Author Topic: Yay “streaming” also letting customers download unlimited images for 9.90 (Read 6968 times)

BD · « **on:** March 05, 2014, 15:00 »

Here is the streaming - Unlimited images for 9.90 a month: http://yayimages.com/

And if you go to "pricing" here https://yayimages.com/pricing?backUrl=%2F for the streaming and see the asterisk next to "online use only" for streaming it says "You can download and upload an image for online use if the service you use don't support adding images by url." So someone could buy the "streaming" and then download a bunch of images (its unlimited, right)? What's to stop them from using those images anywhere as many times as they want? How is it "streaming" if they are downloading and uploading? This is all for 9.90? Am I missing something?

EmberMike · « **Reply #1 on:** March 05, 2014, 15:20 »

So glad I'm not on that site...

Ariene · « **Reply #2 on:** March 05, 2014, 15:21 »

"Unlimited Online Images for $9.90"

Is that the (fast) future of microstock world? $:-\$
The worst nightmare just came true...

if yes...

Quote from: EmberMike on March 05, 2014, 15:20

So glad I'm not on that site...

so soon I'll be glad not to be on any microsite.

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #3 on:** March 05, 2014, 15:24 »

Why anyone has their work at Yay is beyond me. "Desperate's deal with Desperate's" I guess.

dirkr · « **Reply #4 on:** March 11, 2014, 07:45 »

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on March 05, 2014, 15:24

Why anyone has their work at Yay is beyond me.

Maybe because you can opt out of that deal?

cobalt · « **Reply #5 on:** March 11, 2014, 07:58 »

You have a better chance of making money with their stream than with the Getty viewer.

But this is probably a model for what is coming next. The spotify model is reaching the stock industry.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #6 on:** March 11, 2014, 08:00 »

"streaming" photos for 10 bucks ?

to me it smells as a desperate move before going bankrupt.
the other third tier agencies will probably follow suit.

cobalt · « **Reply #7 on:** March 11, 2014, 08:14 »

More desperate than the free images from Getty?

I don´t know much about yay, but I am sure this will be their most successful product this year. Others will try it too.

Because it is just like netflix and spotify, the consumer already knows what to expect and how it works.

Of course the artists are not supporting it, which is why they have less than 5 million files, just like colorbox.

People keep talking about how the artists are just a stupid mass of 100 000 people desperate for exposure, but if you look at the upload streams, you see how fast they react to changes in their income.

No money, no uploads.

Red Dove · « **Reply #8 on:** March 11, 2014, 09:32 »

I quit the lower tiers (apart from BS) in 2012. Most are what I call "zombie" businesses. Still up and walking around but getting thinner and stinkier by the day.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #9 on:** March 11, 2014, 09:44 »

Quote from: cobalt on March 11, 2014, 07:58

You have a better chance of making money with their stream than with the Getty viewer.

But this is probably a model for what is coming next. The spotify model is reaching the stock industry.

Possibly, but we don't have to help by continuing to place our content with agencies that pursue these policies that are negative (at best) for contributors. An opt out (or better an opt in) helps, but as we saw with iStock and the partner program, for example, sometimes opt outs go away.

Two options for contributors, one much easier than the other: 1) stop adding new content and 2) pull portfolio.

Withholding new content is a reasonable way to get an agency's attention without making such a huge dent in our income in the short run. For subscriptions or streaming, new content is important to the agency even if they have a ton of good stuff still there - people don't renew subscriptions if they don't see new content on a regular basis (it was one of the big complaints of photos.com subscribers that led Jupiter Images to put StockXpert content onto photos.com)

With deals that might put the earning power of images elsewhere at risk (like the Getty/Google train wreck) or when there's no opt out, then removing the portfolio is the only way to get an agency's attention. They don't care about any of us individually but if the big factories were all that mattered to buyers none of the rest of us would be making any money - and a lot of us are.

It is true that it's harder now than it was a few years ago to get the agencies to respond to contributor isuses - the agencies are bigger and they feel the balance of power has shifted - but harder doesn't mean impossible.

And just because an agency is "not worse than Getty" doesn't mean they're OK. Getty is the low water mark in terms of crappy agency-contributor relations, IMO.

MarcvsTvllivs · « **Reply #10 on:** March 11, 2014, 09:55 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 11, 2014, 09:44

Quote from: cobalt on March 11, 2014, 07:58
You have a better chance of making money with their stream than with the Getty viewer.

But this is probably a model for what is coming next. The spotify model is reaching the stock industry.

Possibly, but we don't have to help by continuing to place our content with agencies that pursue these policies that are negative (at best) for contributors. An opt out (or better an opt in) helps, but as we saw with iStock and the partner program, for example, sometimes opt outs go away.

Two options for contributors, one much easier than the other: 1) stop adding new content and 2) pull portfolio.

Withholding new content is a reasonable way to get an agency's attention without making such a huge dent in our income in the short run. For subscriptions or streaming, new content is important to the agency even if they have a ton of good stuff still there - people don't renew subscriptions if they don't see new content on a regular basis (it was one of the big complaints of photos.com subscribers that led Jupiter Images to put StockXpert content onto photos.com)

With deals that might put the earning power of images elsewhere at risk (like the Getty/Google train wreck) or when there's no opt out, then removing the portfolio is the only way to get an agency's attention. They don't care about any of us individually but if the big factories were all that mattered to buyers none of the rest of us would be making any money - and a lot of us are.

It is true that it's harder now than it was a few years ago to get the agencies to respond to contributor isuses - the agencies are bigger and they feel the balance of power has shifted - but harder doesn't mean impossible.

And just because an agency is "not worse than Getty" doesn't mean they're OK. Getty is the low water mark in terms of crappy agency-contributor relations, IMO.

It's not like I don't agree with you but the "dent" from losing Yay as an income source should really be more of a scratch for most of us. If even.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #11 on:** March 11, 2014, 10:33 »

Not just a heart I thought it was worth repeating.

Quote from: EmberMike on March 05, 2014, 15:20

So glad I'm not on that site...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Yay “streaming” also letting customers download unlimited images for 9.90 (Read 6968 times)

BD

EmberMike

Ariene

stock-will-eat-itself

dirkr

cobalt

Hobostocker

cobalt

Red Dove

Jo Ann Snover

MarcvsTvllivs

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors