MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: LesPalenik on March 21, 2014, 06:55
-
FAA is getting into image licensing via their Pixels.com label.
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1800498&showall=true (http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1800498&showall=true)
Similar to Picfair model, the artists set their own prices and then pixels com adds 40% on top of it before invoicing the buyer
-
As far as I know there is nothing published about it yet. Someone saw the page header with the word stock and assumed something.
Unless there is news, your link goes nowhere.
Here is the META tag of pixels.com
<title>Pixels.com - Stock Photography - Royalty Free Images - Rights Managed Images - Art Licensing - iPhone Cases - Canvas Prints - Framed Prints - Greeting Cards - Posters - Originals - Buy Art Online - Sell Art Online</title>
<meta name="description" content="Pixels.com is the premier online marketplace for buying and selling stock photography, royalty-free images, rights-managed images, iphone cases, canvas prints, framed prints, posters, acrylic prints, metal prints, greeting cards, and more. It's also the easiest way to stay in touch with your local art scene! Our interactive website is designed to bring together photographers, visual artists, art galleries, and art collectors from all over the world.">
<meta name="keywords" content="stock photography, royalty free images, rights managed images, art licensing, image licensing, iphone cases, canvas prints, framed prints, art, art prints, fine art, fine art prints, posters, acrylic prints, metal prints, giclee, giclee prints, print on demand, greeting card, greeting cards, artist, artists, gallery, galleries, paintings, prints, photography, sculptures, digital art, tapestries, textiles, mixed media, ceramic art, glass art, jewelry, buy art, sell art, art for sale, prints for sale, free trial, art community">
<meta name="verify-v1" content="OLivyU9G1h3SOcBk3hsINOnBW+wWgL0mdkkuNK31lYs="/>
-
By the way, its very dumb to update your meta tags, before publishing the news. People are internet savvy these days. You cant expect that to go unnoticed.
-
>:(
-
As far as I know there is nothing published about it yet.
The link that I posted, is a fairly long thread with Sean's announcement and many artist's posts on FAA forum.
It is not an official announcement of working system yet, more like a beta test.
-
Its probably a private thread, and thats why I am being rerouted. I will log in and read it.
Ok, now it makes sense.
What I was talking about, there was a thread last week about the meta description showing stock , etc, but there wasnt anything published yet.
Sean had changed all meta tags, before he went public. So the news leaked by his own doings.
-
For those of us who aren't registered and can't log in, what's the deal? Sean is involved or something?
-
Interesting move.
There are some concerns on releases but stock agencies only ask for a model release to CTA. You dont need to provide a MR or PR at all, you just need to have one to CYA. I submit to a Dutch agency who only asks if the image is suitable for commercial use. I need to decide if it is, if I have the proper releases but I dont have to provide them. Its the photographer who is liable, not the agency.
I am covered anyways as my entire stock portfolio is released, and otherwise its editorial use only. If Pixels.com allows me to license individual images, I am sorted. All I have to do is opt in for Royalty Free license, set my price at 10 dollar per image, and let the $$$ come my way. I like the flexibility on the pricing and licensing. Smart move.
I am not sure if it will upset the stock industry, I think it wont because to do that you need buyers. If the buyers dont turn up, a revolutionary pricing and licensing system doesnt mean anything. I am definitely not going to do the marketing. FAA can fund the marketing from their own pockets. And if they dont do marketing, I am 100% sure this wont take off. Shutterstock spends tens of millions of dollars on marketing. Dont think for one second that not marketing Pixels.com will get you anywhere.
I will opt in though, making a few extra dollars is always welcome.
-
For those of us who aren't registered and can't log in, what's the deal? Sean is involved or something?
I dont know if I am allowed to copy from a private discussion. I will recap. Sean is launching a stock agency from pixels.com. Announcement to follow.
He thinks it will upset the stock industry with a revolutionary pricing and licensing system. You can set your own price and you keep 100%, they will do a mark up of 40% and keep that.
You can also set your own licence, RF, RM or completely custom. Plus you can opt in/out individual images.
That has never been done before, but as I said, I am not sure if it will upset the stock industry, I think it wont because to do that you need buyers. If the buyers dont turn up, a revolutionary pricing and licensing system doesnt mean anything. I am definitely not going to do the marketing. FAA can fund the marketing from their own pockets. And if they dont do marketing, I am 100% sure this wont take off. Shutterstock spends tens of millions of dollars on marketing. Dont think for one second that not marketing Pixels.com will get you anywhere.
-
For those of us who aren't registered and can't log in, what's the deal? Sean is involved or something?
That's Sean McDunn (FAA creator) not "our" Sean -just in case anyone gets confused ;D
I'm with Ron, no idea if it will take off or not but I'll opt in and see if I get some sales. Regards, David.
ETA Missed the Mc off his surname!
-
That's Sean Dunn (FAA creator) not "our" Sean -just in case anyone gets confused ;D
Good call, lets keep that clear ! :D
-
For those of us who aren't registered and can't log in, what's the deal? Sean is involved or something?
That's Sean Dunn (FAA creator) not "our" Sean -just in case anyone gets confused ;D
Whew! I thought I missed something, lol.
I think a buyer would be happier to license work, if he thought the agency vetted the releases, instead of just hoping the contributor was in line. It's easier to "trust" XYZ agency as an entity, then Bob from Somalia, or whatever.
-
If you are a member of FAA you can see the private thread when logged in. I'm putting some stuff on it at reasonable prices, up to $50 (before mark-up) for full-size files. The prices are going to be all over the place, with people setting what they like. Someone's already said book publishers can afford $2,000 for a cover image.
I actually don't think this is going to work, it doesn't seem to be well enough thought-out, but if applying a pricing profile to a few hundred images brings in some extra cash that's OK by me.
-
For those of us who aren't registered and can't log in, what's the deal? Sean is involved or something?
Here's the part that most people will want to know for now. All the other details will follow.
5. When a buyer purchases one of your licenses, you keep 100% of the price that you set. We're going to take your price and mark it up by 40% before we show it to the buyer. For example, if you want to sell a Standard License for $100, we're going to show it to the buyer as $140. When the buyer purchases the license, you'll keep the entire $100 that you wanted. For the math aficionados, that means that you're keeping $10 / $14 = 71.4% of the sale price.
ps you can join FAA for free and read these messages. I don't have a pay account.
-
In theory, it's an interesting move, but considering the apparent total lack of regard for IP by some people who upload to FAA, it could also be a lawsuit waiting to happen.
I think a lot of American companies selling to e.g. the UK don't realise a 'disclaimer' isn't worth what they might think - it could easily be (based on previous cases I've read about, IANAL) that the agency could made to share any liabilities.
Also I wonder if they're going to market themselves - FAA doesn't, though it does generally have good SEO.
-
. (repeat post)
-
That's weird. So, if I "want" $9, then the price shown is $12.60?
-
If you are a member of FAA you can see the private thread when logged in. I'm putting some stuff on it at reasonable prices, up to $50 (before mark-up) for full-size files. The prices are going to be all over the place, with people setting what they like. Someone's already said book publishers can afford $2,000 for a cover image.
I actually don't think this is going to work, it doesn't seem to be well enough thought-out, but if applying a pricing profile to a few hundred images brings in some extra cash that's OK by me.
I will do the same.
I do believe its an advantage being a stocker supplying to an art site, rather being a painter now getting into stock, in terms of how stock licensing works and how to best approach this new venture.
-
That's weird. So, if I "want" $9, then the price shown is $12.60?
Yes
-
So, I guess you are getting paid 71.4%. That's pretty good. They should say that instead. It is much more enticing.
-
And looking into the crystal ball, if this works and 1000 more sites copy the concept (which will happen as sure as the Sun rises in the East every day)
Someone will offer us 110% and take 30% of the sale. Impossible? Heck no, competition. We sell for $10 if it sells we get $11 and they get $3. Which looks good but it's really just a math game.
What I'm getting at, is someone will come up with a way to make a little less and give us more. Annual bonus, rebates, something. And it will happen as soon as Pixels.com shows it's making a profit and is a success.
That's weird. So, if I "want" $9, then the price shown is $12.60?
So, I guess you are getting paid 71.4%. That's pretty good. They should say that instead. It is much more enticing.
True, but the point is, WE set the price, WE get 100% of what WE decide the price should be. They take a service fee off the top. Not out of our price and commission.
I don't care if they take 10% or 40%, the buyer pays the premium. It could affect prices and sale, but we are still in control of our own pricing.
-
So why exactly are we handing over 40%?
-
Forgot a couple
To pay for screeners to make sure our work is displayed with similar quality? no
To pay for screeners to double check our work for potential problems such as trademarks and copyrights? no
-
I don't care if they take 10% or 40%, the buyer pays the premium. It could affect prices and sale, but we are still in control of our own pricing.
The buyer _always_ pays the premium. As you said, it's a math game. You're in control like you are at Pond. Whether you add the premium in before what you want or after what you want, it doesn't matter. If they say they're going to a 100% premium, then your "price" just went up by 50% or so.
-
No Watermarks! Always a problem.
(http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz187/rimglow/Free_zpsfe236ee7.jpg) (http://s826.photobucket.com/user/rimglow/media/Free_zpsfe236ee7.jpg.html)
-
Someone will offer us 110% and take 30% of the sale. Impossible? Heck no, competition. We sell for $10 if it sells we get $11 and they get $3. Which looks good but it's really just a math game.
Picfair is already selling on 100%, plus 20% markup. It works.
I think, FAA/pixels could become a much more disruptive player, because with turn of a switch they'll have a collection with several millions of images. Even without any advertising using their existing SEO, if they will sell 1% of that collection, that would bring enough money to fund an advertising campaign, and then the sales could spiral up.
If they go ahead with it, they could seriously impact marginal stock agencies.
In addition, if Dick sells a picture of a tomato for $28 on pixels, and Harry gets 20 cents for his tomato on Thinkstock or other low-paying agency, he will get really pissed off and he'll pull his images from those places.
-
I think this will fail for sure. Multiple licenses, custom licenses, infinite possible prices, it's a nightmare for buyers.
Buyers want simplicity, uniform pricing, and being able to go to a site and knowing beforehand roughly what they're about to pay. And also know that licensing is consistent. This new system is the opposite of all if that.
-
I've replied to the thread that I'm willing to participate in the beta. It may go nowhere but it'll be interesting to see if he can get something off the ground. Can't see how it could hurt anything given I've already uploaded a portion of my stock portfolio (and just need to exclude those items that require an editorial use only license unless they provide that)
-
No Watermarks! Always a problem.
Aaargh, I can see why they don't like them on 'fine art' offerings, but they should certainly be there, and prominent, on stock.
-
No Watermarks! Always a problem.
Aaargh, I can see why they don't like them on 'fine art' offerings, but they should certainly be there, and prominent, on stock.
It's beta. That is just a demonstration page.
-
I think this will fail for sure. Multiple licenses, custom licenses, infinite possible prices, it's a nightmare for buyers.
Buyers want simplicity, uniform pricing, and being able to go to a site and knowing beforehand roughly what they're about to pay. And also know that licensing is consistent. This new system is the opposite of all if that.
It's certainly the polar opposite of the Shutterstock model. But if it turns out not to be a huge turnoff, then this is one massive A/B test that will let us see that.
-
The real value in FAA is in not the same old stock photos everyone else sells. Its the real artwork that has potential to sell on products. And these are not "one off" deals. When you decide to bring out a line of products based on an artist, it requires negotiations over multiple products.
This is why there are agencies that deal specifically with art licensing.
-
It they wanted to go up against SS and Getty then why not launch a stock site like all the hundreds of others in the lower tier.
Because that would reek of desperation (trying to compete on the lower end). There is nothing inventive about going lower and lower.
-
I don't think this is out of desperation. The company is run very efficiently with something like 3 people. Unlike places like CafePress who are having trouble supporting hundreds.
-
It they wanted to go up against SS and Getty then why not launch a stock site like all the hundreds of others in the lower tier.
