pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SpiderPic and what it means for overall image pricing  (Read 12498 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 28, 2010, 13:10 »
0
There has been a couple of threads discussing photo comparison websites.  Here and Here for example.  

I also did a blog post comparing image sizes here

And Lee Torrens did a pretty extensive review of a number of comparison websites here

Then, today I just saw Lifehacker, a popular blog, do a post on SpiderPic

How long is it going to take before people start really using these sites.  I wonder how many buyers really shop around and have credits on all the sites.  I would think that they have their site they like and are willing to pay $1.00 extra for using that site - but who knows.

Perhaps things like this are going to force us to remove images from the cheapo sites or force them to raise their prices to keep us.

A worst case scenario is it forcing the expensive sites to reduce their pricing to be inline with the cheap sites.  


RT


« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2010, 14:51 »
0
If more sites take the same approach as Alamy software like SpiderPic will not be an issue.

http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/?p=3705


« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2010, 15:09 »
0
Perhaps things like this are going to force us to remove images from the cheapo sites or force them to raise their prices to keep us.

While I think a number of artists will probably remove their collections from the lower-priced sites, history has shown that as a whole the microstock artist community rarely does anything together. If it had, the current pricing structure would not be in place and artists would have more clout in the industry.

The agencies are in control, so the best thing to do is just keep on producing new content and get it online...

« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2010, 15:17 »
0
If more sites take the same approach as Alamy software like SpiderPic will not be an issue.

http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/?p=3705




I doubt that Alamy have got much chance with their legal action. All they're likely to achieve is to publicise the cost differential of their images and give a major boost to Spiderpics. The owners of Spiderpics must be absolutely delighted.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2010, 15:18 »
0
If more sites take the same approach as Alamy software like SpiderPic will not be an issue.

http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/?p=3705




That puts a much different light on the value or effectiveness of SpiderPic or any of the "find-it-cheaper" sites.  It seems you get what you pay for.   8)

Xalanx

« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2010, 15:18 »
0
If more sites take the same approach as Alamy software like SpiderPic will not be an issue.

http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/?p=3705




And I think its only a matter of time until other agencies will react. SpiderPic could be a pain in the behind for photographers if its taken seriously and used widely by buyers.

« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2010, 15:42 »
0
If more sites take the same approach as Alamy software like SpiderPic will not be an issue.
http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/?p=3705


That puts a much different light on the value or effectiveness of SpiderPic or any of the "find-it-cheaper" sites.  It seems you get what you pay for.   8)


That's true, but if you don't want or need the additional rights that Alamy offers in their license, you're much better off buying at a micro where you can unbundle the components and pay for those portions you actually can use.

Given the number of existing price comparison sites on the web for all sorts of products and services, I can't see why stock imagery should be a special case and publicizing prices be a no-no. I can't see Alamy having more than the proverbial snowball's chance in h#*l of succeeding with a lawsuit.

« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2010, 16:00 »
0
One thing I'm missing, is the legality of hotlinking search results and displaying people's copyrighted works without their consent.  This isn't a compare tvs showing results from a manufacturer type thing.

« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2010, 16:22 »
0
If more sites take the same approach as Alamy software like SpiderPic will not be an issue.
http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/?p=3705


That puts a much different light on the value or effectiveness of SpiderPic or any of the "find-it-cheaper" sites.  It seems you get what you pay for.   8)


That's true, but if you don't want or need the additional rights that Alamy offers in their license, you're much better off buying at a micro where you can unbundle the components and pay for those portions you actually can use.

Given the number of existing price comparison sites on the web for all sorts of products and services, I can't see why stock imagery should be a special case and publicizing prices be a no-no. I can't see Alamy having more than the proverbial snowball's chance in h#*l of succeeding with a lawsuit.


Ok... lets say your "comparison site" earns commissions from some of the products it sells, then presents those products as being significantly cheaper than a competitor's product (which incidentally they don't earn a commission from) in a comparison that is potentially misleading, possibly deceptive and probably libelous.

Add that fact that the comparison site is accessible and accessed world-wide and compares companies that are headquartered in several different jurisdictions, each of which have different trade practices, disclosure and libel laws.

Notwithstanding the disclaimer, assuming Alamy is serious about pursuing something, I'd hate to be defending Spiderpic.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2010, 16:27 »
0
I agree that any kind of lawsuit is unlikely.  I think that Alamy's complaints, however, do present a much more clear picture of just what the findit cheaper software offers.  The new sites are getting publicity but it is as much negative as positive.

The findit cheap software reminds me of shopping for new cars.  Just what are you getting on one compared to the other?  It is much more complicated than a cheaper price.  I like air condition.   ;D

Shawn, not so sure that there is a problem with the copyright.  Doesn't Google offer searches of images?  Some agencies even encourage posting your sales to Facebook, or linking to google, etc.


lisafx

« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2010, 16:33 »
0
If more sites take the same approach as Alamy software like SpiderPic will not be an issue.

http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/?p=3705




Interesting read, Richard.  Thanks for posting it :)

« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2010, 16:41 »
0
Shawn, not so sure that there is a problem with the copyright.  Doesn't Google offer searches of images?  Some agencies even encourage posting your sales to Facebook, or linking to google, etc.

Why is this any different from a blog stealing a comp and using it?  Just because it is a "search" isn't reason enough.

« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2010, 16:44 »
0
If more sites take the same approach as Alamy software like SpiderPic will not be an issue.

http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/?p=3705




Interesting read, Richard.  Thanks for posting it :)


ditto

WarrenPrice

« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2010, 16:46 »
0
Shawn, not so sure that there is a problem with the copyright.  Doesn't Google offer searches of images?  Some agencies even encourage posting your sales to Facebook, or linking to google, etc.

Why is this any different from a blog stealing a comp and using it?  Just because it is a "search" isn't reason enough.

I don't know, Shawn.  It was a question.

RT


« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2010, 17:06 »
0
Notwithstanding the disclaimer, assuming Alamy is serious about pursuing something, I'd hate to be defending Spiderpic.

Totally agree, from what I've seen so far Spiderpic are on very dodgy ground and unless they expand their results to show an exact like for like price for the licenses available on each site featured they could be in real danger of misrepresentation.

Add to that the legalities of copyright that Sean mentioned above not just in terms of the contributors work but also that of the agencies concerned, the information the agencies publish on their sites is subject to copyright, not to mention the sites watermark that is on every image, they'd win on that issue alone.


That's true, but if you don't want or need the additional rights that Alamy offers in their license, you're much better off buying at a micro where you can unbundle the components and pay for those portions you actually can use.

Given the number of existing price comparison sites on the web for all sorts of products and services, I can't see why stock imagery should be a special case and publicizing prices be a no-no. I can't see Alamy having more than the proverbial snowball's chance in h#*l of succeeding with a lawsuit.

Comparing prices for stock imagery is nothing like comparing prices of products, the buyer is not buying an image they are buying a license to use an image and each site has different variations and terms of usage on their licenses, so in theory Spiderpic saying that item A is available on site X for $8 and the same item available on site Y for $365 is misleading because they are not the same item at all.


RacePhoto

« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2010, 17:44 »
0
Yes, I was just pointing out the same thing as RT, they aren't comparing like products, which can be very confusing to a buyer. Here's the fine print which answers another question. Why does Canstock come out so low on so many searches?

Quote
NOTICE: (1) The prices shown on this page are calculated according to the lowest amount of purchasable credits in a specific provider, and does not reflect special pricing, subscriptions, sales, seasonal changes and any price variance which can occur on the provider website due to any reason. (2) The comparison shows the price ranges between the available sizes and licenses of a specific agency for a specific photo and does not compare the license itself between the providers. To view the license available for a specific image from a specific provider, please either (a) click on the image to go to the source site (b) click on the 'License' field link to see the license description on the source site. (3) The prices shown for CanStockPhoto are for registered CanStockPhoto users, who automatically get 50% off of photo prices upon free registrattion.

I don't mind SpiderPic creating a search, it could be useful for buyers and sellers. But when it doesn't consider discounts, except for CanStock, it makes me ask why only them? It doesn't compare like sizes.

Say some journalist is searching for information on Microstock pricing and they find this, instead of the truth? DT shows as Large $7 but my Large sales bring in 35c commission, which would be 5%. Where's the truth? At 30% that means my photos on DT are selling for $1.12 not $7. The real prices is $1.12 for a large photo!

It's like having a calculator that always gives you totals that are six times the real number, unless you type in the numbers with your left hand, in which case it gives you a 50% discount?  ???

XPTO

« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2010, 18:14 »
0
The way Spiderpics present the results is not only misleading, but could almost be seen as defamatory and manipulative, seriously damaging the image of an agency based on distorted results.

I'm not  a lawyer but I think Alamy can make a good case in court, as the agency and its contributors risks serious damage based on a partial information provided by Spiderpics.

People tend to interpret that an image placed in five agencies is the same product, but nothing is farther from the truth. In fact, due to the licenses differences it's like it were five different images. Unless we get the exact same licenses they are not comparable.

Stock photography is not the same as comparing a Coke bottle in different supermarkets.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 18:16 by XPTO »


« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2010, 23:24 »
0
The big issue I see with spiderpic is that the search experience doesn't seem to match that of say Istock. For along time now I've been saying this, and I'll say it again:

Stock agencies don't sell mystical "rights" to images, they sell a service for finding and securing quality commercial images.

If you look at the best agencies online over the years, you'll notice that the one thing they have in common is their search engine experience. Judging from what I've seen so far on their site, I can't search in the same powerful ways Istock offers. I see you could find it on istock, then do a price comparison via the URL, but still, at the end of the day, it seems like more of a pain for buyers.

I also noticed issues with comparisons on price points right out of the gate, seems like a big mess really.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 23:30 by cardmaverick »

« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2010, 23:45 »
0
won't the agencies that charge more just block them from accessing their database if they don't provide correct and comparisons.

« Reply #19 on: January 29, 2010, 00:02 »
0
won't the agencies that charge more just block them from accessing their database if they don't provide correct and comparisons.

Thats another tactic I've been wondering about, all the agencies could probably pull that off if they wanted too. Remember when Tineye started blocking people?

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #20 on: January 29, 2010, 10:29 »
0
I could see the "Mom" looking for that perfect photo on her Christmas card using SpiderPic....but your big business who have subscription's to the various sites probably wouldn't put much thought in it, because of the quantity of the images they buy and their clientele, it don't know they would want to buy a lower end image even if it is cheeper simply because they are lower. If I was a buyer I would perfer to buy a subscription at an agency that has more of the quality that is needed than at an agency that has junk that you have to dig through. Does that make sense?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2010, 07:52 »
0
I could see the "Mom" looking for that perfect photo on her Christmas card using SpiderPic...
But would then be disappointed unless SpiderPic quotes the maximum price on any site - obviously most (all?) sites have deep discounts for bulk buyers and 'Mum' might just want one image, which sometimes she couldn't get, i.e. on sites where you have to buy some sort of subscription.

Dook

« Reply #22 on: January 31, 2010, 03:06 »
0
The way Spiderpics present the results is not only misleading, but could almost be seen as defamatory and manipulative, seriously damaging the image of an agency based on distorted results.

I'm not  a lawyer but I think Alamy can make a good case in court, as the agency and its contributors risks serious damage based on a partial information provided by Spiderpics.

People tend to interpret that an image placed in five agencies is the same product, but nothing is farther from the truth. In fact, due to the licenses differences it's like it were five different images. Unless we get the exact same licenses they are not comparable.

Stock photography is not the same as comparing a Coke bottle in different supermarkets.
Is it possible that Spiderpics is already damaging Alamy? I have not had a single sale for lost month or so, and it used to be much better.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
5199 Views
Last post September 17, 2009, 20:03
by dnavarrojr
6 Replies
4181 Views
Last post November 04, 2011, 14:30
by Sadstock
4 Replies
3370 Views
Last post February 04, 2013, 16:35
by gillian vann
54 Replies
10221 Views
Last post August 20, 2013, 05:54
by jsfoto
2 Replies
1153 Views
Last post October 18, 2023, 20:41
by Mifornia

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors