Adobe Completes Acquisition of Fotolia

Vibrant Image and Video Marketplace to Be Integrated as Key Part of Adobe Creative Cloud

SAN JOSE, Calif. � Jan. 28, 2015 � Adobe (Nasdaq:ADBE) has completed its acquisition of privately held Fotolia, a leading marketplace for stock content. Adobe announced its intent to purchase Fotolia in December 2014 and the acquisition cements Creative Cloud�s role as a vibrant market for creatives to buy and sell assets and services as well as showcase their talent to a worldwide audience. Work will now begin on integrating Fotolia into Adobe Creative Cloud. This will provide current and future Creative Cloud members with the ability to access and purchase over 35 million images and videos, significantly simplifying and accelerating the design process. Adobe also plans to continue to operate Fotolia as a standalone stock service, accessible to anyone.

Founded in 2004, with offices in New York, Paris and Berlin, Fotolia currently operates in 23 countries and has websites in 14 languages.

�We�re now hard at work to radically simplify the buying and selling of stock content,� said David Wadhwani, senior vice president, Digital Media, Adobe. �Fotolia is helping Creative Cloud become the marketplace for creatives to buy and sell high-impact assets, find talent and promote their work in front of an influential global community.�

With more than 3.4 million members, Adobe Creative Cloud features the world�s leading desktop tools, an array of complementary mobile apps, training content, creative assets and services and ready access to a dynamic community. Creative Cloud is transforming how creatives find inspiration and deliver their best work � and the value of Creative Cloud is increasing all the time through product updates and new capabilities.

Forward-Looking Statements Disclosure

This press release includes forward-looking statements, within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, that are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, including risks and uncertainties related to Adobe�s ability to successfully integrate Fotolia�s stock content service into Creative Cloud. All statements other than statements of historical fact are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements, including statements regarding: the ease of use of any future Adobe stock content service, the functionality of the service�s commerce system, plans for integrating the service into Creative Cloud and other anticipated benefits of the transaction to Adobe; any statements of expectation or belief; and any statements of assumptions underlying any of the foregoing. These risks, uncertainties and other factors, and the general risks associated with Adobe�s business, could cause actual results to differ materially from those referred to in the forward-looking statements. The reader is cautioned not to rely on these forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements are based on information currently available to Adobe and are qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement. For a discussion of these and other risks and uncertainties, individuals should refer to Adobe's SEC filings. Adobe does not assume any obligation to update any such forward-looking statements or other statements included in this press release.

3.4 million subscribers to CC? or they count anybody who has Adobe ID (I registered some Adobe products).

Fotolia under Adobe will rock... remember my words folks! 

Perhaps it's the other way round - what if Fotolia customers get free access to the Adobe Cloud, either for free or for a small extra payment.  That would 'lock' customers into both products.

Time will tell.

E.g. it might work like this: as a buyer you get an illustration from Fotolia to use on your website but it is really served from Adobe's servers (the way webfonts are). That means that if you stop your subscription to CC, the illustration disappears from your website. This could conceivably open up new kinds Rights Management. E.g. if you subscribe to Fotolia you get images to use, but only on a limited number of websites, and if you stop paying for the subscription you lose the images.

the big question what author will get.
I 've seen already 20 cents payments from Getty's "Premium Access"  deals

If there's no change in the way FT operates and no way to submit directly to Adobe, or without going through FT, this will mean nothing to many people who will never again work for FT whether it's for 20c CC subs or DPC or anything else.

Here's hoping Adobe recognizes that they are not going to get the best materials from all the potential top quality suppliers. Too many bad deals and hard feelings, lingering in the wake of FTs past management.

Quote from: michaeldb on January 28, 2015, 20:21

E.g. it might work like this: as a buyer you get an illustration from Fotolia to use on your website but it is really served from Adobe's servers (the way webfonts are). That means that if you stop your subscription to CC, the illustration disappears from your website. This could conceivably open up new kinds Rights Management. E.g. if you subscribe to Fotolia you get images to use, but only on a limited number of websites, and if you stop paying for the subscription you lose the images.

the big question what author will get.
I 've seen already 20 cents payments from Getty's "Premium Access"  deals

I have noticed just few minutes ago the Adobe logo on the Fotolia Homepage.

If there's no change in the way FT operates and no way to submit directly to Adobe, or without going through FT, this will mean nothing to many people who will never again work for FT whether it's for 20c CC subs or DPC or anything else.

Here's hoping Adobe recognizes that they are not going to get the best materials from all the potential top quality suppliers. Too many bad deals and hard feelings, lingering in the wake of FTs past management.

Quote from: U11 on January 28, 2015, 20:35

Quote from: michaeldb on January 28, 2015, 20:21

E.g. it might work like this: as a buyer you get an illustration from Fotolia to use on your website but it is really served from Adobe's servers (the way webfonts are). That means that if you stop your subscription to CC, the illustration disappears from your website. This could conceivably open up new kinds Rights Management. E.g. if you subscribe to Fotolia you get images to use, but only on a limited number of websites, and if you stop paying for the subscription you lose the images.

the big question what author will get.
I 've seen already 20 cents payments from Getty's "Premium Access"  deals

That's right Uncle.  I would never go back, nor be welcome, to FOTOLIA without a gutting of their currently self serving sponges that run the joint.  I can't wait for that thread to start: "Adobe cans all of FOTOLIA's staff".

I wonder if anyone has posted the DPC MSG thread in an Adobe forum or sent it to Adobe? Not that it will make any difference but who knows.

I will be honest about this, if management at Fotolia changes, I will try to get back in. Agree with Mantis.

I will too, Ron. I am not ashamed to admit i would go back, but i wouldnt today even if i were invited by "the chad". Mainly because these guys are all shady crooks. But if adobe replaces them with integrated management i would lobby to get back in. I would still opt out of dpc like i did.

I will be honest about this, if management at Fotolia changes, I will try to get back in. Agree with Mantis.

So will I.

You touch on some good points Jo Ann. I wonder about the legal implications for using our images. I assume adobe has to hold themselves to the FT T&C. Maybe they chose FT for that reason, their T&C are quite lenient and allow a lot of usage. Starting to sound like the DT/Google deal. One time payment, 100,000,000,000 times used.

None of my business really as I don't use Adobe products, nor am I with Fotolia.
However I can't help thinking that this has all the making of "Exciting News" for contributors.

I believe I left on polite and good terms. (well before the revolution or DPC protests) But who knows what notes have been attached to my FTI files for secret intelligence because of what I may have written here. 

There are more people, who can speak for themselves if they want, who were send packing = kicked off FT, for what they wrote on public forums or posted on FB or Blogs. How's that for strange, an agency blacklists people for freedom of speech?

Anyway, let me say, I hope there's a change and this opens things up for better artists relations and opportunity. I want to look to the future, not the past. All that's left in much of Microstock is HOPE, because the reality is, things are not so positive financially for suppliers.

People call this a game changer and make all kinds of guesses and predictions on how the license will work? Maybe they have a better crystal ball or are just speculating what would be nice to have happen. I'll wait and see.

Just like I'll wait on my hopes, that Adobe realizes that artist and subscriber relations are dismal and horrid at this point and need to be repaired. That's saying nothing at all about commission structure or rewards for work. Which are important on a different level.

Quote from: Mantis on January 29, 2015, 08:50

That's right Uncle.  I would never go back, nor be welcome, to FOTOLIA without a gutting of their currently self serving sponges that run the joint.  I can't wait for that thread to start: "Adobe cans all of FOTOLIA's staff".

I wonder if anyone has posted the DPC MSG thread in an Adobe forum or sent it to Adobe? Not that it will make any difference but who knows.

I am not into conspiracy theories but do we know if dpc was part of the adobe acquisition? I mentioned this before but DPC could have been done with foresight into a sale of FT. Sell FT and keep a competing agency called Dollar Photo Club. Wasnt it supposedly a completely different agency separate and distinct from FT? If this is true it shows the FT " i wanna have my cake and eat it too" attitude. This would explain why they opted in all of our content without our permission and under pressure that dpc was a separate entity they were legally forced to give an opt out. This stinks.

Quote from: Semmick Photo on January 29, 2015, 09:14

I will be honest about this, if management at Fotolia changes, I will try to get back in. Agree with Mantis.

or it could be that the management with Chad are the ones who gave fotolia the idea and the deal could mean even less money than dpc.
did no one not remember the consensus...things get worse, never better ... for microstockers.
why should this be a lifesaver? it could be the iceberg .

Adobe is about designers and image creators. Many photographers use Adobe products, why would they piss of their customers? We  werent suppliers to Adobe till now. Adobe wants to create a one stop shop for their customers, pissing off your suppliers AND customers is most likely not on the project roadmap.

Hope they will kill DPC.

It'd be nice, but the Twitter spam (the paid "isn't DPC wonderful" stuff) is still alive and well, plus Matt Koslowski is talking them up today - groan!! Given how he makes his living, it's a real shame he's supporting this POS "agency":

https://twitter.com/MattKloskowski/status/560520522229096449/photo/1

Quote from: Mantis on January 29, 2015, 13:34

I am not into conspiracy theories but do we know if dpc was part of the adobe acquisition? I mentioned this before but DPC could have been done with foresight into a sale of FT. Sell FT and keep a competing agency called Dollar Photo Club. Wasnt it supposedly a completely different agency separate and distinct from FT? If this is true it shows the FT " i wanna have my cake and eat it too" attitude. This would explain why they opted in all of our content without our permission and under pressure that dpc was a separate entity they were legally forced to give an opt out. This stinks.

my thoughts exactly ... which prompted me to say it 's an iceberg or the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train

I would also place my bet on  the theory that DPC concept is the main force on which future of the site will be based on. They are a conglomerate and I wouldn't place nothing on the theory that benefit of contributors is on list of any significant importance.

I will be honest about this, if management at Fotolia changes, I will try to get back in. Agree with Mantis.

I might, too. But no way will I rejoin with The Chad hanging on there.

I agree that DPC is probably connected to the Adobe acquisition. I would think CC will be about the same, the user pays a subscription to adobe and the contributor gets a minimal fee when their images are downloaded.

Yes, that makes sense.

But I doubt that Adobe had anything to do with it, as some people have added to the conspiracy part. Adobe doesn't want cheap competition from their own collection, they want people to subscribe to their CC collection.

Jan 14, 2014 and BTW is this filled with lies or am I just reading the PR wrong?

http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/15/fotolia-launches-dollar-photo-club-an-exclusive-club-for-heavy-stock-photo-clients/

"Dollar Photo Club will target a small audience of approved members and provide exclusive photos."

Really? I suppose the exclusive part is, translated as "you can still DL from people who didn't leave or Opt. out" but the second part wasn't active when this was released. Exclusive?

Oleg: �We want to target big buyers, and provide them with exclusive offers,� co-founder and CEO Oleg Tscheltzoff told me. �For example, when it comes to content, if it�s a royalty-free photo website open to everyone, images quickly become overused. That�s why we are doing a club.�

Back to hoping that Adobe has some independence. Otherwise all this "exciting" news about the sale, will mean nothing to many of us. Myself for one.

I am not into conspiracy theories but do we know if dpc was part of the adobe acquisition? I mentioned this before but DPC could have been done with foresight into a sale of FT. Sell FT and keep a competing agency called Dollar Photo Club. Wasnt it supposedly a completely different agency separate and distinct from FT? If this is true it shows the FT " i wanna have my cake and eat it too" attitude. This would explain why they opted in all of our content without our permission and under pressure that dpc was a separate entity they were legally forced to give an opt out. This stinks.

I don't see how Fotolia could effectively launch a mirror site, divert customers and then sell the original but not the reflection, claiming they were different things because the price model is different.  Even if that wouldn't be regarded as fraudulent, a company like Adobe would not so stupid that it failed to notice or agreed to the arrangement. Getty's bought stuff and closed it down before now, perhaps that's what Adobe will do to DPC.

THere is no conspiracy. It's a fact! Adobe is driven by the demands of big shareholders. They will destroy the company if it means they will get rich.

Quote from: Striving on January 31, 2015, 16:57

If you all think this merger is going to mean more sales and income, don't be disappointed if it's not. Adobe is run by greedy principals who care only for stock prices, forcing software sharecropping on sole proprietor photographers, retouchers and designers. They will ruin whoever they can and use us as rags to soak up the mess. If you thought iStock was a bad example of how to run microstock, just wait until you experience Adobe.

Good grief, what a ridiculous statement.
Adobe make good solid software they're at the top of their game for a reason. It's not like they haven't  had any competition, ask anyone who used Quark Express or who's tried to shunt repro quality docs around the Internet without PDF.
They're proven innovators, nobody knows at this stage how things will unfold. It's a bit early for conspiracy theories.

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on January 31, 2015, 19:23

Adobe make good solid software they're at the top of their game for a reason.

Yes, they bought their main competitor and made it sink� (Macromedia Freehand)

Don't forget Flash, Director, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, ColdFusion ... Adobe didn't make it sink ... They acquired the company ... The two similar programs (illustrator and freehand) were combined into one as were Flash and Director. I wouldn't guess that acquiring Freehand was nearly as influential in their decision as was acquiring Flash and Director, a technology that continues to be used at every corner of the interwebs, as well as in other multimedia products.
 

Quote from: Monkeyman on January 31, 2015, 20:25

I agree with Striving. Adobe and Fotolia will treat contributors any way they want, to make as much money as possible. It would be naive to expect anything else.

I'm not a very big fan of Adobe. Illustrator is pretty much the same program today as in 1987. And many bugs have been around for a decade or two. And personally I now have to pay about four times (!!) as much a month for their software as I used to because of the CC system. Only people/companies who used to buy the really expensive CS packs will save money on CC.

How come exactly? Photoshop and Lightroom combined are 9.99$/month.

Photoshop CS6 extended by itself was 999$. So you can subscribe for 100 months (8.3 years) and pay the same, all the time getting fresh updates. 8 years ago the most recent version of PS was CS3.

It's similar with Illustrator. Also 9.99$/month, and CS6 was 599$ (60 months - 5 years).

Maybe you use some different combination, but for most creative professionals, CC is cheaper.

The problem for me is that I also need ID, Flash, and while I don't need DW and could use notepad++ or something, it's a tool that I use... at $40 for those 4 I might as well have the suite just in case I decide I want or need to do something different that day. Maybe I'm in the wrong profession but, $600 a year is a little tough for a small designer in a small town ... Though, I would take the plunge (and want to) if I even knew that I'd make $50 that month. lol. Hopefully spring will start bringing some exciting projects.

Ps for $10 seems like the photographers have it made

Exactly! Many of us paid $400-$500 for PS and maybe some other programs 10 years ago and we were only paying $200 or less for upgrades as we needed them. That was affordable. The rentware as the ONLY option is a BIG scam that treats us like sharecroppers. There should be legislation against Adobe to bust them for monopolizing and racketeering. They will pay for their actions soon. 

Quote from: spike on February 06, 2015, 12:08

Maybe you use some different combination, but for most creative professionals, CC is cheaper.

Not to revisit this painful debate, but it isn't cheaper if you're a long time owner of Photoshop, Illustrator and (less long) Lightroom. And the Photographer deal doesn't help if you do something other than just Photoshop and Lightroom, but not a lot of their products.

I have no problem with them offering the subscription to those for whom it works well. It's the removal of a regular (what they now sweetly call "perpetual") license that is deeply painful for long time users of their products.

I'm not irrational - if it were a better deal for me I'd go for it

My biggest hesitation right now is that it is only 9.95 (or so...)  wasn't it over $30 when they introduced it?  What happens to everyone once they renew in a year?  9.95 per month in perpetuity sounds fairly reasonable.  But then again, I paid a lot for CS5 and don't feel the need to throw any more money at Adobe until absolutely necessary.

Currently they are saying it will stay at 9.95. Depending on inflation I am sure that will be raised sooner or later, but I doubt it will go back to 29.95. There is a reason why they lowered it.

Quote from: Monkeyman on January 31, 2015, 20:25

I agree with Striving. Adobe and Fotolia will treat contributors any way they want, to make as much money as possible. It would be naive to expect anything else.

I'm not a very big fan of Adobe. Illustrator is pretty much the same program today as in 1987. And many bugs have been around for a decade or two. And personally I now have to pay about four times (!!) as much a month for their software as I used to because of the CC system. Only people/companies who used to buy the really expensive CS packs will save money on CC.

How come exactly? Photoshop and Lightroom combined are 9.99$/month.

Photoshop CS6 extended by itself was 999$. So you can subscribe for 100 months (8.3 years) and pay the same, all the time getting fresh updates. 8 years ago the most recent version of PS was CS3.

It's similar with Illustrator. Also 9.99$/month, and CS6 was 599$ (60 months - 5 years).

Maybe you use some different combination, but for most creative professionals, CC is cheaper.

Yes, I suppose I am one of the most unfortunate ones when it comes to this new payment model. I used to get CS Design Standard updates every two year for about 700 USD, which is 29 USD a month for Illustrator, Indesign, Photoshop and Acrobat. Today I have to pay 52 USD for CC (which of course gives me access to more apps, but I don't use them anyway so it's a waste of money) for the first two years and after that about 72 USD a month.

I could also pick just Photoshop and Illustrator which are the only apps I use daily but it would still be 43 USD a month.

I live in Europe by the way and for some insane reason Adobe products are a lot more expensive here.

Quote from: KnowYourOnions on January 28, 2015, 16:46

Fotolia under Adobe will rock... remember my words folks! 

I agree also. Fingers crossed.

This is pure wishful thinking. When we say "better" I am sure we all mean similar things....fairer search, better commissions, getting rid of ranking, etc. At least from the perspective of commissions, it won't change unless Adobe comes up with special licenses like SS has. Other than that it's fantasy to assume they will raise commissions and change the foundation of that sh!tty agency.

Yes, and the minimum price that you can set for EL is now 30 credits. It used to be 20. And it was default price, if you don't change it manually, it would stay that way. Nice move, too.

Will contributors get free Creative Cloud subscription is what I want to know! 

Interesting. Still says 20 on the FT site?

http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Credits

Yes, and the minimum price that you can set for EL is now 30 credits. It used to be 20. And it was default price, if you don't change it manually, it would stay that way. Nice move, too.

they have changed all my vector extended prices from 80 credits to 30 (not 60 even it is new maximum price)

haven't sold any extended licences but very unhappy with this move.

Quote from: Nikovsk on March 09, 2015, 10:03

A bronze X sale went from 50 to 60 and so on. Nice move!

For photos went up from 50 to 60, but from vector down from 80 to 60, and looks like if someone had maximum of 80 credits, like me, fotolia put new 30 credits price to all vectors(bronze)

so everyone check it out in your portfolio

 

I'm not seeing that. All of my vectors are still priced at 100 credits for Extended XV.

Anyone else notice review times have really slowed down recently?

Quote from: panicAttack on March 10, 2015, 10:01

are you bronze level?

Gold.

maybe that has something to do with it

I send them to change to the maximum price for all my photos and vectors, so no problem (I didn't sold extended licences)

but I didn't like it when I check the prices.

Uncle Pete, yes, I see this now, too. I noticed the change to 30 while I was uploading yesterday. I think you can still set it to 20, but the default price during uploading process is 30 now.

Uploaded yesterday and noticed too that the default setting had gone from 20 to 30.

Better sales at FT last month and this but despite the extra dl's my 7-day ranking is still lagging my overall ranking. Suggests to me that FT as a whole is doing well.

My sales have doubled there in the last Month. about time.

My income from FT are almost as on SS 

http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/fotolia-joins-adobe/msg406366/#msg406366

GO Fotolia! 

That's some scary chart Sharpshot.  Any idea why that happened?

That's some scary chart Sharpshot.  Any idea why that happened?

Probably some search changes killed off my best selling images.  They cut commissions a few times and I stopped uploading because there was no incentive to carry on.  Then there's the increased competition, especially when istock exclusives dropped the crown and started to use FT.  I'm not sure why some of us have seen a big earnings drop while others have been OK.

My earnings have stayed fairly stable with SS, even though I haven't uploaded much for a long time now.

My income on Fotolia peaked in 2010 where I made several thousands of euros.

After a slight drop in 2011 I saw my income drop more than 50% to 2012, and then another 50% from 2012 to 2013!

So, from 2010 to 2013 I lost about 82% of my Fotolia income, which is an absolute loss record in any agency!!! Could this have to be with the fact that I'm paid in euros so my photos get hidden on the searches compared to contributors receiving in dollars?

This year, I'm seeing a slight increase in the income compared with the same months from previous two years, but only a small fraction of what I earned in 2010/2011/2012.

Quote from: hatman12 on March 27, 2015, 04:25

That's some scary chart Sharpshot.  Any idea why that happened?

Probably some search changes killed off my best selling images.  They cut commissions a few times and I stopped uploading because there was no incentive to carry on.  Then there's the increased competition, especially when istock exclusives dropped the crown and started to use FT.  I'm not sure why some of us have seen a big earnings drop while others have been OK.

My earnings have stayed fairly stable with SS, even though I haven't uploaded much for a long time now.

As I recall, FT had a policy starting years ago that the search results would punish contributors who did not submit new images. When I stopped submitting, my sales at FT started to fall and they are still falling, compared to SS and DT.

Some pretty awful stories here about falling sales.  I understand completely how becoming Emerald or Sapphire with higher prices might affect sales, and of course it's always possible that Fotolia changed the search because it didn't want to pay out the higher rates of commissions to the higher ranking suppliers. 

I did, however, read a note on Fotolias forum recently where someone mentioned the 'database crash that happened three or four years ago and affected sales for a lot of people, including many bronzes'.  Apparently they had a database crash and 'lost' or corrupted a large part of the keyword ranking system, which resulted in a sharp fall in sales for previously popular files.

It's a long shot, but I wonder if that database crash is a contributing factor in some of the decline in sales for previously successful suppliers.  It must be worth checking some files using the manage files - indexing feature to see if the keywords order is complete nonsense.  I suppose it's also possible that many files have keywords missing, or perhaps none at all.

I mention this because although I'm aware that Elena and some others are at the higher levels, I don't believe Sharpshot and Mellimage are Emerald or Sapphire, yet they are telling the same story, which suggests some other factor might be at least partly to blame.

I can still find what used to be my best selling image on the first page when I search for relevant keywords.  I can't find another one and would like to change the keywords but they don't seem to be editable.  Not sure if it is worth the time deleting and uploading again, as new images don't seem to do well.

They haven't done a good job of tackling keyword spamming.  The search results look horrendous to me, lots of the images have nothing to do with what I am searching for.

The other problem is the copycats.  Any original idea gets copied to death and eventually the original sinks down the search and the copycats get all the sales.