pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: DT - Timelineimages.com for facebook  (Read 13825 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

red

« on: May 31, 2012, 21:13 »
0
Serban announced today on the forum - http://www.timelineimages.com/
http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_31550_pg1

Meet Timeline Images, our newest project, a platform built specifically for the Facebook community which is now rapidly getting closer to 1 billion user accounts. Ti is designed as a creative and original resource for Facebook cover photos mainly.

We have always tried to go beyond our industry's borders and this is just another step we have taken in that direction. Unlike licenses sold on Dreamstime, TimelineImages sells an end-user only license type, granting no other rights than using the image for social media accounts.

We have set an attractive universal price of $1 for all images available and the size downloaded is somewhere between extrasmall and small. Keep in mind that this is a new type of license and we are allowing access to small sized images only. Royalties are awarded as per our level-structure, between 20-60% and these sales will be reflected in our Dreamstime accounts as any other Alliance sale. Users are provided with two options and they can download the images with or without a credit line. The first 3 downloads are free, complimentary from Dreamstime. They are awarded as subscription downloads for our contributors with royalties between $0.35-42 per download. The contributors are kindly asked not to download their own images, these free downloads are meant for promotional reasons only.

As you will see, the site includes a hand-picked collection with striking images that send a powerful message and are already cropped for Facebook. There is a secondary set where all our images are made available. The user can crop before downloading when using this secondary resource. Everything else is pretty simple and intuitive, despite the hard work this has required.

Only images that are enrolled in our Alliances participate in this program. Contributors can opt in/out their portfolios should they decide to do so. The project is still under development, please be gentle about it and email us any issues you may come across.

We hope you enjoy it, it's time to update your Facebook covers ;)
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 21:16 by cuppacoffee »


« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2012, 21:25 »
0
thanks for posting :)

first 3 for free? no I am not having any ideas!

giving a 2nd thought FB should delete the share button ;D
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 21:48 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2012, 22:55 »
0
I don't think I'll be updating FB with someone else's photos - we were asked not to download our own! I suspect that if this gets used a lot, the images will get lifted and re-used by others on FB - seems to be a grab and go environment.

This seems a bit like the IS experiment with VOX (and people there who weren't already contributors didn't use many of the images), but perhaps this will catch on. I find it hard to believe people will use a purchased photo for something as personal as FB, but we'll see.

« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2012, 23:06 »
0
I find it hard to believe people will use a purchased photo for something as personal as FB, but we'll see.

why do you find it hard? I see tons of people using pictures with DT, IS watermark on FB, every day I see many, its just insane actually and I am talking about people and all fan pages, all that crap.. I am sure this 3 free per user will be used massively, I really wish it doesnt hurt our potential sales once there are many bloggers and such using FB.. how will DT control this license?

traveler1116

« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2012, 23:07 »
0
You can upload these non-watermarked images to Pinterest, wooyay!  From the TOS "You may upload and display the licensed image on your own personal Facebook timeline, or other similar social networking use (e.g., Google+, MySpace, Pinterest, personal blog)."

I guess Serban won't mind when we all download 3 of his images for free and put them up on Pinterest?
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 23:12 by traveler1116 »

« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2012, 23:37 »
0
How can the TOS give someone else the permission to claim copyright and give someone else permission to use/distribute, don't you at least need an EL for that?

« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2012, 06:49 »
0
I find it hard to believe people will use a purchased photo for something as personal as FB, but we'll see.

why do you find it hard? I see tons of people using pictures with DT, IS watermark on FB, every day I see many, its just insane actually and I am talking about people and all fan pages, all that crap.. I am sure this 3 free per user will be used massively, I really wish it doesnt hurt our potential sales once there are many bloggers and such using FB.. how will DT control this license?

This from the agency who put the Pinterest and all other share buttons under contributor's images on their site...somehow I don't think DT cares about what happens to our images.

grafix04

« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2012, 07:03 »
0
This a joke, isn't it?  This is how DT has been spending the money we pay them?  First creating the Free site now this, which is basically free too.  What Facebook page owner is going to buy an image when they can have three for free?  How often do will they need change their Facebook Cover?  Once a year?  Once every two years?  Never? 

A Facebook page owner will use his free images and when it's time to buy, they won't buy, they'll just pick one up from another Facebook page.  How will anyone know they stole it then?

DT has finally gone and lost the plot.  How desperate are they?  They must be feeling the squeeze financially to be doing all this garbage.

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2012, 07:17 »
0
This a joke, isn't it?  This is how DT has been spending the money we pay them?  First creating the Free site now this, which is basically free too.  What Facebook page owner is going to buy an image when they can have three for free?  How often do will they need change their Facebook Cover?  Once a year?  Once every two years?  Never? 

My niece has changed her facebook cover photo 3 times in the last month alone. It still doesn't mean she'd ever pay for a photo though.

Quote
There is a secondary set where all our images are made available. The user can crop before downloading when using this secondary resource

What I don't get is why they need a separate website to offer this? If people can crop images themselves why not offer custom cropping as part of the dreamstime service and just market to facebook users? It seems DT is trying to stay hip and relevant in the social media avalanche and grab a bit of the "sharing" pie but appealing to pinterest users and this new venture just doesn't make sense.

« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2012, 07:30 »
0
"When you purchase an image license, we grant to you a limited, revocable, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to download the associated image to your computer solely for your personal non-commercial use."

How are they going to monitor for "personal non-commercial use"?

It's actually not a bad idea, imo.  I suggested something similar to combat the "Pinterest-everything-is-free" syndrome - a social usage license of some type.  However, you have to have a way to monitor for correct usage - that people aren't taking them and using them against the terms.

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2012, 07:43 »
0
"When you purchase an image license, we grant to you a limited, revocable, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to download the associated image to your computer solely for your personal non-commercial use."

How are they going to monitor for "personal non-commercial use"?

It's actually not a bad idea, imo.  I suggested something similar to combat the "Pinterest-everything-is-free" syndrome - a social usage license of some type.  However, you have to have a way to monitor for correct usage - that people aren't taking them and using them against the terms.

What's needed is a radical change in the licensing model and some new technology. Imagine introducing a new embed method to the jpeg image format that allows for scripting (similar to a virus). When someone licenses an image for the web, before they can download they have to enter the domain name it will be posted to and that data is embedded into the jpeg. If someone right clicks the image and tries to post it to pinterest or some other domain, the "virus" kicks in an introduces a corruption into the image data, turning all the pixels black.

That would be cool.

« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2012, 07:45 »
0
"When you purchase an image license, we grant to you a limited, revocable, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to download the associated image to your computer solely for your personal non-commercial use."

How are they going to monitor for "personal non-commercial use"?

It's actually not a bad idea, imo.  I suggested something similar to combat the "Pinterest-everything-is-free" syndrome - a social usage license of some type.  However, you have to have a way to monitor for correct usage - that people aren't taking them and using them against the terms.

And can't the same thing happen as with PT, where one friend downloads the image and then shares with 500 friends (IF the friend actually buys something after the first 3 free)? So the contributor gets paid for one image. But does DT really think that after the first 3, people will come back to pay for more? I doubt it. Once again, like PT, traffic to DT site, little to no sales for contributors. This is direct marketing to a demographic (12-30 age group) who typically DON'T pay for anything and think everything on the internet is free, and don't have a clue about copyright infringement, nor care.

The only thing I can say is that they at least are providing an opt-out, but again, it's an all or nothing thing. If you opt out of affiliates, you don't participate in anything, even if you wanted to. So they have you over a barrel. If a contributor thinks this is a good idea and opts in, they are opting in to all the other partner programs that might be paying them a penny (ok maybe that's an exaggeration, for now at least) for a download. It's all carefully crafted to mainly benefit the agency, not the contributor.

« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2012, 07:47 »
0
What's needed is a radical change in the licensing model and some new technology. Imagine introducing a new embed method to the jpeg image format that allows for scripting (similar to a virus). When someone licenses an image for the web, before they can download they have to enter the domain name it will be posted to and that data is embedded into the jpeg. If someone right clicks the image and tries to post it to pinterest or some other domain, the "virus" kicks in an introduces a corruption into the image data, turning all the pixels black.

That would be cool.

That would be very cool. But I'll bet contributors would be charged $ to have it added to their images.  ::)

grafix04

« Reply #13 on: June 01, 2012, 08:16 »
0

My niece has changed her facebook cover photo 3 times in the last month alone. It still doesn't mean she'd ever pay for a photo though.

Right, I forgot it was for personal-use only, which is even worse.  Why would anyone pay for an image when they can pick one up for free, legally-illegally on Pinterest or legally from so many free for personal-use sites.  They'd also be looking for more artsy images, not stock.   I just googled "art" using the filter "free to use, share or modify" and got 126,000 results.

This new venture's going to be huge waste of our money.

« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2012, 08:57 »
0
I agree wit slocke tnat its no a so bad idea. Most user won't use/pay, but some of them will do do it, and "some" from milions can bet a big group. The pre-crop will help to control the uses.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #15 on: June 01, 2012, 09:50 »
0
You can upload these non-watermarked images to Pinterest, wooyay!  From the TOS "You may upload and display the licensed image on your own personal Facebook timeline, or other similar social networking use (e.g., Google+, MySpace, Pinterest, personal blog)."

I guess Serban won't mind when we all download 3 of his images for free and put them up on Pinterest?

HMMMM... That sounds like a pretty good idea.  So, we should all get our 3 FREE images from Serban's folio, use them on our Timeline, friend each other on Facebook, and share them across the internet ... post them on Pinterest, sit back and laugh.   :P

« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2012, 10:23 »
0
This is stupid - it mentions "author" but not copyright. 

I think it's a good idea, but I don't like that
- Nowhere does it say who I am (by Pixart - not who owns copyright)
- There is nowhere to click to see "more images by this author"
- There is no push to sell anything else "Need a larger copy of this image - then click here"

Then what is the point?

« Reply #17 on: June 01, 2012, 13:39 »
0
it would be interesting to see which pictures we will sell for FB, at least it would be easier to control, that said we arent paid for that..

if a blogger gets a picture for his FB and then use it on his blog how will DT control such thing? (I guess this aint allowed right?)

traveler1116

« Reply #18 on: June 01, 2012, 14:24 »
0
it would be interesting to see which pictures we will sell for FB, at least it would be easier to control, that said we arent paid for that..

if a blogger gets a picture for his FB and then use it on his blog how will DT control such thing? (I guess this aint allowed right?)
It's allowed: "You may upload and display the licensed image on your own personal Facebook timeline, or other similar social networking use (e.g., Google+, MySpace, Pinterest, personal blog)."

lisafx

« Reply #19 on: June 01, 2012, 18:05 »
0
I agree wit slocke tnat its no a so bad idea. Most user won't use/pay, but some of them will do do it, and "some" from milions can bet a big group. The pre-crop will help to control the uses.

I tend to agree.  I think it's a good idea to start to accustom the facebook crowd to the idea that professional images cost money.  And by keeping the price to a dollar it isn't too off-putting. 

I think Lorraine had a great idea below, about adding a "more from this author" button and/or a link to download a bigger size or broader license directly from the DT site.  Maybe that can be implemented down the line if the program takes off. 

With copyright violations so rampant, I definitely understand some of the concerns, but I think it's a mistake to reflexively trash every effort any of the sites make to expand our market of buyers. 

« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2012, 20:48 »
0
...  However, you have to have a way to monitor for correct usage - that people aren't taking them and using them against the terms.
Seriously? In a non-exclusive world (I know foreign to you...) this is impossible.

Our images are licensed daily the wrong way but there is no way to verify.

Even if I find a suspicious use of one of my images I encounter very stubborn and uncooperative agencies to help me figure out if the proper license has been purchased.
Often the agencies won't even respond to such inquiries.

The agencies are simply under-staffed and wouldn't consider this as a part of their day-to-day business operations.

« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2012, 20:49 »
0
What's needed is a radical change in the licensing model and some new technology. Imagine introducing a new embed method to the jpeg image format that allows for scripting (similar to a virus). When someone licenses an image for the web, before they can download they have to enter the domain name it will be posted to and that data is embedded into the jpeg. If someone right clicks the image and tries to post it to pinterest or some other domain, the "virus" kicks in an introduces a corruption into the image data, turning all the pixels black.

That would be cool.
Wow, out of the sudden everyone forgets about this one button called PrtScn on the keyboard...
« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 20:50 by click_click »

grafix04

« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2012, 07:46 »
0
I tend to agree.  I think it's a good idea to start to accustom the facebook crowd to the idea that professional images cost money.  And by keeping the price to a dollar it isn't too off-putting. 

By offering them three free images?  They'll use up the three and go back to their usual way of obtaining free images, either by stealing them or from a free site.  I can see now why Serban defended Pinterest.  It's because the 'share' Facebook button on uploaded content, isn't too much worse than the 'pin-it' button.  They're there to distribute our images. 

What happens if you sell one of these Facebook licenses but you find the image on 20 people's page covers?  You won't know which is the legitimate buyer and which are the 19 thieves.  Will you chase it up with DT?  They're not likely to care about it.  What happens when these numbers grow?  And what will commercial buyers think of your image when it's splattered on thousands of Facebook users pages?  I think it devalues the image.

For this to work, we need some basic universal image tracking system that all Micros use.  For instance when they sell an image, the agents add some metadata on the image with the name of the agent, the name of the photographer and a unique transaction number that appears on our sales data.  When we find our image somewhere, we can right-click on it and can cross reference it to see if it's legit.  Any image without this information should be considered an infringement.

« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2012, 08:28 »
0
I tend to agree with you and your idea is a good one, too.

I do see Sean's and others' point about trying to educate people, but I believe it is as you said...people want stuff for free, period. Once they use the freebies, back to stealing. I suppose there could be some small percent who realize they should pay, but how many more images get stolen in the meantime? Hundreds of thousands is my guess. That's a lot of pennies being given away (for us contributors) and a lot of dollars for the agencies.

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2012, 08:29 »
0
What's needed is a radical change in the licensing model and some new technology. Imagine introducing a new embed method to the jpeg image format that allows for scripting (similar to a virus). When someone licenses an image for the web, before they can download they have to enter the domain name it will be posted to and that data is embedded into the jpeg. If someone right clicks the image and tries to post it to pinterest or some other domain, the "virus" kicks in an introduces a corruption into the image data, turning all the pixels black.

That would be cool.
Wow, out of the sudden everyone forgets about this one button called PrtScn on the keyboard...

You're right I did out of a sudden forget that. Totally out. of a sudden. I have a mac though and there is no prtscn button. Making a screen cap is a a key combo that not everyone knows. Ah well, there is no perfect solution then. We should probably just complain a lot on a forum somewhere...the question is where.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
7781 Views
Last post August 03, 2009, 10:46
by WarrenPrice
39 Replies
12159 Views
Last post June 02, 2010, 10:05
by RacePhoto
0 Replies
1965 Views
Last post April 28, 2011, 10:00
by Linda - YayMicro
3 Replies
3951 Views
Last post June 11, 2011, 07:59
by click_click
17 Replies
5572 Views
Last post December 16, 2011, 05:47
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle