Author Topic: Free photos locked in for 5 years at Fotolia (Read 23178 times)

rene · « **on:** December 14, 2009, 07:07 »

Another change without any notice given to us.
"These files have had no sales on Fotolia over the past 24 months.
You have the possibility to add them to the Fotolia free files API and earn 0.5 credits by doing so.
Your files will then remain in that section for a period of 5 years and will be available for downloads through the Fotolia free files API."
Free section has increased from 18 to 60 months!
I start to hate this kind of silent changes. Fotolia and Dreamstime are champions in this.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1 on:** December 14, 2009, 07:15 »

Ouch! Thanks for pointing that out.

leaf · « **Reply #2 on:** December 14, 2009, 08:16 »

In case you haven't seen it on twitter yet. Microstock Experiment just 'happened' to spot that the free files on fotolia are now for 5 years, instead of the previous 18 months.

I don't have any free files with them, so it doesn't really make a difference for me, but for those who ARE tempted, they should really know the consequences. 5 years is a long time, especially if you are ever wanting to go exclusive anywhere.

edit:.. sorry .. I guess I am a little late to the party

I merged our two threads.

MicrostockExp · « **Reply #3 on:** December 14, 2009, 08:28 »

Thanks to Rene for pointing that first, I just forwarded it on Twitter.

For info in an mail from FT dated from the 1st of december the 18 months was still there.....

Hello,

One or more of your files have not been sold during the last 24 months.

We suggest you to offer those files on the new Fotolia website for free contents. This should improve your files visibility and you will receive 0.5 credit on your Fotolia account for each file offered for free via the Fotolia API. Of course, those files remain also on the Fotolia website and may be sold at any time. By offering your files in this free section, you acknowledge and agree that your files have to stay at least 18 months in this section. Through this new website, customers can download and use images for free (in the same terms as in the Fotolia contracts). If you want to associate your unsold files to the free section please update your files status here : http://en.fotolia.com/Member/Contents/UnsoldFiles

Kind Regards,

Fotolia Team

fullvalue · « **Reply #4 on:** December 14, 2009, 08:34 »

Somebody mentioned in another thread that you can still delete the files. They just deduct the .5 back out of your account. Of course I'd verify that before I did anything.

Opla · « **Reply #5 on:** December 14, 2009, 08:52 »

I did, and it worked for me with the 18 months lock.
I'm not going to test it now though

Freedom · « **Reply #6 on:** December 14, 2009, 09:27 »

Opla, I cannot find where you can uncheck the free images for -0.50. Will you point out the specific page? Thank you.

It looks like the agencies can change the terms of agreement whenever and however they like. We should do something about it.

fullvalue · « **Reply #7 on:** December 14, 2009, 09:47 »

Checking = deleting.

Opla · « **Reply #8 on:** December 14, 2009, 09:48 »

If I remember correcly:
On the unsold files page, check the donated pics.
Then the "add to free section" list drops down and you can select "remove from free section".

Freedom · « **Reply #9 on:** December 14, 2009, 09:56 »

I just looked again, there is no drop down menu at "add to free section" both at the middle and bottom of the page. If someone else finds the feature, please post. Thanks.

Opla · « **Reply #10 on:** December 14, 2009, 10:15 »

On the right hand side, next to save.
You'll only see the "remove from.." option when you ticked a free section file.
If not, they changed it and I got lucky.

Freedom · « **Reply #11 on:** December 14, 2009, 10:27 »

They must have changed it. There is only one choice "add to free section" before "save". There is no second choice. When did you change yours?

Unfortunately Fotolia does not seem to understand why contributors want to leave them, and it works very hard to give people reasons to leave.

Opla · « **Reply #12 on:** December 14, 2009, 10:32 »

The "add to free section" choice is a drop-down list. Click on the arrow beside it.
I took mine out november 25th.

Freedom · « **Reply #13 on:** December 14, 2009, 10:55 »

There is nothing to drop down anymore.

Opla · « **Reply #14 on:** December 14, 2009, 11:15 »

That's strange, I still can see the drop down list.
Just one item, but still a drop down list.

lisafx · « **Reply #15 on:** December 14, 2009, 12:01 »

Anyone know if this change applies to images already in the free section? I added some months ago when the option first appeared. Haven't added any in awhile though.

Carla · « **Reply #16 on:** December 14, 2009, 12:20 »

Sure as hell I will never give them a free photo again!

Freedom · « **Reply #17 on:** December 14, 2009, 13:04 »

Opla, from what you said, I take it that the donated images were on the "Unsold" page, you therefore had an option, from the drop-down menu, to "remove". The free images are no longer in that "unsold" page. There is only one choice in the previous "drop down" menu, that is, "add". You cannot remove anything anymore because there is nothing to remove. If anyone has successfully removed the images now, please post how.

Lisa, it's illegal if Fotolia makes previously donated images from 18 months to 5 years in the free section without our subsequent consent. But they got away with the canister thing, and Istock is following their example. The contributors are just a helpless bunch of victims, and you cannot even get out of it.

Opla · « **Reply #18 on:** December 14, 2009, 13:49 »

Quote from: Freedom on December 14, 2009, 13:04

Opla, from what you said, I take it that the donated images were on the "Unsold" page, you therefore had an option, from the drop-down menu, to "remove". The free images are no longer in that "unsold" page. There is only one choice in the previous "drop down" menu, that is, "add". You cannot remove anything anymore because there is nothing to remove. If anyone has successfully removed the images now, please post how.

So where are your donated images now?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #19 on:** December 14, 2009, 17:14 »

Sad to watch the back and forth, knowing that just about everyone here is a photographer, should know how to do a screen capture and recognizes ImageShack for free hosting!

Drop down or not, (maybe depending on your computer browser?) this is what's there right now.

Opla · « **Reply #20 on:** December 14, 2009, 18:01 »

I'll take a picture of my screen next time I donate an image.
I'm sorry you're sad.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #21 on:** December 14, 2009, 18:10 »

Quote from: Opla on December 14, 2009, 18:01

I'll take a picture of my screen next time I donate an image.
I'm sorry you're sad.

No it's that. You were going back and forth with , yes it is, no it isn't, there's a drop down, no there's not...

Just post a picture of the page.

ps Yes, there is if you click the "added to free section" and there are images. Just like you said.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #22 on:** December 14, 2009, 21:34 »

5 days or 5 years .. this shouldn't even be a discussion .. give your pictures away for free and you are not going to make more sales .. only encourage the social/business acceptance of free stock photos in the industry ... this is a business people .. don't screw it up for serious photographers because you just think it's a fun hobby .. go start a personal blog and give your stuff away for free there.

Sadly, the fact that the agencies are even promoting this type of activity screams out two possible scenarios .. A) our educational system is failing to the point that a business degree doesn't go beyond basic customer service techniques like asking "Would you like that bagged in plastic or paper?"
B) They are not looking at long-term projections and asking where will our company be 20 years down the road? Because they don't plan on being there in 20 years.

Sigh

studioportosabbia · « **Reply #23 on:** December 15, 2009, 17:45 »

No way that I'm going to give them anything for free! The only site that works fine with free files is 123rf, you donate them for 24 hours which I think is a great promotion tool!

RT · « **Reply #24 on:** December 15, 2009, 17:51 »

Quote from: xposurepro on December 14, 2009, 21:34

5 days or 5 years .. this shouldn't even be a discussion .. give your pictures away for free and you are not going to make more sales .. only encourage the social/business acceptance of free stock photos in the industry ... this is a business people .. don't screw it up for serious photographers because you just think it's a fun hobby .. go start a personal blog and give your stuff away for free there.

Well said

lisafx · « **Reply #25 on:** December 15, 2009, 18:01 »

Quote from: xposurepro on December 14, 2009, 21:34

5 days or 5 years .. this shouldn't even be a discussion .. give your pictures away for free and you are not going to make more sales .. only encourage the social/business acceptance of free stock photos in the industry ... this is a business people .. don't screw it up for serious photographers because you just think it's a fun hobby .. go start a personal blog and give your stuff away for free there.

FWIW, I am no hobbyist. I do this FT. It is my business. And it is a successful one.

You don't have to agree, but giving away a few free samples to attract customers and boost overall sales is a time honored tradition in business.

Giving a few freebies on various sites has not hurt my bottom line at all. It can be argued that it has upped my visibility, at least on DT and possibly 123.

I had hoped it would do the same on Fotolia, but the way their free program is structured it doesn't help the photographer at all. I just got done buying back all my free images at FT. Well worth it to not have my images locked in there.

RT · « **Reply #26 on:** December 15, 2009, 18:39 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 15, 2009, 18:01

You don't have to agree, but giving away a few free samples to attract customers and boost overall sales is a time honored tradition in business.

I agree with this, it's an old retail trick that microstock sites have adopted, but in typical fashion they've adopted it with a few twists.

In retail it's generally the retailer that takes the hit not the supplier because the idea of loss leaders is to introduce the consumer to more profitable lines irrelevant of the supplier and thus boost the retailers nett profit. The microstock version still enables the retailer (or agency in this case) to introduce buyers to a more profitable line the main difference is they expect the supplier (i.e. us) to take the hit whilst they take none.

Here's something that anybody considering offering free images in order to boost their sales should try and it will help reinforce my point, go onto any site offering free images and download one, you will get the image and the title will be the agency name followed by the file number, in the exif data will be the creators name which in 8 out of the 10 examples I tried were different to their username on the site, now wait a week and go back to buy an image from the person who's free image you downloaded, you'll know which agency it was because their name is the first part of the title, good luck finding the contributor!

Don't get me wrong I'm no saint and did offer a few images when I started out, I didn't notice any boost whatsoever but I accept that some may have.

Edited to add: I would go for the iStock (not that I'd ever get it) or Shutterstock free image deal where it's featured on the front page, that to me is like good value for money advertising.

gostwyck · « **Reply #27 on:** December 15, 2009, 19:15 »

Quote from: RT on December 15, 2009, 18:39

In retail it's generally the retailer that takes the hit not the supplier because the idea of loss leaders is to introduce the consumer to more profitable lines irrelevant of the supplier and thus boost the retailers nett profit.

Being as we almost invariably get less than 50% commission from the agencies that offer free images then surely the 'retailer' is taking a bigger hit than us from these free downloads? They also have to pay for the marketing and the bandwidth to supply them in the first place. FT is even offering to pay us for our proven non-sellers __ something that obviously no other buyer has done for the couple of years they've been online.

Having said that I've personally never given any free images to those agencies as I just feel too removed from the transaction. I've given occasional freebies to the few regular commercial clients I have but that's on a much more personal level.

lisafx · « **Reply #28 on:** December 15, 2009, 19:23 »

Quote from: RT on December 15, 2009, 18:39

In retail it's generally the retailer that takes the hit not the supplier because the idea of loss leaders is to introduce the consumer to more profitable lines irrelevant of the supplier and thus boost the retailers nett profit. The microstock version still enables the retailer (or agency in this case) to introduce buyers to a more profitable line the main difference is they expect the supplier (i.e. us) to take the hit whilst they take none.

Excellent point Richard, about the supplier taking the hit in the micro free image model.

The (hypothetical, I admit) extra exposure on 123 and DT is that when you click on the free image to download it you also see a variety of, much better, paid images from that contributor's portfolio which hopefully will entice you to buy something

Also, on Dreamstime rumor has it that donating free images helps boost your overall search position. I don't know if that is true for sure, but since my search positions are pretty strong it could be having an influence.

FWIW, though, I stopped donating freebies at 123 a few months back and haven't seen any change at all in my downloads. So maybe you guys are right and it doesn't work.

I just wanted to let Xposurepro know it isn't only hobbyists who have tried donating.

stockastic · « **Reply #29 on:** December 15, 2009, 19:32 »

These are web startups. They have no concept of a future beyond next month and they're trying anything and everything they can think of to make more money today, without any thought of a "next year". That doesn't make them bad people, but they certainly don't care about the success of their contributors, who after all are just a bunch of faceless records in a database as far as they're concerned.

disorderly · « **Reply #30 on:** December 15, 2009, 19:41 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 15, 2009, 19:32

These are web startups. They have no concept of a future beyond next month and they're trying anything and everything they can think of to make more money today, without any thought of a "next year".

You're wrong, Stockastic. I've been contributing for four years now and have seen strong signs that many of these agencies are serious about creating successful and sustainable businesses. I lived through the dotcom era, and was likely a lot closer to the insanity than you. And I'll tell you that I don't see the sort of shortsighted management decisions that led to so many failures, both dramatic and barely noticed.

In fact, I'd say the successful micros are far more like traditional businesses than like dotcom era startups. I doubt any of them are running at a loss, burning through millions of VC dollars. They're trying to find a balance between their investors, suppliers and customers. Some are doing better at that than others.

stockastic · « **Reply #31 on:** December 15, 2009, 20:24 »

Quote from: disorderly on December 15, 2009, 19:41

I lived through the dotcom era, and was likely a lot closer to the insanity than you.

Or maybe not. I'm a software developer and once worked for a startup that went through $70 million before folding.

I have no inside contacts in microstock so I don't know what the owners are really thinking. I do seem to be seeing new marketing schemes, subscription plans, commission structures and supplier rules being introduced every other week, which is somewhat familiar.

Only time will tell, of course.

disorderly · « **Reply #32 on:** December 15, 2009, 21:01 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 15, 2009, 20:24

Quote from: disorderly on December 15, 2009, 19:41
I lived through the dotcom era, and was likely a lot closer to the insanity than you.

Or maybe not. I'm a software developer and once worked for a startup that went through $70 million before folding.

I suspect I had a better view of management, having worked in senior roles at four startups, as well as four very large and well known computer firms. Having been in sales or marketing at each firm, I worked closely with both product development and the corporate decision makers. Three of the four startups never showed a profit, spending furiously to get the attention of customers well in advance of having anything those customers could use. I also had connections to a lot more Silicon Valley firms where the patter was repeated ad nauseum.

That's generally not true of the micros, which have a handle on their expenses, know what business they're in and can see how much they're making. The big question is how much to spend on infrastructure, on marketing and on paying suppliers (i.e. us). Where a tech startup expects to lose money in search of market share, for a while at least, someone like Getty expects their micro investments to make money, and a lot of it. They see it as a cash cow, and they'll milk that baby until it runs dry. On the other hand, some of the micros seem more interested in a long term game. They're still learning the rules of the game, including how much they can change them before we do more than squawk, but their goals are both to grow and make money.

stockastic · « **Reply #33 on:** December 15, 2009, 21:10 »

It's been an impressive first 4 years for these companies. They've reduced the price of a quality stock photo to 25 cents.

Tomboy2290 · « **Reply #34 on:** December 15, 2009, 23:25 »

Quote from: Freedom on December 14, 2009, 09:56

I just looked again, there is no drop down menu at "add to free section" both at the middle and bottom of the page. If someone else finds the feature, please post. Thanks.

On the unsold files page, check (select the box on the left) the donated pics.
Then the "add to free section" list drops down and you can select "remove from free section"

Yes this works, I have just removed all the images I had in the free section. And 50 cents was deducted from my earnings for each image.

lisafx · « **Reply #35 on:** December 16, 2009, 11:05 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 15, 2009, 21:10

It's been an impressive first 4 years for these companies. They've reduced the price of a quality stock photo to 25 cents.

I get your point about the micros reducing the price of stock, but although the .25 number gets tossed out there a lot, most micro images sell for considerably more these days.

When I started shooting micro 5 years ago my average sale was around .32. It has gradually increased to where it is around a dollar now.

And yes, that is still really, really low, I admit. But back in the day when stock sold for hundreds or thousands of dollars it was a pretty closed club and most of us here would never have been allowed in.

stockastic · « **Reply #36 on:** December 16, 2009, 11:22 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 16, 2009, 11:05

And yes, that is still really, really low, I admit. But back in the day when stock sold for hundreds or thousands of dollars it was a pretty closed club and most of us here would never have been allowed in.

Those are all good points. But at this point, things have gone too far. A perfect 'buyers' market has been created where contributors have no leverage . It's all been said here before - the micros intially took in enormous quantities of junk, buyers lost their sense of quality, if it's on the web it should be free, etc. Somehow the pendulum has to start swinging back in the other direction. There has to be a new kind of market where people producing unique, high quality imagery can somehow get it in front of buyers who will see the difference and pay a few dollars for it.

Like I said, the owners of these microstocks aren't necessarily bad people. I just think they've created a big mess that's going to take quite a while to unwind itself.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #37 on:** December 16, 2009, 12:10 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 16, 2009, 11:22

Quote from: lisafx on December 16, 2009, 11:05
And yes, that is still really, really low, I admit. But back in the day when stock sold for hundreds or thousands of dollars it was a pretty closed club and most of us here would never have been allowed in.

Those are all good points. But at this point, things have gone too far. A perfect 'buyers' market has been created where contributors have no leverage . It's all been said here before - the micros intially took in enormous quantities of junk, buyers lost their sense of quality, if it's on the web it should be free, etc. Somehow the pendulum has to start swinging back in the other direction. There has to be a new kind of market where people producing unique, high quality imagery can somehow get it in front of buyers who will see the difference and pay a few dollars for it.

Like I said, the owners of these microstocks aren't necessarily bad people. I just think they've created a big mess that's going to take quite a while to unwind itself.

I have to agree with stockastic. There is so much room for higher prices. Submitting free images on the off chance someone might like your portfolio seems a waste of time. After all there is no other reason to do this. Who trolls for free images anyway? Make enough available and fewer and fewer images will sell even for the current pathetic rates. Unfortunately there has never been much of distinction on who easy or difficult an image is to create and how much you could sell if for. You could almost literally die making an image, like that woeful couple with their kid did for Fotolia, or you can shoot it while driving to work in 3 seconds. Your child eating lunch or 15 paid models in a unique setting. All sell for the same price. You can argue the shot with models will sell more but not necessarily at all. It should sell for more though. Should... hmmph, there's an overused word.

elvinstar · « **Reply #38 on:** December 16, 2009, 12:14 »

Quote

When I started shooting micro 5 years ago my average sale was around .32. It has gradually increased to where it is around a dollar now.

I would be much more upset about things if we could only sell our images ONCE at the mentioned prices! The bottom line is that whether you get .25 or $2, it's how often an image sells that is the real number to watch.

Just my two cents.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #39 on:** December 16, 2009, 12:35 »

Quote from: elvinstar on December 16, 2009, 12:14

Quote
When I started shooting micro 5 years ago my average sale was around .32. It has gradually increased to where it is around a dollar now.

I would be much more upset about things if we could only sell our images ONCE at the mentioned prices! The bottom line is that whether you get .25 or $2, it's how often an image sells that is the real number to watch.

Just my two cents.

Not really, simple math dictates that you get the same money whether your image sells 4 times as many times or for 4 times as much. You want both to peak for a given market.

stockastic · « **Reply #40 on:** December 16, 2009, 13:01 »

Quote from: elvinstar on December 16, 2009, 12:14

The bottom line is that whether you get .25 or $2, it's how often an image sells that is the real number to watch.

That's a big part of what's wrong. In this market the only products that make money are those that sell in mass quantities. There's no place for photos that appeal to a small number of buyers who would gladly pay a few dollars instead of 25 cents. No one will produce those photos for microstock so that entire portion of the market is left to macro, I guess. Take a walk through the next "Everything's $1" store you pass by in the mall. What sort of things do you see in there?

elvinstar · « **Reply #41 on:** December 16, 2009, 15:30 »

Then why do you guys submit?

stockastic · « **Reply #42 on:** December 16, 2009, 16:06 »

Actually I haven't been submitting for weeks, I got bummed out after about 10 months. All my images sell, but not in enough quantity to make it worth doing more at these miserable prices. The things I shoot tend to be unusual objects. Maybe macro would pay off, but it's a PITA compared to micro. That's what I'm complaining about - I want something in the middle, where I can charge a little more for my 'niche' images. There is no good reason micro should be leaving all that money on the table - they've just gotten themselves locked into a one-size-fits-all pricing model. Give me some pricing tiers and some choice.

ap · « **Reply #43 on:** December 16, 2009, 16:12 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 16, 2009, 16:06

Actually I haven't been submitting for weeks, I got bummed out after about 10 months. All my images sell, but not in enough quantity to make it worth doing more at these miserable prices. The things I shoot tend to be unusual objects. Maybe macro would pay off, but it's a PITA compared to micro. That's what I'm complaining about - I want something in the middle, where I can charge a little more for my 'niche' images. There is no good reason micro should be leaving all that money on the table - they've just gotten themselves locked into a one-size-fits-all pricing model. Give me some pricing tiers and some choice.

there seem to be a lot of viable options available to you, but you don't seem to be making an effort since it's such a 'PITA'. i'd say alamy is great for niche images, cutcaster for setting your own prices, etc. the turnover is not that great, but that just reflect the buyers market place, not what agencies are trying to offer.

if ever there is an agency that offers both high prices and high turnover, you'll probably be trampled under by all the competition trying to get into the door.

stockastic · « **Reply #44 on:** December 16, 2009, 16:22 »

I tried CutCaster, and set everything at $5, and have yet to make a single sale. I don't even get any views. In theory CutCaster is exactly what I want, but it's not happening yet.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Free photos locked in for 5 years at Fotolia (Read 23178 times)

lisafx

RacePhoto

RacePhoto

lisafx

lisafx

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors