MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: gavin on June 11, 2019, 09:52
-
Hi everybody!
I recently had the pleasure of chatting with Alexandre Rotenberg (Brasilnut) who directed me to this forum. He suggested I should ask for your feedback, so here goes:
Currently there isn’t an online visual dictionary that is very good, so I aim to (maybe foolishly) change that. I assume that (most of) you are familiar with the concept of a visual dictionary, but in short it allows you to find the name of things you only know what they look like, or vice versa it allows you to find the image of things you only know what they are called.
The initial target audience is schools/students, parents with young children and refugees/immigrants. But basically it’s anyone who wants or needs to learn a language, or just curious people, like myself, that want to know what stuff is called.
One of the key aspects of a visual dictionary, you guessed it, is images. Without images the whole concept is silly. So in order to make this platform a reality I need a few thousand of them. Any respectable paper visual dictionary has at least 6000 images, so that is sort of my reference. I started searching for images on free stock sites, and while there is a lot of content available, I found there’s also a lot I can’t find. For what I could not find on free stock sites I turned to Google images. But just grabbing images from Google is a can of worms and could potentially be harmful in terms of copyrighted content. The last thing I want is to get sued for unauthorized usage of copyrighted material, so that is not an option. There are currently images on the platform that I will need to, and going to replace before I run into any legal problems.
I could try to shoot the images I need myself, but that is undoable if I want to launch anything remotely useful this century. Also I would essentially be reinventing the wheel because the image I’m looking for already exists. That leaves only one realistic option, and that is using paid stock images. Within this option, I see 2 possible scenarios:
1) Buy images from a stock site
I looked into several plans offered by different stock sites, but nothing really covers my specific use case. Furthermore, the cost for any customized plan would be crazy high and would not be an option for a website that does not generate any income whatsoever (yet). There would be however a huge pool of material and I think I could cover every term/expression with this material.
2) Buy images directly from stock photographers
This sounds the most appealing because this would eliminate the stock site middleman. Also, I gathered that royalties from these sites are not that great, and I *may* be able to give a better price per used image. There is however a huge ‘but’. Photographers may not want to deal with any hassle of the whole administration process. I haven’t figured out yet how to create a process that is smooth and easy, and I’m pretty sure I can tackle that, but I think that may be a big hurdle.
So what I would to get your honest feedback on:
1) Would you be willing to participate in this platform?
2) What would you consider a fair royalty per used image?
3) What type of licensing would you prefer? I can think of 3 options:
1: single fee at the start of license
2: yearly renewal
3: fee per x amount of views
Ultimately I would like to find a pricing/licensing structure that photographers are comfortable with, and make this platform a reality. I have already started working on it and you can find it at https://pixxionary.com/nl (I'm directing to the Dutch version because it's a bit more complete, but you can switch to English on top of the page).
Looking forward to feedback!
-
Congratulations, interesting project.
The photographers here, we are professionals who move at very low prices. That said, the investment is strong and the project ambitious.
It is a suitable site, but you lack the option to collaborate selflessly, free, with the promotional link to the website, the photographer's portfolio, or simply a voluntary donation of collaboration with the project. You do not need an image that fights for any prize.
I like the project, a lot.
-
So what I would to get your honest feedback on:
1) Would you be willing to participate in this platform?
2) What would you consider a fair royalty per used image?
3) What type of licensing would you prefer? I can think of 3 options:
1: single fee at the start of license
2: yearly renewal
3: fee per x amount of views
1. Sure, a sale is a sale.
2. I license web images on my Photoshelter site for $5. Somewhere around that, or less for bulk.
3. You want RF. Pay it once and be done. You don't want to manage payments on that sort of collection.
-
Apologies for the naive question but i don't got it.
I see something that i don't know it's name, raise phone, "click" search by image, voila!
And vice versa, i write im address bar "word" and select image or video results.
In time perhaps you will also need and videos, no single image can describe e.g. how four stroke engine works.
Eitherway you sound dedicated to the project and i wish you best of luck and success! :)
-
Hi Gavin,
Thanks for the mention and welcome.
I think it's a great idea and cutting out the middlemen is something that we, contributors, can only dream of since we're constantly being taken for a ride with lower and lower royalties (generally speaking).
1. With this scenario in the backdrop, would be great to work with you to further your project.
2. Since the usage is digital and educational...I believe that $1 per image would be fair, assuming the sales are in bulk. For a one-off then $5 is reasonable, as Sean has indicated. I'd be willing to be flexible though and since there is no middle-men, more room to negotiate.
3. Most simple as possible would be welcome. We don't care much for admin as I doubt you do as well. I don't think pay per view is practical either and from looking at my Connect royalties for those, it's too little for us to be interesting (unless you can offer substantially more)
Best of luck with this venture and let's keep in touch!
Alex
-
sounds good ! keep us in touch ;)
-
I don't expect I have much that would be useful for such a dictionary, but I'd be fine with licensing directly - I do that via my own site anyway.
Rather than Royalty Free, you might make it more palatable to get lower prices by having this license be in perpetuity and world wide, but for this dictionary project only (including updated editions over time). So if you decide to get into text books, for example, your cheap license would not cover you. And you couldn't put the images on the cover of Time magazine (if that's still around), and so on.
Lower price for fewer rights. No hassle with views or annual renewal or such - I agree with Sean that you can't realistically handle that sort of admin burden.
I realize there's an element of trust for you to stick to the terms of the license, but that's largely true for the stock agencies too (in that we know they pay lip service to enforcing the IP rules).
-
Congratulations, interesting project.
The photographers here, we are professionals who move at very low prices. That said, the investment is strong and the project ambitious.
It is a suitable site, but you lack the option to collaborate selflessly, free, with the promotional link to the website, the photographer's portfolio, or simply a voluntary donation of collaboration with the project. You do not need an image that fights for any prize.
I like the project, a lot.
Thank you for your kind words Tenebroso! If I understand you correctly you'd like to see an option where photographers can donate material in exchange for a link to their portfolio, right? This is true, there isn't an option like that, yet, but this is something that I could easily build in though.
-
So what I would to get your honest feedback on:
1) Would you be willing to participate in this platform?
2) What would you consider a fair royalty per used image?
3) What type of licensing would you prefer? I can think of 3 options:
1: single fee at the start of license
2: yearly renewal
3: fee per x amount of views
1. Sure, a sale is a sale.
2. I license web images on my Photoshelter site for $5. Somewhere around that, or less for bulk.
3. You want RF. Pay it once and be done. You don't want to manage payments on that sort of collection.
Thanks for your feedback Sean! Just checked your work, awesome stuff!!
-
Apologies for the naive question but i don't got it.
I see something that i don't know it's name, raise phone, "click" search by image, voila!
And vice versa, i write im address bar "word" and select image or video results.
In time perhaps you will also need and videos, no single image can describe e.g. how four stroke engine works.
Eitherway you sound dedicated to the project and i wish you best of luck and success! :)
Thanks georgep7!
You're right, you could just make a picture of something, do an imagesearch and you'll probably get the correct name. And vice versa you could indeed just type in a name and select image or video results. The thing is that Pixxionary is not an image search engine but so much more. There's context, related images, translations, (in the future) videos to show how stuff works or is used. Really, the goal is that it's so much more than just search for an image or a name, but that's probably version 3.0 or even 4.0. :-)
-
Hi Gavin,
Thanks for the mention and welcome.
I think it's a great idea and cutting out the middlemen is something that we, contributors, can only dream of since we're constantly being taken for a ride with lower and lower royalties (generally speaking).
1. With this scenario in the backdrop, would be great to work with you to further your project.
2. Since the usage is digital and educational...I believe that $1 per image would be fair, assuming the sales are in bulk. For a one-off then $5 is reasonable, as Sean has indicated. I'd be willing to be flexible though and since there is no middle-men, more room to negotiate.
3. Most simple as possible would be welcome. We don't care much for admin as I doubt you do as well. I don't think pay per view is practical either and from looking at my Connect royalties for those, it's too little for us to be interesting (unless you can offer substantially more)
Best of luck with this venture and let's keep in touch!
Alex
Thank you so much Alex! We're definitely staying in touch!
-
I think this is an interesting idea, but the first question that rises to my head is : how would we photographers provide the images? Most of us (like me) do not have their stock images on a personal website for sale, only at the stock agencies. How would you choose?
-
1. I'm in, the project looks interesting.
2. I agree with the previous proposals, $ 1 per image if purchased in a group and $ 5 per single.
3. RF
-
I think this is an interesting idea, but the first question that rises to my head is : how would we photographers provide the images? Most of us (like me) do not have their stock images on a personal website for sale, only at the stock agencies. How would you choose?
Hi Anyka,
Thank you for your reply! Actually this is the exact thing I was thinking about and I have thought of the following solution:
- photographers that want to offer their images provide me with their info and links to their content at the stock agency website(s)
- when I'm looking for images I go through the content at the agency website and collect whatever I need
- I then send the images to the photographer so he/she can provide me with the actual material
- payment follows
The process could probably be simplified further, but in a nutshell this is the idea. Would something like this work?
PS: Nederlands?
-
Hi Anyka,
Thank you for your reply! Actually this is the exact thing I was thinking about and I have thought of the following solution:
- photographers that want to offer their images provide me with their info and links to their content at the stock agency website(s)
- when I'm looking for images I go through the content at the agency website and collect whatever I need
- I then send the images to the photographer so he/she can provide me with the actual material
- payment follows
The process could probably be simplified further, but in a nutshell this is the idea. Would something like this work?
PS: Nederlands?
Yes, you're right, that would be the only way to do it. However, I think that would be against the rules of many stock agencies ?
P.S.: Ja inderdaad, ik ben Nederlandstalig en woon in Antwerpen
-
Hi Anyka,
Thank you for your reply! Actually this is the exact thing I was thinking about and I have thought of the following solution:
- photographers that want to offer their images provide me with their info and links to their content at the stock agency website(s)
- when I'm looking for images I go through the content at the agency website and collect whatever I need
- I then send the images to the photographer so he/she can provide me with the actual material
- payment follows
The process could probably be simplified further, but in a nutshell this is the idea. Would something like this work?
PS: Nederlands?
Yes, you're right, that would be the only way to do it. However, I think that would be against the rules of many stock agencies ?
P.S.: Ja inderdaad, ik ben Nederlandstalig en woon in Antwerpen
I have no idea how these agreements with agencies work, but (I think) unless a photographer has made an exclusive deal with an agency there would not be any violation of the agreement. I mean, photographers can sell the same images through agency x and y, right? Or for instance they can sell the same images through their own website, right?
Or do agencies penalize photographers for selling content directly to customers? I would think not.
Or do you mean with 'against the rules' this: "when I'm looking for images I go through the content at the agency website and collect whatever I need", because with this I mean that I make an inventory of the images I would like to use. I would not be 'taking' anything literally.
-
Hi Anyka,
Thank you for your reply! Actually this is the exact thing I was thinking about and I have thought of the following solution:
- photographers that want to offer their images provide me with their info and links to their content at the stock agency website(s)
- when I'm looking for images I go through the content at the agency website and collect whatever I need
- I then send the images to the photographer so he/she can provide me with the actual material
- payment follows
The process could probably be simplified further, but in a nutshell this is the idea. Would something like this work?
PS: Nederlands?
Yes, you're right, that would be the only way to do it. However, I think that would be against the rules of many stock agencies ?
I think it's fine as it's a public profile / link. Nothing confidential there.
Alternatively, you could email your subscribers with a list of types of images you're looking for and request them to send low resolution files which you can shortlist.
-
Alternatively, you could email your subscribers with a list of types of images you're looking for and request them to send low resolution files which you can shortlist.
Exactly my thought Alex! But I was thinking more along the lines of publishing a list of what I need on the Pixxionary website and asking photographers for their input/low res images.
Basically the same ;-)
-
Hi Gavin, sounds like a wonderful project. Be very interested innfollwiing your progress.
The solution you have of browsing portfolios and then contacted individuals directly sounds a win win for everybody apart from the agency. As a newbie it’s clear to me that agencies are not concerned about contributors so we have to work with the opportunities that present them selves.
Small but growing portfolio and would be keen to work with you. Also happy to try and shoot to order if you have gaps in your requirements.
-
Nice project, best to you and your success.
As I see the question, you are looking for illustrations and probably items and subjects, not the kind of art or concept images that most of us are producing already, I'd say $5 an image, for someone to create a shot for you, is fair to both. There aren't many illustrative one item images on the stock sites, that would be visual dictionary kind of material?
I don't know why a Shutterstock subscription wouldn't work for you, by the month. You could also come here and say what you are looking for and we could upload. Sure I'm only getting a sub sale, but you would have any of us interested, creating for what you need. Those who want to donate would also create and upload, make it entertaining, MSG competition.
And by all means, links to an artists portfolio or website as a payment would be attractive.
-
Nice project, best to you and your success.
As I see the question, you are looking for illustrations and probably items and subjects, not the kind of art or concept images that most of us are producing already, I'd say $5 an image, for someone to create a shot for you, is fair to both. There aren't many illustrative one item images on the stock sites, that would be visual dictionary kind of material?
I don't know why a Shutterstock subscription wouldn't work for you, by the month. You could also come here and say what you are looking for and we could upload. Sure I'm only getting a sub sale, but you would have any of us interested, creating for what you need. Those who want to donate would also create and upload, make it entertaining, MSG competition.
And by all means, links to an artists portfolio or website as a payment would be attractive.
Hi Uncle Pete, thanks for your reply!
A monthly ShutterStock subscription would be just too expensive. Not sure what the actual cost would be but I reckon at least 1000-2000. For a website that is not generating any income, and no outlook on income in the near future it's just impossible (for me) to commit to a monthly recurring fee that high.
"There aren't many illustrative one item images on the stock sites, that would be visual dictionary kind of material?"
I disagree, there *are* a lot of single item images on stock sites. But I'm actually not looking for (isolated), single object images anymore because, while they look nice on a website with a white background, they provide little to no context. I prefer images where the context tells you more about for instance the size of something, or usage.
"And by all means, links to an artists portfolio or website as a payment would be attractive."
Best case scenario, Pixxionary will be seen by many eyes in the world (I like to dream big ;-)) so I think it's useful for photographers to have their link on the image page. But is this amongst photographers generally seen as an attractive option? Let's say we opt for links to portfolios as payment, and some time later Pixxionary becomes successful and generates income, wouldn't people feel like 'this guy is doing well because I and others submitted our images and all we got was a link to our portfolios'?
-
Hi Gavin,
Not sure if you also need illustrations, but I can also provide you with vector images from my portfolio for a single payment per image ($5) or in bulk ($1 per image). (Also Dutch, by the way, so payment in € is possible, via invoice.)
Let me know if you want illustrations and I'll pm you my portfolio.
-
With all this Bait being tossed. ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS.
-
Explain more about payment. You said “- payment follows”
Does payment follow immediately after download, or months later? Payment should actually happen when the image is downloaded, like on the agencies.
-
OP... you can count me out. Unforunately I do this for a living and need to turn a profit. Use creative commons if you want free. Seriously, the royalties we already get are pathetic enough, let alone running around sourcing and researching for images on your behalf for a few pennies. Not to be a joykill or anything, but photos cost money to produce, and researching for the images takes time.
-
With all this Bait being tossed. ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS.
Hi oscarcwilliams, thanks for your reply!
Not sure if I understand, could you please explain what you mean?
-
@OP: have you tried Alamy? The prices on the file pages are scary for your purposes, but I haven't had a rack rate sale for years. You'd have to have a look there: I think you could probably find most of what you need there if you want photos, but not if you want illustrations. Then contact their sales people, tell them how many images you want and negotiate a deal. That would be a one-off deal, you wouldn't need to take out a monthly subscription. Some of the fees I've received on Alamy have been really low, and 6k is a substantial bulk buy.
-
Hi everybody!
I recently had the pleasure of chatting with Alexandre Rotenberg (Brasilnut) who directed me to this forum. He suggested I should ask for your feedback, so here goes:
Currently there isn’t an online visual dictionary that is very good, so I aim to (maybe foolishly) change that. I assume that (most of) you are familiar with the concept of a visual dictionary, but in short it allows you to find the name of things you only know what they look like, or vice versa it allows you to find the image of things you only know what they are called.
The initial target audience is schools/students, parents with young children and refugees/immigrants. But basically it’s anyone who wants or needs to learn a language, or just curious people, like myself, that want to know what stuff is called.
One of the key aspects of a visual dictionary, you guessed it, is images. Without images the whole concept is silly. So in order to make this platform a reality I need a few thousand of them. Any respectable paper visual dictionary has at least 6000 images, so that is sort of my reference. I started searching for images on free stock sites, and while there is a lot of content available, I found there’s also a lot I can’t find. For what I could not find on free stock sites I turned to Google images. But just grabbing images from Google is a can of worms and could potentially be harmful in terms of copyrighted content. The last thing I want is to get sued for unauthorized usage of copyrighted material, so that is not an option. There are currently images on the platform that I will need to, and going to replace before I run into any legal problems.
I could try to shoot the images I need myself, but that is undoable if I want to launch anything remotely useful this century. Also I would essentially be reinventing the wheel because the image I’m looking for already exists. That leaves only one realistic option, and that is using paid stock images. Within this option, I see 2 possible scenarios:
1) Buy images from a stock site
I looked into several plans offered by different stock sites, but nothing really covers my specific use case. Furthermore, the cost for any customized plan would be crazy high and would not be an option for a website that does not generate any income whatsoever (yet). There would be however a huge pool of material and I think I could cover every term/expression with this material.
2) Buy images directly from stock photographers
This sounds the most appealing because this would eliminate the stock site middleman. Also, I gathered that royalties from these sites are not that great, and I *may* be able to give a better price per used image. There is however a huge ‘but’. Photographers may not want to deal with any hassle of the whole administration process. I haven’t figured out yet how to create a process that is smooth and easy, and I’m pretty sure I can tackle that, but I think that may be a big hurdle.
So what I would to get your honest feedback on:
1) Would you be willing to participate in this platform?
2) What would you consider a fair royalty per used image?
3) What type of licensing would you prefer? I can think of 3 options:
1: single fee at the start of license
2: yearly renewal
3: fee per x amount of views
Ultimately I would like to find a pricing/licensing structure that photographers are comfortable with, and make this platform a reality. I have already started working on it and you can find it at https://pixxionary.com/nl (https://pixxionary.com/nl) (I'm directing to the Dutch version because it's a bit more complete, but you can switch to English on top of the page).
Looking forward to feedback!
Hi Gavin, thanks for trying to work directly with the artist, it's much appreciated.
I license directly to the buyer from my site: https://www.microstockman.com/thpstock-direct/ (https://www.microstockman.com/thpstock-direct/) for as little as $3 per image. PM me if you want to buy bulk and I can supply a discount code to help out.
https://www.microstockman.com/stock-photos/ (https://www.microstockman.com/stock-photos/)
-
OP... you can count me out. Unforunately I do this for a living and need to turn a profit. Use creative commons if you want free. Seriously, the royalties we already get are pathetic enough, let alone running around sourcing and researching for you for a few pennies. Not to be a joykill or anything, but photos cost money to produce.
Hi Clair, thank you for your reply!
I fail to see where I said anything about 'running around sourcing and researching for me'. The way I see it, is that you guys all have content portfolios that may or may not contain material that can be used on the site. Participating does not mean anything more than letting me know where to find your material so I can look through it to see if there's content that I can use, and if so I would like to pay you a fair fee for it. What a fair fee is, is something I'm trying to find out by asking you all what you consider a fair fee.
I don't want anyone to 'work for me' for peanuts and I'm certainly not asking for that. But if that's how my post is being perceived I may need to formulate it differently then.
-
Explain more about payment. You said “- payment follows”
Does payment follow immediately after download, or months later? Payment should actually happen when the image is downloaded, like on the agencies.
Hi cathyslife,
Yes, ideally payment would follow instantly. However, you are talking about agencies, which I am not one of. To build instant payment functionality similar to the agencies, that have invested a lot of money and manpower in their application, is way more difficult and time consuming for a one man operation. I'm sure there's ready made solutions available, but still you have to build all the functionality into the platform, and that is not my focus right now.
Of course I have thought about how to do payments, but to be completely transparent, the idea of buying content directly from the photographers just came to me 2 days ago and I have not had any time to think everything through or iron out every possible issue. I'm ironing as we go ;-)
I need to get back to you on that.
-
@OP: for those who have direct sales channels, like Photoshelter, that's one thing.
For the rest, yes you could have a link to our ports at agencies and let us know which you'd like, but then we'd need to source them from our own hard drives, which takes time - some of us are no doubt better organised than others (in my case, my files are across several HDs), then resize them and package them off to you with a custom licence, ditto.
So for some people it may be practical to offer them to you for a lowish price, for others not so much.
-
OP... you can count me out. Unforunately I do this for a living and need to turn a profit. Use creative commons if you want free. Seriously, the royalties we already get are pathetic enough, let alone running around sourcing and researching for you for a few pennies. Not to be a joykill or anything, but photos cost money to produce.
Hi Clair, thank you for your reply!
I fail to see where I said anything about 'running around sourcing and researching for me'. The way I see it, is that you guys all have content portfolios that may or may not contain material that can be used on the site. Participating does not mean anything more than letting me know where to find your material so I can look through it to see if there's content that I can use, and if so I would like to pay you a fair fee for it. What a fair fee is, is something I'm trying to find out by asking you all what you consider a fair fee.
I don't want anyone to 'work for me' for peanuts and I'm certainly not asking for that. But if that's how my post is being perceived I may need to formulate it differently then.
Let's presume I send you a link to my portfolio... then you find 10 images you want for lets say $2.50. Now i have to go and find those images on approximately 10 external hard drives and search (sourcing and researching) for those images from thousands of images = time, lots of time. I am very organized with my content, but it's simply not worth my time to search for $25.00. You can easily get paid images for as low as 0.27 per image on a subscription plan which you don't even want to pay for.
Go creative commons if you want free, otherwise you are asking a lot from photographers.
-
You can also buy them from Picfair, photographers keep 100% of the price they've set, and website adds 20% on top of that for the final price.
https://www.picfair.com/?rcs=z5pmaws (https://www.picfair.com/?rcs=z5pmaws)
-
OP... you can count me out. Unforunately I do this for a living and need to turn a profit. Use creative commons if you want free. Seriously, the royalties we already get are pathetic enough, let alone running around sourcing and researching for you for a few pennies. Not to be a joykill or anything, but photos cost money to produce.
Hi Clair, thank you for your reply!
I fail to see where I said anything about 'running around sourcing and researching for me'. The way I see it, is that you guys all have content portfolios that may or may not contain material that can be used on the site. Participating does not mean anything more than letting me know where to find your material so I can look through it to see if there's content that I can use, and if so I would like to pay you a fair fee for it. What a fair fee is, is something I'm trying to find out by asking you all what you consider a fair fee.
I don't want anyone to 'work for me' for peanuts and I'm certainly not asking for that. But if that's how my post is being perceived I may need to formulate it differently then.
Let's presume I send you a link to my portfolio... then you find 10 images you want for lets say $2.50. Now i have to go and find those images on approximately 10 external hard drives and search (sourcing and researching) for those images from thousands of images = time, lots of time. I am very organized with my content, but it's simply not worth my time to search for $25.00. You can easily get paid images for as low as 0.27 per image on a subscription plan which you don't even want to pay for.
Go creative commons if you want free, otherwise you are asking a lot from photographers.
"You can easily get paid images for as low as 0.27 per image on a subscription plan which you don't even want to pay for."
If it was a one time fee I would gladly pay up. But this is per month!
"Go creative commons if you want free, otherwise you are asking a lot from photographers."
I never asked for free stuff and I'm not asking for anything else from photographers than their feedback. I'm trying to learn and gain insight into your world. If feedback tells me the plan I have is not feasible, and I need to let it go, I will. But for that I need info, that's all.
-
OP explained what he is doing and why, and then asked if people are willing to help out, and at what cost. People have responded with cost, and OP seems fine with it. No need to attack him, or get mad.
-
"You can easily get paid images for as low as 0.27 per image on a subscription plan which you don't even want to pay for."
If it was a one time fee I would gladly pay up. But this is per month!
No, it's not.
With each of the big agencies (e.g. Shutterstock or Adobe Stock) subscription plans you pay monthly for your subscription as long as the plan runs.
You can buy only one month, so only one payment. Or you can buy a yearly plan, so 12 monthly payments.
With each of these plans you can download a given number of images per month. Those images come with an RF license, so you can use them permanently without further payments.
What Shutterstock shows me right now on their homepage (here in Germany, prices may differ for different locations) is e.g. a yearly plan for 750 images per month for €159 per month.
You get 9000 images for less then €2000.
-
"You can easily get paid images for as low as 0.27 per image on a subscription plan which you don't even want to pay for."
If it was a one time fee I would gladly pay up. But this is per month!
No, it's not.
With each of the big agencies (e.g. Shutterstock or Adobe Stock) subscription plans you pay monthly for your subscription as long as the plan runs.
You can buy only one month, so only one payment. Or you can buy a yearly plan, so 12 monthly payments.
With each of these plans you can download a given number of images per month. Those images come with an RF license, so you can use them permanently without further payments.
What Shutterstock shows me right now on their homepage (here in Germany, prices may differ for different locations) is e.g. a yearly plan for 750 images per month for €159 per month.
You get 9000 images for less then €2000.
Ok, I'll probably sound very dumb but I find their pricing scheme confusing. So if I understand correctly it means that if I for instance decide to sign up for a 750 images monthly plan and only subscribe for 1 month, I can download 750 images and I can keep using them after that? To be honest I thought it meant that you have access to those 750 images for $159, but to keep access you need to pay the fee each month :-[
-
"You can easily get paid images for as low as 0.27 per image on a subscription plan which you don't even want to pay for."
If it was a one time fee I would gladly pay up. But this is per month!
No, it's not.
With each of the big agencies (e.g. Shutterstock or Adobe Stock) subscription plans you pay monthly for your subscription as long as the plan runs.
You can buy only one month, so only one payment. Or you can buy a yearly plan, so 12 monthly payments.
With each of these plans you can download a given number of images per month. Those images come with an RF license, so you can use them permanently without further payments.
What Shutterstock shows me right now on their homepage (here in Germany, prices may differ for different locations) is e.g. a yearly plan for 750 images per month for €159 per month.
You get 9000 images for less then €2000.
Ok, I'll probably sound very dumb but I find their pricing scheme confusing. So if I understand correctly it means that if I for instance decide to sign up for a 750 images monthly plan and only subscribe for 1 month, I can download 750 images and I can keep using them after that? To be honest I thought it meant that you have access to those 750 images for $159, but to keep access you need to pay the fee each month :-[
You can keep on using them. You only pay as long as you want to keep on downloading (new) images.
Yes, it's true. We as photographers get some cents for an RF license that entitles the buyer to use the image forever. That's what the market today is.
-
So if I understand correctly it means that if I for instance decide to sign up for a 750 images monthly plan and only subscribe for 1 month, I can download 750 images and I can keep using them after that? To be honest I thought it meant that you have access to those 750 images for $159, but to keep access you need to pay the fee each month :-[
Nope. You have it correct now. For that $159, you have 750 images that you can use forever, without paying another dime -- assuming you use it within the limits of the license you paid for. (Each license has some limits -- just read the fine print so you don't use it for situations not licensed)
This is why I have not piped in before now. You can get them SO CHEAP from the agencies that I figured you were trying to game the system and really get from us free. That's about the only price you could get that cost you less than the agencies (since buying direct would require the costs of admin of a payment system).
-
SS would actually be losing money on that deal since they'd have to pay between 187.50$ (0.25$ per image) and 292.50$ (0.39$ per image) to contributors for each of these 750 images.
-
This is why I have not piped in before now. You can get them SO CHEAP from the agencies that I figured you were trying to game the system and really get from us free.
Same here.
Gavin, maybe this new-to-you information will help you understand why so many folks here appear (and are!) a bit hostile to the "great new ideas" that both stock agencies and individuals routinely offer us. Once burned, twice or thrice wary.
-
"You can easily get paid images for as low as 0.27 per image on a subscription plan which you don't even want to pay for."
If it was a one time fee I would gladly pay up. But this is per month!
No, it's not.
With each of the big agencies (e.g. Shutterstock or Adobe Stock) subscription plans you pay monthly for your subscription as long as the plan runs.
You can buy only one month, so only one payment. Or you can buy a yearly plan, so 12 monthly payments.
With each of these plans you can download a given number of images per month. Those images come with an RF license, so you can use them permanently without further payments.
What Shutterstock shows me right now on their homepage (here in Germany, prices may differ for different locations) is e.g. a yearly plan for 750 images per month for €159 per month.
You get 9000 images for less then €2000.
Ok, I'll probably sound very dumb but I find their pricing scheme confusing. So if I understand correctly it means that if I for instance decide to sign up for a 750 images monthly plan and only subscribe for 1 month, I can download 750 images and I can keep using them after that? To be honest I thought it meant that you have access to those 750 images for $159, but to keep access you need to pay the fee each month :-[
You can keep on using them. You only pay as long as you want to keep on downloading (new) images.
Yes, it's true. We as photographers get some cents for an RF license that entitles the buyer to use the image forever. That's what the market today is.
Dirkr, thank you for making me look really stupid! ;)
I was under the impression that if I needed 6000 images I would need a monthly subscription of 8 x $159 (or 1 x $1272), and that I would need to renew the subscription each month to keep access to the images. Now that I write it down like this, this doesn't sound logical, at all. But that's how I interpreted it. I also must admit that apparently I did not fully understand what 'royalty free' exactly means. I do now.
Part of the confusion came from that I somehow found it hard to believe that buying images could be that cheap. The last time I needed a stock image (a really long time ago) I believe we paid something like $350 or similar, now it's only $0,27!! I think you guys deserve way more than that :(
-
SS would actually be losing money on that deal since they'd have to pay between 187.50$ (0.25$ per image) and 292.50$ (0.39$ per image) to contributors for each of these 750 images.
I don't believe you mean "for each of those 750 images." Don't you mean "for each of those sets of 750 images"?
Or am I missing something???
-
I also must admit that apparently I did not fully understand what 'royalty free' exactly means. I do now.
You're definitely not the only one who gets confused over that. Some people interpret it as: "no need to pay for anything you want if you find it online."
Part of the confusion came from that I somehow found it hard to believe that buying images could be that cheap.
A whole lot of us find that hard to believe too. >:(
-
"You can easily get paid images for as low as 0.27 per image on a subscription plan which you don't even want to pay for."
If it was a one time fee I would gladly pay up. But this is per month!
No, it's not.
With each of the big agencies (e.g. Shutterstock or Adobe Stock) subscription plans you pay monthly for your subscription as long as the plan runs.
You can buy only one month, so only one payment. Or you can buy a yearly plan, so 12 monthly payments.
With each of these plans you can download a given number of images per month. Those images come with an RF license, so you can use them permanently without further payments.
What Shutterstock shows me right now on their homepage (here in Germany, prices may differ for different locations) is e.g. a yearly plan for 750 images per month for €159 per month.
You get 9000 images for less then €2000.
Ok, I'll probably sound very dumb but I find their pricing scheme confusing. So if I understand correctly it means that if I for instance decide to sign up for a 750 images monthly plan and only subscribe for 1 month, I can download 750 images and I can keep using them after that? To be honest I thought it meant that you have access to those 750 images for $159, but to keep access you need to pay the fee each month :-[
You can keep on using them. You only pay as long as you want to keep on downloading (new) images.
Yes, it's true. We as photographers get some cents for an RF license that entitles the buyer to use the image forever. That's what the market today is.
That sucks >:(
-
This is why I have not piped in before now. You can get them SO CHEAP from the agencies that I figured you were trying to game the system and really get from us free.
Same here.
Gavin, maybe this new-to-you information will help you understand why so many folks here appear (and are!) a bit hostile to the "great new ideas" that both stock agencies and individuals routinely offer us. Once burned, twice or thrice wary.
Yes, I do understand it better now. But really, I was genuinely trying to find a structure that everyone would feel comfortable with.
-
This is why I have not piped in before now. You can get them SO CHEAP from the agencies that I figured you were trying to game the system and really get from us free.
Same here.
Gavin, maybe this new-to-you information will help you understand why so many folks here appear (and are!) a bit hostile to the "great new ideas" that both stock agencies and individuals routinely offer us. Once burned, twice or thrice wary.
Yes, I do understand it better now. But really, I was genuinely trying to find a structure that everyone would feel comfortable with.
I think we all understand that now and wish you well, especially since you've been a patient and respectful correspondent throughout this thread. :)
I specialize in North American nature: birds, other critters, scenics, etc. Not sure if you're interested in those subjects but if so, I'd have no fundamental problem providing images to you for a comparable fee to what I'd get from the stock sites.
And since my portfolio is well organized and not terribly huge, it would not take me long to dig out any specific image that you might want.
-
This is why I have not piped in before now. You can get them SO CHEAP from the agencies that I figured you were trying to game the system and really get from us free.
Same here.
Gavin, maybe this new-to-you information will help you understand why so many folks here appear (and are!) a bit hostile to the "great new ideas" that both stock agencies and individuals routinely offer us. Once burned, twice or thrice wary.
Yes, I do understand it better now. But really, I was genuinely trying to find a structure that everyone would feel comfortable with.
You understand it better now, I bet you do. You understand how the agencies can exploit us so much, because we had a buyer on the hook, started at $5 per image, dropped it to $1 and ended up recommending an agency, which will give us $0.38 at the most. Good luck with your project and don't forget to get the discount most agencies offer to new customers.
-
This is why I have not piped in before now. You can get them SO CHEAP from the agencies that I figured you were trying to game the system and really get from us free.
Same here.
Gavin, maybe this new-to-you information will help you understand why so many folks here appear (and are!) a bit hostile to the "great new ideas" that both stock agencies and individuals routinely offer us. Once burned, twice or thrice wary.
Yes, I do understand it better now. But really, I was genuinely trying to find a structure that everyone would feel comfortable with.
I think we all understand that now and wish you well, especially since you've been a patient and respectful correspondent throughout this thread. :)
I specialize in North American nature: birds, other critters, scenics, etc. Not sure if you're interested in those subjects but if so, I'd have no fundamental problem providing images to you for a comparable fee to what I'd get from the stock sites.
And since my portfolio is well organized and not terribly huge, it would not take me terribly long to dig out any specific image that you might want.
I feel bad for saying this but SS now looks like a no brainer, but you already figured that ;) And actually your material sounds very interesting, so I may take you up on your offer.
I'm thinking that what I can do to somehow give back to the community is to make sure that the images I'm going to use have a link back to the photographer's website or portfolio. Idea?
Thank you for your kind words.
-
I'm thinking that what I can do to somehow give back to the community is to make sure that the images I'm going to use have a link back to the photographer's website or portfolio. Idea?
For sure, nobody would object to that!
If you're able to obtain your images through SS, that would be the easiest route for me and everyone else here. Fishing out the images isn't a problem for me, but knowing I'd be securely paid by you might be. Going through SS erases that concern for everyone here.
-
I am on shutterstock, if you want to have a look-see. Link to my portfolio in my signature. Click on the SS icon (the red square).
-
The name of the photographer, and the link below the name, will give prestige to the web towards google for the quality of outgoing links to quality websites, will give recognition to the photographers, and will assure you that if any free image is actually Stolen, know where that fraudulent free image comes from, in addition to better image and seriousness to the project. Also explore, the donation of images disinterestedly, on your website.
-
And be very careful with the free images on the web. Some images may not be free if they are in business. It is understood as a business, a website with advertising, for example.
-
I'm thinking that what I can do to somehow give back to the community is to make sure that the images I'm going to use have a link back to the photographer's website or portfolio. Idea?
The best you will be able to do is to link to the photographers' SS portfolio. SS does not provide the link to the original photog's website, for obvious reasons of wanting to keep you locked into buying through SS.
A link back to the SS source from which you obtained the image would certainly be appreciated though -- both from SS and from the photographer who provided the media.
-
….
"And by all means, links to an artists portfolio or website as a payment would be attractive."
Best case scenario, Pixxionary will be seen by many eyes in the world (I like to dream big ;-)) so I think it's useful for photographers to have their link on the image page. But is this amongst photographers generally seen as an attractive option? ...
from time immemorial (ie, 1995) offers of massive exposure in return for free images just leaves an unpaid photographer exposed to the elements. links dont make sales, and these days most independent sites can't compete with google searches that direct traffic to the agencies
-
from time immemorial (ie, 1995) offers of massive exposure in return for free images just leaves an unpaid photographer exposed to the elements. links dont make sales, and these days most independent sites can't compete with google searches that direct traffic to the agencies
Thanks for clarifying what is google. And also, clarify that the links do not feed the families. No wonder this is a jungle of rival comrades. I do not know exactly what you want to say when you tell the world how big Google is and how little a link is worth. We return to the beginning, download SS and close the thread.
-
SS would actually be losing money on that deal since they'd have to pay between 187.50$ (0.25$ per image) and 292.50$ (0.39$ per image) to contributors for each of these 750 images.
I don't believe you mean "for each of those 750 images." Don't you mean "for each of those sets of 750 images"?
Or am I missing something???
Yes sorry I meant each of these sets, for this project
-
Gavin,
I had preferred to sell some images directly to you and leave out SS but I'd also be happy to have sales via SS and links to my port from your site. You might want to have a look into my port, there's a lot of isolated objects that could be useful (actually, duden.de, a german online dictionary uses some of them). Also a lot of vectors, btw.
Cheers
http://www.shutterstock.com/g/eyewave?rid=82089 (http://www.shutterstock.com/g/eyewave?rid=82089)
-
Just to clarify the licensing restrictions agencies impose (and it varies by agency so you need to read carefully), many - but not Shutterstock any more, unless I missed something - require that you use an image during the term of your subscription in order to have perpetual rights to use it. Some used to specifically prohibit stockpiling - which is what people are suggesting you should do. Stockpiling is downloading images you don't use right away to save them for later. Here's what earlier Shutterstock licenses used to contain in the restrictions section:
"Stockpile or otherwise store downloaded Images that are not used within twelve (12) months of the date on which you first downloaded such Image (the “Usage Period”). If you fail to use an Image within the Usage Period, you lose all rights to use that Image. Upon the expiration of the Usage Period, you will destroy all copies of Images in your possession that were not used during the Usage Period except for those copies you retain in the normal course of your record keeping."
The other thing to note is that you'd have to take 8 months to download 6k images with a 750-per-month subscription - you can't pay extra to download more images right away (at subscription prices)
As noted somewhere above, Shutterstock would be losing money paying 38 cents a download (I know not everyone makes that, but the odds are that the images downloaded will be from portfolios that sell well and are thus at the higher royalty rate). I'm really surprised that they removed the stockpiling exclusion from the subscription license terms
-
I think he'd be ok though. Stockpiling for 6 months while paying, and then putting them all online for the project would be fine.
-
SS would actually be losing money on that deal since they'd have to pay between 187.50$ (0.25$ per image) and 292.50$ (0.39$ per image) to contributors for each of these 750 images.
Bummer. ;)
-
fwiw, anti-stockpiling rules are silly & easily hacked -- all you'd need to do is load them into a very rough prototype
-
as an example of the poor returns from links...
while not directly applicable, here are recent stats from my ebay acct - items are shown to people based on search terms, thus already more likely to click
in last month
about 50 items promoted
413,801 impressions
442 clicks
7 sales
the good part is you only pay a small fee when an item is sold
-
Stockpiling is downloading images you don't use right away to save them for later
I have not heard of this term, but this is also not my intention. I plan to just keep adding images on a daily basis to the platform.
