pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is there a re-selling photo licence?  (Read 1538 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 03, 2019, 11:18 »
0
Hello everyone.

I'm honest, I don't have the time right now to search on every microstock where I have images, if they have a licence that allows re-selling of images in the form of wallpaper... I mean actual wallpaper to put on walls inside a house.

I stumbled upon my image for sale in a wallpaper art site and in their Facebook page, someone posting a photo of his living-room with my photo on the wall and thanking the company for selling it to him...  >:(

Before I leave them a kind message to take down my image I would ask you if you know if there is any microstock agency with a licence that allows this?...
Thank you in advance.

CC


« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2019, 11:38 »
0
Yes, most have a products for resale license.

« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2019, 11:56 »
0
Yes, most have a products for resale license.

Thanks. :/
Anyone that finds this tremendously unfair?! Or is it just me?
Here's an idea. Buying EL's of the most selling images in the business and open microstock and POD accounts with them. Easy money, heim?! F*CK!

ShadySue

« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2019, 12:51 »
+1
Yes, most have a products for resale license.

Thanks. :/
Anyone that finds this tremendously unfair?! Or is it just me?
Here's an idea. Buying EL's of the most selling images in the business and open microstock and POD accounts with them. Easy money, heim?! F*CK!
Different things altogether and disallowed by the main  agencies at least.

It's a good idea to check through T&C of agencies you're thinking of signing up with before actually signing. Though to be fair, they are often deliberately phrased in obfuscatory language.

« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2019, 13:17 »
0
Yes, most have a products for resale license.
...Anyone that finds this tremendously unfair?!...

What is it about this particular use of a licensed image (let's assume for the moment it was licensed correctly) that you find unfair?

There are people who have problems with microstock prices in general - too many rights offered for too little money - but that applies to magazine covers, poster sales or bus wraps, not just print-on-demand wallpaper.

There are real costs associated with the production of large format prints, wallpaper, clothing, mugs, etc. beyond the value of the image on them. If you look at pricing on sites like Fine Art America or Zazzle or any of the sites that deliver physical products, they offer contributors a way of setting the value of the image (a margin) and then they add that to the costs of producing and shipping the item. Extended licenses from stock agencies generally just have a set price for the license (Dreamstime and 123rf had more pick-and-choose ELs but both agencies are moribund at this point so not typical).

If the issue is other people making money when they license your images, then maybe licensing your work isn't for you...

« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2019, 13:30 »
0
Yes, most have a products for resale license.

Thanks. :/
Anyone that finds this tremendously unfair?! Or is it just me?
Here's an idea. Buying EL's of the most selling images in the business and open microstock and POD accounts with them. Easy money, heim?! F*CK!
Different things altogether and disallowed by the main  agencies at least.

It's a good idea to check through T&C of agencies you're thinking of signing up with before actually signing. Though to be fair, they are often deliberately phrased in obfuscatory language.

I did check. I joined most of them in 2006, long before someone would even dare to think that this could be allowed. Greed led to this pure nonsense.  Well, I know it's all up to me to stay or leave...

« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2019, 14:11 »
0
Yes, most have a products for resale license.
...Anyone that finds this tremendously unfair?!...

What is it about this particular use of a licensed image (let's assume for the moment it was licensed correctly) that you find unfair?

There are people who have problems with microstock prices in general - too many rights offered for too little money - but that applies to magazine covers, poster sales or bus wraps, not just print-on-demand wallpaper.

There are real costs associated with the production of large format prints, wallpaper, clothing, mugs, etc. beyond the value of the image on them. If you look at pricing on sites like Fine Art America or Zazzle or any of the sites that deliver physical products, they offer contributors a way of setting the value of the image (a margin) and then they add that to the costs of producing and shipping the item. Extended licenses from stock agencies generally just have a set price for the license (Dreamstime and 123rf had more pick-and-choose ELs but both agencies are moribund at this point so not typical).

If the issue is other people making money when they license your images, then maybe licensing your work isn't for you...

Are you talking seriously?

Don't you find unfair that someone can sell your image for tens of dollars over and over and over, having just spent a hundred bucks acquiring it? For that kind of use they should have bought the rights of the image OR pay the photographer a proper commission  on every sale. As you said, that's what FAA does and other POD sites. Why can't these wallpaper sites invite artists to upload and be paid on every sale?! The buyer of the final product pays for the production costs. Are you implying that this companies have to pay me little because they have a costly production?! Really?... Should I feel sorry for them?

When I joined, Microstock was basically royalty-free low cost images for one use/campaign/design.  If you needed the image for another design or use, you had to pay again. It was affordable for bloggers to use in one post and for the flower shop to make a pamphlet and I was ok with it.
EL's for a print or book cover was for ONE print or ONE book cover.

You bet that the issue is about people making money licencing my images! How could it not be?! Where are my royalties?! Are you for real? Are you comfortable with this? If you are, then have a blast!

I also sell stock on RM sites as well and that is a fair deal. Good money although prices have been dropping throughout the years. One price for a certain print-run in a certain region for a certain period of time.

« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2019, 14:32 »
+4
Products for Resale licenses arent new.

If you think it sounds so easy, go ahead and sell it yourself.

« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2019, 15:10 »
0
Products for Resale licenses arent new.

If you think it sounds so easy, go ahead and sell it yourself.

Again, should I be sorry for them and give them my work out of pity for free? It's their business not mine.
Whatever... You guys are too numb and apathetic for my taste. Be happy. :)

ShadySue

« Reply #9 on: August 03, 2019, 15:24 »
+2
Products for Resale licenses arent new.

If you think it sounds so easy, go ahead and sell it yourself.

Again, should I be sorry for them and give them my work out of pity for free? It's their business not mine.
Whatever... You guys are too numb and apathetic for my taste. Be happy. :)
You were apparenly too "numb and apathetic" to read the terms and conditions. I started in  2006 and like Sean suggested (and he's been I'm micro longer than both of us), products for resale was certainly available then
« Last Edit: August 03, 2019, 15:36 by ShadySue »

« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2019, 16:15 »
+10
Apparently you got into a business you didn't understand. Insulting people who are trying to explain things - not defending them - isn't helpful to anyone.

« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2019, 01:51 »
0
Apparently you got into a business you didn't understand. Insulting people who are trying to explain things - not defending them - isn't helpful to anyone.
Bullseye again....always enjoy your posts ;-)

« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2019, 15:52 »
0


...

When I joined, Microstock was basically royalty-free low cost images for one use/campaign/design.  If you needed the image for another design or use, you had to pay again. It was affordable for bloggers to use in one post and for the flower shop to make a pamphlet and I was ok with it.
EL's for a print or book cover was for ONE print or ONE book cover.
.

{{wondering how  one 'joins' microstock?}}

you're comfortable with getting an EL for selling millions off books with your image on the cover but object to it being used on wallpaper or a  mug  a few dozen times?  absurd!

« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2019, 09:32 »
+3


...

When I joined, Microstock was basically royalty-free low cost images for one use/campaign/design.  If you needed the image for another design or use, you had to pay again. It was affordable for bloggers to use in one post and for the flower shop to make a pamphlet and I was ok with it.
EL's for a print or book cover was for ONE print or ONE book cover.
.

{{wondering how  one 'joins' microstock?}}

you're comfortable with getting an EL for selling millions off books with your image on the cover but object to it being used on wallpaper or a  mug  a few dozen times?  absurd!

To be fair, there is a difference. With a book cover the image is not the product merely the attractive wrapper for the product but with wallpaper the image is the product. No one would buy blank white wallpaper. I agree with the OP in that selling stock images to be used as wallpaper, where the image is the product, should not be allowed in the license.

However I also realize that there is no opt out or recourse other than to pull your port so it's just another case of someone else making more money from your work than you do and you have to take it or get out of the business.

« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2019, 09:40 »
+1
To be fair, there is a difference. With a book cover the image is not the product merely the attractive wrapper for the product but with wallpaper the image is the product. No one would buy blank white wallpaper. I agree with the OP in that selling stock images to be used as wallpaper, where the image is the product, should not be allowed in the license.

Which is why it isn't included in the regular license, and it costs to get an extended license that allows it.

« Reply #15 on: August 06, 2019, 18:05 »
0
Which is why it isn't included in the regular license, and it costs to get an extended license that allows it.
And sometimes paid.

« Reply #16 on: August 16, 2019, 17:57 »
0
To be fair, there is a difference. With a book cover the image is not the product merely the attractive wrapper for the product but with wallpaper the image is the product. No one would buy blank white wallpaper. I agree with the OP in that selling stock images to be used as wallpaper, where the image is the product, should not be allowed in the license.

Which is why it isn't included in the regular license, and it costs to get an extended license that allows it.

Sure and the agency takes the lion share while you get maybe $20. The buyer gets enormous rights to make several times more money than the copyright owner. Win Win Lose for the creator. Part of the business but, as I said, not fair. That's all. Deal with it or pull your port are the options but I don't think that kind of usage should be included in the license. Even the extended one.


dpimborough

« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2019, 01:56 »
0
Products for Resale licenses arent new.

If you think it sounds so easy, go ahead and sell it yourself.

Again, should I be sorry for them and give them my work out of pity for free? It's their business not mine.
Whatever... You guys are too numb and apathetic for my taste. Be happy. :)

And I think your anger is entirely misdirected.

Instead of sniping at people trying to help you need to redirect your anger at yourself for

Failing to read and understand the terms and conditions of the site you signed up with.

In any contractual situation failure to read and understand terms and conditons is entirely the fault of the contracting party i.e. you.

But that is understandable most people don't bother to read the small print and then get upset when they find things don't work out the way they hoped.


ShadySue

« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2019, 05:18 »
0
The buyer gets enormous rights to make several times more money than the copyright owner. Win Win Lose for the creator. Part of the business but, as I said, not fair.
Someone might your file for $1 (or whatever) and use it in an ad which may* generate thousands of pounds.

*or may not. But the 'goods for resale' may not sell.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
24 Replies
10050 Views
Last post August 23, 2010, 19:46
by RacePhoto
3 Replies
4430 Views
Last post February 14, 2011, 02:34
by RacePhoto
1 Replies
1258 Views
Last post December 23, 2015, 03:42
by Belish
2 Replies
1550 Views
Last post March 18, 2016, 17:44
by stockastic
9 Replies
2778 Views
Last post May 28, 2016, 13:02
by farbled

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results