Because most of us have to open up our own shops if we want something better. It would be nice if someone would build them instead. Not saying this will be that, but I encourage companies to actually try. And, I try to support them when they do.
-
Any biz school consultant would tell him to stick to his companies strengths especially with competition from Getty's prints.com coming online.
Most business consultants understand only conventional, established practices.
They would have never sanctioned Jeff Bezos ambitions when he started Amazon, or even istockphoto and Shutterstock ten years ago.
-
Given that this is really similar to what Pond5 is offering (you set the price, they take a percentage) my biggest concern would be in whether they can actually generate sales. Can't say I'm too happy with P5 (images at least, footage is great). Maybe FAA can make it work. Here's hoping.
-
Pond5 has quality control. FAA/Pixels does not.
Imagine all of the "great" stock a buyer will have to sort through when rank amateurs who have been rejected from the micros start putting up photos of their feet and those amazing window seat airplane shots.
-
LesPalenik - its not 10 years ago or whatever then the market wasn't established. This is a late entry move into an established market with big players with well honed business practices.
-
Will people buy images that haven't been inspected - or even looked at - by an agency? And no checking of keywords either, so look for rampant keyword spamming.
This isn't like Symbiostock - your high-quality images will be up there side-by-side with boatloads of cr@p that people couldn't get accepted anywhere else.
Like DF_Studios said - unless the 'stock' is kept totally separate from the 'art', this will ruin FAA from my point of view. The only buyers I get find my photos by keyword search. If that search is polluted by tons of keyword-spammed stock, I might as well give up.
The site hasn't been seriously updated in years, and has plenty of exisiting problems. It's basically a one-man show and now he's off chasing another rainbow. It's depressing.
-
The only reason I care about this, is that my fine art business has been doing great. I really don't want to see this sink FAA.
I'm glad to hear that you are doing great on FAA. I don't think it will sink their site. There is a lot of questionable "art" on it and surprisingly, some of it sells.
I wouldn't get too excited about it. On one hand, it won't kill Shutterstock or Magnum Images, but on the other hand there may be enough buyers who need a picture for their book or CD cover, artwork for a T-shirt, or interesting background for some collage.
As to assessing the image quality, their magnification feature is quite helpful to see the images at 100% prior to the purchase.
-
There are two parties in a sale. The buyer and the seller. A real business would bring in a a bunch of stock buyers and run focus groups to see if the idea had merit. They would also run focus groups among the artists to iron out any potential problems...
Actually I think they've nailed it from the artist perspective. Maybe too much so. They're giving the artists way too much freedom to price images however they want and even write their own license terms.
The result will be zero consistency and uniformity, which buyers want and which they'd find if they did like you suggested and do some research and testing.
They'd also find that buyers don't want a bazillion different price points, and they sure as heck don't want to read a new license every time they download an image. Which they will have to do in this case if everyone can create whatever custom license terms they dream up.
I think this has very little chance of working. It may appeal to artists, but it will be a huge flop with buyers, especially if it is to be aimed at competing with Shutterstock and Getty and possibly attract those kinds of buyers.
They need to narrow the scope a bit. There is room for variable pricing in this business, but not from $1 to $1,000. And none of this "write your own license" insanity.
-
Yup as expected "we" are plunging forward.
-
<a href='http://fineartamerica.com/featured/mouse-of-the-house-mandie-manzano.html' (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/mouse-of-the-house-mandie-manzano.html') size='20'><img src='http://fineartamerica.com/displayartwork.html?id=5927941&width=250&height=333' (http://fineartamerica.com/displayartwork.html?id=5927941&width=250&height=333') alt='Art Prints' title='Art Prints' style='border: none;'>[/url]
-
<a href='[url]http://fineartamerica.com/featured/mouse-of-the-house-mandie-manzano.html'[/url] ([url]http://fineartamerica.com/featured/mouse-of-the-house-mandie-manzano.html'[/url]) size='20'><img src='[url]http://fineartamerica.com/displayartwork.html?id=5927941&width=250&height=333'[/url] ([url]http://fineartamerica.com/displayartwork.html?id=5927941&width=250&height=333'[/url]) alt='Art Prints' title='Art Prints' style='border: none;'>[/url]
That's what they're laying themselves open to. The site is so full of this sort of stuff.
-
Yup as expected "we" are plunging forward. Despite any objections/concerns raised. Basically it was conceived, built and now it will be implemented. Make it up as we go along. Let the customer service headache begin.
If Putin ran a company this would be it. ;-)
FAA is one guy. If he doesn't have help lined up he's going to be swamped by problems selling stock.
Have you seen the recent threads on the FAA forum about 'missing' images, and images where full-size preview doesn't work? There's some bug involving the database that's breaking the links to the original JPGs, and it's been going on for quite a while - there are several currently screwed up in my small portfolio, so the damage has to be extensive. Meanwhile they're going off on this tangent, which to experienced stock sellers makes no sense.
I guess that's enough of my negativity/realism for one day...
-
He gets a lot done. How many people in IS software department?
BTW, he just mentioned in related FAA thread:
I know what I'm doing. This is going to work. Why? I've got all the time and patience in the world to make it work, and I don't have to treat our sellers like garbage like every other company in the space.
Quite refreshing approach.
-
Once the code is done. That's that. Time to launch.
-
In that case, your own Symbiostock site is the best choice.
-
He gets a lot done. How many people in IS software department?
BTW, he just mentioned in related FAA thread:
I know what I'm doing. This is going to work. Why? I've got all the time and patience in the world to make it work, and I don't have to treat our sellers like garbage like every other company in the space.
Quite refreshing approach.
I think he's essentially a good guy - but he may not realise the can of worms he's opened up and might drop "his sellers" into.
There are a number of logical errors in his interpretation of the microstock market, and now he's suggesting that anybody who doesn't agree to his understanding of the market is "100% wrong".
The "I'm right, you're wrong" school of management isn't noted for its successes.
-
He gets a lot done. How many people in IS software department?
BTW, he just mentioned in related FAA thread:
I know what I'm doing. This is going to work. Why? I've got all the time and patience in the world to make it work, and I don't have to treat our sellers like garbage like every other company in the space.
Quite refreshing approach.
I think he's essentially a good guy - but he may not realise the can of worms he's opened up and might drop "his sellers" into.
There are a number of logical errors in his interpretation of the microstock market, and now he's suggesting that anybody who doesn't agree to his understanding of the market is "100% wrong".
The "I'm right, you're wrong" school of management isn't noted for its successes.
I always worry about essentially one-person companies (from previous non-stock experience).
Wonder if he's got something firmly in place for expediencies if he burns out, or worse.
-
I'd like to see him sell FAA to someone who has the resources to really maintain and upgrade it. Maybe he could stay on board and devote full time to chasing new ventures. But this new microstock sandbox isn't going to do anything for print sales.
The FAA site looks dated and tired, and sucks on a tablet. The personal "artist websites" look pretty lame compared to current gallery sites like SmugMug. There are serious bugs that need attention. FAA does many things very well, but it needs a serious facelift and I sense that Sean McDunn is only interested in new deals that leverage what he's already built.
-
Are sellers supposed to do their own advertising for FAA?
If so, people would be better off on Symbio, for sure.
-
I'll just put something in my info - "if you are interested in licensing, contact me". Cuts out the middleman.
-
Everything about FAA is do it yourself marketing...
Oh, good. So a terrible plan to frustrate buyers with multiple license types and infinite price points, on top of zero marketing efforts. Brilliant.
If I said before that I think there is very little chance this will work, I'd like to amend that to say that there is zero chance this will work.
-
I always worry about essentially one-person companies
There is always a great element of risk in these situations, but often one competent and motivated designer can accomplish more than a team of mediocre demoralized programmers. Examples include not only Sean Duff, but also Leo Blanchette, Linus Torvalds, Thomas Knoll, and others. I will not mention here programming teams at some large companies who shouldn't even take such a test.
The famous programmer productivity study that was conducted in late 1960's found the ratio between the best and worst programmers was about 20:1, of program size 5:1, and program execution about 10:1.
This experiment was done with professional programmers with an average of 7 years experience who were committed enough to come on their own time and spend whole weekend doing the test. If you have programmers with less experience and less motivation, the differences could easily approach 50:1. Sounds incredible, but I've seen it. Not mentioning that a great many software projects are aborted altogether before they are finished.
-
I always worry about essentially one-person companies
There is always a great element of risk in these situations, but often one competent and motivated designer can accomplish more than a team of mediocre demoralized programmers. Examples include not only Sean Duff, but also Leo Blanchette, Linus Torvalds, Thomas Knoll, and others.
The famous programmer productivity study that was conducted in late 1960's found the ratio between the best and worst programmers was about 20:1, of program size 5:1, and program execution about 10:1.
This experiment was done with professional programmers with an average of 7 years experience who were committed enough to come on their own time and spend whole weekend doing the test. If you have programmers with less experience and less motivation, the differences could easily approach 50:1. Sounds incredible, but I've seen it. Not mentioning that a great many software projects are aborted altogether before they are finished.
Not questioning his programming ability.
Worried about health etc. Working 24/7 is no good for anyone.
And if someone is so dedicated to programming, they're not on top of everything else which is necessary, most obviously in this case, marketing and release/IP issues.
-
You are right! In this case, the programming was actually the easy part. And it works.
-
I think this will fail for sure. Multiple licenses, custom licenses, infinite possible prices, it's a nightmare for buyers.
Buyers want simplicity, uniform pricing, and being able to go to a site and knowing beforehand roughly what they're about to pay. And also know that licensing is consistent. This new system is the opposite of all if that.
They want something like IS with 80 sites and 100 different licenses? The self announced artists on FAA don't like this plan, people will upload stock or pictures that aren't worthy of hanging on a wall. This comes from people who don't understand copyright law but are worried that we will come to their fancy little illegal warehouse of infringment. Maybe somebody will notice all the illegal art on FAA and start asking questions.
-
So many businesses failed in the dot.com era because people thought all it took to run a business is to have a bunch of programmers write code.
-
The famous programmer productivity study that was conducted in late 1960's found the ratio between the best and worst programmers was about 20:1, of program size 5:1, and program execution about 10:1.
Sorry for being totally OT, but can you give me a hint where I can find that study (or something similar from more recent times?).
thanks.
-
I don't know if there were other similar studies done lately, but the programming methods have changed a lot since then. At that time, you had to code everything, nowadays there are many already debugged functions, libraries, and plugins. So the emphasis shifts somewhat from pure code writing to code and function assembly.
There must be many references about the original study on Internet, but most are buried deep under all kinds of advertising links and annoying spam. Here is one link that will get you started:
http://www.devtopics.com/programmer-productivity-the-tenfinity-factor/ (http://www.devtopics.com/programmer-productivity-the-tenfinity-factor/)
ADDED:
In the 1980's, there was also a story about a software project at Boeing that had 80 programmers working on it. The project was at risk of missing the deadline, so they called off the 80 people from that project and brought in a super programmer who finished all the coding and delivered perfectly worked program on time.
-
So many businesses failed in the dot.com era because people thought all it took to run a business is to have a bunch of programmers write code.
This guy actually accomplished more than most people on this board, so he must have some understanding of business.
-
As I said earlier, no way to know if this will be a useful convenience for buyers - the ability to license a digital version of the image as well as buy prints - but I've added a license to a handful of my images just to see how it works. In case anyone else is interested, here's an example:
http://pixels.com/featured/apache-trail-roadside-jo-ann-snover.html (http://pixels.com/featured/apache-trail-roadside-jo-ann-snover.html)
I don't see this as a market primarily for stock, but if you were there for art and wanted to license an image - say for a blog post about the art you're using - it's a ton easier to just buy from FAA than try and figure out where else the image is (if anywhere) and go there, buy credits, yada yada yada.
And yes, it'd be nice to have a better watermark to discourage anyone from thinking it's OK to use the preview in a blog just 'cause you bought a print or two :)
-
Interesting it says $3 and then I clicked and it's $2.80 for blog size. So what price did you set and are they just rounding to the nearest dollar, or up, to make it easier?
Good point that whole watermark thing, because FAA doesn't encourage the use of them.
As I said earlier, no way to know if this will be a useful convenience for buyers - the ability to license a digital version of the image as well as buy prints - but I've added a license to a handful of my images just to see how it works. In case anyone else is interested, here's an example:
[url]http://pixels.com/featured/apache-trail-roadside-jo-ann-snover.html[/url] ([url]http://pixels.com/featured/apache-trail-roadside-jo-ann-snover.html[/url])
I don't see this as a market primarily for stock, but if you were there for art and wanted to license an image - say for a blog post about the art you're using - it's a ton easier to just buy from FAA than try and figure out where else the image is (if anywhere) and go there, buy credits, yada yada yada.
And yes, it'd be nice to have a better watermark to discourage anyone from thinking it's OK to use the preview in a blog just 'cause you bought a print or two :)
-
I set the prices so they'd be pretty close to my Symbiostock prices (from the buyer's point of view). There are different sizes so it's not exact. The actual price is $2.80 and I guess they decided to round on what they showed on the preview page.
I would make a little less from an FAA sale than I would from my own site, but then I don't have the alexa ranking that FAA has :)
-
In case anyone else is interested, here's an example:
[url]http://pixels.com/featured/apache-trail-roadside-jo-ann-snover.html[/url] ([url]http://pixels.com/featured/apache-trail-roadside-jo-ann-snover.html[/url])
I cannot see the prices for stock licensing. Am I missing something?
-
It's under greating card. Looks nice...
-
One of the major issues I see with this is the lack of proper watermark since a lot of sales are XS and S on the other agencies. The images on white background will basically be available for free. This is one of my biggest concerns.
I'm also concerned that this might affect the print side of the business, where we sell, since like others have said it will flood FAA with completely unsuitable images for wall art and bury the good images killing the business. And the lack of reviewing, the questions about IP, copyright infringements, unscrupulous people reselling our work, etc are a real question.
Having said that, and considering that at other agencies things are so bad, we're at the point of having very little to lose.
As an example we've licensed at Alamy 10 images this month so far. 5 of them were under $4, 4 under $14 and the highest $33. An average of $9 commission per sale! A +90% drop when compared to 2008!
Not to mention the offer of 35 million images from Getty to blogs. The way things are going it will soon be more profitable to offer our work for free and ask for donations...
Maybe we will try this idea with all it's faults. It can't be worse than the next 3 or 4 atomic bombs the agencies are probably preparing to launch next week...
-
It's under greating card. Looks nice...
Thanks, I see it now. That's well hidden... Considering the importance of this move I thought the licensing section it would be more visible.
-
I would make a little less from an FAA sale than I would from my own site, but then I don't have the alexa ranking that FAA has :)
But it's difficult to imagine that a lot of their current audience would be interested in licensing stock.
Unless they wanted the pictures to print out, etc, themselves at a more reasonable rate.
(Not directed at Jo Ann) Talking of which, did they ever do anything about finding a European/UK fulfilment partner? I'm not on their boards much and I could have missed any announcement. The last I read, they had missed their New Year deadline for announcing same.
-
I don't know if there were other similar studies done lately, but the programming methods have changed a lot since then. At that time, you had to code everything, nowadays there are many already debugged functions, libraries, and plugins. So the emphasis shifts somewhat from pure code writing to code and function assembly.
There must be many references about the original study on Internet, but most are buried deep under all kinds of advertising links and annoying spam. Here is one link that will get you started:
[url]http://www.devtopics.com/programmer-productivity-the-tenfinity-factor/[/url] ([url]http://www.devtopics.com/programmer-productivity-the-tenfinity-factor/[/url])
ADDED:
In the 1980's, there was also a story about a software project at Boeing that had 80 programmers working on it. The project was at risk of missing the deadline, so they called off the 80 people from that project and brought in a super programmer who finished all the coding and delivered perfectly worked program on time.
Thanks!
-
Ok, Sean from FAA is confusing EL with RM, he is getting in over his head.
-
If someone wants to license my artwork, I can be reached by email.
-
Someone needs to call Harvard Business School and let them know that their services are no longer needed!
-
I read that thread. Sounds like they don't really have the knowledge, experience or planning to correctly implement this.
-
The thinking seems to be that offering unlimited options is some how a good business strategy.
-
Just read the posts from Sean McDunn and skip the chatter. He says right up front that he doesn't have a complete plan and thinks that if he just gets started with a few volunteers he'll figure it out as he goes. Well, maybe. Obviously others have done it at some point. But from a contributor's point of view it looks like a big waste of time and a distraction from what he should be doing: improving FAA's print sale site.
-
Looking at the example in that thread, why would you buy an extended license for "print advertising" when the standard license allows you to use it for print advertising? Or promotional use?
It seems like if you want the largest size for some reason, they force you to buy the EL, but if you don't, you're fine with the cheaper regular license.
-
He apparently wants input on the licensing language as well. Or, write your own. Nothing is finalized. To be fair, contributors are running ahead of what McDunn has actually said.
-
Weird thing about 500 Prime is the titles - the photos have cutesy "art" titles like "Puss'n Boots" on a picture of a cat.
I don't get Sean's panicky thoughts that he doesn't want to become the next Circuit City. 500px seemed like they have been scrambling to find a business model. Doesn't FAA have a business model that is working?
-
I don't get Sean's panicky thoughts that he doesn't want to become the next Circuit City. 500px seemed like they have been scrambling to find a business model. Doesn't FAA have a business model that is working?
I think if we actually met the guy, all would come clear.
The print sale part of FAA works pretty well and has made him a ton of money, but maybe he's bored with it and dreams about moving up to Jon Oringer's level of wealth. From my point of view, FAA desperately needs some serious competition in print sales. There are already enough stock sites.
-
So many businesses failed in the dot.com era because people thought all it took to run a business is to have a bunch of programmers write code.
This guy actually accomplished more than most people on this board, so he must have some understanding of business.
I'd agree. I have a technology background and I find it amazing with what he's done mostly on his own and has been successful with it.
Nobody knows how this stock part will end up but at the art part is definitely doing well for me.
-
Looking at the example in that thread, why would you buy an extended license for "print advertising" when the standard license allows you to use it for print advertising? Or promotional use?
It seems like if you want the largest size for some reason, they force you to buy the EL, but if you don't, you're fine with the cheaper regular license.
From the latest things he has written it is apparent that the EL is not an EL at all, it is RM. So people should be selling either RF or EL but not both. Very confusing. Also, he keeps referring to iStock as Getty. At least, when he says Getty I think he means iStock....
-
Did the thread there go poof? I can't see it anymore.
-
Did the thread there go poof? I can't see it anymore.
No, it's still there. Maybe your login timed out, or maybe the other sean has changed the access rights.
-
Ok, I did time out.
Looks like he's trying to get all the benefit (income) of licensing RM (or as he calls it, EL, which makes no sense, since they're the opposite of extended) with none of the responsibility of administrating it.
And as someone else said, the "RM" licenses there should be cheaper than the RF, since they are so much more restrictive. It really makes no sense at all.
-
From the latest things he has written it is apparent that the EL is not an EL at all, it is RM. So people should be selling either RF or EL but not both. Very confusing. Also, he keeps referring to iStock as Getty. At least, when he says Getty I think he means iStock....
FAA Sean really doesn't understand half as much as he thinks he does - plus he's really dogmatic and defensive. Tough combination to have any sort of useful conversation with.
-
It would have been easy enough to invite a group of power sellers in for a weekend conference and hash out all of the issues. And then perhaps attend a few industry gatherings to learn how the business works.
-
But that wouldn't be "disruptive". :)
-
It would have been easy enough to invite a group of power sellers in for a weekend conference and hash out all of the issues. And then perhaps attend a few industry gatherings to learn how the business works.
That would have been a good idea. It seems, that right now everybody there has very different expectations or worries - the site owner, the stockers, the stock-haters, the painters, and the totally clueless. The main question is: who will be the buyers?
-
It would have been easy enough to invite a group of power sellers in for a weekend conference and hash out all of the issues. And then perhaps attend a few industry gatherings to learn how the business works.
That would have been a good idea. It seems, that right now everybody there has very different expectations or worries - the site owner, the stockers, the stock-haters, the painters, and the totally clueless. The main question is: who will be the buyers?
i.e. is he going to promote the site?
-
"Looks like Sean changed the license names to "Royalty Free" and "Rights Managed". (no more "standard" and "extended".) "
It's really all backwards. They're not "managing" the rights, because he says you need to monitor the web and world for incorrect usage. They're actually restricting the rights. They way they have it set up, it should be RF at the top, at the highest price, and the restricted uses for lesser prices.
Crazy they jumped into this without any research.
-
I havent checked back but he is talking a lot, but not answering real concerns about watermarking etc. Nothing changed, they never address questions about changing stuff they have no interest in changing.
I dont care, it will not work anyways. Buyers can buy my images elsewhere. If people start reporting steady sales, I can easily opt in.
-
I havent checked back but he is talking a lot, but not answering real concerns about watermarking etc. Nothing changed, they never address questions about changing stuff they have no interest in changing.
That, unfortunately, is the bottom line with FAA: 'my way or no way'; and it's also their archilles heel. Of course, it's his ball, he can make up his own rules; but ultimately that might not be best business practice, and may fall well short of legality.
For example, when I pointed out that their claim, "When someone clicks on your advertisement and then signs up for a new website on artistwebsites.com, you'll instantly earn $5.00." isn't true, I got a personal email from Sean explaining that the person has to go past the time (30 days?) when the person can't ask for a refund. Fair enough, as I replied, that's not unreasonable, but the promise is thereby totally untrue. And six months later, the lie is still there:
http://fineartamerica.com/announcement-artist-websites-referral-program.html?affiliateid= (http://fineartamerica.com/announcement-artist-websites-referral-program.html?affiliateid=)
I think that basic disregard for honesty and legality (in the UK, that wording is neither honest nor truthful ), even when it's pointed out, is worryingly arrogant.
-
Crazy they jumped into this without any research
But FAA Sean says they did a ton of research - "The point is - the market was thoroughly researched before we decided to get involved."
I think the problem is that he gathered a lot of data he didn't understand and is now circling the wagons against anyone who doesn't agree with him. He also seems to equate a microstock extended license with high end RM in claiming that no one tracks usages. He said SS is selling 25 million images a month - it's per quarter. And on and on...
-
"Looks like Sean changed the license names to "Royalty Free" and "Rights Managed". (no more "standard" and "extended".) "
It's really all backwards. They're not "managing" the rights, because he says you need to monitor the web and world for incorrect usage. They're actually restricting the rights. They way they have it set up, it should be RF at the top, at the highest price, and the restricted uses for lesser prices.
Crazy they jumped into this without any research.
Exactly what I have been thinking about Zoonar's weird misuse of the term RM for a long time. Although at least they got the pricing right (RF being way more expensive than "RM").
-
From the latest things he has written it is apparent that the EL is not an EL at all, it is RM. So people should be selling either RF or EL but not both. Very confusing. Also, he keeps referring to iStock as Getty. At least, when he says Getty I think he means iStock....
FAA Sean really doesn't understand half as much as he thinks he does - plus he's really dogmatic and defensive. Tough combination to have any sort of useful conversation with.
But you do realize that this guy built a multimillion Dollar company out of his garage?
-
From the latest things he has written it is apparent that the EL is not an EL at all, it is RM. So people should be selling either RF or EL but not both. Very confusing. Also, he keeps referring to iStock as Getty. At least, when he says Getty I think he means iStock....
FAA Sean really doesn't understand half as much as he thinks he does - plus he's really dogmatic and defensive. Tough combination to have any sort of useful conversation with.
But you do realize that this guy built a multimillion Dollar company out of his garage?
And if he's not careful, he could lose it all in lawsuits.
