MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: An Interesting Commentary by CEPIC to Dreamstime About Giving Images Away  (Read 7111 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: May 27, 2013, 20:10 »
0
oh really... interesting that nothing changes, actually it has, for worst :o

LOL. That's what I was thinking.


Beppe Grillo

« Reply #26 on: May 28, 2013, 00:37 »
+2
"While some people can't 
 afford to pay for content; others don't want to pay, even though they 
still need specific images."

Well, I cannot afford to pay for an Aston Martin DB9, but I really need this specific car, so?

rubyroo

« Reply #27 on: May 28, 2013, 02:37 »
+1
It's the 'others don't want to pay' that baffles me.

Others don't want to pay, so we should reward them with freebies at the expense of the creators?

It's nonsensical.


gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #28 on: May 28, 2013, 02:48 »
+11
isn't it interesting that an image not deemed good enough for the DT collection would still get hundreds of downloads if free?


« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2013, 03:05 »
0
In the DT forum its mentioned that non-selling files more than 4 years old will be transferred to the free photo collection.

rubyroo

« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2013, 03:07 »
+1
@ zeamonkey ...only if you choose to put them in the free collection.  You get an option to disable them instead.

@ Gillian ... yes, if it's a much-downloaded image, it surely has remunerative value.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 03:13 by rubyroo »

« Reply #31 on: May 28, 2013, 06:38 »
0
Curiously, on the 'Earnings' page (when you are logged into DT), there is a tab labelled "Free Image Earnings". Why?

cuppacoffee

« Reply #32 on: May 28, 2013, 06:51 »
0
http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_34234_pg1

"Given the large collection available and being committed to provide an equitable deal, we launch today a subscription pilot program where SFI becomes a freemium platform. After an initial free startup (10 free downloads), the web resolution will remain free for all visitors, while high resolution files will be available subscription-based only. Members opting for paid access will also benefit from attractive discounts on Dreamstime packages, the discount depending on the plan selected. The licenses granted for the images are Limited Royalty Free RF-LL for all images downloaded free of any charge (web resolution) and standard Royalty Free for paid images. The major difference between the two is related to the number of copies allowed: 10,000 for RF-LL and 500,000 for RF.

Plans begin at $15 (1 week & 10 downloads/day) and the royalties are $0.10 (non exclusives) and $0.12 (exclusive images or exclusive contributors). Of course, these royalties refer only to images available on SFI and do not interfere with Dreamstime's royalties.

The project will remain separate of Dreamstime but all sales will be reported in contributors' accounts on Dreamstime..."

« Reply #33 on: May 28, 2013, 06:55 »
0
^^^ Ah __ thanks for that!

aspp

« Reply #34 on: May 28, 2013, 08:29 »
-1
We use free stock images from time to time. Just the other day my partner was asking where she could search for an image which they could use for free.

The poster they wanted the image for is something they did themselves. It will be on their Facebook and also run off on the Xerox. So totally low budget. Looks great.

Plus side is thanks to her the people she works with know that they cannot just use stuff they have found on Google Images. They were not going to buy something for that job either - the alternative would have been Instagram or something shared with them online.

So not a sale for someone - but not a theft from someone else either. ETA: obviously she would not have used a stolen image but nobody else in the office knew that was not ok. And they get into the idea of searching a stock site.

I did not know about the DT free site. Thanks. Bookmarked. Vote me down (eek!) :)

ETA: schools and colleges should require project work to list the legitimate sources and copyright information of content used. In the same way that proper universities have always required a properly formatted and annotated  bibliography. Or else a fail.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 08:37 by aspp »

Pinocchio

« Reply #35 on: May 28, 2013, 08:31 »
0
Why doesn't CEPIC make a comment about the thousands of stock images Google is giving away for free without fair compensation to the owners?


The only comment I'm aware of can be found here http://www.microstockgroup.com/blog-updates/reaction-of-cepic-about-the-getty-google-deal/msg298964/#msg298964 - seems like ancient history now - not that that excuses what iStock did...

Regards

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #36 on: May 28, 2013, 09:17 »
+7
I dont know who has been blowing smoke up DT's you know what but giving images for free wont help any at all!

All it will do is get all of the leaches looking for free stuff to their site.

If they want more paying customers they need to get rid of the BS similar rejections they have so that the buyers can have more choices!

« Reply #37 on: May 28, 2013, 11:34 »
+1
Blog posting by Gwyn Headley, Managing Director of fotolibra, on DT's "A Million Free Images":

http://blog.fotolibra.com/?p=3517

And, as mentioned in earlier posts on MSG here, DT's policy of requiring opt out for rejected image = free image, and requirement to disable image unsold for 4 years = free image so clearly works against best interest of actual creators of images & photographers in general.
-Ann
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 11:37 by ann »

ShadySue

« Reply #38 on: May 28, 2013, 13:49 »
0
Blog posting by Gwyn Headley, Managing Director of fotolibra, on DT's "A Million Free Images":

http://blog.fotolibra.com/?p=3517

And, as mentioned in earlier posts on MSG here, DT's policy of requiring opt out for rejected image = free image, and requirement to disable image unsold for 4 years = free image so clearly works against best interest of actual creators of images & photographers in general.
-Ann

He has argued his points quite well.
On a PoI, does fL vet contributions now? They didn't used to.

Ed

« Reply #39 on: May 28, 2013, 20:46 »
0
Blog posting by Gwyn Headley, Managing Director of fotolibra, on DT's "A Million Free Images":

http://blog.fotolibra.com/?p=3517

And, as mentioned in earlier posts on MSG here, DT's policy of requiring opt out for rejected image = free image, and requirement to disable image unsold for 4 years = free image so clearly works against best interest of actual creators of images & photographers in general.
-Ann

He has argued his points quite well.
On a PoI, does fL vet contributions now? They didn't used to.


They don't currently, but I think the tide is changing.  Fotolibra recently announced a video submission option...and the videos will be vetted.  This will be interesting in that Fotolibra simply doesn't sell based on my experience and the experience I've heard from others.

« Reply #40 on: June 03, 2013, 05:30 »
0
I like the fancy idea of us all giving away our images for free.
And such undermine the whole industry.

And actually, why shouldnt we. We are almost there anyway.

10 cents here and 25 cents there. And the distributors making all kinds of fancy trades with our content.

It can produce a much better feeling when you give a picture away to someone who needs it and he says thanks.
You first:)

« Reply #41 on: June 03, 2013, 23:26 »
0

ETA: schools and colleges should require project work to list the legitimate sources and copyright information of content used. In the same way that proper universities have always required a properly formatted and annotated  bibliography. Or else a fail.

+1.  Requiring students to credit photos as well as text sources would go a long way towards educating the general populace about photo copyrights. 

« Reply #42 on: June 05, 2013, 02:49 »
0

ETA: schools and colleges should require project work to list the legitimate sources and copyright information of content used. In the same way that proper universities have always required a properly formatted and annotated  bibliography. Or else a fail.

+1.  Requiring students to credit photos as well as text sources would go a long way towards educating the general populace about photo copyrights.

IME, plagiarism is a big problem at College and University level and many institutions use anti-plagiarism software that they run assessments through, which has reduced the practice somewhat.

I''m a few years out of being involved in University education now (I was at Senior Lecturer/Assistant Prof level) but I shall have to ask if current anti-plagiarism software picks up non- or wrongly credited images in addition to plagiarised text. This type of software was just coming in at the time I left and I can't remember if it did then.

dbvirago

« Reply #43 on: July 18, 2013, 19:23 »
+1
Searching for something else and stumbled across the link below. It is one of the partners that DT uses for its free images. This is one of the ones I let go free early days at DT. I have long disabled the image, but it still shows on the page. Notice that even though it has my name as the photographer, no link would bring anyone back to my images at DT. Based on this, I see no way that giving my image away would have benefited me at all. If, instead of similar images, there was, more images by this photographer than maybe.  Anyone thinking that free images will drive traffic, check this link.

http://www.free-stockphotos.com/downlaod-free-lighthouse-at-christmas-stock-photos/

cuppacoffee

« Reply #44 on: July 18, 2013, 21:45 »
+2
Searching for something else and stumbled across the link below. It is one of the partners that DT uses for its free images. This is one of the ones I let go free early days at DT. I have long disabled the image, but it still shows on the page. Notice that even though it has my name as the photographer, no link would bring anyone back to my images at DT. Based on this, I see no way that giving my image away would have benefited me at all. If, instead of similar images, there was, more images by this photographer than maybe.  Anyone thinking that free images will drive traffic, check this link.

http://www.free-stockphotos.com/downlaod-free-lighthouse-at-christmas-stock-photos/


I don't think it is a DT partner. It is a wordpress site set up by a contributor there. It is also linked to fotalia and bigstock so I suspect it is promotion for his images. Follow the links and it goes to a portfolio for a person who says they started a free site. Sounds odd to me. http://www.dreamstime.com/ximagination_info
He says in his bio, " O yea.. One more thing, some of my photos are also available for free on my free photos website" and it goes to the link you listed. I would contact DT support.

dbvirago

« Reply #45 on: July 19, 2013, 05:05 »
0
I went to DT and did a forum search. Found this four year old thread: http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_18707
Where an admin says, The images from Dreamstime displayed on the page are among our free images. The page is made using our referral program.

At any rate, I've long since deleted all free images I allowed before I knew better.

Just wanted to point out to those who still wonder that despite what the sites say, there is no value to the photographer in giving away images.

I also remembered something else. I also write, and one of the sites I submit to want pictures as part of the article. Years ago, they had a link to Fotolia free images to select from. No one who writes for that site would ever know who the photographer was or have a reason to buy an image from them or Fotolia.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
4617 Views
Last post March 12, 2008, 01:45
by Peter
4 Replies
3644 Views
Last post February 05, 2012, 17:39
by cybernesco
14 Replies
6569 Views
Last post October 05, 2012, 15:53
by lisafx
20 Replies
4321 Views
Last post October 13, 2013, 12:48
by Fred
11 Replies
6978 Views
Last post January 27, 2016, 10:02
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results