Maybe some information for Pixmac might help to understand some of our "distrust":

- At most agencies that offer an API/affiliates do not disclose who their resellers are. We don't get a word from either the source agency nor the affiliate agency (without asking). Once we find our images at unknown agencies we get nervous and have to start our own detective work to figure out which agency is collaborating with who.

Not that this is only time consuming and nerve wrecking but also it doesn't build any trust with either agency.

- Right now, ever since Pixmac started I still don't know which of my images is coming from what agency. AFAIK Pixmac is affiliated with Fotolia, Dreamstime and Bigstock amongst others I suppose.

- I couldn't figure out how to interpret affiliate sales that came through Pixmac on any of the affiliated source agencies. We just see regular sales which could also be affiliate sales. It would be fantastic if we could see affiliate sales reported separately with the name of the affiliate. This alone could be a very powerful feature so we know how well an affiliate is performing.

Under which conditions would it be beneficial to upload directly to Pixmac? Just so we can sell our images there under the subscription plan as well? What is the commission on subscription sales? What are the contributor terms? I can't find that information on the Pixmac web site.

+1

Sorry if I missed it, but if my content is already at Pixmac because it's on DT/BigStock/FT, won't there be duplicates when I upload directly to Pixmac? And are you ok with this?

Directly:
Is there no legal agreement between you and FT/DT/BS that restricts your communicating directly with THEIR contributors?

Quote from: WarrenPrice

Directly:
Is there no legal agreement between you and FT/DT/BS that restricts your communicating directly with THEIR contributors?

We don't have emails or any other contact info about contributors from sourcing agencies. We don't do any mass marketing towards contributors at our sourcing agencies. It's up to each contributor to upload there or there.

I think you said, "Yes, we have an agreement but I am not in violation?"
That sounds like "Spin;"  a warning sign to me.

There's lots of sharks in this industry but Vita (zager) is not one of them. I've spent time with him in person and had many long email discussions over the past two years. It's understandable given what's happened recently, but it's also unfortunate that someone with honorable intentions is treated with such suspicion, especially when there are others in this industry that deserve more suspicion than they get.

Pixmac may not be a good fit for you. I wrote a review that concluded that it's probably not in the best interests of most contributors to submit there (although that was before the recent commission changes). But if it carries any weight for you, I vouch for Vita.

And just for the record, I think this "fair" stuff is pure BS, and Vita knows that, but he seems to have more empathy for us contributors than I do.

And I can appreciate that you might know zager personally, and someone else out there might know you personally. I know neither of you personally. I am certain you can understand why folks are suspicious when NONE of these sites, not just pixmac, want to put specifics in writing. Everything is smoke and mirrors. We are told we get 30% of something, but in many cases, we never really know what that is.

Too many people are relying on their stock commissions to help them pay their electric bills, let alone pay for trips around the world and million dollar condos (I am referencing KT from IS). To be fair, all anyone is asking is that specifics are in writing, and that just doesn't seem to happen. I am pretty sure you as a business person makes certain that everything you do is in a written contract, yet we are constantly asked to "just believe". We aren't children. And just because you vouch for him, doesn't mean I believe you. You know the old saying...trust but verify. We just want to be able to verify.

I searched my illustrations at pixmac and found most of them (all budget-prices), but I don't like what I see !!
My illustrations are on dreamstime, bigstock, fotolia, and so on....
My EPS-prices at dreamstime are between 14 and 34 credits, at fotolia at 8 credits and bigstock at 6 credits.
At pixmac all my illustrations (EPS) are at 5 credits (=7,76 $).
Also at pixmac some of my illustrations are there three times (with different picture-numbers), all with 5 credits.
And some of my illustrations are not there...
That looks not professional (or correct) for me.
My portfolio at pixmac is there since 30. 11. 2010, this is shown at the pixmac-portfolio-site.
For me it's ok, when pixmac sells my dreamstime-portfolio with dreamstime-prices and also not 3 times the same illustration for 5 credits.
 
Good is, that I sold only 1 illustration at this price at pixmac.

Is there no legal agreement between you and FT/DT/BS that restricts your communicating directly with THEIR contributors?
...

Straight answers, usually a simple "Yes" or "No," go much further toward building trust than blowing a bunch of evasive smoke and mirrors.  
Is what Pixmac doing legal?

ed:  is it ethical?

Warren,
Not all the questions can be answered Yes or No. Try this one:
- Did you stop drinking vodka every morning? 

Anyway, I also like simple answers. So here is how I see it.

I am not a lawyer, but I am quite sure that both Fotolia and Dreamstime have enough money to employ good lawyers. You know lawyers - would they find anything illegal in how Pixmac do the business, the company will not be where they are now. As long as the contact details of the contributors are not passed to Pixmac, they simply can not contact the contributors directly - no emails, no phones and no addresses. And for FT/DT it would be crazy to pass such a sensitive data to the partners, so I am sure they do not do that.

From the other hand, talking in public forums like MSG, issuing press releases, PPC ads and social networks utilization is a normal way of doing online marketing, for any business, - so I do not see anything 'unethical' here.

I searched my illustrations at pixmac and found most of them (all budget-prices), but I don't like what I see !!

Redo, this seems really strange. Please send the exact links of affected files to my email: v@pixmac.com so I can check that with our tech team.

Quote from: WarrenPrice on January 04, 2011, 16:29

Is there no legal agreement between you and FT/DT/BS that restricts your communicating directly with THEIR contributors?
...

Straight answers, usually a simple "Yes" or "No," go much further toward building trust than blowing a bunch of evasive smoke and mirrors.  
Is what Pixmac doing legal?

ed:  is it ethical?

Warren,
Not all the questions can be answered Yes or No. Try this one:
- Did you stop drinking vodka every morning? 

Anyway, I also like simple answers. So here is how I see it.

I am not a lawyer, but I am quite sure that both Fotolia and Dreamstime have enough money to employ good lawyers. You know lawyers - would they find anything illegal in how Pixmac do the business, the company will not be where they are now. As long as the contact details of the contributors are not passed to Pixmac, they simply can not contact the contributors directly - no emails, no phones and no addresses. And for FT/DT it would be crazy to pass such a sensitive data to the partners, so I am sure they do not do that.

From the other hand, talking in public forums like MSG, issuing press releases, PPC ads and social networks utilization is a normal way of doing online marketing, for any business, - so I do not see anything 'unethical' here.

I beg to differ. I know lawyers...if they find anything illegal, they just rewrite the clauses in the agreement so that the illegal becomes legal. And get their share of the big pie.

Quote from: Lee Torrens on January 04, 2011, 14:55

There's lots of sharks in this industry but Vita (zager) is not one of them. I've spent time with him in person and had many long email discussions over the past two years. It's understandable given what's happened recently, but it's also unfortunate that someone with honorable intentions is treated with such suspicion, especially when there are others in this industry that deserve more suspicion than they get.

Pixmac may not be a good fit for you. I wrote a review that concluded that it's probably not in the best interests of most contributors to submit there (although that was before the recent commission changes). But if it carries any weight for you, I vouch for Vita.

And just for the record, I think this "fair" stuff is pure BS, and Vita knows that, but he seems to have more empathy for us contributors than I do.

And I can appreciate that you might know zager personally, and someone else out there might know you personally. I know neither of you personally. I am certain you can understand why folks are suspicious when NONE of these sites, not just pixmac, want to put specifics in writing. Everything is smoke and mirrors. We are told we get 30% of something, but in many cases, we never really know what that is.

Too many people are relying on their stock commissions to help them pay their electric bills, let alone pay for trips around the world and million dollar condos (I am referencing KT from IS). To be fair, all anyone is asking is that specifics are in writing, and that just doesn't seem to happen. I am pretty sure you as a business person makes certain that everything you do is in a written contract, yet we are constantly asked to "just believe". We aren't children. And just because you vouch for him, doesn't mean I believe you. You know the old saying...trust but verify. We just want to be able to verify.

I completely agree. And yes I agree Pixmacs concept of "fair" is BS.  It used to be the industry "fair" practice to present the contributer with a balance sheet for each sale that included the actual price the image was purchased for with a simple subtraction of the agencies commission percentage subtracted, sites were still allowed to negotiate prices with buyers as long as the purchase price was clearly shown on the balance sheet.

If Pixmac actually wants to be transparent, why not simply present photographers with their sales reports similar to the way agencies like Alamy currently do.  Every single time a sale occurs for me on Alamy it lists sale price minus 40% commission. 

That is what I consider a fair contract.  I pay Alamy 40% commission for representing me (I keep 60% of my sales).   Along with fair commissions they clearly and transparently let me know how much my images are selling for.  Before you go jumping in saying they are a macro agency.  They really are not since they have been selling $5 images now, but somehow still manage to be transparent.

Promising that I get to keep 25 cents an image and also promising that you will "only" take 70% of the sale of my work is hardly making any attempt at being "Fair"...in fact it is like stealing all of the money out of my wallet and then saying "thanks for letting me rob you here is a shiny quarter for your troubles"

Sorry for my skepticism I am jaded by too many kind words from CEOs, rather than saying you want to be more transparent...how about you actually just be more transparent, this nonsense has got to end in this industry. We are getting slaughtered here left and right, commissions being cut so low that 25 cents is supposed to sound like fair wages.

I would love to find a new outlet for my images, if you really want to listen and this isn't some PR stunt to keep everyone from jumping ship after your last copyright theft debacle, than I would urge you to please take a look at how Alamy reports its numbers.  If you are truly flexible and willing to make changes please put in your contract that for all sales the purchase price as well as the commission you take will clearly be stated for each sale.  Stock photography has always worked like this, it is only recently that micro sites try to be sneaky.  There is no need to plea for our trust simply share the numbers and you will have created the first transparent microstock agency, and if you do that you will have every single microstock photographer flocking to your site myself included. In no time you will be larger than any other agency.  Think about it...seriously think about it.   

bump

Just want to remind that Pixmac was asked previously about the legality/ethics of their solicitations.

There never was a straight answer.

Quote from: WarrenPrice on January 17, 2011, 17:44

bump

Just want to remind that Pixmac was asked previously about the legality/ethics of their solicitations.

There never was a straight answer.

I thought I understood the answer the first three or four times, he answered you.

They can't contact suppliers directly, they don't get any private information about suppliers, they can't target partner program members.

They can come to forum and talk openly about their business and agency.

Example: He can write to me, or you, and the whole forum in general. I might have PP images on their site, I might not, Pixmac doesn't know. Is that clear enough?

You see that as a loophole and unethical? You would say, he can't write on any forums or discuss Pixmac anywhere?

This has nothing to do with the rest of the questions, just the one you write about every five messages.

i must not be as smart as you, Race.  Or, maybe I missed the simple "Yes" or "No."  I still don't see the answer to the question about legality or ethics of what Pixmac was doing.  It seems that Dreamstime didn't  see a straight answer either.

Edit:  are you suggesting that what Pixmac was doing was legal ... and ethical?