-
From the latest things he has written it is apparent that the EL is not an EL at all, it is RM. So people should be selling either RF or EL but not both. Very confusing. Also, he keeps referring to iStock as Getty. At least, when he says Getty I think he means iStock....
FAA Sean really doesn't understand half as much as he thinks he does - plus he's really dogmatic and defensive. Tough combination to have any sort of useful conversation with.
But you do realize that this guy built a multimillion Dollar company out of his garage?
And if he's not careful, he could lose it all in lawsuits.
I wish I could say that about myself
-
I havent checked back but he is talking a lot, but not answering real concerns about watermarking etc. Nothing changed, they never address questions about changing stuff they have no interest in changing.
I dont care, it will not work anyways. Buyers can buy my images elsewhere. If people start reporting steady sales, I can easily opt in.
Excellent, knock it, don't support, don't care, have a negative attitude, but if it works - grab it and complain that he makes to much money on contributors
-
From the latest things he has written it is apparent that the EL is not an EL at all, it is RM. So people should be selling either RF or EL but not both. Very confusing. Also, he keeps referring to iStock as Getty. At least, when he says Getty I think he means iStock....
FAA Sean really doesn't understand half as much as he thinks he does - plus he's really dogmatic and defensive. Tough combination to have any sort of useful conversation with.
But you do realize that this guy built a multimillion Dollar company out of his garage?
I do, but that has nothing to do with him knowing anything about licensing stock, or brain surgery or anything else. Hats off to him for his accomplishments, but he needs access to accurate information to make good decisions.
You can't say yes to anything someone says just because you respect his accomplishments.
-
I'd like to do more with print sales and 'art' photos - and say to heck with stock.
What this Pixels.com thing really means to me is that Sean McDunn is going to waste his time and energy trying to cook up some goofy new stock business. That means nothing to me - I'm convinced it will go nowhere. On the other hand, for several weeks the FAA forum moderator has been teasing a supposed major upgrade to the FAA art site, supposedly to roll out soon. I wonder if that's really going to happen, and if it does, if it turns out to be all that major.
-
Excellent, knock it, don't support, don't care, have a negative attitude, but if it works - grab it and complain that he makes to much money on contributors
So someone needs to support a bad idea just to be able to express why they think it's bad?
:o
-
From the latest things he has written it is apparent that the EL is not an EL at all, it is RM. So people should be selling either RF or EL but not both. Very confusing. Also, he keeps referring to iStock as Getty. At least, when he says Getty I think he means iStock....
FAA Sean really doesn't understand half as much as he thinks he does - plus he's really dogmatic and defensive. Tough combination to have any sort of useful conversation with.
But you do realize that this guy built a multimillion Dollar company out of his garage?
He fused the ideas of automation, online marketing and taking a slice as a middle-man and applied his programming expertise to it. That was brilliant, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he understands stock. He seems to be thinking of it as just another kind of print sale. I'm not really sure he understands print selling, either, or he might not be so cavalier in his attitude towards copyright and trademarks (basically that this things don't matter .... well, officially the site says it has zero tolerance to copyright infringement, but it takes no action when breaches are pointed out by a third party).
-
From the latest things he has written it is apparent that the EL is not an EL at all, it is RM. So people should be selling either RF or EL but not both. Very confusing. Also, he keeps referring to iStock as Getty. At least, when he says Getty I think he means iStock....
FAA Sean really doesn't understand half as much as he thinks he does - plus he's really dogmatic and defensive. Tough combination to have any sort of useful conversation with.
But you do realize that this guy built a multimillion Dollar company out of his garage?
And if he's not careful, he could lose it all in lawsuits.
I wish I could say that about myself
You are selling unreleased work as RF, so you might end up getting what you ask for sooner or later
-
Gunter - relax. A real maverick doesn't care what naysayers think. A brilliant idea has been conceived, built and will launch on schedule.
-
......... I'm not really sure he understands print selling, either, or he might not be so cavalier in his attitude towards copyright and trademarks (basically that this things don't matter .... well, officially the site says it has zero tolerance to copyright infringement, but it takes no action when breaches are pointed out by a third party).
I am not sure you really understand print sales. Art is not like commercial stock. There is a lot more leeway on trademarks. And if the trademark holder does not object or may even encourage it, why should they pay attention to all the ignorant third party police trying to eliminate competition? Cellphone cases on Pixels, aside it is an art site with all the freedom (and responsibilities) that go with it. Maybe you have been brainwashed by the stock sites into surrendering your freedom of speech or forgetting you have it.
-
>:(
-
......... I'm not really sure he understands print selling, either, or he might not be so cavalier in his attitude towards copyright and trademarks (basically that this things don't matter .... well, officially the site says it has zero tolerance to copyright infringement, but it takes no action when breaches are pointed out by a third party).
I am not sure you really understand print sales. Art is not like commercial stock. There is a lot more leeway on trademarks. And if the trademark holder does not object or may even encourage it, why should they pay attention to all the ignorant third party police trying to eliminate competition? Cellphone cases on Pixels, aside it is an art site with all the freedom (and responsibilities) that go with it. Maybe you have been brainwashed by the stock sites into surrendering your freedom of speech or forgetting you have it.
Stealing images is never okay. Derived works of stolen images of famous people is not allowed. Maybe Coca Cola is lenient towards print sales, slapping a filter on a Madonna image, you dont own copyright to, and putting it up for sale, is stealing and copyright infringement Its not allowed, not even if FAA turns a blind eye.
-
......... I'm not really sure he understands print selling, either, or he might not be so cavalier in his attitude towards copyright and trademarks (basically that this things don't matter .... well, officially the site says it has zero tolerance to copyright infringement, but it takes no action when breaches are pointed out by a third party).
I am not sure you really understand print sales. Art is not like commercial stock. There is a lot more leeway on trademarks. And if the trademark holder does not object or may even encourage it, why should they pay attention to all the ignorant third party police trying to eliminate competition? Cellphone cases on Pixels, aside it is an art site with all the freedom (and responsibilities) that go with it. Maybe you have been brainwashed by the stock sites into surrendering your freedom of speech or forgetting you have it.
I don't claim to be any sort of expert on online print sales - they are a very minor sideline for me - but I do know that selling someone else's photographs as being your own work is not an assertion of freedom of speech, it is theft. A lot of people are taking film studio publicity pictures and claiming copyright to them - in some cases several different "artists" claim to own the rights to the same photograph, which is not in the public domain.
I also know that if you copy a photo - making a painting of it or using a variant as part of some other artwork, then at some point it becomes a new work, but that's not what I'm talking about.
If a photograph is in copyright then and has not been made public domain then I fail to see how you might think that simply lifting a copy of it from somewhere gives you the right to sell it as you own art.
If somebody doesn't care if their trademark or photograph is being sold by someone else then that is their affair. I honestly don't know if it is permissable to produce copies of trademarks for sale as art or not, it's not an issue that I need to bother about. Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could answer that one.
-
It seems that trademarks cannot be produced and sold as art UNLESS they are incidental to a broader subject
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/18230119312/big-ruling-says-using-trademarks-artistic-works-can-be-protected-under-first-amendment.shtml (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/18230119312/big-ruling-says-using-trademarks-artistic-works-can-be-protected-under-first-amendment.shtml)
So I guess a picture of a skyline with a McDonalds sign in it would be OK but a picture purely of a Mcdonalds sign wouldn't. There are plenty of pictures purely of logos and nothing else on FAA.
-
Browsing around over there, I didn't realize how much selective coloring, vignetting, solarization, toning, bad HDR and terrible text overlays were required to be called "art". The way some of these guys are defending this stuff as worth thousands per license, you'd think they painted the Mona Lisa.
-
Browsing around over there, I didn't realize how much selective coloring, vignetting, solarization, toning, bad HDR and terrible text overlays were required to be called "art". The way some of these guys are defending this stuff as worth thousands per license, you'd think they painted the Mona Lisa.
Exactly.
Check out the most awesome place on the internet to show your FAA artwork. Make a cup of coffee for yourself while the site is loading. http://qthecollection.com/qtalk/index.php (http://qthecollection.com/qtalk/index.php)
-
"an elite collection of fine art photography from a select group of photographic artists"
That's a mouthful!
-
Hero worship aside, there is nothing there that a decent web coders could not do. Which bring a great opportunity to someone like our very own Leo of Symbiostock fame.
How about creating a wordpress template that could be integrated with pictureframes.com's reseller program? Rather than sending traffic to FAA, one could concentrate on sending traffic to their own gallery with pictureframes.com handling fulfillment.
I was thinking along the same lines. Taking it one step further, the picture print and framing component could be fulfilled by multiple partners, in many cases local companies, which would save also on shipping costs (especially if the end customer is located outside USA).
-
pictureframe.com already has this set up. Anyone can utilize their reseller program for $100 a year. They handle all the back end. Once you start getting complicated it doesn't work.
-
What are you buying with your commission money?
-
But you do realize that this guy built a multimillion Dollar company out of his garage?
Are his trading figures in the public domain? Can you post the link, please?
-
But seriously, beyond the unrealistic expectations of the participants and the trademark issues and the watermark issues etc etc. The question no one seems to ask is why hand over any commission to FAA if they are not bringing any value.
"They" don't have a client base, "they" have no expertise, "they" offer no customer services, no tracking, no screening, no legal protection, etc. What are you buying with your commission money?
THAT. And to add.... they do NO marketing either. Its all up to us to make HIM money.
-
Its surprising that someone in say - Germany - hasn't approached FAA to be their partner with FINEARTGERMANY.COM or any of the other domains they have.
-
Browsing around over there, I didn't realize how much selective coloring, vignetting, solarization, toning, bad HDR and terrible text overlays were required to be called "art". The way some of these guys are defending this stuff as worth thousands per license, you'd think they painted the Mona Lisa.
You simply don't understand Sean, because you are not one of the world's greatest living artists and photographers. Unlike me. :)
-
I havent checked back but he is talking a lot, but not answering real concerns about watermarking etc. Nothing changed, they never address questions about changing stuff they have no interest in changing.
I dont care, it will not work anyways. Buyers can buy my images elsewhere. If people start reporting steady sales, I can easily opt in.
what i want to know is why did sales from faa fall off the face of the planet.
-
I don't claim to be any sort of expert on online print sales - they are a very minor sideline for me - but I do know that selling someone else's photographs as being your own work is not an assertion of freedom of speech, it is theft. A lot of people are taking film studio publicity pictures and claiming copyright to them - in some cases several different "artists" claim to own the rights to the same photograph, which is not in the public domain.
I also know that if you copy a photo - making a painting of it or using a variant as part of some other artwork, then at some point it becomes a new work, but that's not what I'm talking about.
This is NOT a new work. So that how much is rather difficult to determine.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/44/Fairey_poster_photo_source%3F%2C_by_stevesimula.jpg/220px-Fairey_poster_photo_source%3F%2C_by_stevesimula.jpg)
If that's what the people from FAA who repaint famous works are defending. They will some day get a seriously sad lesson.
Very simple, don't copy, don't steal and it's fine. There's no defense for plagiarism in the name of "art", and claiming it's some kind of freedon.
Fairey sued for a declaratory judgment that his poster was a fair use of the original photograph. The parties settled out of court in January 2011, with details of the settlement remaining confidential.
Trust me, AP didn't pay Fairley for the misuse. :)
-
Different than business cycles when departments get new budgets to work with in the beginning of the year.
-
this interview says FAA does 5 million a year with three employees:
http://www.sramanamitra.com/2012/03/22/doing-5m-a-year-with-3-employees-fineartamerica-ceo-sean-broihier-part-1/ (http://www.sramanamitra.com/2012/03/22/doing-5m-a-year-with-3-employees-fineartamerica-ceo-sean-broihier-part-1/)
-
this interview says FAA does 5 million a year with three employees:
[url]http://www.sramanamitra.com/2012/03/22/doing-5m-a-year-with-3-employees-fineartamerica-ceo-sean-broihier-part-1/[/url] ([url]http://www.sramanamitra.com/2012/03/22/doing-5m-a-year-with-3-employees-fineartamerica-ceo-sean-broihier-part-1/[/url])
and that was 2 years ago!
thanks for sharing :)
-
We do quality control at the time of sale because of the sheer volume of images uploaded to the site. We are getting close to 10,000 uploads per day. It is humanly impossible to have someone look at 10,000 images a day and check them for quality.
Its humanly impossible for one person, not for a team of persons. But hey, you need to maximise your profits, so you need to do away with quality control.
-
Quality control is basically boosting selling images in the search. Theory is - if it sold before it must be good quality.
Other sites like Society6 and 500px use voting. On FAA at some point the people with crummy images figured this out and created voting groups, so now voting doesn't goose up the images.
Just having a large image size requirement would get rid of a lot of point and shoot crap.
He runs the model as if more contributors is better. maybe most of the profit is in people buying their own images.
-
As if the $30 premium fee is where the money is.
not so sure about that, there are exactly 5k artists with profile picture, lets say half of those pay membership so its only 75k $
still a few $ to get to the 5 Million
-
exactly so its to their benefit to cut out the crap somehow. But then again, all of the wannabees are contributing to the site traffic, sending their relatives to their gallery.
-
I enjoy Dilbert cartoons as much as the next person
-
Thought about this some more and came to these conclusions:
1. All McDunn said was that he wanted to try some image licensing with a few volunteers. He doesn't really deserve all the criticism that followed.
2. Based on what he's outlined so far, I'm not interested so I've stopped reading about it.
3. As a print seller, FAA really needs competition. Someone should come along with updated concepts and better site design, and be selective in what they accept.
-
what i want to know is why did sales from faa fall off the face of the planet.
At one point they had an agreement for the images to appear in Amazon searches but I gather that was discontinued a few months ago. I think that may have had an impact. Of course, there is also the inflation in the size of the collection, just the same as with all the stock sites.
-
Thought about this some more and came to these conclusions:
1. All McDunn said was that he wanted to try some image licensing with a few volunteers. He doesn't really deserve all the criticism that followed.
2. Based on what he's outlined so far, I'm not interested so I've stopped reading about it.
3. As a print seller, FAA really needs competition. Someone should come along with updated concepts and better site design, and be selective in what they accept.
well said!
-
832 new members today.
With these numbers its mathematical certainty that participants will see diminishing returns. More and more hopefuls, more and more disappointments when they can't get their work seen through all of the clutter.
I wonder what percentage of members have less than 25 images up.
-
3. As a print seller, FAA really needs competition. Someone should come along with updated concepts and better site design, and be selective in what they accept.
Who knows how it will play out, but Getty's planning to turn photos.com into a print site. A huge portion of what's on FAA wouldn't get accepted by Getty, so I don't know if it will effectively be a competitor for FAA - turn your noses up at it, but a lot of that stuff on FAA sells (if you ever look at the recent sales lists, some if it is surprising)
-
There's good and not-so-good on FAA. I've sold a few prints via keyword search. But the ranking is all based on previous sales so at this point a new contributor has little chance. I might do better on a new site just because it's new; and if they were at least somewhat selective, that would help too.
A POD that requires getting in with Getty doesn't interest me. I can imagine what their TOS would look like.
I think the right thing to do would be to initially accept a contributor based on a portfolio sample, but not inspect or reject after that. I'm not interested in a site that cherry-picks the 'art' they think will sell. Because they don't know.
-
832 new members today.
I would say that 1% of those will buy membership, 90% won't even upload a single picture
-
Are you asking, how many are the Free FAA memberships? I wonder if they get buried inthe searches to encourage people to buy views?
Which brings the question. Does someone have to be a paid FAA member to join Pixels.com?
Also you made a good point with the views and groups and selling to relatives.
I'd use it for print fulfillment, if I was selling prints. I take the shot... Upload: Have the buyer place the order, drop ship directly to them, and it's done. Everyone is happy.
832 new members today.
With these numbers its mathematical certainty that participants will see diminishing returns. More and more hopefuls, more and more disappointments when they can't get their work seen through all of the clutter.
I wonder what percentage of members have less than 25 images up.
-
A small percentage even participate in the forums. Sean only has a small percentage of the overall FAA community even aware of this licensing idea.
-
That's it for now.
This discussion was just to invite "beta testers". It turned into a big Q&A primarily because I haven't provided enough information yet. We'll do the big Q&A when the program is formally launched.
To put your mind at ease - think of this as "art licensing" instead of "microstock". We're launching a marketplace to license high-end images from the world's greatest living artists and photographers, and we're allowing the world's greatest living artists and photographers to set their own prices and control exactly how their images are licensed.
Sean
This discussion is closed.
-
Thought about this some more and came to these conclusions:
1. All McDunn said was that he wanted to try some image licensing with a few volunteers. He doesn't really deserve all the criticism that followed.
McDunn said he was going to disrupt the stock market. Sounds different from he was just going to run a test with a few people.
-
With these numbers its mathematical certainty that participants will see diminishing returns. More and more hopefuls, more and more disappointments when they can't get their work seen through all of the clutter.
I agree. Very similar phenomenon as in the stock world.
And since in most cases they sell simple wall art, some people will discover that they can take their own images to Costco or Walmart and make inexpensively their own "fine art". So I don't see the drop in sales as a cyclical change, but more as a sign of gradual decline.
-
8).
-
Boy, this is going to be a looooong beta test since there are no buyers to test it.
-
this interview says FAA does 5 million a year with three employees:
[url]http://www.sramanamitra.com/2012/03/22/doing-5m-a-year-with-3-employees-fineartamerica-ceo-sean-broihier-part-1/[/url] ([url]http://www.sramanamitra.com/2012/03/22/doing-5m-a-year-with-3-employees-fineartamerica-ceo-sean-broihier-part-1/[/url])
They also emphasise on page two that they "sell artwork by living artists", though I regularly see sales coming through for classic images (some sold by museums) and Frida Kahlo's work sells well ...
-
Boy, this is going to be a looooong beta test since there are no buyers to test it.
;D lol
-
Make very sure you put watermarks, such as they are, on everything.
I just did a check on bee-eater and my name, and sure FAA turns up in various positions at the top of the search, but I found this page, "powered by Fine Art America" inviting people to download my image at 900x749
http://chinabirdphotography.com/green-bee-eater/178036-little-green-bee-eater-merops-orien.html (http://chinabirdphotography.com/green-bee-eater/178036-little-green-bee-eater-merops-orien.html)
Off to file a DMCA to be ignored, probably [1]; and to note it on the FAA discussion board.
[1] Oh, when I scrolled down, I found, "All pictures are copyrighted to their respective owners. If you own the copyright of any image contact us and we will remove it! "
We shall see!!
-
Good grief. Can you imagine when the actual files get out there on the free market?
-
Lots of
celebrities paintings....
fineartamerica.com/art/all/celebrities/all
some like to walk a fine line....
-
Lots of
celebrities paintings....
fineartamerica.com/art/all/celebrities/all
some like to walk a fine line....
Seriously, how do they get away with this?
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/jack-nicholson-andrzej-szczerski.html (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/jack-nicholson-andrzej-szczerski.html)
http://www.amazon.com/SD6664-Nicholson-Cigar-Legendary-POSTER/dp/B00CRAL6K4 (http://www.amazon.com/SD6664-Nicholson-Cigar-Legendary-POSTER/dp/B00CRAL6K4)
-
its fine copied art ;D
-
Yes I tried to tiptoe through that point on FAA and basically saw that people were told to Shut Up and called names and attacked and accused of just being jealous, trying to ruin it for others, who were making money.
Plus the moderator ended it with (paraphrased but close), "If you aren't an attorney you can't have an opinion on this." Thread locked.
Now talk about lack of open discussion or willingness to understand the liability and the law. :o
My only opinion on the whole mess is this. Someday someone will come and there will be a big lawsuit and FAA will stop protecting these people, for the commissions and start looking out for the rights of the personal likeness and original artists who are being copied, in some cases, just run through a filter.
(http://s5.postimg.org/6an7tv9ev/secretariat_faa_getty.jpg)
Yes some - very few - are real paintings, most are just photoshop alterations.
I don't want to be a party to that suit when the Shmutz hits the fan.
Lots of
celebrities paintings....
fineartamerica.com/art/all/celebrities/all
some like to walk a fine line....
-
FAA has lots of that sort of thing. Many people just re-sell well-known paintings by past masters:
http://fineartamerica.com/art/all/rembrandt/all (http://fineartamerica.com/art/all/rembrandt/all)
Also a number of people make money simply by selling NASA photos. All of this has been questioned many times on the FAA forum and the response is "mind your own business". If you check the Recent Sales page now and then you'll see that these things make FAA a lot of money. Apparently it's all quite legal.
I think they should put the idea of selling stock on the back burner. Then turn off the burner. And after a few days, sell the stove.
Meanwhile people are continuing to post about disappearing images, and getting no response:
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1807822 (http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1807822)
-
Also several "artists" re-selling celebrity portraits. Look up just Audrey Hepburn - you'll find over 100 listings and many of them are identical copies. And I mean COPIES.
Everytime, one of these pictures gets sold, the listing "artist" receives from others dozens of congratulations and encouraging comments, such as - great work, amazing photography, nice image, awesome capture, even - Really like this one, good composition and processing, can see why it sold.
I pointed this infraction twice to FAA through direct emails and on their forums. Only once I received a reply to my email stating that it is not allowed to post any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. BUT - it is each artist's responsibility to make sure they have the permission and rights for uploading work to the site.
In the meantime, new copies of existing portraits are being added and sold.
-
Also several "artists" re-selling celebrity portraits. Look up just Audrey Hepburn - you'll find over 100 listings and many of them are identical copies. And I mean COPIES.
Everytime, one of these pictures gets sold, the listing "artist" receives from others dozens of congratulations and encouraging comments, such as - great work, amazing photography, nice image, awesome capture, even - Really like this one, good composition and processing, can see why it sold.
I pointed this infraction twice to FAA through direct emails and on their forums. Only once I received a reply to my email stating that it is not allowed to post any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. BUT - it is each artist's responsibility to make sure they have the permission and rights for uploading work to the site.
In the meantime, new copies of existing portraits are being added and sold.
The very reason , I closed my account 7 Months ago. It is mind blowing the amount of theft in the name of art goes on there. shameful And should be stopped.
Some punk kid Finds a picture, does a filter and sells it. Unbelievable and puts a stain on real artists and the original Photographers...
-
Also several "artists" re-selling celebrity portraits. Look up just Audrey Hepburn - you'll find over 100 listings and many of them are identical copies. And I mean COPIES.
Everytime, one of these pictures gets sold, the listing "artist" receives from others dozens of congratulations and encouraging comments, such as - great work, amazing photography, nice image, awesome capture, even - Really like this one, good composition and processing, can see why it sold.
I pointed this infraction twice to FAA through direct emails and on their forums. Only once I received a reply to my email stating that it is not allowed to post any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. BUT - it is each artist's responsibility to make sure they have the permission and rights for uploading work to the site.
In the meantime, new copies of existing portraits are being added and sold.
Really? I did exactly the same about the same actress - I even gave them the name of the photographer and the studio and a link to a place stating whose copyright they were and that they were not for resale or commercial use.
It seems clear that they have no intention at all of protecting any of their amateur artists against action for violation of copyright, they reckon they've got a get-out for themselves with their position that it's up to the artists to get necessary permissions. They can argue that they haven't done anything wrong, it's the artist who has violated the uploading agreement. Whether a court would swallow a defence of willful ignorance I have no idea, but as far as FAA is concerned, it isn't at risk and turning a blind eye to flagrant violations is the best policy.
A lot of the Rembrandts are from the Bridgeman Art Library, which has a licensing deal with the museums that own the works, so there's nothing wrong with that. I suppose that's a help for FAA because they could point to them as an example of the fact that some people do have proper rights to selling other people's work/property.
-
Also several "artists" re-selling celebrity portraits. Look up just Audrey Hepburn - you'll find over 100 listings and many of them are identical copies. And I mean COPIES.
Everytime, one of these pictures gets sold, the listing "artist" receives from others dozens of congratulations and encouraging comments, such as - great work, amazing photography, nice image, awesome capture, even - Really like this one, good composition and processing, can see why it sold.
I pointed this infraction twice to FAA through direct emails and on their forums. Only once I received a reply to my email stating that it is not allowed to post any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. BUT - it is each artist's responsibility to make sure they have the permission and rights for uploading work to the site.
In the meantime, new copies of existing portraits are being added and sold.
Really? I did exactly the same about the same actress - I even gave them the name of the photographer and the studio and a link to a place stating whose copyright they were and that they were not for resale or commercial use.
It seems clear that they have no intention at all of protecting any of their amateur artists against action for violation of copyright, they reckon they've got a get-out for themselves with their position that it's up to the artists to get necessary permissions. They can argue that they haven't done anything wrong, it's the artist who has violated the uploading agreement. Whether a court would swallow a defence of willful ignorance I have no idea, but as far as FAA is concerned, it isn't at risk and turning a blind eye to flagrant violations is the best policy.
A lot of the Rembrandts are from the Bridgeman Art Library, which has a licensing deal with the museums that own the works, so there's nothing wrong with that. I suppose that's a help for FAA because they could point to them as an example of the fact that some people do have proper rights to selling other people's work/property.
And that's just the two of us. I wonder how many such infractions were reported by other photographers and ignored, thus sanctioning the blatant copies.
-
FAA has lots of that sort of thing. Many people just re-sell well-known paintings by past masters:
[url]http://fineartamerica.com/art/all/rembrandt/all[/url] ([url]http://fineartamerica.com/art/all/rembrandt/all[/url])
Also a number of people make money simply by selling NASA photos. All of this has been questioned many times on the FAA forum and the response is "mind your own business". If you check the Recent Sales page now and then you'll see that these things make FAA a lot of money. Apparently it's all quite legal.
I think they should put the idea of selling stock on the back burner. Then turn off the burner. And after a few days, sell the stove.
Meanwhile people are continuing to post about disappearing images, and getting no response:
[url]http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1807822[/url] ([url]http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1807822[/url])
Most of the Old Masters appear to be at the Bridgeman Library:
http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/the-masters.html (http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/the-masters.html)
Edit: I see that Les pointed that out already.
-
Here is Ansel Adams selling prints on FAA
-
Here is Ansel Adams selling prints on FAA: [url]http://fineartamerica.com/featured/aspens-northern-new-mexico-ansel-adams.html[/url] ([url]http://fineartamerica.com/featured/aspens-northern-new-mexico-ansel-adams.html[/url])
Black and White photography from the great Ansel Adams
[url]http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/fasgallerycom.html?tab=artworkgalleries&artworkgalleryid=237637[/url] ([url]http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/fasgallerycom.html?tab=artworkgalleries&artworkgalleryid=237637[/url])
It may be that that gallery has rights http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/fasgallerycom.html (http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/fasgallerycom.html)(or maybe they don't)
Nevertheless, it emphasises Sean's 'inaccuracy' when he emphasised, twice, that FAA represents the work of living artists.
-
It seems clear that they have no intention at all of protecting any of their amateur artists against action for violation of copyright, they reckon they've got a get-out for themselves with their position that it's up to the artists to get necessary permissions. They can argue that they haven't done anything wrong, it's the artist who has violated the uploading agreement. Whether a court would swallow a defence of willful ignorance I have no idea, but as far as FAA is concerned, it isn't at risk and turning a blind eye to flagrant violations is the best policy.
I doubt very much if they, as FAA, are legally protected.
They have been told numerous times of violations and have chosen to do nothing about it.
That's been recorded on here several times, so even if they expunge their own discussion boards, it's recorded.
Is Joe Infringed more likely to go after small-time-copier-Suzy or multi-million Sean?
-
Some stuff is vintage and public domain but adding a watercolor filter to Ansel Adams and then selling it as an Ansel Adams is just disgusting.
-
Amazon is taking a smart approach. Their beta fine art section only accepts art via galleries (who do the vetting).
-
With all of the rampant copyright violations on FAA why would any one sell digital files though their licensing program?
It would be like throwing raw meat to a pack of wild dogs!
-
its fine art guys, everything is allowed besides eating other artists eyes ;D
its a joke people, why the minus? :-X
-
With all of the rampant copyright violations on FAA why would any one sell digital files though their licensing program?
It would be like throwing raw meat to a pack of wild dogs!
I'm not for one second defending all the bad behavior that goes on at FAA, but you could say the same about most of the stock agencies.
We have had numerous examples of thieves uploading work that wasn't theirs or was a composite of a little bit of theirs and something they bought from another contributor and then used in violation of the license terms. I continue to sell my work in spite of the imperfections in handling thieves.
I haven't always been thrilled with the rather low energy or slow response the agencies have made to reports about violations, but for the most part they do at least acknowledge their responsibilities. The concern about FAA is that, like Fiverr, they want to suggest that these violations aren't their issue.
-
Here is Ansel Adams selling prints on FAA: [url]http://fineartamerica.com/featured/aspens-northern-new-mexico-ansel-adams.html[/url] ([url]http://fineartamerica.com/featured/aspens-northern-new-mexico-ansel-adams.html[/url])
Black and White photography from the great Ansel Adams
[url]http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/fasgallerycom.html?tab=artworkgalleries&artworkgalleryid=237637[/url] ([url]http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/fasgallerycom.html?tab=artworkgalleries&artworkgalleryid=237637[/url])
What a perversion to a great Photographer
-
from what I gathered a few months ago the Extended License at FT allows this, its called derivative work which can be sold on other sites like Zazzle, Cafepress, FAA, etc
perhaps the same happens with other agencies extended licenses
if we think closely and if they really bought the extended license its the same as selling a mouse pad or a print on a market somewhere, only difference is selling on the internet instead
-
So called fan art
According to what I have read on the internet fan art has many implications, one is copyright of the photographer, film maker, and other is right of publicity of the celebrity...
I remember was Cafepress in the past who actually made some licensing deals getting special permission for the store owners to create fan art, I remember seeing some from movies and shows.
Zazzle doesn't allow paintings of celebs, not even keywords that are trademarked, etc.
-
8)
-
With all of the rampant copyright violations on FAA why would any one sell digital files though their licensing program?
It would be like throwing raw meat to a pack of wild dogs!
I'm not so sure about that - I suspect FAA would be the last place they would think of getting "inspiration" from - and they could only get screen-shot sizes, anyway. Stock photos out in the wild are far more likely to get picked up, but mostly they probably prefer something famous with a proven record in print sales.
-
This guy Floyd sells it in a gallery called "Ansel Adams" with the following description:
"Black and White photography from the great Ansel Adams"
He has a few Edward S Curtis mixed in this gallery also. The ironic thing is the guy is currently trying to lead a forum discussion on how he knows how to stop image theft. In another thread recently he spout about his expertise of removing watermarks.
[url]http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1809451[/url] ([url]http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1809451[/url])
He's a total douche.
-
I've seen the discussions on FAA and I'm pretty sure they have adequate legal cover for all of this stuff - as totally lame as it may be. Really, they should say they offer the work not of "living artists" but of "living sellers".
-
There are lots of people using "Ansel Adams" as a keyword or even in a title as in "Homage to A. Adams" or something. This guy seems to be the only one trying pass off screen grabs as the real deal.
-
FAA wont print the orders I reckon. They images are blown up to 6MP and the quality is really bad. So FAA probably wont print them, but for the wrong reasons.
-
You don't want to upload anything there right now, anyway, because there's a bug that's causing images to be lost. Contributors have been told that it only affected a very small number of images, and that it's been fixed, but it's now obvious that neither of those statements are correct. There's been no response from FAA in quite a few days now and some people are getting a bit ticked off.
Here's the current discussion thread, but you need an account logon at FAA to see it:
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1807822&targetid=1809977#1809977 (http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1807822&targetid=1809977#1809977)
-
The forum admin at FAA just closed that thread - insisted the problem was fixed - without answering any of the questions.
-
Fine art prints and stock images market are very different things. Yes, some images suits well for stock and for fine art prints simultaneously. But not always.
Maybe not all people know it. Couple of words about names of FAA and Pixels.
FAA and Pixels are a mirror pages. Content and pages are same. Pixels.com was created to better sell images worldwide. Not all people lives in America and not all people loves a name Fine Art America. So Pixels is more neutral name for people outside of US.
FAA is strong for Americans. European taste is sometimes very different.
From newletter Sept 2013
"FineArtAmerica.com is a great domain name if you're interested in buying and selling fine art... and you're an American.
Unfortunately, we get asked all the time... "Do you ship to England?"... "Do you ship to Australia?"...
"I'm a photographer living in Spain, can I join your site?"... etc. We decided to answer those questions once and for all and transform FAA into a truly international destination.
Introducing... the world's greatest domain name for artists, photographers, graphic designers... and anyone involved in the visual arts Pixels.com"
Best
http://www.jaaknilson.ee (http://www.jaaknilson.ee)
-
^^ All of which is moot.
'FineArtAmerica' is a name which maybe doesn't work so well in other areas of the world, so we have bought Pixels.com to be more 'culturally neutral' furth of the US.
But then we decided to make Pixels.com our stock agency domain.
-
If Pixels offered all of the merchandise stuff like a Society6 - pillows, three print sizes in standard frames and just canvases - then they could probably expand globally with other partners.
-
Consider that he says he created the site for artists but hasn't brought in a design team to improve the look of the site or even to make Pixels.com look any different than FAA.
Consider that he says if you take out a paid-for account, you get a 'fully customisable' website, where 'fully customisable' means you can change one or two features within a small options range.
-
Supposedly, a major upgrade to the 'premium' site is coming soon. This has been teased for quite a while but we've been told to expect it in May, if I remember right. Of course that was before they went off on this latest wild goose chase.
FAA does many things well, and it certainly fills a niche. Like many others, I wish McDunn would focus on improving what he already has instead of going off on new tangents.
For example, the site totally sucks on touch-screen tablets. Think of all the people who might be shopping for wall art while sitting in their living rooms using iPads. Now write them off because the site will totally turn them off.
I'm not at all bothered by supposedly low quality work by newbies or unsophisticated photographers - I like seeing people's sincere efforts and sometimes they score a hit. But I really wish he'd reject all that questionable stuff discussed above - like the Ansel Adams stuff, and the Rembrandts - because it sells, and therefor gets pushed higher and higher in the search, and buries the honest work.
-
hope it brings another feature like hiding even more the portfolios that haven't sold much in the past, honestly I couldn't care less
-
Browsing around over there, I didn't realize how much selective coloring, vignetting, solarization, toning, bad HDR and terrible text overlays were required to be called "art". The way some of these guys are defending this stuff as worth thousands per license, you'd think they painted the Mona Lisa.
Exactly.
Check out the most awesome place on the internet to show your FAA artwork. Make a cup of coffee for yourself while the site is loading. [url]http://qthecollection.com/qtalk/index.php[/url] ([url]http://qthecollection.com/qtalk/index.php[/url])
I don't think the person you quoted was referring to QTalk, were they? Because I happen to be a member of Qtalk and I don't do HDR or any of the other things that are mentioned above. I paint, draw,sculpt and also marquetry work along with some photography. I do all original work and I don't do much of anything at all to my pictures. The vast majority of the gallery on there is fine art photography and paintings. There are a couple of paintings being featured right now at the top of the forum along with photography, including one of my own oil paintings so why are you linking QTalk to what the person you quoted said?
Was your intention a defamatory attack overall on QTalk itself including all members or was it intended to be a personal attack on Gunter? If you didn't agree with what he had to say in this thread, thats fine, I disagreed with him on some things in this discussion regard myself right on QTalk, but it's out of line to attack him personally and/or his forum. When you make derogatory remarks about the forum in general as you have then you are defaming all participants without due cause, which includes me and is not something I appreciate.
So which was your intent? To defame the site in general or did you really mean to only attack Gunter personally?
-
Fine art prints and stock images market are very different things.
[url]http://www.jaaknilson.ee[/url] ([url]http://www.jaaknilson.ee[/url])
That's true. Also licensing fine art is different and copyright law when it applies to fine art is different in some respects as well.
-
I believe the remarks of over the top HDR was in reference to FAA in general. Regarding Qtalk, the grandiose language used on the site was called into question.
-
I believe the remarks of over the top HDR was in reference to FAA in general. Regarding Qtalk, the grandiose language used on the site was called into question.
I have nothing to do with the language used in marketing the site, but thats what it is, marketing. When all here market their work you surely say good things and not bad, don't you? Maybe the work represented on Q doesn't live up to how it's described to you but maybe it does to someone else, who knows. Thats for buyers to decide if they think it's very good or not. If what is represented isn't your cup of tea, thats fine, as art is subjective. I have to say though...IF there were copyright infringers and people promoting public domain images and things like that on Qtalk then y'all would have something to complain about. The marketing language he has used isn't worth complaining about though is it? At least the artists on QTalk do all of their own work and the vast majority of what I've seen on there is fine art. Pick your battles y'all and complain about whats really worth your time to complain about.
-
Gunter asked for critique of the site, he got it and ignored it. Check out art galleries online and compare to qthecollection and find the 1000 differences.
-
Gunter asked for critique of the site, he got it and ignored it. Check out art galleries online and compare to qthecollection and find the 1000 differences.
I will IF you will compare what you have in your own portfolio on FAA with what you responded "exactly" to in this thread. Fair enough? ; )
-
This is the Qcollection:
http://fineartamerica.com/groups/q-collection.html?tab=overview (http://fineartamerica.com/groups/q-collection.html?tab=overview)
I'm happy to compare to other galleries.
This is qtalk, a social network for artists:
http://qthecollection.com/qtalk/index.php (http://qthecollection.com/qtalk/index.php)
We promote all artists that are registered members, feature them, and provide a platform to network. FREE
And if the complaint is that you have to grab a cup of coffee while it loads - life is good
These are the facebook groups we maintain for artists to network:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/423104211112827/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/423104211112827/)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/358025760893320/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/358025760893320/)
https://www.facebook.com/QTheCollection (https://www.facebook.com/QTheCollection)
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/Qthecollection (https://twitter.com/Qthecollection)
We retweet all our members and their work
I never ignore a good critique, but I will refuse to waste time.
Everything we do is to help other artists promote their work and gain exposure, and yes, we also make mistakes.
@Wolfgallery: Thanks for your support
~Gunter
-
Gunter asked for critique of the site, he got it and ignored it. Check out art galleries online and compare to qthecollection and find the 1000 differences.
I will IF you will compare what you have in your own portfolio on FAA with what you responded "exactly" to in this thread. Fair enough? ; )
I dont pretend to run the most amazing place on the internet.
-
I dont pretend to run the most amazing place on the internet.
How could you?
-
How could I what? Pretend to run the most amazing place on the internet? Well I cant, because I dont. I am not pretentious. And if you would look at your website with a critical eye you should come to the same conclusion that it needs improvement.
-
How could I what? Pretend to run the most amazing place on the internet? Well I cant, because I dont. I am not pretentious. And if you would look at your website with a critical eye you should come to the same conclusion that it needs improvement.
he has that on the forum header and it's not pretentious it's a fact. It IS the most amazing forum on the internet and do you know why? There hasn't been a troll and ZERO personal attacks. Look at any other forum on the net and see if they can say the same so it is an amazing place indeed.
Plus...I'm there! lol! : )
-
I am not critiquing the forum, its about the display of art and in the way the website performs. I dont understand where you get personal attacks from, I have never attacked Gunter, I criticised his work and his website. But it seems that you and him dont want to see it. Which is fine. And a forum without trolls is great. I will make sure Ill stay away from your forum then. You dont want trolls like me stirring up the place. ;) And I dont want to wait 3 minutes for the site to load anyways.
-
I am not critiquing the forum, its about the display of art and in the way the website performs. I dont understand where you get personal attacks from, I have never attacked Gunter, I criticised his work and his website. But it seems that you and him dont want to see it. Which is fine. And a forum without trolls is great. I will make sure Ill stay away from your forum then. You dont want trolls like me stirring up the place. ;) And I dont want to wait 3 minutes for the site to load anyways.
It's a new site so of course there will be glitches and things that need to be worked out but the site loads up just as fast for me as this one, FAA and even Facebook does for me, so maybe the problem is on your end and you need to upgrade. You criticized his work and his site ...I think that would fit the definition of personal attacks. His carousel horse is one of my favorite images I have seen on that site so maybe you just don't have as much good taste as I have? Haha!
Hey Semmick, you are welcome to join anytime and if you want to stir up the place feel free to do so in my little section. I have moderator "powers in my section but I will let you speak freely...and debate you because I know I will win! lol! ; )
Seriously, Semmie...all you might need is a hug so here ya go....{{{{{{hug}}}}}} !
: )
-
How can it be a personal attack if he asked for critique? Critique is a major part of photography. Are you saying all critique is a personal attack? I guess the art world is different from stock photography.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/product-resale-forum/new-site-to-promote-your-work-free/msg370650/#msg370650 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/product-resale-forum/new-site-to-promote-your-work-free/msg370650/#msg370650)
-
How can it be a personal attack if he asked for critique? Critique is a major part of photography. Are you saying all critique is a personal attack? I guess the art world is different from stock photography.
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/product-resale-forum/new-site-to-promote-your-work-free/msg370650/#msg370650[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/product-resale-forum/new-site-to-promote-your-work-free/msg370650/#msg370650[/url])
No where on there do I see him asking for a critique of his work. No where! And the only thing you can use to say he was asking for a critique was at the bottom where he said to let him know what you think. Anyone reading the entirety of his post can see that his intention was to extend an invitation to join. After joining if you run into any problems with the site then everyone is free to tell them about it. There are threads designated just for that purpose but for you to take that post as an opportunity to "critique" him and his work, then you are way out of line in doing so. Even using his invitation as an excuse to critique his site is a bit of a stretch. I took what he said to mean to let him know of issues as I mentioned when one runs into them. No where in his post does the word "critique" appear.
I have seen you do nothing but complain for the most part in the threads you start on FAA so come on admit it....you are just a grumpy gus a lot of the time. By the way...I saw a thread here where you apologized to the entire forum previously so it looks to be a pattern of behavior on your part to be negative often. As far as specifically asking for critiques in the artworld.... one should ask a professional they respect and trust like their mentor or maybe a teacher they may have...not a bunch of people they don't know at all on the internet. Thats foolish and is just inviting trollish types in to get their odd jollies.
By the way, this isn't the first time I've seen you trying to have a go at Gunter so I'm beginning to think you may have a crush on him. If not a crush then it most likely is an attempt to knock out competitors.
@ Gunter
Please do not ask what your competitors think of your site or anything else for that matter any more. They love having an opportunity to knock on someone else they are directly competing with for sales and will do so every chance they get anyway so my advice is not to leave yourself open to it by asking them what they think. If you really want to know then ask someone you respect and trust that will give you an honest opinion without malice or agenda.
-
So its not ok to critique his work and website, but it is ok for YOU to attack me on a personal level, when I have never spoken or seen you before you chose to reply to my comment here? I call that hypocrite and wish you a good day.
-
So its not ok to critique his work and website, but it is ok for YOU to attack me on a personal level, when I have never spoken or seen you before you chose to reply to my comment here? I call that hypocrite and wish you a good day.
Have you the trolling handbook because thats typical behavior to attack someone and then turn it around and play victim when called on your actions. There's a couple lessons for you to learn here; If you can't take criticism yourself then don't criticise others. Also you will attract more bees with honey instead of vinegar. Knocking competitors every chance you get will not work in your favor in a buyers eyes or in the eyes of your contemporaries... at least not the professional ones.
Have a good day.
-
8)
-
How did this thread get hijacked by Qtalk?
It started as criticism of FAA's licensing plan, moved on to criticism of content on FAA, from there to general ridicule of amateur art photography, and Q in particular.
The great thing is that unlike some of the work on FAA, successful stock photography is completely free of cliches, repetition and over-used techniques. :-)
-
Stock is a such a great reality check. Either you have what the client needs or you don't. You're dealing with professional image buyers. No amount of "awesome", "most beautiful", "The greatest", "most unique" statements will change the outcome.
-
I wouldn't say that stock marketing is totally free of hyperbole.
-
LOL!!! Pretty funny baiting there guys. Sorry I'm not going to bite at the bait because its rather silly to argue stock vs. art because they are two different things but I must say you have given me a good laugh.
Now.....
The Muppet Show Singers - "Why Can't We Be Friends" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKTl1XScwd0#)
: D
Keep smiling and hopefully you're getting some nice spring weather now wherever you are.
Enjoy the day. : )
-
I like this approach:
When asked how she built such a large Facebook following, Brooke says it all comes down to passion. “I have a philosophy that if I put what I do out there with passion, someone else will feel that passion, too,” she says. “Even on Facebook, you need to be sincere and put your best foot forward. Understand your unique voice, because everyone has one, and present it. Whether you have one follower or one million, the best thing to do is to train yourself to be grateful for each individual supporter and never let your ego interfere.”
"Find your confidence and present it to others humbly."
http://blog.photoshelter.com/2014/02/selling-fine-art-photography-tip-2-passion-secret-244k-facebook-followers-brooke-shaden/ (http://blog.photoshelter.com/2014/02/selling-fine-art-photography-tip-2-passion-secret-244k-facebook-followers-brooke-shaden/)
-
Now there ya go! Now you can see a big reason why I didn't bite the bait. Personally I don't feel the need to defend my own art and I don't feel the need to talk it up either. I just present it and it's up to the viewers if they like it or not. I don't care who you are, either the most known or the most unknown, it doesn't matter, there will be some who like what you do and some who won't. I don't worry about it and I get my joy while creating it...anything positive that comes from it after creating it is just a bonus. : )
I will jump to the defense of friends when they are under attack for no good reason, though. Regardless if some here agree or disagree with Gunter on some issues, he's a nice person and he simply has invited others to participate on his site ( which he pays for ) if they would like to at no cost to them. It's another place to show one's work if they want to and he's very generous in offering it and it's ridiculous to me that he would get attacked for that. He's put in a lot of work to promote his own work but in also promoting others work. Heck, he could just put all his efforts into promoting only his own so his support of other artists should be commended.
-
I did a quick look at a couple of top fine art photographer's sites - Clyde Butcher and Peter Lik. Two artists whose brick and mortar galleries I've visited. I wanted to see if they used the same sort of language in their sales language. Nope. They list awards and accomplishments.
I did find an interesting similarity in the bios - both are from "humble beginnings" - this made me look further low and behold! There is a paper online that discusses this common mythology created around artists:
To summarize the basic points of the heroic artist's biography:
- the hero demonstrates talent at an early age
- often poor from a lower social class
- undergoes a turning point through meeting a helper, advisor, teacher (this provides a bipolarity to the biography whereby the artist's personality is allowed to rise out of his humble beginnings and the raising up is carried out by the helper)
- premonitions and the helper/guide is present at the beginning of all biographies.
It is through these elements that we are convinced that the artist is not like other ordinary people, and, after all, the artist in any society can allow himself something more than others can. In this way the hero motif is connected to the artist myth.
[url]http://www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol15/myth.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol15/myth.htm[/url])
-
There isn't any advertising anywhere that I've ever seen the doesn't have some aspect of hype to it. His advertising doesn't "invite" criticism....it's just the highly critical who would complain about something like that. I've owned my own brick and mortar gallery and so does Greg who helps run the Q site. Advertising at a physical gallery and an online gallery is too different things although with both one has to grab peoples attention in some way. If they are walking by then the art in the window alone may work but one has to draw those in who are not walking by in way of advertising in the newspaper, etc. Also even news articles try to grab peoples attention with their headlines and so do TV shows, etc., etc., etc. So although I don't talk myself up, I'm thinking maybe I should a little more at least to some extent. Gunter is doing nothing different than all those and more that I've mentioned and I don't see how that makes him a bad guy especially when I know for a fact he will readily admit mistakes and doesn't claim to be perfect ( except in jest lol! ).
Hey, Instead of worrying about how Gunter advertises his site...you should be asking yourself what have you done for others lately? Do you try to help promote others work or only your own?
And ask yourself, how in the world does Gunter's advertising hurt you in any way shape or form? Does it even affect you at all in any way? No, it doesn't. There are many more important things you could be concerned about thats going on in the world...or even in the stock world as I see many issues on this forum that are being discussed. Spending time complaining about how one person advertises their website seems rather petty and insignificant to be spending your time on especially when it's doing no harm to you or anyone else.
My advice to you would be to concern yourself with the big stuff thats harmful to you and others and don't sweat the small stuff that doesn't harm you or anyone else at all. ; ) Now although I'm sure you will still be vying for attention, sorry , gotta go, I've got something going on this weekend and I have a lot to get done beforehand, so stay frosty if you must, peace out! : )
-
I'm just pointing out what the source of ridicule might be. \
-
No one attacked Gunter, no one called him a bad guy. His website and his work ethics got criticism and that is not a personal attack. If it is perceived as such, I am sorry. Stop being a Calimero.
-
" Can't we all just get along?" Famous quote from Rodney King. He's dead now.
-
Okay, okay...since y'all are calling for an encore, I'm appearing one last time before I go.
1.) Anyone can review this thread and see who started what and when so I hate to break it to ya but you are only fooling yourself.
2. ) What the heck is a Calimero?? You mean this?.....
Calimero ^^ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fUlnD_YvHw#)
Well I had to look it up and I don't think you are being too kind to yourself likening yourself to a rat.
And, I don't understand the language. I'm American so I think you should liken me to Bugs Bunny instead.....and I have to say, you do resemble Yosemite Sam, Semmick! LOL! ; )
Classic Yosemite Sam vs Bugs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THWCH2Nwsss#)
3. ) Congratulations! Y'all have finally convinced me that QTalk IS awesome! Gunter and all participants on QTalk are awesome it's full of awesome art and I'm pretty awesome too! : D
All other awesome folks are welcome to join!
Trolls need not apply ( sorry guys )
http://qthecollection.com/qtalk/index.php (http://qthecollection.com/qtalk/index.php)
Now thats it, thats all you get here. If you want more entertainment from me I'll be performing exclusively at the totally AWESOME QTalk stage! Adios! : )
-
Okay, okay...since y'all are calling for an encore, I'm appearing one last time before I go.
1.) Anyone can review this thread and see who started what and when so I hate to break it to ya but you are only fooling yourself.
2. ) What the heck is a Calimero?? You mean this?.....
Calimero ^^ ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fUlnD_YvHw#[/url])
Well I had to look it up and I don't think you are being too kind to yourself likening yourself to a rat.
And, I don't understand the language. I'm American so I think you should liken me to Bugs Bunny instead.....and I have to say, you do resemble Yosemite Sam, Semmick! LOL! ; )
Classic Yosemite Sam vs Bugs ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THWCH2Nwsss#[/url])
3. ) Congratulations! Y'all have finally convinced me that QTalk IS awesome! Gunter and all participants on QTalk are awesome it's full of awesome art and I'm pretty awesome too! : D
All other awesome folks are welcome to join!
Trolls need not apply ( sorry guys )
[url]http://qthecollection.com/qtalk/index.php[/url] ([url]http://qthecollection.com/qtalk/index.php[/url])
Now thats it, thats all you get here. If you want more entertainment from me I'll be performing exclusively at the totally AWESOME QTalk stage! Adios! : )
AWESOME!
-
Awww, shucks, ya got me blushing ...but thanks! ;D 8)
-
guess you missed the "bolded" Adios!
-
Awww, shucks, ya got me blushing ...but thanks! ;D 8)
"How can I miss you when you won't go away?
Keep telling you day after day
But you won't listen, you always stay and stay
How can I miss you when you won't go away?"
- Dan Hicks & His Hot Licks
-
So one of the regulars on FAA posted a nice, helpful account of a recent licensing deal. The whole thing happened with email negotiation. Potential buyer sees an image they like, send the contributor an email, details go back and forth. Deal done.
-
And apparently for a much higher price than FAA recommended stock price.
-
guess you missed the "bolded" Adios!
No, you missed the sarcastic wit and purposely over-the-top attitude of Bugs Bunny that I instilled in the #3 part of my previous post and you also missed that the last thank you response was also said in the way of how Bugs would often respond to Yosemite Sam by simply ignoring his hater attitude and mean spirited remarks and then replying to him in a pleasant but mocking fashion which would just infuriate Sam further when he did on occasion finally realize he was really just being mocked. ;)
-
Awww, shucks, ya got me blushing ...but thanks! ;D 8)
"How can I miss you when you won't go away?
Keep telling you day after day
But you won't listen, you always stay and stay
How can I miss you when you won't go away?"
- Dan Hicks & His Hot Licks
Well, I don't want you to miss me so I'm back. ;D
How nice though...a song dedication. 8)
Here is one for you in return....
Bon Jovi - Have A Nice Day (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCg2BoKiuOM#)
So whoever you are..... have a nice day! ;D
-
So one of the regulars on FAA posted a nice, helpful account of a recent licensing deal. The whole thing happened with email negotiation. Potential buyer sees an image they like, send the contributor an email, details go back and forth. Deal done. Where is it that FAA justifies a commission?
Pixels/FAA will more than likely will be flooded with tons more stock images when this program starts but I don't see it benefiting standard stock picture takers since they will put up their prices higher than what they get on stock sites and with the additional 40% markup I don't see why any buyers of stock would go to Pixels to buy them when they can get the same things at stock sites for far, far less.
I do see that this could be beneficial for fine artists and buyers who are looking for something more unique and who have a purpose for licensing an artistic image that is different than what stock images calls for. Although as it is now anyone wanting to license fine art can and do just contact the artist directly, some artists might not want to haggle back and forth over a contract so they might prefer to just use something like Sean plans to do on Pixels. Setting the licensing up also advertises that the artist offers licenses without anyone needing to ask.
But with that said, I agree with others and said when this was announced that I would like to know exactly how that 40% markup is justified, i.e. earned, since those that want to license something can simply contact the artist without going through a middleman and paying their markup. 40% is pretty high to add to the cost for just convenience and there is no marketing done for the artists. It's seems especially ridiculous if artists are expected to market themselves just as they are now expected to do on FAA. If one has to do all the marketing anyway why should they gain buyers and then go through Pixels for their licensing at all? But... Sean said he will explain the program fully when he starts it up in April, so hopefully that question and others will be answered when the time comes.
-
:P
-
;D
-
FAA is currently promoting its new licensing gimmick with a "tweet" contest. Surely there has to be a more effective way to reach the target audience of professional image buyers. Seems like a cheap-o way to do a promotion ($75 to the winner).
Can't they afford ads in the trade magazines?
Thats what they do, they send out a site mail, get their 175k contributors to Tweet like the wind, pay 75 dollar and get 200xfold worth of advertising in return. No wonder the guy made millions on his own. He is a business genius.
-
>:(
-
Well one way or another he made millions, and only has to pay a staff of 2.
-
Well one way or another he made millions, and only has to pay a staff of 2.
Millions in profit?
-
Got a big old email about their purchase of the domain pixels.com .
"3. Pixels.com is an amazing domain name! In our opinion, it's the best domain name on the internet for anyone involved in the visual arts. The word "pixel" is pronounced (and spelled) almost exactly the same in every language on the planet. We're in the business of creating print-on-demand products from digital pixels... Pixels.com is the perfect name."
Frankly, I think 'pixels' is a very late 90's kind of name. I mean. It was cool when Pixar was named or Million Dollar Homepage sold pixels. Art buyers don't know what a 'pixel' is.
-
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/tango-in-paris-erik-brede.html (http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/tango-in-paris-erik-brede.html)
Someone who is probably not Konrad Bak is licensing[ ETA: for commercial stock] an image using one of Bak's most popular stock photos.
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-beautiful-young-lady-image16542488 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-beautiful-young-lady-image16542488)
People here should probably look for their images at Pixels.
-
[url]http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/tango-in-paris-erik-brede.html[/url] ([url]http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/tango-in-paris-erik-brede.html[/url])
Someone who is probably not Konrad Bak is licensing an image using one of Bak's most popular stock photos.
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-beautiful-young-lady-image16542488[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-beautiful-young-lady-image16542488[/url])
People here should probably look for their images at Pixels.
If they bought it on FT its probably allowed.
-
My head tilted a full ninety degrees, and I went to look at FT's EL agreement. Then I realized you were probably joking.
-
My head tilted a full ninety degrees, and I went to look at FT's EL agreement. Then I realized you were probably joking.
Not joking. FT allows for POD.
If the image is to be integrated into a derivative item or items for resale such as postcards, posters, or website templates - buy an Extended RF License.
Print on demand services* - Unlimited
-
But I wasn't talking about the PoD part of FAA/Pixels. There are a few EL's that allow for PoD.
I was talking about the commercial licensing.
-
But I wasn't talking about the PoD part of FAA/Pixels. There are a few EL's that allow for PoD.
I was talking about the commercial licensing.
Ok, sorry, its still early here, you are right. Maybe you should contact Konrad on DT
-
I started by PMing the Pixels artist. I don't think any licenses have sold over there yet.
This might be a case of the artist enabling licensing for his entire port, and forgetting that some of his work shouldn't be offered.
-
It worked. The artist was friendly and removed the pic from the licensing program.
-
"Artist"?
-
OK, I didn't check out the way they were offering stock until I happened to notice a typo and went in to edit it. (I had checked that I was interested in principle in RM, but hadn't looked further.)
So, for RM, they have:
Packaging, publishing etc: "Minimum units: 10,000".
Huh, so someone with smaller needs (200 boxes, 2000 print run, whatever) has to purchase a minimum of 10,000?
That might be normal in the US for all I know, but not in smaller countries.
-
OK, I didn't check out the way they were offering stock until I happened to notice a typo and went in to edit it. (I had checked that I was interested in principle in RM, but hadn't looked further.)
So, for RM, they have:
Packaging, publishing etc: "Minimum units: 10,000".
Huh, so someone with smaller needs (200 boxes, 2000 print run, whatever) has to purchase a minimum of 10,000?
That might be normal in the US for all I know, but not in smaller countries.
You can make your own licenses (I haven't) - the idea is you get to set whatever you think works in terms of price and terms.
-
OK, I didn't check out the way they were offering stock until I happened to notice a typo and went in to edit it. (I had checked that I was interested in principle in RM, but hadn't looked further.)
So, for RM, they have:
Packaging, publishing etc: "Minimum units: 10,000".
Huh, so someone with smaller needs (200 boxes, 2000 print run, whatever) has to purchase a minimum of 10,000?
That might be normal in the US for all I know, but not in smaller countries.
You can make your own licenses (I haven't) - the idea is you get to set whatever you think works in terms of price and terms.
Oh, you're right, I remember they said that before they launched. Thanks for the reminder.
I was just going to ask 'no editorial option?', but that would be in your own licence terms. I'll look into it.
Tx again.
-
How is it going with FAA licensing? Has anybody sold any images ?
-
I follow the FAA forum, and there hasn't been any discussion of this in weeks. I think it went nowhere. The owner/operator of FAA seems to be always flitting from one great new idea to the next.
-
I follow the FAA forum, and there hasn't been any discussion of this in weeks. I think it went nowhere. The owner/operator of FAA seems to be always flitting from one great new idea to the next.
True, as in "great".
Maybe they'll merge with iS: they seem to have the same 'groping in the dark' philosophy.