I don't know if anyone else has seen this but if you have and if your work is on this site Graphic Stock, I personally ask that you remove your work before the industry is completely destroyed! At what point are contributors going to come together and say enough already?

Graphic Stock is giving away unlimited photos for seven days with unlimited usage. Having been a graphic designer in the past for a media company I would simply go there and download for seven days straight and would have enough content to last for a long time, maybe even years if it was a well thought out download.

If this continues down this path stock photography will eventually all be free with sites making money from advertising which means practically no payout for any contributor.

Is there a law suit here? I thought I learned in school that this would be considered dumping and therefore driving down prices and illegal?

What bothered me about this site is that it is being promoted by Kelbyone. Kelby has been very successful and if he is behind it, that could be bad news for the industry. They certainly have a budget for advertising so its concerning.

I don't know what they were charging before and even though they only have 300K images its more than enough for small media companies who are looking to save money on content. I believe the majority of buyers of stock are small media companies.

I don't think this will make a dent in the microstock industry....
Probably a lot of creatives in third world countries that can not afford to buy from the top ones, because the dollar sometimes is like 4 x their own currency might be benefiting from this type of deal...

What bothered me about this site is that it is being promoted by Kelbyone. Kelby has been very successful and if he is behind it, that could be bad news for the industry. They certainly have a budget for advertising so its concerning.

I don't know what they were charging before and even though they only have 300K images its more than enough for small media companies who are looking to save money on content. I believe the majority of buyers of stock are small media companies.

Hi pixel8, just want to clarify some of your concerns here. (For context, our sister agency is VideoBlocks, hence my profile image.) First, GraphicStock's free trial, which is offered through certain partners, does not allow unlimited downloads. (That would be silly!) We allow up to 20 downloads per day for 7 days. Most of our customers pay $99 per year for full access to the library.

Each of our contributors is paid thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars for licensing rights to their work. And we're non-exclusive, so contributors can continue selling and distributing their work elsewhere. The model seems to work well for the contributors we work with!

Ok I can respect that, a promo. I was under the assumption that when it said download anything you want it meant as much as you want as well. My mistake, I do apologize for that. However $99 per year for full access to the library that in itself sounds bad for contributors. Can you tell us how many downloads that entails and what kind of compensation a contributor receives in return?

What bothered me about this site is that it is being promoted by Kelbyone. Kelby has been very successful and if he is behind it, that could be bad news for the industry. They certainly have a budget for advertising so its concerning....

Kelby One lost me (and I dropped my NAPP membership) when they started promoting Fotolia's toxic Dollar Photo Club (and being a shameless shill for anything Adobe did versus a voice for users). I have them pegged, rightly or wrongly, as an outfit that will do anything for a buck.

Not saying it makes their promotion of this free site any better, but just that they've been taking the low road for a while now...

And this is whole problem. Artists have to give up all control of their work, GraphicStock can do what they like. In most industries people try desperately to differentiate their products and not be thought of as providing a commodity, look at milk farmers and apple producers.

When you sell your whole portfolio like this you are actively commodifying your work. Especially when they only buy your whole portfolio as is, you can't let them have only the work that is worth $15 for unlimited usage. It is absolutely nuts. Anyone who thinks they will be doing this long/ medium term would be crazy to do this.

that's Scott Kelby, whadiya expect? he wants to make money just like a lot of other people. He doesn't want to be left out of the 1%. also, once your photo is in the media be it stock or anything else it's gonna be used by someone for free, thinkaboutit.
or -  dig deep, discover a process, attitude, point of view that is your soul and work it. fff focus fusion follow thru.  otherwise you're on the 21st century assembly line for any vector or straight photographic product.    a rose is a rose is a rose. unless you reveal another lens.  work hard and never give up.  leave the whining and bitching to someone else.

Look at the russian women, they know how to do it.

Just to add to it, I got an email from them last week and I couldn't believe my eyes, they are giving away for free thousands of images just to attract customers and they do not care about contributors as they make money on subscriptions, this is insane. And the same owners have videoblocks, that's why I gave up on submitting videos as it works the same way. Thousands of videos given away almost for free in subscription mode plus another part of videos that must be paid separately. Video contributors were approached and attracted by big money, they agreed to sell all portfolios for substantial amount to video blocks and get rid of all the rights. Now, videblocks owns the huge library of videos that are given away almost for free ( subscription is very cheap)so, the company makes lots of money but at the same time it cuts the branch on which contributors sit, which is wicked and wrong. This is a model to get rich quickly for the owners and contributors are getting less and less. I have no idea if the second option when the contributors get paid 100% is really working for contributors, but if a customer needs to buy a video with beautiful mountains and he has an option to get the video for free, he would be foolish to pay for the one that has high price. So, this website is truly destroying stock industry, it' should be stopped and forbidden. Is any shop giving away products for free? Do you get free milk, free bread, free wine in any shop? Or do you get a big box of milk for 2 pennies if you pay 20 pounds for a year in advance? This is crazy and unacceptable for all contributors. At least, I see it this way.

as i allready wrote in another thread: they have a lot of money

"Everybody else is trying to sell by the drink," says Carter Griffin of Updata Partners, a Washington, D.C.-based venture capital firm that invested $10 million in Video Blocks at the end of 2011. "Joel has a different and better business model."

so they buy resell licenses and also full rights. absolutely not good for the industrie. also they have to sell a lot before the investor get his money back. you now can have a 1 year subscription for only dollar 49.

we will see if this business will last.