MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: stock-will-eat-itself on September 15, 2015, 06:22
-
Basically a free Multi Use licence. I guess the other agencies will follow soon.
http://www.microstockdiaries.com/adobe-stock-launches-subscription-sharing-for-creative-cloud-for-teams.html (http://www.microstockdiaries.com/adobe-stock-launches-subscription-sharing-for-creative-cloud-for-teams.html)
-
Way to go FOTOLIA/ADOBE. This, combined with your feeble DPC program, puts you in the lead to the race to the bottom. We can't wait to hear about your next tactic to further erode this industry. Wooooyayyy.
-
Lovely. On the other hand, perhaps they will run through the available subs quicker, spending more.
The story is incorrect, I believe, however, that Fotolia allows this in the standard license:
3.1 General Restrictions. You must not misuse the Work. Except as expressly permitted in Section 2 above, you must not:
download or store the Work on more than one computer at the same time, except that you may make a single backup copy to be stored on media separate from the single permitted computer;
It does allow a "digital library" set up, but that specifically mentions "viewing" and not downloading/using. As if to view it for approval. If it meant downloading/using, it would seem to be contradicting 3.1:
"You may create a digital library, network configuration or similar arrangement to allow the Work to be viewed by employees and clients of your company. "
-
Sean it's like putting a bunch of doughnuts on the community table at a fat farm with s sign Don't Eat on them.
-
Luckily for me uploading vectors is still a royal PITA there, so I still have very few images uploaded there. Perhaps I should keep it that way.
-
All the stuff I get in re CC is about how great it is for teams. It would be odd if they bottlenecked the much-lauded ease of team use.
-
I have to assume that this means Adobe isn't selling its stock offering in the volumes it wanted to - you don't offer a 50% off sale and then giving away more rights for the same price if people are already buying in the volumes you hoped for.
The bad news for contributors - beyond the obvious bad news for those who are Fotolia contributors - is that SS will probably further reduce prices or eliminate the team subscription offerings they have.
What's the point of discontinuing the Dollar Photo Club if they turn Adobe Stock into the same thing?
And don't let's hear anyone from Adobe trumpet how it'll be good for contributors because it will increase sales... the stock agency equivalent of jumping the shark :)
Here's the Adobe blurb about this change
http://blogs.adobe.com/creativecloud/new-adobe-stock-features-for-creative-cloud-for-teams/ (http://blogs.adobe.com/creativecloud/new-adobe-stock-features-for-creative-cloud-for-teams/)
-
Jo Ann, If everyone is a little like me, they are also getting very tired of Abobe's greed factor WRT to their CC garbage. Every new upgrade comes with its own set of problems and the only thing I see now is have to deal with them on more regular basis. It's about tying people into the whole system they have developed and if it means giving away mustard on Aisle 3 so you buy the expensive beef, so be it.
-
Lovely. On the other hand, perhaps they will run through the available subs quicker, spending more.
Adobe is ramping up asset management into CC and image comps can be directly dropped into visuals so you only pay for what you actually use in the end project. They are building an entire eco system. Asset management is a headache for Design agencies and clients alike, I can see why they are doing it.
Long term we could see reduced subs and credit downloads across the board coupled with the erosion of extended licences as customers switch to Adobe CC.
It feels like an impossible fight these days with more efficient image management and ever growing over supply. Personally I don't see how anyone will be able to produce stock images at a profit in the next few years.
-
Eventually the stock sites will put themselves out of business if they keep heading in this direction. Once people can no longer make money creating stock images the supply will dry up.
-
I can see why they would do it but very frustrating. Are they going to use stock images as a loss leader to promote/retain CC subscriptions.
Contributors need to be respected, though, as that content doesn't magically appear for free. Going to sit tight and hope Adobe will do just that - you never know they could increase contributor rates at some point....
-
Eventually the stock sites will put themselves out of business if they keep heading in this direction. Once people can no longer make money creating stock images the supply will dry up.
Sums up exactly what I think. They all need to realise at some stage that the part of the equation that is the contributor is just as important to them as the end buyer.
No sale without something there to buy.
-
It would be nice, to make some kind of protest. Like all contributors stop uploading for two weeks for example. But I know this is illusion.
-
It would be nice, to make some kind of protest. Like all contributors stop uploading for two weeks for example. But I know this is illusion.
There's no need for a protest, as returns dwindle motivation for producing and uploading will evaporate, supply starts to dry up anyway. It will take years for it play out fully but the trend is real, I don't see many people cheering thumping returns from their ports.
-
It would be nice, to make some kind of protest. Like all contributors stop uploading for two weeks for example. But I know this is illusion.
Why? We did it with DPC...in fact, we did a lot more than stop uploading.
-
Eventually the stock sites willbie themselves out of business if they keep heading in this direction. Once people can no longer make money creating stock images the supply will dry up.
Sums up exactly what I think. They all need to realise at some stage that the part of the equation that is the contributor is just as important to them as the end buyer.
No sale without something there to buy.
I think this is already happening. Maybe not enough that they notice yet. The bunches of new bies, or former exclusives uploading large ports disguise the fact that the big sellers aren't producing so much, and def not the HCV images they were uploading a few years ago. I hardly bother to upload anymore, and many of the top ports I notice are not producing as much quality or volume as back in 2010-2013. If buyers want the best quality images they are better off looking for the ones from a couple years back. Or on RM sites which is where the top talent are putting there best work.
-
Eventually the stock sites willbie themselves out of business if they keep heading in this direction. Once people can no longer make money creating stock images the supply will dry up.
Sums up exactly what I think. They all need to realise at some stage that the part of the equation that is the contributor is just as important to them as the end buyer.
No sale without something there to buy.
I think this is already happening. Maybe not enough that they notice yet. The bunches of new bies, or former exclusives uploading large ports disguise the fact that the big sellers aren't producing so much, and def not the HCV images they were uploading a few years ago. I hardly bother to upload anymore, and many of the top ports I notice are not producing as much quality or volume as back in 2010-2013. If buyers want the best quality images they are better off looking for the ones from a couple years back. Or on RM sites which is where the top talent are putting there best work.
RM sites have already gone broke....
-
My RM licenses via my own site and via Alamy and some small boutique sites are on an upswing lately as are RF images from those same sites that are not available via the micros. I don't think they are dead and in fact they are probably going to grow in importance for those businesses, publications and websites that need more unique content. I think the stock world will continue to have room for both kinds of images.
Many customers search the micros first for less expensive content, then opt for pricier content if they can't find what they need. If photographers put their higher value/rarer images on the higher priced sites, this will continue, and it seems that many people here are doing just that. Adobe Stock may make the less expensive content easier to source, but designers working for discriminating clients may still need to look elsewhere for certain content, and popping in a photograph or graphic sourced outside the Creative Cloud software isn't really that difficult. Agencies such as Alamy are already using enterprise software to allow their large clients to share images purchased by the organization among its employees and keep track of whether they are RM or RF, etc. so Adobe is following suit, albeit right within the design apps themselves. At some point, clients will not want the exact same image that so many of their competitors have used and they will opt for RM. RM has its place and isn't disappearing.
-
It would be nice, to make some kind of protest. Like all contributors stop uploading for two weeks for example. But I know this is illusion.
Why? We did it with DPC...in fact, we did a lot more than stop uploading.
You really think that we did anything with boycott of DPC. DPC should have been opt out from the start. DPC is still working for FT. People still upload to horrible sites that abuse us or make no income. All the people who cheer for Adobe/FT are finding out the truth. CC will use you forever and you will say, maybe there is change. Micro will use you forever and you will say, there is hope in more places to upload.
Be a fool and believe that there is some future in Micro. There is nothing but despair and slave wage. Wake Up! Micro is dead for home business. Your cost and hours are more then your return wages.
-
My RM licenses via my own site and via Alamy and some small boutique sites are on an upswing lately as are RF images from those same sites that are not available via the micros. I don't think they are dead and in fact they are probably going to grow in importance for those businesses, publications and websites that need more unique content. I think the stock world will continue to have room for both kinds of images.
Many customers search the micros first for less expensive content, then opt for pricier content if they can't find what they need. If photographers put their higher value/rarer images on the higher priced sites, this will continue, and it seems that many people here are doing just that. Adobe Stock may make the less expensive content easier to source, but designers working for discriminating clients may still need to look elsewhere for certain content, and popping in a photograph or graphic sourced outside the Creative Cloud software isn't really that difficult. Agencies such as Alamy are already using enterprise software to allow their large clients to share images purchased by the organization among its employees and keep track of whether they are RM or RF, etc. so Adobe is following suit, albeit right within the design apps themselves. At some point, clients will not want the exact same image that so many of their competitors have used and they will opt for RM. RM has its place and isn't disappearing.
This sounds pretty well accurate to me. And in addition to the RM agencies seeing a little more demand, specialist areas like Stocksy are flourishing. In the recent interview with Lee Torrens, Stocksy's CEO said that their top photographers are making more than $100,000 a year. Sounds like that's where all the Vetta customers went.
-
It would be nice, to make some kind of protest. Like all contributors stop uploading for two weeks for example. But I know this is illusion.
Why? We did it with DPC...in fact, we did a lot more than stop uploading.
You really think that we did anything with boycott of DPC. DPC should have been opt out from the start. DPC is still working for FT. People still upload to horrible sites that abuse us or make no income. All the people who cheer for Adobe/FT are finding out the truth. CC will use you forever and you will say, maybe there is change. Micro will use you forever and you will say, there is hope in more places to upload.
Be a fool and believe that there is some future in Micro. There is nothing but despair and slave wage. Wake Up! Micro is dead for home business. Your cost and hours are more then your return wages.
I would beg to differ, but I really can't in all honesty.
-
You really think that we did anything with boycott of DPC. DPC should have been opt out from the start. DPC is still working for FT. People still upload to horrible sites that abuse us or make no income. All the people who cheer for Adobe/FT are finding out the truth. CC will use you forever and you will say, maybe there is change. Micro will use you forever and you will say, there is hope in more places to upload.
Be a fool and believe that there is some future in Micro. There is nothing but despair and slave wage. Wake Up! Micro is dead for home business. Your cost and hours are more then your return wages.
I think there is a future for micro for the buyers. The market for lower priced images isn't going to go away. As far as a future for contributors, there will always be those contributors who say "well, making a penny per image is better than nothing." If there is demand, there will be supply. But you are right...there won't be any more "quitting my day job to do stock full time."
-
I can see why they would do it but very frustrating. Are they going to use stock images as a loss leader to promote/retain CC subscriptions.
Contributors need to be respected, though, as that content doesn't magically appear for free. Going to sit tight and hope Adobe will do just that - you never know they could increase contributor rates at some point....
SCUM Adobe only cares about making sharecroppers out of software users. Do not trust them.
-
No surprise here, all the woo yaying drowned out the warnings I guess. Hopefully this is the wake up call but my guess is people will complain that Shutterstock is doing something wrong instead. Maybe they didn't advertise correctly, or the site is wonky, or they have bad management, or bad inspections when really the issue is another site giving away more rights for less price.