MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Awkward stock photos  (Read 14003 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2010, 09:00 »
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 09:46 by fai123rf »

« Reply #26 on: August 09, 2010, 09:23 »
Did the boss catch you?  :P Don't blame him. If the issue might turn bad, official statements of agents might be scrutinized.

« Reply #27 on: August 09, 2010, 10:41 »
I bolded and italicized above: According to what I read, that's what he did do at first. (not linking thumbs) He only changed them once he was outed.
Well there is more joy in heavens for one sinner that repents than for 99 saints that don't need correction.
Yes, it's a referral site, but the images are being used in a negative connotation.
That's a valid point, as I stated first, and more for the model than for a photographer. But who put those images up for stock in the first place? If the model agrees to do weird poses and the photographer uploads it, can they blame a comics page to use/refer them? The lady that lost her teeth on the apple, well, she can imagine her image won't be used on a business site but on a comics page.
Do I think some of them are funny? You bet! Do I think he should be allowed to have the site? You bet. Does that mean I think he should be allowed to use the images on his website FOR FREE just because he is giving a referral? NO!
Again, DT allows this, even with ads (I came across some of those). I don't know about other sites, but I figure the site admin will have read the TOS. You agreed to DT's agreement so you can't reasonably protest against it (I think).
No one should be allowed to decide "bad publicity is better than no publicity" except the copyright holder. Great if the images sell because of the link. They STILL shouldn't be allowed to be used for free without the copyright holder's consent! If you think it's OK, that's your choice. Others may not think it's OK.
If it's a referral (allowed by the sites), your only point will be degrading use. You can always object to it.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 10:44 by FD-regular »

« Reply #28 on: August 10, 2010, 14:23 »
Stuff like this only illustrates why IP laws are complete crap. This business does not sell IP, it sells a service, because quite frankly thats all it really can sell. I've personally talked with people who have worked at several "trad" agencies for the last 20 years, and they actually agree and understand what I'm talking about. As the world becomes more digitized, IP laws become exposed more and more for the complete ridiculousness that they are.

Now this is sort of an odd statement.  Perhaps you can elaborate a bit more.

Sure thing. This business is isn't about rights, its about convenience. The original concept behind stock photography wasn't really about trying to save money on assignment shoot costs, it was more about finding images that were already made. In other words, customers were attracted to the model because they didn't have to wait weeks for a shoot to turn around, they didn't have to worry about how the images would turn out or if the photographer was a total PITA to work with, etc... They could find exactly what they wanted, and obtain it overnight if needed, and they could even talk to real humans at the agency who knew the collection well enough to help locate the desired types of shots.

Those are all services, they have absolutely nothing to do with IP laws, and this is where 99% of all micro agencies have screwed up.

I know how much istock contributers love to hate the istock back end for submissions, but if you seriously look at the powerful search options of the istock search engine, its no wonder why they are the leader in the business. That search engine is a service, thats what you're really paying for, even though it isn't presented that way when you check out.

Now digital technology has really changed things up, because its akin to a physical store keeping all its merchandise outside in the parking lot with little stickers on everything that says: please don't take me. People here seem to think that because we have IP laws, its a solid enough foundation to build a business model on top of. Right? I mean you can always just "sue your way to profit, right?" HELL NO. For one, its rarely, if ever, profitable to sue for damages over a micro stock image. The amount you'd win probably won't be greater than your legal bills. The best you can do is scare tactics like cease and desist letters, but those are a more formal way of saying, "please stop, I'll loose money taking you to court, which makes it pointless, so hopefully this letter will scare you enough to pay up." If this business wants to survive online, it had better find a more secure way to present the photos being purchased, it also needs to "get with it" on the customer service end of things as well. I've been lampooned a few times over suggestions that agencies be more restrictive on access to their collections. It's fine to disagree, but don't moan and groan with threads like this when all you're stuff is being taken and used and you find yourself with no compensation or profitable legal options.

If you really want to understand the anti IP position in more detail, I really encourage reading or listening to "Against Intellectual Property", its available for free online at the Ludwig von Mises Institute website. It's helped me see this business with a much clearer perspective.


If you have any other questions, please ask, I'll try my best to answer them.

« Reply #29 on: August 10, 2010, 15:04 »
Lol, just listen to the appendix. It contains some examples of questionable USA patents. Lol, hilarious :D 

« Reply #30 on: August 10, 2010, 15:43 »
I dunno.  Sounds like kind of a defeatest attitude.  I don't think you're saying that we shouldn't own and control the rights to our creations, just that the method for doing the controlling is imperfect.

« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2010, 16:04 »
it was pointed out to badstockart by more than 1 person that linking to istock in particular meant increased views but no sales which pushed people down in the search engine and therefore cost the contributor. The links went not long later.

« Reply #32 on: August 10, 2010, 16:21 »
I dunno.  Sounds like kind of a defeatest attitude.  I don't think you're saying that we shouldn't own and control the rights to our creations, just that the method for doing the controlling is imperfect.

I would argue its more of a "realist" attitude. You do own your stuff... that is until you give them away to the world, effectively loosing all control, and thats the big point. When you sell something, you have, at least in the real world, given up your right over whatever it is you sold, especially with intangible products. If this is how the real world operates, why on earth would anyone base a business model on some law that ignores reality? It's like creating a business that sells oxygen because some law was passed saying you have to pay a fee to breath. Do you really think thats a wise investment or smart way to create a business model? I don't, and IP law centric business's suffer from the same situation: they are not based on reality, they are based on unrealistic laws and ideas. This is why I encourage others to check out the more in depth arguments against IP, and then seriously think about the current business models based on IP laws. You really begin to see the leaky holes.

I actually think stock photography has a very bright future, I just see that future differently from others.

« Reply #33 on: August 10, 2010, 16:25 »
Lol, just listen to the appendix. It contains some examples of questionable USA patents. Lol, hilarious :D 

"Force sensitive, sound playing condom .... it could play whistling dixe..... "


« Reply #34 on: August 10, 2010, 16:25 »
Ok, realist then.  But the value of the image is not in the physical 0s and 1s you transfer to someone, but permission to use the image those bits represent.  Just because it can freely be duplicated does not mean it is without value.

« Reply #35 on: August 10, 2010, 18:15 »
Ok, realist then.  But the value of the image is not in the physical 0s and 1s you transfer to someone, but permission to use the image those bits represent.  Just because it can freely be duplicated does not mean it is without value.

You're right, it does have value in the sense that it cost money to produce, but I still don't consider the image itself to be what is up for sale, its the services that lead up to finding that image. In other words, an agencies database of images is what drives people to buy the "search and download" services the agency offers.

A good non stock example of this attitude in real world practice is with musicians who actually give away one of their songs, but make their profit from live concert ticket sales where they perform all the other songs they have created. They are taking an approach where the music isn't whats for sale, its the concert that is for sale and songs are merely a driving force to get them to attend. Yes, they still need to protect their songs however they can, and it is important, but they have had the "a ha!" moment of realization about what they can sell that can't be easily duplicated: a great live concert experience.

It's not very easy duplicating the service aspect of a quality stock photography agency, so I can't stress how important it is to sell that, but also at the same time be more protective of the images those services lead up to, because once they are released, you no longer have true control over them, even if IP laws do exist.

« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2010, 18:54 »
There is no real control over most things that can be easily duplicated, especially if the duplicate is lossless.

« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2010, 01:10 »
It will be a sad day when societies stop attempting to protect IP. I'll have to go to school to learn what I'm interested in instead of buying VTs from Gnomon or Lynda.com. Books will stop being published since the pdfs are so easily found online. And, as you say, good music will only be available live. Pity if your favourite musician lives in another country.

« Reply #38 on: August 12, 2010, 02:25 »
To revert to the topic (sorry), I just had 2 shots on Awkward. Pretty awkward if I may say so. One of those almost never sold (well maybe 5 times over all).
I'll report later if they got any extra sales at ShutterStock. It's just an experiment.

« Reply #39 on: August 12, 2010, 03:13 »
someone may had already got an idea to establish an stock agency awkwardstockphoto.com, target on weird, crazy, silly photos, it may be profitable.


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
Last post September 18, 2006, 21:23
by maunger
10 Replies
Last post June 10, 2008, 22:40
by helix7
2 Replies
Last post July 21, 2013, 15:53
by stockastic
5 Replies
Last post August 02, 2013, 20:28
by luissantos84
26 Replies
Last post November 26, 2018, 01:53
by Chichikov


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle