pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Subscriptions -- No stockpiling?  (Read 9178 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

KB

« on: March 22, 2010, 10:14 »
0
I just read on the iStock TS thread a post mentioning that TS' TOS says you can't stockpile downloads for later use. Specifically, the TOS states:
Licensee shall not stockpile, download, or otherwise store Licensed Material not used during the Term for future use.

So, that's nice. Use it or lose it. SS' TOS has similar verbiage.
 
However, I was not able to find any such restrictions in DT's or FT's TOS. It seems (though I might have missed it), that those sub buyers can download to their hearts content, then store the images for as long as they'd like, just in case they might ever have a need for them.

If correct, that's just one more piece of evidence that the DT & (especially) FT sub plans are the worst in the industry (from a contributor's POV).  >:(


RT


« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2010, 10:21 »
0
I'm guessing here but I'd say 99% of subscription buyers either don't read that section of the T&C on iS and SS or read it and ignore it anyway. Maybe DT & FT decided it was a pointless clause to have in the contract, it would be very hard if not impossible to enforce if indeed any of the sites actually tried to enforce it.

« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2010, 10:41 »
0
in my POV i don't give a rat's a--- what subs do.
i'd sooner see the demise of sites that prefer to blackmail contributors to take on subs.

in my POV, IS is the only one that allows us to decide whether we approve of subs or not.  and now with Thinkstock, those who advocate to subs can please themselves along with their DT and FT port to celebrate each time they earn 30 cents with an XL dl.  whoopee dink !

helix7

« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2010, 08:20 »
0

How will TS police this? I don't see them being able to monitor usage in a mass subscription structure like this.

On the one hand, I feel like this is a good deterrent to keep buyers away from TS, assuming that buyers even read the terms before signing up and would be put off by such a clause. On the other hand, if buyers did actually take this policy seriously, that means they will cut back on their downloads. Which of course means less money for contributors in an already low-paying pricing structure.

« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2010, 08:57 »
0
This is probably to put of people from getiing one month subscription and maxing out the downloads for future use. This would result in a loss for the subscription site. It's one of the weaknesses of the that business model. I wish every customer would do it. It would finish them off.

« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2010, 09:50 »
0
There have been some posts by buyers on the IS forum thread about this, and from what I read, they do stockpile.

I worked for a company a number of years back when micro was just getting started and I did monthly newsletters. We used a ton of stock photos and had a subscription for a month or two and that's exactly what I did. Sorted through and downloaded everything I thought I might be able to use in the future. Companies use 7 pt type in their terms and conditions because they don't want to put off buyers with the loopholes, but it ends up backfiring. Nobody reads it. I only read the big giant type saying I could have x amount of downloads for 30 days for x amount of dollars. Never even considered I was doing anything wrong. I thought that was the whole point of subscriptions, to get a bargain when buying mass quantities.

« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2010, 11:13 »
0
Beyond the shadow of a doubt, 95% of subscription buyers are stockpiling, that's why they bought a subscription - d uh! -it  wasn't like they just wanted to pay lots of money to microstocks for images they never acdtually downloaded.  If a manager buys a subscription for his employees' use, you can be sure there's pressure to use it to the max, and get "our money's worth".  They can't even be confident that the agency from which they bought a subscription won't go out of business before it runs out.

Subscriptions and stockpiling are steadily eroding the business, and the people running these microstocks could care less because as long as the current quarter's numbers look good. 

Microbius

« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2010, 11:26 »
0
Beyond the shadow of a doubt, 95% of subscription buyers are stockpiling, that's why they bought a subscription - d uh! -it  wasn't like they just wanted to pay lots of money to microstocks for images they never acdtually downloaded.  If a manager buys a subscription for his employees' use, you can be sure there's pressure to use it to the max, and get "our money's worth".  They can't even be confident that the agency from which they bought a subscription won't go out of business before it runs out.

Subscriptions and stockpiling are steadily eroding the business, and the people running these microstocks could care less because as long as the current quarter's numbers look good. 

Spot on. There's a complication though. The agencies, eg. SS want the subscribers to pay for ongoing access to the site without downloading anything but the bare minimum, so they can maximise their profits while minimising how much they pay out to us.
In fact their model collapses if subscribers use all their downloads i.e. they end up paying out more to contributors then the subscriber has actually paid for the subscription.

« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2010, 11:39 »
0
In fact their model collapses if subscribers use all their downloads i.e. they end up paying out more to contributors then the subscriber has actually paid for the subscription.

That might be true, and if so it wouldn't be the first time a subscription-based business model has bombed. I'm in the software business and over the years I've seen i a lot.   Usually it just doesn't sell, because you're asking people to pay for something ahead of time - like periodic software updates - the actual value of which(if any)  isn't known yet.   With the microstocks, I think it works mainly because buyers immediately see the benefit of stockpiling, not so much because of the lower cost per image.  If the sales people push subscriptions by hinting that prices will only go up in the future, stockpiling increases.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2010, 12:10 »
0
Why in the world would someone that is paying for a subscription not stockpile? You get X amount of downloads for X amount of dollars. Of course they are going to stockpile. That's obvious when you first upload pictures to SS and they immediately get a volume download, it's rather obvious what's going on. If they were to stop that my guess it would cost them business because buyers would quit buying subscription packages if they couldn't use all the promised downloads right away.

« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2010, 12:15 »
0
On the other hand, subscriptions can become a burden.

eMusic is a music download site that used to be subscription-only (maybe it still is) and I subscribed for a while.  For $10 you got X downloads per month.  Of course you become obsessed with getting your money's worth, so you end up at the end of the month frantically searching for tracks you might find ok.  Pretty soon I couldn't find enough that I wanted but didnt' already have, and eventually I had gigabytes of junk and ended the subscription.

KB

« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2010, 16:11 »
0
Why in the world would someone that is paying for a subscription not stockpile?

Because they agreed to not do so, legally, by the TOS?

But I'm afraid you and the others are right. Many probably never even read it, and many who do read it probably ignore it anyway. Ethics and morality have never been too popular. We've seen plenty of evidence of that just from SS' recoveries of money owed due to violating the RF TOS (i.e., using images that required an extended license without purchasing one). So it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that most buyers probably violate the TOS they agreed to when purchasing their subscriptions.

« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2010, 16:38 »
0
Such provision is dead from beginning because it contradicts others. How it could be possible that buyer is entitled to download specific number of files in period of time and prohibited to do that at the same time. Is there any expiration date on usage of these files? If there isn't then one can download them and use in next century. Contributors or agencies may not like like it but nothing can be done unless somebody includes some sort of DRM into files. Nobody likes DRM'ed files so they can only do some law tricks with expiration date.

« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2010, 16:46 »
0
"Image Pools" - as I've heard them called before, are a fact of life, prohibition or not.

The solution I believe, is the march of time. Life changes, styles change, etc... After a while those pools will become useless for clients that want to look current, thus they need new content. This is probably why "image factories" do the best in stock, they are always trying to stay bleeding edge current, exploit niches, etc...

One thing that annoys me with most mico agencies, is their lack of efforts to penetrate other markets around the world, the US and Europe are not the only places where you can sell stock images!

« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2010, 16:47 »
0
Some years ago (two? three?) 123rf had to cancel a susbscription offer, admitting that people downloaded almost their full share and they were losing money every time a subscription was sold.

« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2010, 17:01 »
0
The solution I believe, is the march of time. Life changes, styles change, etc... After a while those pools will become useless for clients that want to look current, thus they need new content.

Meanwhile the microstocks make it harder and harder to get new images approved, harder for new images to make money...

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2010, 17:15 »
0
I would be surprised if three quarters of the buyers even read the contract. I'm guilty of that, not as a buyer for stock, but for software ect ect. I don't sit and read the terms and conditions...I just hit the agree button.....especially after purchasing the software. I would think it would be hard to get the money back if you disagree. I'm sure the same goes for the stock buyers. Only if they could track the usage of the image could they really be able to enforce it.


« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2010, 17:21 »
0
perharps this would be an indication that the CEOs of some micros are now wishing they didn't bring subs into their options.
it's no wonder some sites are just accepting literally garbage to fill the vacuum left by contributors who had reduced their uploads as a protest to not being able to opt out on subs... and giving their images to IS since they still provide contributors with that flexibility.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2010, 17:23 by PERSEUS »

« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2010, 17:57 »
0
Quote
Is there any expiration date on usage of these files?

I just read something on one of these threads or maybe in another forum that said if you subscribe for the month of April, you must download and use the files in the month of April. If you want to use images in May, you need to buy another subscription. I don't know the exact terms, though. Haven't read the fine print!

« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2010, 18:09 »
0
I don't see how something like that could possibly be enforceable.  What does "use" mean? Is that the date when you decided to use it, or the day your customer paid you, or when it was printed on paper - or is it when the ad compaign which includes it actually begins to air...?  What if I buy an image in April, thinking I'm going to use it the next day, but things get delayed and I don't actually "use" it until May.  Am I supposed to buy it again?

RacePhoto

« Reply #20 on: March 24, 2010, 01:15 »
0
Two things. One is that in other threads people claim that the subscriptions are making all kinds of money because they can't be used and buyers seldom download on Saturday or Sunday, so they only get 71% of the actual days. Also some people have said that the profit is from people who pay for a subscription and never use all their downloads.

Now this thread is going totally in the opposite direction? Which is it?

Number two: A real site contract,

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.

You don't see a time limit on this, do you? Half a million copies. Thank you Dreamstime. Stockpiling isn't a problem there.

Not to pick on one person, but here's the kind of logic in other discussions of Subscriptions:

It seems to me that the intent of subscriptions is to shift the focus of the "product" and reduce the need for the agency to pay commissions in order to make money.  The idea of a subscription is that many buyers will never fully utilize it - in other words they're pre-paying for images they may never actually download, and until an image is downloaded, no comission is paid.


...

Agencies want a subscription service because it allows the agency to absorb 100% of the profits for unused credits (and there are loads of them).

While a credit package might have unused credits at the end of the year, it will usually only be a small % of loss.  A subscription service has a much higher rate of credit loss, since most people don't work weekends or holidays.

Weekends and holidays account for ~ 32% of the year.  That doesn't include vacation days or sick leave.  So, at least 32% of the profits will be absorbed by the agency (since buyers will rarely buy on those days).

Most of you already see this sort of activity on SS.  During the week, you will get lots of downloads, but during the weekends or holidays, you will see a significant drop off.  Well, that drop off is money in the bank for subscription services, but lost royalties for us.

« Last Edit: March 24, 2010, 02:50 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #21 on: March 25, 2010, 20:55 »
0
I don't see how something like that could possibly be enforceable.  What does "use" mean? Is that the date when you decided to use it, or the day your customer paid you, or when it was printed on paper - or is it when the ad compaign which includes it actually begins to air...?  What if I buy an image in April, thinking I'm going to use it the next day, but things get delayed and I don't actually "use" it until May.  Am I supposed to buy it again?

You raise some very valid questions here, and you're right I don't see how this is enforceable with regards to "normal" users. Back a few years ago I held an account for a client on iStock on a per credit basis. At the end of the project, there was about $35 left in the account, and the client told me to just go ahead and "use it up". So I grabbed up some images that could have been useful for them, plus a few personal ones I liked in small size. The images were never used by the client, and as far as my personal ones, well they're nice to look at and unusual. So do I fall into the category of a "stockpiler"? After all they're just laying there, in a pile, virtually unused.

If a certain number of images is allotted during a subscription period, then certainly that number should be allowed without restrictions. Personally, I hate subs, but this is the can of worms the agencies have opened, and unfortunately, what we live with.

« Reply #22 on: March 25, 2010, 21:32 »
0
So do I fall into the category of a "stockpiler"? After all they're just laying there, in a pile, virtually unused.

If a certain number of images is allotted during a subscription period, then certainly that number should be allowed without restrictions. Personally, I hate subs, but this is the can of worms the agencies have opened, and unfortunately, what we live with.

'Stockpiling' only applies to subscriptions, not PAYG.

« Reply #23 on: March 26, 2010, 14:34 »
0
Sell your images as RM and let your buyers then stockpile as long as they wish ;-)

As longer my images are online on microstock I am more and more unhappy... They treat contributors as cattle...

« Reply #24 on: March 26, 2010, 15:31 »
0
I don't see how something like that could possibly be enforceable.  What does "use" mean? Is that the date when you decided to use it, or the day your customer paid you, or when it was printed on paper - or is it when the ad compaign which includes it actually begins to air...?  What if I buy an image in April, thinking I'm going to use it the next day, but things get delayed and I don't actually "use" it until May.  Am I supposed to buy it again?

You raise some very valid questions here, and you're right I don't see how this is enforceable with regards to "normal" users. Back a few years ago I held an account for a client on iStock on a per credit basis. At the end of the project, there was about $35 left in the account, and the client told me to just go ahead and "use it up". So I grabbed up some images that could have been useful for them, plus a few personal ones I liked in small size. The images were never used by the client, and as far as my personal ones, well they're nice to look at and unusual. So do I fall into the category of a "stockpiler"? After all they're just laying there, in a pile, virtually unused.

If a certain number of images is allotted during a subscription period, then certainly that number should be allowed without restrictions. Personally, I hate subs, but this is the can of worms the agencies have opened, and unfortunately, what we live with.


It isn't even definable, much less enforceable.  There's a similarity to recorded music and the "fair use" principal.  No one every really accepted the idea that copying your purchased music to multiple media and devices was wrong, even if the copyright holder said it was.   Any restrictions on IP ultimately have to make sense, or they die.

lisafx

« Reply #25 on: March 26, 2010, 17:00 »
0
I agree completely about the inability to prevent stockpiling.  I bet nearly every designer who uses subs is saving images for future projects and there is no way the sites will even know.

When you have a subscription that allows 25/day for 30 days, isn't that a blatant invitation to stockpile?  What else is a subscription like that for? 

helix7

« Reply #26 on: March 28, 2010, 22:15 »
0
...When you have a subscription that allows 25/day for 30 days, isn't that a blatant invitation to stockpile?  What else is a subscription like that for? 

Not only is it an invitation, I think that it's implied that this is what a subscription is supposed to be used for. Buyers expect that it's fair and legal to download as many images as they can, every day of the length of the subscription.

I keep wondering if this part of the license is even enforceable, legally speaking. Seems like there are conflicting licenses at play here. The usual RF license always says that you can use the image any time, while this subscription provision puts an expiration date on an image. So this isn't exactly the RF license that buyers are used to. On top of that, there is conflicting information within the TS license itself. On the one hand, it says that "you can use images that you download multiple times for multiple projects," but then further down the page says that you can't stockpile, you can't even store images not used during the term of the subscription for future use. So besides being unclear, the license seems to contradict itself. Worse yet, the idea of "future use" seems to only apply if the image was initially used during the term of the subscription, and ceases to be a valid use license at the end of your subscription.

So let's say you download an image for a brochure. You use it immediately, and then a month later the client asks for a new design with the same image. As I understand the TS license, that usage is prohibited, despite the fact that part of the license suggests that this use would be allowed. Although it is unclear which part of the license would take precedence.


« Reply #27 on: March 29, 2010, 10:05 »
0
I'm thinking that at this point  few subscription buyers really understand  the rights and restrictions on images they buy, and buyers are ceasing to care.  Eventually people say "screw it, I don't know if I'm even totally legal on these images I actually paid money for, so why not just use these thousands of freebies that are floating around, everyone else is doing it anyway."

It's all way too complicated, vague and contradictory; it doesn't make sense.  
« Last Edit: March 29, 2010, 11:11 by stockastic »

« Reply #28 on: March 29, 2010, 17:58 »
0
I'm thinking that at this point  few subscription buyers really understand  the rights and restrictions on images they buy, and buyers are ceasing to care.  Eventually people say "screw it, I don't know if I'm even totally legal on these images I actually paid money for, so why not just use these thousands of freebies that are floating around, everyone else is doing it anyway."

It's all way too complicated, vague and contradictory; it doesn't make sense. 

aye stockastic,
and neither does getting pennies for XL on the same day, with another paying 1.50, 2, etc.. for a M.
i see more XL downloads with 20-30 cents commissions then S and M,etc paying 1.50.
it doesn't make business sense... to contributors,
but to the sites,  it does  ::)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
13800 Views
Last post May 01, 2013, 18:14
by lisafx
37 Replies
9457 Views
Last post March 25, 2014, 16:30
by Ron
1 Replies
2714 Views
Last post July 28, 2014, 05:44
by MxR
11 Replies
8376 Views
Last post March 10, 2020, 07:54
by Mumut Greenstripe
1 Replies
3386 Views
Last post June 10, 2020, 10:39
by whtvr

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors