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...

Quote from: cclapper on June 21, 2011, 18:47

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.

they might add a few kick out topics too, for both sides

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.

Thank you everyone for the feedback. Although some of you think this initiative is not going to work because of business politics I�m 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 don�t 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 it�s 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 agency�s 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 it�s 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. That�s for sure. Fair Trade Coffee and stuff like that is initiative that forces either business or customers to do something. It�s similar to sustainability of Europe Union with all it�s 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 don�t live in an ideal world so the split will always be changing. It would be great to open each agency books to everyone, but that�s 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.


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

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

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.