The other thing to note is that you'd have to take 8 months to download 6k images with a 750-per-month subscription - you can't pay extra to download more images right away (at subscription prices)
Actually 'only' 750 downloads per month is a good thing. It's a lot to process for just one person, so I'm pretty ok with 8 months to get to 6K :)
-
"Stockpile or otherwise store downloaded Images that are not used within twelve (12) months of the date on which you first downloaded such Image (the “Usage Period”). If you fail to use an Image within the Usage Period, you lose all rights to use that Image. Upon the expiration of the Usage Period, you will destroy all copies of Images in your possession that were not used during the Usage Period except for those copies you retain in the normal course of your record keeping."
The thing I'm curious about is: how would they know you are stockpiling? I mean, I don't believe you need to share with SS where, how or when you're going to use the images (not sure though).
-
The thing I'm curious about is: how would they know you are stockpiling? I mean, I don't believe you need to share with SS where, how or when you're going to use the images (not sure though).
They wouldn't know for sure, but they have a lot of data about typical patterns of downloads over 15 years in business. They have tracked various misbehavior - buying rings trying to boost royalty levels for example - by looking at which portfolio(s) buyer purchases from. Back when they used to give contributors raises, they'd raise the subscription prices and watch download patterns over a couple of months. Raises for contributors would follow once they saw how subscribers behaved.
As far as I know, all the subscription sites work on the assumption that buyers never download their full allowance of images. That's why they can pay me more per subscription download than the theoretical price per image. It was even easier for them to make out when they had the 25-a-day version of the 750 images a month subscription (that was scrapped a few years ago; 2015 I think). If someone does download their entire allowance, repeatedly, it would be easy to see with whatever data tracking they're using.
The explicit language forbidding this is gone from Shutterstock's license, but you'd have to check other sites to see if they have a prohibition.
-
This is why I have not piped in before now. You can get them SO CHEAP from the agencies that I figured you were trying to game the system and really get from us free.
Same here.
Gavin, maybe this new-to-you information will help you understand why so many folks here appear (and are!) a bit hostile to the "great new ideas" that both stock agencies and individuals routinely offer us. Once burned, twice or thrice wary.
Yes, I do understand it better now. But really, I was genuinely trying to find a structure that everyone would feel comfortable with.
I think we all understand that now and wish you well, especially since you've been a patient and respectful correspondent throughout this thread. :)
I specialize in North American nature: birds, other critters, scenics, etc. Not sure if you're interested in those subjects but if so, I'd have no fundamental problem providing images to you for a comparable fee to what I'd get from the stock sites.
And since my portfolio is well organized and not terribly huge, it would not take me terribly long to dig out any specific image that you might want.
I feel bad for saying this but SS now looks like a no brainer, but you already figured that ;) And actually your material sounds very interesting, so I may take you up on your offer.
I'm thinking that what I can do to somehow give back to the community is to make sure that the images I'm going to use have a link back to the photographer's website or portfolio. Idea?
Thank you for your kind words.
A backlink would be awesome, its nice of you to think about it.
http://www.shutterstock.com/g/thp?rid=580903 (http://www.shutterstock.com/g/thp?rid=580903) - my portfolio on Shutterstock if you're interested, about 6,000 images & videos online.
All the best with the project.
-
Hi people,
as promised, I have worked on making sure the photographers get a link to their portfolio (for now only ShutterStock). It's really basic and it's probably going to change a bit, but basically this is the idea:
The 'endpoint' for a term:
https://pixxionary.com/term/35347/teacher
An overview of all the photographers of whom the stock images have been used:
https://pixxionary.com/contributors
If you can't see either of these you probably need to switch to 'English' on top of the page. Also note that I have only just listed a few names; this is going to change of course. It's a lot of (extra) work but I would like to make sure in the end everybody is listed properly.
As I said in previous posts I would like to give back to the community and this is how I can somehow contribute. I think you guys need more recognition for the work that you do, and that you are way too undervalued.
I'll be back ;-)
-
Hi people,
as promised, I have worked on making sure the photographers get a link to their portfolio (for now only ShutterStock). It's really basic and it's probably going to change a bit, but basically this is the idea:
The 'endpoint' for a term:
https://pixxionary.com/term/35347/teacher
An overview of all the photographers of whom the stock images have been used:
https://pixxionary.com/contributors
If you can't see either of these you probably need to switch to 'English' on top of the page. Also note that I have only just listed a few names; this is going to change of course. It's a lot of (extra) work but I would like to make sure in the end everybody is listed properly.
As I said in previous posts I would like to give back to the community and this is how I can somehow contribute. I think you guys need more recognition for the work that you do, and that you are way too undervalued.
I'll be back ;-)
That's a very nice way to do it. I'm impressed with your sincerity and willingness to do the right thing.
Good luck with pixxionary!
-
Thank you
-
Explain more about payment. You said “- payment follows”
Does payment follow immediately after download, or months later? Payment should actually happen when the image is downloaded, like on the agencies.
Completely agree. This is a great concept, hope there's a way to make it work!
-
Hi people,
as promised, I have worked on making sure the photographers get a link to their portfolio (for now only ShutterStock). It's really basic and it's probably going to change a bit, but basically this is the idea:
The 'endpoint' for a term:
https://pixxionary.com/term/35347/teacher
An overview of all the photographers of whom the stock images have been used:
https://pixxionary.com/contributors
If you can't see either of these you probably need to switch to 'English' on top of the page. Also note that I have only just listed a few names; this is going to change of course. It's a lot of (extra) work but I would like to make sure in the end everybody is listed properly.
As I said in previous posts I would like to give back to the community and this is how I can somehow contribute. I think you guys need more recognition for the work that you do, and that you are way too undervalued.
I'll be back ;-)
Appreciate your efforts to help contributors!