Think of it 500.000 posters. Thats a heck of a lot. In how many theaters did Looper run? How many video stores did sell the DVD?

Number of cinema screens in the major countries: 149,676 ( I am sure it didnt run in all 149k theatres)

http://chartsbin.com/view/32k

That leaves another 350,000 posters for video stores and other purposes.

I think 500.000 posters is a lot, they might not have needed an EL.

Even though the Op mentioned poster, it does not mean that's the end of print runs.  Think of DVD covers alone.  Probably more than 500k in and of itself.

sorry guys but the OP sold that image as RF and now he get paid peanuts as he deserves.

if it was RM he could have got at least a few hundreds bucks, now he' done with maybe 2-3$.

sorry guys but the OP sold that image as RF and now he get paid peanuts as he deserves.

if it was RM he could have got at least a few hundreds bucks, now he' done with maybe 2-3$.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

Yeah, but the genie's out of the bottle and no manner of banging on about it will get it back in.

Quote from: Xanox on May 05, 2013, 08:47

truth hurts ?

a hollywood movie poster for a film with Bruce Willis and he earned no more than 5$ net, that's the very end of the story.

as usual, RF is the worst possible licence for photographers and the best one for agencies and buyers.

We all know that going in. We also know what we are supposed to get paid for licenses. Whether it's 50 cents or $200, that's what we should get. Period.

How many sites make it clear to the buyer that there are uses for which the standard RF licence doesn't cover the use?
Royalty-free as a term implies that the use is free of royalties.
iS makes some effort to show the buyer, right under the price/credit values of each image, that there may be a need for an extended licence, but I certainly haven't found any more ELs since that feature was introduced.
On the other sites, and only because I was specifically looking up the info, I had to go in via the FAQ.[1]

But this is not a normal way of buying things.
You don't buy a T-shirt and expect to have to pay more if you wear it over a certain number of times, or wear it if you're going for an interview or appearing in a stage play and it's essential for the character's 'look'.
So how is a buyer meant to know they might need an extended licence on e.g. SS?

[1] I have no idea if SS, Ft, DT, or even iS actually make it very clear to people who sign up as a buyers that some uses need ELs? Even if they did, how likely is someone to remember it if originally they were wanting a 'standard' use, but five days, weeks, months, years later they need an EL use? What's the chance they'll remember the note they could ignore when they signed up? What if it's a company and someone else is using the company account and never saw the note how likely is someone to remember to tell the new person about the EL rules, especially if it's not a graphics company, but just a small company where the office junior sometimes has to make flyers (I bumped into a former pupil who has to do exactly that from time to time, and 'does the website).
Even then, it looks as though a site has reneged on the term 'Royalty-free'. "Well, yeah, it's 'royalty free', but only so far". So actually the term could be causing a lot of the trouble, combined with the fact that the companies seem to go out of their way to avoid buyers finding out that they should buy them for certain uses.

(Plus there are doubtless some buyers who are just 'at it'.)

ADDED: just noticed that on a file's 'home page' on SS, there is just a 'standard licence' JPEG and an 'enhanced licence' for a TIFF. Absolutey giving the idea that if you don't want a tiff, a standard licence will be just fine.

moreover, most of these micro RF images arent even registered at the USPTO so your chances of billing the infringer for a lot of money are zero.

there was a girl in the Alamy forum chasing dozens of infringers using her lawyers, she registered all her photos to USPTO, she also tried ImageRights, as far as she said the average she recoup was around 2-300$ per image.

by the way, ImageRights doesnt even move a finger if the potential payback is less than 350$ per photo.

so, just FYI that's the situation.

@ShadySue : for decades buyers had no problem buying images as RM and clearly stating which usage they were bought for, if for news, textbooks, covers, inside page, advertising, whatever.

Yeah, that was then; this is now.

sorry guys but the OP sold that image as RF and now he get paid peanuts as he deserves.

if it was RM he could have got at least a few hundreds bucks, now he' done with maybe 2-3$.

but they buyers weren't shopping RM, were they?

what's scary is that this "new wave" of cheapo buyers may well have been a hollywood studio!

Quote from: shudderstok on May 05, 2013, 21:59

this is what happens when you upload to multiple agencies some of which are subscription based, there is no way to tell who bought your image and how it is used.

Gosh, really? That's a bit like saying "there's no point in opening a shop because people (mainly your own staff) will probably steal from it".

We all know and accept the risks of doing business in microstock. It could be worse though __ if you were exclusive to one agency then Getty could just be giving your stuff way for virtually nothing in their 'Google Drive' deal. Good eh?

Exactly.

We all know and accept the risks of doing business in microstock. It could be worse though __ if you were exclusive to one agency then Getty could just be giving your stuff way for virtually nothing in their 'Google Drive' deal. Good eh?

"Thus far" (IIRC) they didn't give their RM material to that deal, though.

Quote from: ShadySue on May 06, 2013, 05:36

Quote from: gostwyck on May 05, 2013, 23:04

We all know and accept the risks of doing business in microstock. It could be worse though __ if you were exclusive to one agency then Getty could just be giving your stuff way for virtually nothing in their 'Google Drive' deal. Good eh?

"Thus far" (IIRC) they didn't give their RM material to that deal, though.

So i guess that makes it ok.

Who said that?

Xanox was talking about the undoubted advantages in being able to trace RM images.
then
Shudder spoke of the problems of tracing uses of RF sales from sub sites.
then
Gostwyk said that even exclusivity didn't protect people from Getty's shady deal
but, in the progress of the thread,
I pointed out that RM sales weren't (so far) included.

I didn't express any value judgment of the Getty/Google deal.

FWIW, I agree with the merits of the RM model vs RF, but the genie can't be pushed back in. The RM community shot themselves in the foot by being ridiculously elitist, and targetting such a small sector or the potential market. What did they ever do to cater for low-budget buyers? So now big budget buyers buy micro, at least some of the time, and macro prices are falling rapdily (by unpublished deals), except for some niche markets.

.