pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SR-EL sale : please remove Photo from all sites?!  (Read 8711 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 23, 2009, 02:11 »
0
I just had an e-mail from Dreamstime : 
Dear Anyka, This is an automated notification informing you that one of your files has been sold under the SR-EL license. The image ID is: 10713614 http://www.dreamstime.com/disabled.php?imageid=10713614 Note that you have maximum 72 hours for removing this image from all mediums that you may have it available for sale. This includes but is not limited to: stock agencies, personal websites, exhibitions. The file has already been disabled from our site. Congratulations!

My first reaction was WOW!!  Great!!
I consider this photo of one of my best of a particular shoot, but it is definitely not a bestseller.  The sale was for 300 $, so 150 $ for me.  Nice.

Then I thought :  what if they did this to one of my REAL bestsellers???  Can Dreamstime just tell me to take it off all other sites? 
In that case, shouldn't we disable the possibility of SR-EL sales for all of our bestsellers?


« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2009, 02:20 »
0
You should obviously offer the SR-EL license only in case you really want to and only in case you can stick to the rules.

Unless it is DT exclusive file, it may be quite difficult to ensure the file gets off-line in 72 hours. BigStock has a 90 days tie in, other sites like FT have 3rd party sites from which it take time to delete your stuff.

Your question:

Can Dreamstime just tell me to take it off all other sites?

Does not make much sense. You have opted in into the optional licensing under SR-EL meaning that you have agreed with the terms. Unless there is way to change defaults, the SR-EL option is something you must specifically check when submitting the file.

ap

« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2009, 02:40 »
0
You should obviously offer the SR-EL license only in case you really want to and only in case you can stick to the rules.

Unless it is DT exclusive file, it may be quite difficult to ensure the file gets off-line in 72 hours. BigStock has a 90 days tie in, other sites like FT have 3rd party sites from which it take time to delete your stuff.

Your question:

Can Dreamstime just tell me to take it off all other sites?

Does not make much sense. You have opted in into the optional licensing under SR-EL meaning that you have agreed with the terms. Unless there is way to change defaults, the SR-EL option is something you must specifically check when submitting the file.

congrats anyka, you must show us the photo (the link does not work).

i haven't been checking the sr-el licencing option since it would create a conflict of interest with it being sold as a rf licence. are people opting in to both the sr-el and the rf licenses at the same time? i thought it was either/or, kind of like the difference between a rm and a rf licence.

« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2009, 02:49 »
0
It is not in conflict with the RF licensing. You just sell it exclusively from the moment on and agree to pull it from everywhere you are selling it including DT pulling it.

« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2009, 02:51 »
0
First of all, you opted in on the SR-EL deal and you should think about the consequences: how fast can it be removed from your other sites?
There are quite some pitfalls here. If for instance you got chosen by YAY for the third party deal, those images are blocked for a year. Idem ditto if you upload on Pixmac. That's a good reason to limit your sites and not to jump on every new bandwagon.

I'm sure DT gets confronted often with contributors that aren't able to remove their images in 72hrs time from all sites, and perhaps they should limit it to exclusive images.
A level 5 image sells at 2500$, a level 4 at 2000$.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 02:53 by FD-amateur »

ap

« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2009, 03:12 »
0
It is not in conflict with the RF licensing. You just sell it exclusively from the moment on and agree to pull it from everywhere you are selling it including DT pulling it.

thanks for clearing this up. but for someone who is considering exclusivity, with is, for example, how would this dt sr-el license fit in with their conditions? would it be considered a rm license for all intents and purposes so as not to conflict with their non rf licensing outside of is? if not, then, it seems you would never be allowed to go exclusive there.

just food for thought.  ::)

« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2009, 03:25 »
0
I don't see how this could conflict with IS exclusivity. So you sold a pic SR-EL on DT and then you decided to go exclusive with IS. The file is no longer available for sale anywhere (neither IS nor DT) as you had to pull it and so did DT on their own. Which means it does not violate the IS exclusivity terms.

« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2009, 03:57 »
0
From the beginning I have "SR-EL license" completely disabled for all my photos on  DT and I am not planning to enable it.

« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2009, 04:58 »
0
Well, the way the DT e-mail is written, means that they suppose the image is on other sites and can be deleted.
This morning, I deleted it on all sites, without a problem.  For Rodeo and Bigstock I sent a delete-request.  I know they can take longer than 72 hours to delete the file, but one look at the photo (see below) will tell you there's not much chance it will sell in the first 3 months to come :  it's a VERY typical November/Halloween image.

Still, I don't like the fact that this could happen to my bestseller(s), so I will be disabling the SR-EL for my top-50 sellers.


« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2009, 06:01 »
0

« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2009, 06:12 »
0


Still, I don't like the fact that this could happen to my bestseller(s), so I will be disabling the SR-EL for my top-50 sellers.


Yeah, a best seller could easily earn your more than $150.  10x that possibly.  I am not opted into the SR-EL on any of my files.

« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2009, 07:18 »
0
I had an offer like this, but was asking much, much more than $300 to disable one of my bestsellers. Turned out the client couldn't or didn't want to pay the price.

But to confirm, yes, the license begins when the client buys and you must disable it for sale on every RF site. Whatever sold prior to that date is irrelevant.

This also means you can never sell the photo RF again, period. So when you think about selling with the SR-EL license, you should consider how much money you think you might be losing over the photo's lifetime in order to come up with a selling price. I asked many questions when I first received the email from DT about this, and that was how the SR-EL license was explained to me. The explanation for the SR-EL license in the contributors agreement is very brief and leaves a lot of answers out.

Also, the price that DT puts on the license is based on what DT thinks sales may be on their site only. If you are independent and sell that photo on multiple sites, you should consider how much TOTAL money you will lose on the photo. But that ends up pricing the SR-EL license too high for most DT buyers to want to pay. So, to me, it's kind of a useless license unless you are exclusive to DT.

« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2009, 08:54 »
0
Well, the way the DT e-mail is written, means that they suppose the image is on other sites and can be deleted.
This morning, I deleted it on all sites, without a problem.  For Rodeo and Bigstock I sent a delete-request.  I know they can take longer than 72 hours to delete the file, but one look at the photo (see below) will tell you there's not much chance it will sell in the first 3 months to come :  it's a VERY typical November/Halloween image.

Still, I don't like the fact that this could happen to my bestseller(s), so I will be disabling the SR-EL for my top-50 sellers.




Were you can't have it deleted in 72 hours, you could delete the most significant keywords, to make sure that it won't be found.

« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2009, 11:41 »
0
Good idea, I'll do that on BigStockPhoto!

As for Dreamstime :  I just started disabling the SR-EL licenses there, but then I changed my mind :  instead, I'm putting VERY high prices on my best sellers (like 3000 to 4000 dollars).  If there's any one crazy enough to be willing to pay amounts like that for a single file, I'm not going to stop them  ;D

« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2009, 13:02 »
0
.... I'm putting VERY high prices on my best sellers (like 3000 to 4000 dollars).  If there's any one crazy enough to be willing to pay amounts like that for a single file, I'm not going to stop them  ;D

I was just going to suggest this, seems like the best option.

« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2009, 13:57 »
0
Bravo BigStockPhoto !
I just got an e-mail that BigStock deleted my photo, only 3 hours after my request.  Thank you BigStock for not sticking to the rules and forcing me to wait 3 months!

WarrenPrice

« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2009, 16:44 »
0
Bravo BigStockPhoto !
I just got an e-mail that BigStock deleted my photo, only 3 hours after my request.  Thank you BigStock for not sticking to the rules and forcing me to wait 3 months!

I think this is a situation where the agencies try to be cooperative.  Otherwise, selling all rights would be a real bucket of worms ... for all of them.

« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2009, 20:08 »
0
I don't allow SR sales on any of my images .. however, this is a good example of where the rules of the industry got a little jacked up during the rise of microstock. If you notice DT states that the buyer can use it exclusively .. with just a few restrictions. If I sell all rights to an image I have no say to what the buyer does with that image and neither does DT or anybody else. Selling the rights means you are transferring the copyright ... all rights means all rights ... duh LOL. The fact that DT throws the restrictions in the SR is a bit confusing.
I think DT's 72 hour policy is a good one. That's plenty of time for a person to make a few emails. As for other sites refusing to remove the image because of their policies ... well their policies don't matter in a court of law and if the new owner of the copyright does not want them distributing it then the site must remove it immediatly or risk getting slapped with infringement charges.

« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2009, 20:45 »
0
As for other sites refusing to remove the image because of their policies ... well their policies don't matter in a court of law and if the new owner of the copyright does not want them distributing it then the site must remove it immediatly or risk getting slapped with infringement charges.

I would be surprised if what you say is true.  Having made an agreement with a group of agencies to offer an image, the photographer can't simply break that agreement and sell the rights to another unless those other agencies agree to relinquish their rights.  They're likely to agree; there isn't much reason for them to object.  But they don't lose those rights just because you change your mind.  That's the point of a contract: that it be binding on both parties.

I also wonder about your claims that DT's SR-EL transfers copyright.  They talk about transfer of ownership, which, not being a copyright lawyer, may not also require transfer of copyright.  In fact, they say explicitly that the purchaser may not sell it as a photo, which suggests that they don't get all the rights held by the original creator.  I'm reminded of the SCO purchase of Unix, where despite SCO's lawyers' best claims, copyright did not transfer.  But again, I'm no lawyer and have no idea what a court would decide based on the agreements DT has written up.

« Reply #19 on: December 24, 2009, 00:37 »
0
I put them all at $3500 and would remove from all sites per the rules if I sold one.

traveler1116

« Reply #20 on: December 24, 2009, 01:49 »
0
I've set all of mine to above 2000 dollars for so if it happens then I'm ok with it but 300 doesn't seem worth it for a lot of images.

« Reply #21 on: December 24, 2009, 07:59 »
0
Selling the rights means you are transferring the copyright

The SR-EL license at DT does NOT mean you are selling the copyright. I made certain I understood this when I asked all my questions. You are just not allowed to ever sell the photo RF again. You can continue to use the photo for your personal projects.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
17468 Views
Last post August 13, 2009, 05:20
by nehbitski
2 Replies
2589 Views
Last post October 20, 2011, 12:02
by Jo Ann Snover
22 Replies
2683 Views
Last post July 13, 2013, 16:51
by marthamarks
12 Replies
1480 Views
Last post May 30, 2013, 06:33
by Kerioak~Christine
2 Replies
1555 Views
Last post January 08, 2014, 14:12
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results