Author Topic: This worries me more than free pictures sites :-( (Read 25989 times)

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #75 on:** June 11, 2010, 22:42 »

Quote from: sharpshot on June 08, 2010, 02:40

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 07, 2010, 21:31
..A usage based micro license needs to be created that is simple for buyers but compensates contributors accordingly.
I agree but the sites haven't done anything about this for years and all we do is keep complaining about it. If we can't get the sites to change, what are our options? I used to think we could start our own site but it seems too late now. If we can't persuade the sites to change, we will just have to put up with it or do RM instead.

I think some sites are changing toward more compelling pricing. Fotolia has tiered pricing. Istock has E+ and Vetta. It's a move in the right direction but is still RF.

Microstock started out as community snapshots from ametuers. Now it has a reasonable percentage of professional quality images. Prices and compensation need to reflect that. Maybe macro was too expensive to support the buyer market but micro is too cheap to support contributors. We need to reach a happy median and I think we're slowly getting there. But a magazine cover with a $25 RF micro image isn't quite there yet. I think one of the agencies will eventually introduce a simplfied Micro RM license and I'd bet Getty will push Istock into some type of model like that at some point.

cthoman · « **Reply #76 on:** June 12, 2010, 11:05 »

Interesting take on it Paulie. It makes you wonder if the future holds more tiers and levels for images.

borg · « **Reply #77 on:** June 12, 2010, 12:27 »

http://www.stockphotorights.com/forum/

Maybe that forum can be right place for our complaints.
Someone who is native speaker of English language could open the topic and explain all this also there...

Kone · « **Reply #78 on:** June 12, 2010, 14:16 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 11, 2010, 22:42

I think some sites are changing toward more compelling pricing. Fotolia has tiered pricing. Istock has E+ and Vetta. It's a move in the right direction but is still RF.
Microstock started out as community snapshots from ametuers. Now it has a reasonable percentage of professional quality images. Prices and compensation need to reflect that. Maybe macro was too expensive to support the buyer market but micro is too cheap to support contributors. We need to reach a happy median and I think we're slowly getting there. But a magazine cover with a $25 RF micro image isn't quite there yet. I think one of the agencies will eventually introduce a simplfied Micro RM license and I'd bet Getty will push Istock into some type of model like that at some point.

I agree with this 100%.

PS:
Hey Paulie, nothing personal, but I like more your old profile photo, it is just more appealing for me.

lefty · « **Reply #79 on:** June 12, 2010, 20:22 »

Yes, I think everyone is not happy with 25 cents . Already I talk to three friends long time in microstock and they stop caring for making new contribution . It is not fair to photographer with inventory and expenses to take 25 cents.
But who will start give better deal? PaulieWalnuts say already some agencies listening to contributors feeling and trying to make a compromise .
But I am not sure if agencies want to do this, because if you me and many old friends quit microstock, new amateurs from country with low standard living will replace you me and friends who quit.
It's a problem , I think. A big one.

madelaide · « **Reply #80 on:** June 12, 2010, 21:24 »

Those who happily embraced the very low prices, especially subs, are culprits of the current situation. Since the beginning of microstock, images were too cheap for the broad usage terms provided, but people were excited by making money out of their "amateur" photos.

alpy7 · « **Reply #81 on:** June 12, 2010, 22:32 »

Quote from: Randy McKown on June 05, 2010, 23:48

Show of hands .. how many people have ever forked over the $25 for a yearly copy of the photographers market ... and actually used it
Don't like $0.25 sales then take business into your own hands .. you don't have to belong to a single agency micro or macro or whatever to pull in bigger sales ... but it takes motivation and you have to treat it as a career. Treat photography as a hobby and you'll bring in a hobby income which is nobodys fault but your own.
Face it people, no matter how many "pro shooters" become contributors microstock will always be at the bottom of the barrel in the overall photography industry .. that's where it was designed to be and that's where it belongs .. take it for what it is.

Raising Hand

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #82 on:** June 12, 2010, 22:47 »

Quote from: lefty on June 12, 2010, 20:22

But I am not sure if agencies want to do this, because if you me and many old friends quit microstock, new amateurs from country with low standard living will replace you me and friends who quit.It's a problem , I think. A big one.

If good contributors stop submitting saleable images what would happen? Yes, there would probably be plenty of new people to take their place. But what kind of people? I'm guessing the majority would be novices with point-and-shoots submitting brick walls and flowers. If word gets around that micro is a waste of time for advanced ametuers and pros micro agencies would eventually end up with a lot of outdated unsaleable garbage. Then they would do the only thing they know how to do - discount and reduce prices which would lead to a self implosion of micro.

This is why something needs to happen with increasing pricing or introduce some type of new usage-based license. Buyers now have access to professional macro quality images at a small fraction of the macro cost.

All microstock sites have varying degrees of quality. Why should buyers pay $1 for a brick wall taken by a novice with a 2MP pocket camera versus a conference room full of business models taken by an advanced-ametuer/pro with a 24MP Nikon D3X? And why should they get to stockpile images for almost unlimited usage?