I don't speak French, but was advised of this article.

http://www.upp-auteurs.fr/actualites.php?actualite=560

It appears that Fotolia is being investigated by the "Service de r�pression des fraudes".  Was wondering if anyone else had any details?

They are being investigated for selling intellectual property at unrealistic low levels i.e. too cheap.

I hope it's not the beginning of story "European Commission for regulation of size of pockets for pocket-sized cameras in cooperation with french photographers labour union destroyed microstock business in Europe.".

I hope it's not the beginning of story "European Commission for regulation of size of pockets for pocket-sized cameras in cooperation with french photographers labour union destroyed microstock business in Europe.".

OR . . . . . . .  it is indeed Fraud that all I received for my hard work is 22 cents for my last download.

OK, I think we're all agreed that if there's something legally wrong with the agreement, or if actual deception and law breaking is taking place, then justice needs to be served.

BUT... I consider myself an adult.  I read an agreement and accepted it.  I submit to FT under the terms I accepted, and I feel satisfied getting my .38 or whatever per download.  It is an arrangement that works well for me.  If it stopped working well, I am free to no longer participate.  I don't need some governmental body to protect me from the big bad stock agency that wants to stick it to me.  I don't cry to my mom (or government protectors) every night that the big mean world is taking advantage of me.  I participate while it makes sense for me until I feel I'm getting the raw end of a deal, at which point I'll walk away.    This slavery mindset is maddening.  If you don't like it, grow up, take your marbles and go home.

isnt this a continuation of the France Photo Union's action? http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/is-it-the-end-of-microstock-and-royalty-free/msg189576/#msg189576

Thanks. I was wondering where I had read this before. I'm glad someone remembered. I thought I was having deja vu. 

It is generally accepted that capitalism needs to be regulated by governments. It cannot be left simply to the market. When regulation is ineffective or inadequate ... well, we all know what happened next.

I'm all for regulation to prevent things like monopolies, insider trading, etc... any cases in which a company or parties within a company can take advantage of loopholes resulting in those people or companies becoming richer while customers or competitors are unknowingly deprived.  Governments must take an active role to prevent these abuses.

But I think we're discussing a different general concept here... should a company be able to sell a product at a low price when there are other types of businesses offering similar products at higher prices?  Should your supermarket be able to sell a frozen salisbury steak dinner for $2 when your corner restaurant would like to charge you $10 for it?  (Yes, there's a quality difference, but I think the French photographers union will also tell you there's a quality difference between their work and the microstocks.  Who is to decide when the difference in quality crosses a threshold that makes the price difference between two products illegal?  Nicolas Sarkozy?)  

What are you eating for dinner tonight?  If you're eating at a fast food restaurant or heating up something cheap you picked up at a grocery store or big chain store, aren't you committing the same wrong?  Should the government decide what you can eat tonight?

Quote from: gostwyck on July 18, 2011, 13:45

It is generally accepted that capitalism needs to be regulated by governments. It cannot be left simply to the market. When regulation is ineffective or inadequate ... well, we all know what happened next.

I'm all for regulation to prevent things like monopolies, insider trading, etc... any cases in which a company or parties within a company can take advantage of loopholes resulting in those people or companies becoming richer while customers or competitors are unknowingly deprived.  Governments must take an active role to prevent these abuses.

But I think we're discussing a different general concept here... should a company be able to sell a product at a low price when there are other types of businesses offering similar products at higher prices?  Should your supermarket be able to sell a frozen salisbury steak dinner for $2 when your corner restaurant would like to charge you $10 for it?  (Yes, there's a quality difference, but I think the French photographers union will also tell you there's a quality difference between their work and the microstocks.  Who is to decide when the difference in quality crosses a threshold that makes the price difference between two products illegal?  Nicolas Sarkozy?)  

What are you eating for dinner tonight?  If you're eating at a fast food restaurant or heating up something cheap you picked up at a grocery store or big chain store, aren't you committing the same wrong?  Should the government decide what you can eat tonight?

There certainly needs to be some regulation on what they can serve. 

Quote from: Artmyth on July 18, 2011, 13:36

isnt this a continuation of the France Photo Union's action? http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/is-it-the-end-of-microstock-and-royalty-free/msg189576/#msg189576

Thanks. I was wondering where I had read this before. I'm glad someone remembered. I thought I was having deja vu.  

Same here I was searching and came back, to see it was already posted.

Even stranger I was the one who posted the link last time. LOL

So let's debate that... should the very principle of microstock be illegal?  Is it the role of governments to protect us from entering into agreements that we otherwise feel will benefit us?  Should government protect aging niches of sellers from lower priced competitors?  You brought up capitalism, rightly so.  To me, this gets to the heart of "is capitalism legal?"

I think there are laws in most countries preventing big players deliberately selling at or below cost price in order to damage their competitors. I'd assume from what you written above that a similar regulation in France is being somewhat 'stretched' to cover stock photography. I can't see it being successful in what is obviously a global marketplace.

Another analogy... let's say I pay someone $50 to be an extra for a scene in my movie.  He's happy to do it, and I'm happy to employ him.  Then the movie becomes popular and thousands or millions of people see it over the course of several years.  The French government would divide the $50 by the number of eyeballs that saw the movie over time and determine that the amount was too small and therefore illegal.   So now every extra in every movie production would have to be paid the salary of what a unionized, speaking-role actor would make, anticipating that the movie MIGHT end up being popular.

I find it ironic that after all the discussion here on this forum about how to protect photographer's livelihood against corporate greed, when an action is taken then there are those who oppose that possible protection.

I find it ironic that after all the discussion here on this forum about how to protect photographer's livelihood against corporate greed, when an action is taken then there are those who oppose that possible protection.

You will find a variety of viewpoints in this forum.  To put it in black and white terms (though there's plenty of gray area in between), there are those here who want to be protected (pro-union) and those who believe in personal responsibility.  The pro-union folks are probably happy with the French government action, while those who believe in the individual prospering or floundering by his own work and ideas are finding this whole idea ludicrous.   I think you know which camp I'm in.