Hmmm, different than the direct link from their site at http://www.dreamstime.com/free-photos Two different DT sites.

Now I remember, it's a "freemium site. Announced in April, 2013 -

Stockfreeimages brings a significant exposure to Dreamstime's contributors and a very large part of the designers using SFI become Dreamstime customers too. A vast majority of them are new to stock photography and are customers who wouldn't purchase otherwise. By giving them a free product we also educate them about what stock photography represents and move them away of unsafe sources, where they may be facing legal risks and contributors are not compensated.

Given the large collection available and being committed to provide an equitable deal, we launch today a subscription pilot program where SFI becomes a freemium platform. After an initial free startup (10 free downloads), the web resolution will remain free for all visitors, while high resolution files will be available subscription-based only. Members opting for paid access will also benefit from attractive discounts on Dreamstime packages, the discount depending on the plan selected. The licenses granted for the images are Limited Royalty Free RF-LL for all images downloaded free of any charge (web resolution) and standard Royalty Free for paid images. The major difference between the two is related to the number of copies allowed: 10,000 for RF-LL and 500,000 for RF.

Plans begin at $15 (1 week & 10 downloads/day) and the royalties are $0.10 (non exclusives) and $0.12 (exclusive images or exclusive contributors). Of course, these royalties refer only to images available on SFI and do not interfere with Dreamstime's royalties.

The project will remain separate of Dreamstime but all sales will be reported in contributors' accounts on Dreamstime. For now you will see them on your earnings page along with DT sales but as of next week, we will add a separate earnings page to list all sales made via Stockfreeimages. Participation will be possible only through Dreamstime's initial screening (meaning you can't upload directly there). Contributors can either submit images after 4 years of no sales or donate images if they fail current submission but meet some minimum requirements. There is no minimum-online limit, anyone who wants to remove an image can do so from their Dreamstime account at any time (removal is permanent though).

We're hoping this will bring extra revenue, increased volume and will strengthen Dreamstime's position as an innovative leader in stock photography. Image donations still matter for enhanced exposure and traffic-wise and with this change, we're hoping they'll count even more. You made it happen, thank you for believing in the free section. Donations do pay off.

I think that "enhanced exposure" means that there is a credit line for each free image that directs a buyer to the port of that photographer (or illustrator) on the main site. Supposedly if one likes a style they can click through to the paid site to see what else that contributor has to offer that is not free. Go to any image there and you will see that it shows additional non-free images for each free image from the photog and offers numerous click-thrus to direct them to become a real buyer.

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 12, 2014, 18:34

Quote from: tickstock on March 12, 2014, 18:26

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 12, 2014, 18:10

Quote from: tickstock on March 12, 2014, 17:58

Quote from: mlwinphoto on March 12, 2014, 17:47

Quote from: tickstock on March 12, 2014, 15:49

I asked the question because I don't think Getty is known as the company who used predatory pricing to gain market share...snip

Read what you just wrote....if they weren't known before as a company who used predatory pricing to gain market share they sure are now....free is pretty cheap, don't ya think?  And, it is being done to gain market share.

It's not really free

They're charging people now?

It's not free in the same way that sites offer a free image of the week for example.  There are lots of restrictions attached to the images.  Most importantly they have to be used in the embed player but they can't be used for commercial purposes, they can have ads placed over top of them or maybe even in place of them, they aren't guaranteed to be there the next day.  It's a very restrictive 'free' use.  I'm sure you can see the difference between this program and what most agencies say free images.  One place that comes to mind is dreamstime's free offering http://www.stockfreeimages.com/

They're not charging people to use them. Therefor they're free. All agencies place restrictions...that's what licensing is. But they charge money for the usage, so they're not free.

And of course, iStock gives away free images as well. Odd that you'd use Dreamstime as your reference.

I'm not saying iStock isn't giving free images away (one per week and given by the contributor), the reason I chose Dreamstime is that there are almost no restrictions when compared to the normal RF license and these images are large size too.  There is a real fundamental difference between this kind of free use and the Embed free use.  Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the Getty program but this is different.

How can I use your images?

Once you download our images, you are granted a Royalty Free license to use them. This is a single-seat license. This license allows you to use the images downloaded on web sites, magazines, newspapers, books or booklets, for book covers, flyers, application software programs (apps), to make fine art prints or any other advertising and promotional material, in either printed or electronic media, as long as the item in which the image appears does not contradict any of the restrictions below. The list is not exhaustive and if you have any uncertainty regarding the use of the images in a correct way please contact support

This may have been covered in some of the verbiage above, but bears emphasis - a significant difference with the Dreamstime free image program is that contributors have a choice whether or not to participate, and can do so on a per image basis.

I have put images that don't sell anywhere into the free program.  I can disable them from it at any time.  I don't know if I have benefited from extra exposure or not, but AFAIK it never seemed to have a detrimental effect on my sales.   

Quote from: lisafx on March 12, 2014, 22:14

This may have been covered in some of the verbiage above, but bears emphasis - a significant difference with the Dreamstime free image program is that contributors have a choice whether or not to participate, and can do so on a per image basis.

I have put images that don't sell anywhere into the free program.  I can disable them from it at any time.  I don't know if I have benefited from extra exposure or not, but AFAIK it never seemed to have a detrimental effect on my sales.

I understand, this got a bit off topic but the point I was trying to make was that there is a huge difference between the free images from the Embed program and what most people think of when they think free images (like the Dreamstime program or free images of the week, etc..) that grant nearly full RF rights. 

About the Dreamstime program I thought people were getting images put in there because they were automatically opted in:  http://www.microstockgroup.com/dreamstime-com/what-is-the-default-action/msg328016/#msg328016 but it really is a little off topic.

For a long time, Getty has claimed to be the "leading source of free images" http://www.sxc.hu/  (Yes, that's sxc "from Getty").
At least it is trying to promote iStock (and it looks as if it hasn't been updated for years). I suspect DT copied that since early on, when StockXpert was in business, Serban was dead against giving away content.

And you are now discussing DT and FT because tickstock steers the discussion off topic when its about IS or Getty

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 12, 2014, 18:27

There's also a mind-boggling quote from the ethix.org article about trust - not that I disagree with what's written, but I have a hard time squaring that with the behavior of the company:

"This brings up an interesting point about ethics. Our unusual industry is based on trust. For example, a photographer comes and signs a contract with us. We take the photographer�s images that we want and contract to market them, agreeing to pay part of what we will get if someone uses the image. We send the photographer a monthly report which says how the image was used and what money was paid. But the photographer relies entirely on us. They don�t really know if People Magazine paid us eighty bucks or eight hundred for their image. It is based on trust."

With endless refund of purchases, PP "over" payments, bugs in RC calculations, non real time reports.
I have no reason to trust Getty.

"It's a new kind of trust"

Now that the initial excitement has worn off, writers are starting to consider the implications of embedding:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/03/getty-images-allows-free-embedding-cost-privacy

That word needs to get out as quickly as possible, so that privacy-conscious readers will ask sites not to do it.

Quote from: Ron on March 13, 2014, 02:03

Free is free, Getty calls it free. Restricted use for free, is still free. No matter how you twist it.

You don't really believe that do you?  Getty has had all it's images available for a long time for free, as in free comp images.  If you think free is free no matter what then this new program hasn't changed anything has it?

Where you allowed to publish free comprehensive images on a website?

You are the master of twisting and turning words. I'll leave it at that*.


*Note to self: stop replying to tickstock's comments

.

.

.