MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: FAA Launches Art Licensing  (Read 7246 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2014, 11:11 »
0
I am confused about the fact that you can offer the same image for both RF and RM usage. In stock industry they are mutually exclusive. Maybe FAA means something else by "RM" licensing? Then they shouldn't use the same term in my opinion.

No they aren't.  It depends on the rights being sold.  Yes, maybe "restricted license" would make more sense there.

Thanks for correction Sean  - still, regular FAA contributor wouldn't know anything about managing rights. This may create a lot of confusion with both buyers and sellers.


« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2014, 11:15 »
0
I find it messy by accident... If you have there RF and RM images just be carefull when setting bulk pricing as you can set all images as RF, ooops.

I like FAA, it's very strong tool to sell prints. But I'm not sure about licensing here...  :-\

You can actually offer the same image as both "RF" and "RM" - FAA doesn't stop you from doing that. Edit the image, enter prices in both categories, and voila! In fact, in their description of "RF" and "RM" licensing they never mention they these things should be mutually exclusive. So I bet a lot of people will be doing just that - have the images as both RM and RF. Of course, FAA might say they are not responsible for any problems like that, but somehow I doubt it will save them from trouble... with all the resent lawsuits about copyright infringement and misuse... as one friend told me once, lawyers go for the person who has more money. And there is soo much copyrighted content there!

They aren't mutually exclusive.  At least not there.  Just putting the letters "RF" or "RM" on something doesn't inherently have meaning.  It's the terms beneath.  So, they offer an unlimited, perpetual use license, and they also offer some more restrictive licenses.  That's it.

Ron

« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2014, 11:30 »
0
I believe there is a lot of law and regulation involved in selling stock images. The agency keeps a finger on things and makes sure most laws and regulations are covered and also does quality checks. While this process sometimes is frustrating for us, and sometimes applied too stringent, I think its better then to have no control whatsoever. Pixels.com is like an outlaw stock agency and everyone can upload anything, and sell for any licence they want. No regulations on copyright, trademarks, quality and licencing terms. We can already see people selling Coka Cola logos with a commercial licence, and I can see someone selling copyrighted artwork with a licence any-time soon. Sean McDunn can say that he is covered by his T&C but I think Coca Cola and the Ansel Adams foundation dont care about that when people run amok with their intellectual property.

« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2014, 11:55 »
+1
No I will not and cannot sell RF at FAA.

I am happy the way it is at FAA. Many of my images are specially edited for fine art prints and are not available as stock photos. I won't even sell them as RF, nor as prints through GI.

Gee, why are these agencies keeping copying others instead of improving their own niche.... :o

« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2014, 13:28 »
0

« Reply #30 on: April 08, 2014, 13:41 »
+2
My sales on FAA were great in Nov, Dec and even Jan.  Started slowing down in Feb and tanked in March.   During this time the relationship with Amazon ended.

Sean Dunn or whatever his real name seems to believe the strengths of FAA is in database programing.  He needs to leave the echo chamber and get some fresh ideas.

« Reply #31 on: April 08, 2014, 13:42 »
0

« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2014, 13:59 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 22:06 by tickstock »

« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2014, 15:02 »
0
Did all my responses get deleted from that thread, or am I imagining the last several hours of my life?

« Reply #34 on: April 08, 2014, 15:07 »
0
Must have hit a nerve.

« Reply #35 on: April 08, 2014, 15:09 »
0
Nope, my fault.  Apparently, since the threads are unable to paginate, they cut out the middle of the discussion, unless you click a link there.  Just in case you're operating with a 300BPS modem.

« Reply #36 on: April 08, 2014, 15:14 »
0
LOL! 

FAA/Pixels/Licensing.Pixels etc is basically a middle man between buyer and seller.  I'm waiting to see more effort on the buyers.   If you look at the Pixels TV ad and all of the language on the promotion pieces, everything is targeted towards attracting contributors.  The site explains all the reasons to become a contributor but the other half of the business is buyers.

Where does the company promote the reason for people to purchase/license from this company?  They should recognize their strengths over the competition and be promoting themselves to buyers.

« Reply #37 on: April 08, 2014, 15:19 »
0
Just curious, what is the cut for stock photo contributors at FAA?

Ron

« Reply #38 on: April 08, 2014, 15:23 »
0
Just curious, what is the cut for stock photo contributors at FAA?
100%, you set your own pricing and they ad 40% on top of that or something. So theoretically you dont get 100% but if you want to get paid 10 dollar, you will get paid 10 dollar. He just sells it for 14.

Ron

« Reply #39 on: April 08, 2014, 15:25 »
0
Did all my responses get deleted from that thread, or am I imagining the last several hours of my life?
There is a big skip button, if you dont click that, you will skip the middle comments. If you click it, you will see all comments.

« Reply #40 on: April 08, 2014, 15:28 »
0
Just curious, what is the cut for stock photo contributors at FAA?
100%, you set your own pricing and they ad 40% on top of that or something. So theoretically you dont get 100% but if you want to get paid 10 dollar, you will get paid 10 dollar. He just sells it for 14.

The markup has been reduced to 30%, in other words the artist gets 77% from the selling price.

Ron

« Reply #41 on: April 08, 2014, 15:37 »
0
Just curious, what is the cut for stock photo contributors at FAA?
100%, you set your own pricing and they ad 40% on top of that or something. So theoretically you dont get 100% but if you want to get paid 10 dollar, you will get paid 10 dollar. He just sells it for 14.

The markup has been reduced to 30%, in other words the artist gets 77% from the selling price.
Ok. But you can still get what you want. If you want 300 euro, you can set 300 euro and you get 300 euro. But you do have to consider the 30% so that you dont end up over pricing your images.

« Reply #42 on: April 08, 2014, 16:14 »
0
You have to ask yourself, where are the buyers going to coming from?

A few FAA members have been approached for licensing deals but they were dealt with one on one via email.  These were just organic - floated in via a Google search.  The deals were made with no commission involved.

« Reply #43 on: April 08, 2014, 17:02 »
0
Just curious, what is the cut for stock photo contributors at FAA?
100%, you set your own pricing and they ad 40% on top of that or something. So theoretically you dont get 100% but if you want to get paid 10 dollar, you will get paid 10 dollar. He just sells it for 14.

That is tempting and fair. Let's see how it goes!

« Reply #44 on: April 08, 2014, 17:03 »
0
Solved and deleted....  :P

Uncle Pete

« Reply #45 on: April 08, 2014, 21:22 »
0
You mean "Sean Broihier" maybe?  :)

I think the whole discussion is interesting to watch, but the answer about licensing from Sean (name here) seems naive?  Trust buyers to not use improperly. OK fine with me, I do, but how about trusting people who are selling to not be infringing or just copying photo source materials. Or not be improperly using personal likenesses of celebrities.

Copying is not creative. And if anyone read the forum when the "artists" were bashing Microstock people, was enormously humorous. Why if this plan goes through for RF, the place will be flooded with those Microstock snapshot people.  :)

This comes from people who transform, filter or re-draw, photo after photo of famous people and sell it as their own art? Highly laughable.

Sorry to ask this, because I don't know, but if someone can paint a Campbell's Soup can or box of Brillo Pads and call it art, (Pop Art) then what's to prevent someone from drawing a Coke can? If they are actually drawing or painting it? I find less conflict with this than selling personal likenesses, or copying them from photos and posters and making modifications.

 

My sales on FAA were great in Nov, Dec and even Jan.  Started slowing down in Feb and tanked in March.   During this time the relationship with Amazon ended.

Sean Dunn or whatever his real name seems to believe the strengths of FAA is in database programing.  He needs to leave the echo chamber and get some fresh ideas.

« Reply #46 on: April 09, 2014, 03:29 »
0
I sell a lot of phone cases at zazzle but none at FAA. I doubt they've had any impression on the phone case market and I can't see them making much impression in image licensing. Pixoto.com are also trying to enter the licensing market from a different angle but it's just not going to happen. At best the owner of FAA may be able to sell his site for a better price somewhere down the track.

« Reply #47 on: April 09, 2014, 04:14 »
0

Sorry to ask this, because I don't know, but if someone can paint a Campbell's Soup can or box of Brillo Pads and call it art, (Pop Art) then what's to prevent someone from drawing a Coke can? If they are actually drawing or painting it? I find less conflict with this than selling personal likenesses, or copying them from photos and posters and making modifications.

There have been major changes to copyright and probably trademark laws in the US since Warhol was doing soup tins in the 1960s. I don't know if it was legal then or would be legal now but many FAA artists (whether they know it or not) rely on the fact that major companies have no interest in chasing infringers selling a print or two to go on someone's wall. If the logo turned up in a way that was detrimental to the company's image it might be different.


« Reply #49 on: April 09, 2014, 07:13 »
0
Royalty Free
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/drink-coca-cola-dan-sproul.html
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/chicken-oil-company-david-morefield.html
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/americana--disney-music-hall-downtown-la-toula-mavridou-messer.html


$31,200.00 for full size Royalty Free license? Sure, why not?


Lol! I wonder how many buyers will want to pay pot luck when images in the collection are priced at random from $3 to $30,0000, each potentially with its own individual license.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2014, 07:23 by BaldricksTrousers »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2936 Views
Last post May 24, 2008, 22:31
by audiomicro
6 Replies
3576 Views
Last post May 26, 2013, 06:37
by Poncke v2
3 Replies
1743 Views
Last post September 13, 2012, 07:38
by microstockphoto.co.uk
52 Replies
6428 Views
Last post May 28, 2013, 19:22
by roede-orm
21 Replies
12412 Views
Last post August 20, 2014, 11:58
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors