MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dreamstime selected as a beta provider of stock photos for Google display ads  (Read 35805 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2015, 14:24 »
0
This really isn't different from the Google/Getty deal with the exception that there's an opt out offered (which is a very good thing; and the worse the deals, the more I appreciate that). I think people see Google and get all starry eyed and do daft things.
I can't find the opt out possability. Either you agree to any partnership or you opt out from any partnership. A special opt-out option for the Google deal does not exist


« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2015, 14:28 »
+4
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_39797


Thanks for asking the questions in the DT thread Sean.  Maybe I'm just dense, but it still seems we are awaiting a clear straight forward answer of how much we will get paid ($2.00 once / more if they get used/picked in phase 2.. what is phase 2 etc.etc.) and how Google will be able to sell / resell our images :S

« Reply #27 on: January 19, 2015, 14:33 »
+3
This really isn't different from the Google/Getty deal with the exception that there's an opt out offered (which is a very good thing; and the worse the deals, the more I appreciate that). I think people see Google and get all starry eyed and do daft things.
I can't find the opt out possability. Either you agree to any partnership or you opt out from any partnership. A special opt-out option for the Google deal does not exist

Right - it's all or nothing. If I were interested in other alliances, I'd fuss about this, but as I'm not (almost all of these schemes to let multiple people siphon off some of the money my work earns don't interest me), I can live with it.

« Reply #28 on: January 19, 2015, 14:50 »
+1
This is very different from the iStock/google drive deal. It is a lot worse for the contributor. In the Dreamstime/google deal, an unlimited amount of end users can use our images for advertising purposes and all you get is 2 dollars. No one should ever accept this.

I'd have to disagree on general terms.  The IS/G deal gave access to large, unwatermarked images to anyone that accessed Google Drive, without giving any real restriction on use.  At least this is only for small images, embedded into ads, like the FB/SS deal, but on worse terms.

« Reply #29 on: January 19, 2015, 14:53 »
0
Im surprised nobody called for a d-day yet  ;)


« Reply #30 on: January 19, 2015, 14:56 »
+2
Im surprised nobody called for a d-day yet  ;)

There's an opt out.

In the Getty/Google case, the Fotolia/DPC case, Deposit Photos and their credit sales for subs royalties partners, (and to a lesser extent BigStock's subscriptions-for-peanuts-royalties case) there was no opt out (Fotolia eventually caved and provided one).

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #31 on: January 19, 2015, 14:57 »
+2
Phase 2 sounds like it could be an EL for a perpetual use with no time limit. This is the deal Google arranged with iStock I guess they want the same thing. Free images to give away to their customers while they collect repeat ad revenue.

« Reply #32 on: January 19, 2015, 15:35 »
+11
Well hopefully this deal is better than it looks.  I'm hoping so... but so far it is looking essentially like $2.00 for unlimited uses by google customers (for the next 12 months).. with unknown terms after that.

I've opted out.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #33 on: January 19, 2015, 17:35 »
+11
Yep, I've opted out.

If any of these deals were any good we would be clamouring to get in, not the other way round.

« Reply #34 on: January 19, 2015, 18:54 »
+20
I want to automatically opt out, once and for all, from anything described in an "exciting announcement".

« Last Edit: January 19, 2015, 18:59 by stockastic »

« Reply #35 on: January 19, 2015, 19:04 »
0
What i wonder is whether being in this deal would actually cost any other sales? If not, then maybe it's not really all that bad (though it's certainly not all that good).

« Reply #36 on: January 19, 2015, 19:32 »
-1
Is there anything in this 'deal' that is different than a standard RF sale to an ad agency (aside from Google's larger reach to customers)?  Can not an ad agency currently purchase an RF license and resell the image as part of an ad to multiple customers of theirs without needing another license?  So long as Google isn't actually giving the images to the 'customers' and just making them available as part of their ads, isn't that fair game under current RF licensing terms?

If anything, DT has talked Google into their most expensive subscription model ($2 versus $.35), and guaranteed us payment whether anyone selects our image for an ad or not...  Not trying to defend this plan, as I'm not decided yet on whether this is good, bad or neutral, but when I try to see this through DT's eyes I can't really see why this is a bad idea for them (and us, from their perspective).

Is it just that I'm unhappy with selling under a sub model, when I actually know who the end customer is?  :-\

« Reply #37 on: January 19, 2015, 19:47 »
+11
I think one of the main reasons they offer an opt out is that it is only $2 for Google to use the image royalty free for a year. Somehow they have defined royalty free as "whoever uses it on Google falls under the GOOGLE USER UMBRELLA definition", meaning that I am part of Google and therefore I can use the image royalty free under the Google license, even though I am actually a regular Joe looking for something for my project. Otherwise, why would anyone opt out at the chance to get a series of $2 royalties it it were truly "pay by each who chooses to use a particular image". I know I wouldn't opt out at the chance to make a decent, recurring royalty.  So just stitching together some fuzzy facts it's my guess that this is $2, and end of royalty potential for 12 months. I smell something very eerily similar to the Istock/Getty Google deal.  Serban keeps saying, "it falls under normal royalty guidelines" and because he keeps dodging the actual question of whether we will get $2 for each use by Google's customers and replaces it with, and I quote: "it is one that falls within the limits of the licenses".

So lets break this down. My comments are in red.

"This is not unlimited usage" Google gets to use it for 12 months, so it's not unlimited because it ends after a year.

"it is one that falls within the limits of the licenses mentioned above" This is where he is essentially saying this license is for Google and we sold it for $2 and it is a regular RF sale.  What he won't tell you is more about how the image is ALLOWED to be used because it won't be used by Google, it will be used by its customers who they classify as being "within the Google RF umbrella". This means we won't see another penny from the Google deal for 12 months. 


The W-EL has a 10,000 copies limit lifetime so you can easily compute the top limit the Royalty Free license can see in maximum 12 months. Certainly not unlimited." So this is how he defines the use as not unlimited, refusing to answer our definition of unlimited which is per customer use, not that Google gets it for 12 months and then the unlimited happens then. We want to know is that within Googles 12 month LIMIT, do we get paid for each and every use of that image by disparate Google customers within that 12 months? The answer is probably no because those customers fall under the RF license definition Dreamtime made with Google.....pig-lipstick.

"And yes, cost per download/usage as some of you mentioned are on our to-do list. :)" This to me answers our question. It is $2 and that's it.

Why do we have to OPT out of all partnership alliances and not have an option to just OPT out of the Google deal? That's a crummy deal.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2015, 19:54 by Mantis »

Shelma1

« Reply #38 on: January 19, 2015, 19:52 »
0
double, sorry.

Shelma1

« Reply #39 on: January 19, 2015, 19:53 »
+4
Is there anything in this 'deal' that is different than a standard RF sale to an ad agency (aside from Google's larger reach to customers)?  Can not an ad agency currently purchase an RF license and resell the image as part of an ad to multiple customers of theirs without needing another license?

No, ad agencies cannot buy an image and resell it to multiple clients. (And why would they? Think how angry their clients would be if they were running campaigns for different clients using the same imagery. And they can't have different clients who sell the same products, because they sign non-disclosure and non-compete agreements. Though some mega-merger_agency behemoths manage this by buying up smaller agencies and keeping them separate from one another.)

In fact, ad agencies are usually the customers who buy the most expensive options, because often they need extended licenses, RM, or outright buyouts for large campaigns.

« Reply #40 on: January 19, 2015, 20:12 »
+10
Is there anything in this 'deal' that is different than a standard RF sale to an ad agency (aside from Google's larger reach to customers)?  Can not an ad agency currently purchase an RF license and resell the image as part of an ad to multiple customers of theirs without needing another license?

No, ad agencies cannot buy an image and resell it to multiple clients. (And why would they? Think how angry their clients would be if they were running campaigns for different clients using the same imagery. And they can't have different clients who sell the same products, because they sign non-disclosure and non-compete agreements.

Though some mega-merger_agency behemoths manage this by buying up smaller agencies and keeping them separate from one another.)

In fact, ad agencies are usually the customers who buy the most expensive options, because often they need extended licenses, RM, or outright buyouts for large campaigns.

Actually, Mega is right-ish.  Designers can use RF images for any number of clients in designs ( yes I know there's one or two that say one project ).  But it's pretty unlikely they would use it for more than a few designs.  This is Google playing 'designer' but the benefit is so ridiculously one sided it hinges on being inappropriate.

« Reply #41 on: January 19, 2015, 20:29 »
+14
It wouldn't be right to compare Google to a designer or ad agency in this case. It's more like the TV network or media group. Imagine if we sold images just once to Viacom or Dow Jones & Co and any time someone bought ad space from them, they let the purchaser use one of our images in their ad at no charge (beyond the advertising cost) to the buyer and no royalty to us?

We'd (rightly, IMO) be furious.

What is madness is the notion that dreamstime thinks it's a great deal to allow someone to bundle an image with an ad to entice the ad buyer to purchase and not compensate the image producer beyond this once a year token payment. Our images are the "free" plastic toy in the cereal box at this point.

A while ago I worked in a software group at a large company that sold both hardware and software. The hardware sales reps loved to "give" the customer some free software to go with their hardware as a way to close the deal. However the software groups got no credit for the sales and thus looked like one huge cost center that brought in minimal revenue.

If Google (or anyone else) wants to play that sort of game with ad sales then they need to acquire some wholly owned content that they can give away as they please - or pay more to license content to which they don't own the copyright

« Reply #42 on: January 19, 2015, 20:52 »
+16
My take on this is a bit different and no doubt simplistic.

Your 'agent' - Dreamstime - just licensed one of your photos to a corporation with a market cap of $344 billion, with the potential for that photo to be seen around the planet.  You get $2.  You should be happy with the deal he cut for you.  He's a hard bargainer.

That's what you have to accept, in order to believe this is "a good deal".    Are we there yet?
« Last Edit: January 19, 2015, 20:54 by stockastic »

« Reply #43 on: January 19, 2015, 20:53 »
+11
Our images are the "free" plastic toy in the cereal box at this point.

Bingo!!!

« Reply #44 on: January 19, 2015, 20:56 »
+6
I've opted out.

Me too. It was easy. Felt good.

« Reply #45 on: January 19, 2015, 22:27 »
+21
Congratulation on the "sell out deal" Serban Enache, Dragos Jianu, Jeff Prescott, Noelle Federico!

It gets harder and harder to respect management in any microstock company these days. We need to look hard at other options.


« Reply #46 on: January 19, 2015, 23:52 »
+2
Opt out for me.  Sounds a terrible deal. 

« Reply #47 on: January 20, 2015, 00:03 »
+3
Opt out.

« Reply #48 on: January 20, 2015, 00:54 »
+3
And.......I'm out!   :D

Semmick Photo

« Reply #49 on: January 20, 2015, 02:46 »
+17
What really annoys me about all these deals is that it cuts my options to grow/spread  my earnings. I am no longer with DP FT DT IS and Alamy so SS share of earnings increased from 70% to roughly 90%. That worries me. I wish agencies started to respect the law and copyrights. And most of all... Respect us the contributors.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2611 Views
Last post June 14, 2008, 19:27
by madelaide
2 Replies
2935 Views
Last post June 16, 2009, 15:36
by zymmetricaldotcom
2 Replies
2078 Views
Last post October 26, 2010, 20:06
by RacePhoto
57 Replies
13453 Views
Last post February 04, 2013, 07:09
by Reef
5 Replies
2252 Views
Last post July 04, 2016, 20:07
by CJH Photography

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results