MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dreamstime selected as a beta provider of stock photos for Google display ads  (Read 36134 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #175 on: February 21, 2015, 15:57 »
0
No, in a year -some- ELs will be purchased for some.

I'm just going by what Serban (Achilles) explained in the DT forum:

"Provided the first phase of this project goes as expected, after a maximum of 12 months (we all hope it will be sooner), in addition to the royalties described above, Google will initiate another volume purchase of an upgraded W-EL license for each image. We might switch images that didn't perform well with new ones, awarding royalties as appropriate. For the second stage we will award EL royalties (25%-60%). Overall the royalties will average approximately 50%."

Yes, he does leave the door open for removing or replacing underperforming images, but in general it appears that each image will get an EL.

Or did he amend this later?  If so, please share the link.


« Reply #176 on: February 21, 2015, 15:59 »
0
Does the fact that the $2 royalties are being paid out mean that Google (or DST) has finished selecting the images?
If yes, is it "safe" to opt in again?   (the "old" opt-in I mean)

Seems to me that there have been two distinct waves of the sales showing up... mid day on Friday and very early on Saturday... Nothing for the past 12 hours or so. 

So it may be safe to say by now you've missed the boat/narrowly averted catastrophe, depending on your level of paranoia over this.

« Reply #177 on: February 21, 2015, 16:03 »
+4
Does the fact that the $2 royalties are being paid out mean that Google (or DST) has finished selecting the images?
If yes, is it "safe" to opt in again?   (the "old" opt-in I mean)

Seems to me that there have been two distinct waves of the sales showing up... mid day on Friday and very early on Saturday... Nothing for the past 12 hours or so. 

So it may be safe to say by now you've missed the boat/narrowly averted catastrophe, depending on your level of paranoia over this.

They said that after a unspecified length of time (up to a year but hopefully sooner) they will change out non-performing images with others, so if you want to be sure of not having images in this deal, you should stay opted out of partners,

« Reply #178 on: February 21, 2015, 16:10 »
-1
Does the fact that the $2 royalties are being paid out mean that Google (or DST) has finished selecting the images?
If yes, is it "safe" to opt in again?   (the "old" opt-in I mean)

Seems to me that there have been two distinct waves of the sales showing up... mid day on Friday and very early on Saturday... Nothing for the past 12 hours or so. 

So it may be safe to say by now you've missed the boat/narrowly averted catastrophe, depending on your level of paranoia over this.

They said that after a unspecified length of time (up to a year but hopefully sooner) they will change out non-performing images with others, so if you want to be sure of not having images in this deal, you should stay opted out of partners,
From the DT forum: "I had 5 sales on a batch, 4 photos and one illustration. The illustration is a good seller, but the photos were all bad sellers"
Maybe the reason so many bad sellers are being chosen is that all the Genius Artists have opted out their Priceless Masterpieces?  ???

« Reply #179 on: February 22, 2015, 13:23 »
+2
So that solves that mystery.  I had 15 $2 sales in the past 3 days.  Considering that doubled my sales for February, and all at higher than my average royalty price lately, I wasn't complaining, but I was wondering what was going on.  This will be my best month at Dreamstime in quite awhile, methinks.

Well done, Dreamstime!

« Reply #180 on: February 24, 2015, 00:35 »
+1
Is it too late to opt out?

« Reply #181 on: February 24, 2015, 05:04 »
+1
.....

i remember once long ago, some wise promoter suggested we hold free seminars for pros. no one came because it was free (can't be that good).
they fire this promoter and the new one came in and had us charge $100 per seat. the seminar was filled.
something to think about why freebies never win paying clients, they only attract scavengers

which is an argument FOR opting in --- maybe '50' people will use these images for free -- the important question is whether ANY of them would have found the image otherwise, much less PAID for it

« Reply #182 on: February 24, 2015, 05:13 »
+1


Everyone who didn't opt into this should be kicking themselves right now.


I was working in a major ad agency this week. If you saw what an ad agency pays for one-time use of an image (from Shutterstock and Getty in most ad agencies), you'd be shaking your head sadly at these $2 resell-all-you-like Google payments, as I am today.

I'm not kicking myself at all about opting out...instead I'm realizing how much people are actually willing to pay for one use of my images. (It's a lot more than all the $2 payments you got for all those images put together.)

realizing how much agencies might pay is quite different from GETTING that payment -- i don't see how that makes any difference in deciding whether to opt in to DT-google; the 2 are entirely separate - a few people opting out is not going to affect the deal.


another factor people are forgetting is how SMALL images are that are used in google ads

Shelma1

« Reply #183 on: February 24, 2015, 06:29 »
+9


Everyone who didn't opt into this should be kicking themselves right now.


I was working in a major ad agency this week. If you saw what an ad agency pays for one-time use of an image (from Shutterstock and Getty in most ad agencies), you'd be shaking your head sadly at these $2 resell-all-you-like Google payments, as I am today.

I'm not kicking myself at all about opting out...instead I'm realizing how much people are actually willing to pay for one use of my images. (It's a lot more than all the $2 payments you got for all those images put together.)

realizing how much agencies might pay is quite different from GETTING that payment -- i don't see how that makes any difference in deciding whether to opt in to DT-google; the 2 are entirely separate - a few people opting out is not going to affect the deal.


another factor people are forgetting is how SMALL images are that are used in google ads

To each his own, I suppose. I don't mind the SS/Facebook deal, where the images are also tiny but we're paid for each use. I have a problem with gigantic Google paying me $2 and then making my image available 10,000 times. Clearly, it's possible to make deals where artists are compensated for each use, because SS did that. I also see that SS and Getty are selling our work--the same work--for hundreds of dollars for each use while DT sells it for two bucks for thousands of uses. SS is looking in the right direction, IMO. Their prices are going up and they're aiming for larger sales. I've decided I'd rather look in that direction too.

« Reply #184 on: February 24, 2015, 07:05 »
-4
To each his own, I suppose. I don't mind the SS/Facebook deal, where the images are also tiny but we're paid for each use. I have a problem with gigantic Google paying me $2 and then making my image available 10,000 times. Clearly, it's possible to make deals where artists are compensated for each use, because SS did that. I also see that SS and Getty are selling our work--the same work--for hundreds of dollars for each use while DT sells it for two bucks for thousands of uses. SS is looking in the right direction, IMO. Their prices are going up and they're aiming for larger sales. I've decided I'd rather look in that direction too.

Do you really think that your images are so super-brilliant that they will be used 10000 times during this one year (or less)? For your information, 11 of my 813 images were selected in this deal and 8 of them were never sold in DT (and 4 of them were also never sold in any other agency). As it was already said, there is probability that many of these selected images will be never used (and replaced) and some may by used many times and in the average, it could be not so bad deal. Who knows.

Shelma1

« Reply #185 on: February 24, 2015, 07:29 »
+5
To each his own, I suppose. I don't mind the SS/Facebook deal, where the images are also tiny but we're paid for each use. I have a problem with gigantic Google paying me $2 and then making my image available 10,000 times. Clearly, it's possible to make deals where artists are compensated for each use, because SS did that. I also see that SS and Getty are selling our work--the same work--for hundreds of dollars for each use while DT sells it for two bucks for thousands of uses. SS is looking in the right direction, IMO. Their prices are going up and they're aiming for larger sales. I've decided I'd rather look in that direction too.

Do you really think that your images are so super-brilliant that they will be used 10000 times during this one year (or less)? For your information, 11 of my 813 images were selected in this deal and 8 of them were never sold in DT (and 4 of them were also never sold in any other agency). As it was already said, there is probability that many of these selected images will be never used (and replaced) and some may by used many times and in the average, it could be not so bad deal. Who knows.

And who are you, exactly, person who hides behind anonymity yet feels free to dis other people's work?

« Reply #186 on: February 24, 2015, 07:53 »
+10
Do you really think that your images are so super-brilliant that they will be used 10000 times during this one year (or less)? For your information, 11 of my 813 images were selected in this deal and 8 of them were never sold in DT (and 4 of them were also never sold in any other agency). As it was already said, there is probability that many of these selected images will be never used (and replaced) and some may by used many times and in the average, it could be not so bad deal. Who knows.

Even if an image is only used twice, photographers are getting ripped off. Images are on an agency's site because they need to be SOLD, not given away.

This deal doesn't affect me, as I left Dreamstime long ago. In fact, I left Dreamstime when they made the deal with Pinterest. I don't want my images, that I put work into, being given away to anyone. Watermarked or not. Putting watermarked images on Pinterest and allowing them to be pinned hundreds of time only reinforced the idea that images are ok to be used watermarked and don't need to be paid for. Did anyone here get rich from that scheme? Will you be getting rich from this scheme? Guess who is really making the money, is getting rich? Not you, that's for sure.

I am glad to see they at least provided an opt out. But it wasn't much of a choice, yet again, because THEY still had control over the deal. They don't ever give the photographer the ability to evaluate a deal, and make a choice to opt out, for THAT deal. It's always an all or nothing. If I were still on DT, I would be opting out. Call me ungrateful, but I am not willing to watch others get rich off of my back anymore. If anyone is going to go on vacation, buy a new home or a fancy car, it's going to be ME. Those greedy ba$tards.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2015, 07:56 by cathyslife »

« Reply #187 on: February 24, 2015, 11:27 »
+1
Ive been back and forth on this since hearing about it however there are a few things to take into consideration. For instance in DT rules for image use on the web for anyone buying an image not just Google, they are allowed 10,000 uses and that can be on lets say a clients website for those who put together webpages for others, and then to take it a step further the person or business who has the website made for them which now has your image is also going to make money from using that image. In fact in just about all instances anyone purchasing a RF image is then making money from the image in some way or another either by placing it on a product or using it with a service they provide. So is Google any different in this regard?

As far as ads go, most people trying to sell something will first use their own images and then look for an image if they can't come up with their own. And thats if they choose to use an image with their ad in the first place!

On top of all of that one can only assume that there are only so many businesses that would be trying to sell a certain product that would require your image and thats if they even choose your image assuming that there will most like be more than one picture to choose from for any given category.

What are your thoughts on this?

« Reply #188 on: February 24, 2015, 11:29 »
+5
... the important question is whether ANY of them would have found the image otherwise, much less PAID for it

I disagree that this is a good reason to accept an unreasonably low extended license payment - $2, effectively - just because (a) they'd have stolen one otherwise or (b) it's a small size.

A bad deal can't be made better via the above reasoning, or the "it hadn't sold on DT anyway" reasoning. Every time you accept a crappier deal with the notion that "it's better than zero", you're just setting things up for an even worse deal down the road. Not to mention that many of the items that haven't sold much at DT have sold well elsewhere - unless you're exclusive there, think about the fact that you're undercutting future sales at other agencies.

I've opted out - I don't sell cheapie extended licenses anywhere (I opt out at PhotoDune for example) - but I think the folks who opt in are taking too little up front cash for a a broad license with some vague hope that the deal will bring in something better down the road.

« Reply #189 on: February 24, 2015, 11:38 »
+5
...For instance in DT rules for image use on the web for anyone buying an image not just Google, they are allowed 10,000 uses ... In fact in just about all instances anyone purchasing a RF image is then making money from the image in some way or another either by placing it on a product or using it with a service they provide. So is Google any different in this regard?...

The big difference here is that Google is redistributing the image to its clients, like a distributor or partner agency - Google sells ads and is offering images as part of the package (a discount, effectively, so the ad buyer doesn't have to buy their own license).

A designer is hired to produce a brochure for a client and the client licenses the image. The designer produces a web site for another client and the client licenses the image. Each of those clients may use the image multiple times in multiple projects, but client A cannot share the license with client B because that's redistributing the image, something their license prohibits.

Some sites permit images to be included in template products (a form of redistribution) with the purchase of an extended license. That's why this DT deal is granting Google a very very broad extended license for one year for $2 royalty to the contributor. If via SS's deal with Facebook, 100 ads are sold with my image, I make $38.00; if it were DT's deal with Google, I'd make $2

The Google/DT deal is different, and not in a good way

« Reply #190 on: February 24, 2015, 12:20 »
+6
Just to say that while I'm obviously not with Dreamstime, I agree with what cathyslife said above. We put our images for sale with agencies to sell them. We don't do it to give the agency a commodity to make deals with that are of most benefit to themselves. There's too much of this attitude that once material is uploaded it somehow becomes "theirs" to do with, and deal as they please apart from actually claiming copyright. To say nothing of the attitude that any money they get in sales is somehow "theirs" which they have to pay us out of, rather than "ours" which we agree to allow them to keep a percentage of.
   

« Reply #191 on: February 24, 2015, 13:51 »
+2
And who are you, exactly, person who hides behind anonymity yet feels free to dis other people's work?

I really have not say that your work is not good! Have I? I only asked, if you really think that your image is so beautiful, universal and suitable for so much different advertising topics that 10000 advertisers would use this each image in 10000 different advertising campaigns. Do you really think that Google has so many advertisers in one suitable topic that each of them would use exactly this one your image? If there is such demand for this image, would not you think that you would already sell this image several thousand times? If I count my 11 picked images, they were sold 6 times (80, 11, 12 and 13). Do you really think that now, as a miracle, will they be used 110000 times instead of 6? Each one of them 10000 times? 10000 times, if they had only 0.5 sales on average until now? Do be so naive.

Maybe it is not great deal, we do not know. On the other hand, almost everybody, who is opted-in, says, that mostly non-selling images were picked. So, maybe my image will be used 5 times or more and it will be not good for me, maybe they will never use it and I will get $2 for nothing (and the image would not be deleted after 4 years of no-sale). Maybe it will continue as EL (after year) and more money will come. I really do not know the numbers and how many times will be used these image on average, but I am certainly sure that it will not be 10000 times per image on average.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2015, 14:01 by mino21 »

« Reply #192 on: February 24, 2015, 14:12 »
+1

The big difference here is that Google is redistributing the image to its clients, like a distributor or partner agency - Google sells ads and is offering images as part of the package (a discount, effectively, so the ad buyer doesn't have to buy their own license).

A designer is hired to produce a brochure for a client and the client licenses the image. The designer produces a web site for another client and the client licenses the image. Each of those clients may use the image multiple times in multiple projects, but client A cannot share the license with client B because that's redistributing the image, something their license prohibits.

The Google/DT deal is different, and not in a good way

So what your saying is that when Google lets one of the 10,000 clients use the image those clients can now also use it 10,000 times, thus 10,000 X 10,000 = 100,000,000 ?

And if so is it too late to opt out?
« Last Edit: February 24, 2015, 14:14 by pixel8 »

Shelma1

« Reply #193 on: February 24, 2015, 14:38 »
+3
And who are you, exactly, person who hides behind anonymity yet feels free to dis other people's work?

I really have not say that your work is not good! Have I? I only asked, if you really think that your image is so beautiful, universal and suitable for so much different advertising topics that 10000 advertisers would use this each image in 10000 different advertising campaigns. Do you really think that Google has so many advertisers in one suitable topic that each of them would use exactly this one your image? If there is such demand for this image, would not you think that you would already sell this image several thousand times? If I count my 11 picked images, they were sold 6 times (80, 11, 12 and 13). Do you really think that now, as a miracle, will they be used 110000 times instead of 6? Each one of them 10000 times? 10000 times, if they had only 0.5 sales on average until now? Do be so naive.

Maybe it is not great deal, we do not know. On the other hand, almost everybody, who is opted-in, says, that mostly non-selling images were picked. So, maybe my image will be used 5 times or more and it will be not good for me, maybe they will never use it and I will get $2 for nothing (and the image would not be deleted after 4 years of no-sale). Maybe it will continue as EL (after year) and more money will come. I really do not know the numbers and how many times will be used these image on average, but I am certainly sure that it will not be 10000 times per image on average.

I have no idea how many times the image will be resold, and neither do you, Milan. That's the problem in a nutshell. Sometimes relatively old images of mine catch on later for some reason and do sell hundreds or thousands of times. And though four out of eleven of your chosen images hadn't sold before, you had no choice about which images Google would choose. You didn't even know it was Google when you were required to decide whether to opt out or in.

As for my images being "so beautiful, universal and suitable for so much different advertising topics that 10000 advertisers would use this each image in 10000 different advertising campaigns," I do have images that have sold thousands of times. I got paid for each sale.

Am I "naive?" I've been on the "buyer" side of advertising for more than 30 years. I've seen ad agencies pay tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars for one image, many many times. I see art buyers pay hundreds for images from SS and Getty on a daily basis. That's their sole job...to buy art. They make six-figure salaries buying art, BTW (though I'm not sure how much longer that job will exist).

You got $22 for a full year of usagewho knows how many timesfor 11 images. That's less than one ED sale for one image on Shutterstock.

« Reply #194 on: February 24, 2015, 15:11 »
+2
I've got to say that I'm skeptical about images suddenly catching fire and making thousands of sales.  I've had 250,000 sales (more than 50,000 of them on iStock as you can see in my profile) and I've never observed that. I've only got a handful that have generated more than 1,000 sales on all agencies combined.

« Reply #195 on: February 24, 2015, 15:25 »
0
I have no idea how many times the image will be resold, and neither do you, Milan. That's the problem in a nutshell. Sometimes relatively old images of mine catch on later for some reason and do sell hundreds or thousands of times. And though four out of eleven of your chosen images hadn't sold before, you had no choice about which images Google would choose. You didn't even know it was Google when you were required to decide whether to opt out or in.

As for my images being "so beautiful, universal and suitable for so much different advertising topics that 10000 advertisers would use this each image in 10000 different advertising campaigns," I do have images that have sold thousands of times. I got paid for each sale.

Am I "naive?" I've been on the "buyer" side of advertising for more than 30 years. I've seen ad agencies pay tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars for one image, many many times. I see art buyers pay hundreds for images from SS and Getty on a daily basis. That's their sole job...to buy art. They make six-figure salaries buying art, BTW (though I'm not sure how much longer that job will exist).

You got $22 for a full year of usagewho knows how many timesfor 11 images. That's less than one ED sale for one image on Shutterstock.

I agree, we have not idea. Therefore I do not think that this deal is exteremely bad for sure as well as extremely good. We do not know. Yes, some images can be used many and many times. But the problem is somewhere else. It will not certainly apply for all of them. Some of these images will be surely very successful but the others will not. So, in the average, it does not need to be so extremely bad. And do not forget, if the image will be successful af the one year period, the EL licence will be paid (and one already has $2 for non-successful images). If the sub sale on DT is $0,35 and I got $22, it is 63 sub sales. Until now, these my 11 images had 6 sales from all posible companies and individuals an all DT channels. And now, there is a question. Can they manage to sell them 63 times in one year on this Google/DT channel only if they were sold only 6 times until now on all DT channels (all DT customers)? Let's admit that some of these Google/DT customers could buy the image somewhere else if there is not such G/DT deal. If only 6 customers bought my images on DT until now, how many of these 6 sales used that image in Google advertisment? Maybe 1? I do not think that suddenly these images would be used 63 times more often in Google ads than now. But maybe... they will. I do not know.

I agree that paying for each use is better, but on the other hand, I do not think that this deal is such an evil one. I only oppose the extreme negative opinions on this deal. But time will show. Maybe, it will be really disaster.

Shelma1

« Reply #196 on: February 24, 2015, 15:53 »
0
I've got to say that I'm skeptical about images suddenly catching fire and making thousands of sales.  I've had 250,000 sales (more than 50,000 of them on iStock as you can see in my profile) and I've never observed that. I've only got a handful that have generated more than 1,000 sales on all agencies combined.

I have several that have sold more than 1,000 times just on Shutterstock. One will pass 2,000 today. You have to keep in mind that subs sell much more often. I have a tiny fraction of that number of sales on iS.

(I'm not saying which imagebut SS does not consider it one of my "most popular." I considered not uploading it because I thought it would never sell. Go figure.)

« Reply #197 on: February 24, 2015, 16:06 »
0
I've got to say that I'm skeptical about images suddenly catching fire and making thousands of sales.  I've had 250,000 sales (more than 50,000 of them on iStock as you can see in my profile) and I've never observed that. I've only got a handful that have generated more than 1,000 sales on all agencies combined.

I have several that have sold more than 1,000 times just on Shutterstock. One will pass 2,000 today. You have to keep in mind that subs sell much more often. I have a tiny fraction of that number of sales on iS.

(I'm not saying which imagebut SS does not consider it one of my "most popular." I considered not uploading it because I thought it would never sell. Go figure.)

A different market, I guess, as you are dealing in designs rather than photos, which is my area.

« Reply #198 on: February 24, 2015, 16:11 »
+2
Its not really about how well they would sell. Its about what happens to them when they are in essence free. I have one particular image that was so popular it is now everywhere. It has probably been downloaded 20k times. But guess what... its only sold half a dozen. Someone got ahold of it traced it or stole it and uploaded it to a free site. Then someone else modified it and uploaded it again to another site. Now you can't go to a free site anywhere on the web without finding a variation of that one image. It's everywhere and I only got paid a few times. I even have people contacting me wanting me to clean up my substandard "free art" for them because the free version isn't done very well.  I can't even fight it because stopping it would take more time than the image is worth. That image is now dead for me. How many potential sales could I have gotten if it weren't in the public domain? Maybe thousands of dollars. But the impression is that image should be free... so that is now its current value. Every one of your images that Google has chosen now has the impression that it is free. That is the new value of your images and you made $2.00.
     Its not about actual sales it is about perceived value and once your images are worth nothing then people start thinking all images should be free. This is where we are headed yet I keep seeing the woo-yays for one time earnings of $20 to $200 dollars followed up by complaints about how the industry is dying and the agencies keep screwing us.
Insane!!!
« Last Edit: February 24, 2015, 16:13 by chromaco »

Shelma1

« Reply #199 on: February 24, 2015, 16:18 »
0
I guess it's not worth taking legal action against the people who've gotten in touch about cleaning up the image? Can't you at least send them a bill? That works well for Getty.  ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2627 Views
Last post June 14, 2008, 19:27
by madelaide
2 Replies
2960 Views
Last post June 16, 2009, 15:36
by zymmetricaldotcom
2 Replies
2092 Views
Last post October 26, 2010, 20:06
by RacePhoto
57 Replies
13552 Views
Last post February 04, 2013, 07:09
by Reef
5 Replies
2343 Views
Last post July 04, 2016, 20:07
by CJH Photography

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results