pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Opportunity to Sell on Jupiterimages  (Read 12722 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: October 03, 2007, 09:23 »
0
that's crazy.........if you have a $250 sale....it would be basically the same as an extended sale elsewhere.

Tom


« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2007, 09:24 »
0

You will receive a 15% for every image downloaded. Images range from $79.95
for a low resolution file and up to 349$ for a high resolution file.


So ... have I got this right? The maximum you can earn for an image is 15% of  $349 = $52.35

For a high-resolution exclusive image?

Hmmmmm ... I think I'll pass on that thanks, even if it is Jupiter.

« Reply #27 on: October 03, 2007, 09:43 »
0

You will receive a 15% for every image downloaded. Images range from $79.95
for a low resolution file and up to 349$ for a high resolution file.


So ... have I got this right? The maximum you can earn for an image is 15% of  $349 = $52.35

For a high-resolution exclusive image?

Hmmmmm ... I think I'll pass on that thanks, even if it is Jupiter.

That was exactly the question I asked, and had confirmed. My first thought was, that photos with the quality they require, will probably earn much more either at Alamy or at a combination of micros.

jsnover

« Reply #28 on: October 03, 2007, 10:50 »
0
I got my e-mail reply this morning too, and I can't imagine that anyone with decent images is going to want to tie up a whole shoot for a few accepted shots, exclusively at one site for 2 years for 15%.

My guess is that they think we'll be so wow'ed by being "allowed" to submit to Jupiter that we'll take anything :)

« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2007, 10:53 »
0
yeah, i was quite surprised at the 15% as well. 

I suppose if they had TONS of sales it might be worth it but..... not sure i am interested in trying.  15% sounds like a pretty crummy deal.

« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2007, 11:02 »
0
I hate uploading to IS for 20% but at least those photos can go on lots of other sites.  15% for exclusive images seems far too low.  I will stick with Alamy and Photoshelter.

« Reply #31 on: October 03, 2007, 12:35 »
0
15% for an exclusive image? That is an insult. I cannot think who will be willing to agree to that. 

« Reply #32 on: October 03, 2007, 12:57 »
0
15% at any traditional agency is a slap in the face not an opportunity.  The norm is at least 50%.

« Reply #33 on: October 03, 2007, 13:44 »
0
wysiwyg_foto,

Which traditional macros pay 50% for RF images that go through similar distribution channels at a similar price point?

-Steve

« Reply #34 on: October 03, 2007, 14:52 »
0
Which distribution channels are you looking for?

Photoshelter is currently offering contributors 70% (80% for images uploaded through November)

Alamy offers it's contributors 65% - 55% if one of their sub-distributors licenses the image - 50% if the image is distributed through the novel use arrangement (similar to this collection)

TSS Photo offers 65% commission

MyLoupe (similar distribution scheme) offers 70-85%

Here's a list of 103 more agencies for your review....

http://www.stockasylum.com/text-pages/findagency.htm


Come on Steve - 15% is good? For a two year exclusive contract on lifestyle shoots that we have to fund and put together?  At a time when traditional photographers are laughing at us because iStock only pays a 20% commission?  Isn't this a step backward?  A lot of us got into the micros as a stepping stone to upload to traditional agencies, and we've encountered road blocks along the way (and continue to).  This is just another reason for "pros" to pick on "amateurs contributing to the micros" - another road block to our success.


« Reply #35 on: October 03, 2007, 15:12 »
0
15% for an exclusive image? That is an insult.

With this everything is said ... over and out

« Reply #36 on: October 03, 2007, 16:23 »
0
15% is definitely too little, especially for exclusive images.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #37 on: October 03, 2007, 17:38 »
0
15%... ya... right.... even for "amateurs" you'll be loosing money.   ::)

« Reply #38 on: October 03, 2007, 18:41 »
0
I definitely won't be venturing into this company for 15%

« Reply #39 on: October 03, 2007, 19:24 »
0
Here's something interesting....  I just received some correspondence from a person that looked into contributing to the collection previously.  He is a Getty Photographer and hates the micros (we exchange banter every once in a while).  Here's his response:

Quote
Thanks for your email. I was going to reply to your previous email and others and I got swamped again and they moved down and I'd forgotten. I'll look back into it.
 
This is getting ridiculous. Do you realize that's a further 25% reduction from 20%? Not 5%, but 25%, or 1/4 less. See, most photographers are not too smart to realize this, and the 'agencies' have slowly whittled the 50 to 40, then to 30, then to 20.
 
(Not to defend the 15%, but if it is really traditional, they should not be unlimited use, so you should be able to get more for a longer or bigger use license, and get more than micro payments)

Seems the going rate has been decreasing  ::)

« Reply #40 on: October 03, 2007, 19:35 »
0

Seems the going rate has been decreasing  ::)


Seems the combination of micros plus Alamy may not be such a bad one   :)

« Reply #41 on: October 03, 2007, 20:53 »
0
I understand for some of you that you don't think this is much of an opportunity  I respect that.

I wanted to respond to wysiwyg_foto and his comment  " A lot of us got into the micros as a stepping stone to upload to traditional agencies, and we've encountered road blocks along the way (and continue to)..."

This is a stepping stone and it might not come with the royalty you want but it has potential.

This opportunity is designed for people who want to kill 200 birds with 1 stone. Give us your images and we will distribute on Jupiterimages.com (JI) and within our network of over 200 agents worldwide.

It is easier and less time consuming for you.

We ask for 'exclusive' to JI because we are distributing your images in the context of 200 agent sites worldwide. Because of our size, we have been able to establish relationships with companies alot of you simply don't have access too.

To the question related to 'similars' if you are a resourceful and savvy shooter, it is not unlikely for us to select 50+ images from a 1 day shoot. If you have any concerns about what is acceptable, let us take a look and give you some feedback. Might not be as tight as you think.

Lastly, this is an entry point for other opportunities. As a JI contributor, you are exposing yourself to other content directors who are looking for new talent. Having a relationship with JI increases your chances of being seen and being offered other opportunities which in some cases come with a better payout.

I hope some of you will re-consider your decision and give us a try.

« Reply #42 on: October 03, 2007, 21:20 »
0
paddy_ji:

I think you have a lot of nerve trying to defend a 15% royalty.

« Reply #43 on: October 03, 2007, 21:45 »
0
Paddy,

I do understand the potential of a solid company with a worldwide network.  However, asking for exclusive images but paying so little is disencouraging for most of us.  Maybe those who are full time photogs with studios may spare some time and make special photo sessions exclusively for Jupiterimages.  It's not my case, though, as in a good month I manage to produce maybe 20 images which are not outstanding at all.  My best work (IMHO) and which is not in microstock, are my travel images, most of which still in slides that I very slowly digitalize and edit.  I could select a few images to submit to Jupiter only and "feel" the potential of my images with this company's clients.  But 250?  I don't even have that many in high res quality images.  But still the 15% earnings sound too little.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #44 on: October 03, 2007, 22:25 »
0
It would be great if the more forward looking agencies would offer some transparency, some justification for their cut, especially if it's 50% or more of sales.

Marketing, staff, infrastructure, bandwidth, tech, customer reach, etc. Yes, that stuff all costs, and it's good for the agencies to be profitable too. But 85%??


« Reply #45 on: October 03, 2007, 23:10 »
0
Paddy, with all due respect - I get a better commission through a DT, SS, IS, etc. extended license without having exclusive images.  The same license at Shutterstock yields me a $20 commission - they don't require exclusivity and they don't require my images to be of good quality at 55mb (approximately 20mp)

Just about ANY contributor on this forum has the ability to get accepted to the agencies I listed above.  I don't see this as a stepping stone, I see this as a way to reduce the commissions of existing traditional photographers by replacing them with people eager to submit to a "traditional agency".  I'm sorry - but that's what I'm seeing whether the intention is there or not (I'm not trying to bash you).

DG isn't one of the brands that is marketed through Adobe Stock Photos that Jupiter tends to market to - at least the Photodisc deal through iStock is transparent about marketing to Adobe Stock Photos and their recent deal with LuLu.

I understand the importance of building relationships but at what cost?  At least cover my expenses in the deal.  Let's be fair here.  How about 40%?  At 40% I can at least match a Shutterstock extended license if the agency decides to match Getty's recent $50 for web usage deal.  Give us some incentive  ;)

« Reply #46 on: October 04, 2007, 02:30 »
0

Give us your images and we will distribute on Jupiterimages.com (JI) and within our network of over 200 agents worldwide.


How is that different from Alamy, who also have a world-wide network of distributors, pay 65% royalties and don't require exclusivity?


Lastly, this is an entry point for other opportunities. As a JI contributor, you are exposing yourself to other content directors who are looking for new talent.


How many wannabee starlets end up in the Producer's bed in Hollywood, having fallen for exactly that line?   ;)


« Reply #47 on: October 04, 2007, 08:41 »
0


How many wannabee starlets end up in the Producer's bed in Hollywood, having fallen for exactly that line?   ;)



Yeah and ending up in a XXXX movie. Litterally getting screwed along the way.*


* Warning sarcasm alert!

jsnover

« Reply #48 on: October 04, 2007, 10:46 »
0
...This is a stepping stone and it might not come with the royalty you want but it has potential.
...I hope some of you will re-consider your decision and give us a try.

You're right - it's not entirely about the royalty percentage, but about the $$ return on the images.

I think the major stumbling block you face here is that you're asking for exclusivity - which is a big risk for someone who has other options. You make no guarantees, but you want the selected images for two years (and no similars elsewhere).

If you didn't want exclusivity, I'd happily offer you the same RM images I'm offering via Alamy and PhotoShelter Collection. I'd take my chances on the 15% because I'd only be out the time to upload (and make you TIFF files when Alamy and PhotoShelter Collection take JPEGs).  If you didn't sell, but the other agencies did, it'd be an experiment that didn't work out, and I'd not have lost much.

If you want the images exclusively, there'd have to be some really big carrot dangling out there...15% isn't it.

RT


« Reply #49 on: October 04, 2007, 11:39 »
0
I'll stick with Alamy, Getty and the specialist sites I'm with.

15% & Exclusive - You have got to be kidding.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2525 Views
Last post October 23, 2008, 16:41
by melastmohican
76 Replies
16647 Views
Last post November 06, 2008, 10:17
by lagereek
11 Replies
3311 Views
Last post January 23, 2009, 12:18
by Gregor909
5 Replies
11079 Views
Last post October 09, 2011, 14:39
by donding
16 Replies
1498 Views
Last post November 13, 2017, 21:04
by Pixart

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors