Author Topic: photographers selling the same images at micro and macro prices? (Read 25187 times)

e=mg2 · « **Reply #25 on:** June 25, 2009, 14:31 »

Quote from: whatalife on June 25, 2009, 14:17

Quote from: e=mg2 on June 25, 2009, 12:59
Even if the image is the same, the license is not as the RF license in micro is full of restrictions. If you buy all the Extended Licenses available in micro you still won't have the liberty that the Macro RF License gives you.

The Macro RF license allows you to use that image for EVER, in ALL supports and without ANY limitation in the number of prints.

It's hard to tell for sure what you mean here, but if you are saying that macro RF has no limitations, you are mistaken. Products for resale is definitely prohibited on several of the macro sites from which I have licensed imagery. If you are strictly speaking as to number of prints, your claim may be true. Since I have not gone and checked every macro agency to verify, I would be reluctant to issue any blanket statements about what licenses do and do not allow.

From what I've read from alamy RF license there's no restrictions, except reselling the image itself which is logical. And there are others where it's the same, although I would have to read the license again to be sure.

What macros have those restrictions? Getty, Corbis or any other of the majors?

Regards,

zymmetricaldotcom · « **Reply #26 on:** June 25, 2009, 14:37 »

Quote from: e=mg2 on June 25, 2009, 14:16

No, nothing was deleted. I still would like to see where I called anyone stupid or ignorant...

But apparently it seems ok to Mr zymmetrical for someone to cast a doubt about others honesty and ethics...

Regards,

Sir,

My original message was by large on the level with what you have stated. I simply find it unnecessary to involve the words 'stupid' and 'ignorant' in a normal discussion. On my first Googling of your name I found a pretty rancid remark against an agency (people, humans) who tried their best in their own circumstances to make things work out. It could very well be anyone who made that blog comment in your name but I would take it that you admit it was you.

I did not edit, alter, or intentionally amplify this result, it's simply what showed up first. I do not know you or your work, and cannot claim this is what you are about. All I ask for is a bit more civility and less jumping on people by indicating their message is a cliche or has been "seen a thousand times". It is unnecessary and clearly belittling to posters who ask questions in good faith.

Adeptris · « **Reply #27 on:** June 25, 2009, 14:48 »

Quote from: e=mg2 on June 25, 2009, 12:59

Is it immoral for the car seller to charge 40.000$, when you can drive the same car for 50$ a day? No, because it's A DIFFERENT SERVICE.

So before coming here discussing ethics and legalities study this subject a little more.

Regards,
e=mg2

Different Service but the exact same Asset!

How would you feel when you pull up in your 40.000$ car and your neighbour says, I had that exact car last week for 50$ a day I remember the plate, when you thought by going to the higher end Dealer you was getting a car that had not been a part of a hire fleet, and the mileage was only the delivery miles, would you say the dealer was un-ethical?

David

e=mg2 · « **Reply #28 on:** June 25, 2009, 14:51 »

Quote from: zymmetrical on June 25, 2009, 14:37

Quote from: e=mg2 on June 25, 2009, 14:16
No, nothing was deleted. I still would like to see where I called anyone stupid or ignorant...

But apparently it seems ok to Mr zymmetrical for someone to cast a doubt about others honesty and ethics...

Regards,

Sir,

My original message was by large on the level with what you have stated. I simply find it unnecessary to involve the words 'stupid' and 'ignorant' in a normal discussion. On my first Googling of your name I found a pretty rancid remark against an agency (people, humans) who tried their best in their own circumstances to make things work out. It could very well be anyone who made that blog comment in your name but I would take it that you admit it was you.

I did not edit, alter, or intentionally amplify this result, it's simply what showed up first. I do not know you or your work, and cannot claim this is what you are about. All I ask for is a bit more civility and less jumping on people instead of indicating their message is a cliche or has been "seen a thousand times". It is unnecessary and clearly belittling to posters who ask questions in good faith.

No it wasn't in the level I've stated. You've put words in my mouth, claiming I've said things I didn't!!!

And yes that was my comment in the link, and I think I'm entitled to be upset to see bad management to throw in the garbage months of work of thousands of contributors, including mine and of friends I got in that project.

Am I not happy to loose hundreds of hours of work, No! Am I not entitled to be upset? Yes I am!

Do you think it was only the Photoshelter management that gave it's best to make that project successful? Photographers did their best too. Stock agencies are partnerships and photographers have the right to be angry when those who KEEP COMMISSIONS to manage the business don't do a good job!

And believe me that I wasn't the worst in comments, by far!

As for the original message on this thread, I think it's important for people to investigate, to research, prior raising questions that put in questions the honesty, morals and ethics of their fellow photographers. The second answer in this thread even states:

"it goes a bit deeper than a mere moral dilemna.

I'm pretty sure it's illegal."

Is this a civil, fact based statement that I must handle with love and flowers!!!

When I have a doubt I google, I search inside the forums and try to get information before I start a thread. Especially in sensitive issues.

e=mg2 · « **Reply #29 on:** June 25, 2009, 15:06 »

Quote from: Adeptris on June 25, 2009, 14:48

Quote from: e=mg2 on June 25, 2009, 12:59
Is it immoral for the car seller to charge 40.000$, when you can drive the same car for 50$ a day? No, because it's A DIFFERENT SERVICE.

So before coming here discussing ethics and legalities study this subject a little more.

Regards,
e=mg2

Different Service but the exact same Asset!

How would you feel when you pull up in your 40.000$ car and your neighbour says, I had that exact car last week for 50$ a day I remember the plate, when you thought by going to the higher end Dealer you was getting a car that had not been a part of a hire fleet, and the mileage was only the delivery miles, would you say the dealer was un-ethical?

David

Sorry but I think I didn't understood you question clearly.

But from what I understood I don't see the reason for the one paying those 40.000$ to be upset since he will OWN the car, and the other only had a limited use of the vehicle for a day...

Now if the car dealer told the buyer those were deliver miles and in fact he'd be hiring the car, that another issue. Which is very different from the discussion here. That would be dishonest. But if the buyer knows that the car was used for hire, where's the problem?

The same with Micro and Macro. If someone needs an image to be used forever or in ways or scale that the Micro license doesn't allow, than he needs to pay a premium in a site like alamy.
If he needs an image to be printed in 500 flyers of his restaurant for a limited time than he has the chance to license the image in micro.

Since alamy in non-exclusive, I think buyers there know that the photo in question may be selling somewhere else. Like in any other business it's a question of looking around for the best deal for your needs.

And there's also the prestige question. Some buyers may prefer to carry a brand like alamy in the credits of the photos instead iStock. So they prefer to pay a higher commission, despite being the same image.This also happens in every business, where you pay for the brand without no real added value in the product. Nothing new in fact.

Regards,

saniphoto · « **Reply #30 on:** June 25, 2009, 15:10 »

Quote from: e=mg2 on June 25, 2009, 14:51

Quote from: zymmetrical on June 25, 2009, 14:37
Quote from: e=mg2 on June 25, 2009, 14:16
No, nothing was deleted. I still would like to see where I called anyone stupid or ignorant...

But apparently it seems ok to Mr zymmetrical for someone to cast a doubt about others honesty and ethics...

Regards,

Sir,

My original message was by large on the level with what you have stated. I simply find it unnecessary to involve the words 'stupid' and 'ignorant' in a normal discussion. On my first Googling of your name I found a pretty rancid remark against an agency (people, humans) who tried their best in their own circumstances to make things work out. It could very well be anyone who made that blog comment in your name but I would take it that you admit it was you.

I did not edit, alter, or intentionally amplify this result, it's simply what showed up first. I do not know you or your work, and cannot claim this is what you are about. All I ask for is a bit more civility and less jumping on people instead of indicating their message is a cliche or has been "seen a thousand times". It is unnecessary and clearly belittling to posters who ask questions in good faith.

No it wasn't in the level I've stated. You've put words in my mouth, claiming I've said things I didn't!!!

And yes that was my comment in the link, and I think I'm entitled to be upset to see bad management to throw in the garbage months of work of thousands of contributors, including mine and of friends I got in that project.

Am I not happy to loose hundreds of hours of work, No! Am I not entitled to be upset? Yes I am!

Do you think it was only the Photoshelter management that gave it's best to make that project successful? Photographers did their best too. Stock agencies are partnerships and photographers have the right to be angry when those who KEEP COMMISSIONS to manage the business don't do a good job!

And believe me that I wasn't the worst in comments, by far!

As for the original message on this thread, I think it's important for people to investigate, to research, prior raising questions that put in questions the honesty, morals and ethics of their fellow photographers. The second answer in this thread even states:

"it goes a bit deeper than a mere moral dilemna.

I'm pretty sure it's illegal."

Is this a civil, fact based statement that I must handle with love and flowers!!!

When I have a doubt I google, I search inside the forums and try to get information before I start a thread. Especially in sensitive issues.

Hey, I'm not SO stupid as you think, GENIUS.

I have already quoted your first paragraph. Nothing to add, your words are there for everybody to read.

I do not mind you calling me stupid or whatever. Is your problem.

About the main question, I am not completely convinced anyway by all answers there were here (yours included). Because if I am a buyer and I bought an image for 500 and see the same image for 10 in another place, I'm a bit confused, to say the least. Maybe I'd even ask for a refund. In your opinion this confusion and 'free pricing' is going to help or damage the stock industry?
This is the kind of thoughts that brought me to pose the question, not doubting honesty of people. Where . did you read that??? are you under drugs?

YOU are the one that gave an answer to my question, even a complete one, attacking me personally! Behind your anonymity. That's ok. Now attack me again... please.

saniphoto · « **Reply #31 on:** June 25, 2009, 15:42 »

Quote from: e=mg2 on June 25, 2009, 15:06

e=mg2

The same with Micro and Macro. If someone needs an image to be used forever or in ways or scale that the Micro license doesn't allow, than he needs to pay a premium in a site like alamy.
If he needs an image to be printed in 500 flyers of his restaurant for a limited time than he has the chance to license the image in micro.

Regards,

this is from DT license faq:

Royalty-Free License
What Royalty-Free means is that you pay for the image only once and then you can use it as many times as you like, with just a few restrictions. In other words, there are no license fees except the initial fee and no other royalties to be paid except those included in the initial cost. Note that the maximum number of copies for printed materials is 500,000 copies.

So, can you explain me what are you exactly speaking about? here you can use the image forever and with a really high printing limit. I still must search about all that thing you say about IS licensing costing more than Alamy at the end... probably you may be right, but basically this is the license I'm familiar with, and it seems it allows almost everything, forever. And most of buyers I believe will fit into the limit of this basic RF micro license.
Correct me if I'm wrong, again. I'm always here to learn from educated persons as you surely are. But when you think you know everything, maybe, is not all that sure... I'll be back again with what I'll find out about your affirmations. NOW I'll check every word from your statement.

regards,

saniphoto · « **Reply #32 on:** June 25, 2009, 15:56 »

Quote from: e=mg2 on June 25, 2009, 12:59

This question is typical from those who don't understand the business, and usually ends up with a lot of ignorant and stupid statements.

It's the same as if you rented a car (micro), or you bought the same car (macro). In one case you'd pay 50$, and in the later you'd pay, lets say 40.000$.

So before coming here discussing ethics and legalities study this subject a little more.

Regards,
e=mg2

This your comparison is not correct. Micro is not about renting and macro about buying. You are completely wrong in your example. Maybe you should have said that with one you pay the 'brand' and the other not (yet... .-) because as for license and limitations, there are surely some, but I believe the terms of micro are so extensive that the majority of customers will fit well into it.

If you intended to say that you pay the macro 'brand', well, so here is my original question: you pay more for the brand but get the same image and almost the same usage? Not fair. If I'm a customer I will not like it. You will say, buyers must became smart and learn how to shop around. Right. So, if all buyers tomorrow decide to go shopping at DT or IS or whatever micro, you will never sell anything more at Alamy (where people license the exact same images of micro, remember!) or another macro agency. Will you be happy? I answer for you: no.

So one of the two: or we are all ready to accept that one day customers will 'kill' the agencies that sells images on sale also in the micro agencies, or we and agencies together, try to find a way to make less confusing the licensing system/pricing. I hope to have made clear what i means.

You will now see that maybe, my thinking (thinking, not judging! read my post) about this ethical problem (I used the ethical word probably wrongly) wasn't coming out of some disturbance of my ill mind that has nothing to do else. I try to understand what is going on, because more people seems to sell the same images at micro and macro and I'm curious of the reasons behind it.

regards and good night

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #33 on:** June 25, 2009, 16:15 »

Quote from: Adeptris on June 25, 2009, 14:48

How would you feel when you pull up in your 40.000$ car and your neighbour says, I had that exact car last week for 50$ a day I remember the plate, when you thought by going to the higher end Dealer you was getting a car that had not been a part of a hire fleet, and the mileage was only the delivery miles, would you say the dealer was un-ethical?

David

David,

The thing is,no one is selling feelings. Look at plane tickets. They drive you mad with price differences, does that stop fliers?

PixelBytes · « **Reply #34 on:** June 25, 2009, 16:19 »

Quote from: saniphoto on June 25, 2009, 15:42

So, can you explain me what are you exactly speaking about? here you can use the image forever and with a really high printing limit. I still must search about all that thing you say about IS licensing costing more than Alamy at the end... probably you may be right, but basically this is the license I'm familiar with, and it seems it allows almost everything, forever. And most of buyers I believe will fit into the limit of this basic RF micro license.

This can be debated ad nauseum (and apparently is going to be here). Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

However there are quite a few restrictions on the use of images that aren't contained within the portion of the Dreamstime license that you quoted.

For anyone interested, the whole license agreement can be found here:
http://www.dreamstime.com/terms.php

The restrictions of the regular RF license are contained in the following sections:

*Royalty- Free License of use of Non-Watermarked Images and Restrictions

*Unauthorized Use

*Sensitive Subjects

Also, you can check out the Extended Licenses and their prices to see what type of sales would go beyond their standard RF license.

Apologies for interrupting this brawl to make an on-topic post...

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #35 on:** June 25, 2009, 16:20 »

Many macros do research for image buyers and I don't think they charge for that research. It allows image buyers to easily narrow down to the image they need without having to search droves of images. Paying a hundred or two for an image in many cases doesn't add up to hill of beans.

bittersweet · « **Reply #36 on:** June 25, 2009, 16:26 »

Quote from: e=mg2 on June 25, 2009, 14:31

Quote from: whatalife on June 25, 2009, 14:17
It's hard to tell for sure what you mean here, but if you are saying that macro RF has no limitations, you are mistaken. Products for resale is definitely prohibited on several of the macro sites from which I have licensed imagery. If you are strictly speaking as to number of prints, your claim may be true. Since I have not gone and checked every macro agency to verify, I would be reluctant to issue any blanket statements about what licenses do and do not allow.

From what I've read from alamy RF license there's no restrictions, except reselling the image itself which is logical. And there are others where it's the same, although I would have to read the license again to be sure.

What macros have those restrictions? Getty, Corbis or any other of the majors?

Regards,

I can't believe I am wasting my time like this, but it is wrong for you to so aggressively assert something that is patently false and that clearly you have not bothered to verify for yourself. There are unfortunately people who will assume that what you say is true, and not bother to read the licensing terms on their own. This is shirking their own responsibility, of course, but there is no sense allowing rampant misinformation to be spread.

These are from the four sites I purchase macro imagery from. If you are interested in others, I suggest you look them up yourself. In all cases, I would urge everyone to familiarize themselves with the terms of use and licensing agreement of ANY site before agree to them, and before you find yourselves in a potentially troublesome position. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.

I only included rights which are available via EL on some micros, particularly in response to your claim that other than redistributing the image straight off the site, a macro RF license contains no restrictions.

From Getty (emphasis mine):

Quote

3. Restrictions.
3.2 Licensee may not, without obtaining the prior written consent of Getty Images and the payment of additional License Fees: (i) include the Licensed Material in an electronic template intended to be Reproduced by third parties on electronic or printed products; or (ii) use or display the Licensed Material on websites or in any other medium designed to induce or involving the sale, license or other distribution of "on demand" products, including, without limitation, postcards, mugs, t-shirts, calendars, posters, screensavers or wallpapers on mobile telephones, or similar items.
..
3.4 Licensed Material shall not be incorporated into a logo, corporate ID, trademark or service mark, without obtaining the prior written consent of Getty Images.

(followed by usual restrictions on pornography, defamation, etc, etc.)

From Veer (emphasis mine):

Quote

RESTRICTIONS ON LICENSE
You shall not:
use a Product as a logo, trademark, or service mark;
use a Product in any template or application, whether online or not, with the purpose of creating multiple impressions of a Product, including but not limited to web site design templates, presentation templates, electronic greeting cards, business cards, e-business cards, or any other electronic or printed matter;

From ImageZoo (emphasis mine):

Quote

1.4.2 Licensee may not incorporate the Licensed Material into a logo, trademark or service mark or use on any items where the image itself becomes the primary aspect of an item for resale (for instance, if an image is used on a coffee cup to sell that coffee cup, on a T-shirt to sell that T-shirt, etc.). For licensing information regarding any usage not specified in this Agreement, contact IMAGEZOO.

From Jupiter (the only site I use that explicity allows some form of resale):

Quote

E) Permitted Uses. You may, subject to Section 1(F) below:
(III) Use the Image(s) on product packaging or in any items for personal use or resale, including book covers, calendars, consumer merchandise (T-shirts, posters, art, etc.), except in computer software and electronic video and computer games, which require a separate license (see Section F(IX) below), provided such use is not intended to allow the re-distribution, re-use of the Image(s) or access to the Image(s) apart from a product or service apart from a product or service.

F) Prohibited Uses. You may NOT:
(IX) Use the Images(s) as part of a product in any electronic format intended for multiple distribution or licensing including, without limitation, templates, Web site templates, software products, including computer and/or video games and game consoles, e-greetings, etc. Contact [email protected] to find out about a special license for such use.

(X) Use the Image(s), or resell the Image(s) for use, in mobile or wireless devices, including but not limited to mobile telephones, handheld game consoles, and PDAs. Such usage is subject to additional licensing fees. Please contact [email protected] for information on reseller licenses.

madelaide · « **Reply #37 on:** June 25, 2009, 17:08 »

I personally don't consider it ethical to have the same image at macro and micro, regardless of the many arguments given.

The subs x high credits comparison doesn't make sense to me because we should compare subs plans with credits, not the individual price in each case. And IMHO subs is the degradation of microstock concept, but anyway.

Also having the same image as RM and RF, or RM after it has already sold as RF, doesn't make sense. I have the same image in different sites as RM and RF, BUT if I sell in one model I remove the image from the sites that have it in the other model. I only have them in this odd situation when I know I can easily remove them.

Once I was searching images in Alamy and saw the SAME images as RF and RM. Not similars, clearly the SAME images. Author's names were not the same, if I remember it right, one with a person name and the other with some fantasy name. I emailed Alamy and they apparently don't mind because images come from two different agencies, so it's like they wash their hands about this duplicity.

e=mg2 · « **Reply #38 on:** June 25, 2009, 18:00 »

Quote from: whatalife on June 25, 2009, 16:26

I can't believe I am wasting my time like this, but it is wrong for you to so aggressively assert something that is patently false and that clearly you have not bothered to verify for yourself. There are unfortunately people who will assume that what you say is true, and not bother to read the licensing terms on their own. This is shirking their own responsibility, of course, but there is no sense allowing rampant misinformation to be spread.

These are from the four sites I purchase macro imagery from. If you are interested in others, I suggest you look them up yourself. In all cases, I would urge everyone to familiarize themselves with the terms of use and licensing agreement of ANY site before agree to them, and before you find yourselves in a potentially troublesome position. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.

I only included rights which are available via EL on some micros, particularly in response to your claim that other than redistributing the image straight off the site, a macro RF license contains no restrictions.

Ok,

Those traditional agencies place some restrictions (although less than micros) in their RF licenses. But the fact is that they only sell exclusive content, so they are out of this debate anyway as this issue does not affect them.

Alamy, that is the most known (only?) non-exclusive Macro only restricts:

"You must not incorporate Images (or any part of them) into a logo, trade mark or service mark."

So, alamy that is the agency that has to do directly with this issue, if I read the EULA correctly only restricts this use.

Besides they are aware of this and in numerous debates by their contributors they've never shown themselves against selling Micro images there. They've even answered me that.

e=mg2 · « **Reply #39 on:** June 25, 2009, 18:04 »

Quote from: madelaide on June 25, 2009, 17:08

Once I was searching images in Alamy and saw the SAME images as RF and RM. Not similars, clearly the SAME images. Author's names were not the same, if I remember it right, one with a person name and the other with some fantasy name. I emailed Alamy and they apparently don't mind because images come from two different agencies, so it's like they wash their hands about this duplicity.

This is a different issue, and according to alamy this goes against the contract between the agency and the photographer. I also detected situations like these and questioned alamy. They've told me that it was not acceptable and were going to investigate it further.

bittersweet · « **Reply #40 on:** June 25, 2009, 18:38 »

never mind.

Phil · « **Reply #41 on:** June 25, 2009, 20:02 »

this is not directed at anyone, just random thoughts, more thinking out loud

I feel that selling an image as RF invalidates a RM licence where usage has to be able to tracked and dont see how this is possible although getty believe they can and without photographers consent (see other threads here regarding this)

I think the RF micro vs RF macro licence is issue has already been covered

but to my opinion in general RF macro licence = EL RF Micro licence, yes this is a generalisation and every agency has it differences. I have sold images in a 'do what you please' macro RF licence under bulk discount plans cheaper than what they would have sold as an EL at most micro agencies.

A number of macro agencies get images down to a price cheaper than the micros for their big clients, with a more generous licence, same images different prices because of who you are

I wouldn't submit images to a macro site that states that images cannot be sold cheaper elsewhere as inmagine do (some such as Alamy dont mind (which the CEO has stated publicly).

What about differences in price between micros, their is a huge difference between say albumo or pixmac (or a number of others) and istock

and subs, Pixmac will sell an image (on 1 year subscription) for under $0.06 in any size, the comparison say istock xxxl may cost up to $42 or about 700 times the price. Other subs packages are similar. Yes subs is a different thing, but the fact remains that the image is sold at two very different prices. The cost of subs pricing vs ppd within the micro market creates a very similar ethical problem as macro vs micro.

Snapvillage proudly advertised that their subs packages which got images down to cents included images that were selling for $50. Thats the same problem within the one agency.

Similarly Jupiter now Getty sold images at StockXpert (and now istock, although pricing not yet announced) on photos.com and JIU, these images sold for subs pricing at StockXpert, photos.com and JI as well StockXpert's normal ppd pricing and if you want xlarge on photos.com it was about $250 (from memory).

If you go to fotosearch you can find canstocks images for $99, they also sell them at canstockphoto at a micro price, then both sites have subs packages to add more confusion

I just dont see there is an easy answer ethically, and dont think it's as easy as micro vs macro. you can be with one agency that is either macro or micro and have the images sold at a huge difference in price.

Where do you draw the line? you could say sell images at $400 so decide not sell on istock and find the agecny does deals and then sells it for less than istock with a bigger licence to certain customers.

Similar do you not sell an image for $20 if its available through subs packages because of the huge difference in price and you feel that you are ripping off the customers at $20. do you say its ok because its only $20? some people would say its only $500 (not me

and that $500 is a bargain compared to rm licences. what is the amount needed? why that amount? or is it a % difference?

Phil

litifeta · « **Reply #42 on:** June 25, 2009, 22:45 »

Thing that is missing from these statements is "in my opinion".

This argument is old and tired. It has been going on for as long as I can remember.

If someone pays me more for something. Good luck to me.

An orchard farmer has large supermarkets coming to him and buying apples at 6 cents each. The next supermarket gets told they are 25 cents each (because he has now covered his costs by selling 25% of the crop). Then the next gets told they 50 cents (He cares little if they take them or not). People rock up to the gate and he charges them 75 cents because they only buy 2 at a time.

So how much are your photos worth: as much as someone is prepared to pay for them.

basti · « **Reply #43 on:** June 26, 2009, 00:27 »

RF and RM licences are restricted, thats true. But "micro RF" has nearly no restrictions - is 250.000 prints restriction? I bet not!

If we started ethical topic - let the prices stay alone, but is it ethical to shoot session paid by client and offer those pics not choosed by that client to micro - even if they are very similar for those choosed and paid? Isnt that dumping price which is illegal in many countries? Is it legal/ethical to sell many picture with obviously high costs on micro, where is very clear that the picture despite hundreds to thousands of downloads will never really earn single dollar? Is it legal by agency to delete your portfolio and grab all the money on your account just because you disagree with them on some phorum? Is it ethical by agency to keep up to 80% from the final price of the picture if they offer no real service like legal help, CC fraud protection, do not even bother to mail you a yearly overview of money earned with proper info for tax bureau?

litifeta · « **Reply #44 on:** June 26, 2009, 01:33 »

a thing to remember when we have a moral dilemma.

It is OUR moral dilemma, nobody else's. Neither yours nor mine morals or ethics are right. They are OUR own.

For centuries people (religions) have roamed the world damning the living for not agreeing with them. Let's not get back to that.

Is something illegal? That is a different question.

saniphoto · « **Reply #45 on:** June 26, 2009, 02:19 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 25, 2009, 16:19

Quote from: saniphoto on June 25, 2009, 15:42

So, can you explain me what are you exactly speaking about? here you can use the image forever and with a really high printing limit. I still must search about all that thing you say about IS licensing costing more than Alamy at the end... probably you may be right, but basically this is the license I'm familiar with, and it seems it allows almost everything, forever. And most of buyers I believe will fit into the limit of this basic RF micro license.

This can be debated ad nauseum (and apparently is going to be here). Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

However there are quite a few restrictions on the use of images that aren't contained within the portion of the Dreamstime license that you quoted.

For anyone interested, the whole license agreement can be found here:
http://www.dreamstime.com/terms.php

The restrictions of the regular RF license are contained in the following sections:

*Royalty- Free License of use of Non-Watermarked Images and Restrictions

*Unauthorized Use

*Sensitive Subjects

Also, you can check out the Extended Licenses and their prices to see what type of sales would go beyond their standard RF license.

Apologies for interrupting this brawl to make an on-topic post...

hello pixelbytes

I am seeing that this whole topic wasn't so silly after all and was worth a closer examination. The proof is in the confusion about licensing terms, that many of us have (me included, eventually!) and I can imagine for buyers - that in microstock seems to comprehend a lot 'common' people, not professional customers. At the core of my question, that some clever guy didn't get hold of, there was this concept of a stock market where the perception of a 'value' for the images is going to blur, and we help this confusion, selling the same images here and there (meaning micro and macro).

Thank you for your pointing out that link for those who want to read it (I forgot to do it myself). I know about restrictions, but I believe that for the majority of people who buy these licenses, the restrictions aren't a problem, as their usage remains within the boundaries of the basic license.

I was pissed off by the aggressive reply, but decided to return, as kindly suggested by Keith, because there a lot of people who honestly discuss a topic that is surely not new, but is maybe changing in how is accepted and regarded. I myself could even change my mind or have a better informed vision of this topic after reading all the interesting posts here.

Is a matter of personal 'ethic' if you chose to license images at macro and micro prices, despite the differences. There are, but for me doesn't justify the argument of who say is fair to sell in both, but rightly everybody is entitled to own opinion in such matters.

regards

saniphoto · « **Reply #46 on:** June 26, 2009, 02:38 »

Quote from: whatalife on June 25, 2009, 16:26

Quote from: e=mg2 on June 25, 2009, 14:31
Quote from: whatalife on June 25, 2009, 14:17
It's hard to tell for sure what you mean here, but if you are saying that macro RF has no limitations, you are mistaken. Products for resale is definitely prohibited on several of the macro sites from which I have licensed imagery. If you are strictly speaking as to number of prints, your claim may be true. Since I have not gone and checked every macro agency to verify, I would be reluctant to issue any blanket statements about what licenses do and do not allow.

From what I've read from alamy RF license there's no restrictions, except reselling the image itself which is logical. And there are others where it's the same, although I would have to read the license again to be sure.

What macros have those restrictions? Getty, Corbis or any other of the majors?

Regards,

I can't believe I am wasting my time like this, but it is wrong for you to so aggressively assert something that is patently false and that clearly you have not bothered to verify for yourself. There are unfortunately people who will assume that what you say is true, and not bother to read the licensing terms on their own. This is shirking their own responsibility, of course, but there is no sense allowing rampant misinformation to be spread.

These are from the four sites I purchase macro imagery from. If you are interested in others, I suggest you look them up yourself. In all cases, I would urge everyone to familiarize themselves with the terms of use and licensing agreement of ANY site before agree to them, and before you find yourselves in a potentially troublesome position. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.

I only included rights which are available via EL on some micros, particularly in response to your claim that other than redistributing the image straight off the site, a macro RF license contains no restrictions.

From Getty (emphasis mine):
Quote
3. Restrictions.
3.2 Licensee may not, without obtaining the prior written consent of Getty Images and the payment of additional License Fees: (i) include the Licensed Material in an electronic template intended to be Reproduced by third parties on electronic or printed products; or (ii) use or display the Licensed Material on websites or in any other medium designed to induce or involving the sale, license or other distribution of "on demand" products, including, without limitation, postcards, mugs, t-shirts, calendars, posters, screensavers or wallpapers on mobile telephones, or similar items.
..
3.4 Licensed Material shall not be incorporated into a logo, corporate ID, trademark or service mark, without obtaining the prior written consent of Getty Images.
(followed by usual restrictions on pornography, defamation, etc, etc.)

From Veer (emphasis mine):
Quote
RESTRICTIONS ON LICENSE
You shall not:
use a Product as a logo, trademark, or service mark;
use a Product in any template or application, whether online or not, with the purpose of creating multiple impressions of a Product, including but not limited to web site design templates, presentation templates, electronic greeting cards, business cards, e-business cards, or any other electronic or printed matter;

From ImageZoo (emphasis mine):
Quote
1.4.2 Licensee may not incorporate the Licensed Material into a logo, trademark or service mark or use on any items where the image itself becomes the primary aspect of an item for resale (for instance, if an image is used on a coffee cup to sell that coffee cup, on a T-shirt to sell that T-shirt, etc.). For licensing information regarding any usage not specified in this Agreement, contact IMAGEZOO.

From Jupiter (the only site I use that explicity allows some form of resale):
Quote
E) Permitted Uses. You may, subject to Section 1(F) below:
(III) Use the Image(s) on product packaging or in any items for personal use or resale, including book covers, calendars, consumer merchandise (T-shirts, posters, art, etc.), except in computer software and electronic video and computer games, which require a separate license (see Section F(IX) below), provided such use is not intended to allow the re-distribution, re-use of the Image(s) or access to the Image(s) apart from a product or service apart from a product or service.

F) Prohibited Uses. You may NOT:
(IX) Use the Images(s) as part of a product in any electronic format intended for multiple distribution or licensing including, without limitation, templates, Web site templates, software products, including computer and/or video games and game consoles, e-greetings, etc. Contact [email protected] to find out about a special license for such use.

(X) Use the Image(s), or resell the Image(s) for use, in mobile or wireless devices, including but not limited to mobile telephones, handheld game consoles, and PDAs. Such usage is subject to additional licensing fees. Please contact [email protected] for information on reseller licenses.

This was a very useful and interesting post, and from a buyer!

Thank you. I suppose you are very knowledgeable and a professional buyer (not occasional one, I means). But how many common customers will know all the details about licenses? And, you pointed out rightly that WE as photographers seems to have a great deal of confusion, not to say ignorance, about licenses!

I for first usually know well the licensing terms of what agency I work with (macro and/or micro), but I cannot know all contract details of the agencies and the differences (I am with DT in micro). That is why I was a bit surprised to see the same images licensed in micro and in macro. After this thread I will know much more and I will have probably also plenty of material for a post in my blog!

You gave the best and detailed answer possible to this kind of aggressive reply. In fact I was pissed off, but then decided that if I would have time, I would look into what he said with his 'sure-as-hell' reply, you made it sooner and with better direct knowledge than I can have.

regards,

araminta · « **Reply #47 on:** June 26, 2009, 03:40 »

Quote from: madelaide on June 25, 2009, 17:08

Also having the same image as RM and RF, or RM after it has already sold as RF, doesn't make sense. I have the same image in different sites as RM and RF, BUT if I sell in one model I remove the image from the sites that have it in the other model. I only have them in this odd situation when I know I can easily remove them.

AFAIK, selling the same image as RF and RM is not allowed and if you sell an image even only once as RF, you cannot remove it from the site and sell it as RM later.

Even your way of proposing an image as RM and RF is very questionable I would say as you cannot be 100% sure that you won't get into the situation where two buyers do purchase a RM and a RF license almost at the same time.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #48 on:** June 26, 2009, 09:43 »

Quote from: saniphoto on June 26, 2009, 02:19

I was pissed off by the aggressive reply, but decided to return, as kindly suggested by Keith, because there a lot of people who honestly discuss a topic that is surely not new, but is maybe changing in how is accepted and regarded. I myself could even change my mind or have a better informed vision of this topic after reading all the interesting posts here.

Excellent point, saniphoto. You are right that the lines have blurred and that the perception of the subject has changed over time and with every new discussion. I remember two or three years ago when this subject was discussed the overwhelming majority of posters seemed to feel that it was unethical to sell same RF images through macro and micro models. Now the majority seem to feel it is acceptable.

The reason for the change of opinion that gets cited most often appears to be the blurring of the prices and licenses between the two models. I would humbly suggest that the blurring of the lines is something brought about by the agencies more than the contributors.

We content providers are mostly the ones getting the short end of the stick in the form of increased competition and decreasing royalties. If I can mitigate this loss by selling through multiple agency models that allow it, that is a perfectly legitimate and justified business decision.

Certainly others are free to disagree, but would be more productive if we could stick to business considerations and leave the personal attacks and moralizing out of it, IMHO.

saniphoto · « **Reply #49 on:** June 26, 2009, 10:10 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 26, 2009, 09:43

Excellent point, saniphoto. You are right that the lines have blurred and that the perception of the subject has changed over time and with every new discussion. I remember two or three years ago when this subject was discussed the overwhelming majority of posters seemed to feel that it was unethical to sell same RF images through macro and micro models. Now the majority seem to feel it is acceptable.

The reason for the change of opinion that gets cited most often appears to be the blurring of the prices and licenses between the two models. I would humbly suggest that the blurring of the lines is something brought about by the agencies more than the contributors.

We content providers are mostly the ones getting the short end of the stick in the form of increased competition and decreasing royalties. If I can mitigate this loss by selling through multiple agency models that allow it, that is a perfectly legitimate and justified business decision.

Certainly others are free to disagree, but would be more productive if we could stick to business considerations and leave the personal attacks and moralizing out of it, IMHO.

[/quote]

Yes, Pixelbytes, with people as you and many others here, discussions are useful and productive - disagreeing also, that's the best of it!
With some people as the one I don't want even to mention, is hard to came to terms of civil reasoning, because then prevail the anger (I had to make a big effort to listen to Keith's advice and came back, after a bit of punching the wall!

I am one that can often admit mistakes and recognize if I'm a wrong, somebody here evidently not... as he disappeared in the best moment, when some proper, detailed answers were given to his bold and incorrect statements and refused to confront with the fact that he may be not so right, after all...

As for your comment, is true in fact that this kind of problem should be for a forum dedicated to agencies! It should be their first concern, to start to educate buyers and photographers about licensing and the various subtleties of contracts in a more widespread way.

Well, now I am called impatiently by our dog for his walk and so wish you a good creative day and to all here to continue to discuss in respect of all opinions and really enjoy the creative side of our profession (or hobby).

regards,

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: photographers selling the same images at micro and macro prices? (Read 25187 times)

e=mg2

zymmetricaldotcom

Adeptris

e=mg2

e=mg2

saniphoto

saniphoto

saniphoto

PeterChigmaroff

PixelBytes

PeterChigmaroff

bittersweet

madelaide

e=mg2

e=mg2

bittersweet

Phil

litifeta

basti

litifeta

saniphoto

saniphoto

araminta

PixelBytes

saniphoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors