pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Press Release: Fotolia Launches PhotoXpress  (Read 26690 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2009, 18:11 »
0
One more con: the author's name is not shown, although they show images by the same author.


lisafx

« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2009, 18:18 »
0
No thread about this at FT forum yet? 

Strange they're normally so open to discussions like this


 :D

« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2009, 18:20 »
0
What a disaster.

« Reply #28 on: May 21, 2009, 18:41 »
0
I wish this business will stabilize soon....   Bad news every week.   There like rats ???

« Reply #29 on: May 21, 2009, 21:17 »
0
I guess we'll see how this plays out. I donated those images to the 'free collection' with the seemingly incorrect assumption that images would be given for free in return for links to my profile or my other paid works, when if first saw photoxpress I noticed I was on the front page, clicking on the image I could see a larger version

http://www.photoxpress.com/Content/free-alps/145143

and 4 thumbnail images of mine beneath - GREAT! I thought, that will be like StockXpert where they show some paid images along side... nope it's just 4 more of my free images. no mention of me as a contributor by name and no links to my fotolia work

serves me right for making assumptions.

I'm all behind giving images away for free, I have a site with 1000's of them on there, it's works well so long as you have some compensation in from of links or adversing revenue. I'm not going to jump into a snap decision of deleting the free stuff at fotolia just yet (but i'm not exactly happy). The photoxpress download agreement at http://www.photoxpress.com/Info/RFLicense includes

" (k) Use the Work in an editorial manner, without the following credit adjacent to the Image: " [Photographer's name] / [Name of the agency providing the Image];"


Question: how is someone who uses the images going to know my name??????


fotolia talk of their free API, which sounds good, but how exactly will it work in their advantage if there is no need to link back to fotolia (as seems to be the case in photoxpress)

« Reply #30 on: May 21, 2009, 21:28 »
0
I guess we'll see how this plays out. I donated those images to the 'free collection' with the seemingly incorrect assumption that images would be given for free in return for links to my profile or my other paid works

Very dirty trick. I don't have free images, not on Fotolia and not on other sites. If I give away images for free, it will be on a site under my control where I can set the ads and the links.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #31 on: May 21, 2009, 21:40 »
0
Wow. So let me get this straight.

Patrick Lor makes big headlines and everybody gasps about him joining Fotolia and this is his brilliant first move? A free stock site?

What a great way to devalue Fotolia, pay photographers nothing, and give free stuff to struggling designers who aren't sharp enough to charge their clients for $1 images.

This sounds like a real winner all the way around.

lisafx

« Reply #32 on: May 21, 2009, 21:57 »
0
I guess we'll see how this plays out. I donated those images to the 'free collection' with the seemingly incorrect assumption that images would be given for free in return for links to my profile or my other paid works, when if first saw photoxpress I noticed I was on the front page, clicking on the image I could see a larger version


I did exactly the same thing, with the same expectation.  Stupid me.  Won't get fooled again, at least not on something like this. 

As for deleting the images, I believe those free images are locked in for a long time - can't remember offhand if it is 12 or 18 months, but it is too long considering there is no up side for contributors. 

« Reply #33 on: May 21, 2009, 22:39 »
0
I just had this crazy idea. As the Independent Photographers Collective seems to die softly, why not start a common site with a site name like Free Masters where we put up our decent (not crap) leftovers or LCVs for free?
Every thumb should have the clickable name of the artist to a page on the site where the links to her/his port can be found on the microstock sites, along with some thumbs of linked images on that site.

A modified Coppermine install would do the trick.

Benefits: we control the ads and the links ourselves, no fuzz with paypal etc..., no accountancy, free SEO, no messing with thumbnails, size 550px: large enough for school projects and small bloggers. We can keep the same free images on sites that treat them well, like DT, so the initiative is not competitive with our established agents and they will get increased exposure.

Just a thought...
« Last Edit: May 21, 2009, 22:41 by FlemishDreams »

« Reply #34 on: May 21, 2009, 23:11 »
0
Patrick Lor makes big headlines and everybody gasps about him joining Fotolia and this is his brilliant first move? A free stock site?

What a great way to devalue Fotolia, pay photographers nothing, and give free stuff to struggling designers who aren't sharp enough to charge their clients for $1 images.


Oh I think this has been a long time in the coming - we've been offered the option to 'donate images to the free collection' for years when uploading - just the way is been done that's bad.

It's upset the some of the contributor community (but then a lot of things seem to do that), apart from the press release the average buyer will no noting of a connection between fotolia and photoxpress, fotolia have offered their rejects at a suitable arms length. With the press release they have launched 'yet another free photo site' (albeit a large one) with some level of credibility - I guess they had too - imagine contributors response if we just stumbled across it?

I'd at least of expected that my name was listed with my image!? either that or a share of revenue from the site proportionate to downloads (it would be very little per download but something at least)
« Last Edit: May 21, 2009, 23:35 by photohome »

grp_photo

« Reply #35 on: May 22, 2009, 04:43 »
0
No thread about this at FT forum yet? 

Strange they're normally so open to discussions like this.



LOL  :D

« Reply #36 on: May 22, 2009, 06:23 »
0
Wow. So let me get this straight.

Patrick Lor makes big headlines and everybody gasps about him joining Fotolia and this is his brilliant first move? A free stock site?

What a great way to devalue Fotolia, pay photographers nothing, and give free stuff to struggling designers who aren't sharp enough to charge their clients for $1 images.

This sounds like a real winner all the way around.

Totally agree, you've really got to wonder how desperate Fotolia are when this is the only innovation they can come up with  :-[

« Reply #37 on: May 22, 2009, 07:40 »
0
I just had this crazy idea. As the Independent Photographers Collective seems to die softly, why not start a common site with a site name like Free Masters where we put up our decent (not crap) leftovers or LCVs for free?
Every thumb should have the clickable name of the artist to a page on the site where the links to her/his port can be found on the microstock sites, along with some thumbs of linked images on that site.

A modified Coppermine install would do the trick.

Benefits: we control the ads and the links ourselves, no fuzz with paypal etc..., no accountancy, free SEO, no messing with thumbnails, size 550px: large enough for school projects and small bloggers. We can keep the same free images on sites that treat them well, like DT, so the initiative is not competitive with our established agents and they will get increased exposure.

Just a thought...

That actually sounds like a really good idea. It would give everyone the chance to promote their stock images without feeling taken advantage of. I do a lot of variations for illustrations that never end up on a stock site. Being able to use those as promotion on a big site would be great.

« Reply #38 on: May 22, 2009, 15:57 »
0
Oh I think this has been a long time in the coming - we've been offered the option to 'donate images to the free collection' for years when uploading - just the way is been done that's bad.

In FT?  Aren't you making a confusion with DT? 


« Reply #39 on: May 22, 2009, 17:40 »
0
A very bad move.

They'll get the traffic, the members' emails, maybe the right to make them offers (permission marketing), maybe some ads...

They haven't showed us what we'll get out of it.

They're devaluating the concept of microstock to zero.

DECISION: As the simplest "penalty" possible, we stop uploading there. They don't deserve our photos

« Reply #40 on: May 22, 2009, 17:49 »
0
Oh I think this has been a long time in the coming - we've been offered the option to 'donate images to the free collection' for years when uploading - just the way is been done that's bad.

In FT?  Aren't you making a confusion with DT? 



You could always send rejected photos to the free section on FT...

« Reply #41 on: May 22, 2009, 18:46 »
0
Oh I think this has been a long time in the coming - we've been offered the option to 'donate images to the free collection' for years when uploading - just the way is been done that's bad.

In FT?  Aren't you making a confusion with DT? 


DT have the option too, but no I think FT have been doing it for years also? in quite sure (perhaps I'm going mad?) Some of the images on photoxpress were uploaded back in 2006 I think, and I haven't chosen to opt them in recently so it must have been done at upload time. I've always opted in to many (not all) of them for free, I thought there must be some good reason why FT track downloads from 'paid, subscription and free' and total them all together in 'sold files'?. I seem to remember deleting a file that was in the free section once and watching it affect all the totals at the left of the screen (vague I know, but I don't spend too much time over analysing things like that)

« Reply #42 on: May 22, 2009, 18:52 »
0
I really don't remember seeing that option - but I can be certainly mistaken, as I also haven't been uploading to them lately - until they recently offered paying 50c for those old images to be put in the free collection.  In DT I remember more clearly.

« Reply #43 on: May 22, 2009, 20:31 »
0
They struggle to find high-quality, affordable images for their company brochures, Web sites, advertising and newsletters. Today, the struggle is over," explains Patrick Lor, President, PhotoXpress North America.


Today, the struggle is over for a good laugh, looking at the result of some test searches.
Like this one by the keyword "Chinese".



Patrick Lor? As in Patrick Lor formerly of IStockPhoto? What a match made in heaven Patrick Lor and Oleg Tscheltzoff, these two deserve each other for sure but as one is a proponent of open scource and one a greed driven capitalist it ought to be a nice and rocky relationship while it lasts.

Nice to see  Patrick putting the screws to the photographers that made him a wealthy man yet again. I wonder if he brought his HAMMER with him to the new company.
These guys build a database they buy some servers, get us to fill them with images and then sell the servers and DB to the likes of Getty for multi millions, pass nothing on to the true owners of what they sell and then turn around and shoot us in the foot by regressing to the beginning all over again. What a POS!

« Reply #44 on: May 22, 2009, 21:29 »
0
The key is to keep moving the price down in small increments over time, so there's never a point at which contributors get angry enough to pull their photos.  The net effect of all these increasing convoluted pricing and marketing schemes is that we gradually accept lower and lower average returns per image. 

Here's the story you'll read a year from now:

"Google today announced the launch of its new GoogleStock service, a free source of over 10 million stock photographs and images, all searchable by keywords, topics and categories.  Google has completed marketing agreements with the major existing "microstock" sites who will now make their entire archives available through GoogleStock in exchange for a share of advertising revenues, which will be generated by targeted banner ads for products related to the search terms entered by the user."


« Reply #45 on: May 23, 2009, 01:10 »
0
well it isnt much in the whole scheme of things but I'm now pleased I ignored the emails for my unsold images to go to the free collection at $0.50 each

funny it is 'high quality images' yet these are the rejects and unsolds.  I'm sure for many people they will be high enough quality though.

just went and had a look, yep there is some bad ones, but there is plenty of half decent stuff.

cant see any good reason for this, would love to hear from fotolia how this may benefit them (certainly no way it can benefit photographer) as I didnt see any links or mention of fotolia, didnt even see any ads - edit oops adblock so maybe not. 
 
« Last Edit: May 23, 2009, 01:18 by Phil »

« Reply #46 on: May 23, 2009, 02:03 »
0
Can somebody explain me...

What are these images in Photoexpress, 50 cents unsold files  or rejected but exquisite images?


Also, I have same conclusion like John from Cutcaster...

FT isn't in problems, they sell better than ever and this is "drug dealer" business...


"As always , first crack is for free"

Will be good!

« Reply #47 on: May 23, 2009, 02:09 »
0
just went and had a look, yep there is some bad ones, but there is plenty of half decent stuff.


Sure, I just found my grandpa reading the Hiphop Gazette with a sixties transistor radio in the back. It was on the front page. The Marie Tussaud's wax museum pose doesn't bother me that much, but I feel that the lighting is not totally optimal.  ::)  ;D

« Reply #48 on: May 23, 2009, 02:46 »
0
Another source:

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photo-news/stock-and-syndication/e3i82a4bef380199312e8e5a30d29baaf68

...Lor says contributors will be paid when their images are downloaded from the new service, but wouldnt say how much, noting that it varies depending on the source of the images. For now, most of the photographs are files that Fotolia members have agreed to opt-in to the service, Lor says. Fotolia plans to add more images from other collections.

...Lor says some photographers may try uploading popular work as a way to get their names out. ??? ??? Its really an exercise in seeing what works and what doesnt, Lor says.



P.S.

(Different conclusions about pricing,also in contradiction)


...The average price of stock image licenses has fallen drastically in the last few years. At one large stock agency, Alamy, the average price of a royalty-free image is down 21 percent in the last year.

But, Lee said:

I conclude that if my income isnt declining in line with this trend (which you can see in the top chart), then the sale price must be rising. That is, rising prices are the only reason Im not earning less and less in microstock. As Ive uploaded very little over the past two years, such a trend is to be expected.

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/page/2


WHERE IS THE TRUTH!??

« Last Edit: May 23, 2009, 09:59 by borg »

Milinz

« Reply #49 on: May 23, 2009, 05:11 »
0
Well people,

If you are content with 25 cents from Crestock on non-volume sales it is logical that you don't need to be payed at all for some images that doesn't sell at all... So, why you need any credit for not sold images for two years?

The future step is prices down by 50% and also inflation... So all we will earn much less than today...

Hurry up there are new 20 microstock agencies - just upload and be happy for 20 cents they give you.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3075 Views
Last post November 14, 2009, 14:15
by alias
10 Replies
6976 Views
Last post May 21, 2012, 14:50
by ppdd
6 Replies
5101 Views
Last post February 09, 2012, 15:56
by ann
0 Replies
2984 Views
Last post March 17, 2014, 05:23
by leaf
3 Replies
4009 Views
Last post June 10, 2014, 09:42
by roede-orm

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle