Author Topic: Anyone selling at Featurepics? (Read 91510 times)

epixx · « **Reply #200 on:** June 01, 2009, 00:12 »

Just had another payout, the second one this year. That makes it worth it, doesn't it?

Phil · « **Reply #201 on:** June 01, 2009, 02:43 »

this month has been terrible for me, usually I get regular payouts

oh well ebbs and flows

madelaide · « **Reply #202 on:** June 02, 2009, 15:03 »

I had three sales this weekend, but all were not yet downloaded and I have to wait if the buyer won't claim the money back.

jsolie · « **Reply #203 on:** June 02, 2009, 19:35 »

I'm glad that someone's doing well there

...I haven't had a sale in months.

pauloresende · « **Reply #204 on:** June 03, 2009, 04:18 »

Second sale this year today.
Slow site but i like it.

mwp1969 · « **Reply #205 on:** November 04, 2009, 10:58 »

I see there haven't been any updates to this thread since the pricing changes at FP. Who is still getting sales there with the new pricing levels ?

I just had a sale of an image at FP. It is one that had previously sold at much higher pricing the first time. This time I got a $2.50 commission

-Mark

gbcimages · « **Reply #206 on:** November 04, 2009, 11:53 »

I haven't had a sale since 7/30/09. $:-\$

sharpshot · « **Reply #207 on:** November 04, 2009, 13:06 »

I sold a few since the changes but with the lower prices and commissions, it is disappointing.

dbvirago · « **Reply #208 on:** November 04, 2009, 14:08 »

I finally quit uploading there. Sales have dwindled and the price per image has dropped even further with their new pricing scheme. When they accepted everything and let you set your own prices on RF, it had enough extra value to offset poor sales, but when average sales are at 10% of my BME and even that number was 4% of my gross for that month in micro, it's just not worth the time.

madelaide · « **Reply #209 on:** November 04, 2009, 15:21 »

Only one sale after the changes in my microstock account. And in my macro account, they removed many images from view because they were RM and I should justify that. $:-\$

cathyslife · « **Reply #210 on:** November 04, 2009, 16:56 »

Quote

they removed many images from view because they were RM and I should justify that.

madelaide, can you explain that? I'm not sure what you mean. You mean you uploaded RM files and now you have to prove that they are not appearing anywhere else as RF?

madelaide · « **Reply #211 on:** November 04, 2009, 18:44 »

cclapper,

I think their main concern is people saying their images are not in micros while they are. This is what Elena wrote me:

Quote

We are a small agency and it takes too much time to find out that images listed as RM on our site are on FT For $0.14 under RF.

Today I deleted almost 400 such images.

The same story with mid-stock images. 95% of images submitted as mid-stock are on DS.

(I suppose DS is Dreamstime).

I told her images in my macrostock account (I have two FP accounts) are not in micros, but that indeed some listed as RM in FP are in Shutterpoint as RF (their only option). As I said before, I do that specifically in SP because they don't have RM. Images I set as RM at FP are the same RM I have at Alamy and MyLoupe. In the cases I sold an image as RM in one of the sites (including FP) or directly to a buyer, I removed from SP (or rather set a price of US$999 only to keep the image in my portfolio there, but if those few images were an issue, I would delete them from SP). I would also do the opposite (if an image sells at SP, delete images from other sites if it's listed as RM, reupload as RF), but it hasn't happened yet.

But she also said:

Quote

We had a problem with an RM image that had been found by our client as RF on another site. That is why we are “cleaning” RM images.

I don't think this would be a problem to a buyer unless he purchased the image as RM maybe paying more than the image is listed elsewhere as RF, even if not micros. I have seen the same images selling at Alamy as RM and RF and Alamy doesn't bother (I reported this) because they come from different sources (partner agencies).

One point however that I observed recently is that setting a basic price for RM at FP doesn't mean much. It seems to be used to calculate final price only in some situations (like commercial use). For magazines, however, the quote they give is the same regardless of the base price, what came as a surprise to me, especially because these editorial prices are VERY low for RM images (such as a magazine cover, mere US$90).

I had plans to use FP to market my images, using their collections and HTML tools to embed in my site or send to a prospective buyer. I think that selling through a site give a certain "respectability" that a direct sale sometimes may not (due to all the legal stuff in the license terms, for instance). Given their move, prices and apparent irreductible position about this RM conflict, this probably will not happen. I will probably remove my RM images from there and build my own gallery in my own website and negotiate directly like I've been doing on occasions. It's really a pity, because I supported FP a lot.

FD · « **Reply #212 on:** November 04, 2009, 18:46 »

I just had a sale there, 15$, yield 7.5$. It was an image that never sold elsewhere. Apparently FP is digging into market holes that no one did before. FP is still in intensive care but Elena, though very friendly, isn't a sissie that will give up easily. Given that, and the fast and easy upload, I'll stay there for a while. In total, FP made me much more than Zymm.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #213 on:** November 07, 2009, 17:30 »

Quote from: madelaide on November 04, 2009, 18:44

cclapper,

I think their main concern is people saying their images are not in micros while they are. This is what Elena wrote me:

Quote
We are a small agency and it takes too much time to find out that images listed as RM on our site are on FT For $0.14 under RF.

Today I deleted almost 400 such images.

The same story with mid-stock images. 95% of images submitted as mid-stock are on DS.

(I suppose DS is Dreamstime).

I told her images in my macrostock account (I have two FP accounts) are not in micros, but that indeed some listed as RM in FP are in Shutterpoint as RF (their only option). As I said before, I do that specifically in SP because they don't have RM. Images I set as RM at FP are the same RM I have at Alamy and MyLoupe. In the cases I sold an image as RM in one of the sites (including FP) or directly to a buyer, I removed from SP (or rather set a price of US$999 only to keep the image in my portfolio there, but if those few images were an issue, I would delete them from SP). I would also do the opposite (if an image sells at SP, delete images from other sites if it's listed as RM, reupload as RF), but it hasn't happened yet.

But she also said:
Quote
We had a problem with an RM image that had been found by our client as RF on another site. That is why we are “cleaning” RM images.

I don't think this would be a problem to a buyer unless he purchased the image as RM maybe paying more than the image is listed elsewhere as RF, even if not micros. I have seen the same images selling at Alamy as RM and RF and Alamy doesn't bother (I reported this) because they come from different sources (partner agencies).

One point however that I observed recently is that setting a basic price for RM at FP doesn't mean much. It seems to be used to calculate final price only in some situations (like commercial use). For magazines, however, the quote they give is the same regardless of the base price, what came as a surprise to me, especially because these editorial prices are VERY low for RM images (such as a magazine cover, mere US$90).

I had plans to use FP to market my images, using their collections and HTML tools to embed in my site or send to a prospective buyer. I think that selling through a site give a certain "respectability" that a direct sale sometimes may not (due to all the legal stuff in the license terms, for instance). Given their move, prices and apparent irreductible position about this RM conflict, this probably will not happen. I will probably remove my RM images from there and build my own gallery in my own website and negotiate directly like I've been doing on occasions. It's really a pity, because I supported FP a lot.

Dear Madelaide,

It is off limits to sell image on one place as RM/L and on other place as RF. It is moral matter as well playing unfair from your side. And, any big buyer who wants RM won't be happy to see the same image listed somewhere as RF. In the matter of fact and for your own reputation in stock industry you should remove all that images you listed as RM. If you don't do that you'll have less and less sales for sure on RM agencies.

Added:

Sorry for mistake in RF/RM.

qwerty · « **Reply #214 on:** November 07, 2009, 18:23 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on November 07, 2009, 17:30

Quote from: madelaide on November 04, 2009, 18:44
cclapper,

I think their main concern is people saying their images are not in micros while they are. This is what Elena wrote me:

Quote
We are a small agency and it takes too much time to find out that images listed as RM on our site are on FT For $0.14 under RF.

Today I deleted almost 400 such images.

The same story with mid-stock images. 95% of images submitted as mid-stock are on DS.

(I suppose DS is Dreamstime).

I told her images in my macrostock account (I have two FP accounts) are not in micros, but that indeed some listed as RM in FP are in Shutterpoint as RF (their only option). As I said before, I do that specifically in SP because they don't have RM. Images I set as RM at FP are the same RM I have at Alamy and MyLoupe. In the cases I sold an image as RM in one of the sites (including FP) or directly to a buyer, I removed from SP (or rather set a price of US$999 only to keep the image in my portfolio there, but if those few images were an issue, I would delete them from SP). I would also do the opposite (if an image sells at SP, delete images from other sites if it's listed as RM, reupload as RF), but it hasn't happened yet.

But she also said:
Quote
We had a problem with an RM image that had been found by our client as RF on another site. That is why we are “cleaning” RM images.

I don't think this would be a problem to a buyer unless he purchased the image as RM maybe paying more than the image is listed elsewhere as RF, even if not micros. I have seen the same images selling at Alamy as RM and RF and Alamy doesn't bother (I reported this) because they come from different sources (partner agencies).

One point however that I observed recently is that setting a basic price for RM at FP doesn't mean much. It seems to be used to calculate final price only in some situations (like commercial use). For magazines, however, the quote they give is the same regardless of the base price, what came as a surprise to me, especially because these editorial prices are VERY low for RM images (such as a magazine cover, mere US$90).

I had plans to use FP to market my images, using their collections and HTML tools to embed in my site or send to a prospective buyer. I think that selling through a site give a certain "respectability" that a direct sale sometimes may not (due to all the legal stuff in the license terms, for instance). Given their move, prices and apparent irreductible position about this RM conflict, this probably will not happen. I will probably remove my RM images from there and build my own gallery in my own website and negotiate directly like I've been doing on occasions. It's really a pity, because I supported FP a lot.

Dear Madelaide,

It is off limits to sell image on one place as RF and on other place as RF. It is moral matter as well playing unfair from your side. And, any big buyer who wants RM won't be happy to see the same image listed somewhere as RF. In the matter of fact and for your own reputation in stock industry you should remove all that images you listed as RM. If you don't do that you'll have less and less sales for sure on RM agencies.

Did you mean RF and RM ??

madelaide · « **Reply #215 on:** November 07, 2009, 22:34 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on November 07, 2009, 17:30

It is off limits to sell image on one place as RF and on other place as RF. It is moral matter as well playing unfair from your side. And, any big buyer who wants RM won't be happy to see the same image listed somewhere as RF. In the matter of fact and for your own reputation in stock industry you should remove all that images you listed as RM. If you don't do that you'll have less and less sales for sure on RM agencies.

I personally don't see a problem until you sell it one style or the other, especially if prices are compatible. Remember I am not talking about microstock RF vs macrostock RM. I totally separate my micro and macro portfolios.

Even Alamy - to my surprise - allows the same image showing with the two licenses. I believe they don't allow the same person uploading twice with them directly, but as I said they are ok about images I showed them in this situation just because they come from two different sources. I am talking about the exact same images, not similars from the same series.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #216 on:** November 10, 2009, 02:18 »

Quote from: madelaide on November 07, 2009, 22:34

Quote from: Albert Martin on November 07, 2009, 17:30
It is off limits to sell image on one place as RF and on other place as RF. It is moral matter as well playing unfair from your side. And, any big buyer who wants RM won't be happy to see the same image listed somewhere as RF. In the matter of fact and for your own reputation in stock industry you should remove all that images you listed as RM. If you don't do that you'll have less and less sales for sure on RM agencies.

I personally don't see a problem until you sell it one style or the other, especially if prices are compatible. Remember I am not talking about microstock RF vs macrostock RM. I totally separate my micro and macro portfolios.

Even Alamy - to my surprise - allows the same image showing with the two licenses. I believe they don't allow the same person uploading twice with them directly, but as I said they are ok about images I showed them in this situation just because they come from two different sources. I am talking about the exact same images, not similars from the same series.

