Author Topic: Dreamstime Introduces Unlimited Extended Licenses (Read 24842 times)

Blammo · « **Reply #50 on:** March 11, 2016, 07:31 »

Opted out of all EL options.

ravens · « **Reply #51 on:** March 15, 2016, 05:48 »

Quote from: andy_arden on March 10, 2016, 02:11

why didn't they announce this on their forum? i bet 99% of the contributors there don't have a clue about this. thei don't give a s*** on us.

i also like this from the communicate it says everything about their relation to us photographers
"Every change we make to our stock image services is customer centric "

Exactly! A lot of contributors don't have time for this crap. I just found out about this change today. Quite sickening.
Have you emailed DT directly and what has their response been?

dpimborough · « **Reply #52 on:** March 16, 2016, 12:20 »

Well DT just got dropped in to the "Do not upload to" category the number of agencies I submit to is getting smaller and smaller.

Nikovsk · « **Reply #53 on:** March 19, 2016, 08:58 »

Just got 0.15 for a XS credit sale. No even IS went that low.

I think I will close my account when I reach $ 100 next year.

Aspenphoto · « **Reply #54 on:** March 19, 2016, 16:44 »

Quote from: PhotoBomb on March 09, 2016, 10:24

Manage Licenses
http://www.dreamstime.com/extended_license.php [nofollow]

Thanks for the link - just opted out as well.

Pixart · « **Reply #55 on:** March 19, 2016, 17:05 »

Sigh. Opted out as well.

Lecaro · « **Reply #56 on:** March 19, 2016, 17:20 »

i have a question....
Before this change... it was someone that could control how many copies the buyer makes?

Mantis · « **Reply #57 on:** March 19, 2016, 18:03 »

Quote from: Lecaro on March 19, 2016, 17:20

i have a question....
Before this change... it was someone that could control how many copies the buyer makes?

The license controlled how may copies they could make. They took away that limit and buyers can now print your work indefinitely with one single purchase.

Lecaro · « **Reply #58 on:** March 19, 2016, 18:33 »

Quote from: Mantis on March 19, 2016, 18:03

Quote from: Lecaro on March 19, 2016, 17:20
i have a question....
Before this change... it was someone that could control how many copies the buyer makes?

The license controlled how may copies they could make. They took away that limit and buyers can now print your work indefinitely with one single purchase.

Yes i understand... they bought the photo and the licence told that you can use it for 100 times (example) but was something stopping them use it for 200 times? Is someone whi can verify this?

I am just asking... I don't understand how it works this really...

Sent from my HUAWEI GRA-L09 using Tapatalk

ShadySue · « **Reply #59 on:** March 19, 2016, 18:51 »

Quote from: Lecaro on March 19, 2016, 18:33

Quote from: Mantis on March 19, 2016, 18:03
Quote from: Lecaro on March 19, 2016, 17:20
i have a question....
Before this change... it was someone that could control how many copies the buyer makes?

The license controlled how may copies they could make. They took away that limit and buyers can now print your work indefinitely with one single purchase.
Yes i understand... they bought the photo and the licence told that you can use it for 100 times (example) but was something stopping them use it for 200 times? Is someone whi can verify this?

I am just asking... I don't understand how it works this really...

There is very little apart from buyer honesty which stops any sort of misuse, whether using files bought without ELs in ways which require ELs, giving credit to the author for files used editorially (which some sites require, but is often ignored), or 'sensitive use', which certain agencies forbid and certain others require buyers to pay more for.
Also some sites make it difficult for a buyer to know that they are supposed to buy extended licences for certain purposes.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #60 on:** March 19, 2016, 19:03 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 19, 2016, 18:51

There is very little apart from buyer honesty which stops any sort of misuse, whether using files bought without ELs in ways which require ELs, giving credit to the author for files used editorially (which some sites require, but is often ignored), or 'sensitive use', which certain agencies forbid and certain others require buyers to pay more for.
Also some sites make it difficult for a buyer to know that they are supposed to buy extended licences for certain purposes.

i think that is the problem ... ie. many users, or even myself... , do not even understand what EL is about.
i believe those 28 to 102 dollar commission for single dl are the only honest buyers for
such usage. which we all suddenly find vastly missing these days for many months already
with ss.

back to dt, i once found a book with my image on the front cover, to which i don't even remember
getting an EL from dt. it's been years since, and i still have not known of getting an EL
and i still see that book cover on amazon.
so far as i know, i think i got paid same as a single dl from dt for this. i know it is from dt
because it's the only place i have a dl for that image .

it all still goes back to the word, "royalty free", which to many still means, "use without paying".

ShadySue · « **Reply #61 on:** March 19, 2016, 19:28 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on March 19, 2016, 19:03

Quote from: ShadySue on March 19, 2016, 18:51
There is very little apart from buyer honesty which stops any sort of misuse, whether using files bought without ELs in ways which require ELs, giving credit to the author for files used editorially (which some sites require, but is often ignored), or 'sensitive use', which certain agencies forbid and certain others require buyers to pay more for.
Also some sites make it difficult for a buyer to know that they are supposed to buy extended licences for certain purposes.

i think that is the problem ... ie. many users, or even myself... , do not even understand what EL is about.
I believe those 28 to 102 dollar commission for single dl are the only honest buyers for such usage. which we all suddenly find vastly missing these days for many months already with ss.

Back to dt, i once found a book with my image on the front cover, to which i don't even remember getting an EL from dt. it's been years since, and i still have not known of getting an EL and i still see that book cover on amazon.
so far as i know, i think i got paid same as a single dl from dt for this. i know it is from dt because it's the only place i have a dl for that image .

it all still goes back to the word, "royalty free", which to many still means, "use without paying".

DT is one of the agencies which doesn't make it easy for a buyer to know that there is such a thing as extended licences, they have to know about it to think to look for it. However, even if they find the Terms of Use page, I don't see that they have to buy an EL for a book cover:
http://www.dreamstime.com/terms

I know that iStock doesn't require it (I have several book covers that I have randomly happened to find online).
SS doesn't seem to need it: http://www.shutterstock.com/license-comparison
You also have to make an effort to find info about ELs on Fotolia, but they also don't require an EL for a book cover.

ShadySue · « **Reply #62 on:** March 19, 2016, 19:34 »

BTW, although I think that RF was an extremely bad idea from the suppliers' position, RM doesn't guarantee that a file won't be misused.
I have an RM file on Alamy which has been licensed 22 times, but online alone I found over 50 separate uses, and that was up til two months ago, 45 of them different uses from one company over two websites, yet each sale, under the UKNS, was for a 'single article only'. Still waiting for that to be resolved.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #63 on:** March 19, 2016, 22:24 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 19, 2016, 19:34

BTW, although I think that RF was an extremely bad idea from the suppliers' position, RM doesn't guarantee that a file won't be misused.
I have an RM file on Alamy which has been licensed 22 times, but online alone I found over 50 separate uses, and that was up til two months ago, 45 of them different uses from one company over two websites, yet each sale, under the UKNS, was for a 'single article only'. Still waiting for that to be resolved.

could it also be that some of them picked the image up from someone who paid for it???
i was thinking especially for those sites that put the image in a large size. what's there to stop
someone else to right click save the image and then insert it in their own site???

i guess there is really no guarantee of who paid and who didn't. .. unless there is some sort of a
serial # for usage or whatever. but that would be too troublesome...huh?

ShadySue · « **Reply #64 on:** March 20, 2016, 07:42 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on March 19, 2016, 22:24

Quote from: ShadySue on March 19, 2016, 19:34
BTW, although I think that RF was an extremely bad idea from the suppliers' position, RM doesn't guarantee that a file won't be misused.
I have an RM file on Alamy which has been licensed 22 times, but online alone I found over 50 separate uses, and that was up til two months ago, 45 of them different uses from one company over two websites, yet each sale, under the UKNS, was for a 'single article only'. Still waiting for that to be resolved.

could it also be that some of them picked the image up from someone who paid for it??? i was thinking especially for those sites that put the image in a large size. what's there to stop someone else to right click save the image and then insert it in their own site???

Yes, of course, this is always the case. That's why you can often find dozens of hundreds of uses of a file online when you've only sold a very few licences.
In this particular case, however, at least 23 uses have been unreported/unpaid uses from one specific company (who have a history of under-reporting) - who possibly don't keep records of which of their files are RF and which are RM (or else they're just trying to see if they can get away with it).

Quote

i guess there is really no guarantee of who paid and who didn't. .. unless there is some sort of aserial # for usage or whatever. but that would be too troublesome...huh?

That would work for RM, but not at all for RF - iS do it, or at least used to do it, for exclusives, but IME they never got payments, just a takedown, which is still a result of sorts.
RM prices are falling, in general, especially with Alamy's UKNS, so again it's probably not worth the cost of investigating. However, if they would impose punitive payments (which they don't, the very opposite, in fact) for under-reporting, it would pay for the investigating and serve as a warning. Or maybe they're just too scared to tackle a large customer.

Of course it's very easy to 'take' images once they're online, and the constant social media 'share' buttons beside photos on many sites certainly give the impression that a photo is free to share, therefore to use, wherever. That's what I'd have assumed before I was in stock, at least as a non-commercial use.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #65 on:** March 20, 2016, 08:26 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 20, 2016, 07:42

Of course it's very easy to 'take' images once they're online, and the constant social media 'share' buttons beside photos on many sites certainly give the impression that a photo is free to share, therefore to use, wherever. That's what I'd have assumed before I was in stock, at least as a non-commercial use.

ah yes, social media... theft by small-print authorization!!!
eg. fb ... users unknowingly allow fb to use their private photos, and cousins' cousins' cousins
unknowingly spread their "authorized" usage with their tagging,etc.
the plague is so subtle that before you know it, your family's private album is proliferating all over
the internet... and fb flickr,etc... churn in the bucks from ads.

i see the agencies going that way too, starting with dt who was the first to use fb "like",
and then there is the "donate" button, or you auto-donate by not responding to their email
to take down your non-sellers.

are we not surprised agencies do nothing about theft. even social media encourages theft
by having you authorize them to be able to use your photos you add to fb, flickr,etc.. right???
and then there 500px who is still haven't decided if they want to
be a stock agency or a social media,...

mike123 · « **Reply #66 on:** March 20, 2016, 09:18 »

Quote from: Lecaro on March 19, 2016, 17:20

i have a question....
Before this change... it was someone that could control how many copies the buyer makes?

I have an image that sold multiple times in a row as an extended download 1-2 years ago. I guess the buyer wanted a certain number of copies, which was not covered by a single extended licence. Sure, the buyer must have been a honest one, but I also have the feeling people buying extended licences are more "serious" about their business then the average buyers.

Compared to the unlimited usage Dreamstime introduced recently, back then me (and also the agency) got 4-6 times as much as if the sale would have happen now.

I'm staying opted out of extended downloads on DT, unless they drop the unlimited number of copies (which I don't believe).

cathyslife · « **Reply #67 on:** March 20, 2016, 10:33 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on March 20, 2016, 08:26

i see the agencies going that way too, starting with dt who was the first to use fb "like",
and then there is the "donate" button, or you auto-donate by not responding to their email
to take down your non-sellers.

Not to mention their big push with Pinterest, which is when I bailed from DT when they wouldn't provide an opt-out. (other agencies also use the Pinterest model) Because even if someone does purchase a license for an image, it gets repinned hundreds of thousands of time...free. Not to mention watermarked versions.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/dreamstime-com/dreamstime-and-pinterest/
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/pinterest-22696/msg380879/#msg380879

Pixart · « **Reply #68 on:** March 21, 2016, 10:09 »

It's pretty sad when I've earned more on Canstock than I have on Dreamstime so far this month.

Mantis · « **Reply #69 on:** March 22, 2016, 07:52 »

Quote from: Pixart on March 21, 2016, 10:09

It's pretty sad when I've earned more on Canstock than I have on Dreamstime so far this month.

WOW. I've noticed an uptick in sales for the last three months, like $50 a month from $20. Wonder if this is part of their new model. If so, good job Duncan.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #70 on:** March 22, 2016, 11:16 »

Quote from: Blammo on March 11, 2016, 07:31

Opted out of all EL options.

I've opted out of all DT options, they can rot.

Rinderart · « **Reply #71 on:** April 01, 2016, 20:02 »

Tragic what has happened to DT. Im opting Out also. I wrote them last month asking to Please drop the min Payout to 50 Bucks instead of 100. They said no. well...Im saying no to EL's. such a shame. It was a monster site for me at one time. I have 250 Images in the to be submitted area. Just zero Motivation to spend the time tagging and submitting them. Never thought I would say that about DT.

Rinderart · « **Reply #72 on:** April 01, 2016, 20:17 »

What I don't understand is why are they Listed as #6 in the poll.

stockVid · « **Reply #73 on:** April 01, 2016, 20:24 »

Opted out. Thanks for pointing this out.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #74 on:** April 04, 2016, 20:12 »

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on March 16, 2016, 12:20

Well DT just got dropped in to the "Do not upload to" category the number of agencies I submit to is getting smaller and smaller.

I have more of those myself, DT was already one of them.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Dreamstime Introduces Unlimited Extended Licenses (Read 24842 times)

Blammo

ravens

dpimborough

Nikovsk

Aspenphoto

Pixart

Lecaro

Mantis

Lecaro

ShadySue

etudiante_rapide

ShadySue

ShadySue

etudiante_rapide

ShadySue

etudiante_rapide

mike123

cathyslife

Pixart

Mantis

YadaYadaYada

Rinderart

Rinderart

stockVid

YadaYadaYada

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors