarantee that you will not get:

- Legitimate claims from photographers that the image you were using had not been licensed for resale to the image library you downloaded it from.

- Legitimate claims from property owners that the image you are using contains a protected property that cannot be depicted in an image for resale to the library that you downloaded it from.

- Legitimate claims from models that they had never granted the right to use their image to the photographer/library that licensed you the image.

If you do get a claim, we will defend you provided you notify us of the claim and permit us to handle the defense.

donnelt · « **Reply #177 on:** February 20, 2009, 11:35 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 20, 2009, 11:25

If you can't be profitable at allowing the client access to 750 images a month, why don't you change your terms, and get rid of the "stockpiling" protection clause? Why not 500, and not worry about it? Does anyone need more than 500 images a month? You're trying to gain customers with your warranty advertising, yet you'll annoy them with your 750 a month (don't check the fine print) advertising. Speaking of warranties....

Sorry, why don't we go with the basics.

1. What is a warranty?
2. What does your warranty offer a buyer?
3. What are you backing this warranty up with?
4. If you are sued for violating this warranty, who pays?

It's the same type of warranty that Getty offers on traditional RF. Why doesn't Getty offer it on istock images. Huh?

donnelt · « **Reply #178 on:** February 20, 2009, 11:41 »

Quote from: RT on February 20, 2009, 11:24

Quote from: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 11:14
Warranty: We do the same as every one else who offers a warranty. Again nothing magical. Take a look at Getty's or Corbis' EULA. Would you like Getty to offer a warranty on istock images?

I didn't think you were asking for imagery exclusivity, whereas Getty and Corbis do.

Also I thought your warranty is for contributor ownership nothing to do with the image content, have I read that wrong.

Richard.. we're non-exclusive. Exclusivity is moot. We aggregate non-exclusive RF images at www.imagepick.com and it's warranted imagery.

I think the interesting question today is 'What is a warranty'. That should speak volumes for the maturity of Microstock. Some get it. Some don't. Some get it and fear the implications. Others welcome it.

Take your pick.

sjlocke · « **Reply #179 on:** February 20, 2009, 11:44 »

Quote from: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 11:30

We are guaranteeing that the ownership of the image and its use (so long as it's within the terms of the license we grant you) will not result in a legal problem for you. For example we guarantee that you will not get:

- Legitimate claims from photographers that the image you were using had not been licensed for resale to the image library you downloaded it from.

- Legitimate claims from property owners that the image you are using contains a protected property that cannot be depicted in an image for resale to the library that you downloaded it from.

- Legitimate claims from models that they had never granted the right to use their image to the photographer/library that licensed you the image.

If you do get a claim, we will defend you provided you notify us of the claim and permit us to handle the defense.

What are you doing to actually make sure that any of this is more true than stated at any other site? All sites require releases and such, and it is in uploading contracts that you own all imagery, etc. What about falsified releases? I don't see you as being able to warrant anything more than any other site.

So when some anonymous guy from Russia steals my work and uploads it as his own, and a buyer comes to you all upset, what are you going to say to them?

To put it another way, you haven't really said anything that would make me feel safer, aside from the fact that you said it.

I don't work for Getty, so I don't know. Maybe they assume there is too much risk from a crowd sourced contributor base.

Ah, there's that word "fear" again, whenever anyone disagrees with anyone else.

RT · « **Reply #180 on:** February 20, 2009, 11:50 »

Quote from: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 11:30

- Legitimate claims from property owners that the image you are using contains a protected property that cannot be depicted in an image for resale to the library that you downloaded it from.

- Legitimate claims from models that they had never granted the right to use their image to the photographer/library that licensed you the image.

I take it you've registered as a data controller under the Data Protection Act, if not these two clauses are not worth the paper they're written on.

Also how to you intend to verify this information apart from taking the contributors word for it, because if you're not authorised and you do try to verify it you commit offences under the Data Protection Act.

donnelt · « **Reply #181 on:** February 20, 2009, 11:58 »

Richard, the DP Act applies to UK and Irish companies.

We're a US C-Corp registered in Delaware with servers in Texas.

There's an elephant in the room.

Tom

sjlocke · « **Reply #182 on:** February 20, 2009, 11:59 »

So you don't intend to verify the information?

donnelt · « **Reply #183 on:** February 20, 2009, 12:02 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 20, 2009, 11:59

So you don't intend to verify the information?

We're using the same standards we applied at Getty. Perhaps you could have a word with Jonathan or Bruce and suggest the same?

Tom

gostwyck · « **Reply #184 on:** February 20, 2009, 12:07 »

Quote from: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 11:58

There's an elephant in the room.

Tom

You're telling me!

I for one am completely confused about these guarantees, TOS, etc, of which you speak. It seems to me that the only people not being offered any sort of guarantee are the contributors themselves __ even on how much they are to be paid.

Just like that elephant __ this is not going to fly either.

sjlocke · « **Reply #185 on:** February 20, 2009, 12:09 »

Quote from: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 12:02

Quote from: sjlocke on February 20, 2009, 11:59
So you don't intend to verify the information?

We're using the same standards we applied at Getty. Perhaps you could have a word with Jonathan or Bruce and suggest the same?

Tom

Sorry, I don't know the standards applied at Getty, where there seems to be a much smaller contributor base and more experienced editors than a crowd sourced environment. Couldn't you fill us in on those standards?

BTW, in contributing to Getty, I've not provided anything more than I've provided to iStock in uploading. I see no difference.

donnelt · « **Reply #186 on:** February 20, 2009, 12:15 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 20, 2009, 12:09

Quote from: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 12:02
Quote from: sjlocke on February 20, 2009, 11:59
So you don't intend to verify the information?

We're using the same standards we applied at Getty. Perhaps you could have a word with Jonathan or Bruce and suggest the same?

Tom

Sorry, I don't know the standards applied at Getty, where there seems to be a much smaller contributor base and more experienced editors than a crowd sourced environment. Couldn't you fill us in on those standards?

BTW, in contributing to Getty, I've not provided anything more than I've provided to iStock in uploading. I see no difference.

No - I won't provide that information, but you're right, a small contributor base is an important element.

Tom

sjlocke · « **Reply #187 on:** February 20, 2009, 12:23 »

Well, then, will you be detailing to the buyers how you are actually protecting them?

Just correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm a contributor there, I upload an image and forge a release. The model goes to them, they sue you, you pass it on to me, since I lied. I have no money, so the buyer is screwed.

A contributor in Russia uploads a bunch of imagery that isn't his. The buyer licenses some and uses it. The buyer somehow figures out the content wasn't his to license and sues you. You pass it off to the Russian, who can't be found or sued. Buyer is screwed.

Contributor uploads image of Eiffel Tower at night. Somehow, it makes it through inspection. Buyer uses it, and gets sued by light company. You pass it off to contributor who had unknowingly uploaded it. Contributor has no money, buyer is screwed.

Contributor uploads image with model and release. Buyer uses it in big campaign. Model is upset and complains and sues buyer. Buyer sues you. You point out release, and everyone goes away.

Where does this warranty come into play?

RT · « **Reply #188 on:** February 20, 2009, 12:29 »

Quote from: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 11:58

Richard, the DP Act applies to UK and Irish companies.

We're a US C-Corp registered in Delaware with servers in Texas.

There's an elephant in the room.

Tom

Tom,

Firstly you have an office registered in London and the vivozoom.com domain name is registered to that address in London, I strongly suggest that makes you liable under the DP Act unless nobody in the UK ever has any sort of access to any information regarding releases.

But most importantly I am based in the UK and if I or any other UK contributors were to upload a model or property release to you that most certainly 100% is covered under the DP Act, with implications for both you and I unless it's done properly.
Vivozoom are third party to any model/property releases and are therefore not privy to the information held within them.
And in case you're wondering what I suggest people do at the moment look up my comments and advice on another thread here regarding releases.

Surely you're aware of how the exclusive content on Getty and Corbis negates this legal obligation for UK contributors, it's why I asked you to clarify the non-exclusive status of images in my comment above.

Tom with all due respect you cannot legally support the warranty that you're offering, certainly not from what you've told me so far.

donnelt · « **Reply #189 on:** February 20, 2009, 12:35 »

No read it again. We defend the claim with our own money.

Again, same warranty as a Getty or Corbis would provide.

To see the contrast, here is the 'Warranty' from a popular Microstock site:

THE CONTENT IS PROVIDED 'AS IS' WITHOUT REPESENTATION, WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ISTOCKPHOTO DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT THE CONTENT WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS OR THAT ITS USE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTENT IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE CONTENT PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU (AND NOT ISTOCKPHOTO) ASSUME THE ENTIRE RISK AND COST OF ALL NECESSARY CORRECTIONS.

IN PARTICULAR AND WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING, IF YOU ARE DOWNLOADING CONTENT THAT IS IN A FLASH FORMAT OR FILE (WHETHER .SWF OR OTHERWISE) ISTOCKPHOTO MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY RESPECTING SUCH CONTENT WHATSOEVER, WHETHER AS TO OWNERSHIP, TECHNICAL OR LEGAL COMPLIANCE, OR OTHERWISE.

Recognize that? Familiar? Essentially Caveat Emptor.

Take a look at the posts in this board from number 21 to 27. You hi-lighted lack of Warranty on your own blog.

Most of our corporate clients aren't allowed to license unwarranted imagery.

Tom

gostwyck · « **Reply #190 on:** February 20, 2009, 12:35 »

Quote from: RT on February 20, 2009, 12:29

But most importantly I am based in the UK and if I or any other UK contributors were to upload a model or property release to you that most certainly 100% is covered under the DP Act, with implications for both you and I unless it's done properly.

Good point Richard. Did you read the recent article about this issue in Pro Photographer magazine?

RT · « **Reply #191 on:** February 20, 2009, 12:42 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 20, 2009, 12:35

Good point Richard. Did you read the recent article about this issue in Pro Photographer magazine?

I didn't we've got plenty of toilet paper at home

but now you've mentioned it I'll go out and waste a few quid to get a copy and see what they say.

There is a very easy way for UK photographers to deal with this matter, most of them don't and it amazes me, the data protection law is the most powerful law we have in this country, in realism the chances are nothing will ever happen but if it ever does!

null · « **Reply #192 on:** February 20, 2009, 14:54 »

Quote from: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 06:08

Can we apply the same 20 day principle to Vivozoom that you have applied to Shutterstock? What figure do you get?

Nobody here knows the potential of Vivozoom yet.

Quote from: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 06:08

Then tell me if you're Ok with your image being sold for 'only 14 cents'? http://www.fotolia.com/id/11366176. (their words not mine)

You should compare yourself to Midstock, not to Fotolia

Quote from: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 06:08

Yes, ELs are a very important part of our model.

Good to hear.

Quote from: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 06:08

Now get out and take some more great photographs and tell me if the new model release attach is working for you.

Yes Sir!

Quote from: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 06:08

PS. We don't do free images. (sometimes is what you don't do that defines you as much as what you do)

Free images are a bit irrelevant since nobody in his right mind allows it. The ones that tried it had thousands of downloads with no effect whatsoever on their paying portfolio.

donnelt · « **Reply #193 on:** February 21, 2009, 01:03 »

Anyone see this?

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/02/photoshelter-corrects-microstock-statistic-misprint.html

RT · « **Reply #194 on:** February 21, 2009, 06:20 »

Quote from: donnelt on February 21, 2009, 01:03

Anyone see this?

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/02/photoshelter-corrects-microstock-statistic-misprint.html

Yes but Photoshelter are a complete joke, their stock site didn't even last a year, if Photoshelter announced the sky was blue I'd go outside to check for myself.
I'm one of the lucky one's that didn't waste my time uploading to them, but I know lots that did. I'm amazed they haven't justed packed up shop and quit.

sjlocke · « **Reply #195 on:** February 21, 2009, 08:02 »

Where's the stat for "buyers who will increase their use of microstock", and "buyers who will start using microstock"?

donnelt · « **Reply #196 on:** February 21, 2009, 12:22 »

Hard to square those survey results with this:

http://unsharpmasked.com/blog/2009/02/2009-stock-photo-sales-down-40-percent/

sjlocke · « **Reply #197 on:** February 21, 2009, 15:43 »

Quote from: donnelt on February 21, 2009, 12:22

Hard to square those survey results with this:

http://unsharpmasked.com/blog/2009/02/2009-stock-photo-sales-down-40-percent/

"In the mean time… I want to know how you are doing. Please post a comment about your experiences, or what you’ve been hearing."

Nothing to see here. No profits. Move along.

donnelt · « **Reply #198 on:** February 22, 2009, 03:30 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 21, 2009, 15:43

Quote from: donnelt on February 21, 2009, 12:22
Hard to square those survey results with this:

http://unsharpmasked.com/blog/2009/02/2009-stock-photo-sales-down-40-percent/

"In the mean time… I want to know how you are doing. Please post a comment about your experiences, or what you’ve been hearing."

Nothing to see here. No profits. Move along.

Except that Philip seemed to predict the problems better than most for the traditional shooters..

http://unsharpmasked.com/blog/2008/05/2008-stock-photo-market-crash/

I can sympathize with the difficulty that anyone would face when your model relied on Getty licensing 100 of your images 10 times a year for $100 net per license.

If you've started out life on Microstock, the issues aren't as daunting.

For many, it means adjusting to a volume model and often swallowing their pride. For some, the microstock model is a step too far and they will seek solace in RM.

null · « **Reply #199 on:** February 22, 2009, 23:13 »

Quote from: donnelt on February 22, 2009, 03:30

For some, the microstock model is a step too far and they will seek solace in RM.

Donnelt, you sound like a very wise guy, but if you're the main programmer of Vivozoom (I hope you are not), I would suggest you'd fire yourself and go breeding carrots or organic veggies. Pardon my French, but I did programming for a living and photography is just fun. Vivozoom is a programming Tchernobyl. First there was the stupid issue with passwords, some code that one can find on all open source forums or even redhot. It took many weeks to solve. Then there is the multipage Model Release attach which is slow like hell.

Hey, just look at Cutcaster, YAY, 123RF as I suggested by email. Simple and fast. Vivo's MRF is even worse than Zymmetrical, and that means a lot. Incidentally, Zymmetrical sells. Just buy the code of YAY or Cutcaster, OK?

For a few weeks, I can't even access Vivo by Firefox since the site comes up CCS-less. I have to use the infamous IE for it. No problem, since I benchmark on 4 browsers myself, but anyways.

In all your wise-talk here, you carefully avoided to answer a few critical questions. First of all how much will Vivozoom pay, being another subscription site. A lot of wisecracks here but never an answer, except "more than Shutterstock". Sure, but give a number, like 1,2,3.

Of the few non-model shots I've uploaded many of my best-sellers at other sites got rejected. Fine for me, since I'm a snapshooter anyways. I understand Vivo only wants the best, and I wish you a lot of success running after RT and Sean Locke. After breaking my head again on the complicated and slow upload and MRF system I just decided Vivo and me are no match. No regrets, you've got AndresR already. Why bother about small shrimps like us? ;-)

Wish you all the best and success! I will mail your boss to cancel my account. I'm sorry but I don't have time for badly programmed subscription alpha sites. ;-)

Honestly, good luck.