MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "Fair" Trade Rules  (Read 8674 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 21, 2011, 06:37 »
0
Comments on Lee's article today, and "fairstockphotoagency.com"?
http://t.co/5YabdIa

Actually, I agree with Lee :)


« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2011, 08:59 »
0
Comments on Lee's article today, and "fairstockphotoagency.com"?
http://t.co/5YabdIa

Actually, I agree with Lee :)


Me, too.

« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2011, 09:39 »
0
I think that there a ton of problems with how agencies currently operate, but any type of "fair trade" seal of approval won't work unless it's marketed to buyers. In other words, if you could get to the point that buyers just wouldn't consider buying from an agency that didn't have the fair trade organization's seal of approval, you'd have something with legs.

There are a number of examples of entities trying to change buyer behavior - fair trade coffee, the Seafood Watch, remember the "Look for the Union Label" song? It's really tough to get people to change their behavior.

What would be ideal is some new agency starting up, abiding by the new code of conduct, and becoming a huge success (whether because of that or not) and then other agencies would follow (like with the legal guarantee me too).

I'm certainly ready for that to happen, but right now, am not holding my breath :)

« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2011, 10:05 »
0
I believe that this fair agencies and all that should be made by top contributors, other like myself will follow after, first thing might be leaving all top agencies that are paying low but real stuff is that they are the only one actually selling..

lisafx

« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2011, 10:18 »
0
I think it is a really admirable idea.  I certainly hope it catches on and is successful. 

« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2011, 10:39 »
0
I think it is a really admirable idea.  I certainly hope it catches on and is successful. 

Yeah it is admirable but will never work.  I'm not seeing a lot of commercial benefit for the big sites or buyers in signing up unless a critical mass of contributors are prepared to sacrifice immediate short and medium term income for possible long term gain and move en masse.

ShadySue

« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2011, 11:02 »
0
I think that there a ton of problems with how agencies currently operate, but any type of "fair trade" seal of approval won't work unless it's marketed to buyers. In other words, if you could get to the point that buyers just wouldn't consider buying from an agency that didn't have the fair trade organization's seal of approval, you'd have something with legs.

There are a number of examples of entities trying to change buyer behavior - fair trade coffee, the Seafood Watch, remember the "Look for the Union Label" song? It's really tough to get people to change their behavior.


Fair Trade is at last catching on here and has fairly high visibility in the general public now. What helped was the media getting onboard, and showing really hard-hitting films about sweat shops, child labour and the living conditions for many people who produce the commodities which we buy.
Our situation is different, in that we could, by embracing microstock, easily be portrayed as being the very ones who undercut fairly paid photography work, and now we're realising the money we're getting is unfair and unsustainable. So we have been the authors of our own downfall.

lagereek

« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2011, 11:06 »
0
Thats just it and agencies know this:  in order to gain something you have to scarifice something,  nobody is prepared to do this. Speaking abot this. I was a member of AFAEP, Association of fashion, advertising and editorial photographers, for years. They never got their finger out to do anything.

RT


« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2011, 12:40 »
0
Yeah it is admirable but will never work. 

+1

In fact this is even more of delusional idea than the 'contributors union' that gets brought up every once in a while.

« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2011, 14:07 »
0
Thank you everyone for support and comments. You're all right that it's difficult to change things and customer behavior. Still I believe it will work. Somebody have to try it! :-) Fitst, the target of the initiative is split into phases.

1. To attract contributors as you guys here. Get your feedback, implement that into the code of conduct and have it as a simple page that says what's right and what's wrong. It's target is not to say "all agencies should pay 50% royalty" but rather say this is current status of revenues and rules. And for agencies that would follow that code, it would be like a "This agency is OK" sign. Some agencies would be below average and some above. Still some might be great volume sellers as China is great volume producer.

2. If agencies and contributors will be OK with such a document (I'm also a designer even that I'm CEO of an agency) it would be a "widely agreed" guide for agencies how to make their contributors happy and therefore attract more of them. Later on we can rank/audit agencies to help you guys decide.

3. In the end contributors are the major power in the microstock market. And only contributors can decide if they will stay with an agency that generates a huge profit or with an agency that does balanced stuff. Look in the future and change it! Guys at Google made it even that AltaVista was a star at that time. The page I've made just collects the facts and should help you guys.

Finally

I believe that crowdsourcing has a brilliant idea in itself. And if the agency becomes just an effective connector between the artist and the user/buyer then everything is perfect. It would be so nice if the oldest agency in this industry would be able to keep that spirit alive. I think that would made it unbeatable. Still, I'm just a designer, so I might be wrong with how I see the world of microstock ;-)
« Last Edit: June 21, 2011, 14:10 by zager »

lisafx

« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2011, 14:15 »
0
Thank you Vita, for all the work you have put into this.  I wish you the best of success with your plans. :)

« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2011, 14:38 »
0
I think it is an admirable idea, but why does there have to be a "good housekeeping seal of approval" for agencies or contributors...why can't leaving metadata in and providing opt-outs just be SOP?

What are the consequences going to be for an agency who "pledges" to do the right thing to reel in more buyers and contributors, then down the road changing their Agreements and only announcing the changes buried somewhere on their forum? (And of course we all know that THAT never happens).

What are the consequences going to be for contributors who keyword spam after they have "pledged" not to do so? Those things are already written into Agreements but some contributors submit images with good keywords, then once the image is approved, go back and spam keywords.  (And of course we all know that THAT never happens). The "seal" just makes the unscrupulous appear honest.

Is there going to be someone hired that will constantly monitor both contributors' and agencies' behavior? I doubt it. Unless all parties are monitored on a consistent basis, I can't see this as being effective. Are there going to be serious consequences to those who do not abide?

RacePhoto

« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2011, 14:42 »
0
I believe that this fair agencies and all that should be made by top contributors, other like myself will follow after, first thing might be leaving all top agencies that are paying low but real stuff is that they are the only one actually selling..

But the bottom agencies pay just as low and make less sales, why not everyone leave them so the top agencies don't have to compete with the lowest common denominator and the race to the bottom of prices and commissions. Raise the standards, raise the pay. Instead we have who can be cheapest and offer the least. Dump the Chumps.  8)

"Contributors can also sign the declaration. They agree to not spam keywords, to give an agency time to rectify issues before posting about them on forums, and to respect confidential information."

That's funny when you think about it. Keep Secrets and don't complain. WOW! Is that Orwell or Brave new World?

I'm all in for the promise to stop keyword spamming.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2011, 14:47 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #13 on: June 21, 2011, 15:03 »
0
But the bottom agencies pay just as low and make less sales, why not everyone leave them so the top agencies don't have to compete with the lowest common denominator and the race to the bottom of prices and commissions. Raise the standards, raise the pay. Instead we have who can be cheapest and offer the least. Dump the Chumps.  8)

"Contributors can also sign the declaration. They agree to not spam keywords, to give an agency time to rectify issues before posting about them on forums, and to respect confidential information."

That's funny when you think about it. Keep Secrets and don't complain. WOW! Is that Orwell or Brave new World?

I'm all in for the promise to stop keyword spamming.

Glad you said something, that bugged me when I read it too.

I'm all for stopping keyword spamming, and I'm all for giving an agency a fair amount of time to rectify a problem, but I would never pledge not to post the problems on the forums. That's one of the benefits of the internet. Gone are the days when companies can treat customers/vendors like dirt and get away with it...the little guy finally has a venue to report problems and provide feedback to others. I'm sure this bugs the heck out of said companies.

« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2011, 16:49 »
0
In my mind you are missing one (the) essential part of the "Fair Trade" equation: Royalties.
Why not include a minimum royalty percentage (e.g. 50%) in there? And absolute transparency, i.e. with each transaction clearly state the amount the customer paid and the amount that was paid to the artist, including for transactions via re-sellers?

What is currently in that declaration are minor things that should be absolute standard for every agency (yes, I know, it is currently not).
But starting a "Fair Trade" movement with such minimal demands is not worth it at all.

« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2011, 17:01 »
0
I must be missing some important information and maybe someone can fill me in here but I was wondering why the very company that lost many affiliations with major stock agencies over the issue outlined in the article is actually the founder of this initiative...???

If Pixmac now understands why it is important to be fair to its contributors, why did we have so many issues with them in the past?

Was it the affiliated agencies' fault and not Pixmac's for stripping the copyright info? And if so, why would Pixmac lose those affiliations if they are the ones who try to be fair? Political issues?

Sorry for asking potentially dumb questions but I'm kind of lost here.



« Reply #17 on: June 21, 2011, 18:47 »
0
Political issues?

Political issues.

I think that if a "fair trade commission" is going to be founded to provide honesty and transparency to buyers, contributors and agencies, a simple answer like "political issues" isn't going to fly. Who was responsible for stripping out the copyright? Someone has to know, but no one wants to claim responsibility. What has been done since to remedy that situation? Apparently nothing, because just 2-3 weeks ago, my images were on a partner site with copyright info stripped out. Nobody's talking. Nothing has changed.

Why don't contributors have the right to answers to those questions, when it is their work that was infringed upon?

This is why the whole "fair trade" thing, IMHO, won't work. When it comes down to claiming responsibility, answering tough questions, possibly losing money, nobody's going to want to step up to the plate. Sounds good on paper, in theory a great idea, in reality, not so much.

edited to say this just doesn't apply to pixmac either. I haven't heard any "truths" from the other entities involved either.

« Reply #18 on: June 21, 2011, 18:48 »
0
In my mind you are missing one (the) essential part of the "Fair Trade" equation: Royalties.

I tend to agree. It's a nice start though. My laundry list includes things like price setting features, 50/50 royalty rates, optional or no subscriptions and easy portfolio disabling features. These are things I look at when I sign up for new agencies now. Basically, the more control I can get as a contributor the better.

« Reply #19 on: June 21, 2011, 19:57 »
0
I think it is a really admirable idea.  I certainly hope it catches on and is successful. 
Yes, it's like buying from local producers to help jobs in your area and reduce transportation costs and emissions. It's a matter of attitude.

« Reply #20 on: June 21, 2011, 21:08 »
0
Without seeing the companies real books it would be hard to say what commission %age is fair (but I bet it isn't 15% or even 30%). There should be some lower limit that a company can't pretend to be fair trade without being above it.

Most of these things previously mentioned should be there. I'd like to see more transparency in a lot of things from "partner" programs to what the buyer actually paid for an image and what the photographer gets. Look at Fotolia for how not to run credit costs, exchange rates, etc.

Without some teeth I doubt it will make much difference and I applaud the effort.

How long do you think is reasonable for a company to take to resolve an issue before one goes to the internet with it?

« Reply #21 on: June 22, 2011, 01:49 »
0
I think it is a nice idea but I strongly oppose the "secrecy passus" that problems should not be discussed openly in the forums.

It is the transparency of the internet that is bringing out the best in communities. It is even bringing down dictatorships and empowering oppressed people.

And for business it is the same. Transparency keeps everyone on their toes and their best behaviour. No more behind closed doors wheeling and dealing.

« Reply #22 on: June 22, 2011, 02:04 »
0
I think it is a nice idea but I strongly oppose the "secrecy passus" that problems should not be discussed openly in the forums.

Thanks! The part ment rather not to make conclusions without having any facts. Than not to discuss it at all..

« Reply #23 on: June 22, 2011, 02:06 »
0
I think that if a "fair trade commission" is going to be founded to provide honesty and transparency to buyers, contributors and agencies, a simple answer like "political issues" isn't going to fly. Who was responsible for stripping out the copyright? Someone has to know, but no one wants to claim responsibility. What has been done since to remedy that situation? Apparently nothing, because just 2-3 weeks ago, my images were on a partner site with copyright info stripped out. Nobody's talking. Nothing has changed.

Please, look into history of MSG forum, Shutterstock's forum and our blog before you say this about Pixmac.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2011, 03:09 by zager »

ShadySue

« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2011, 04:15 »
0
I think it is a really admirable idea.  I certainly hope it catches on and is successful. 
Yes, it's like buying from local producers to help jobs in your area and reduce transportation costs and emissions. It's a matter of attitude.
Yup, the attitude of accepting (almost) only turnips,  cabbage, potatoes and sprouts as veg and accepting that you can only eat fruit, of very limited variety, for about eight weeks of the year, and even then, it's local to the country, not the area.
This analogy I'm sure is transferable to this issue too, but I had a long lie and am still hazy ...

« Reply #25 on: June 22, 2011, 06:48 »
0
So a quick visit to the agencies that have signed, and without logging in I'm able to download preview images that have no attribution (not just thumbnails, but the layout or comp images).  It is kind of silly to support a code of conduct that you don't actually support in practice, isn't it?  I think including attribution in the downloads or previews is a great idea.

One issue I see with including a minimum royalty (50/50 or whatever) is how subs factor in.  Since the actual royalties paid are determined by how much use is made of the subscription purchased is it kind of tough to promise any minimum royalty on subs.  As a matter of fact, the same is really true of credit packs too.  If you buy a credit pack and use a portion to buy a photo and the contributor gets 50% for that image, but then the buyer ultimately doesn't use the whole pack - contributors didn't really get 50% of what the buyer spent...  Not to mention how contributors who never collect a payout figure into all this :)

Enough grumbling, though, my one positive suggestion to add to the code of conduct is that in addition to the attribution in downloads, the license terms should also be added.  Especially for something like a one year license from Dreamstime, or an extended print license, etc.

« Reply #26 on: June 22, 2011, 07:45 »
0
So a quick visit to the agencies that have signed, and without logging in I'm able to download preview images that have no attribution (not just thumbnails, but the layout or comp images).  It is kind of silly to support a code of conduct that you don't actually support in practice, isn't it?  I think including attribution in the downloads or previews is a great idea.

One issue I see with including a minimum royalty (50/50 or whatever) is how subs factor in.  Since the actual royalties paid are determined by how much use is made of the subscription purchased is it kind of tough to promise any minimum royalty on subs.  As a matter of fact, the same is really true of credit packs too.  If you buy a credit pack and use a portion to buy a photo and the contributor gets 50% for that image, but then the buyer ultimately doesn't use the whole pack - contributors didn't really get 50% of what the buyer spent...  Not to mention how contributors who never collect a payout figure into all this :)

Enough grumbling, though, my one positive suggestion to add to the code of conduct is that in addition to the attribution in downloads, the license terms should also be added.  Especially for something like a one year license from Dreamstime, or an extended print license, etc.

Thank you for the valuable feedback! As for attribution in metadata it's in progress of implementation at Pixmac. The subscription is an issue, but as it's complicated for now I tried to focus on most crucial things first...


« Reply #27 on: June 22, 2011, 10:59 »
0
I think that if a "fair trade commission" is going to be founded to provide honesty and transparency to buyers, contributors and agencies, a simple answer like "political issues" isn't going to fly. Who was responsible for stripping out the copyright? Someone has to know, but no one wants to claim responsibility. What has been done since to remedy that situation? Apparently nothing, because just 2-3 weeks ago, my images were on a partner site with copyright info stripped out. Nobody's talking. Nothing has changed.

Please, look into history of MSG forum, Shutterstock's forum and our blog before you say this about Pixmac.

Here is the (or my) situation:

Things (that we contributors didn't like) have happened in the past, Pixmac knows it, the partner agencies know it.

While there is nothing wrong with posting the facts on all kinds of boards, I have to admit it's becoming terribly hard to keep up with who posted what, where.

I might not log on here for days, some contributors do not participate (or read) at all in the forums.

An issue of this proportions should have forced either participating party to actively approach contributors to inform them about what's going on.

I'm getting tired of this as well as many of you but just posting messages on a forum is not the best way to inform contributors.

Often, I inform fellow contributors who don't have the time to hang out here what's been happening lately and they have no clue.

Either party or preferably both Pixmac and the partner agencies should have come forth informing us about what has gone wrong. Selling licenses without giving proper credit is NOT ok. I don't think any of us assume that the agencies are all perfect and mistakes do happen, by coming forth with the information sent directly to all involved contributors, a huge amount of trust would have been gained or maintained.

I see that Pixmac is working hard to set things straight, but even following this forum as often as I can, I still have no clue of the extent of the issues we had in the past with them and their partners.

I apologize if I'm not reading the SS forums, Microstock Group and Pixmac's blog on a daily basis. Honestly, when are we supposed to do our work if the agencies are the ones who made the mistakes and don't inform us directly with a simple E-mail? If that has been done by Pixmac or others, I also apologize as I haven't received such emails.

« Reply #28 on: June 22, 2011, 16:34 »
0
I think that if a "fair trade commission" is going to be founded to provide honesty and transparency to buyers, contributors and agencies, a simple answer like "political issues" isn't going to fly. Who was responsible for stripping out the copyright? Someone has to know, but no one wants to claim responsibility. What has been done since to remedy that situation? Apparently nothing, because just 2-3 weeks ago, my images were on a partner site with copyright info stripped out. Nobody's talking. Nothing has changed.

Please, look into history of MSG forum, Shutterstock's forum and our blog before you say this about Pixmac.

Please read the last line of my post.

Also, I have read the forums. I read them ALL as they were happening. Shortly after it happened, threads were locked and no one wanted to speak about it. I as a contributor still have not gotten a full detailed email report of exactly what happened from any of the agencies involved, and all of my images were affected. I can guess, based on what other contributors have said and have found out, but no official word from the actual agencies. I hear you saying "political issues". That doesn't answer my questions (see my post above).

Each and every contributor affected should have gotten a detailed email, outlining exactly who, what, when and why it happened, and what has been done to correct the problem.

It's amusing to me how megastock mentioned the fact that the agencies that have signed have not corrected the stripping of metatdata issue yet, and you thank them for their valuable input. I said the same thing, except I throw in the pixmac name, and you try to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about.  ::) How could you sign, pledging something, that you yourself have just admitted a post or two ago has not been corrected yet and is still in progress?

The Fair Trade Agency "seal of approval" already means nothing.

« Reply #29 on: June 22, 2011, 17:18 »
0
I think that if a "fair trade commission" is going to be founded to provide honesty and transparency to buyers, contributors and agencies, a simple answer like "political issues" isn't going to fly. Who was responsible for stripping out the copyright? Someone has to know, but no one wants to claim responsibility. What has been done since to remedy that situation? Apparently nothing, because just 2-3 weeks ago, my images were on a partner site with copyright info stripped out. Nobody's talking. Nothing has changed.

Please, look into history of MSG forum, Shutterstock's forum and our blog before you say this about Pixmac.

Please read the last line of my post.

Also, I have read the forums. I read them ALL as they were happening. Shortly after it happened, threads were locked and no one wanted to speak about it. I as a contributor still have not gotten a full detailed email report of exactly what happened from any of the agencies involved, and all of my images were affected. I can guess, based on what other contributors have said and have found out, but no official word from the actual agencies. I hear you saying "political issues". That doesn't answer my questions (see my post above).

Each and every contributor affected should have gotten a detailed email, outlining exactly who, what, when and why it happened, and what has been done to correct the problem.

It's amusing to me how megastock mentioned the fact that the agencies that have signed have not corrected the stripping of metatdata issue yet, and you thank them for their valuable input. I said the same thing, except I throw in the pixmac name, and you try to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about.  ::) How could you sign, pledging something, that you yourself have just admitted a post or two ago has not been corrected yet and is still in progress?

The Fair Trade Agency "seal of approval" already means nothing.

Very good point - if something serious happened, it would at least help if contributors were told what it was rather than being treated like mushrooms.

« Reply #30 on: June 22, 2011, 17:29 »
0
they might add a few kick out topics too, for both sides

« Reply #31 on: June 22, 2011, 18:15 »
0
All the crap about Fair and Transparency, and yet Pixmac still fails to provide an open and clearly  stated list of who their microstock suppliers are. Is Shutterstock in on the game now too? See the link

http://www.pixmac.com/picture/http%3Asubmitshutterstockcomforumviewtopicphpp478725478725/000057684497

Or for more fun, type in Shutterstock as a search term and see what comes back. Even if the image is not coming from shutterstock, what gives PM the right to even allow Shutterstock as a search term or include URLs to the Shutterstock forum on their site?

I myself was a victim of the back room tactics when they scraped all my images from 123RF. When I demanded they be removed from Pixmac, PM said it couldn't be done. When I contacted 123RF about my images, they said they were aware of no such partnership. Well suddenly 123 somehow became "aware" I closed my account at 123. Not a big deal as I detach myself more and more from micro every day and now mostly shoot commercial.

This whole Fair signup and is nothing more than an attempt by this band of gypsies to build another link farm for themselves. How said for the the microstock industry. Those of you who claim that you are in a real business should do more research before signing their little link list. This is not a group I want anything to do with.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2011, 18:19 by stormchaser »

« Reply #32 on: June 23, 2011, 02:41 »
0
How could you...

It's a beta. It's a proposal. We launched it to get the feedback and soon comply with the rules we and you set.

« Reply #33 on: June 23, 2011, 02:46 »
0
Or for more fun, type in Shutterstock as a search term...

That's data entered by contributor.


johngriffin

« Reply #35 on: June 27, 2011, 17:36 »
0
Or for more fun, type in Shutterstock as a search term...

That's data entered by contributor.

Vita is right. I would bet a lot of money that was the users fault either because it was a part of the users workflow and got entered by accident or they were copying and pasting it from shutterstock to those fields.

« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2011, 06:57 »
0
Thank you everyone for the feedback. Although some of you think this initiative is not going to work because of business politics Im sure this might help all levels of agencies and contributors in the long run.

Real life examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelin_Guide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_NCAP

Both initiatives have impact on customers and producers as well. They dont force anyone to do this or that. They just award those who do it objectively right. It impacts the business indirectly but the long term results are pretty strong.

From the discussion here and under the initial article at www.microstockdiaries.com its clearly visible that there might be some additions to the beta of FairStock idea. Please tell me what you think makes sense:

1. Ranking

This is a brilliant idea! Thank you Cory. I can imagine 3 levels as you said, where the contributor can get an extra bonuses such as better revenue split, easier upload, no need to upload MR files with each JPG file etc. The main benefit for agencies would come when responsible contributors would switch to Fair agencies only. And also to clearly show the agencys qualification to sell the creative content responsibly without leaks and grey zones.

2. Auditing

Same as flagging of images with keyword spam. We all work with agencies/cntent every day and that gives us million of eyes to watch each agency or contributor doing bad stuff. The consequences might be that contributor that does bad stuff would be rejected from all Fair agencies at once. Buyer that does a lot of strange refunds might be rejected too. And an agency that would not be able to treat its contributors fairly might be audited by FairStock initiative while receiving a public rank even if not a part of the initiative.

3. Top Contributors and Big Agencies

Everyone who participates in this needs a reason to participate. Thats for sure. Fair Trade Coffee and stuff like that is initiative that forces either business or customers to do something. Its similar to sustainability of Europe Union with all its artificial regulations. This FairStock initiative (now I realize the name was not chosen right) should rather talk to both camps and ask each what would be acceptable and effective. And finding a compromise that would result in a sustainable yet profitable business for all parties. In the end it could be that 15/85 for newcomers is the right split. Who knows? If the top content is only available at the Fair agencies the customers will find it.


Other ideas

The secrecy passus issue. Thank you Pancaketom and Cobalt and others. The idea behind this was that people usually assume on forums before they speak with the agency. I wanted to avoid misunderstandings there. It could be said differently, please suggest anything.

The 50/50 issue. Thank you for that Dirkr. Even that short term interest of an agency might be high profitability, lowering the revenue for contributor brings long term difficulties. I agree that 50/50 could seem as a ideal split. But we dont live in an ideal world so the split will always be changing. It would be great to open each agency books to everyone, but thats not possible for a simple reason: competition.

If I may speak of Pixmac, our target is to give the contributor as much as possible. Increasing the revenue for contributor in time, that is the most important thing that keeps photographers working with the agency. And I believe that agency should become just an effective marketing layer for example as Amazon.com where margin is the lowest in the retail industry. For an agency it should be primarily about volume, not margin. This will actually happen in the future, we just need some time to get there.


Id be very happy to read/hear any other issues or ideas here. Thats the only way the idea could fly. I know its difficult for some of you to discuss it with an agencys CEO and also a member of an agency which approaches the industry in a disruptive way. Still from the other point of view weve made a few things already that inspired the big agencies so I hope were not just another agency.

I always say: Innovation is like a walk through a mine field. Every step is risky.


« Reply #37 on: June 28, 2011, 12:33 »
0
dont forget to add that contributors may say on a public forum that an agency is DEAD when we have 2 sales for 2 years, that isnt a valid reason to kick out a contributor that spent time uploading and submitting pictures (good or bad it is our work and we must respect it at least)

« Reply #38 on: June 28, 2011, 12:50 »
0
Yeah, I was a little curious about this whole being rejected from sites too. That seems a bit extreme. What is a punishable offense? I can't vouch for every keyword in every file or claim that I'll never say something I'll regret. Everybody makes mistakes now and then.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 12:53 by cthoman »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
4766 Views
Last post September 30, 2010, 09:20
by Fotonaut
4 Replies
5070 Views
Last post December 01, 2010, 18:38
by ShadySue
4 Replies
1861 Views
Last post May 20, 2011, 12:48
by click_click
38 Replies
11287 Views
Last post June 08, 2011, 14:53
by Slovenian
74 Replies
9317 Views
Last post September 20, 2017, 02:30
by Brasilnut

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results