MicrostockGroup

As is mostly the case, it has to do with money.

When a person wants to purchase an extended license, it means that they want to resell the image on an item (like a t-shirt, mouse pad, coffee mug, etc) or that they want to increase usage (for web templates or publications with large subscription bases).

Many people feel that this sort of usage should command a much higher price.

For example, say that a company buys an image to use on a web templates and then sells the template for $100.  They then sell 100 templates and make $10,000.  Is it fair that the artist only received $25?

Or take another example, say that a company produces bedsheets and buys an image of flowers that they print on the sheets.  They then sell the sheet set for $100 and sell 1,000s of sets.  Is it fair that the artist only makes a small amount in comparison to what the company made?

Of course, the other side of the argument is that we are already selling our images royalty free and somebody could use an image over and over and we still only get $0.30 - $5.00.

It just depends where you draw the line.

I would suggest allowing an opt-in option (as opposed to an opt-in option).  This way, those that are interested could opt-in if they are interested.

I think he means it's better to offer an opt-in option, rather than a default opt-in and optional opt-out.

I'm generally a fan of more options. Why not let people opt-in/opt-out? It's just one more variable in your contributor data table, and a little more programming.

More importantly, you should offer more and different extended licenses. For instance at iStock the extended licenses are for unlimited usages.  However, capturing consumer surplus using price discrimination should be a obvious thing to the people setting prices and deciding sales options. Instead of offering one unlimited reproduction license there should be the option to buy, say an extra 500,000 prints, at a time. Or a per-seat license, instead of an unlimited user multi-seat license like iStock has (this one actually made me think about opting out). Whoever the genius at iStock that though a fixed flat rate system was a good idea should have a negative bonus this year. Simplicity should not be valued over the bottom line.

Great feedback !!

Thanks all. But what I am still missing is the comment of one or a few contributors that have decided to opt out and why ?

ok,

but isn't it better to license an image for $25 than nothing at all. If they do want that image of a Daisy for bedsheets, they will find one, and it will not be yours.

is that ok with you ?

Are you here to listen to people's opinions or to try and change their opinions (because it truly doesn't seem like your listening)?

You asked a question and you got an answer.

But then that answer didn't seem to be good enough for you, so we had to point it out to you again.

But then you still weren't satisfied, so now you are trying to convince us that it is better to opt-in.

It hardly seems like you are really looking for anyone's opinion, but rather extol your own.

The risk of "not making a US$25 sale" is a choice.  The risk of having an image "abused", being used outside its regular license, is inherent to having them online.

I don't sell at SS because I don't agree with their model, although people make a lot of money there. It's my choice.

I haven't yet opt-ed out any EL model, although the terms in LO make me dubious about this choice.  I think however that FT has the best model, as we choose prices according to our level, and these prices are reasonable.  ELs for US$25 indeed seem too little for me, if resale items are included.  BigStock has an interesting model, with prices according to use and quantity.

Regards,
Adelaide