MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Imgembed  (Read 2555 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 09, 2013, 16:40 »
0
Anybody heard or even used http://imgembed.com ?

Main purpose of this site seems to be to promote artists more than to make some serious money but generally I like this idea. Don't you think that similar way of licensing images could be the future of selling images for use on web sites and blogs? In theory no stolen images, absolute control over usage of images There must be some drawback but I'm not aware of any at the moment - if I leave out the fact that it can't work for print.


« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2013, 01:55 »
0
Hi

It looks great to me, I like the way that images move and how they stop when you pass over the mouse.
Who knows, maybe will make some serious money too, in the future, not only promote artists...

The good thing is that they take copyright protection very serious.
This is very important, for photographers, this days.

 :)

« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2014, 06:39 »
+1
between this site and liscensing.pixel.com it looks like everyone is seeking a better way to do stock. Definitely we need a change from the big stock agency model that has become no more than factory piece work now.

« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2014, 07:42 »
0
Interesting idea. And certainly better for creators than what Getty is doing.

« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2014, 07:49 »
0
I don't know about anyone else, but I am certainly ready for a new model. I don't like Shutterstocks subscription pricing any better than Gettys.

« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2014, 08:21 »
0
This section in the terms is a bit odd
" If a Creator wants to remove a Creator Image from their portfolio after a Publisher has paid to use that Creator Image, the Creator must contact Imgembed [email protected] with the request. Imgembed will then contact the Publisher, who will be offered both (y) a refund of all payments made to use the Creator Image that the Creator wishes to remove, and (z) the use of a comparable Creator Image to replace the removed Creator Image. Imgembed will arrange for the refund of payments via PayPal. In addition, Publishers who have paid to use Creator Images may do so without attribution to the Creator."

(I've no idea why "y" and "z" are floating in there).

It says the terms are governed by the laws of California but the company is based in Singapore. I don't know whose laws the company is working under, but if it is the US I don't think it can make overseas providers responsible for paying withholding tax that would presumably be applicable for US earnings.

« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2014, 08:33 »
0
This section in the terms is a bit odd
" If a Creator wants to remove a Creator Image from their portfolio after a Publisher has paid to use that Creator Image, the Creator must contact Imgembed [email protected] with the request. Imgembed will then contact the Publisher, who will be offered both (y) a refund of all payments made to use the Creator Image that the Creator wishes to remove, and (z) the use of a comparable Creator Image to replace the removed Creator Image. Imgembed will arrange for the refund of payments via PayPal. In addition, Publishers who have paid to use Creator Images may do so without attribution to the Creator."

(I've no idea why "y" and "z" are floating in there).

It says the terms are governed by the laws of California but the company is based in Singapore. I don't know whose laws the company is working under, but if it is the US I don't think it can make overseas providers responsible for paying withholding tax that would presumably be applicable for US earnings.

Yeah. This sounds like even the licensed images are going to be hosted on the imgembed server. I was thinking it was just the free images. So I was thinking if you used the image for free you were actually just putting code to show an image from the imgembed server on your website, but you could license the image and then download it for use under the terms of the license. I don't see people wanting to pay for an image that is streaming from somewhere else. Maybe but that is a lot more problematic.

« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2014, 09:08 »
0
I wonder if this would be compatible with offering the same image as RM elsewhere. On the one hand it seems like a tightly controlled way to license an image, on the other hand it really isn't controlled in the way an RM license is.

« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2014, 14:39 »
0

Marco Oonk talks to Robert Henson from IMGembed about a "new" way to share and monetize imagery during the Cepic 2014 in Berlin, Germany (going on right now 4-7 June)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5c095WLz1k


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle