Author Topic: Let's stop the war between image owners and content users! (Read 3621 times)

luissantos84 · « **on:** August 29, 2014, 10:03 »

by IMGembed

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/imgembed/imgembed-a-win-win-solution-for-image-owners-and-u

cthoman · « **Reply #1 on:** August 29, 2014, 10:50 »

I can't say that I get super excited about these embedding images business models. Maybe, I should just start a Kickstarter for myself. The pay Cory to do nothing Kickstarter.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #2 on:** August 29, 2014, 11:26 »

I don't understand how this isn't just another agency with a mixture of free and paid content, flexible licensing options and some embed code.

What am I missing? For the items that are paid licenses, what's the royalty model - who collects, and what percentage goes to the artist?

Looked around a bit - you get 70% and they keep 30%. You get to set your own prices. May look some more later, but the intro video talks about importing images from a smart phone, so I guess they are thinking of people monetizing their walk around snaps, not traditional stock

Shelma1 · « **Reply #3 on:** August 29, 2014, 11:41 »

I don't see what's great about free embedded images either. Just another Getty, only unproven.

Ed · « **Reply #4 on:** August 29, 2014, 13:05 »

Free - no.

But what I could jump on board with is if they could create a service where the website could embed the image (with link back to me or the agency) and also have a back end server that automatically billed the owner of the website a monthly subscription fee of say $19.99 per image embedded.

That fee automatically gets transferred via ACH to the agency and then I automatically get my payout at the end of the month....every month (one month lag because of timing).

No payment = image blocked on the feed

I would support that 100%

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #5 on:** August 30, 2014, 19:59 »

Go test the search. For example "car" you get all photos of people (some have part of a car, most do not) Try "Bicycle" you get people, some have a bicycle part, but not one photo of just a bicycle.

What I'm getting at, is the keywords are already spammed with the usual distant and unrelated subjects. Dead...

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #6 on:** August 30, 2014, 20:25 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 30, 2014, 19:59

Go test the search. For example "car" you get all photos of people (some have part of a car, most do not) Try "Bicycle" you get people, some have a bicycle part, but not one photo of just a bicycle.

What I'm getting at, is the keywords are already spammed with the usual distant and unrelated subjects. Dead...

i guess that's the opposite of what you get when you search of google, yahoo,etc...
for say "mother teresa" and you get porn

ie. one gives you what you' re not looking for;
the other (spamming) add more so you get what you're not looking for.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #7 on:** August 30, 2014, 20:34 »

Good one! Unfortunately your example is totally fabricated and false. I also suggest Bing or Metacrawler (the search that searches, searches) I don't Google much anymore because of the way it features pay sites and ignores relevant little ones. What's a Yahoo? Are they still in business?

With an image agency, a buyer would like to get the keyword(s) they enter, not something else. If this new agency has a search that's just as bad as the rest, they missed what makes happy buyers.

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 30, 2014, 20:25

Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 30, 2014, 19:59
Go test the search. For example "car" you get all photos of people (some have part of a car, most do not) Try "Bicycle" you get people, some have a bicycle part, but not one photo of just a bicycle.

What I'm getting at, is the keywords are already spammed with the usual distant and unrelated subjects. Dead...

i guess that's the opposite of what you get when you search of google, yahoo,etc...
for say "mother teresa" and you get porn
ie. one gives you what you' re not looking for;
the other (spamming) add more so you get what you're not looking for.