MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Twitter's bird  (Read 12519 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 05, 2010, 09:19 »
0
I guess I missed that: Twitter got their bird design from Istock....
Here is the link to the original vector from the artist http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-3412146-eco-sing-song-bird-on-branch-nature-illustration.php

The Istock exclusive artist got apparently $6. But by the look of the Istock flame color  he got more than 600 dl's (file was uploaded in May 2007).


L
« Last Edit: March 05, 2010, 09:21 by MicrostockExp »


« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2010, 11:03 »
0
This is weird. I read somewhere about reject for similarity to twitter bird. Is it possible that RF image become copyrighted?

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2010, 11:04 »
0
how depressing is this ?

6$ fr the iconic logo of one of the world's top 10 web sites used by tens of millions of people every day.

and how cheap is Twitter using that as they don't own it exclusively and it already sold 600+ times ?

unbelievable.

« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2010, 11:12 »
0
Yes I am a bit surprise also that Twitter did not buy the exclusivity of the file... does not make much sense to me

« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2010, 11:15 »
0
If Twitter was stupid enough to buy it from microstock they trademark could not be enforced.

« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2010, 11:17 »
0
My take is that when they bought it, they did not expect to be so successful.......

« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2010, 12:15 »
0
It was never used as a logo. It was simply an image used on the old twitter home page. Though it certainly became associated with twitter and the association was certainly good for the continued sales of that original little bird illustration. I do not believe Twitter uses it any longer, but the image continues to get licensed. He's certainly seen more than $6 in earnings from it to date.

Here is an interview with Simon you might find interesting.

[ETA link]
« Last Edit: March 05, 2010, 12:19 by Rob Sylvan »

« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2010, 12:56 »
0
I was talking about the design not the logo and thanks for the link, at least this brought him some publicity...

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2010, 13:01 »
0
c'mon guys, let's get serious.

6$ for such an iconic image is a joke !

if it was sold on RM he would have popped 1000s of $.

and don't tell me he now had "great exposure".
i've never heard of that dude and probably never will.

he was lucky, period, and that bird paid very well anyway,
but this is happening more and more often.

everyone is making money and saving cost, ON OUR SHOULDERS.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2010, 13:03 »
0
c'mon guys, let's get serious.

6$ for such an iconic image is a joke !

if it was sold on RM he would have popped 1000s of $.

and don't tell me he now had "great exposure".
i've never heard of that dude and probably never will again.

exposure is nothing, there's plenty of award winning photographers
starving or grilling burgers to survive.

he was lucky, period, and that bird paid very well anyway,
but this is happening more and more often.

everyone is making money and saving cost, ON OUR SHOULDERS.

« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2010, 13:56 »
0
if it was sold on RM he would have popped 1000s of $.


Sure, but you're missing the fact that he wouldn't have been able to license it 600 times had he sold it as RM. He also has a color variation of it which sold more than thousand licenses. Combined, this is easily $4000-$6000 in total, probably more than he would have earned from a single RM sale.

« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2010, 14:10 »
0
Well he definitely got paid well for the image.. After all twitter is not the exclusive owner.. That's why it is cheap..



c'mon guys, let's get serious.

6$ for such an iconic image is a joke !

if it was sold on RM he would have popped 1000s of $.

and don't tell me he now had "great exposure".
i've never heard of that dude and probably never will.

he was lucky, period, and that bird paid very well anyway,
but this is happening more and more often.

everyone is making money and saving cost, ON OUR SHOULDERS.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2010, 15:18 »
0
is it me needing a course of math and economy or something's wrong in this picture ?

what if DIDN'T sold 600 downloads ?

why in the world a multimillion company should get a logo for perpetual worldwide distribution
for 6 bucks ?

i mean, now i start to see why buyers are flocking to micros, they never had such good deals before.

« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2010, 15:42 »
0
If it had been RM, he would of lost $6, as twitter were low budget when they started and went to a microstock site.  I would rather have $6 than $0, wouldn't you?

It is pointless constantly knocking microstock, if it wasn't here, people on a low budget would just use the free sites.

« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2010, 15:46 »
0
is it me needing a course of math and economy?

Yes, you might do well.

First of all, you'd figure out it's called "economics", not "economy". Then in Economics 101 you will learn about Supply and Demand and that demand rises by lowering the price. The maximum profit is not achieved by asking the maximum price to sell one piece of your product but by finding the right spot where the profit per piece and the number of pieces sold optimize your margins - that's especially true with the technology when multiplying your digital product does not cost more than a fraction of a cent.

But I guess you're too old to learn new tricks, aren't you?

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #15 on: March 05, 2010, 16:14 »
0
is it me needing a course of math and economy?

Yes, you might do well.

First of all, you'd figure out it's called "economics", not "economy". Then in Economics 101 you will learn about Supply and Demand and that demand rises by lowering the price. The maximum profit is not achieved by asking the maximum price to sell one piece of your product but by finding the right spot where the profit per piece and the number of pieces sold optimize your margins - that's especially true with the technology when multiplying your digital product does not cost more than a fraction of a cent.

But I guess you're too old to learn new tricks, aren't you?

maybe i'm just too old... a macro-saur.

but i don't know a single designer who would draw anything for less than 500 euro,
and never ever for big companies for less than a few thousands euro.

would i like to make the cover of TIME magazine ?
of course.

would i do it for 5 bucks ?
hmmm ... i don't think so.

stick and carrot ... egg vs chicken ... but i still find unthinkable to make 6 bucks
from a logo of a millionaire company with plenty of cash to spend from their VCs.

i prefer to not sell at all instead of getting ripped off and give away my work for free.
somebody else will get the job, no problem, i can live pretty well without those 5 bucks
don't you think ?

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #16 on: March 05, 2010, 16:23 »
0
If it had been RM, he would of lost $6, as twitter were low budget when they started and went to a microstock site.  I would rather have $6 than $0, wouldn't you?

It is pointless constantly knocking microstock, if it wasn't here, people on a low budget would just use the free sites.

ok but there must be a point where we say NO.

600 downloads for drawing a bird is a good deal, no questions, but as long as you know you're gonna make
that money out of that design.

what if you don't ?

you start lowering your prices even more ?
until you do it for FREE ?

once we start lowering our value there's nothing stopping the market asking for more
discounts.

i'm happy with my experiment on istock selling my third rate images and seeing also
some rejections for silly reasons but i still find it crazy to sell my good ones for 0.25$
it's just insulting i prefer to not sell at all, that's my personal choice.

i don't care if they sell 1000 times, it's unthinkable that a rich client can get away
with my image for half a dollar and selling his design for 1000x times more
to his clients.

no, thanks.


« Reply #17 on: March 05, 2010, 17:14 »
0
I said no to thinkstock and have removed my images from crestock.  $0.25 subs are too low for me.  Overall though, if it wasn't for the lowering commissions, I would be happy with microstock.  The sales volume makes up for the low prices, it is hard to make anywhere near as much with alamy.  I would prefer it if the sites charged more for certain licenses but there isn't much I can do about that.  Hopefully they will realize that they can also make more and they will change things.  Overall, microstock has been very good for me, much better than my rejection letter experience with a traditional agency.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #18 on: March 05, 2010, 17:50 »
0
macrosaur
The way I look at it is this...if you were not willing to take the small commision for that shot or any other shot then why would you even put them in microstock. You pretty well know up front that is the risk you are taking. If twitter hadn't bought that image they would have bought another..I really doubt they would go to a RM site to purchase it.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #19 on: March 05, 2010, 17:58 »
0
I said no to thinkstock and have removed my images from crestock.  $0.25 subs are too low for me.  Overall though, if it wasn't for the lowering commissions, I would be happy with microstock.  The sales volume makes up for the low prices, it is hard to make anywhere near as much with alamy.  I would prefer it if the sites charged more for certain licenses but there isn't much I can do about that.  Hopefully they will realize that they can also make more and they will change things.  Overall, microstock has been very good for me, much better than my rejection letter experience with a traditional agency.

what would you like more ?

1 sale for 100$, or 10 sales for 10$ each, or 100 sales for 1$/each ?

for all of you it's the same.
for me it's not.

the honest way should be i sell 1 photo for 100$ and you buyer sell your depliant for 1000$, win-win situation.

with micros instead, 100 clients will sell a catalog for 1000$ each therefore 100K$ while i'll still get only
100$ in my pocket.

is this fair ? to me it sounds like a giant ripoff on my shoulders.
not to mention it's sold as RF and they will re-use my pics over and over if they need.

i like what i do and i want to keep doing it.
the only thing i can do is improve my quality and stick to RM.

i'm experimenting selling some leftovers on istock and it's promising so far,
but it still has a bitter taste .. leftover or not they guy paying it 1$ will still make
a lot more money than what i'll make with that picture.

however it turns out it's a scam situation, or it's me getting old ?

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2010, 18:13 »
0
macrosaur
The way I look at it is this...if you were not willing to take the small commision for that shot or any other shot then why would you even put them in microstock. You pretty well know up front that is the risk you are taking. If twitter hadn't bought that image they would have bought another..I really doubt they would go to a RM site to purchase it.

price apart, it's just not fair for the photographer.

we're literally scammed.

if i want to sell at 1$ a pop i can do it also knocking the door of every local design studio.
what's 1$ today ? the price of a coffee ?

they say target the designers .. well all the designers i know ask at the very least 500 euro
for a simple logo, 1000 for a complex logo, 4-5000 for a simple blog ... 2000 for an illustration....

why . should they pay cheap prices ?
and the crazy thing is they also complain in the istock forum, unbelievable.

do you know what i'm seeling on istock ? fruits, vegetables, patterns, and a few leftovers.
i can't even think of uploading serious stuff.

i'm a photographer, not a monkey or a slave working for peanuts.
it's gonna be very tough for you guys in the future i guess, as for me
i'll stick with RM and i'll keep watching the market, who knows maybe
one day my prophecies will become reality...

« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2010, 21:51 »
0
Quote
600 downloads for drawing a bird is a good deal, no questions, but as long as you know you're gonna make
that money out of that design.

what if you don't ?

What if your $1,000 photo never sells as RM?

« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2010, 22:26 »
0

why in the world a multimillion company should get a logo for perpetual worldwide distribution
for 6 bucks ?


It wasn't ever a logo.

« Reply #23 on: March 05, 2010, 22:28 »
0
I was talking about the design not the logo and thanks for the link, at least this brought him some publicity...

Yes, I realize you were not, but some people keep making that mistake.

« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2010, 02:13 »
0
I said no to thinkstock and have removed my images from crestock.  $0.25 subs are too low for me.  Overall though, if it wasn't for the lowering commissions, I would be happy with microstock.  The sales volume makes up for the low prices, it is hard to make anywhere near as much with alamy.  I would prefer it if the sites charged more for certain licenses but there isn't much I can do about that.  Hopefully they will realize that they can also make more and they will change things.  Overall, microstock has been very good for me, much better than my rejection letter experience with a traditional agency.

what would you like more ?

1 sale for 100$, or 10 sales for 10$ each, or 100 sales for 1$/each ?

for all of you it's the same.
for me it's not.

the honest way should be i sell 1 photo for 100$ and you buyer sell your depliant for 1000$, win-win situation.

with micros instead, 100 clients will sell a catalog for 1000$ each therefore 100K$ while i'll still get only
100$ in my pocket.

is this fair ? to me it sounds like a giant ripoff on my shoulders.
not to mention it's sold as RF and they will re-use my pics over and over if they need.

i like what i do and i want to keep doing it.
the only thing i can do is improve my quality and stick to RM.

i'm experimenting selling some leftovers on istock and it's promising so far,
but it still has a bitter taste .. leftover or not they guy paying it 1$ will still make
a lot more money than what i'll make with that picture.

however it turns out it's a scam situation, or it's me getting old ?
What if the buyer is only going to make $2 by using your image?  That is quite possible with blogging and lots of other uses.  Some organizations are non-profitable, they used to use only free images but now sometimes pay the small fees for microstock images.  The BBC used to ask me for free images for their website, now they use microstock.  It has opened up a big new market for people that would never pay $100 for an image.  It is a shame that the big businesses that make lots of profit from our images also use microstock but that is a problem that the sites should address, I don't see it as a reason to condemn microstock.  And however bad you might think microstock is, the alternative is free sites.  If Getty and Corbis opened the doors to all submitters and judged individual images on their merits, not on who made them, we might all switch over but do you think they will do that?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2758 Views
Last post October 23, 2008, 21:36
by leszek
5 Replies
2447 Views
Last post April 09, 2013, 10:18
by RacePhoto
44 Replies
8430 Views
Last post June 03, 2014, 23:52
by wordplanet
5 Replies
2475 Views
Last post March 09, 2016, 04:56
by Shelma1
0 Replies
1171 Views
Last post March 22, 2021, 16:34
by fotoroad

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle