MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: pixel8 on August 24, 2016, 17:01
-
How do contributors to these sites Pexel & Pixabay make money? I can tell that the sites themselves are making money from ads and donations but it seems as though the photographers are just giving their stuff away!
-
They don't. And they place all their work into the public domain, so there is no copyright or other usage restrictions.
Actually, there is a contribute button or coffee button where people can give a photographer a little cash, and some make a little money that way. But the work is public domain, so the next site that takes all the work and reposts it is not obligated to offer anything.
-
If I am not mistaken, SS runs these sites and give these images away for free as a loss leader to lead you to the SS site as they seem to sponsor it. If this is the case, not good.
-
You are mistaken. SS basically advertises on those sites and the sites get a kickback if they refer customers, but SS has nothing to do with running or creating them.
-
Noted. That said it's fairly sad SS is promoting itself with bottom of the barrel clients who expect "free". I guess water seeks it's own level.
-
SS isn't "promoting itself" through free sites, as far as I know. I believe the sites are set up by people who then become Shutterstock affiliates, so SS advertising runs on their sites. iStock does the same.
-
Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of the word "sponsored" as opposed to advertising. From what I gather the former means it has the full support thereof.
-
You're the only one who's used the word "sponsor." These are sites that give their own images away for free and/or ask for donations in order to run affiliate advertising.
-
It says "Sponsored images" near the blocks of images provided by Shutterstock. That means that the images come from the advertiser - in this case Shutterstock - and not the site you're viewing.
-
You can twist it any way you want. SS is clearly the sponsor, patron and benefactor of these free image sites through bottom feeding and hoping to gain market share by collaboration using advertising as click bait. Classy.
-
All the sites do it. Give it a rest already.
http://microstockinsider.com/guides/making-microstock-affiliate-programs-work (http://microstockinsider.com/guides/making-microstock-affiliate-programs-work)
-
You can twist it any way you want. SS is clearly the sponsor, patron and benefactor of these free image sites through bottom feeding and hoping to gain market share by collaboration using advertising as click bait. Classy.
Hmm, I always thought they were API sites.
https://developers.shutterstock.com/ (https://developers.shutterstock.com/)
Anyone can create a site and show SS "sponsored" images, as I understand it. You can even load it with all the stupid click-bait advertising if you want, as it is your site. Fotolia has the same thing. I investigated as I wanted to show my Fotolia portfolio in my own personal website so when a person clicked to buy, it would automatically go to the Fotolia site for the purchase. I didn't end up doing it because it required a lot of programming skills, something I don't have.
-
Noted. That said it's fairly sad SS is promoting itself with bottom of the barrel clients who expect "free". I guess water seeks it's own level.
iStock does exactly the same via 'partners' who have some free files and some 'premium' (iStock) files in each search. I have checked a couple of these with CR and in each case they told me to 'be aware that these are Partner sites'.
Also other 'partners' like SpiderPic, who seem to exist only to pimp promote iStock pics. Presumably, they're getting a kickback from iStock so we get less money from a sale via them: and often they are above iStock in a reverse image search, and sometimes in a google image search.
-
Noted. That said it's fairly sad SS is promoting itself with bottom of the barrel clients who expect "free". I guess water seeks it's own level.
iStock does exactly the same via 'partners' who have some cheap free files and some 'premium' (iStock) files in each search. I have checked a couple of these with CR and in each case they told me to 'be aware that these are Partner sites'.
Also other 'partners' like SpiderPic, who seem to exist only to pimp promote iStock pics. Presumably, they're getting a kickback from iStock so we get less money from a sale via them: and often they are above iStock in a reverse image search, and sometimes in a google image search.
Yes, I am aware of SpiderPic which seems is forever in Beta and does not offer itself as a "free images" site. In theory they're also more like a metacrawler site to find images from every site, but yes IS does appear up front which is quite different than drawing in buyers with a red herring.
I'd love to see links to where all sites use "free sites" as click bait as has been suggested from one other.
-
Noted. That said it's fairly sad SS is promoting itself with bottom of the barrel clients who expect "free". I guess water seeks it's own level.
iStock does exactly the same via 'partners' who have some cheap free files and some 'premium' (iStock) files in each search. I have checked a couple of these with CR and in each case they told me to 'be aware that these are Partner sites'.
Also other 'partners' like SpiderPic, who seem to exist only to pimp promote iStock pics. Presumably, they're getting a kickback from iStock so we get less money from a sale via them: and often they are above iStock in a reverse image search, and sometimes in a google image search.
Yes, I am aware of SpiderPic which seems is forever in Beta and does not offer itself as a "free images" site. In theory they're also more like a metacrawler site to find images from every site, but yes IS does appear up front which is quite different than drawing in buyers with a red herring.
I'd love to see links to where all sites use "free sites" as click bait as has been suggested from one other.
Look for yourself.
-
How do contributors to these sites Pexel & Pixabay make money? I can tell that the sites themselves are making money from ads and donations but it seems as though the photographers are just giving their stuff away!
The contributors make nothing, users of the images don't even have to give attribution. But there is at least one RedBubble seller who is selling merchandise from these free pictures, and apparently that's okay, with both the free image sites and with RedBubble.