No They Do Not approve of this!

http://www.alamy.com/licensing.asp

Quote

Tips and legal considerations

To ensure customer confidence in your images and avoid potential legal problems:

   * you cannot change the licence type for an image once it is set.
   * you must not submit the same or similar images as different licence types.
   * we may determine the licence type automatically from your answers to some of the annotation questions.
   * to avoid legal issues you must never set a licence as RF (but only as L with restrictions set for “Editorial use only”), if it:
   o contains people or domestic buildings without releases.
   o solely features a logo, trademark or copyrighted building - this is a copyright or trademark infringement. Note, images where the logo, trademark or copyrighted building is incidental (e.g. it’s visible but isn’t the central focus) can be submitted as Royalty Free.
   o Subjects which should never be Royalty Free

Albert Martin · « **Reply #217 on:** November 10, 2009, 03:50 »

While moral questions are to be really interesting to see as on istock for example where they have tons of handshakes and still disabling some images with not visible evidence of 'abusive inspiration' (I know some people that got some images disabled without such evidence), this matter with RF/RM images is very serious.

RM buyers don't need RF and you must keep that on your mind. Also it is your reputation at stake if you do such thing as listing the same image as RF on one place and RM on other place... If they (buyers or agents) find that you are doing that - you're history!

Any image you decide to be RM must stay that way. Also it is the same for your RF images.
If you change your mind here and there then you aren't serious author and you don't have moral right to upload RM. That is why Photographersdirect don't allow any RF micro author to be their member - at least they have such rules to minimize consequences on their own reputation.

Alamy has rules as said before this post. There is no way that you can sitting on two chairs in the same time!

madelaide · « **Reply #218 on:** November 10, 2009, 04:39 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on November 10, 2009, 02:18

Quote from: madelaide on November 07, 2009, 22:34
Even Alamy - to my surprise - allows the same image showing with the two licenses. I believe they don't allow the same person uploading twice with them directly, but as I said they are ok about images I showed them in this situation just because they come from two different sources. I am talking about the exact same images, not similars from the same series.

No They Do Not approve of this!

http://www.alamy.com/licensing.asp

the one at left is RM, originally from Imagebroker and appears twice in fact; the one at right is RF, from tbkmedia.de:

These and others were reported to Alamy. "The first two ‘L’ images belong to the same contributor and the RF image belongs to a different contributor. Since these images belong to different collections, we cannot say these are duplicate images (L and RF)." One must be very blind not to see these (and others) are duplicate...

madelaide · « **Reply #219 on:** November 10, 2009, 04:42 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on November 10, 2009, 03:50

That is why Photographersdirect don't allow any RF micro author to be their member - at least they have such rules to minimize consequences on their own reputation.

This is news to me, doesn't Photographers Direct forbid microstock only? Unless, of course, the image has been licensed as RF before. As I said, once I sell an image in one license, I don't sell it in the other.

Dan_Wiedemann · « **Reply #220 on:** November 10, 2009, 07:40 »

I sold ONE foto in featurepics this year, for $1,69! I'm still about $23 short of my first payout there, ever! I stopped uploading a long time ago.. I find it's just a waste of time!

gbcimages · « **Reply #221 on:** November 10, 2009, 09:37 »

Quote from: Dan_Wiedemann on November 10, 2009, 07:40

I sold ONE foto in featurepics this year, for $1,69! I'm still about $23 short of my first payout there, ever! I stopped uploading a long time ago.. I find it's just a waste of time!

I second that !

donding · « **Reply #222 on:** November 12, 2009, 16:24 »

I personally gave up on featurepics. I honestly don't know how they keep the doors open. I've sold 1 picture on there since I've been a member. My microstock is the same as what is on all the other sites which sell good. My macro stock hasn't even had a bite. I'm not sure what market she is trying to break into, but it certainly isn't mine. I'll proubably end up pulling my portfolio. Hope I can get my 5.60 out of there. I quite uploading quite awhile ago.
Has any one sold any Macro stock on there??

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #223 on:** November 23, 2009, 19:09 »

I've just spent the time to read this entire thread. It went from very encouraging to a huge disappointment. Is anyone still recommending starting a new account?

gbcimages · « **Reply #224 on:** November 23, 2009, 19:12 »

I was with them over two years with no payout. I closed my account just recently.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Anyone selling at Featurepics? (Read 91510 times)

epixx

Phil

madelaide

jsolie

pauloresende

mwp1969

gbcimages

sharpshot

dbvirago

madelaide

cathyslife

madelaide

FD

Albert Martin

qwerty

madelaide

RacePhoto

Albert Martin

madelaide

madelaide

Dan_Wiedemann

gbcimages

donding

WarrenPrice

gbcimages

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors