Author Topic: How does Flickr work for you? (Read 7392 times)

click_click · « **on:** July 15, 2010, 13:29 »

So I'm reading the recent posts about Flickr and obviously there are plenty of people who manage to get work or sales through Flickr (not referring to the Flickr collection from Getty!!!).

I hope some of you successful Flickranians or whatever you call yourselves over there wouldn't mind sharing your secrets of success in order to get endless streams of commissioned works and sales requests

Do you actually upload your entire portfolio (reduced in size and with watermark) to Flickr and that's it?

I have some of my best sellers and subjectively my best work there and in 4 years nobody ever contacted me. I do make a living off of microstock so the images are not lousy.

Please advise.

mtkang · « **Reply #1 on:** July 17, 2010, 10:38 »

i had a flickr account but not 'professional' account (paid account), in free account, your pictures aren't able to be downloaded as full size.

I kind of heard that before images in flickr are under common sharing license something..i am not sure is it by default setting.

click_click · « **Reply #2 on:** July 17, 2010, 11:52 »

Quote from: mtkang on July 17, 2010, 10:38

i had a flickr account but not 'professional' account (paid account), in free account, your pictures aren't able to be downloaded as full size.

I kind of heard that before images in flickr are under common sharing license something..i am not sure is it by default setting.

That's not what I was asking.

I was wondering how photographers approach Flickr in terms what they upload and how much.

Like do you upload your entire Microstock portfolio as well or just a few images?

Are you actively participating in groups etc. contributing images or inviting endless numbers of people as friends...?

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #3 on:** July 17, 2010, 12:31 »

I haven't used Flickr since limitations were placed on my FREE account. But, I have made sales thru there. That is where I got the idea to scan and actively market vintage motorcycle images.

I lost interest when the limitations were applied. It is NOT worth $25 a year.

PS: you should put your original post on DT. Rolmat loves sarcasm.

FD · « **Reply #4 on:** July 17, 2010, 13:14 »

Quote from: click_click on July 17, 2010, 11:52

I was wondering how photographers approach Flickr in terms what they upload and how much. Are you actively participating in groups etc. contributing images or inviting endless numbers of people as friends...?

1. I did 2 years ago, full port, watermarked.

2. My paying account was suddenly terminated without any warning. My guess is (a) the watermarking annoyed the sharers and they reported me for 'commercial use' (not allowed); (b) I had links on every photo to the actual sales site (commercial use).

3. Flickr doesn't really like other (paying stock) sites, I have the impression. But maybe they changed now they decided to team up with Getty. Users hate the watermarks and I got scolded for that a few times.

4. Yes, I heavily participated in groups. It's a feelgood and wow site. It can be very rewarding and you get high exposure by that. On the downside, it eats time. If you don't do that, your photos will drown in the other 2-3 billion.

5. You can set the copyright as you wish: all rights reserved or one of the (worthless) creative common "licenses".

6. I never had anyone contacting me for a sale, but I regularly found blogs and even commercial sites carrying my pictures complete with watermark and all.

Hope this helps. Also check Dan Heller's site: he has some articles about Flickr.

Nevertheless, I started a new account again, but free this time. In that case, you are limited to 200 photos so your port won't fit there.

click_click · « **Reply #5 on:** July 17, 2010, 14:42 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on July 17, 2010, 12:31

I haven't used Flickr since limitations were placed on my FREE account. But, I have made sales thru there. That is where I got the idea to scan and actively market vintage motorcycle images.

I lost interest when the limitations were applied. It is NOT worth $25 a year.

PS: you should put your original post on DT. Rolmat loves sarcasm.

Ok thanks, what limitations are you talking about? I know that Flickr is not a traditional photo hosting site but what is it that had changed for you?

Quote from: FD-regular on July 17, 2010, 13:14

Quote from: click_click on July 17, 2010, 11:52
I was wondering how photographers approach Flickr in terms what they upload and how much. Are you actively participating in groups etc. contributing images or inviting endless numbers of people as friends...?

1. I did 2 years ago, full port, watermarked.

2. My paying account was suddenly terminated without any warning. My guess is (a) the watermarking annoyed the sharers and they reported me for 'commercial use' (not allowed); (b) I had links on every photo to the actual sales site (commercial use).

Wow, I never know that you are not allowed to link to the agencies, not that the watermarking is such a big issue.

Quote

3. Flickr doesn't really like other (paying stock) sites, I have the impression. But maybe they changed now they decided to team up with Getty. Users hate the watermarks and I got scolded for that a few times.

Again, watermarking is totally legit IMO.

Quote

4. Yes, I heavily participated in groups. It's a feelgood and wow site. It can be very rewarding and you get high exposure by that. On the downside, it eats time. If you don't do that, your photos will drown in the other 2-3 billion.

Yeah, I can see that it eats a lot of time to stay "popular". I assume it's somewhat "pimping" your images in all the various groups where then people tell you how great you are.

Quote

5. You can set the copyright as you wish: all rights reserved or one of the (worthless) creative common "licenses".

While the copyright note should say "All rights reserved" I wonder if people really care and respect that. Most likely they still grad a screen shot and paste it into a new file for their own pleasure...

Quote

6. I never had anyone contacting me for a sale, but I regularly found blogs and even commercial sites carrying my pictures complete with watermark and all.

Hope this helps. Also check Dan Heller's site: he has some articles about Flickr.

Nevertheless, I started a new account again, but free this time. In that case, you are limited to 200 photos so your port won't fit there.

Thanks.

lisafx · « **Reply #6 on:** July 17, 2010, 15:05 »

Quote from: FD-regular on July 17, 2010, 13:14

6. I never had anyone contacting me for a sale, but I regularly found blogs and even commercial sites carrying my pictures complete with watermark and all.

^^ Wow. That's all I need to know. Can't imagine why a stock seller would want that.

cathyslife · « **Reply #7 on:** July 18, 2010, 07:02 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 17, 2010, 15:05

^^ Wow. That's all I need to know. Can't imagine why a stock seller would want that.

I can't believe the number of people who are happy to give their work away on flickr. Here's one I just found yesterday:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennkarlsen/3636770708/?addedcomment=1#comment72157624395488341

You can download his image for free in several sizes, the largest being about 4x2.5 at 300dpi, plenty large enough to use in a brochure if one wanted to. It's been heavily filtered but that seems to be the trend nowadays. The kicker is that he says he bought the background image from shutterstock, he didn't even shoot the whole thing himself.

FD · « **Reply #8 on:** July 18, 2010, 08:52 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 17, 2010, 15:05

^^ Wow. That's all I need to know. Can't imagine why a stock seller would want that.

There are advantages. Many occasional image users (like bloggers) don't know about microstock and how easy and cheap it is to buy an image nowadays. Even larger corporations don't. You can at least educate them. The ones that bluntly use your Flickr images do it mostly out of convenience and not with bad intentions. The ones that do wouldn't buy your images anyways and they are "punished" by a watermark that takes them a lot of time to clone out.

The main advantage of Flickr, as I experienced, is social networking in the photography arena. It was a great help to me to settle safely and get connected in Northern Mindanao (totally different culture, dangerous if you're ignorant) around a topic that interests all of you.

I found some amazing photographers the past 2 weeks on Flickr that didn't even hear of microstock. It's a particular situation in a very poor area in the Far East. I'm convinced it's full of talent but they just don't have the resources to develop that talent. If you can team up with those, it can (and it already has) been a win-win in real before. But that might not be an issue in the West.

A third advantage is that you get a tremendous exposure since Flickr is one of the most visited sites in the world, with very good SEO. Three years ago, I was all over Google with my images, by Flickr.
That might not be an issue for big shots like you, that get a lot of exposure by the agencies, but if you are a "regular" with a small port partly in a niche, you need to take every chance you can to push yourself in the limelight.

Everybody experiencing the glass ceiling in his sales by conventional microstock is looking for new business models. I'm eager to know what the "free" thing of Boughn-Arcurs-Avava will be. "Freemium" can be a part of it, I don't know.

That's why I nevertheless reopened an account on Flickr. You'll have to use it wisely. If the bubble of microstock is bursting (for the photogs, not the agencies) you need to be proactive and try... try...

No Longer Cares · « **Reply #9 on:** July 18, 2010, 10:14 »

Quote from: cclapper on July 18, 2010, 07:02

I can't believe the number of people who are happy to give their work away on flickr. Here's one I just found yesterday:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennkarlsen/3636770708/?addedcomment=1#comment72157624395488341

You can download his image for free in several sizes, the largest being about 4x2.5 at 300dpi, plenty large enough to use in a brochure if one wanted to. It's been heavily filtered but that seems to be the trend nowadays. The kicker is that he says he bought the background image from shutterstock, he didn't even shoot the whole thing himself.

He is not giving it away. He has it posted "© All rights reserved.". Some people just like to show off their work. The issue is some others like to steal it. It would be different if he had it listed CC.

Basically, I feel if you are trying to sell it, it needs a watermark. If you are trying to show it off and do not intend to sell it, then he is ok with allowing larger sizes. If people want to take it, they will take it.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #10 on:** July 18, 2010, 11:31 »

I never worried so much about having images stolen at Flickr. That concern came after seeing so many complaints being stolen from our very own Micro Stock sites. I'm sure there must be some reason for concern but what are you supposed to do. We all seek recognition. Where do you get recognition without risk?

I try really hard not to let this upset me. It's sorta like the weather; "We all want to talk about it but who's gonna do anything about it?"

I stopped uploading to Flickr but it was because they pissed me off ... not because any member was abusing my copyright.

As for exposure; I guess I was lucky. I was contacted on several occasions "requesting" the right to use my images -- usually for FREE but at least they asked. And, (big grin) I was recognized.

cathyslife · « **Reply #11 on:** July 18, 2010, 12:33 »

Quote from: Brandon Seidel on July 18, 2010, 10:14

He is not giving it away. He has it posted "© All rights reserved.". Some people just like to show off their work. The issue is some others like to steal it. It would be different if he had it listed CC.

I don't understand why you are saying he is not giving it away. If you click on the "All Sizes" link right above the photo, it takes you to a page where you can download the original size. Anybody can download it in a couple of different sizes...for free. Is that not giving it away? That's not even a case of someone right-clicking on an image and stealing it...that's practically handing it to everybody. And that is all ok if he wants to give away his own work for free. But if he did indeed buy the background, that is someone elses copyright, and has incorporated it into his art and is giving it away, he is redistributing, which is also copyright infringement. No?

If there were no download button, and that is entirely possible to do because I have seen it on many other flickr pages, then the guy would be well within his rights to post the photo on his site and "show it off." It's the allowing of downloading that makes it wrong.

madelaide · « **Reply #12 on:** July 18, 2010, 12:49 »

Quote from: cclapper on July 18, 2010, 07:02

The kicker is that he says he bought the background image from shutterstock, he didn't even shoot the whole thing himself.

Doesn't it fall into the derivative work rule? I think it is a very open concept when to consider the image has been altered enough.

lisafx · « **Reply #13 on:** July 18, 2010, 12:52 »

Quote from: cclapper on July 18, 2010, 12:33

And that is all ok if he wants to give away his own work for free. But if he did indeed buy the background, that is someone elses copyright, and has incorporated it into his art and is giving it away, he is redistributing, which is also copyright infringement. No?

If there were no download button, and that is entirely possible to do because I have seen it on many other flickr pages, then the guy would be well within his rights to post the photo on his site and "show it off." It's the allowing of downloading that makes it wrong.

Completely agree. Also, isn't it a violation of shutterstock's TOS?

cardmaverick · « **Reply #14 on:** July 18, 2010, 20:09 »

You can make Flickr turn into $$$. Some will hate it, just like many hated micro.

sharpshot · « **Reply #15 on:** July 19, 2010, 02:20 »

I am tempted to use flickr for the Getty connection but it would be a different portfolio to my microstock work. I am currently doing that with alamy but my sales have dried up there this year, if it stays like that, I will be looking elsewhere.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How does Flickr work for you? (Read 7392 times)

click_click

mtkang

click_click

WarrenPrice

FD

click_click

lisafx

cathyslife

FD

No Longer Cares

WarrenPrice

cathyslife

madelaide

lisafx

cardmaverick

sharpshot

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors