Hi,

Some of you might remember me: I use to run Zymmetrical with Keith. Unfortunately, it didn't work out but we did learn a lot. I also run a, some say, very opinionated blog (Thoughts of a Bohemian ) although for lack of time I mostly post on Facebook these days.

I would like to pick the brain of this community about a new platform we launched. No, it's not another microstock agency or portal. In fact, it shakes the whole traditional licensing model because we think it is broken.

The premise is that licensing images on usage or size is no longer relevant since, as soon as an image is published, it is replicated hundreds, thousands of time with no compensation. With 250 million images uploaded daily, even Google cannot index images fast enough and thus most remain unseen by search engines. So, instead of charging image on usage, we thought getting paid per views make more sense.

Disclaimer : I am not asking you to drop what you are doing and join Stipple. Just for your opinion, thoughts, suggestions, comments

We created the Stipple platform with content creators in mind : you can upload your images, tag them and share them anywhere you want. With its attribution tool, the information about who is the owner of the image stays with image wherever it goes. Furthermore, it contains a link to where you can license that image, if you want.

People can then share your tagged images and if you have commercial tags, you earn revenue per click.

You are all invited and welcome to use it at http://www.stipple.com ( it's free)  but most importantly give us your opinion and your thoughts either here or via PM if you prefer.

Thank you in advance for your input and I look forward to your comments.

Paul Melcher

Nice internet type of concept. Hasn't someone already done this or tried it?

It does make sense. Image on a site has an id, every time it's viewed, the agency that does the tracking and the artist get (totally hypothetical) 1/20th of a cent. Even at 50/50 that's 1/40th of a cent for the artist and 1/40th for the agency. Not too expensive for the site host as they would pay 1 cent for every 40 views and people would be paying according to their traffic. Small site gets a good deal, big site, we make more.

But back to the question. Doesn't someone already do this?

Correct,

They can also take a screenshot too. We cannot change that. However, if they have an incentive to use the Stipple image as they also get revenue if they post your image. and it's legal. So, instead of stealing an image at the risk of getting caught, they can actually use it for free while getting payment.

I hadn't understood that, where does the payment that goes to the photographer and the re-poster come from? Who actually pays?

Microbius :

Let me explain better :  Your images contains tags that link back to product or services within the image. Like where to buy the shoes the model is wearing, or where to book your next flight to the destination in your image, etc..Every time a viewer clicks on those tags, you get a %. It doesn't have to be shopping tags. A brand might prefer to insert a video and every time it is played from within your image, you get a percentage.
Thus, the more your image is published and seen, the more you bring traffic, the more your earn.

If the website owner has elected to be part of the Stipple network ( free to join by installing a simple code) , they can also earn a percentage. We have 4,000 + publishers currently part of the network and growing.

Hope that makes it clearer

Pm

Nice internet type of concept. Hasn't someone already done this or tried it?

It does make sense. Image on a site has an id, every time it's viewed, the agency that does the tracking and the artist get (totally hypothetical) 1/20th of a cent. Even at 50/50 that's 1/40th of a cent for the artist and 1/40th for the agency. Not too expensive for the site host as they would pay 1 cent for every 40 views and people would be paying according to their traffic. Small site gets a good deal, big site, we make more.

But back to the question. Doesn't someone already do this?

Not that I am aware of. The ones that I am familiar with put tags on published images but give nothing to the photogrpahers nor do they allow them to tag their own images.

Paul, very well presented. I hope it is successful for you. Good luck

I think this forum is very open minded. With declining revenues from microstock, I am sure that a lot of photographers are exploring new ways to generate revenue with their images. I look forward to many on this forum trying it and giving their honest opinion ( which I sure I will have).

ps : if you don't want to wait for your invite to come, let me know via PM and can get you instant access.

Pm

I'm not.  I would have to see it in action. It sounds like a pinterest, except the tags supposedly stay with the file, and contributors might earn some money.

How will the money earned be reported to the contributor? Will everything be detailed so we know EXACTLY what came from where? How will earnings be paid to the contributor?

To me, it sounds like a lot of work for little money. I'm just not interested in participating in the whole social networking marketing model. I'm not interested in making money for the place where you buy the shoes the model is wearing, or the place where to book your next flight to the destination in your image, etc. I'm interested in making money for ME. Why would I put links to other businesses when the main goal is to sell my images? I don't get that. Share the wealth? Everybody wants everybody else to do the work for them by pushing products all over the internet. What percentage do you take out of all this? I can guarantee you aren't doing this for nothing.

Plus, my images are being "shared" enough all over the internet. I want to contribute to something that is doing something about copyright infringement, not encouraging it more and more. If my metadata is being stripped by the agencies, by pinterest, by everyone else, how can you guarantee that that will stay with my photo?

I have lots of questions and will wait for reports from others who give it a try and see if it's replacing their regular microstock income.

It's a great idea but I doubt that this forum is open-minded enough,

why oh why on earth would you draw that conclusion!?   

If my metadata is being stripped by the agencies, by pinterest, by everyone else, how can you guarantee that that will stay with my photo?
I have lots of questions and will wait for reports from others who give it a try and see if it's replacing their regular microstock income.

I have lots of questions too and hope I get to see them answered. Too bad I am the dumbest kid in class and can't quite seem to understand the Stipple concept. But it isn't about the metadata, as we know it (I Saved-As images from Stipple and there was no metadata in them). It is, I guess, about a new kind of metadata. One which can be used to pay us.

Is the idea that 'publishers' such as bloggers use Stipple in some way to put Stipple-ized images on their blogs, and then make money when the images are clicked on, and money also flows back to the original creator of the image who put it on Stipple?

Isn't Google developing something similar?  Thought I read that somewhere, but I could be wrong.

What are we meant to put in the "Pictured:" box?  I can't see anywhere to put keywords, unless it's this box.

Microbius :

Let me explain better :  Your images contains tags that link back to product or services within the image. Like where to buy the shoes the model is wearing, or where to book your next flight to the destination in your image, etc..Every time a viewer clicks on those tags, you get a %. It doesn't have to be shopping tags. A brand might prefer to insert a video and every time it is played from within your image, you get a percentage.
Thus, the more your image is published and seen, the more you bring traffic, the more your earn.

If the website owner has elected to be part of the Stipple network ( free to join by installing a simple code) , they can also earn a percentage. We have 4,000 + publishers currently part of the network and growing.

Hope that makes it clearer

Pm

That is interesting. I am having a bit of trouble still getting my head around how it will monetize in the context of a photographer using it. I get how a company selling goods may want pay when one of their photos with a link is reposted. What would the business model for a photographer be? Say I wanted to post a photo of some Nike's so I can get all that lovely Nike money from Nike whenever it is viewed/ the Nike website is clicked through to? I would need to have a contract with the company separate from Stipple to allow me to even post a photo of their shoes let alone agree to pay me for click through.
It would be great if you could help break this down, it seems I'm not the only one that doesn't really get how this works for image creators. Again, I now see how it works as a marketing tool for third party products, but not the images themselves.

The difference with Getty and Connect is that we are not an agency and we do not license images. We are just a platform. Our members upload their images and the whole universe of the web can publish them

How can you be certain that users are uploading their own images ? How can potential customers (users) be certain that the images uploaded actually belong to the people who have uploaded them and are properly rights cleared etc ?

I tried to look at you 'how it works' page, but it doesn't work on mt phone:
https://stipple.com/a#how_it_works

I would like to pick the brain of this community about a new platform we launched. No, it's not another microstock agency or portal. In fact, it shakes the whole traditional licensing model because we think it is broken.

The premise is that licensing images on usage or size is no longer relevant since, as soon as an image is published, it is replicated hundreds, thousands of time with no compensation. With 250 million images uploaded daily, even Google cannot index images fast enough and thus most remain unseen by search engines. So, instead of charging image on usage, we thought getting paid per views make more sense.

That sounds like getting paid by usage.  Did you mean something else?

We created the Stipple platform with content creators in mind : you can upload your images, tag them and share them anywhere you want. With its attribution tool, the information about who is the owner of the image stays with image wherever it goes. Furthermore, it contains a link to where you can license that image, if you want.

Again, I'm on my phone, so I can't really dig into this, but it sounds like some sort of JavaScript clip?  And you expect people to sign up with you to use your interface to share/use images as they see fit on the off chance they get a click through to a merchant that has somehow decided to tag your image with their referral?  Not sure I buy that for most.

People can then share your tagged images and if you have commercial tags, you earn revenue per click.

What about images that get no links?  So people can use them for free without compensation to the owner?

Sounds to me like there's too many pieces to this to make it work.  Also the end all of image use isn't just display of a single unaltered image.  People want to modify, cut, layer text, etc.  this sounds like it is squarely aimed at bloggers who want something for free.

We may have discussed this before - there are articles back to late 2011...

Microbius :
Let me explain better :  Your images contains tags that link back to product or services within the image. Like where to buy the shoes the model is wearing,

So you are relying on people uploading photos of people using unreleased but easily recogniseable commercial products, like shoes, so that the manufacturer sees the shoes, recognises them and tags them? How many online shoe buyers will visit Stipple rather than do a web (or favourite retailer) search for shoes? Or they might visit their favourite 'what's new in shoes' blog if they're into that stuff. Why would they come to all-things-to-all-men Stipple?
Are you hoping that MyFantasticHandmadeHandbags.com is going to tag a random Generic Handbag (and pay for clicks from people who saw a cheap product and are highly unlikely to buy an expensive one)?
Or does your model rely on togs uploading photos with their own tags like Shoes by Jimmy Choo, Bag by Mulberry, coat from Saks ... ? Mightn't that lead to images being used in ways the manufacturer's might not like? Seems to me that while the micros take banning 'incidental products' too far (according to the law on such), it's much safer than having commerical, protected products consipcuously on show. Who has the time, energy and money for a lawsuit?

Quote from: cclapper on August 03, 2012, 16:19

If my metadata is being stripped by the agencies, by pinterest, by everyone else, how can you guarantee that that will stay with my photo?
I have lots of questions and will wait for reports from others who give it a try and see if it's replacing their regular microstock income.

I have lots of questions too and hope I get to see them answered. Too bad I am the dumbest kid in class and can't quite seem to understand the Stipple concept. But it isn't about the metadata, as we know it (I Saved-As images from Stipple and there was no metadata in them). It is, I guess, about a new kind of metadata. One which can be used to pay us.

Is the idea that 'publishers' such as bloggers use Stipple in some way to put Stipple-ized images on their blogs, and then make money when the images are clicked on, and money also flows back to the original creator of the image who put it on Stipple?

No one is dumb here. Just me not expressing myself very clearly. Also, Stipple is the kind that is better understood when used.
Stipple is about tracking usage of your images everywhere on-line. So yes, if your images comntain any type of comercial tags, then everytime a user interacts with those tags, the creator gets paid.

Is Keith involved in this project?

No Keith is not involved in this.

What are we meant to put in the "Pictured:" box?  I can't see anywhere to put keywords, unless it's this box.

Yes, keywords.

Quote from: pmelcher on August 03, 2012, 15:42

I think this forum is very open minded. With declining revenues from microstock, I am sure that a lot of photographers are exploring new ways to generate revenue with their images. I look forward to many on this forum trying it and giving their honest opinion ( which I sure I will have).

ps : if you don't want to wait for your invite to come, let me know via PM and can get you instant access.

Pm

I'm not.  I would have to see it in action. It sounds like a pinterest, except the tags supposedly stay with the file, and contributors might earn some money.

How will the money earned be reported to the contributor? Will everything be detailed so we know EXACTLY what came from where? How will earnings be paid to the contributor?

To me, it sounds like a lot of work for little money. I'm just not interested in participating in the whole social networking marketing model. I'm not interested in making money for the place where you buy the shoes the model is wearing, or the place where to book your next flight to the destination in your image, etc. I'm interested in making money for ME. Why would I put links to other businesses when the main goal is to sell my images? I don't get that. Share the wealth? Everybody wants everybody else to do the work for them by pushing products all over the internet. What percentage do you take out of all this? I can guarantee you aren't doing this for nothing.

Plus, my images are being "shared" enough all over the internet. I want to contribute to something that is doing something about copyright infringement, not encouraging it more and more. If my metadata is being stripped by the agencies, by pinterest, by everyone else, how can you guarantee that that will stay with my photo?

I have lots of questions and will wait for reports from others who give it a try and see if it's replacing their regular microstock income.

You are entitled to your opinions and I respect that.

Just a little correction. Stipple is not intended to replace your microstock income. Please do not pull out your images from the distributors you work with. We have just launched last week and do not expect to return substantial revenues to photographers before a little while. Even then,  Stipple works very well along traditional licensing model and should not be seen as a replacement of any income but as an additional source.

Quote from: pmelcher on August 03, 2012, 13:09

The difference with Getty and Connect is that we are not an agency and we do not license images. We are just a platform. Our members upload their images and the whole universe of the web can publish them

How can you be certain that users are uploading their own images ? How can potential customers (users) be certain that the images uploaded actually belong to the people who have uploaded them and are properly rights cleared etc ?

Another great question.
We work the same way as the microstock platform do. Any users can report to us illegal activities, for which we very promptly. Since Stipple is open, and free, anyone, even a non user, can report a stolen image and we will shut the account immediately.
Keep in mind that, fortunately, illegal activities are a very very small percentage of any social platform and while it can happen and we are fully prepared to handle it, we do not expect it to happen often.

Quote from: pmelcher on August 03, 2012, 13:04

Microbius :
Let me explain better :  Your images contains tags that link back to product or services within the image. Like where to buy the shoes the model is wearing,

So you are relying on people uploading photos of people using unreleased but easily recogniseable commercial products, like shoes, so that the manufacturer sees the shoes, recognises them and tags them? How many online shoe buyers will visit Stipple rather than do a web (or favourite retailer) search for shoes? Or they might visit their favourite 'what's new in shoes' blog if they're into that stuff. Why would they come to all-things-to-all-men Stipple?
Are you hoping that MyFantasticHandmadeHandbags.com is going to tag a random Generic Handbag (and pay for clicks from people who saw a cheap product and are highly unlikely to buy an expensive one)?
Or does your model rely on togs uploading photos with their own tags like Shoes by Jimmy Choo, Bag by Mulberry, coat from Saks ... ? Mightn't that lead to images being used in ways the manufacturer's might not like? Seems to me that while the micros take banning 'incidental products' too far (according to the law on such), it's much safer than having commerical, protected products consipcuously on show. Who has the time, energy and money for a lawsuit?

Lots of questions here :
We are not relying on shoppers to come to Stipple. We are relying on shoppers seeing a  picture of cool shoes on a blog/website, mousing over and being able to purchase it directly from there. The Stipple app, where you sign up, is just a tool to tag your images and share them but not the destination.
If an image has a tag that tells links you to where to purchase the product, I don't see why the brand would be unhappy. Finally, I don't see the case for a lawsuit. Do you ever hear about lawsuits when people put the information of where to purchase the product underneath a photo with a hot link ? It is very common practice . Huge sites like people.com with 1 billion page views a month do it daily and have never been sued ( again, I do n't see why they would get sued).

Ok, I watched the video and browsed the website.  Where is the part about making money?

So what are the details about what we get paid?  I can't imagine anyone using it without knowing this.

Quote from: traveler1116 on August 04, 2012, 02:01

Ok, I watched the video and browsed the website.  Where is the part about making money?

So what are the details about what we get paid?  I can't imagine anyone using it without knowing this.

Of course :

Stipple is an image tagging platform, which allows users to permanently embed attribution and other content�from editorial to e-commerce links�into their images. The e commerce tags, as well as sponsored tags, generate revenue with each viewers interaction. Revenue depends on what type of links are included on the image, where the image is posted and how much traffic is generated by the image.

If you put a tag linking your photograph to a photo book you are selling directly, for example, you keep 100% of the revenues. If the tag is from a brand that discovered your images via Stipple, it varies depending on the campaign they are running ( CPA, CPM, CPE ).
All the information is updated live in your dashboard that shows you where your images are, how many people have seen it, which tags are the most popular, on which website it is, which website is bringing more traffic and so on. There are no flat fee because it all depends on the percentage of traffic that your image generates.
Payments are scheduled monthly via electronic transfer to your account.
In a way, it is very similar to what you experience with most microstock platforms with the only difference that your image keeps earning revenue for the lengths of it exposure instead of per download.

 

I still have about 10 invitations to send out for those who would like to try.

Quote from: grp_photo on August 03, 2012, 15:22

It's a great idea but I doubt that this forum is open-minded enough, I'm sure you would have more luck with all these young photographers on Facebook. I will probably give it a try with some of my pictures.

I think this forum is very open minded. With declining revenues from microstock, I am sure that a lot of photographers are exploring new ways to generate revenue with their images. I look forward to many on this forum trying it and giving their honest opinion ( which I sure I will have).

ps : if you don't want to wait for your invite to come, let me know via PM and can get you instant access.

Pm

Hi! The concept is good but I have some questions as there are things I do not understand:
1- People use an embed code to show the image on their website. The image will surely only be used "as is" to add life to a text. Most users will not click those images as there are no incentive to do so.

How will an image earn revenue By Click if it cannot be modified to add personalized advertisement on it? If the people that uses your images only pay per click and not per views, I think that it might not get much result?

2- If they are to be used like this maybe a small copyright information embedded on the image can also help to limit the easy steals.

Thanks for explaining!