MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "Dreamstime Ups Collection of Free Images"  (Read 15627 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2009, 15:07 »
0
If the sites really are marching us towards free images, can someone please explain the business plan?  I think they make more money selling our images than they would giving them away.

Giving your images away for free to pull in new customers is cheap low cost marketing for the websites.

Next step there are a few others services that serve 'free image' that have an advertisment below, so if a Blogger who is writing a recipe for a cake, they can insert a free image with an ad for a white goods company linked.

The sacary thing about some of these start-ups like PicApp is the images are sourced from Getty and Corbis 'wholly owned' content, cutting the artist out of any ad revenue.

We could see a service like Google Ads, where each click earns you $0.01 paid for by advertisers, where you images are used to get the viewers attention.

David  :o


« Reply #26 on: October 30, 2009, 15:09 »
0
I created a new thread on the DT forum, asking where that specifically is located. I'll post any response.

It looks like your message has mysteriously 'disappeared'. Did you ever get any sort of response?

« Reply #27 on: October 30, 2009, 15:13 »
0
I guess next we will see free images inserted into the an ad created for free and there will be the free image with the ad plus logo, also for free .......

« Reply #28 on: October 30, 2009, 15:14 »
0
Ha! That's funny.

I just got a response on sitemail from Achilles.

The page you're asking about is available only to members who have images that qualify (4 years old, no downloads).

I can't see such page because I only started uploading there in 03/06 so none of my images are over 4 years old. He did neglect to answer the question for everyone else, though, who DO have images over four years. I suppose if you have images over 4 years old that are going to be donated, you will be able to easily find the page?

Seems like it's a sore point with them right now, as it should be.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #29 on: October 30, 2009, 15:21 »
0
The sites that have free images are doing well and there is no sign that buyers are using the free images instead of buying, I don't see why that should change now.

As mentioned above, DT is a successful site. If they think a free area is good for business, that's ok by me. I STILL don't want them taking my images without my permission and giving them away. That's just wrong.

It was either in this thread or the thread that got locked on the DT forum where a poster kept saying how we should all support this free image section because after all, they inspect our photos for free, blah, blah, blah. It bothered me that the poster thinks that DT is inspecting FOR FREE and out of the goodness of their heart and we should in turn be willing to give up stuff for free. They don't inspect our images for free...they get paid a huge percent of the sale for that! Inspecting is a cost of doing business for them...they don't do it for free! I couldn't believe somebody actually said that!

This opinion is what I expressed in DT.  It was deleted and followed by an "offline" exchange of comments between Achilles and myself.  When I posted "online" about this thread and the subject press release, he went ballistic. 

No matter how DT tries to SPIN this, the simple solution is to offer a choice.  Let ME and every contributor decide what WE are willing to give away.

BTW:  he kept denying that there was any preconceived plan linked to that press release.   HUH???


WarrenPrice

« Reply #30 on: October 30, 2009, 15:26 »
0
Another thought ... I keep hearing how DT is the only forum that would allow such debate.  That too is misleading.  What they don't want seen gets deleted.  My post was deleted, CClapper had one deleted.

I wonder how many others are deleted???  So much for open disccusion.   If they don't want it seen ... IT AIN'T!!!


« Reply #31 on: October 30, 2009, 15:39 »
0
WarrenPrice, in all fairness, IS does the same thing. Approach touchy subjects and the threads get locked or disappear.

I am hoping that they are reconsidering their position on this whole thing. I really don't get what the big deal is from DT's point of view is. Most people aren't disputing the free section. They can have it, they just need to make it voluntary and NOT mandatory. I personally don't believe it works, but if others think it does and they want to participate, I'm ok with that.

Did they think they were going to be able to just take our images and give them away for free? what?

Frankly, I am so tired of all the bullying from credit card companies, employers, banks, etc. etc. (and now the microstock companies are going to try to intimidate their contributors?) but that is another rant for another forum.

edit: this is funny. I typed double-u tee eff with a question mark (the letters, not the whole words) and it automatically changed that to "what?" LOL.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 15:42 by cclapper »

« Reply #32 on: October 30, 2009, 15:41 »
0
I guess next we will see free images inserted into the an ad created for free and there will be the free image with the ad plus logo, also for free .......
Nothing is free someone is paying, the free images that the websites are giving away were paid for by anyone that has made a sale or payout, all the rejected and the images with no sales have an associated cost, from the inspection, administration, bandwidth, storage, overheads and search delivery, the revenue to pay for these costs is generated from the sales of other artists images.

Lets look at what we have now "Google", millions create websites, blogs etc:, Google crawls these sites pages often by invitation and create an image of the website, they harvest the keywords and index these for all people to find, all this they do for 'free', it is free to submit and search, so off we go to Google where we see the advertisments that the companies pay Google for, none of this revenue generated on Google's main page is passed down to the content providers as they get traffic, the providers who's content the searchers come looking for, what a super 'free' business, so why not images that are paid for each impression to the artist.

The Dreamstime free images are following the Google business model, use free content to pull in and hook traffic, and you have to "register" to download a free image which will mean only serious people will bother to download, and maybe 0.001% of the visitors will make a purchase if not now then later, and for marketing they have the email addresses.


David  ;)

« Reply #33 on: October 30, 2009, 15:47 »
0
I much prefer IS's solution to this issue of the Dollar Bin. At least the contributor (and the agency) gets some money out of the deal.
Is anyone actually making much from iStock's DB? Since the price hike there, my images have mostly been moribund, and it's what I'm hearing from others, but hardly a representative sample.

Not doingn much, ok, but not doieng nothing, or not doing less than nothing because some regular customer steps on a free photo that by chance meet his needs, and  gets it instead for free of buying some other one.

« Reply #34 on: October 30, 2009, 16:02 »
0
I think it will play out like agriculture did. 

Once a world-wide market was created - where products could be shipped and sold anywhere - the small farmer faced a perfect "buyer's market".  Products became completely commoditized and prices dropped below the cost of production.  Collective bargaining was no longer possible because producers couldn't communicate or coordinate their actions on a global scale.  The real money is made by the big distributors, who can buy a product at rock-bottom price from a poor farmer in Indonesia and sell it for top dollar in Maine. Only big corporate farming operations have any leverage with the distributors.

« Reply #35 on: October 30, 2009, 16:25 »
0
I was sad to read in the DT forum that free image donators will have a better placement in searches.

I have no data to back me up, but I think that most of the "free images" clientelle are not people who would pay for photos. 

« Reply #36 on: October 30, 2009, 16:48 »
0
I think it will play out like agriculture did. 

Once a world-wide market was created - where products could be shipped and sold anywhere - the small farmer faced a perfect "buyer's market".  Products became completely commoditized and prices dropped below the cost of production.  Collective bargaining was no longer possible because producers couldn't communicate or coordinate their actions on a global scale.  The real money is made by the big distributors, who can buy a product at rock-bottom price from a poor farmer in Indonesia and sell it for top dollar in Maine. Only big corporate farming operations have any leverage with the distributors.

Interesting analogy.   Are freebies to microstock = Monsanto to agriculture?  Even if you say no to genetically modified grain/seeds(freebies) you are surrounded by it and with the help of the wind the GM infiltrates the organic farmer's crops (ppd's) while only really only benefiting Monsanto (agencies).

Also, a North American grain farmer these days needs at least a half million $ in equipment which is similar to a photographer needing a $20K of equipment and a studio these days to remain competitive.  Difficult for young people to enter these two professions, the only thing keeping farmers in business these days is the investment that their parents put into the business and passing land and equipment down through the bloodline.

« Reply #37 on: October 30, 2009, 16:50 »
0
I was sad to read in the DT forum that free image donators will have a better placement in searches.

I have no data to back me up, but I think that most of the "free images" clientelle are not people who would pay for photos.  

Can someone tell me - are the images moved to free and removed from the regular search?  Is that photo "benefiting" in searches, or is the photographer?

I have enjoyed the use of "free images", but I don't think I will ever donate one.  But then again I buy images also, I'm guessing most freebie hunters have never made a purchase.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 16:52 by Pixart »

« Reply #38 on: October 30, 2009, 18:17 »
0
As I understand, free photos belong to a different group and do not mix with the selling ones.  It was said that being a donator would help in search results - in the main collection, otherwise it would be no advantage.

traveler1116

« Reply #39 on: October 30, 2009, 21:04 »
0
Terrible.

« Reply #40 on: October 30, 2009, 21:15 »
0
It was said that being a donator would help in search results - in the main collection...

Ok, I get it now.  They're offering higher search ranking in exchange for images.  Hey why not just accept cash?




« Reply #41 on: October 30, 2009, 22:10 »
0
I red a thread about Roberts Mizerek:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/photoshop-tutorials/the-miz-his-memory-lives-on-through-his-tutorials/msg0/?topicseen#new
His great portfolio is still at Dreamstime. Without any FREE images. I'm curious if DT will respect his wills.

« Reply #42 on: October 31, 2009, 12:55 »
0
It was said that being a donator would help in search results - in the main collection...

Ok, I get it now.  They're offering higher search ranking in exchange for images.  Hey why not just accept cash?





actually, not too bad a deal -- let your rejects and non-sellers go in the free pile while your good stuff gets higher search visibility

i agree, of course, that the default should be NOT free, with any donations being voluntary

steve

« Reply #43 on: October 31, 2009, 13:10 »
0
actually, not too bad a deal

Unless you're a buyer, and ideally would like to see images ranked in some relation to relevance and quality, and not based on contributors paying the agency to push their images...  that used to be how records got played on the radio. It was called "payola".

I really doubt that the promised boost in search ratings would be delivered.  I'm sure no specifics are being offered as to the amount or duration of the boost.



WarrenPrice

« Reply #44 on: October 31, 2009, 13:23 »
0
actually, not too bad a deal

Unless you're a buyer, and ideally would like to see images ranked in some relation to relevance and quality, and not based on contributors paying the agency to push their images...  that used to be how records got played on the radio. It was called "payola".

I really doubt that the promised boost in search ratings would be delivered.  I'm sure no specifics are being offered as to the amount or duration of the boost.


A promised "reduction" certainly can.   :'( 
I seem to have become the recipient of such. 
Oh well ... who can I PO next?   ::)

« Reply #45 on: October 31, 2009, 13:34 »
0
I may be wrong, but it looks like my acceptance ratio has suffered for not offering my old photos for free. Anyone else notice something similar?

« Reply #46 on: October 31, 2009, 16:27 »
0
They said in their forum that they were thinking about giving a boost in the search to those donating free images, I am sure they haven't done it yet and hopefully they will change their minds.

I doubt they have increased rejections for those not donating free images, my rejections there vary a lot, I stopped uploading a few weeks ago but my last uploads were all approved.

« Reply #47 on: October 31, 2009, 17:12 »
0
It was said that being a donator would help in search results - in the main collection...

Ok, I get it now.  They're offering higher search ranking in exchange for images.  Hey why not just accept cash?


actually, not too bad a deal -- let your rejects and non-sellers go in the free pile while your good stuff gets higher search visibility

i agree, of course, that the default should be NOT free, with any donations being voluntary

If they give higher search ranking in exchange for donations, there's nothing voluntary about it. Anyone who "chooses" not to donate will have their search ranking suffer compared to someone who does.

I'm not directly affected by this any more (although I did go to check that my old DT images were still disabled and hadn't somehow been made freebies behind my back) but the problem with viewing this as "not too bad a deal" for independents is that you rarely have the same sales patterns across all sites.

I would often find an image that took off on one site (and we can speculate about the timings of various search engine changes, a fortunate early sale one place but not another...) didn't do well on another. You'd be insane to let one site give away for free something that was selling OK elsewhere.

And if the image is so awful that it isn't selling anywhere, how will someone downloading an awful image free help you sell your portfolio of current and stellar images?

It seems to me that if you rank the search results usefully to buyers they aren't in any way hampered by the fact that there are some so-so images on page 4,395 of the results - which they'll likely never get to.

And if for whatever reason they don't like any of the high ranking images and find their way to a low-seller towards the end, perhaps it's what they're looking for and it's purchsed. This whole notion of buyers having to wade through mountains of dreck to get to the good stuff - if it is a real issue - isn't solved by moving files to the free section, "voluntarily" or otherwise. It's solved by improving your search engine.

« Reply #48 on: October 31, 2009, 21:10 »
0
I'm not directly affected by this any more (although I did go to check that my old DT images were still disabled and hadn't somehow been made freebies behind my back)

Strange. You have deleted-disabled your images over one year ago and they are still there? Theses images should be DELETED now.

Achilles from Dreamstime said:
"5.  disabling images not deleting them
Contributors may try to delete their whole portfolio after receiving the first refusal they disagree with. Hundreds or thousands of files can go down the drain in a few minutes. Many times contributors re-enable them after they calm down (see your case).
Another case is of photographers trying their luck with other partnership (i.e. exclusivity somewhere else). We're obviously not happy to see it, but respect it. The contributors may return sooner or later and many do. If they return after a few months, they can easily re-enable their portfolio. If it's later they need to start from scratch.
Final decision is up to contributors, we don't touch those files, they are offline. They are permanently deleted after a few months."


« Reply #49 on: October 31, 2009, 22:40 »
0
I'm not directly affected by this any more (although I did go to check that my old DT images were still disabled and hadn't somehow been made freebies behind my back)

Strange. You have deleted-disabled your images over one year ago and they are still there? Theses images should be DELETED now.

Achilles from Dreamstime said:
... we don't touch those files, they are offline. They are permanently deleted after a few months."[/i]

I don't know if I could renable the images - but the button is there if I wanted to push it. I just wanted to be sure I wasn't going to inadvertently end up in violation of my exclusivity arrangement over free RF licenses flogged without my consent at DT.

Perhaps they should clean up the old accounts if they want to clean up something :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
4745 Views
Last post May 21, 2009, 16:30
by leaf
0 Replies
1680 Views
Last post August 08, 2012, 16:47
by joshsprague
25 Replies
4539 Views
Last post August 14, 2012, 09:48
by ShadySue
11 Replies
1620 Views
Last post July 20, 2013, 15:32
by Redneck
1 Replies
1220 Views
Last post May 28, 2014, 09:06
by DF_Studios

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results