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.

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

Someone who is probably not Konrad Bak is licensing an image using one of Bak's most popular stock photos.

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-beautiful-young-lady-image16542488

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.

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.

Ok, sorry, its still early here, you are right. Maybe you should contact Konrad on DT

It worked. The artist was friendly and removed the pic from the licensing program.

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.

Quote from: ShadySue on May 04, 2014, 19:56

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.

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.