FAA now talking about 'subscriptions'

[stockastic]

When logging in, FAA contributors are now being asked for a 'yes' or 'no' opinion on a new plan.  Here's an excerpt:


"Fine Art America is in discussions with a major electronics manufacturer about co-developing a large-format digital picture frame which would hang on a wall and allow the owner of the picture frame to stream FAA images to the picture frame using an iPhone or Android phone.

The owner of the picture frame would pay a monthly subscription fee (e.g. $10 per month) for the ability to stream any image from Fine Art America to the picture frame at any time.
 
You (the image owner) would get paid based on how many minutes your image appeared on the digital picture frame during a given month.   Please read below for complete details."



Needless to say, your markup is ignored - you have no control over pricing, you get whatever they decide to pay, and I assume that will be pennies.   I couldn't click "NO" fast enough.   But watch the FAA forum for gushy posts thanking "Sean" for this "great new opportunity".

[U11]

assuming some customer will stream only 1000 pictures a month and you will get all his money for your only picture he downloaded you'll end up with 1 cent.
Is my calculation too pessimistic?

[stockastic]

assuming some customer will stream only 1000 pictures a month and you will get all his money for your only picture he downloaded you'll end up with 1 cent.
Is my calculation too pessimistic?

Maybe too optimistic :-).  I'm guessing about 90% of the "subscription fee" goes to FAA and its new partner, so you and the rest of the contributors who got downloaded will split up that remaining $1.   

[U11]

How many pictures FAA have?
Now i think that to get 1 cent from every subscriber is practically impossible

[PaulieWalnuts]

Ughhh. I knew this was coming at some point. And this sucks because FAA has really been doing well for me. Subscriptions eventually destroy everything for contributors of every artist industry. I'm not interested in going from selling $50, $500 and $5,000 prints to getting a few cents a month.

[Newsfocus1]

I'm not concerned about this -it's only floating an idea for something that they may try in the future (and would be optional anyway).
Realistically, how many people are going to fork out a monthly subscription to have FAA images displayed on a screen on the wall? I already have a screen that gives me constantly changing images for free -it's called a television
What's interesting is that this great new idea is very similar to what Bill Gates had in mind many years ago when he founded what was to become Corbis. That went well, as we know
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbis

[Shelma1]

I can't imagine there'd be a huge market for individuals, but I could see them pitching this concept to large venues who run major events...concerts, conferences, etc. So your image would be behind Beyonce and you'd make a penny.

[noodle]

how optomistic are these numbers used in their 'example'?

For example, let's say that the royalty rate is set at $0.00005 per minute per image.   That number looks very low, but it adds up quickly. Let's see how it works.There are roughly 43,200 minutes in an average month.   If a buyer selects your image and displays it on his digital picture frame for the entire month, you would earn $0.00005 x 43,200 = $2.16 from that single device for that month.Now, if 100 different buyers did that, you would earn $216 for the month.   That's not an enormous number, but it's not too shabby, either.   Keep in mind, the digital picture frame is being manufactured by a very well known electronics manufacturer who will be putting their full marketing might behind making this product a success and getting it into as many homes as possible.Let's say that there are 100,000+ digital picture frames out there in the world.   If Fine Art America and the electronics manufacturer decide to feature one of your images and promote it to all of the digital frame owners via a newsletter or a mobile push-notification, it's entirely possible that 1,000+ of them might decide to stream your image to their digital picture frames.   That starts to generate serious revenue very quickly.

i think only faa will be making money on this, and as usual the artists/suppliers get screwged

[sharpshot]

Made me think of this from 1989 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbis#History

[Freedom]

I have opted out.

[stockastic]

If this ever really happens, my guess is that it would be aimed at places like doctors' offices and hotels.  Those people won't want to spend time combing through FAA's search results.  Instead, FAA will offer them "playlists" full of proven sellers, probably with nice themes like "peaceful landscapes",  "urban nights",  "country living", "island tranquility" etc.   There would probably be dozens of photos in a playlist so even if you're lucky enough to get in one, you'll get next to nothing.   Established sellers, already in FAA's "collections", might make some money, say by getting into a hotel chain. 

This was inevitable, as display prices come down.  For most of us it will be just another way for a reseller to make money off of our work without paying us anything, while reducing its perceived value.

[Jo Ann Snover]

I said no. As long as there was an opt out, in general I'd be OK with an agency trying something new. However this seems to be a rather sad attempt to replace revenue for prints with micro-revenue for streaming images to a digital frame.

Their survey said something about everyone having digital frames. Not only do I not have one, I don't know anyone who does (my brother in law gave his parents one many years ago but they don't use it and I think it's been tossed).

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/technology/why-digital-photo-frames-became-bargain-bin-jokes/

https://www.consumersdigest.com/electronics/article/digital-photo-frames-fading-from-view

So FAA's site looks like it was built 10 years ago. They are trying to add junky products like pillows and phone cases. They lurched into licensing (I sold one) without really having a clue what they were doing. Print sales have dropped off for me (I think November was the last one).

It's hard to get excited about them trying a partnership tied to a failed product category that delivers minuscule revenues to us (where we have no pricing control).

And even if I did have a digital picture frame, I'd want pictures of my family, places I'd been, etc., not some art from FAA...

Edited to add a link to this article about Kilo from art.com; perhaps this is what got FAA all fired up?

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home/klio-4k-frame-augments-digital-art/

"We're there for the next big thing in the history of art" - big claim, but I don't know why you couldn't view anything they're showing on a TV connected to a Roku... This is their promotional video for Kilo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgxKcqazXkk

[Shelma1]

I bought a digital frame years ago for my mom when she was in a nursing home, but couldn't get it to work. My friend has one and uses it to showcase pictures she snaps of her family and her vacations. But she's an amateur photographer and is obsessed with creating photo books, photo albums, etc.

 Why would the average person want to stream stock photos? especially if they had to pay a subscription?

[Freedom]

The next big thing, I hope, lies in fine art, and not just pixels. 

[stockastic]

The guy behind FAA seems to have a 5 minute attention span. Every couple of months he announces some big new 'opportunity'.   "Designer discounts", image licensing, shower curtains, catalog sales through retail stores... and now electronic subscriptions.   Anything except helping us sell what we want to sell at the price we want to get.

[noodle]

The guy behind FAA seems to have a 5 minute attention span. Every couple of months he announces some big new 'opportunity'.   "Designer discounts", image licensing, shower curtains, catalog sales through retail stores... and now electronic subscriptions.   Anything except helping us sell what we want to sell at the price we want to get.

Looking for ways to make his next million on the backs of bonehead, consenting peons

[Chichikov]

When logging in, FAA contributors are now being asked for a 'yes' or 'no' opinion on a new plan.  Here's an excerpt:

I have tried to logout and re login but no message asks me nothing.
And From some days (weeks maybe?) when I connect to FAA the URL is pixels.com

[ShadySue]

Said No.
Possibly won't rejoin FAA when my payment becomes due next Jan.

[Jo Ann Snover]

...Possibly won't rejoin FAA when my payment becomes due next Jan.

I didn't this January. I got some message that they'd remove all but the first 25 images, but it hasn't yet happened...

[ShadySue]

...Possibly won't rejoin FAA when my payment becomes due next Jan.

I didn't this January. I got some message that they'd remove all but the first 25 images, but it hasn't yet happened...

Gosh, last year my bank card had changed and I forgot, so it didn't 'collect', and my images all disappeared instantly.
Actually, I don't know how they got the money this year, as I checked and I don't have a direct debit or standing order. I'll need to block it with my bank if I'm leaving. I'll put a note in my diary!

[Jo Ann Snover]

...Possibly won't rejoin FAA when my payment becomes due next Jan.

I didn't this January. I got some message that they'd remove all but the first 25 images, but it hasn't yet happened...

Gosh, last year my bank card had changed and I forgot, so it didn't 'collect', and my images all disappeared instantly.
Actually, I don't know how they got the money this year, as I checked and I don't have a direct debit or standing order. I'll need to block it with my bank if I'm leaving. I'll put a note in my diary!

It was good fortune that I was able to stop. A year ago I had tried to have them remove the credit card from my account so they could not auto-renew. Even with a long-ish conversation with support they said that wasn't possible (which is bollocks as I know it is).

However, the credit card expiration date was last year sometime so I never updated the data with FAA. I got a message saying that they'd been unable to charge my card and please update the info. I ignored that for a bit and when I finally clicked "Cancel" it told me the images would be removed. I'm sure they eventually will be, but so far they're still there.

[Hildegarde]

FAA needs to spend more time building clientele to buy prints not new products.   Instead they expect contributors to promote FAA.

[stockastic]

Well I was wrong about one thing - most of the responses on the FAA forum have been negative.  Not that this guy has ever shown any response to contributor input or suggestions.

It may never happen and turn out to be just another thing for FAA to waste time on instead of fixing the obvious problems and issues with the web site.

[Microstockphoto]

jo ann, your photos will be there, only your first 25 will be displayed and for sale to a buyer. check what you see when you log out and look at your portfolio

[Jo Ann Snover]

jo ann, your photos will be there, only your first 25 will be displayed and for sale to a buyer. check what you see when you log out and look at your portfolio

I checked just now, and not logged in I can see images in search and then when I select one and then click on my name, all the images are displayed. I haven't tried to buy anything, so possibly I wouldn't be able to.

I'm guessing they've fallen behind on the updates that would remove items from search and that it will happen at some point.

[old crow]

This could present a huge problem,  selling images for the purpose of art is different copyright wise than selling them for commercial display.  Artistic print verses distribution.

Are FAA members and FAA ready to review / copyright all images??

So the question is,   is it art or commercial use  ??

[ShadySue]

This could present a huge problem,  selling images for the purpose of art is different copyright wise than selling them for commercial display.  Artistic print verses distribution.

Are FAA members and FAA ready to review / copyright all images??

So the question is,   is it art or commercial use  ??

They already have opt-ins for selling images as stock, though Jo-Anne's one sale is the only one I've heard of.

There are presumably similar problems with selling images of 'famous people', classic cars, Sydney Harbour Bridge etc on T-shirts etc.

And I still don't understand why they don't have to charge and process VAT for sales in the EU.

[stockastic]

I don't think FAA's owner pays much attention to things like the fine points of licensing.  The 'opt-in' might have some accompanying fine print that he feels covers him.  Many of the contributors to his site will have no idea what this distinction means. 

The FAA forum admin has already jumped in to say she's personally "in" because hey, why not, and that the poll shows 80% "yes" and it's only people posting on the forum who seem to be negative.

I'm not going to worry about it because I don't think it will ever go anywhere.  Nobody wants a big glowing screen on their wall, even if it's showing paintings from the Louvre.

[etudiante_rapide]

I'm not going to worry about it because I don't think it will ever go anywhere.  Nobody wants a big glowing screen on their wall, even if it's showing paintings from the Louvre.

it's hard to say though. we look from our own oldschool perspective.
recently i went to a restaurant and my grand-niece said, "oh look, so cute , they have a fish tank with so many nice fish... oh, it's not real !!! "
some ppl think it's cute, until you realise it's not real. 

we used to think no one would be silly enough to pay a framed photo with a picture
of rusty walls with noise the size of golf balls. at a photo club last winter,
the guy sold 4 framed pictures for $250 each of just that.

others think a glowing screen on the wall with a paintings from the Louvre is cool too,
like having a museam with no worry for thieves still your paintings...

you know what i mean???

[stockastic]

Some people would be interested in having an expensive new device to impress their friends.  A few hotel lobbies and medical offices might nibble, but in the end they don't really care about what's on their walls and won't spend money for that purpose - and they won't want another device to fiddle with and maintain.   FAA has a long history of chasing after the Next Big Thing while neglecting the core business. We've seen licensing, 'designer discounts', the mall retail deal, and now this. 

[wordplanet]

My doctor's office has two large changing screens in the waiting room with mostly soothing landscape scenics and they look very nice. Too bad artists will get peanuts for their photos being on the screen.

[etudiante_rapide]

Some people would be interested in having an expensive new device to impress their friends.  A few hotel lobbies and medical offices might nibble, but in the end they don't really care about what's on their walls and won't spend money for that purpose - and they won't want another device to fiddle with and maintain.   FAA has a long history of chasing after the Next Big Thing while neglecting the core business. We've seen licensing, 'designer discounts', the mall retail deal, and now this.

precisely my point why it will sell ! like all those bells and whistle in cars, or digital cameras, gadgets for "guitarists, drummers,etc".  gadgeteers have lots of money to throw to show their buddies they have the latest NBT as you so rightly calls it.

the "pros" don't need all these things, and will not waste their money upgrading every year to the NBT.
the market is always alive with the guy and gal who wants the NBT.
it's what shareholders like to hear... quick profit, no long term value.

you can see it as you drive along the streets during garbage pickup days in the "wealthy" district...
lots of last year's NBT on the sidewalk. still new!

[stockastic]

Well no doubt I'm out of date and it's already happening.   However as wordplanet points out, it's going to be canned 'playlists'.   People who buy these things aren't going to spend time searching through FAA for things they like, then finding out  the photographer hasn't opted in to this program.  FAA will hand-pick images from their proven best sellers, who for all I know will be paid something significant for the usage.

[etudiante_rapide]

Well no doubt I'm out of date and it's already happening.   However as wordplanet points out, it's going to be canned 'playlists'.   People who buy these things aren't going to spend time searching through FAA for things they like, then finding out  the photographer hasn't opted in to this program.  FAA will hand-pick images from their proven best sellers, who for all I know will be paid something significant for the usage.

well , that's fair result then. those who opted out now end up with nothing.
the keyword is "paid something significant"... which we all look for these days
of far and few "significant" pay.
if this is what happens, then FAA is in the right direction for contributors interest...

[stockastic]

Well no doubt I'm out of date and it's already happening.   However as wordplanet points out, it's going to be canned 'playlists'.   People who buy these things aren't going to spend time searching through FAA for things they like, then finding out  the photographer hasn't opted in to this program.  FAA will hand-pick images from their proven best sellers, who for all I know will be paid something significant for the usage.

well , that's fair result then. those who opted out now end up with nothing.
the keyword is "paid something significant"... which we all look for these days
of far and few "significant" pay.
if this is what happens, then FAA is in the right direction for contributors interest...

Well maybe not.  What I meant was, those 'best selling' contributors, some of whom are big names, might be able to cut their own deals. The rest of us - if we participated - would get pennies.   Who knows.

[Krakozawr]

NO.
subscription already destroyed the stock business good enough.
anyway, for me, this will mean account closing at FAA because of my iStock exclusive agreement.

[ShadySue]

NO.
subscription already destroyed the stock business good enough.
anyway, for me, this will mean account closing at FAA because of my iStock exclusive agreement.

Obviously, you can close there if you wish, but not because of your iS exclusivity. You can opt out of selling files there altogether, whether RM or RF. This subs deal, whether you like it or not, is also optoutable, and whether you opted in or not, it's nothing to do with your iS exclusive contract.
Again, you can leave FAA if you want, for any number of other reasons. 

[trek]

I voted yes, I'll consider it.  My opt in opt out decision will largely be based on the percentage of revenue assigned to the artists.  It would need to be at least 50% to entice me to participate.  However, I don't anticipate this amounting to a major revenue boost.

[old crow]

The smart thing would be to give contributors a template and let them create their own slide show of images uploading it into a special area.  Interesting,  even for desktops/screen savers,  I don't know if I have seen slideshows for sale before.

This would also allow the contributor to get royalties from all the images. 

Also, if it is for a 4k display, I think (doing the math) it would be an 8mp image, maybe enough to steal and misuse maybe not ?

[stockastic]

I voted yes, I'll consider it.  My opt in opt out decision will largely be based on the percentage of revenue assigned to the artists.  It would need to be at least 50% to entice me to participate.  However, I don't anticipate this amounting to a major revenue boost.

As with any subscription, there's no way to know what percentage of revenue we're actually getting, because we never know how much the customer 'paid' for our image.  In this case there might be a big up-front cost and a low monthly 'fee'.   We might trust FAA's reporting of how much screen time our image received - but how much did the customer 'pay' during that time?

It's moot, anyway, because we won't be offered anything approaching 50%, my guess is closer to 5% of revenue - however FAA choses to calculate it.     

[Braznyc]

Never sold anything there since 2012. Sold some images on Imagekind that attracts less viewers... 

That's not going to make any difference. A big "whatever"!

[stockastic]

Never sold anything there since 2012. Sold some images on Imagekind that attracts less viewers... 

That's not going to make any difference. A big "whatever"!

Does Imagekind read IPTC data on upload?

[PaulieWalnuts]

Never sold anything there since 2012. Sold some images on Imagekind that attracts less viewers... 

That's not going to make any difference. A big "whatever"!

Pretty interesting how peoples experiences can be so much different. I do great on FAA and I don't think I ever sold anything on Imagekind. So for me, no, I really dont want anything subscription-related added to FAA or anywhere else that doesn't already have subs.

[sooner_foto]

Another hair brained idea to leverage the contributors art.  Sad thing is it is yet another distraction to an already over stretched, skeleton crew staff.  It took two weeks for a contributor's problem to get solved recently because Sean was "in meetings" for two weeks. 

Licensing on FAA went no where as it had no follow through.  This wacky product with its robotic recharger is not going anywhere fast.  How many will sell?  Couple thousand a most.  And they will come preloaded with a bunch of free stuff that will be find for the typical nerd who buys one.  No one will even bother with it after the novelty wears off after two weeks.

[stockastic]

Another hair brained idea to leverage the contributors art.  Sad thing is it is yet another distraction to an already over stretched, skeleton crew staff.  It took two weeks for a contributor's problem to get solved recently because Sean was "in meetings" for two weeks. 

Licensing on FAA went no where as it had no follow through.  This wacky product with its robotic recharger is not going anywhere fast.  How many will sell?  Couple thousand a most.  And they will come preloaded with a bunch of free stuff that will be find for the typical nerd who buys one.  No one will even bother with it after the novelty wears off after two weeks.

Couldn't agree more - this one will sink without a trace.  Who wants their work in this channel, for pennies?  And why does Broihier (FAA) waste his time on stuff like this?

[sooner_foto]

Probably looking for an exit strategy.  Right now all he has is a front end to third party suppliers. 

[Braznyc]

I still believe that FAA is a waste of time.
It's always the same "successful" people selling their art there.
No rotation. The search engine is tweaked in favor of a few selected artists.

[Chichikov]

Never sold anything there since 2012. Sold some images on Imagekind that attracts less viewers... 

That's not going to make any difference. A big "whatever"!

Does Imagekind read IPTC data on upload?

No
And they accept only 10 keywords�

So much waste of time.