0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Morons. Goes to show none of them care about you/us.
If I can get free gas at one gas station why would I go somewhere else to pay for it?I hope this fails miserably and should be a lesson to anyone who gets warm fuzzys from offering some of their images for free.
That gives people 400,000+ reasons to not buy an image.
I'm not seeing how attracting freebie hunters, who typically don't pay for anything and will go out of their way to find free stuff, is a good approach to grow revenue. Someone who is searching for free stuff does not intend to buy anything.
Here's another way to look at it. I haven't bought antivirus software in probably 10 years. Why should I? There are dozens of free ones that are good enough. I'm guessing there are millions, or maybe even tens of millions of people, who feel the same way. If there were no free options my choice would be pay, or go without antivirus software. If antivirus was no longer free a good percentage of those people would buy it. Some won't, but using 10 million new sales as an example, multiplied by $30 for the software, equals $300 million. That $300 million would be divided up among all the software companies. The same thing applies to us. If it wasn't free people would need to pay, or do without. And that new money would get divided up among us. Free takes away from all of us.
Bonkers, I'd say."Image use is completely free of charge, but site terms do require users to provide attribution via a creditline. "Which, judging by the extremely few people who obey iStock's site terms and attribute photos used editorially, will cost them a fortune to police. If they even bother.
IIRC, sxc.hu was originally the site that drove so much traffic towards StockXpert. I seem to remember the boss of StockXpert saying they were pretty stunned at the amount of traffic they received via that route. So... Getty swallowed that up too eh?