MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: creativemarket.com Any thoughts ?  (Read 34493 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2014, 19:09 »
0
...
 be concerned about the photos that show brand names and protected designs that can't be licensed commercially. They could offer an editorial license to make this work, but it seems the photo section has no one ensuring that the work is safe for a buyer to license....they just don't know enough about licensing photos.
wow, Embermike pro; Jo Ann against.
so touching on the IP infringement, who gets sued if the clients published their contributors images
with brand names,etc as a commercial?  is there a waiver of responsibility by CM that it is the contributors who will face the charges???
we know about IP and MR, but many newbies are clueless to this. i know , because i met
even many of these ppl on other social media who said, "why IPR, MR??? huh??"
we can't blame them, as i am sure many of us in our initial days did the same thing.

but the agency should know better, right? and as Jo Ann points out, it is a big flag of "incompetence"... esp if you are the one dealing with licenses. just wondering.

otoh, as EMike says, it sounds good. but not if one day someone comes after you with a writ.


« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2014, 19:21 »
+1
Just a few months ago they were acquired by Autodesk. Here is the article: http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/19/autodesk-buys-creative-market-jumping-into-maker-marketplace/

If true (and Techcrunch is pretty reliable) then this is interesting news indeed. Something akin maybe to news that Adobe bought Dreamstime.

"Part of the interest in Autodesk came from the fact that the bigger company was looking to develop more consumer-focused offerings for the maker movement."

By 'maker' I take it that they mean something like 'indie creatives' i.e. us.

A lot of people here may not know much about Autodesk if they don't use Maya or 3DS Max, but Autodesk is a big power in graphics: AutoCAD is like the serious big-brother of Adobe Illustrator, and for people who (as I do) use Max, Autodesk is seen as a more serious player in graphics than Adobe in some ways. Autodesk software is used in lots of feature films, and it is more serious and less buggy than what Adobe puts out.

If Autodesk owns Creative Market that puts a whole different slant on submitting there and raises a lot of questions:  Will CM one day start selling 3D models, or maybe HDR and EXR photos, or other file formats which no microstockers sell now?

This could turn out to mean new markets for us.

« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2014, 21:24 »
0
...but the agency should know better, right? and as Jo Ann points out, it is a big flag of "incompetence"... esp if you are the one dealing with licenses. just wondering.

otoh, as EMike says, it sounds good. but not if one day someone comes after you with a writ.

I think "incompetence" is a bit harsh. Every agency has had companies come down on them demanding that they stop licensing images that contain something they have trademarked or otherwise protected. Most of the time the agencies weren't aware that they were violating anyone's rights/trademarks/copyrights/etc until they were told so. I'm not saying that Creative Market should be given a free pass to sell whatever they want just because they haven't been told what they can't sell yet. But I also think it's unfair to call them incompetent for simply making the same mistake everyone else made.

If you're in the know about what you can and can't sell, you don't have to worry about anyone coming after you. And again I go back to a comment I made earlier about how I don't think it should matter so much what other people are doing on CM, and that influencing someone else's decision to sign up or not. So there are some images in the collection that shouldn't be licensed RF. So what. Did anyone here refuse to sell on Shutterstock back when there were images of trademarked car designs or protected landmarks?

I don't get why Creative Market is being held to some higher standard than any place else, not just on the issue of unsuitable RF images but on other points as well, to the extent that people don't want to work with them just because of what a small number of other people are selling on the site.

« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2014, 22:40 »
+1
People ignored micro stock for a long time because it was small and new - there wasn't a lot of money at stake. Lawyers come calling more when the money is there

There is no "we're new" free pass now as crowd sourced content - the maker movement - is over a decade old. New entrants learn from the mistakes of the pioneers

I'm not so much opposing Mike as putting another viewpoint. He's not a photographer and I'm not an illustrator. We both have something to add to the discussion

If you were to build a Pinto now, you couldn't defend yourself against the lawsuits over gas tanks exploding by saying you didn't know. You need to get up to speed with the state of the business now, not start from zero each time

I care about the business as a whole, not just what I do, because if I invest time and energy to get my work there, that can be for naught if the business is shuttered over legal issues. Not to mention that I think things like this will deter business customers. They'll worry about the legal safety of licensing there

« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2014, 22:48 »
0
Mike , perharps u r right, "incompetence" a bit harsh, for lack of a better word  ;)
Jo Ann is right, a lot of hard work can go down the drain if one law suit comes along , when it looks like there is $$$$ to squeeze from CM, and the photographer.
as an illustrator, perharps, u r not so affected.
but still, if CM is so up to your approval, it would be to both their interest and yours,
to let them know, the need to stay abreast with licencing. or else, your time to build a portfolio
with CM could all be for naught, by one legal oversight. as they say, the law is ammoral and
negligence is not an excuse.

« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2014, 23:40 »
+1
Just a few months ago they were acquired by Autodesk. Here is the article: http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/19/autodesk-buys-creative-market-jumping-into-maker-marketplace/

If true (and Techcrunch is pretty reliable) then this is interesting news indeed. Something akin maybe to news that Adobe bought Dreamstime.


It was carried in a number of publications:

http://www.zdnet.com/autodesk-adds-indie-design-startup-creative-market-to-toolset-7000027486/
http://venturebeat.com/2014/03/19/autodesk-snaps-up-stock-design-marketplace-creative-market-site-will-live-on/
http://www.poststat.us/creative-market-acquired-autodesk/

The licensing discussion in the Post Status blog is also interesting. I wasn't aware of the Gnu Public Licensing issue for WordPress theme sellers but Creative Market switched to that for WordPress themes to get some of the sellers they lost to come back. I think if they have understood that one of their product types needs a different license from their Simple License, it's not a very big step to understand that they need something different for photos as well.

If Photos end up to Creative Market what PhotoDune is to Envato - second fiddle to their main business - I don't think I'd even see if CM would have me. I stick with PhotoDune because I'm there and it does earn, albeit at a low and not growing level. Their bread and butter is the other marketplaces.

I also read an older article by the guy who founded Creative Marketplace - advice to people doing what he does

http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/28/the-art-of-raising-seed-youre-either-hot-or-you-make-your-own-heat/

For anyone who hadn't a clue what YC was (I didn't):

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/magazine/y-combinator-silicon-valleys-start-up-machine.html
« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 00:14 by Jo Ann Snover »

« Reply #31 on: July 26, 2014, 09:34 »
+2
Personally, I think that if the worst thing about Creative Market is their lack of IPTC, that's still a win by comparison to what we typically have to deal with around here lately.

Well, I got accepted ( :) ), so I'll take a longer look at it next week.

« Reply #32 on: July 26, 2014, 12:48 »
+2
I wrote a post on the Creative Market forum about the legalities of stock photo use and licensing. We'll see what they say.

I don't mean to downplay any licensing issues and legal protections (or lack thereof). If Creative Market is doing something wrong, it should be fixed.

That said, I still do think that they're being judged too harshly for something that many companies, including Shutterstock, still do. In doing some brief research for that forum post I put at CM, I found photos of trademarked buildings like the Pike Place Market also on Shutterstock. Lots of them, actually, and not listed as Editorial, even though the Pike Place Market sign and clock are trademarked. I shouldn't be able to get a commercially-licensed photo of the Eiffel Tower lit up at night (lighting design is protected), but I can grab a bunch of images like that at SS right now. I thought anything shot at Princeton University was trademarked, and SS has a campus photo up for commercial use. And a few of Dartmouth (also supposedly trademarked).

You guys have a problem with it, that's fine. It's a completely valid complaint. But I expect that you'll be directing your concerns to Shutterstock and the other companies you upload to as well if it is so reprehensible to see a company selling photos of trademarked buildings and designs.

« Reply #33 on: July 26, 2014, 12:52 »
0
...."Part of the interest in Autodesk came from the fact that the bigger company was looking to develop more consumer-focused offerings for the maker movement."

By 'maker' I take it that they mean something like 'indie creatives' i.e. us.
....

the 'maker' movement is more specifically the DIY(do it yourself) movement in robotics and 3d printing;  recently it's expanded to include biotech.   Wired has  had many articles covering this over the past few years

« Reply #34 on: July 26, 2014, 12:58 »
+1
I wrote a post on the Creative Market forum about the legalities of stock photo use and licensing. We'll see what they say.

I don't mean to downplay any licensing issues and legal protections (or lack thereof). If Creative Market is doing something wrong, it should be fixed.

That said, I still do think that they're being judged too harshly for something that many companies, including Shutterstock, still do. In doing some brief research for that forum post I put at CM, I found photos of trademarked buildings like the Pike Place Market also on Shutterstock. Lots of them, actually, and not listed as Editorial, even though the Pike Place Market sign and clock are trademarked. I shouldn't be able to get a commercially-licensed photo of the Eiffel Tower lit up at night (lighting design is protected), but I can grab a bunch of images like that at SS right now. I thought anything shot at Princeton University was trademarked, and SS has a campus photo up for commercial use. And a few of Dartmouth (also supposedly trademarked).

You guys have a problem with it, that's fine. It's a completely valid complaint. But I expect that you'll be directing your concerns to Shutterstock and the other companies you upload to as well if it is so reprehensible to see a company selling photos of trademarked buildings and designs.

Mike, point taken!
u r right.
we should not be fighting against each other. instead, we should be looking for new sources or alternatives to Getty, SS,etc.. agencies that make money for us.
as eventually, as IS history teaches us, they will take profit, sell the agency and leave you with the baby and the bath water to hang to dry  >:(

problem is, with always  the new flavours of the month/year/...
they don't live up to the hype.
the other thread says, we need to compete with Stocksy. but really, there is no need to compete
with something that new, without any history.
if you need to compete, or more appropriately, find a viable alternative ...
it is to Getty and Shutterstock.
because these are the ones that have been making money for all of us.

and when the parachute turns concrete, we need another agency to jump to.
as i said, it used to be IS and SS. today, there is no one to come even close to SS.

Shelma1

« Reply #35 on: July 26, 2014, 13:39 »
+1
I tried to apply, but they tell me my invitation's pending even though I didn't fill in any information or supply any links. And the site won't let me reapply.

Kinda annoyed by that.

« Reply #36 on: July 28, 2014, 10:54 »
+3
Their terms for listing content say:
"you expressly grant ... to Creative Market a ... perpetual, irrevocable ... license "

However, I don't see anything in the terms about product removal.  Has anyone contacted them for clarification on how to remove, and what happens when you do remove, content?

eta:  Just tried uploading a file there.  I have to say, there is no way I can work with the upload system as is.  Having to copy and paste the title, description into every image, one by one, as well as having to change all my keyword lists from a semi-colon to a comma, the limited length of title, the keyword (tag) limit of 20, the almost invisible watermark...  There's just no way.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2014, 11:05 by Sean Locke Photography »

« Reply #37 on: July 28, 2014, 11:35 »
0
...there is no way I can work with the upload system as is.  Having to copy and paste the title, description into every image, one by one, as well as having to change all my keyword lists from a semi-colon to a comma, the limited length of title, the keyword (tag) limit of 20, the almost invisible watermark...  There's just no way.

I would contact them about IPTC integration. These guys add new things to the site all the time. They might be receptive to adding IPTC importing functionality.

In the meantime, maybe just add an extra buck to your prices to cover the time spent copying/pasting. If you're uploading stuff that's also on Shutterstock, you can copy keywords from there, their system converts semi-colon-separated keywords to comma-separated.

It's not idea, for sure, but it might be worthwhile to spend an hour with it, upload whatever you think might sell, and see how it goes for a month or two. Hopefully in the meantime they get IPTC importing going. If enough people ask for it, they might add it.

« Reply #38 on: July 28, 2014, 11:43 »
0
...there is no way I can work with the upload system as is.  Having to copy and paste the title, description into every image, one by one, as well as having to change all my keyword lists from a semi-colon to a comma, the limited length of title, the keyword (tag) limit of 20, the almost invisible watermark...  There's just no way.

I would contact them about IPTC integration. These guys add new things to the site all the time. They might be receptive to adding IPTC importing functionality.

In the meantime, maybe just add an extra buck to your prices to cover the time spent copying/pasting. If you're uploading stuff that's also on Shutterstock, you can copy keywords from there, their system converts semi-colon-separated keywords to comma-separated.

It's not idea, for sure, but it might be worthwhile to spend an hour with it, upload whatever you think might sell, and see how it goes for a month or two. Hopefully in the meantime they get IPTC importing going. If enough people ask for it, they might add it.

Not a bad idea. I might have to send them an email too. That was the big thing holding me back from submitting more was the time it took to submit an image.

« Reply #39 on: July 28, 2014, 12:19 »
+1
Just applied will see how it goes. I design a lot of abstract backgrounds so I think it would be a good fit for those.

« Reply #40 on: July 29, 2014, 03:40 »
0
I got the big reject. Swoooooosh!!!!


« Reply #41 on: August 01, 2014, 18:42 »
+1
So after looking around and thinking about this site some more (and noting that the pirated images mentioned in an earlier post had been removed) I decided to give this a try. I only have one item in my store so far!

https://creativemarket.com/JoAnnSnover/63089-Old-fashioned-photo-album

I think I'll upload some layered PSDs of images that were either for personal use or are variants of what I sell for stock (I don't upload anything straight from the camera, so everything is a layered PSD file, but some are not all that interesting to upload that way). As I can't upload PSDs anywhere, this might be a nice add on if buyers are interested.

The uploading process is very much geared around unique items, not mass upload, so I can't imagine having the patience to just stick my stock images up there as is, but (a) they may improve it and (b) it gives me an option to upload something different from any other site.

I'll report back on how things progress (but there'll be a hiatus for a bit as August = vacation :) )


« Reply #42 on: August 02, 2014, 10:11 »
0
...I decided to give this a try...

Looks good, Jo Ann. Best of luck with it!

« Reply #43 on: August 02, 2014, 12:07 »
0
Just applied and got accepted so I'll give it a try and report back. Crazy busy right now and away a lot this month so it may be September before I get much up there.

I was going to concentrate on backgrounds first and see if I can locate the original PSD files for some of them as well.

« Reply #44 on: August 02, 2014, 12:07 »
0
...I decided to give this a try...

Looks good, Jo Ann. Best of luck with it!

Mike, i was waiting for Jo Ann. so, what do you do now? are we supposed to ask for an invitation by clicking the INVITE button on their home site?
do i click Jo Ann's site so she gets the referral?

« Reply #45 on: August 02, 2014, 14:44 »
+1
Mike, i was waiting for Jo Ann. so, what do you do now? are we supposed to ask for an invitation by clicking the INVITE button on their home site?
do i click Jo Ann's site so she gets the referral?

As far as I know, there is no referral program for contributors. Just for referring buyers. So you can just request an invite directly through the site.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #46 on: August 03, 2014, 11:48 »
0
Seems interesting. I've requested an invite.

« Reply #47 on: August 07, 2014, 13:16 »
+2
And I made my first sale there today!  I won't post about them all (let's hope there are lots!) but just thought I'd indicate that the small store (only 8 items in it) had seen a sale (no one I know and I'm pretty hopeless at the promotion stuff :))

« Reply #48 on: August 07, 2014, 13:20 »
0
And I made my first sale there today!  I won't post about them all (let's hope there are lots!) but just thought I'd indicate that the small store (only 8 items in it) had seen a sale (no one I know and I'm pretty hopeless at the promotion stuff :))

not surprising to me.  but it 's good news for both the agency and urself. it also give others here an impetus to give this agency a shot (no pun intended) .

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #49 on: August 08, 2014, 02:13 »
0
"Thanks a lot for letting us know what a great shop owner youd make. Unfortunately, were not ready to open your shop just yet, but keep crafting your great content and we'll let you know when we open the doors a little wider and were able to hold some shop space for you."

Is this what you'd call a rejection or it is a 'not yet, maybe soon' type of thing?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
118 Replies
29705 Views
Last post September 25, 2015, 03:41
by Deyan Georgiev
1 Replies
1452 Views
Last post March 23, 2016, 21:08
by goober
17 Replies
5965 Views
Last post May 09, 2018, 13:19
by TommyBoy
2 Replies
2494 Views
Last post April 13, 2017, 09:20
by Justanotherphotographer
0 Replies
1608 Views
Last post April 10, 2018, 12:25
by Peruphotoart

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results