pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Prints for sale through fotolia?  (Read 27563 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 26, 2008, 20:28 »
0
Just found this site with microstock prints for sale. http://en.bilderking.com/photosearch/landscape,1000000.aspx

 Anyone know who these guys are?
« Last Edit: August 27, 2008, 01:06 by cdwheatley »


« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2008, 22:14 »
0
Never heard of them but my whole portfolio is up there. I need to check this out more. Hope it's not a problem.

« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2008, 22:17 »
0
Looks like its part of fotolia. At least their watermarks are on my images.

digiology

« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2008, 22:39 »
0
Yeah my fotolia port is there too.

Did anyone click through to order a print? You can see how your work will look on a wall in different settings and configurations. Kind of fun to play with  :D :D

« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2008, 23:02 »
0
Wow!

The database has over 4000000 pics!

I found over 50 of my photos, some that i never sold anywhere!

Fotolia has its name  on them.

This requires action, has fotolia given rights to a third party company to do this?

If not, how can we stop them?

« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2008, 23:49 »
0
I wasn't aware we were getting print sales through fotolia. Could this possibly be one of those mirror sites they were talking about offering a while ago?

Another thing, It says 100,000 pictures sold on the website. Has anyone received any print royalties?

Image #'s are the same on fotolia.

It looks like image lic. is included in the print price. Is it possible we are only getting paid for the standard image lic.?? :( I really hope that is not the case or I could see another "meltdown" coming.  :o
« Last Edit: August 27, 2008, 01:03 by cdwheatley »

« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2008, 02:18 »
0
So, does anyone know how to find out what FT contributors make for prints of their images sold there? - ignorant, but not blissful

« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2008, 03:36 »
0
I wasn't aware we were getting print sales through fotolia. Could this possibly be one of those mirror sites they were talking about offering a while ago?

Another thing, It says 100,000 pictures sold on the website. Has anyone received any print royalties?

Image #'s are the same on fotolia.

It looks like image lic. is included in the print price. Is it possible we are only getting paid for the standard image lic.?? :( I really hope that is not the case or I could see another "meltdown" coming.  :o

The way i see it is they only purchase the standard XL size. IMO they need the EL license for this... !!!
It's like some other sites have print/canvas on demand.... and i'm pretty sure an EL license needs to be purchased.

Patrick H.

« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2008, 03:43 »
0
It looks to me like it is set up so that  the buyer purchases the licence which then gives him the rights to print an image for his own use.  So the company are actually selling the printing not the image in itself.
Don't know if this is legal or if they have found a loophole.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2008, 03:46 by fotografer »

« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2008, 03:45 »
0
double post

« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2008, 04:03 »
0
they've probably got a subscription

« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2008, 10:19 »
0
It looks to me like it is set up so that  the buyer purchases the licence which then gives him the rights to print an image for his own use.  So the company are actually selling the printing not the image in itself.
Don't know if this is legal or if they have found a loophole.

I think you might be right, and if its a subscription as "clearviewstock" mentioned thats even more depressing. I could see these prints selling quite a bit with the prices being so cheap.  wow!!  :( ouch!! 32cents on a $150.00 print??


« Reply #12 on: August 27, 2008, 10:29 »
0
It looks to me like it is set up so that  the buyer purchases the licence which then gives him the rights to print an image for his own use.  So the company are actually selling the printing not the image in itself.
Don't know if this is legal or if they have found a loophole.

I think you might be right, and if its a subscription as "clearviewstock" mentioned thats even more depressing. I could see these prints selling quite a bit with the prices being so cheap.  wow!!  :( ouch!! 32cents on a $150.00 print??



If the site redirects you to fotolia for the picture, offering it.. isn't it so they are actually buying the picture... because it also states :
including ...$ for picture.
The customer only makes a choice.

Patrick H.

« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2008, 10:42 »
0
I looks like they figured out a way to cut the artist almost totally out of the $$ picture. Feeling a little bent over at this point!!!

« Reply #14 on: August 27, 2008, 10:45 »
0
I looks like they figured out a way to cut the artist almost totally out of the $$ picture. Feeling a little bent over at this point!!!

Could be interesting to check their workflow and actually order a print... see if we need to buy the picture or not...hm.. if it weren't for the distance..................

Patrick H.

« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2008, 11:17 »
0
I looks like they figured out a way to cut the artist almost totally out of the $$ picture. Feeling a little bent over at this point!!!

Could be interesting to check their workflow and actually order a print... see if we need to buy the picture or not...hm.. if it weren't for the distance..................

Patrick H.

Right, we need someone in Germany to order one and see what happens...Somehow I get the feeling its going to register 32 cents at fotolia..I hope its not the case. Smells really fishy!! obviously, this company didn't buy an extended license for any of those 4 million images. We should be getting a percentage of the sales like on Istock.

« Reply #16 on: August 27, 2008, 11:28 »
0
I looks like they figured out a way to cut the artist almost totally out of the $$ picture. Feeling a little bent over at this point!!!

Could be interesting to check their workflow and actually order a print... see if we need to buy the picture or not...hm.. if it weren't for the distance..................

Patrick H.

Right, we need someone in Germany to order one and see what happens...Somehow I get the feeling its going to register 32 cents at fotolia..I hope its not the case. Smells really fishy!! obviously, this company didn't buy an extended license for any of those 4 million images. We should be getting a percentage of the sales like on Istock.

I live in Belgium,... so, i placed an order for one of my more artistic ones, present for the model... now i'm curious what licence they buy it at Fotolia....
Yup, i ddin't have to buy the picture, the site is buying the picture.
I'll keep you guys updated as soon as the purchase went trought fotolia.

Patrick H.

« Reply #17 on: August 27, 2008, 11:58 »
0
just had a look at the license terms at fotolia :
http://us.fotolia.com/Info/RoyaltyFreePhotos

As I read it I can buy an image and use it as home decoration.
However, the site is purchasing the image, printing it and reselling it... that constitutes a poster sale, which is not allowed under standard license.

Patrick H.

« Reply #18 on: August 27, 2008, 12:04 »
0
right, definate loophole..Patrick, have you registered a sale yet for the image you just purchased? It sounds like a pretty good deal for the print shop. 4 million images and they only have to pay out a few bucks for each sale. No skin off of fotolia's back either, just another new market for them.

« Reply #19 on: August 27, 2008, 12:09 »
0
OMG!  >:(

If this is legal, then absolutely anyone could start a business selling prints (on canvas, etc) by having customer actually buy the standard license as step one.

And, if that is the case, it would be useful to know if the stock photography site is in actual partnership with the print sellers, or if it is similarly being loop-holed out of EL license price.

For, I may not be able to stop print sites if this is a (horribly unethical) legal loophole, but  I certainly can stop dealing with any stock photography site X if it chooses to be in "cahoots" with the print site - if pressure from stock contributors is not viable, successful.   - ann


It looks to me like it is set up so that  the buyer purchases the licence which then gives him the rights to print an image for his own use.  So the company are actually selling the printing not the image in itself.
Don't know if this is legal or if they have found a loophole.

I think you might be right, and if its a subscription as "clearviewstock" mentioned thats even more depressing. I could see these prints selling quite a bit with the prices being so cheap.  wow!!  :( ouch!! 32cents on a $150.00 print??



If the site redirects you to fotolia for the picture, offering it.. isn't it so they are actually buying the picture... because it also states :
including ...$ for picture.
The customer only makes a choice.

Patrick H.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2008, 12:17 by ann »

« Reply #20 on: August 27, 2008, 12:10 »
0
right, definate loophole..Patrick, have you registered a sale yet for the image you just purchased? It sounds like a pretty good deal for the print shop. 4 million images and they only have to pay out a few bucks for each sale. No skin off of fotolia's back either, just another new market for them.


Yup, just got the mail with the confirmation of my order.
I'm still waiting for the fotolia purchase.
I choose one of my newest pictures, no downloads yet, just approved this week....



Studying the chart on fotolia i would say those prints constitutes also under the Derivative Resale Objects license.

Patrick H.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2008, 12:12 by patrick1958 »

jsnover

« Reply #21 on: August 27, 2008, 12:23 »
0
Obviously this isn't my fight any more, but I'd strongly suggest making loud noises to FT about this as I'm certain they have approved this usage given the API the site needs to serve up FT's content.

In the past something like this came up with some content from BigStock, but that was handled differently and was fair to contributors. The site purchased web licenses for the images they wanted to offer on canvas (it was a selection, not the whole collection like this case). If they sold one they then got to buy the appropriate EL - i.e. they didn't have to speculate on sales and buy the EL up front.

Avoiding the EL altogether is just wrong - there's profit in those 150 euro sales, not just print costs, but the only reason anyone's buying is because of the contributor's image.

Don't allow FT to get away with this end run around ELs (especially if the site has a subscription).

grp_photo

« Reply #22 on: August 27, 2008, 12:36 »
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.

« Reply #23 on: August 27, 2008, 12:57 »
0
found mine too,
this is what they say about licence...

"All images on BilderKing are privided by an stock image agency (Fotolia) and are property of their authors. For the one time print on customer order its required to gain an image license. For best printing results the license with highest resolution is automatically selected. The license is included in each sale price and the shown license fee is payed to the image agency for each sale. This is also true for the topseller selection.
Commercial resale of the printed pictures is not allowed. If you want the printed pictures for commercial resale, please contact the image agency for an appropriate license first."

« Reply #24 on: August 27, 2008, 13:19 »
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?

« 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 »

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.

« Reply #75 on: September 28, 2008, 01:23 »
0
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.

Why do you want to discourage people from buying your image to have printed and decorate their home?  If someone like Bilderking is not available to make it easy to do this - mostly they are able to easily buy your image from FT for a customer that does not have an account - you will be missing a lot of perfectly legitimate sales.

Bilderking is taking a big risk.  They put capital at risk to invest in a web site and web designers, in staff to manage and maintain the website, in materials, staff and equipment to print, frame and ship images and staff and computers to handle their accounting.  From their pricing the margins look very reasonable to me. 

Making money with Rights Free (RF) stock images is all about a flexible business model.  If some company wants to put their money at risk to deliver services that require RF images it can only be to FT and the contributors advantage to interpret the license requirements as flexibly as possible to accommodate them if the effective license terms are adhered to.  This arrangement seems to satisfy those requirements.  If it complies with the spirit - if not the letter - of the license it can only benefit contributors.

fred

fred

« Reply #76 on: September 28, 2008, 01:32 »
0
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.

Why do you want to discourage people from buying your image to have printed and decorate their home?  If someone like Bilderking is not available to make it easy to do this - mostly they are able to easily buy your image from FT for a customer that does not have an account - you will be missing a lot of perfectly legitimate sales.

Bilderking is taking a big risk.  They put capital at risk to invest in a web site and web designers, in staff to manage and maintain the website, in materials, staff and equipment to print, frame and ship images and staff and computers to handle their accounting.  From their pricing the margins look very reasonable to me. 

Making money with Rights Free (RF) stock images is all about a flexible business model.  If some company wants to put their money at risk to deliver services that require RF images it can only be to FT and the contributors advantage to interpret the license requirements as flexibly as possible to accommodate them if the effective license terms are adhered to.  This arrangement seems to satisfy those requirements.  If it complies with the spirit - if not the letter - of the license it can only benefit contributors.

fred

fred

Are you in any way connected to Bilderking... ?..

I just can't understand why you won't accept the fact fotolia and bilderking are violating the TOS.

Patrick H.

ps  : a lot of legitimate sales..?.. seriously doubt that... let's talk again within a year or so... if you made more than two sales for bilderking i give you hats up.

« Reply #77 on: September 28, 2008, 14:33 »
0

Are you in any way connected to Bilderking... ?..

I just can't understand why you won't accept the fact fotolia and bilderking are violating the TOS.

Patrick H.

ps  : a lot of legitimate sales..?.. seriously doubt that... let's talk again within a year or so... if you made more than two sales for bilderking i give you hats up.

If you read FT's TOS you will find the following under point 14. Miscellaneous" "...Fotolia shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to assign any or all of its rights or obligations under this Agreement..."  I am no lawyer but I believe this will cover any concerns you have with TOS violations - and if it doesn't I am sure there is some other verbiage in the TOS to cover it.  FT didn't write the TOS to limit their ability to make the business work.

I would hardly expect to make a fortune from Bilderking sales on FT, however, I would like to see this idea spread to other vendors and markets so that my images would have more exposure and the possibility of more sales.   Will it work?  Who knows but then there were plenty who said Microstock wouldn't work.

How would any connection of mine with Bilderking have anything to do with the logic of my reasoning?  Could you not find some flaw that you could at least hang a decent argument on?  Are you reduced to silly rhetorical questions?  I'm here to support ideas and innovations that might help me sell more images.  What is your agenda?

fred


 

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