MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Do you have your own stock site (or sites)?  (Read 7639 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2012, 18:31 »
0
If you do an exhibition and sell multiple time the same picture to different clients, that's still considered RF, and is a breach of exclusivity contract.
No, it's not. It's selling a print, no matter how many prints you sell.
Even if you sold them a digital image that they could print off, it would still be RM so long as you made it clear that there were limits as to what they could do with the digital file - effectively, you'd be selling a Rights Managed license for them to print the file.

Exclusive ASA 2b:
"nothing shall restrict the Supplier from (i) establishing or maintaining a personal portfolio on the Internet where Exclusive Content is posted for the purposes of art display so long as you are not licensing or giving away rights to the Exclusive Content for anything other than such display; or (ii) using Exclusive Content in connection with the sale by Supplier of prints, t-shirts and other merchandise so long as you are not licensing or giving away rights to the Exclusive Content for anything other than such merchandising. "
« Last Edit: December 06, 2012, 19:21 by ShadySue »


ShadySue

« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2012, 18:32 »
0
^^ iS now allows exclusive artist to sell from other sites, as long as the files are completely different.
Nope, only if they're Rights Managed.

« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2012, 19:11 »
0
The main difference between RM (or work for hire) and RF is the the number of buyers per image.
RF is multiple simultaneous buyers per image
RM is one simultanous buyer per image.

If you do an exhibition and sell multiple time the same picture to different clients, that's still considered RF, and is a breach of exclusivity contract. You can still shoot people and sell them their own portrait, that's basically RM and is allowed.

Dude, you really need to do some research.  You're completely incorrect.

Reef

  • astonmars.com
« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2012, 20:25 »
0
Thanks for clarifying this guys.

I've gone ahead and used the Alamy RM EULA (Worldwide) as the basis for my own RM EULA. The only major change I made was to remove the refund policy (defects excluded) but still allow the license to be cancelled. Well, what the heck :)
« Last Edit: December 06, 2012, 20:31 by Reef »

« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2012, 03:48 »
0
Just sell RM photos off your own site with a 1 hour exclusivity clause in the contract.

^^ note I could not find sarcasm font ^^


« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2012, 07:34 »
0
Just sell RM photos off your own site with a 1 hour exclusivity clause in the contract.

^^ note I could not find sarcasm font ^^

RM does not require exclusivity.

« Reply #31 on: December 07, 2012, 09:58 »
0
I temporarily removed my vectors in my site.

I thought I misread the rule at iStock.  ;D

I went to the forum at iS to confirm.



Let's go back to the topic to talk about our site in this thread.  ::)

« Reply #32 on: December 07, 2012, 11:03 »
0
This is amazing to see the worldwide interest in microstock and in this site. Thank you Leaf for maintaining this site and letting us put up our site links in our signature.

With statcounter analytics help, I have put up a list of locations of some of the visitors that came from microstockgroup.com to visit my site since I replied to this thread on Dec 05. This is interesting to see how wide spread it is. As per following some of you reading this may recognized yourself:

Belgrade,Serbia
Vancouver, Canada
Puyallup, Washington, US
Birmingham, UK
Vouneuil-Sous-Biard, France
Szczepanow, Poland,
Dungannow, UK
Huntersville, NC, US
Istanbul, Turkey
Shanghai, China
Bucharest, Romania
Birkerod, Denmark
Sacramento, CA, US
Moscow, Russia
Katowice, Poland,
Anjou, QC, Canada
Hong Kong
London, UK
Castleford, UK

Denis

 

« Reply #33 on: December 07, 2012, 12:06 »
0
Just sell RM photos off your own site with a 1 hour exclusivity clause in the contract.

^^ note I could not find sarcasm font ^^


RM does not require exclusivity.


http://www.gettyimages.ca/creativeimages/rightsmanaged?Language=en-US

I like where it's written: "exclusivity and control"...

« Reply #34 on: December 07, 2012, 12:10 »
0
I like where it's written: "exclusivity and control"...

"Own the image for the duration of your project and control who else can use it."

... or don't.  Exclusivity costs extra.  It isn't a requirement.

ShadySue

« Reply #35 on: December 07, 2012, 12:11 »
+1
http://www.gettyimages.ca/creativeimages/rightsmanaged?Language=en-US

H*ll. Why on earth, on a page dedicated to Rights Managed on Getty - "Excellence, exclusivity and control", is there a highly visible link to Thinkstock?

« Reply #36 on: December 07, 2012, 12:14 »
0
This topic really veered off the cliff.

« Reply #37 on: December 07, 2012, 13:05 »
0
I like where it's written: "exclusivity and control"...

"Own the image for the duration of your project and control who else can use it."

... or don't.  Exclusivity costs extra.  It isn't a requirement.


Why in hell would you buy RM instead of RF, if it's not for the exclusivity? Think of it as a buyer point of view...
Why pay more ...for nothing?

ShadySue

« Reply #38 on: December 07, 2012, 13:08 »
0
I like where it's written: "exclusivity and control"...

"Own the image for the duration of your project and control who else can use it."

... or don't.  Exclusivity costs extra.  It isn't a requirement.


Why in hell would you buy RM instead of RF, if it's not for the exclusivity? Think of it as a buyer point of view...
Why pay more ...for nothing?

RM without exclusivity can be cheaper, e.g. on Alamy. But as with most things, 'it depends'.

Anyway, the question is moot. If an image is set as RM, it's RM.

« Reply #39 on: December 07, 2012, 13:09 »
+1
Why in hell would you buy RM instead of RF, if it's not for the exclusivity? Think of it as a buyer point of view...
Why pay more ...for nothing?

Because the image you want isn't offered as RF.  And you don't want to pay $500 for an RF image when your usage needs are small.

Getty's RM images don't even include exclusivity or offer it online.

"For help with licensing an image for multiple uses, exclusivity, bulk pricing, or other products and services, contact us by email, online or phone."
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 13:15 by sjlocke »

« Reply #40 on: December 07, 2012, 13:33 »
0
I have my own Trad RM agency since 1996. Its offline and very specialized, hence only RM. Its quite small only with around 45K images but it pays handsomely, especially from a heap of old and existing assignment clients, constantly buying for annuals, profiles, catalogues, advertising, etc. Its operated in the traditional way with direct client contact.

Having your own micro-site have never interested me at all. Too much hassle for too little in return. Besides, time is running out for that sort of thingy.

« Reply #41 on: December 07, 2012, 14:12 »
+3
you are always talking so well about RM, I wonder why you end up selling microstock, not attacking you just a question ;)


WarrenPrice

« Reply #42 on: December 07, 2012, 17:08 »
0
Why in hell would you buy RM instead of RF, if it's not for the exclusivity? Think of it as a buyer point of view...
Why pay more ...for nothing?

Because the image you want isn't offered as RF.  And you don't want to pay $500 for an RF image when your usage needs are small.

Getty's RM images don't even include exclusivity or offer it online.

"For help with licensing an image for multiple uses, exclusivity, bulk pricing, or other products and services, contact us by email, online or phone."

My understanding or Rights Managed is just that ... the buyer and the seller decide on which or how much right is being purchased (licensed).  It can be exclusive for a period of time for a certain region or ... it can be exclusive use ... Period. 

It is just a matter of which Rights are being Managed.


« Reply #43 on: December 07, 2012, 19:23 »
0
Please PUT YOUR DEBATE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

This is a thread about OUR OWN STOCK SITES!

 ;)
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 19:25 by Jeffrey »

« Reply #44 on: December 07, 2012, 19:28 »
+1
Please PUT YOUR DEBATE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

This is a thread about OUR OWN STOCK SITES!

 ;)

why don't you try to learn instead? or are you collecting links or getting ideas for your own website?

ShadySue

« Reply #45 on: December 07, 2012, 20:24 »
+1
If you sell your own images can this leave you open to a potential direct lawsuit as compared to having a microstock company sell them for you- at least you have a buffer with the MS company where with your own company there is no buffer.
We might like to imagine so, but you'd have to read the small print in each agency's terms and conditions. For example, iStock's exclusive ASA says
 The Supplier agrees that neither iStockphoto nor any of its directors, officers, employees, partners, affiliates or agents shall be liable for any damages, whether direct, indirect, consequential or incidental, arising out of the use of, or the inability to use any  Exclusive Content ...
...  You acknowledge and accept and therefore waive any right to object to the fact that it is common business practice for commercial uses that the creator of Content is not credited, that Content may be modified, used in connection with sensitive topics and may be used or modified in ways that may be controversial or unflattering.
...
Notwithstanding the foregoing, given the exigencies of the stock photography business and the prevalence of royalty-free content, iStockphoto cannot take responsibility for the compliance by purchasers and licensees of the terms of such agreements. Accordingly, you acknowledge and agree to the possibility of Exclusive Content being used in a manner that is not contemplated in this Agreement, and you agree that notwithstanding any rights you may have to pursue the licensees of such Exclusive Content at law, iStockphoto shall have no liability to you or any person claiming through you for any breach by a licensee of the terms of any agreement respecting Accepted Exclusive Content.

« Reply #46 on: December 08, 2012, 02:02 »
+2
you are always talking so well about RM, I wonder why you end up selling microstock, not attacking you just a question ;)

Yeah thats fair enough. Well when I opend it 1996, there wasnt anything else, The term RF had just started but nobody really believed it would take off. There wasnt much else to do but thinking in terms of RM. Also the fact I started stock back in 88, then there was only RM, nothing else.
Back in those days most photographers made deals with their day-rate clients, i.e. I do the job for say 3K instead of 4K and in return you let me shoot some stock for myself inclusive MRs, PRs and all, not clashing with the commissioned pictures. SURE! they went for it all the way. Hence you could build up a massive port of very hard to come by images, etc.

In short RM is stable because of the people running it. They are very often creatives themselves working on long term plans and ideas as opposed to micro where any agency here today could be gone tomorrow, short term profits, etc. Ofcourse there are some loop-holes in RM but on the whole its quite stable.

If youre ever thinking in terms of RM? might be for some special material youve got or something?  you can always PM me and Ill be glad to answer, got some great contacts after all these years. :)

« Reply #47 on: December 08, 2012, 04:29 »
0
you are always talking so well about RM, I wonder why you end up selling microstock, not attacking you just a question ;)

Yeah thats fair enough. Well when I opend it 1996, there wasnt anything else, The term RF had just started but nobody really believed it would take off. There wasnt much else to do but thinking in terms of RM. Also the fact I started stock back in 88, then there was only RM, nothing else.
Back in those days most photographers made deals with their day-rate clients, i.e. I do the job for say 3K instead of 4K and in return you let me shoot some stock for myself inclusive MRs, PRs and all, not clashing with the commissioned pictures. SURE! they went for it all the way. Hence you could build up a massive port of very hard to come by images, etc.

In short RM is stable because of the people running it. They are very often creatives themselves working on long term plans and ideas as opposed to micro where any agency here today could be gone tomorrow, short term profits, etc. Ofcourse there are some loop-holes in RM but on the whole its quite stable.

If youre ever thinking in terms of RM? might be for some special material youve got or something?  you can always PM me and Ill be glad to answer, got some great contacts after all these years. :)

thats a nice answer, thanks for sharing ;) (was born in 84)

« Reply #48 on: December 14, 2012, 03:13 »
0
Please PUT YOUR DEBATE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

This is a thread about OUR OWN STOCK SITES!

 ;)

????

« Reply #49 on: December 14, 2012, 03:41 »
0
I've heard that some IS Exclusive people sell RM on Alamy. Can not an RM image be sold multiple times as long as the history is recorded?

Yes.

Thank you

What's more, you can sell a picture of a banana on a white background as RM if you feel like it. RM does not mean editorial.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1724 Views
Last post January 30, 2008, 07:25
by Arian
2 Replies
1524 Views
Last post September 25, 2012, 15:26
by stocker2011
17 Replies
3841 Views
Last post February 10, 2014, 19:25
by cathyslife
4 Replies
2266 Views
Last post April 17, 2015, 16:27
by ShadySue
11 Replies
2110 Views
Last post September 13, 2018, 14:53
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results