MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Prints for sale through fotolia?  (Read 27562 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2008, 14:15 »
0
The thing that gets me is this is not a stock photo site. It is a print site, they are marketting our images as prints and we are not getting fair compensation. If istock was to sell a gigantic canvas print, how much would the artist get? I have no problem at all if a customer goes to a stock site, purchases license, and goes through the trouble of printing it for their personal use.

What is the difference between this website and Fotolia cutting a deal with a fine art dealer? Couldn't they just tell the dealer: Here is 4 million images, print whatever you like and just include our basic license price in the print. We will take a percentage on that tiny price and give a few pennies to the artist. It just seems wrong to me, did I miss something? I'm still trying to get a grip on whats going on here. A little heads up would have been nice. Opt in/Opt out would be nice as well.

I also have an image on the first page of their best sellers list. So, yea, I feel I'm getting screwed. I'm about ready to delete the image from fotolia and any others that might have sales potential as prints.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2008, 14:28 by cdwheatley »


« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2008, 14:41 »
0
IF I understand it correctly, the site is acting as either a "self-appointed" OR "stock site approved" middle man between much/all of FT's stock and print-on-canvas service, giving the creator of the image crumbs.

It seems hard to imagine that any big stock agency could be unaware when its massive product line is being so actively presented in a commercial way on another site (though I will be first to sincerely apologize if it turns out FT is trying to stop it).

As someone wrote earlier, if customer buys a print through ISP, the contributor makes more than a high-res standard license $ -  ISP is doing it not only legally but ethically correctly, plus, it includes opt in/opt out.  And with my 10-image/0 DL port at ISP, I certainly don't have any hidden agenda.

« Last Edit: August 27, 2008, 14:48 by ann »

« Reply #27 on: August 27, 2008, 15:07 »
0
The thing that gets me is this is not a stock photo site. It is a print site, they are marketting our images as prints and we are not getting fair compensation. If istock was to sell a gigantic canvas print, how much would the artist get? I have no problem at all if a customer goes to a stock site, purchases license, and goes through the trouble of printing it for their personal use.

What is the difference between this website and Fotolia cutting a deal with a fine art dealer? Couldn't they just tell the dealer: Here is 4 million images, print whatever you like and just include our basic license price in the print. We will take a percentage on that tiny price and give a few pennies to the artist. It just seems wrong to me, did I miss something? I'm still trying to get a grip on whats going on here. A little heads up would have been nice. Opt in/Opt out would be nice as well.

I also have an image on the first page of their best sellers list. So, yea, I feel I'm getting screwed. I'm about ready to delete the image from fotolia and any others that might have sales potential as prints.

I totally agree.
I think there is one more reason to think about where should go the best images...
« Last Edit: August 27, 2008, 15:09 by tilo »

digiology

« Reply #28 on: August 27, 2008, 16:04 »
0
Funny... the watermark is no longer Fotolia?!? It was yesterday...



digiology

« Reply #29 on: August 27, 2008, 17:00 »
0
Its okay for me.
My artistic pictures certainly don't end up at Fotolia if they want print isolated toilet rolls on canvas i say go for it ;D
Sure the company could make a lot of money but you are free to do the same and create a shop like this.
I don't have much problems with such single private usages that is really the new market the istock-admins always babbled about.
I have a problem with the wide commercial usage and print circulation for pictures.

hey... not too bad  ;)


« Reply #30 on: August 27, 2008, 17:11 »
0
 :D thanks for that!!

grp_photo

« Reply #31 on: August 27, 2008, 17:50 »
0
 :D :D ;D
lol!
Yeah looks great maybe i should make a fineart-exhibition with that stuff  ;)

« Reply #32 on: August 27, 2008, 18:11 »
0
Maybe I'm missing something here but can't someone buy an extra-large photos in our portfolio at any stock stie then go to a photo store and have it printed in poster format? If they can, what is the difference with that site besides saving some hassle to the buyer?

This is not a critique or anything, I just want to understand (sometimes I miss some parts because english is not my first language).

« Reply #33 on: August 27, 2008, 18:44 »
0
I don't think anyone is having a problem with buyer. Let me ask you this: If a "print site" approached you and said: "can we use your portfolio to print enormous canvas's that cost hundreds of dollars, we are willing to pay you 1-2 dollars per sale"?? Would you be willing to submit your work to that website? I know I wouldn't be interested. Probably a few others around here that wouldn't either. I think we are being taken advantage of here. No one signed up for this, it just appeared out of thin air.

I guess its all in the way you look at it.

grp_photo

« Reply #34 on: August 27, 2008, 18:54 »
0
Yeah i think both sides makes sense!
But i personally don't think they will sell many pictures and also stockphotography is not supposed to be art photography. I do produce pictures with more value to me lets say arty pictures but i would never think of it to give them to a microstocksite. I think this is the point! If you really care about such a private usage of MS-Stockpictures you made a mistake in first instance. Pictures you really care about don't belong to microstock if you wanna sell them as stock sell them RM or don't sell them at all at stock try to sell them as Fine-Art make Calendars, Exhibitions not everything you produce should go to microstock.

« Reply #35 on: August 27, 2008, 20:00 »
0
Yeah i think both sides makes sense!
But i personally don't think they will sell many pictures and also stockphotography is not supposed to be art photography. I do produce pictures with more value to me lets say arty pictures but i would never think of it to give them to a microstocksite. I think this is the point! If you really care about such a private usage of MS-Stockpictures you made a mistake in first instance. Pictures you really care about don't belong to microstock if you wanna sell them as stock sell them RM or don't sell them at all at stock try to sell them as Fine-Art make Calendars, Exhibitions not everything you produce should go to microstock.


Right, I agree that the pictures that are most valuable to me I would never upload to microstock. But if you look around microstock there is some really nice work that works well for both advertising and wall art. I don't think it has to be one way or the other. Everyone's tastes are different anyway, sometimes people just want a print that will match their home decor or furniture. Hard to say how many are selling.

These guys are selling canvas dirt cheap, if you have ever tried to produce and sell canvas its costly.

I find it interesting how some people are not happy at all and others could care less..Its the usual mixed bag  :)
« Last Edit: August 27, 2008, 20:07 by cdwheatley »

« Reply #36 on: August 27, 2008, 20:27 »
0
Does anyone know if this site has an agreement with FT? I was always wondering how to find the official list of sites that agencies do business with. Somehow it always is a mystery and I find it accidentally.  ???

Quote
But i personally don't think they will sell many pictures and also stockphotography is not supposed to be art photography.

To me it doesn't matter, if I have no agreement with them they have no right to sell my images.

I don't have very artsy images on microstock; but I don't like to be blindsided with print of my toilet paper roll.  ;D


« Reply #37 on: August 27, 2008, 23:26 »
0
I can't see what is so bad about this.  I put my photos on a site that sold prints and I only sold 1, so there doesn't seem to be a great demand for them.  Anyone can buy my photos from the sites and get a print made, what makes this different?

A company is using my property for free, to earn money.

Thats A BIG thing.

If a private person (even steals one of my photos) thats no big deal. But if a company is using my portfolio to make business out of, i have to make a stand.

If the service that the company in it self offers is not good enough to make them profitable, should they then be able to use copyrighted property for free just to make the business more profitable?
 
My answer in no. If you add something to businessprocess that adds value to you, you should pay.

If fotolia is going to make this to increase their sales, they will have to pay Me for using my photos as a marketing tool.

Otherwise i will quit with them. They are currently my 4th earner, i wouldn't hesitate to cancel my account if this is the new standard.

I have posted a thread at the leagal forum at fotolia and i am waiting to get an answer.

« Reply #38 on: August 28, 2008, 17:19 »
0
Just a few minutes ago Bilderking purchased the XL size for my order.

So it is clear they are purchasing the picture and reselling it on canvas.
Is there something special about this company they do not need to buy an EL for this purpose.?..

Patrick H.

« Reply #39 on: August 28, 2008, 18:05 »
0
According to a reply from bilderking in the German forum this usage of pictures from the Fotolia database is based on an agreement and has an explicit OK from CEO Thibaud Elzire who answered bilderking's request with

"... What you want to do exactly fits Business API possibilties. About the licence, you just need to purchase  standart license if you buy an image license just for one time print."

So: yes, according to Fotolia bilderking is allowed to "resell" prints this way, buying a standard licence for every ordered picture.

« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 18:07 by lathspell »

jsnover

« Reply #40 on: August 28, 2008, 18:33 »
0
Then when would an EL for prints or other resale items ever apply if people are allowed to purchase one-off licenses like this?

« Reply #41 on: August 28, 2008, 18:47 »
0
Then when would an EL for prints or other resale items ever apply if people are allowed to purchase one-off licenses like this?

Exactly!!
Is this is a prelude of things to come? I wonder how long this has been going on and why were we not told about this?

« Reply #42 on: August 28, 2008, 18:51 »
0
Are we going to be any worse off with this?  If they sell 100 prints, wont they have to pay us 100 times?

« Reply #43 on: August 28, 2008, 19:04 »
0
Yep, if they sell 100 copies of one of your files then you will receive 100 times the credits for the largest possible resolution (bilderking says they always purchase the highest resolution available for a file). In this case bilderking would probably make you more money than with buying only one EL. But who has ever sold 100 prints of one file?!

« Reply #44 on: August 28, 2008, 19:24 »
0
Are we going to be any worse off with this?  If they sell 100 prints, wont they have to pay us 100 times?

I see your point. But, would rather see a sliding scale than 1-2 dollars per sale. If they were selling 5 dollar prints that would be fine. Or, maybe a sliding scale based on their profit margin??. I'm not exactly sure what the going rate is for the artist when selling your images as prints through an online printing company, but I'm guessing it would be higher than 1% of a large canvas sale. They basically are cutting the artist out of the equation, no??

Bottom line I think if they are going to dodge the extended license then we need to get our fair share. They are changing the rules here.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 19:45 by cdwheatley »

« Reply #45 on: August 28, 2008, 21:09 »
0
Technically, this site is not selling our images in their merchandise, what would require an EL.  As far as I understood from the previous posts, the buyer is sent to FT for purchasing the image, which then they use for printing.

Some maths.  If not a FT client yet, he has to purchase at least 10 credits, so he pays US$10 even if he is going to use a 5-credit image (XL). If this single print is all he needs, FT grabs quite a nice chunck out of this.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #46 on: August 28, 2008, 23:09 »
0
As far as I understood from the previous posts, the buyer is sent to FT for purchasing the image, which then they use for printing.

As far as I understand bilderking is purchasing the license in the name of the poster buyer - bilderking does neither open a separate FT account for every buyer nor are buyers sent to FT to open an account. They claim to ease the process for the buyer with doing for him what he/she basically had to do by himself/herself. I'm pretty sure that every purchased license is sold to bilderking, not to the original buyer - which makes all this in theory a reseller product because the final license holder is probably bilderking and not the buyer, no matter if they print only one copy or more.

« Reply #47 on: August 29, 2008, 02:04 »
0
The XL size was purchased yesterday, not by me but by Bilderking.

Download date     08-29-2008 12:06 am
Downloader name    BilderKing
Downloader company name    Lucas Promotion GmbH & Co. KG
License Type    XL Standard
Credits    5
Credits earned    1.85


And they resell it to me on canvas.....
When were we informed about this deal with Bilderking....?..  right, never..!!!
We only get a flat 1.85 $... from a 150 $ deal.
At least we should get a commission, not just a flat 1.85 $

Patrick H.

« Reply #48 on: August 29, 2008, 10:52 »
0
When were we informed about this deal with Bilderking....?..  right, never..!!!

We are never informed about partners anywhere, are we?  :-\

The fact they are selling prints for US$150 is not the issue for me.  They are not reselling the image, but making a product out of it.  Where they paying for an EL, it would be correct, even if they would be selling it several times for US$150. 

As they are buying the image, they would not bother buying it a second time if another customer wanted the same image.  They have already used it illegally in the first time. 

Was this already brought to FT's staff?

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #49 on: August 29, 2008, 11:00 »
0
When were we informed about this deal with Bilderking....?..  right, never..!!!

As they are buying the image, they would not bother buying it a second time if another customer wanted the same image.  They have already used it illegally in the first time. 


Good point.
Although, it would be fairly easy for Fotolia to check on them if they cared to do so.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2008, 11:08 by cdwheatley »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
21 Replies
6026 Views
Last post January 26, 2008, 08:20
by vonkara
3 Replies
3415 Views
Last post June 29, 2008, 16:51
by vonkara
5 Replies
2842 Views
Last post November 13, 2012, 16:24
by a1bercik
3 Replies
1573 Views
Last post February 28, 2014, 11:32
by pixsol
4 Replies
4528 Views
Last post August 04, 2014, 13:16
by Danussa

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle