Author Topic: Would you sell your images for a dollar if you'd get 70 cents? (poll) (Read 9187 times)

File Sold · « **on:** June 07, 2014, 15:43 »

Just wondering if a dollarphotoclub or some other one-dollar-flat-rate would give contributors 70%, would you opt in?

I get around $0.70 - $0.80 per download (last 50,000 dls from various microstock sites).

heywoody · « **Reply #1 on:** June 07, 2014, 16:01 »

I'd take 1c per download if I got enough of them

cthoman · « **Reply #2 on:** June 07, 2014, 16:08 »

It would be better than some other models, but it wouldn't be ideal. I know I try to look at price and royalties when deciding which agencies I do business with and how I do business with them.

Mantis · « **Reply #3 on:** June 07, 2014, 16:12 »

Quote from: File Sold on June 07, 2014, 15:43

Just wondering if a dollarphotoclub or some other one-dollar-flat-rate would give contributors 70%, would you opt in?

I get around $0.70 - $0.80 per download (last 50,000 dls from various microstock sites).

If it were just a site offering $1 sales and nothing else, no. All a site like that would do is erode other better paying sites buyer base. That's why DPC engineered in a scheme (and it's only a facade) to have extended licensing, which we all know didn't work well at FT in the first place. I see a dedicated $1 site a poison to the entire micro stock industry. FT is a poison. I am glad, more than anyone knows, to be out of DPC and now FT (-2,800 from the crooks there). And as for a different $1 agency, it would only be for me if there were other more lucrative licensing options like Shutterstock offers and a minimum package such as a 50 or 100 pack, not pay go for $1.

Goofy · « **Reply #4 on:** June 07, 2014, 16:46 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 07, 2014, 16:01

I'd take 1c per download if I got enough of them

Hope you have a LOT of SALES to make a living at that rate

pancaketom · « **Reply #5 on:** June 07, 2014, 16:56 »

Yes, but I wouldn't send them all my files and they wouldn't be more than 5 MP or so.

cobalt · « **Reply #6 on:** June 07, 2014, 17:08 »

old files, small files, files that have never sold...why not.

Good content? No.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #7 on:** June 07, 2014, 18:30 »

Can't answer the question as posed.

Without a volume commitment - more than the paltry $10/month for 10 images that the DPC is offering - I wouldn't be happy with full size images or vectors going for $1 even if I received 70 cents.

Even with a volume commitment that was high enough, I'd need to know something about the agency and how they did business. Something like the ShotShop/Deposit Photos scam where ShotShop had a "subscription" but charged ppd prices to the buyer wouldn't be OK. It's about fairness of the deal as well as about the $$

If there were a subscription deal where there was some country-club like membership fee of $12,000 a year - of which I saw zero - and then images at $1 of which I saw 70 cents, I'd say no because someone else would be enriching themselves not out of the hard work of running a successful agency, out of treating me like an idiot they could rob blind.

If someone else could take my portfolio and make more per month - on a long term sustainable basis - than Shutterstock currently does, I'd probably be all for it. I'm very flexible on the business model as long as it's fair and the monthly return is competitive.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #8 on:** June 08, 2014, 01:33 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 07, 2014, 18:30

Can't answer the question as posed.
If there were a subscription deal where there was some country-club like membership fee of $12,000 a year - of which I saw zero - and then images at $1 of which I saw 70 cents, I'd say no ....

Strewth, Jo Ann, do you have to give the agencies ideas they haven't thought of yet?

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #9 on:** June 08, 2014, 01:45 »

"Would you sell your images for a dollar if you'd get 70 cents?"

No, I would sell my images for $1 only if I would get $1.20

ferdinand · « **Reply #10 on:** June 08, 2014, 03:47 »

.... at least 2$

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** June 08, 2014, 04:51 »

Only to registered charities; but as that would be impossible to police at that price point, my answer is No.

MxR · « **Reply #12 on:** June 08, 2014, 06:39 »

If your are in Istock, you are receiving 0,75$ for a 5 dollars sale... YEAH I AM STUPID, I AM IN IStock!!

dpimborough · « **Reply #13 on:** June 08, 2014, 07:18 »

Is that all a photo is worth?

I think mine and other photographers photos are worth a lot more than $1.00

Shelma1 · « **Reply #14 on:** June 08, 2014, 10:22 »

What a sad poll.

Goofy · « **Reply #15 on:** June 08, 2014, 10:28 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 08, 2014, 10:22

What a sad poll.

Yes, but unfortunately it is a reality with a lot of these 'Wonderful' companies. $:-\$

Goofy · « **Reply #16 on:** June 08, 2014, 10:30 »

sure I would sell an image for a dollar- as long as I got to use my cell phone - no special lighting and everything I shoot gets accepted. Like a burger and fries on my plate. Plus no model or property releases whatsoever. All editorial as well.

robhainer · « **Reply #17 on:** June 08, 2014, 10:35 »

Shutterstock earnings average out to 63 cents, so I'm already doing it. As long as the same volume was there.

ShadySue · « **Reply #18 on:** June 08, 2014, 11:06 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 08, 2014, 10:22

What a sad poll.

The results should give the companies much cause for rejoicing.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #19 on:** June 08, 2014, 17:23 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2014, 11:06

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 08, 2014, 10:22
What a sad poll.
The results should give the companies much cause for rejoicing.

I don't see how. Are the sites going to be rejoicing at the thought of giving 70 % royalties? Doubt it.

ShadySue · « **Reply #20 on:** June 08, 2014, 17:40 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 08, 2014, 17:23

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2014, 11:06
Quote from: Shelma1 on June 08, 2014, 10:22
What a sad poll.
The results should give the companies much cause for rejoicing.

I don't see how. Are the sites going to be rejoicing at the thought of giving 70 % royalties? Doubt it.

They know a lower threshold of a significant proportion of respondents (which is a miniscule sample, of course).
From that, it's just tweaking the lines.

cthoman · « **Reply #21 on:** June 08, 2014, 17:57 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2014, 17:40

They know a lower threshold of a significant proportion of respondents (which is a miniscule sample, of course).
From that, it's just tweaking the lines.

Just charge $2 and give the contributor $.70... Wait? Isn't there a company that already does that?

shudderstok · « **Reply #22 on:** June 08, 2014, 19:36 »

interesting poll... the results suggest a majority would not sell their photos for such a shameful amount or royalty, but this forum suggests that a majority support sites that give them less. just sayin.

Goofy · « **Reply #23 on:** June 08, 2014, 20:47 »

I would sell my mother down the river for $.70

Just kidding mom! Now get in the boat- trust me I will take good care of you...

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #24 on:** June 08, 2014, 21:48 »

Quote from: shudderstok on June 08, 2014, 19:36

interesting poll... the results suggest a majority would not sell their photos for such a shameful amount or royalty, but this forum suggests that a majority support sites that give them less. just sayin.

No the poll says it's a poll, not what people will really do. Look at DPC how many times the complaining and boycott threatening, yelling about unfair and then some of the loudest came here and say, but I can't afford to lose the income. Actions speak louder then polls. The majority will sell their photos for a shameful amount, or less and get robbed by agencies and keep sending in more photos.

The other part is % where 20% of a big number from SS is much more,month after month, then 70% of $1 from a site that sells $2 a month. Real income is much bigger then percentages. No poll for that royalty.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #25 on:** June 09, 2014, 05:23 »

The majority are still selling their images for $1 a pop on DPC, but we have no way of knowing whether that's because they're willing or happy to do so. The majority of contributors to DPC are probably still unaware that their images are sold there. It's entirely possible that the majority would opt out if they knew. You don't see Fotolia sending a mass email to all contributors informing them that their images are now on DPC and offering them the option to opt out. Instead they dangle little carrots and make opting out as difficult and hidden as possible.

I think the only reason they offered the opt out is their fear that most people would leave Fotolia entirely if not given that option.

Mantis · « **Reply #26 on:** June 09, 2014, 07:12 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 09, 2014, 05:23

The majority are still selling their images for $1 a pop on DPC, but we have no way of knowing whether that's because they're willing or happy to do so. The majority of contributors to DPC are probably still unaware that their images are sold there. It's entirely possible that the majority would opt out if they knew. You don't see Fotolia sending a mass email to all contributors informing them that their images are now on DPC and offering them the option to opt out. Instead they dangle little carrots and make opting out as difficult and hidden as possible.

I think the only reason they offered the opt out is their fear that most people would leave Fotolia entirely if not given that option.

SPOT ON.

Zayne · « **Reply #27 on:** June 09, 2014, 15:40 »

I think $1 devalues the whole photography market (way down to rock bottom, it is already quite low)...even if you get 70c per image, on the long run it will have repercussions. There WILL be sites that only pay 2c per image.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #28 on:** June 09, 2014, 16:07 »

http://99cimages.com/publisher-documentation.html

So how about 60 cents for the copyrightholder on a 99 cent sale?

To be fair, it's one user one use - 50K print run limit - so it's not a royalty free license, but I can't see how you could police this, so I'd bet a lot of users would treat as if they had an RF license.

Right now they appear to have Vivozoom's library (with MonkeyBusiness Images, Andres R, Elena Elisseeva that I happened to notice) but they say they won't do any inspections. What could go wrong with that?

Batman · « **Reply #29 on:** June 09, 2014, 16:17 »

Yes if they can sell 1000 pictures a month. No if it's just cheap sales and 70% of 2 dollar. Yes if they take my tiny leftovers, no if they want big size high Q shots. Yes if it worth my time, no if I can't make $100 a month at leats. I am not DPC I quit FT 5 years go. I don't join any site now that has secret partner or programs like DP tried to fool us. I drop all that sell on secret partrner and don't disclose or allow opt out.

Action speaks louder then forum crying. Agency won't change until we make them change. If people complain but do nothing to change, they should just shut up.

cthoman · « **Reply #30 on:** June 09, 2014, 16:40 »

Quote from: Batman on June 09, 2014, 16:17

Action speaks louder then forum crying. Agency won't change until we make them change. If people complain but do nothing to change, they should just shut up.

I hear this a lot, but what is considered doing something?

Milinz · « **Reply #31 on:** June 09, 2014, 19:05 »

Quote from: cthoman on June 09, 2014, 16:40

Quote from: Batman on June 09, 2014, 16:17
Action speaks louder then forum crying. Agency won't change until we make them change. If people complain but do nothing to change, they should just shut up.

I hear this a lot, but what is considered doing something?

You honestly had to ask?

Drop all agencies that lie, cheat and steal. Drop all that have pseudo sites that they own or run or are hiding partners. Do not tell sites that you are a cheerful victim who wants to be cheated and lied to and that you are willing to work for them for pennies.

The way it got to this way was agencies dropped commission. Agency changed level, referral and bonus. Agency added new impossible levels and RC. Nobody did anything. Agency adds new ways to sell without permission and cheats us, hides truth. Nobody does anything.

When agency says, we will include allowing option out, people claim it's a victory. Kind of victory, when they are still lying, cheating and stealing, but feel good, you can option out of some part.

When the problem started was low pay and people said we'll make it up by selling on 10 agencies for poor pay to make up for low pay. Then agencies see they can pay nothing and get good images. Agency lowers pay and nobody does anything, they still sell and work for nothing. Now it becomes race to the bottom. Agency makes more we make less. They look for new ways to cheat us out of a fair share.

Agency says, we can keep lowering pay and cheating these people because artists need the money and won't do anything to change the way we abuse them. The artists are beggars and down at heel. We'll take hand outs instead of what we rightfully deserve.

You want the answer again? Drop all agencies that lie, cheat and steal. Or take the abuse and be a willing victim. But don't complain about being a victim when it's a choice.

It's also called, put up or shut up.

pancaketom · « **Reply #32 on:** June 09, 2014, 19:43 »

Quote from: Milinz on June 09, 2014, 19:05

Quote from: cthoman on June 09, 2014, 16:40
Quote from: Batman on June 09, 2014, 16:17
Action speaks louder then forum crying. Agency won't change until we make them change. If people complain but do nothing to change, they should just shut up.

I hear this a lot, but what is considered doing something?

You honestly had to ask?

Drop all agencies that lie, cheat and steal. Drop all that have pseudo sites that they own or run or are hiding partners. Do not tell sites that you are a cheerful victim who wants to be cheated and lied to and that you are willing to work for them for pennies.

The way it got to this way was agencies dropped commission. Agency changed level, referral and bonus. Agency added new impossible levels and RC. Nobody did anything. Agency adds new ways to sell without permission and cheats us, hides truth. Nobody does anything.

When agency says, we will include allowing option out, people claim it's a victory. Kind of victory, when they are still lying, cheating and stealing, but feel good, you can option out of some part.

When the problem started was low pay and people said we'll make it up by selling on 10 agencies for poor pay to make up for low pay. Then agencies see they can pay nothing and get good images. Agency lowers pay and nobody does anything, they still sell and work for nothing. Now it becomes race to the bottom. Agency makes more we make less. They look for new ways to cheat us out of a fair share.

Agency says, we can keep lowering pay and cheating these people because artists need the money and won't do anything to change the way we abuse them. The artists are beggars and down at heel. We'll take hand outs instead of what we rightfully deserve.

You want the answer again? Drop all agencies that lie, cheat and steal. Or take the abuse and be a willing victim. But don't complain about being a victim when it's a choice.

It's also called, put up or shut up.

How is that working for you?

cthoman · « **Reply #33 on:** June 09, 2014, 19:54 »

Quote from: Milinz on June 09, 2014, 19:05

You want the answer again? Drop all agencies that lie, cheat and steal. Or take the abuse and be a willing victim. But don't complain about being a victim when it's a choice.

It's also called, put up or shut up.

I appreciate the input. That's not a solution that you are going to get many people to sign on to. There are a lot of smaller steps between that and doing nothing. I'd say those are the two extremes. That's why I asked. I honestly wasn't sure what actions people expected when they say these things.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #34 on:** June 09, 2014, 22:44 »

Quote from: Milinz on June 09, 2014, 19:05

Quote from: cthoman on June 09, 2014, 16:40

I hear this a lot, but what is considered doing something?

You honestly had to ask?

Drop all agencies that lie, cheat and steal. Drop all that have pseudo sites that they own or run or are hiding partners. ..... (etc. blah blah blah)

You could have shortened that post to "drop all agencies". Or if you wanted to be more concise "drop all agencies that make anybody any money".

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

Would you sell your images for a dollar if you'd get 70 cents?

Author Topic: Would you sell your images for a dollar if you'd get 70 cents? (poll) (Read 9187 times)

Goofy

Beppe Grillo

dpimborough

Goofy

Goofy

shudderstok

Goofy

Batman

Milinz

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors