MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Prints for sale through fotolia?  (Read 23579 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jsnover

« Reply #50 on: August 30, 2008, 08:57 »
0
A response from Chad in Fotolia's forums (to questions about who these guys are). If it was such a great deal for photographers, I wonder why they didn't trumpet the deal when it was done, put it into the blog and wait for the "Hooray!! Thanks Fotolia" comments to come rolling in...


"Hello everyone,

I would like to again speak about our Business API and partners. In the above example bilderking is using the Business API correctly. We actually are encouraging this type of use. It is great promotion for Fotolia and photographers.

The Business API is designed to help companies sell 1 off products to end users. The image is purchased every time a project is ordered. The price is displayed to the end users, the images are provided by Fotolia, and end users are told that these projects may not be resold or distributed. The Extended license was designed for a company to pay a flat fee and resell products with our images to multiple clients, this is not the case here.

Nothing stops a regular Fotolia customer to buy an image and take it to kinkos to get printed. The Business API brings the buyer and the printer together and we are able to control the process in a better way to protect the photographer. We also feel this is a better deal for photographers since every sale requires a license purchased, extended licenses only offer 1 sale and 1 commission.

Fotolias number 1 purpose is to promote our company and sell images. We feel the Business API effectively does this.

We are planning some great things this fall so sales should go through the roof. I wish you all a lot of success.

Chad Bridwell
Director of US Operations
Fotolia.com"


« Reply #51 on: August 30, 2008, 09:10 »
+1
I would sure like to see some figures/stats.
To me this whole explanation is a smoke curtain.

If I were to buy a picture for canvas print on other sites i need to buy an EL licence.
Why not on fotolia..?...
The comparison with Kenko doesn't make sence... simply because in the excample giving by Chad the customer is buying the picture and then going to have a print.
In the case of Bilderking, Bilderking is buying the image and selling a  canvas print.
To me this constitutes under the EL derivative item license.  Period.
They are making money on/with my portfolio/pictures.
The decent thing to do here is to offer a commission, not a flat 1.85 credit sale.

Patrick H.

« Reply #52 on: August 30, 2008, 14:52 »
0
My reply at FT:

Quote
Chad,

I welcome new ways to sell our images (except subs...), but the issue here is that the buyer is Bilderking, not their client.  The way this is set, it is against the license terms.

If a non-partner develops an online store buying images for resale items, he is risking money on images that might never sell.  Bilderking however is only buying what a client wants, so it's totally risk-free for them.  Therefore prices should not be the regular ones.

Even if that non-partner was selling without having paid for ELs (of course this is against the terms), he would have been risking more money than Bilderking currently is.

Regards,
Adelaide

jsnover

« Reply #53 on: August 30, 2008, 17:07 »
0
It would be most interesting (if a bit expensive) to order a second print of the same image that Patrick just bought to see if Bilderking buys a second license or just uses the one they already have to make a second print...

« Reply #54 on: September 11, 2008, 03:06 »
0
Bobby Deal entered his opinion on these practices in the fotolia forum....  ;D

http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=138543#p138543

Patrick H.

« Reply #55 on: September 23, 2008, 17:32 »
0
Interesting development :

http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=13664

Short version, they suggested to install a filter that would exclude my pictures from being used and sold on Bilderking.
I could live with that.

Patrick H.

« Reply #56 on: September 23, 2008, 17:47 »
0
Interesting development :

http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=13664

Short version, they suggested to install a filter that would exclude my pictures from being used and sold on Bilderking.
I could live with that.

Patrick H.

Do we ALL have to contact them to stop the rape?

« Reply #57 on: September 23, 2008, 18:57 »
0
I replied to the message asking them to filter me from this [email protected]  If nothing else Fotolia needs to know just how much this is enraging their contributors.  I'm sure they'll continue to ignore it but at least I got to have my say.

« Reply #58 on: September 24, 2008, 13:56 »
0
Well, it looks like Chad is none too happy that several people have asked to opt out of BilderKing's service.  He posted the following message on that thread after several of us asked to opt out:

Quote
Please do not use this forum to create a list of people who want to opt out. Andre, I encourage you to speak with our CEO before you do anything further.

To the rest of you please do not post an opt out list on the Fotolia forum. You joined Fotolia for us to promote your images. This is what we are doing. If you are unhappy with how we do business then I am happy to discuss this with you. Please know that Fotolia is an open community you are free to come and go as needed.

Chad Bridwell
Director of US Operations
Fotolia.com

lisafx

« Reply #59 on: September 24, 2008, 14:48 »
0
I just left my comment in the Fotolia thread, but basically, I don't see this as something that requires an EL license. 

EL licenses for resale items give the buyer the right to print the image in massive quantities and on massive items for resale.  According to Builderking's explanation, they are only printing the image ONE time per license sold.   And they buy the largest available size for each image printed. (thank God not a subscription)

I honestly don't see the down side of this.  I don't think it devalues my images in any way to be purchased in XL size for ONE printing.  Plus it opens up a whole new market for our work and we don't have to bother uploading. 

If Builderking was buying the image once and reprinting it on demand multiple times I would feel differently, but that isn't the case here.

« Reply #60 on: September 24, 2008, 16:47 »
+1
Humpf. They deleted the message I posted yesterday. I an understand deleting a rude comment, but not an educated one. 

Lisa,

I partially agree with you, but Bilderking is adding value to their business with the huge image collection FT puts at their disposal, and doesn't pay a penny for that. With a no-risk deal, they purchase an image if, and only if, a customer wants, and pay nothing more than the regular price.  It's not about the image cost, but its value in the context of a site like BK. They are not simply a printing service, but a final product reseller.

Another company building a poster/print site would have to take the risk of buying images as EL that might never given them a return.  So why should BK have this preferential treatment? What are they giving in return?

I could agree with a deal that does not imply in an EL in a partnership, but with a higher cost than the regular sale.

If you have images at Imagekind, Art.com or such sites, you get paid a % of the price or a mark-up. This should be the deal with BK, in my opinion.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #61 on: September 24, 2008, 16:56 »
0
Let's put this in perspective.
I highly doubt all of sudden the whole world wants to put a canvas print in their living room against the wall.... i highly doubt you will have more then a few sales on yearly basis from this deal.
In the mean time, Bilderking has a huge data base to choose from, fact remains, Bilderking is buying the picture, not the client.
According to this fact this is a resale item, thus needs an EL sale, whether it sold ones or more.
The way this is set up the only one making money from our pictures is Bilderking.

More exposure... I highly doubt that.
If some one  proves me he/she has more then 10 sales per month via Bilderking I will reevaluate my opinion, until then i think this is a rip off.

Patrick H.

« Reply #62 on: September 25, 2008, 00:35 »
0

Get Real People!!

Do you really think this business model would work if Bilderking had to buy EL's in advance for all the FT images their customers might want to print!!  Besides the greater markup required they would have to go through all of FT to find images for their inventory that might be in demand.  This approach would be so unlikely to produce profits that no sane company would try to make it work.  And - of course - if no company tried it NO FT contributors would have any sales in this market.

The method they are using makes the business model work and gives us some sales - and NOT subscription but PPD sales.  If it technically violates the license terms then the terms need to be changed to allow it.  All that can happen is we have more exposure and more sales.  There is no downside here for FT contributors.

You may think you are being ripped off because Bilderking has a large markup on the products they are selling.  However, they also have a lot of expenses they need to cover.  If their profit margin is exploitive then others will get into the same business and the competition will drive prices and profits down to a minimum. 

Most contributors probably do not have a lot to gain from Bilderking sales but the exposure gives them an opportunity for PPD sales that they won't have at all if FT doesn't allow this usage.  I think some people could do quite well with this.  A popular image would easily make the contributor more than a single EL sale.

fred

   

« Reply #63 on: September 25, 2008, 13:11 »
0
Are people here unaware of the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of online businesses that sell products they never touch?

Setting up a web site to sell all manner of products and having a distributor or manufacturer drop ship for you is not uncommon.  Such a business has ZERO inventory and does not pay for any merchandise unless they sell it first.  They do have overhead from marketing and their web site, however.

If the guy is legit (he purchases an image every time he sells a print), I don't see what the issue is.  He's not selling the same image hundreds or thousands of times.

« Reply #64 on: September 25, 2008, 14:40 »
0
Are people here unaware of the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of online businesses that sell products they never touch?

Setting up a web site to sell all manner of products and having a distributor or manufacturer drop ship for you is not uncommon.  Such a business has ZERO inventory and does not pay for any merchandise unless they sell it first.  They do have overhead from marketing and their web site, however.

If the guy is legit (he purchases an image every time he sells a print), I don't see what the issue is.  He's not selling the same image hundreds or thousands of times.

The way you and Fred are reasoning we might as well just abolish EL sales.

Let's elaborate a bit more.

If caf press, ebay etc sellers of mouse pads, calendars, t-shirts, mugs etc... all items for resale that require the use of an EL sale start using the API program EL sales would be completely non existent.  By allowing Bilderking to work in this way you open the door for everyone to open an online shop where items can be ordered, and the seller is just buying a standard license via Fotolia.

Patrick H.

« Reply #65 on: September 25, 2008, 15:51 »
0
Saying it again:

I could agree with a deal that does not imply in an EL in a partnership, but with a higher cost than the regular sale.

If you have images at Imagekind, Art.com or such sites, you get paid a % of the price or a mark-up. This should be the deal with BK, in my opinion.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #66 on: September 25, 2008, 15:54 »
0
No problem with that...:-)

Patrick H.

« Reply #67 on: September 25, 2008, 16:42 »
0
If caf press, ebay etc sellers of mouse pads, calendars, t-shirts, mugs etc... all items for resale that require the use of an EL sale start using the API program EL sales would be completely non existent.  By allowing Bilderking to work in this way you open the door for everyone to open an online shop where items can be ordered, and the seller is just buying a standard license via Fotolia.

With Cafe Press you upload the image ONE TIME and then sell the heck out of it.  So I can understand an EL being necessary.

But with this guy, the image is purchased EVERY TIME he sells a canvas (presumably).  So in fact, the artist is being paid EVERY TIME he has a sale.  Unlike Cafe Press where the artist is paid once and never again.

If in fact his system works as he states and he re-buys an image if it's used more than once, I still don't see the problem.  Artists are getting paid every time he sells something.

Would you be happy if his site said "you go to Fololia, purchase and download an image, email it to me and I'll print it"?  All he's doing is making it easier on the end user by doing the purchase step for them.

« Reply #68 on: September 25, 2008, 18:21 »
0
They purchase a licence (themself) to resell the image on a product to their customer. An EL is needed, that's all. No matter if a product is printed before or after the sale.

« Reply #69 on: September 26, 2008, 00:57 »
0

The way you and Fred are reasoning we might as well just abolish EL sales.

Let's elaborate a bit more.

If caf press, ebay etc sellers of mouse pads, calendars, t-shirts, mugs etc... all items for resale that require the use of an EL sale start using the API program EL sales would be completely non existent.  By allowing Bilderking to work in this way you open the door for everyone to open an online shop where items can be ordered, and the seller is just buying a standard license via Fotolia.

Patrick H.

The caf press, ebay etc sellers' business model requires that they sell 100's of mouse pads, calendars, etc. to cover the costs of the EL.   They have to make more than they are paying you for the use of the image to show a profit.  They do this through their volume of sales.  If they choose well they will make-up the EL cost and show a profit after they sell some given number of items with the image.  However, their mark-up must also cover costs of the losers that they choose (i.e images that do not sell enough to cover the costs of an EL).  In practice these sellers must sell 100's or perhaps 1,000's of copies of a few well chosen images to make up for the many that just don't make enough.

The Bilderking business model lets the end customer select the image they want so that the seller does not have to waste money on images that are not going to sell.  This permits them to lower their prices and lower prices will increase the volume of sales.

The economics here seem clear.  The lower price due to the Bilderking business model will increase demand for images (and thus the volume of sales) and more sale are better for everyone.

In short.  The current model for the resellers requires them to waste capital licensing images that do not sell.  Eliminating that waste with a more efficient business model is beneficial to all.

The EL should still be available to buyers with other requirements not covered under the standard license.

fred


 
« Last Edit: September 26, 2008, 01:01 by Fred »

« Reply #70 on: September 26, 2008, 08:22 »
0
What is absolutely inaccaptable is the fact that the pictures are licenseed to Bilderking, not to the client. At the end the Bilderking client is paying the full cost for a license but can't use the picture for anything that is included in the standard license except ordering 1 print while Bilderking suddenly owns a full license without any costs but with all rights of usage. Bilderking might additionally use all purchased pictures in printed material, ads or on their website etc. pp. without paying any further fees. That's a standard license plus a reseller license at the cost of a standard license - and totally free for Bilderking. Great deal for them, no great deal for the contributors.

« Reply #71 on: September 26, 2008, 12:14 »
0
[deleted]
« Last Edit: September 26, 2008, 12:28 by Fred »

« Reply #72 on: September 26, 2008, 17:08 »
0
The economics here seem clear.  The lower price due to the Bilderking business model will increase demand for images (and thus the volume of sales) and more sale are better for everyone.

I don't see "lower prices" in their site.  I tried one image and the smallest size costed almost EUR$30, so roughly US$45, which is much more than what you find in Imagekind or even (I think) Art.com.  Ok, maybe these higher prices are the norm in Europe.

Anyway, I still think the correct deal would be a % or a mark-up on the price. 

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #73 on: September 27, 2008, 06:03 »
0
The economics here seem clear.  The lower price due to the Bilderking business model will increase demand for images (and thus the volume of sales) and more sale are better for everyone.

I don't see "lower prices" in their site.  I tried one image and the smallest size costed almost EUR$30, so roughly US$45, which is much more than what you find in Imagekind or even (I think) Art.com.  Ok, maybe these higher prices are the norm in Europe.

Anyway, I still think the correct deal would be a % or a mark-up on the price. 

Regards,
Adelaide

The prices are lower relative to what they would be if Bilderking had to purchase an EL for every image they thought someone might want to print and include that in their markup.   I could have worded it better - something like: "The lower costs allow Bilderking to make a profit at a lower price with this business model which..."

You can get a deal with a mark up from Red Bubble.  They let you put your own markup on the prints of your work that you list with them.  However, their prices - before the markup - seem to be a little bit more than Bilderking.  I have some work there but have not sold anything.  I suspect that with my markup - 20 to 25% - I have priced myself out of the market.  I am not sure how others have done.

I think my images on FT working through Bilderking - and hopefully others eventually - represent much better prospects for sales.

c h e e r s
fred

« Reply #74 on: September 28, 2008, 00:18 »
+1
I posted a question about this at fotolias leagal board.

The answer I got was that yes, fotolia know and has approved this business.

They argued that since the photo ordered from a private person they don't have to pay an EL license and there is no option to opt out from this.

For Me thats unacceptable. My photos are not free to use for a company to market a service that i have not given approval to. My posting of photos at fotolia would newer have happened if i knew this in advance.

I have no problem with one private person enlarging one of my photos. But i DO have a problem if a business makes profit from marketing pictures for free. They don't take any risk and get their business to profit from products they never intend to pay for.

Unethical is the least i can call it.

So i seriously consider deleting my portfolio.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
21 Replies
5524 Views
Last post January 26, 2008, 08:20
by vonkara
3 Replies
2790 Views
Last post June 29, 2008, 16:51
by vonkara
5 Replies
2266 Views
Last post November 13, 2012, 16:24
by a1bercik
3 Replies
1293 Views
Last post February 28, 2014, 11:32
by pixsol
4 Replies
3261 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