MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: sharply_done on September 10, 2008, 17:56

Title: Vivozoom
Post by: sharply_done on September 10, 2008, 17:56
I just received a promo offer from Vivozoom.
What's the word on these guys and their 'fresh approach'?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: sc on September 10, 2008, 18:05
Just got one too!!!
Anybody???
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: sc on September 11, 2008, 12:47
Bump
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: MikLav on September 11, 2008, 13:20
startup by former Getty executives... and they claim they already got top microstock photographers in their collection...
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: leaf on September 11, 2008, 16:32
macro or micro?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Pixart on September 11, 2008, 16:49
Photoshelter is still warm in the ground and already a new site is filling the void....

How mysterious though.  No public website?  Sharply, I'm jealous. 
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 15, 2008, 14:39

There's some additional information about vivozoom here:

http://submit.vivozoom.com/faq.html

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Tom Donnelly
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Eco on September 15, 2008, 16:46
Also got the invitation, but I am not sure whether I will give them a try. Looks interesting, but I wonder if they will succeed when so many other late arrivals to the microstock industry have failed. Only time will tell. 
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Pixart on September 15, 2008, 16:50
I can sum up my evaluation in one word.

Subs.

Nuf said?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 15, 2008, 17:36
I can sum up my evaluation in one word.

Subs.

Nuf said?

Exactly.  Another micro peddling the same stuff as everyone else, and in a sub program besides!
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Karimala on September 15, 2008, 19:15
The only difference though is the sub program is like IS's, which is an improvement.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 15, 2008, 20:06
The only difference though is the sub program is like IS's, which is an improvement.

No it isn't.

"Our first product offering is a subscription, allowing customers the right to download up to 25 images per day."

Sounds like SS.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: yingyang0 on September 15, 2008, 20:58
The only difference though is the sub program is like IS's, which is an improvement.
I noticed a few differences, some of which are good for contributors and some that aren't.

1) The contracts are bilateral, requiring contributor's approval before they go into effect.
2) It appears They are actually warranting that customer won't get sued and are basically requiring contributor's to indemnify both the site and the buyer (this is a big change!). Without seeing the actual contracts it's impossible to tell if this is really what they'll do, but from the FAQ info this appears to be the case.

It looks to me like a new version of SS since it is an image/day subscription service and they separate the contributors (a subdomain of "submit") and the regular site for the buyers. It's strange that former Getty execs would start a micro using the business model of their former competitors.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Karimala on September 15, 2008, 21:56
The only difference though is the sub program is like IS's, which is an improvement.

No it isn't.

"Our first product offering is a subscription, allowing customers the right to download up to 25 images per day."

Sounds like SS.

Hmm...the FAQ says:

"We also pay our contributors 40% of our receipts. By way of illustration: If a customer pays $300 for a monthly subscription and downloads 100 images, each image generates $3.00 and the photographer will earn a royalty of $1.20 per image (or 40%). However, if that same customer downloads only 10 images then the royalty becomes $12.00 per image."

That sounds like IS.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 15, 2008, 22:35
Hmmm, sort of, I guess.  Missed that part in the FAQ.  I don't think it was there when I got the email a few weeks back.

How many contributors want to accept the risk of holding the buyer blameless?  That's what you're saying, right yingyang?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: leaf on September 16, 2008, 02:02
perhaps this is more info

Quote
What are the implications to me (as a contributor) of Vivozoom guaranteeing image rights to its customers?
Like the majority of other micro sites, we are requiring you, our contributors, to warrant to us that you own the rights to your images (including submitting necessary releases). If there is a claim against us alleging breach of these rights against us, we will, with your help, defend it. If it transpires you do not own the image rights then you will have to settle the claim (your liability does not reduce because we have accepted your images).

[vivozoom faq (http://submit.vivozoom.com/faq.html)]


but that sounds sort of regular - we are just guaranteeing that we do actually own the images... which isn't hard. Or am i missing something?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 16, 2008, 03:39

Leaf - you're on the money.

We're trying to tighten things up a bit.  This means a more diligent approach to accepting contributors and their images.

Although I'm probably not as familiar as many of you with the minutia of the others' contracts, I don't believe we are doing anything different to increase or reduce a contributor's liability for making false claims about images they are submitting to us. 

I'll get the Contributors' Contract online later today and post a link.

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 16, 2008, 06:31
Ok Tom, apparently you're part of the team here...

I don't believe we are doing anything different to increase or reduce a contributor's liability for making false claims about images they are submitting to us.

Your selling points:
Quote
Our product and website will be distinguished by the higher quality imagery, a very user friendly and functional website and by guaranteeing appropriate image rights.

So, if you're not doing anything different, how are you set apart by guaranteeing appropriate image rights anymore than any other site?  Also, since you don't have exclusivity, you're just going to carry the same stuff everyone else does, so how does "higher quality imagery" come into play?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: yingyang0 on September 16, 2008, 07:15
but that sounds sort of regular - we are just guaranteeing that we do actually own the images... which isn't hard. Or am i missing something?

For one thing they changed the wording of that part of the FAQ that leaf quoted since I first posted. But more importantly right above that it says (this time I'll quote so the wording doesn't change on me):

Quote
Why are you providing our customers with the guarantee over the image rights?
There is a basic requirement for most users of images to have the security that they will not be prosecuted for infringing image rights when they publish an image. This requirement is particularly important for corporates. We are confident that with this guarantee will generate many, many more customers for your images, and that they will be prepared to pay premium sums for this privilege.
This is very different from the other sites because they're providing a warranty, whereas all the other microstock sites disavow all warranties of any kind in their licenses. It's unclear to what extent they're going to guarantee and what exactly they mean by image rights.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 16, 2008, 07:31

Sean, we're taking a stronger line on Provenance.  Both of the contributor and their images.  This selective approach will allow us to offer a warranty to our clients.

We did a ton of market research in the USA and UK to ask Agencies, Corporations etc. what their view was of Microstock. 

They all loved the product and the prices but wouldn't risk their jobs by licensing an image without warranty.  We discussed a Microstock offering underpinned by Warranty with dozens of corporations and the feedback blew us away.

So this difference boils down to new and substantial incremental sales by increasing the market for Microstock in a way that has never been done before.

If there are any specific concerns or questions, my number is +44 75123 69400.  I'd be delighted to explain in more detail anything that will help in understanding the difference we're trying to make.

Tom

PS  Also different is a bi-lateral contract.  How many times do you see that on a Microstock site?   What's the point of a contract if one side can change it 'willy-nilly'?  Not worth the electrons it was sent with in my opinion.






Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Microbius on September 16, 2008, 07:34
Ok Tom, apparently you're part of the team here...

I don't believe we are doing anything different to increase or reduce a contributor's liability for making false claims about images they are submitting to us.

Your selling points:
Quote
Our product and website will be distinguished by the higher quality imagery, a very user friendly and functional website and by guaranteeing appropriate image rights.

So, if you're not doing anything different, how are you set apart by guaranteeing appropriate image rights anymore than any other site?  Also, since you don't have exclusivity, you're just going to carry the same stuff everyone else does, so how does "higher quality imagery" come into play?
I think that the intention is that "higher image quality" will come into play because they are only taking photographers by invitation. So their images will also be on other sites but there will be less crap to wade through to find them on their site.
This is a very common complaint from buyers.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 16, 2008, 08:03
So Tom, what does this warranty get the buyer?  If they get sued by someone about something, what happens?  If you're just going to pass it down to the artist, I guarantee no contributor has the means to go to court to defend themselves, just because Apple got touchy about a mac book in some buyer's ad.  Is your agency willing to take all the risk on this? 
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 16, 2008, 08:34

Sean, we (vivozoom) are giving the warranty.  We are putting ourselves on the line and will defend all such claims.   

Clearly if the contributor has uploaded an image they do not own, then that's a breach of contract.

Make no mistake, this is a big undertaking by us and if you own your images and  have valid releases, then you have nothing to fear and everything to gain by a VZ warranty.

This is a chance to put some distance between you and the rest of the casual uploaders and open up a new market. 

This is no different from how Getty Images operates.  So in that regard it's nothing new for us. 

Tom











Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 16, 2008, 08:58

Sean - just found this article of yours on your excellent site
(http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/) in relation to how to buy images off of iStockPhoto:

====================

Conclusion

While, ultimately, the onus to use a photo correctly falls on the buyer (and is stated so in the iStockphoto legal agreement), iStockphoto makes every reasonable effort to protect the, perhaps unknowledgable in these matters, buyer when it comes to properly released images.  No other business could offer more guarantee for properly released imagery.  This is not some amateur photo sharing site where users don’t know about these types of things.  This is a business, and is run as such.

Feel safe to purchase away!

=====================

The difficulty for many businesses is that they are not allowed to purchase images without a Warranty.

It's that market that we are ultimately aiming for.

Tom

Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 16, 2008, 09:11
Thanks for the response - I'll modify that a bit later.  I've never heard the bit about prohibiting purchases.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: yingyang0 on September 16, 2008, 09:45
This is no different from how Getty Images operates.  So in that regard it's nothing new for us. 
If it's going to be like the warranty offered by Getty on its RF stock then I think it's a step in the right direction. It is definitely a way differentiate the site.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 16, 2008, 10:31

VZ Contributor agreement at:

http://submit.vivozoom.com/docs/ContributorTerms

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 16, 2008, 10:59
Seems fairly fair :).  I like the part about death benefits - nice to see that.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Valaaami on September 16, 2008, 11:07

So this difference boils down to new and substantial incremental sales by increasing the market for Microstock in a way that has never been done before.



A week ago I got a sitemail on IS from a buyer who works for a big advertising agency. She asked me about model releases of one of my images. They liked the image they wanted to buy it but they needed the release to be proven.
I told them that every image contains recognizable people on IS has a model release attached so she can be sure the given shot is also released. And I suggested her to ask IS support if she need more proof. 24 hour later she came back to me and old that they still need the image but IS support is not aswering. This time I emailed her the releases - I am not sure I allowed to do this.  Next morning I saw they paid 150$ for it.
I think this is the new marked segment Tom is talking about.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: leaf on September 16, 2008, 11:18
Seems fairly fair :).  I like the part about death benefits - nice to see that.

agreed, quite nice
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: astrocady on September 16, 2008, 11:44
What is the time frame?  How long before they start promoting the site and selling images?  vivozoom.com doesn't even load yet.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: download on September 17, 2008, 21:48
I'm watching this thread with great interest. I hope that those who have first hand knowledge of this new site can provide some feedback for us. I'm also one of the contributors who have been approached by email and a phone call about joining up with this new site but after the LuckyOliver fiasco I'm treading pretty carefully.

But some of the comments here make it sound fairly promising...
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Valaaami on September 18, 2008, 04:02
They sound very impressive. They do a heavy recruiting via emails... I got it twice already. What is a letdown that the do not answer the questions I asked, even thought they encouraged me in every email and on every forum to ask if I have further questions. I did have some. No answer yet.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 18, 2008, 04:17
Valaaami -not sure what's happening here.  Please email me directly:

[email protected]

Or call +44 75123 69400.

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: leaf on September 18, 2008, 05:55
I uploaded a few files via ftp, but they are not showing up on the website.  Do i have to click somewhere to 'process' the files.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 18, 2008, 06:39
Leaf - got your email. 

Our FTP processor puts them in MANAGE queue automatically.  It will even process sub-folders, so you can drag and drop a complete folder.

Delays can occur when there is heavy activity, but I'll check your folder and get back to you via email.

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: MikLav on September 18, 2008, 10:23
I submitted 3 files via browser and checking the site a few days later I discovered that they disappeared.
Then I submitted again 3 files (btw I use FireFox) and double-checked I see them in Pending. 1 or 2 days later I received mail that the files appear blank!

something seems to be wrong with the web interface

and it's EXTREMELY annoying that IPTC information isn't read from the files.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 18, 2008, 14:43
Leaf - it was the back-tick in your file-names that caused our FTP script to ignore the files.

The images should now be in your MANAGE queue.

We have modified our ingestion system to accept back-ticks but will display them in your account area without the back-tick.

Thanks for reporting this,

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 18, 2008, 14:46
MikLav - we most certainly do extract IPTC data from images.

I uploaded 15,000 images last weekend and only one failure occured.

We may have a bug here.

Let me know your username (email to [email protected]) and I'll investigate and get back to you.

Sorry for the inconvenience,

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: MikLav on September 18, 2008, 15:41
Yeah when I saw empty fields I thought it wasn't the case at my first attempt, but then I thought it's just my bad memory. Good to hear that IPTC is used; and hope you will find what's the issue with the upload. Email sent.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Valaaami on September 19, 2008, 05:59
Valaaami -not sure what's happening here.  Please email me directly:

[email protected]

Or call +44 75123 69400.

Tom

Thanks for your help Tom, but meanwhile Lawrence answered my questions.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Magnum on September 19, 2008, 06:49
[email protected]  Aren´t you afraid others will take after Vivozoom, when you tell every secret ?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 19, 2008, 07:37

Magnum - imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!  Anyway, we're building an image business, not a nuclear device.  :)

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: sc on September 19, 2008, 12:16
After getting my invitation to join on Sept 10th I took a wait and see approach, because I had questions. Well 2 days ago Lawrence Gould called me to personally re-invite me and to answer any questions I might have. I have since signed up.

I also contacted support about a problem with firefox and Tom responded to me right away.

I'm liking what I see from them so far.

Steve
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: JBrizendine on September 22, 2008, 18:31
I too am intrigued by the business plan of this new company. If their research is accurate, and there really is large market for a microstock agency that is willing to back the photos with a guarantee, then Vivozoom may really be about to strike oil. Anyway, I decided to take the invitation. I joined and uploaded 10 images for review. The upload went flawlessly, although the images have yet to be reviewed. I assume they are busy getting the company up and running. I do have a question for any insider. I noticed during the submission process that there are no categories. Does this mean that the customers will not have links to categorized images? Search only?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: RacePhoto on September 23, 2008, 00:26
I too am intrigued by the business plan of this new company. If their research is accurate, and there really is large market for a microstock agency that is willing to back the photos with a guarantee, then Vivozoom may really be about to strike oil. Anyway, I decided to take the invitation. I joined and uploaded 10 images for review. The upload went flawlessly, although the images have yet to be reviewed. I assume they are busy getting the company up and running. I do have a question for any insider. I noticed during the submission process that there are no categories. Does this mean that the customers will not have links to categorized images? Search only?

You mean you actually like spending more time ticking boxes and adding categories that customers will probably have little or no use for in their searches?  ;D

Someone correct me or inform me, how categories help sales or do anything functional. I think they are a waste of time and effort and don't do anything but make the site more complicated for no useful reason. They can't be effective because they are too vague. Once you makes the categories include all the possibilities and variations, you are back to keywords. Searching keywords gives the buyers everything they need. I just don't see the sense in having categories?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: PeterChigmaroff on September 23, 2008, 11:51
Is anyone having problems logging on this morning? All I get is this weird pulsing like there is a constant retry to load the page. This happens after I enter the login info.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 23, 2008, 12:01
Zeus, our upload site was down for a short while... we added a second pipe from our web-servers to the image RAID. 

Sorry for the interrupt.

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 23, 2008, 12:07
Racephoto - "adding categories"?  Not us.

Over a year ago I asked a bunch of microstockers via the Yahoo microstock group what they liked and didn't like about existing sites.

Almost everyone said "don't implement categories!".

We listened.  There are no categories on VZ. 

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: oboy on September 23, 2008, 13:42
Looks like after logging on I only can view the Manage page. All links bring me to the Manage page and the Upload link brings me back to the front page with the star.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: PeterChigmaroff on September 23, 2008, 16:20
Zeus, our upload site was down for a short while... we added a second pipe from our web-servers to the image RAID. 

Sorry for the interrupt.

Tom
Tom,
Is the site up yet? I can't seem to get into it.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: JBrizendine on September 23, 2008, 16:53
RacePhoto - Not at all what I meant. I whole heartedly applaud their decision not to include categories. I personally hate them, and agree that they are useless and a complete waste of time. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't going to be forced into categorizing them at some future date. I think that the omission of categories alone will help to make this site popular among submitters. I wonder too, will Vivozoom include a rating system? I have often thought that giving registered onlookers a way to give their opinion of a particular photo would be usefull. Kind of like Netflix does with movies. I also think IS does this. I'm not sure how usefull it is to customers, but I like the idea. I also wonder will they give customers the option to sort by "most DLs", "highest rating", "Newest First", and "Random"?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: runamock on September 23, 2008, 17:35
No! Please no rating system!!! Join MostPhotos if that's what you want  :D
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Microbius on September 24, 2008, 02:59
No! Please no rating system!!! Join MostPhotos if that's what you want  :D
Absolutely, these crappy gimmicks just seem really unprofessional.
Sounds like this agency would like to sell to grownups, adding rating systems etc. is therefore probably not a good idea.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 24, 2008, 04:55
Zues/Oboy - yes the site's up. 

If you are or were having problems please email me directly and each problem will be looked in to.  By all means report the bug here too, I check in regularly.

A couple of folks on this board have identified a problem logging on that is resolved by removing a cookie.  This is being looked into by the developers and I'm hoping for a resolution very soon. 

tom <at> vivozoom.com
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 24, 2008, 05:10
Microbius et al - we are in agreement.

We will have no facilities that allow others to rate your images nor see how many downloads an image has had.  Those things have no place at VZ.  All these decisions were supported by a vocal but passionate group of microstockers who gave us some great feedback in 2007.

In retrospect, these "gimmicks" might seem like bad ideas, but at the time, the great pioneers like Bruce and Jon were trying to build a new model without a rule book.  The "community" model lent itself to so many great ideas that we've all benefited from.  A few on the otherhand, have passed their sell-by-date.

We won't get everything right, but we're trying.

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 24, 2008, 07:51

For those that reported difficulty logging on, we found an issue with our load-balanced multi-server system.  One of our servers lost access to shared "session" information which retrieved previous user settings/preferences.

They believe they've fixed the issue, but if it happens again, I would be grateful if you drop me an email or post here on the board.

A big thanks to all who reported this, it helped our developers quickly get to what they beleive was the cause.  And of course I am sorry for the inconvenience this caused. 

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: oboy on September 24, 2008, 13:00
Thank you!

Looks like it is working now!
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 24, 2008, 14:53
oboy .. thanks are due to you and others.

Your choice is to persevere with us or give up.  I would more than understand that (in a crowded world) you might choose the latter.  You didn't, so thanks again.

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: oboy on September 24, 2008, 16:10
Tom, Would it be possible to give the automatic generated emails form you system an logical email address name for the sender? Something like [email protected] Because right now they are all blogged or land in the junk mail folder and I can't mark them as save because they do not have a logical email address name.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 25, 2008, 00:41
oboy..  thanks for spotting this.

Have asked the developers for their view on this.  I originally liked the idea of no logical address so that if anyone hit "reply" (not noticing that it was not an attended email box) their email would not get sent (rather than sending one and not getting reply thus thinking we were ignoring them).

I'll get back to you on this and thanks for the suggestion!

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: download on September 28, 2008, 14:10
Microbius et al - we are in agreement.

We will have no facilities that allow others to rate your images nor see how many downloads an image has had.  Those things have no place at VZ.  All these decisions were supported by a vocal but passionate group of microstockers who gave us some great feedback in 2007.

In retrospect, these "gimmicks" might seem like bad ideas, but at the time, the great pioneers like Bruce and Jon were trying to build a new model without a rule book.  The "community" model lent itself to so many great ideas that we've all benefited from.  A few on the otherhand, have passed their sell-by-date.

We won't get everything right, but we're trying.

Tom


Hi Tom - I've been following this discussion but somehow just now noticed this post.  After emails and a call from Lawrence I'm on board with your new site and currently uploading my portfolio to it - but I have a question about how images will be displayed on the site for buyers.  Since there will be no user ratings of images and no ability to see how many downloads an image has had, I would assume that it wouldn't be possible to sort images in a keyword search by ratings or most downloads - so that leaves the question as to how can the images be sorted or will there be any sorting capability at all?  Or could it be that a keyword search will only order the images at random?  I may be wrong but it seems to me that random display of images could be a good thing especially if you're not going to be offering the buyers the ability to sort by image rating or number of downloads or "popularity".

Ken
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on September 29, 2008, 05:16
Ken - thanks for signing up.

The primary drivers are keyword-match and date for best match.

Our "pre-alpha" also has "oldest-first" and "random" as alternatives.

I'm sure it will change over time, but as Sherlock Holmes said "It's a capital mistake to theorize before one has data."

For example,there's no technical obstacle in offering a ranking by downloads (for a given set of results) without giving away the actual number of downloads, but it's not implemented.

Tom

Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: oboy on September 30, 2008, 13:13
My dashboard shows

1 = Downloads
   = Amount Earned
1 = Uncashed Downloads

What is an "Uncashed Downloads"?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: oboy on September 30, 2008, 13:18
It would be nice when you click on the number of approved images in the dashboard to show a list with thumbnails of the approved images. Could you also create the same for the rejected images?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: charlesknox on September 30, 2008, 19:46
Also i just uploaded my portfolio of 360 and i recieved 360 emails saying we have successfully recieved 1 images

just something to consider
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on October 01, 2008, 03:32
Two contributors have reported a bug whereby images submitted for approval have ended up back in the manage area.

We'll take a look at this today and may have suspend uploads to diagnose.

Will post back when resolved.


Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on October 01, 2008, 03:36

Charles - a bug. 

We set a timer of 30 minutes.  If you haven't uploaded any images via FTP for thirty minutes, we send an email with the results of the upload.

Clearly this fantastic piece of thinking isn't as good as it should be.

I'll forward to the developers and please pass on my apologies to your mail host.

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on October 01, 2008, 03:46
Oboy:

1.  "uncashed downloads".   We pay 40% of the net subscription revenues to contributors (rather than a flat fee per downlaod).   On a subscription model, we don't know what that share is until the subscription has expired or entered its next month.   At that point, we are able to divide 40% of the net receipts for that subscription by the number of downloads to get a per-image payout figure.  Until that time, it's flagged as "uncashed".   Does that make sense?  I suppose a help link next to the term might be useful too.

2.  Good idea on thumbnails for approved.  We've also asked the developers to provide a link to any images we have declined along with the reasons.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: leaf on October 01, 2008, 07:30
can buyers even log in yet? or how do you have a sale.  When i try and go to the main page I get a log in form - then get a Not authorized message
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on October 01, 2008, 08:18
Charles... looks like something else was triggering the timer before the 30 minutes had elapsed.

Developers have now isolated the email timer into its own category.

Let me know if it happens again.

Thanks for reporting this.

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on October 01, 2008, 08:23
Leaf - we've been doing some tests on the client site.  This will filter through as downloads on the account page.

I'll get those zeroed out and disconnected from the test activity otherwise this will cause a ton of confusion.

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: charlesknox on October 01, 2008, 08:38
No problem

Your site looks good! im excited about it
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on October 01, 2008, 09:22
Oboy... getting back to on the emails getting flagged as spam.

Have requested a valid email address as you suggested of "[email protected]".  This will be live very soon.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: oboy on October 02, 2008, 12:05
Looks like images that have been rejected land back in the manage area. I can't delete them, the do not show up in the File Manager. Please, can you delete them?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on October 02, 2008, 17:32
Oboy - two other contributors reported this problem and I got a report back from the developers that this was resolved.... clearly not!

1.  Thanks for reporting it

2.  What's your username?  (you can email me with those details if you prefer)

Thanks,

Tom <at> vivozoom.com
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: null on October 21, 2008, 15:13
One month later...

I uploaded a test batch 3 weeks ago. I had to copypaste the IPTC keywords since they weren't accepted during upload. Then I suddenly couldn't log in any more. My passport copy was expired so I sent a recent copy. Still couldn't log in.

Used the "forgot password" option and that worked, but I still couldn't log in. Forgot all till today when I got a reminder. Seems that they accept a 13-character password but it doesn't work (without warning) but a 6-character password does.

Uploaded 2 batches of 10, one by FTP, one by the HTML form. The FTP-ed shots don't show up, the HTML-uploaded do, but the IPTC keywords are still not imported. It's not a question of separators since I used both 1-line comma-separated keywords and newline separated keywords with the same result (no import).
LO had the same problem end of 2006, but they eventually solved it. I fill in the IPTC with Irfanview.

Anybody submitting to Vivo and had the same problems?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: PeterChigmaroff on October 21, 2008, 15:36
I sent a 1000 on a DVD and uploaded another 700 or so. All seems to be working well. Some have been accepted another 1100 or so in Pending queue. The only complaint I have is with attaching releases. the mouse over feature causes a large thumbnail to obscure the button you are trying to click sometimes. I also wish there was a batch release attachment tool like Crestock. Every click we don't have to do is time saved and makes for a happier contributer.

Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on October 26, 2008, 12:20
Flemishdreams...  we uploaded a new release of code last week which contained a bug in IPTC extraction.  Ironically, it was a change to the code to implement your excellent suggestion to honor a "newline" as a valid leyword separator in imbedded IPTC data.

The bug has been fixed and we ran a routine to (hopefully) identify all images that were affected and correct them.  If you're still having issues please post here or send me an email and I'll investigate immediately.

The 13 character password issue is also being re-worked.  We are extending it to 20 characters and are going to limit the number of characters that can be supplied as a password on registration.

Thanks for spotting these bugs and suggesting improvements.

tom <at> vivozoom.com


One month later...

I uploaded a test batch 3 weeks ago. I had to copypaste the IPTC keywords since they weren't accepted during upload. Then I suddenly couldn't log in any more. My passport copy was expired so I sent a recent copy. Still couldn't log in.

Used the "forgot password" option and that worked, but I still couldn't log in. Forgot all till today when I got a reminder. Seems that they accept a 13-character password but it doesn't work (without warning) but a 6-character password does.

Uploaded 2 batches of 10, one by FTP, one by the HTML form. The FTP-ed shots don't show up, the HTML-uploaded do, but the IPTC keywords are still not imported. It's not a question of separators since I used both 1-line comma-separated keywords and newline separated keywords with the same result (no import).
LO had the same problem end of 2006, but they eventually solved it. I fill in the IPTC with Irfanview.

Anybody submitting to Vivo and had the same problems?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on October 26, 2008, 12:24
Oboy.... emails now being sent out with a valid origin address of noreply <at> vivozoom.com.

Thanks for the suggestion.  Sorry it took so long.

Tom

oboy..  thanks for spotting this.

Have asked the developers for their view on this.  I originally liked the idea of no logical address so that if anyone hit "reply" (not noticing that it was not an attended email box) their email would not get sent (rather than sending one and not getting reply thus thinking we were ignoring them).

I'll get back to you on this and thanks for the suggestion!

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on October 26, 2008, 12:41
Zeus - we have a batch release attachment tool.  It's not in a good enough shape just yet to put it on the contributor web site, but if you upload your images and releases and send me a spreadsheet with three columns:  imagefilename modelreleases propertyreleases (releases being comma separated) I'll auto attach them for you.  Same for anyone else who has a large number of images.

Tom


I sent a 1000 on a DVD and uploaded another 700 or so. All seems to be working well. Some have been accepted another 1100 or so in Pending queue. The only complaint I have is with attaching releases. the mouse over feature causes a large thumbnail to obscure the button you are trying to click sometimes. I also wish there was a batch release attachment tool like Crestock. Every click we don't have to do is time saved and makes for a happier contributer.


Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: null on October 27, 2008, 07:08
Flemishdreams...  we uploaded a new release of code last week which contained a bug in IPTC extraction.  Ironically, it was a change to the code to implement your excellent suggestion to honor a "newline" as a valid leyword separator in imbedded IPTC data.


Hahaha, yes, I found out this week that the IPTC extraction worked. The reason for the "newline" is that it seems to be universal amongst sites, and also Flickr. I have a (free!) tool online (http://flemishdreams.com/tag) in js that also allows to experiment with separators and sites tend to vary. IPTC extraction can be a mess. From the time I was Coppermine contributor, I remember writing php mods to cope with the way Irfanview and Adobe save IPTC. It took late UnluckyOliver weeks to figure out.

The current problem is that some FTP batches seem to vanish in the hayes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ibX3TejlZE).

And the MRF module... well, nobody beats CutCaster on that ;-).... yet.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on October 27, 2008, 10:07
Flemishdreams .. yes ... you have 10 images that have not been transferred to the MANAGE area.  The only thing I can see that's common to all of these images is multiple spaces in the file name.  Could be another bug. 

I've asked our tech team to take a look and I'll get back to you when resolved. 

Many thanks for pointing this out...

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: oboy on October 27, 2008, 16:32
Tom, My image "El Capitan" is two times in the approved image list. I don't see anywhere a possibility for me to delete one of them. Please can you take care of this for me?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: rinderart on October 27, 2008, 23:05
Tom, Thanks for inviting Me and my work. i'll wait till the bugs are worked out with my 5000+ Images. and 3000 model releases.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on October 28, 2008, 04:09
Tom, My image "El Capitan" is two times in the approved image list. I don't see anywhere a possibility for me to delete one of them. Please can you take care of this for me?

Will do..

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on October 28, 2008, 04:50
Laurin.. thanks for the post.   Hope to see your images soon. 

Thanks also for all the great advice earlier this year.

Tom

Tom, Thanks for inviting Me and my work. i'll wait till the bugs are worked out with my 5000+ Images. and 3000 model releases.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: null on October 28, 2008, 07:12
The only thing I can see that's common to all of these images is multiple spaces in the file name.  Could be another bug. 

It's not a matter of multiple spaces. YAY had this too in the beginning and they solved it by UTF-8 on the server since for some reason some of the spaces are non-standard or non-breakable. It only happened under an older version of XP while renaming in the file explorer of whatever Bill calls the good old File Manager these days.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: download on October 31, 2008, 11:20
Hi Tom -

I really, really like being able to just drag a folder of images into my ftp client and upload mass quantities at a time but on the other end there is enough of a time lag after hitting "submit" that I sometimes think my computer has locked up or your servers are down or something.  I mean with my 20,000+ images and 3 million model releases (yeah, lots of people in each of those shots) I may have to wait until all the bugs are worked out  - oh no, wait, I guess it's more like about 1,000 images that would meet your site's high quality standards - so I'm getting there.  Looking forward to having all my portfolio available for you whenever this site goes live.  Any new projections or updates on when that's going to happen?

Ken
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: download on October 31, 2008, 11:42
OK - I'm with Rinder on this too - I hope you'll streamline the model release attachment process. That combined with some slow server issues is going to make uploading and submitting even my measly little portfolio a bit tedious.

However, I really appreciate the tremendous response we're getting from you and your team to our ideas and site problems.

Ken
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: rinderart on November 03, 2008, 00:45
OK - I'm with Rinder on this too - I hope you'll streamline the model release attachment process. That combined with some slow server issues is going to make uploading and submitting even my measly little portfolio a bit tedious.

However, I really appreciate the tremendous response we're getting from you and your team to our ideas and site problems.

Ken

I'll second That. All new sites are very "Talky" at the beginning. I'll add more tomorrow.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: rinderart on November 03, 2008, 14:26
hey Tom, As you know I've been around the block a few times But, One thing is clear and I mentioned it to you when we talked a year ago.
                                            "The site that makes uploading easy will be the winner in Everyones Minds."  I don't know if your a submitter But, For those of us that take this seriously, It is by far the most tedious thing we do and the most cost effective thing we do.

                                              I have approx 6200 useable Images that I scatter around the top sites depending On what subject matter sells best for them and me.Certain Euro sites sell My Landscapes and Not My Lifestyle stuff, Others sell Only my older work but not my new stuff etc,etc. I really did an enormous amount of research on this for my own work and works quite well for me and highly recommend others look into it, Especially folks with large Portfolios. The old "Work smarter not harder' routine.

                                                Since I joined this business, I count 29 sites that I uploaded to, All Im sure had the best intentions to be the next "Biggest thing"  90% of them are no longer or just a waste of time. I sincerely Hope you understand The time invested in this and the weeks,Months down the drain Uploading that could have been used more cost effectively on our Part.

                                                 So, For myself personnally, I must wait a while till I see some reaction regarding Sales and Bug Issues and Most of all a Flawless FTP system and a Flawless Bulk MR system. doing one at a time just wont work with 4000 Model shots. It can be done as you know as there are some sites that have it in Place.

                                                 I know, You want as many Images as possible as a startup, But  Like I said a year ago...Please don't fall into the trap of accepting sub par work Just to get Numbers, That affects all of us, More than you know.

                                                 So, Tom in conclusion, My very Best Luck goes out to you and this Venture, We need another good site badly and your off to a good start by communicating with folks, I would suggest a blog or forum on your site to answer questions as well.

                                                  A lot of us are watching and talking and were pulling for you and want this to happen. Good Luck My Friend and say Hello to Lawrence.

                                                     Best, Laurin 
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Microbius on November 04, 2008, 04:18
hey Tom, As you know I've been around the block a few times But, One thing is clear and I mentioned it to you when we talked a year ago.
                                            "The site that makes uploading easy will be the winner in Everyones Minds."  I don't know if your a submitter But, For those of us that take this seriously, It is by far the most tedious thing we do and the most cost effective thing we do.
                                        

Clearly, that's why IStock is doing so badly and YAY is doing so well
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on November 04, 2008, 08:56
Ken - use of smileys here and there might help me!

At present, we are adding images dynamically to the database.   This causes a "re-indexing" of the image-keyword table.  As the site gets more images, the delay in re-indexing is what you're seeing.  It's getting close to the tipping point where we'll have to re-index offline in batch mode.

In terms of go-live, I haven't a date right now... it's very dependent on having a reasonable selection of results for common keyword searches.  The quality (as you would expect with our approach) is extraordinarily high. 

Thanks for the very constructive feedback.   This board is one of the best.

Tom

Hi Tom -

I really, really like being able to just drag a folder of images into my ftp client and upload mass quantities at a time but on the other end there is enough of a time lag after hitting "submit" that I sometimes think my computer has locked up or your servers are down or something.  I mean with my 20,000+ images and 3 million model releases (yeah, lots of people in each of those shots) I may have to wait until all the bugs are worked out  - oh no, wait, I guess it's more like about 1,000 images that would meet your site's high quality standards - so I'm getting there.  Looking forward to having all my portfolio available for you whenever this site goes live.  Any new projections or updates on when that's going to happen?

Ken
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on November 04, 2008, 09:05
Laurin.. thanks for advice as always.

As mentioned previously, we can auto-attach releases in bulk, but it's a back office tool and it's not ready for general consumption.  Just upload the images via FTP (drag and drop a complete folder and and subfolders) and send me a spreadsheet and I'll do the rest.

It's clearly an area where we need to do much more work.  I'll work on a web-interface for this tool and get back to you when we've made some progress.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Tom


hey Tom, As you know I've been around the block a few times But, One thing is clear and I mentioned it to you when we talked a year ago.
                                            "The site that makes uploading easy will be the winner in Everyones Minds."  I don't know if your a submitter But, For those of us that take this seriously, It is by far the most tedious thing we do and the most cost effective thing we do.

:
:
:
                                                     Best, Laurin 
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Valaaami on November 04, 2008, 11:39
Just an idea... The easiest and best web tool to attach MRs to uploaded images is the one 123RF has. It's worth the time to check it. I wish all agency would have the same.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on November 04, 2008, 12:25

Thanks for the info Valaaami..

Tom

Just an idea... The easiest and best web tool to attach MRs to uploaded images is the one 123RF has. It's worth the time to check it. I wish all agency would have the same.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: leaf on November 04, 2008, 15:11
Just an idea... The easiest and best web tool to attach MRs to uploaded images is the one 123RF has. It's worth the time to check it. I wish all agency would have the same.

Have you tried crestock?  I like theirs better.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on November 04, 2008, 16:20
Leaf - am extremely interested in folks views of which one is best.  Each seems to have their favourite but I had a vision of a "non-proprietary" system that could be used across microstock sites.

The simple interface I had in mind (and indeed have built and used on one of the top shooter's collection) is a simple CSV file (a very portable, non-proprietary format) that lists the relationship between images and their releases.  This is fed into the bulk-attach script which then pairs releases with images, issuing any error reports (missing images, missing releases).

This worked like a dream.  I'm reluctant to build a system that only works with vivozoom. I'd spoken to a few shooters whose workflow included such a CSV table.  But it's clear that few others maintain their releas-to-image relationships in this format.

Tom


Just an idea... The easiest and best web tool to attach MRs to uploaded images is the one 123RF has. It's worth the time to check it. I wish all agency would have the same.

Have you tried crestock?  I like theirs better.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: leaf on November 04, 2008, 16:36
Yeah, i don't know any microstock shooter who keeps track of their releases that way.  If no one allready has that typed in, it would be a LOT of work to get it all set just for one site.

typing the image names of thousands of images and then typing which model releases follow along sounds like a daunting task.

It would be easier to be able to upload 200 images then click a button and say 'attach all 200 images with release X' ... submit

2 clicks and releases for 200 images are done.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on November 04, 2008, 17:00
Yep... but in many shoots we get shots of (say) just the vacant dining table taken before the models are seated.

If the sites agreed on a metadata standard, you'd create that list once and if all sites supported it, it would be worth the effort

The suggestion of attaching all releases to all shots for all models may end up with a still-life shot (of a dining table) showing "model released".  Now this may not seem like a big deal, but when we're trying to attract a buyer who seeks high provenance credentials, it doesn't set the right scene.

There has to be a better way without every site doing its own thing...

Tom

Yeah, i don't know any microstock shooter who keeps track of their releases that way.  If no one allready has that typed in, it would be a LOT of work to get it all set just for one site.

typing the image names of thousands of images and then typing which model releases follow along sounds like a daunting task.

It would be easier to be able to upload 200 images then click a button and say 'attach all 200 images with release X' ... submit

2 clicks and releases for 200 images are done.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: download on November 04, 2008, 19:44
Yep... but in many shoots we get shots of (say) just the vacant dining table taken before the models are seated.

If the sites agreed on a metadata standard, you'd create that list once and if all sites supported it, it would be worth the effort

The suggestion of attaching all releases to all shots for all models may end up with a still-life shot (of a dining table) showing "model released".  Now this may not seem like a big deal, but when we're trying to attract a buyer who seeks high provenance credentials, it doesn't set the right scene.

There has to be a better way without every site doing its own thing...

Tom


Hi Tom

Sorry - I'm not good with smilies and I forgot to turn on my sarcasm filter......so here's a few smilies to make up for it -  :) :) :)

I don't know about other microstock shooters' workflow but in my case I upload files from my camera to a folder with that day's date and a bit of descriptive info for the title, then title, describe, keyword, adjust in Lightroom, output to a psd or tiff, further adjust in Photoshop, then save as a jpg, then copy to another folder specifically for uploading.  Although it could happen, it would be very unlikely that I would inadvertently attach a model release to a photo of an inanimate object.

However, it would seem fairly easy for someone with some good software skills to devise a program with an easy to use interface to do exactly what you're recommending - and which would avoid the necessity of entering data over and over again - a model release attachment method like these other sites Leaf has mentioned but running locally on your computer and compiling the csv file that you mention.

Also I'm wondering if you're able to see how some of these other sites handle the model release issue since you're probably not a contributor (but maybe you are or have access to someone who is) - so you may not fully realize what Leaf has proposed for how to handle model releases on your site.  And if so, I would be glad to email some screenshots of the relevant pages to you if that could be helpful.

Ken
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: leaf on November 05, 2008, 02:10
Yep... but in many shoots we get shots of (say) just the vacant dining table taken before the models are seated.

If the sites agreed on a metadata standard, you'd create that list once and if all sites supported it, it would be worth the effort

The suggestion of attaching all releases to all shots for all models may end up with a still-life shot (of a dining table) showing "model released".  Now this may not seem like a big deal, but when we're trying to attract a buyer who seeks high provenance credentials, it doesn't set the right scene.

There has to be a better way without every site doing its own thing...

Tom


well in that case - say 5 shots of the candlesticks, table, chairs etc.

i would click 'attack all 200 shots with release X'
then I would 'unclick those 5 shots with no model'
click 'submit'
that would be 6 clicks.  still pretty quick.

also as download mentioned most people have their images organized in folders so images are uploaded in an organized fashion.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: maunger on November 05, 2008, 14:48
model / property releases... what about a totally new system? Suppose that a photographer were to embed a special code in the IPTC data (one of the rarely used fields - say maybe the 'writer/editor' or some other field) that had a specific key to their model / property release. Then, when the photo is uploaded, it could be matched to an uploaded model/property release. Obviously, the release upload would have to have that same special key in it - that way the files could be matched.

Doing it this way would even save the photographer time since once the release is uploaded and the photog puts the release numbers in the IPTC data, then for each subsequent file, they wouldn't have to do anything since the system could automatically pick up the model release out of the IPTC data and match it to the existing release.

I'd use a unique code made up of my name and my own release number - say something like "mitch-aunger-MR001'. This wouldn't mess up the keywords, and would still allow everyone to know which release went with which image very easily especially if the site managed releases based on this same unique key. The data would be imbedded in the files, so things would be easy to keep track of.

All of the sites could easily use the same methodology and maintenance would be much easier on everyone as long as everyone found the same IPTC field to use (which might be the only sticking point in this scheme?)

Obviously, it would be up to the photographer to ensure that the special IPTC data were applied to files with the model in it (not including just the table example).
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on November 06, 2008, 17:46

Yes the "exception" route makes a lot of sense in this scenario.

Yep... but in many shoots we get shots of (say) just the vacant dining table taken before the models are seated.

If the sites agreed on a metadata standard, you'd create that list once and if all sites supported it, it would be worth the effort

The suggestion of attaching all releases to all shots for all models may end up with a still-life shot (of a dining table) showing "model released".  Now this may not seem like a big deal, but when we're trying to attract a buyer who seeks high provenance credentials, it doesn't set the right scene.

There has to be a better way without every site doing its own thing...

Tom


well in that case - say 5 shots of the candlesticks, table, chairs etc.

i would click 'attack all 200 shots with release X'
then I would 'unclick those 5 shots with no model'
click 'submit'
that would be 6 clicks.  still pretty quick.

also as download mentioned most people have their images organized in folders so images are uploaded in an organized fashion.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on November 06, 2008, 17:54
Mitch - this is good stuff.  I think the core IPTC is being extended, but only to include a flag that indicates whether the image is or is not Property and/or Model Released.

IPTC is meant to be a self-defined data structure in that all information describes the image content and there is no "meta-meta" construct.

However, if the industry could agree on (what is called) an "escape sequence" in (say) the keywords, then we could hi-jack the keywords fields to provide a list of property and model release filenames.

For example, suppose we agreed that a keyword commencing %%M was the filename of a model release and %%P was a property release, we could then match available releases automatically.

This would be an unauthorised and unsupported use of the IPTC standard, but many good ideas like yours have originated from a bastardisation of standards.

Tom

model / property releases... what about a totally new system? Suppose that a photographer were to embed a special code in the IPTC data (one of the rarely used fields - say maybe the 'writer/editor' or some other field) that had a specific key to their model / property release. Then, when the photo is uploaded, it could be matched to an uploaded model/property release. Obviously, the release upload would have to have that same special key in it - that way the files could be matched.

Doing it this way would even save the photographer time since once the release is uploaded and the photog puts the release numbers in the IPTC data, then for each subsequent file, they wouldn't have to do anything since the system could automatically pick up the model release out of the IPTC data and match it to the existing release.

I'd use a unique code made up of my name and my own release number - say something like "mitch-aunger-MR001'. This wouldn't mess up the keywords, and would still allow everyone to know which release went with which image very easily especially if the site managed releases based on this same unique key. The data would be imbedded in the files, so things would be easy to keep track of.

All of the sites could easily use the same methodology and maintenance would be much easier on everyone as long as everyone found the same IPTC field to use (which might be the only sticking point in this scheme?)

Obviously, it would be up to the photographer to ensure that the special IPTC data were applied to files with the model in it (not including just the table example).
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on November 06, 2008, 18:03

Ken - I've used many of these sites and yes, they have their distinct advantages.  I know we can improve this release-attach process on VZ but the next improvement (to avoid duplication of effort) really ought to be an industry convention at minimum and standard at best for a many-to-many correlation. 

Given a free hand and some good suggestions I'm sure we could design the ultimate system, but if it remains a unique and proprietary model, we're still stuck with doing things differently for each site.  And then another site will invent something better and then... etc..

Tom

Yep... but in many shoots we get shots of (say) just the vacant dining table taken before the models are seated.

If the sites agreed on a metadata standard, you'd create that list once and if all sites supported it, it would be worth the effort

The suggestion of attaching all releases to all shots for all models may end up with a still-life shot (of a dining table) showing "model released".  Now this may not seem like a big deal, but when we're trying to attract a buyer who seeks high provenance credentials, it doesn't set the right scene.

There has to be a better way without every site doing its own thing...

Tom


well in that case - say 5 shots of the candlesticks, table, chairs etc.

i would click 'attack all 200 shots with release X'
then I would 'unclick those 5 shots with no model'
click 'submit'
that would be 6 clicks.  still pretty quick.

also as download mentioned most people have their images organized in folders so images are uploaded in an organized fashion.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Valaaami on November 06, 2008, 18:26
I paid a programmer to create my own DAM software where I am storing all the release file names an image has in the 'people' iptc field. I am sad no agency can read it but at least it is very easy for me to create shot-model relation .XLS files for those agencies who need it.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: rinderart on November 06, 2008, 23:49
Just an idea... The easiest and best web tool to attach MRs to uploaded images is the one 123RF has. It's worth the time to check it. I wish all agency would have the same.

Agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: rinderart on November 07, 2008, 00:02
This is getting silly........... Again. you Honestly think 100,ooo photographers are going to do any of this stuff, ?? Please get real guys. Just a simple attach release to this image is suffient. your WAY Over thinking this if you want to succeed. Think of the lowest common issue. if I started asite tomorrow. my biggest concern would be ease of use. Not some stupid spreadsheet listing your Model releases. no one does that except geeks. and people with 50 releases.  sorry.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: download on November 07, 2008, 00:22
This is getting silly........... Again. you Honestly think 100,ooo photographers are going to do any of this stuff, ?? Please get real guys. Just a simple attach release to this image is suffient. your WAY Over thinking this if you want to succeed. Think of the lowest common issue. if I started asite tomorrow. my biggest concern would be ease of use. Not some stupid spreadsheet listing your Model releases. no one does that except geeks. and people with 50 releases.  sorry.

Agree!.............

And I guess I must be a geek and a person with 50 releases (but I'm planning to have 3 million releases some day  :) ) and I STILL want it to be easy - and that would be because I'm lazy - no, really it's because time is money and all that.  So I guess I better temper my reading of the forums, unless it's the really good stuff - like this!

This is something I agree with Rinder about.  Please keep it easy and trouble free.

Ken
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: maunger on November 07, 2008, 08:40
This is getting silly........... Again. you Honestly think 100,ooo photographers are going to do any of this stuff, ?? Please get real guys. Just a simple attach release to this image is suffient. your WAY Over thinking this if you want to succeed. Think of the lowest common issue. if I started asite tomorrow. my biggest concern would be ease of use. Not some stupid spreadsheet listing your Model releases. no one does that except geeks. and people with 50 releases.  sorry.

Agree!.............

And I guess I must be a geek and a person with 50 releases (but I'm planning to have 3 million releases some day  :) ) and I STILL want it to be easy - and that would be because I'm lazy - no, really it's because time is money and all that.  So I guess I better temper my reading of the forums, unless it's the really good stuff - like this!

This is something I agree with Rinder about.  Please keep it easy and trouble free.

Ken

I can't think of a more simple solution than integrating IPTC data with model releases... that way the site's system and your personal system are easy to manage. Sites could even implement a "show me more with this model" very simply. A spreadsheet is not the right solution.

Granted, for people like Rinder with 6000 old images, that would be a total pain in the tush to go back and update all images. But going forward, it would be so simple if all sites were to come to an agreement and did it the same way (yes I'm a dreamer). Someone's got to start and set an example... :)

Everyone loves how easy it is to put keywords in the IPTC once and all the sites use those upon upload... why not do something similar with model/property releases?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on November 13, 2008, 07:57
Micth .. looks like you were onto something.  I contacted a couple of experts in the field of metadata.  One of them (David Riecks - www.controlledvocabulary.com) pointed out that the PLUS coalition has established some advanced principles for embedded release information.  You can see the structure at http://ns.useplus.org/LDF/ldf-XMPSpecification.

Of course there are some drawbacks, there are not many tools that allow the creation of this data, but he provided me with some great examples of stuff available today and the impression that Photoshop CS4 will probably support these fields.

It also seems that it's getting widespread industry endorsement:

http://www.abouttheimage.com/3978/mcgraw_hill_houghton_mifflin_harcourt_pearson_plus_image_licensing_standard/author2



I can't think of a more simple solution than integrating IPTC data with model releases... that way the site's system and your personal system are easy to manage. Sites could even implement a "show me more with this model" very simply. A spreadsheet is not the right solution.

Granted, for people like Rinder with 6000 old images, that would be a total pain in the tush to go back and update all images. But going forward, it would be so simple if all sites were to come to an agreement and did it the same way (yes I'm a dreamer). Someone's got to start and set an example... :)

Everyone loves how easy it is to put keywords in the IPTC once and all the sites use those upon upload... why not do something similar with model/property releases?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: maunger on November 13, 2008, 09:35
Micth .. looks like you were onto something.  I contacted a couple of experts in the field of metadata.  One of them (David Riecks - [url=http://www.controlledvocabulary.com]www.controlledvocabulary.com[/url]) pointed out that the PLUS coalition has established some advanced principles for embedded release information.  You can see the structure at [url]http://ns.useplus.org/LDF/ldf-XMPSpecification.[/url]


Darn, i guess they aren't gonna name it after me then LOL!

Good work.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: travelstock on November 29, 2008, 23:14
A couple of questions:

I attempted to upload a batch of images via FTP about a week ago, but now can't see the images coming up anywhere - do these just take some time or am I missing a page somewhere?

I also received rejections on two of the images I submitted - one was of some 4WD vehicles with plates etc removed, another of a boat with a resort in the background, again with identifying features removed - both images were rejected for property release issues. Is the policy of your site to require releases for all property or vehicles, even where all trademarks and number plates have been removed, or are there areas where such images can be submitted?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Konstantin Sutyagin on November 29, 2008, 23:58
This is getting silly........... Again. you Honestly think 100,ooo photographers are going to do any of this stuff, ?? Please get real guys. Just a simple attach release to this image is suffient. your WAY Over thinking this if you want to succeed. Think of the lowest common issue. if I started asite tomorrow. my biggest concern would be ease of use. Not some stupid spreadsheet listing your Model releases. no one does that except geeks. and people with 50 releases.  sorry.

+1
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on December 09, 2008, 10:36
A couple of questions:

I attempted to upload a batch of images via FTP about a week ago, but now can't see the images coming up anywhere - do these just take some time or am I missing a page somewhere?

I also received rejections on two of the images I submitted - one was of some 4WD vehicles with plates etc removed, another of a boat with a resort in the background, again with identifying features removed - both images were rejected for property release issues. Is the policy of your site to require releases for all property or vehicles, even where all trademarks and number plates have been removed, or are there areas where such images can be submitted?

Hi Holgs.. sorry for the delay in responding...  I'll take a look at the missing images and respond to you via email.

On releases, we are trying to take a very safe approach to all releases to satisfy the needs of corporate clients, but if you want me ask our team to provide a better explanation or supplementary information on a particular image, let me know.

Tom

Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on December 11, 2008, 13:33
A couple of questions:
................

I also received rejections on two of the images I submitted - one was of some 4WD vehicles with plates etc removed, another of a boat with a resort in the background, again with identifying features removed - both images were rejected for property release issues. Is the policy of your site to require releases for all property or vehicles, even where all trademarks and number plates have been removed, or are there areas where such images can be submitted?

Holgs - Provenance is very important to our clients and we warrant the use of the images whereas most others so not.  That's why you may see us doing things that don't jive with other sites' approach.

On this occasion, we decided to double check with our lawyer (probably the most experienced in the stock industry) who said we were overly cautious.

The 4x4 and the boat were NOT deemed to be "Trade Dress" - a term meaning that although no logos were visible, you could still identify the make/model.  For instance, a VW Beetle.

Please resubmit and there will be no release issues.

Now, I'm sure many are thinking this is way over the top, but please remember, we're trying to open Microstock to a whole market who do not have faith in the Provenance of many sites' images.

It's a differentiator and one that we hope will increase your revenues rather than canibilize existing sales from other sites.

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: download on December 12, 2008, 11:54
A couple of questions:
................

I also received rejections on two of the images I submitted - one was of some 4WD vehicles with plates etc removed, another of a boat with a resort in the background, again with identifying features removed - both images were rejected for property release issues. Is the policy of your site to require releases for all property or vehicles, even where all trademarks and number plates have been removed, or are there areas where such images can be submitted?

Holgs - Provenance is very important to our clients and we warrant the use of the images whereas most others so not.  That's why you may see us doing things that don't jive with other sites' approach.

On this occasion, we decided to double check with our lawyer (probably the most experienced in the stock industry) who said we were overly cautious.

The 4x4 and the boat were NOT deemed to be "Trade Dress" - a term meaning that although no logos were visible, you could still identify the make/model.  For instance, a VW Beetle.

Please resubmit and there will be no release issues.

Now, I'm sure many are thinking this is way over the top, but please remember, we're trying to open Microstock to a whole market who do not have faith in the Provenance of many sites' images.

It's a differentiator and one that we hope will increase your revenues rather than canibilize existing sales from other sites.

Tom

Hi Tom - I see VivoZoom also has a similar policy regarding property releases for photos of residential homes, taken from public streets, where there are no identifying numbers, logos, people, property visible through windows, etc.  Could it be that since these kinds of images are typically accepted on most other microstock sites (one in particular with very stringent acceptance rules in this regard) that your lawyer would consider this another case of being overly cautious?

Otherwise looking forward to the launch of the site.

Ken
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: travelstock on December 13, 2008, 23:20
A couple of questions:
................

I also received rejections on two of the images I submitted - one was of some 4WD vehicles with plates etc removed, another of a boat with a resort in the background, again with identifying features removed - both images were rejected for property release issues. Is the policy of your site to require releases for all property or vehicles, even where all trademarks and number plates have been removed, or are there areas where such images can be submitted?

Holgs - Provenance is very important to our clients and we warrant the use of the images whereas most others so not.  That's why you may see us doing things that don't jive with other sites' approach.

On this occasion, we decided to double check with our lawyer (probably the most experienced in the stock industry) who said we were overly cautious.

The 4x4 and the boat were NOT deemed to be "Trade Dress" - a term meaning that although no logos were visible, you could still identify the make/model.  For instance, a VW Beetle.

Please resubmit and there will be no release issues.

Now, I'm sure many are thinking this is way over the top, but please remember, we're trying to open Microstock to a whole market who do not have faith in the Provenance of many sites' images.

It's a differentiator and one that we hope will increase your revenues rather than canibilize existing sales from other sites.

Tom

Thanks for the reply Tom... I understand the differences between what you're trying to do and other sites, I guess what I was after was a general guide so that I can pre-screen uploads so as not to waste everyone's time.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on December 16, 2008, 03:10

Hi Tom - I see VivoZoom also has a similar policy regarding property releases for photos of residential homes, taken from public streets, where there are no identifying numbers, logos, people, property visible through windows, etc.  Could it be that since these kinds of images are typically accepted on most other microstock sites (one in particular with very stringent acceptance rules in this regard) that your lawyer would consider this another case of being overly cautious?

Otherwise looking forward to the launch of the site.

Ken

Ken - possibly, but in general, if the property is an identifiable house (as in the owner would recognise and be able to prove that it was his or her property), then a release would be required.

I know this can be infuriating as the rules seem to change, are different at many sites and can be interpreted incorrectly by reviewers from time to time.  With your help, we'll try to codify the rules as acuurately as we can, but there will always be gray areas.

If you have an image in particular that you felt was judged too harshly, I be grateful if you could let me know. 

tom <at> vivozoom.com
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: download on December 16, 2008, 12:28

Hi Tom - I see VivoZoom also has a similar policy regarding property releases for photos of residential homes, taken from public streets, where there are no identifying numbers, logos, people, property visible through windows, etc.  Could it be that since these kinds of images are typically accepted on most other microstock sites (one in particular with very stringent acceptance rules in this regard) that your lawyer would consider this another case of being overly cautious?

Otherwise looking forward to the launch of the site.

Ken


Ken - possibly, but in general, if the property is an identifiable house (as in the owner would recognise and be able to prove that it was his or her property), then a release would be required.

I know this can be infuriating as the rules seem to change, are different at many sites and can be interpreted incorrectly by reviewers from time to time.  With your help, we'll try to codify the rules as acuurately as we can, but there will always be gray areas.

If you have an image in particular that you felt was judged too harshly, I be grateful if you could let me know. 

tom <at> vivozoom.com

No Tom, my question is not so much about any one photo of mine that was rejected for the need of a property release as it was a general question about whether property releases were needed for photos of private residences which were shot from public streets.  I will not upload any more photos of houses unless the situation changes - or unless I can get property releases (which I'm not planning to do).
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on December 16, 2008, 15:16

No Tom, my question is not so much about any one photo of mine that was rejected for the need of a property release as it was a general question about whether property releases were needed for photos of private residences which were shot from public streets.  I will not upload any more photos of houses unless the situation changes - or unless I can get property releases (which I'm not planning to do).

Ken, checked with my colleague and the answer is yes, a release is required in these situations.

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: runamock on December 19, 2008, 10:49
Nice new contributor login page. Is the site going live soon?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: null on December 29, 2008, 16:18
Nice new contributor login page. Is the site going live soon?

Wish I could see that contributor page. My password is not accepted, and when I change it successfully... it doesn't work at the next logon. Last October I found out that the password has to be very short, but there is no hint whatsoever how long or short exactly... VZ promised this issue would be solved then but it's apparently still there. So sorry but I don't have time any more to help debug a site. Once bitten by LuckyOliver, twice shy. Too many sites, too little time  ::)
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: shank_ali on December 30, 2008, 01:32
Good Luck with the new site Tom.You certainly seem to be on the ball and keeping the hungry thong informed which is a good thing.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: DanP68 on December 30, 2008, 01:47
Good Luck with the new site Tom.You certainly seem to be on the ball and keeping the hungry thong informed which is a good thing.


 :D
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on December 30, 2008, 06:51
Nice new contributor login page. Is the site going live soon?

Wish I could see that contributor page. My password is not accepted, and when I change it successfully... it doesn't work at the next logon. Last October I found out that the password has to be very short, but there is no hint whatsoever how long or short exactly... VZ promised this issue would be solved then but it's apparently still there. So sorry but I don't have time any more to help debug a site. Once bitten by LuckyOliver, twice shy. Too many sites, too little time  ::)


FlemishDreams..  the password is restricted to 13 characters in length at this time.  As a result of your earlier correspondence, I have a work-item outstanding to:

1.  Increase the limit to 20 characters
2.  Indicate on the choose-password field that the limit is a length of 20

With so many other priorities arising, this slipped down the list, but I haven't lost sight of it.  Sorry for the delay..

In the meantime, if you want me to reset your password, please either PM me or email me or Stacey (you know our email addresses).

Happy New Year

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on December 30, 2008, 08:37
Good Luck with the new site Tom.You certainly seem to be on the ball and keeping the hungry thong informed which is a good thing.


 :D

I stared at this for 10 minutes before I got the joke!
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: null on December 30, 2008, 09:26
FlemishDreams..  the password is restricted to 13 characters in length at this time.  As a result of your earlier correspondence, I have a work-item outstanding to:

1.  Increase the limit to 20 characters
2.  Indicate on the choose-password field that the limit is a length of 20

Actually the notice for password too short (min 6) or not alphanumeric works fine. It would be very simple to just indicate that on the "forgot password" page: password 6-13, alphanumerics both required. A password of 13 is fine for me, and actually I used only 12. Nevertheless it failed.

Try to check it out yourself (make a fake test-uploader) and use a password of 12... the change password page will accept it but you can't log on with on the main login page. I should add that all worked fine in the very beginning when I registered with a 12 character password.

I managed to log in now with a password of only 9 characters, so obviously it's a bug.

Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: null on December 30, 2008, 09:45
I stared at this for 10 minutes before I got the joke!

I still didn't but English isn't my mother thong which obviously is Flemish.   ::)
Always eager to learn I googled for hungry thong and my my, I discovered a totally unknown side of the Internet with keywords like blonde bikini lesbian girls teen bl*wj*b.  ;D
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: shank_ali on December 30, 2008, 14:25
How will the new site attract the customers/buyers.I have no doubt the content will be first class as i have seen the files created by the talent assembled on this forum and istocks.
Sales make a site/business tick along and i doubt you have the resourses to match istockphotos extensive advertising budget...
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: DanP68 on December 30, 2008, 23:45
That is my concern too. 

I realize no business can give reveal their advertising plan on a public forum.  But a lot of us have heard the promises far too often, most recently from Yaymicro which has an experienced team at the helm.  Either they never put forth an honest advertising effort, or it was completely ineffective.  Their traffic hasn't budged since they went online last summer.  Snapvillage is run by Corbis, and they might as well not even exist with the way they have crashed since Fall.

I am willing to give any microstock agency an honest try.  But it is going to take some convincing for me to believe any new agency is going to make a dent on the Big 6 in the next few years.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: null on January 01, 2009, 03:20
I am willing to give any microstock agency an honest try.

I'm doing it with CC, YAY and VIVO. But one thing these starters should realize is that they rely on large uploads in a short time, and that their submission pages should be fast and productive. On established portfolios all metainfo is in the IPTC so that's not a big deal. What matters for the submission workflow is how fast model releases can be attached, and preferably in bulk. Since I had a couple of gigs upload to spare for 2008, I FTP-ed a few 100 to the three sites and then tried to figure out how fast the submit could be done (attaching MRFs).

The best and fastest is YAY. Then there is CC but the only problem is the limited size of the Models and Thumbs window, which makes it like 10 times slower than YAY, but still OK.
The worst is VIVO. When you click on a thumb, it takes about 10 seconds before the MRF window pops up, and in that window are pages in which it takes about 5 sec to navigate from page to page. What's more, you can't tick several models at once. If you sort the models alphabetically in that window, the next time it pops up the default order (upload date) is there again, so it is really too time consuming to attach MRF's this way, thumb by thumb, for a beginning site. They can't attract the big guys like Arcurs with such a slow procedure.

I guess I have about 300 images in queue now at VIVIzoom but I'll wait to submit them till they have a decent and fast bulk MRF attach module ready. Beginning sites should realize that their submit software should be mature before asking to bulk upload.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: DanP68 on January 01, 2009, 04:45
I fall into the category of small contributors with approx 500-1000 images to contribute.  I'm not willing to spend that much time uploading to an unproven site.

Instead, I keep a separate folder on my hard drive holding copies of nearly 100 images, all of which have experienced success in microstock at 1 or more agencies.  Most have experienced success in multiple locations.

My strategy is to upload this test portfolio.  If an agency fails to sell images out of the test portfolio, then there is absolutely no reason to upload anything else.  The nice thing is I can get those images uploaded in a few hours max, and probably do most of the work unattended through FTP.

I may do the same with Vivozoom.  Haven't decided yet.  It would be nice to hear of a target date for Vivozoom opening its doors.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: shank_ali on January 01, 2009, 13:17
Slightly off topic but their are only so many buyers in the world who actually want our files.The more micro sites that appear those buyers are spread out more and lessen the sales on more established sites.
As most contributors increase the size of their respective portfolio's it gives those buyers more choice but never be fooled into thinking that new sites will bring fresh/new buyers to the internet libraries.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on January 02, 2009, 04:43
How will the new site attract the customers/buyers.I have no doubt the content will be first class as i have seen the files created by the talent assembled on this forum and istocks.
Sales make a site/business tick along and i doubt you have the resourses to match istockphotos extensive advertising budget...


Shank-ali..  I too would have serious doubts about uploading to new and unproven sites.  No question and I wouldn't blame you if you decided to wait-and-see.   New businesses have to bring something new to the market and I believe we are changing the landscape of microstock with an image warranty (http://submit.vivozoom.com/en_uk/warranty.htm (http://submit.vivozoom.com/en_uk/warranty.htm)).

We have one or two other improvements that we hope clients will enjoy but fundamentally, we want to remove the perceived and real risk of the use of Microstock for mainstream professional users (Agencies, Publishers and Corporations).

Tom

Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: sharpshot on January 02, 2009, 08:34
New sites are a gamble, albumo was a total waste of time and it looks like yaymicro might be as well but I had success with Rodeo last year, so it is still possible if the people running the site know what they are doing.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: RacePhoto on January 02, 2009, 12:44
As most contributors increase the size of their respective portfolio's it gives those buyers more choice but never be fooled into thinking that new sites will bring fresh/new buyers to the internet libraries.

Or that new agencies will bring the buyers any new photos, since virtually all the same people are uploading the same files to all their agencies.

Buyers don't live in a vacuum. They recognize all the same photos across most of the sites. In the end the agencies are selling their overall value, quality, exclusive selections or in some cases, the same photos for less money.

Fact of life. Some places are competing on the basis of how little they can charge for our work, which translates into lower commissions and lower pay.

Sites that offer, RF stock, RM, Editorial, Music, Vectors / Illustrations, Video and a variety of products, will win over Microstock photo sites.

Vivozoom seems to be trying to make their site stand out as different from, just another stock photo site.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: shank_ali on January 02, 2009, 15:02
How will the new site attract the customers/buyers.I have no doubt the content will be first class as i have seen the files created by the talent assembled on this forum and istocks.
Sales make a site/business tick along and i doubt you have the resourses to match istockphotos extensive advertising budget...


Shank-ali..  I too would have serious doubts about uploading to new and unproven sites.  No question and I wouldn't blame you if you decided to wait-and-see.   New businesses have to bring something new to the market and I believe we are changing the landscape of microstock with an image warranty ([url]http://submit.vivozoom.com/en_uk/warranty.htm[/url] ([url]http://submit.vivozoom.com/en_uk/warranty.htm[/url])).

We have one or two other improvements that we hope clients will enjoy but fundamentally, we want to remove the perceived and real risk of the use of Microstock for mainstream professional users (Agencies, Publishers and Corporations).

Tom



Thank you for the link Tom.I am exclusive with istock at the moment but i would be naive and rather foolish  not to keep my options open in the future and follow the buyers wishing to buy imagery with water tight warranties attached.
Alistair
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: leaf on January 19, 2009, 15:24
just thought i'd give this thread a nudge for those who were interested in it now again.

Yes, it will be interested to see how this site developes.  I am looking forward to when they go live.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: DanP68 on January 20, 2009, 01:58
It would be reassuring to hear a ballpark "live" date.  Though I don't blame anyone for not rushing into this current economic environment.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: leaf on January 20, 2009, 02:12
in the microstockdiaries  (http://www.microstockdiaries.com/vivozoom.html)post they said alpha launch in Feb.  I guess that still doesn't tell us when the full site is going online......
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: sharpshot on January 20, 2009, 04:45
After uploading my portfolio to a few of these new sites with hardly any downloads, I am reluctant to try another one.  What is the motivation to upload to a site that hasn't opened its doors to buyers yet?  I did upload a few but they are now at the bottom of my priority list.  They need to pay me to upload or get some sales going.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: null on January 20, 2009, 07:12
After uploading my portfolio to a few of these new sites with hardly any downloads, I am reluctant to try another one.

I have been uploading by FTP but right now a couple of hundreds are stuck in the queue since their model release attach procedure is terribly slow and complicated. What I don't understand is why some beginning sites like YAY and CutCaster are so blazing fast and so smooth, also for MRF attach, and why some others are so slow for it (included Zymmetrical). On Vivozoom, as far as I can see, you have attach the MRF first to all shots in the queue, then submit. There is no way to attach now and then when you have spare time, and submit those few.

I don't expect that the big guys with large portfolios will be ready to go through this ordeal, so the building up of the image data base will be slow. If the programmer is reading this, please don't reinvent the wheel and have a look at yaymicro dot com, 132RF, or cutcaster dot com how the model release should be done.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: null on January 20, 2009, 07:19
in the microstockdiaries  ([url]http://www.microstockdiaries.com/vivozoom.html[/url])post they said alpha launch in Feb.  I guess that still doesn't tell us when the full site is going online......


Their main USP is, as they say, the warranty they give to their corporate customers. I don't grab this, to be honest. A warranty is only worth what the photographer, his honesty and his model/property releases are worth. It's a warranty by proxy. Dreamstime for instance is only worth what its photographers are worth and in case of litigation, Dreamstime has deeper pockets than Vivo.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: null on February 11, 2009, 05:54
I have been uploading by FTP but right now a couple of hundreds are stuck in the queue since their model release attach procedure is terribly slow and complicated.

Anybody still uploading to Vivozoom?

I gave up for their complicated and ill-programmed model release system. As I had a look through my rejected images, I saw they had the rare talent of rejecting my best sellers both at Dreamstime and Shutterstock as not needed. That's their privilege of course, but it lead me to stop uploading. It takes two to tango.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Smithore on February 12, 2009, 11:54
Vivozoom seems to be a very funny site, they reject every pictures with monuments outdoors or indoors and details (lighthouses, kuala lumpur towers, ancient statues etc) and ask for a properties releases !!!!  Even very old Chinese temples, traditional thai wooden boats !!!
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: null on February 12, 2009, 13:00
Vivozoom seems to be a very funny site, they reject every pictures with monuments outdoors or indoors and details (lighthouses, kuala lumpur towers, ancient statues etc) and ask for a properties releases !!!!  Even very old Chinese temples, traditional thai wooden boats !!!

Correct. They rejected some outdoors Brussels old monument asking for a property release. The monument is at least 160 years old. A lot is "not needed", even if it is lifestyle what they asked for. Wait and see. Their model release module should be smoother first. I suggested the programmer they should have a look at 123RF how model release attach should be done. If they are clever, they'd just buy YAY software when it closes doors  ;D
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on February 18, 2009, 08:01
I have been uploading by FTP but right now a couple of hundreds are stuck in the queue since their model release attach procedure is terribly slow and complicated.

FlemishDreams .. we have uploaded an interim fix to allow releases to be attached in bulk to all images on a page or all uploaded images in that batch.  You can now simultaneously attach multiple releases to multiple images.

I hope this goes some way to help ease the process of attaching releases.

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: RT on February 19, 2009, 13:05
donnelt (Tom) I take it the site is due to launch very soon, I have a couple of questions:

1. Am I right in understanding that you will be offering a subscription package to buyers for $300 a month with a daily download limit of 25, and if they choose to use their full limit the contributors net commission will be 16 cents per image.
I've taken this figure from the contract example.

2. Is it correct that if a buyers account goes into bad debt or their payment bounces that Vivozoom will take a clawback from the contributors commission relative to the images that buyer bought.

I'll be honest with you I'm not too keen on these terms, you're about to start offering a warrantied image service to buyers who have traditionally spent hundreds on photos and who traditionally quite often disappear into the night without a trace, and the result of this is that we the contributors get a possible 16 cent per image and the knowledge that we may have to pay that back knowing our image has already been used.

I have no doubt your site will be succesful with the old traditional buyers, they get 750 photos for the price that they've been used to paying for one!

The contributors seem to be getting ..........
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Lawrence on February 19, 2009, 13:49
donnelt (Tom) I take it the site is due to launch very soon, I have a couple of questions:

1. Am I right in understanding that you will be offering a subscription package to buyers for $300 a month with a daily download limit of 25, and if they choose to use their full limit the contributors net commission will be 16 cents per image.
I've taken this figure from the contract example.

2. Is it correct that if a buyers account goes into bad debt or their payment bounces that Vivozoom will take a clawback from the contributors commission relative to the images that buyer bought.

I'll be honest with you I'm not too keen on these terms, you're about to start offering a warrantied image service to buyers who have traditionally spent hundreds on photos and who traditionally quite often disappear into the night without a trace, and the result of this is that we the contributors get a possible 16 cent per image and the knowledge that we may have to pay that back knowing our image has already been used.

I have no doubt your site will be succesful with the old traditional buyers, they get 750 photos for the price that they've been used to paying for one!

The contributors seem to be getting ..........

Hi Richard, its Lawrence Gould here - Tom's partner.

We really would not expect any of our customers to download their full quota - this would most likely be stockpiling, which is contrary to our terms (and in which case we would terminate the license). We expect the average quota downloaded to be low - with a number of clients downloading maybe only 5-10 images over the whole month.  Our expecations are therefore that you would get substantially more per image from us, than say what Shutterstock is paying.


Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: null on February 19, 2009, 14:34
Ouch RT, thanks for spelling that out...

We really would not expect any of our customers to download their full quota - this would most likely be stockpiling, which is contrary to our terms (and in which case we would terminate the license). We expect the average quota downloaded to be low - with a number of clients downloading maybe only 5-10 images over the whole month.  Our expecations are therefore that you would get substantially more per image from us, than say what Shutterstock is paying.

This is quite confusing for my simple brain. The buyers are attracted to the site by the possibility or authorization to download 750 images per month, but they are not allowed to do so, since that would be "stockpiling".  :o
Well why in the first place you allow that many then?
If you expect just 10 downloads per month for the model to work, why then not set a monthly download of 10?
If the buyer claims he is not stockpiling at all and he needs those 750 images, you don't have a leg to stand on since he has been allowed 750.

How will all this be accounted for?  ???  ::)
Buyer A buys 10 per month for his 300$, so per image that's 30$, and the photographer gets (assuming 50% for the sake  of simplicity) 15$ for those downloads. Buyer B buys 300 per month, and for those images the photographer gets 0.5$ per download.
Since buyers have a full month to download, we can only know at the end of that month what the actual $ is, since he can download just a few the first days, then consume his allowance the last days.
Since not all subscription packages will start on the same day, that means that we will know our exact earnings at least a month behind the actual sales.

Sounds like a lottery. Everybody wins, from a pencil to a million. Maybe you win the million  ;D

As it appears, we don't have a predetermined amount of $ per download then, but we just will have to hope and to pray? Guarantees for the corporate buyers are great. What about guarantees for the contributors? How much per download will we get? Please enlighten us.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: RT on February 19, 2009, 17:38
Hi Richard, its Lawrence Gould here - Tom's partner.

We really would not expect any of our customers to download their full quota - this would most likely be stockpiling, which is contrary to our terms (and in which case we would terminate the license). We expect the average quota downloaded to be low - with a number of clients downloading maybe only 5-10 images over the whole month.  Our expecations are therefore that you would get substantially more per image from us, than say what Shutterstock is paying.

Hi Lawrence,

Thanks for your reply, although I do find it most unusual, on one hand you're saying the buyers are allowed to download a certain number of images under the subscription package but then if they do it may be contrary to the terms and you'll  terminate their license, that doesn't make sense and I can't see how you could legally enforce it, but without seeing the buyer terms and conditions it's hard to say.

Also if you anticipate that the average client will download only 5-10 images over a month why not just restrict the package to say 50 a month maximum?

I'm concerned that you've not thought this through, and I know for sure that a couple of the people giving you advice on microstock are nowhere near as knowledgable as they have lead you to believe they are, I became aware of this last year and made a comment on this forum about it.

But my biggest personal concern is that you are targeting a market which for me personally gives me a better return than microstock and for a very good reason, as has been mentioned, these buyers have avoided the microstock industry, what you're offering to these buyers will I have no doubt be successful if done correctly but under your current terms to the detriment of the contributors.

I am a realist which is why I started contributing to microstock in the first place much to the displeasure of traditional stock purists, I still believe in microstock and that a market is in place for the two levels of selling stock imagery to co-exist, but I for one will not be supporting your site under the present conditions, I will however monitor it with great interest and wish you and Tom all the best.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on February 19, 2009, 18:28
donnelt (Tom) I take it the site is due to launch very soon, I have a couple of questions:

1. Am I right in understanding that you will be offering a subscription package to buyers for $300 a month with a daily download limit of 25, and if they choose to use their full limit the contributors net commission will be 16 cents per image.
I've taken this figure from the contract example.

2. Is it correct that if a buyers account goes into bad debt or their payment bounces that Vivozoom will take a clawback from the contributors commission relative to the images that buyer bought.

I'll be honest with you I'm not too keen on these terms, you're about to start offering a warrantied image service to buyers who have traditionally spent hundreds on photos and who traditionally quite often disappear into the night without a trace, and the result of this is that we the contributors get a possible 16 cent per image and the knowledge that we may have to pay that back knowing our image has already been used.

I have no doubt your site will be succesful with the old traditional buyers, they get 750 photos for the price that they've been used to paying for one!

The contributors seem to be getting ..........


Richard .. Lawrence has responded to point 1 by explaining how we're doing things differently.  To add to this point, until you know what the average downloads per subscription are, you cannot be sure that your 25c per download on SS represents a fair return.  But let me put it this way using UK prices; if all SS clients in the UK downloaded their full quota of 750 images at UKP149, SS couldn't keep the lights on.

On your second point, well, we're not that original.  Other sites have these provisions already.  Take a look at your contract (http://submit.shutterstock.com/tostos.mhtml (http://submit.shutterstock.com/tostos.mhtml)) with SS - see 7.f.   Were you aware of this? 

We're both reserving the right to do this.   However, Vivozoom is not reserving the right to change the contract without your consent.

If you change your mind, we'd be delighted to represent you.

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on February 19, 2009, 18:34
...
 On Vivozoom, as far as I can see, you have attach the MRF first to all shots in the queue, then submit. There is no way to attach now and then when you have spare time, and submit those few.
..

Flemishdreams - no - that's not right, you can selectively submit any images you want at any time, leaving the rest for a later submission.

Also - take a look at the new update to the release attachment tool.  You can attach one or more releases to multiple images in just 4 clicks.  Just like you asked for.  Let me know what you think and thanks for keeping us on our toes..

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on February 19, 2009, 18:49


Hi Lawrence,

Thanks for your reply, although I do find it most unusual, on one hand you're saying the buyers are allowed to download a certain number of images under the subscription package but then if they do it may be contrary to the terms and you'll  terminate their license, that doesn't make sense and I can't see how you could legally enforce it, but without seeing the buyer terms and conditions it's hard to say.

Also if you anticipate that the average client will download only 5-10 images over a month why not just restrict the package to say 50 a month maximum?

I'm concerned that you've not thought this through, and I know for sure that a couple of the people giving you advice on microstock are nowhere near as knowledgable as they have lead you to believe they are, I became aware of this last year and made a comment on this forum about it.

But my biggest personal concern is that you are targeting a market which for me personally gives me a better return than microstock and for a very good reason, as has been mentioned, these buyers have avoided the microstock industry, what you're offering to these buyers will I have no doubt be successful if done correctly but under your current terms to the detriment of the contributors.

I am a realist which is why I started contributing to microstock in the first place much to the displeasure of traditional stock purists, I still believe in microstock and that a market is in place for the two levels of selling stock imagery to co-exist, but I for one will not be supporting your site under the present conditions, I will however monitor it with great interest and wish you and Tom all the best.

Richard, thanks for your good wishes and your considered postings.  You're not the only one that believes our approach is wrong.  Others think we're irresponsible by 'destroying price premiums' (see half way down: https://secure.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=4429 (https://secure.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=4429)).  Perhaps I read 'Atlas Shrugged' at very formative years, but I have no doubts that this is the next and final phase of Microstock.

Will it deliver a knock-out blow to over-priced RF - maybe not, but it will help put some value and respect back into RM.

Tom

Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: RT on February 19, 2009, 19:04
Richard .. Lawrence has responded to point 1 by explaining how we're doing things differently.  To add to this point, until you know what the average downloads per subscription are, you cannot be sure that your 25c per download on SS represents a fair return.  But let me put it this way using UK prices; if all SS clients in the UK downloaded their full quota of 750 images at UKP149, SS couldn't keep the lights on.

On your second point, well, we're not that original.  Other sites have these provisions already.  Take a look at your contract ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/tostos.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/tostos.mhtml[/url])) with SS - see 7.f.   Were you aware of this? 

We're both reserving the right to do this.   However, Vivozoom is not reserving the right to change the contract without your consent.

If you change your mind, we'd be delighted to represent you.

Tom


Tom,

Yes I'm well aware of how Shutterstock operate (incidentally it's 38c not 25c) and also their contract terms, but you're not Shutterstock and you're offering a different subscription package and targeting a different sort of buyer, a buyer that until now hasn't had what you're offering and if what your marketing suggests you will be offering them something that will be too good to be missed from their point of view, with that in mind what makes you think they'll do the decent thing and stop at 5-10 downloads. And I'll ask again if you're so confident that they will why give the option to download 75 times that amount?
And for the record we get the same commission on Shutterstock whether the buyer downloads their quota or not, if that means Shutterstock have to work by candlelight it's of no concern to me and if that means they close the doors then the buyers will go to one of the other sites I'm on.
On your terms you'll do well whether the buyers use their quota or not, it's the contributors that face the risk.

As for the part of the Shutterstock contract you quoted it states:
Shutterstock does NOT currently deduct chargebacks and refunds from submitters for Standard License downloads but reserves the right to change this policy at any time without notice.

Now although that gives them the option to do it in the future they don't and haven't, and the only microstock site that I know of that do is Fotolia, however having been contributing to the traditional market for many years I know for a fact that the buyers there (especially the eastern block one's) are all too keen on doing a moonlight flit.
You say you're both reserving the right to do this, your contract does not state you're reserving the right, it implies that you will do it.

Don't start me on other parts of the contract!

By the way why all the comparisons to Shutterstock, I was lead to believe you're trying to be a new microstock site with a difference.





Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: RT on February 19, 2009, 19:11
Richard, thanks for your good wishes and your considered postings.  You're not the only one that believes our approach is wrong.  Others think we're irresponsible by 'destroying price premiums' (see half way down: https://secure.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=4429 (https://secure.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=4429)).  Perhaps I read 'Atlas Shrugged' at very formative years, but I have no doubts that this is the next and final phase of Microstock.

Will it deliver a knock-out blow to over-priced RF - maybe not, but it will help put some value and respect back into RM.

Tom

We must have crossed posts.

Tom I'm surprised that someone from your background pays attention to the Alamy forum  :D I gave up on it a long time ago apart from nipping in every now and again to wind up the dinosaur wannabe's.

As for a knock out blow, I think you could be right and to be honest it may be long overdue, as for my questioning your site I'm sure you'll appreciate I'm in it to make money as we all are.

Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: null on February 19, 2009, 19:44
To add to this point, until you know what the average downloads per subscription are, you cannot be sure that your 25c per download on SS represents a fair return.  But let me put it this way using UK prices; if all SS clients in the UK downloaded their full quota of 750 images at UKP149, SS couldn't keep the lights on.

Shutterstock doesn't give 25c but 33c guaranteed - minimum. Moreover SS has On Demand and Extended, so in my particular case, the first half of February I had an RPI of 60c on a few hundred downloads. Subscription can work if you have volume.

Thanks for your MRF efforts. It will benefit any uploader with more than 10 models. I was under the impression that Vivozoom was a midstock site since it addresses corporate buyers that don't bargain over 10c if they have a warranty, but now it turns out that Vivozoom might be another Crestock: high quality combined with low volume peanuts for the contributor.

Let's just see for now what the prices actually will be on Vivozoom and how much the volume. If you are that sure that buyers will only buy 10 images per month, why not take yourself the risk and set the price on 300/10/2 = 15$ per download?  :P

Just asking, no harm intended.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 02:57
Shutterstock - comparison made as I discerned that you were represented by them.

Their submit home page says 25c and 30c if you earn over 500 USD.   FD says 33c and RT says 38c.   Confusing, isn't it?

Happy to take the higher figure!  It makes the argument I am making about the improbability of max downloads even more convincing.  Doesn't it?

I still hope we win you over Richard.  Once we do, we'll go after Sean Locke!   ;)

Tom


Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: MikLav on February 20, 2009, 04:31
Tom, I didn't check what SS says on their contributors page (the page itself isn't updated for several years BTW), but my current income per subscription sale is $0.36 (which I started getting after certain amount of sales). Plus there are on-demand sales and sometimes EL sales which are much higher.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: null on February 20, 2009, 04:32
Their submit home page says 25c and 30c if you earn over 500 USD.   FD says 33c and RT says 38c. Confusing, isn't it?


It's 0.33$ for a 25/day subscription download, but the average per image on a day can be higher of course if you have On Demand downloads (1.07$ or 2.48$) or Extended (28$). The confusion is that the number of downloads shown (leftmost column) includes all types summed up.

(http://cjoint.com/data/cwjNWiaEaS_ss.jpg)

Take day #2: N=23 of which 25/day N=22x0.33$=7.26$ + 1 OnDemand for 1.07$, total=8.33$, or 0.36$ RPI for that day. The first day, the RPI exceptionally was 2.7$.

Happy to take the higher figure!


No you need to take the exact number, which is 0.33$ for 25/day.

It makes the argument I am making about the improbability of max downloads even more convincing.  Doesn't it?


There are very little downloads on weekend and holidays so you end up with 20 days per month.
249$ (25/day subscription) / 20 = 12.45$ per working day / 0.36 (0.33$+0.03 for referals) = 34.6 images > 25 allowed.
On maximum download, the profit for SS is still 9 images.
So you see that SS plays it safe and assumes that the subscribers will almost exhaust their quorum of 25 and they set their price accordingly.
In other words, your assumption that SS would break down on full usage of the quorum isn't correct. It's certainly not 25/day, but it's also certainly not 10 per month as you hope.

The bottomline is that Vivozoom is a subscription site and that it has to play on the safe side too. When I calculate at this very moment, my average return per download (over all categories) on SS is 0.65$ because of the OnDemand and Extended. That can vary from day to day and from month to month but the lowest it can go is 0.33$ of course.

The question that keeps being avoided here is what price we will get for a download on Vivozoom. And a second question is whether Vivozoom also will have Extended etc... to ease the pain of subscription. To put these numbers in context, my port on SS = N = 727 mostly nature. Real stock shooters will have a higher volume of sales per image, and illustrators even higher.

Basically, if you think that by reading on the SS page that we just get 0.25$, you are wrong. It's more like 0.60 in real life. If you then offer 0.65$ per download on average, Vivizoom isn't such a good deal compared to SS after all.

Hoping these real life numbers help your homework  :P
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: RT on February 20, 2009, 05:46
Shutterstock - comparison made as I discerned that you were represented by them.

Their submit home page says 25c and 30c if you earn over 500 USD.   FD says 33c and RT says 38c.   Confusing, isn't it?

Happy to take the higher figure!  It makes the argument I am making about the improbability of max downloads even more convincing.  Doesn't it?

I still hope we win you over Richard.  Once we do, we'll go after Sean Locke!   ;)

Tom

Tom,

Shutterstock commissions depend on your level, from their terms:

How much will I be paid as a submitter?
Our current payout rate for Standard License 25-A-Day Subscription downloads is: $.25 (25 cents per image download). After earning a total of $500, your rate increases to $.33 per download. Once you surpass a total lifetime earnings of $3,000, your rate will increase to $.36 per download, and after you reach $10,000 in lifetime earnings, your rate will increase to $.38 per download.


I'm on the top tier and FD needs to work harder  ;D

Good luck with Sean!
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 06:08
Flemishdreams...  wow!  Thanks for going into this in some depth. 

Can we apply the same 20 day principle to Vivozoom that you have applied to Shutterstock?  What figure do you get?

Then tell me if you're Ok with your image being sold for 'only 14 cents'?  http://www.fotolia.com/id/11366176 (http://www.fotolia.com/id/11366176).  (their words not mine)

Yes, ELs are a very important part of our model. 

Now get out and take some more great photographs and tell me if the new model release attach is working for you.

Tom

PS.  We don't do free images.  (sometimes is what you don't do that defines you as much as what you do)
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: RacePhoto on February 20, 2009, 08:32
Tom, I didn't check what SS says on their contributors page (the page itself isn't updated for several years BTW), but my current income per subscription sale is $0.36 (which I started getting after certain amount of sales). Plus there are on-demand sales and sometimes EL sales which are much higher.

Not complicated from my perspective. I've been getting 25c a download for a year. I am under the $500 limit.

Here's February:
Downloads this month:   22
Earnings this month:   $5.50

25c per download, plain and simple.

I find no 38c in any of this on my account, and no mystery math.  ;D

From the FAQ page:

Our current payout rate for Standard License 25-A-Day Subscription downloads is: $.25 (25 cents per image download). After earning a total of $500, your rate increases to $.33 per download. Once you surpass a total lifetime earnings of $3,000, your rate will increase to $.36 per download, and after you reach $10,000 in lifetime earnings, your rate will increase to $.38 per download.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on February 20, 2009, 09:35
We really would not expect any of our customers to download their full quota - this would most likely be stockpiling, which is contrary to our terms (and in which case we would terminate the license).

This could be one of the most ridiculous things I've read on these boards.  Isn't false advertising and entering into a contract knowing the terms are false, illegal in some countries?  It is not up to you to determine what the buyer is or isn't doing with their purchase.

Looks like just another subscription site.  People, I thought you all decided subscription sites weren't really healthy for this trade group.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Microbius on February 20, 2009, 10:18
To be fair he hasn't said that clients aren't allowed to download their full quota, only that they are not allowed to stockpile images and that this is most likely  what they would be doing by downloading 750 a month. We already know that his would be very rare as demonstrated by Shutterstock.

And it kinda is for the stock agency to dictate what the buyer is or isn't permitted to do with their purchase. That's how licensing works.

I much prefer their model to the Shutterstock one, at least you are splitting the profits on a percentage basis.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on February 20, 2009, 10:34
To be fair he hasn't said that clients aren't allowed to download their full quota, only that they are not allowed to stockpile images and that this is most likely  what they would be doing by downloading 750 a month. We already know that his would be very rare as demonstrated by Shutterstock.

And it kinda is for the stock agency to dictate what the buyer is or isn't permitted to do with their purchase. That's how licensing works.

That doesn't make it sound any less ridiculous.  If I pay to download 750, and I want to use my quota to download for future projects, then I should be able to, without having to justify myself.

Their job is to dictate how I use the content (license), not how I purchase it.  If they can't profitably fulfill their terms of the agreement then they should amend the terms.  "750 downloads a month (btw, you can't really download 750 a month or we terminate you)" is just a come on.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 10:36
We really would not expect any of our customers to download their full quota - this would most likely be stockpiling, which is contrary to our terms (and in which case we would terminate the license).

This could be one of the most ridiculous things I've read on these boards.  Isn't false advertising and entering into a contract knowing the terms are false, illegal in some countries?  It is not up to you to determine what the buyer is or isn't doing with their purchase.

Looks like just another subscription site.  People, I thought you all decided subscription sites weren't really healthy for this trade group.

Let's not set hares running.  Prohibiting stockpiling is fairly common.  Shutterstock's prohibition is listed in clause 17.  Furthermore you can't store images for longer than 6 months.

My home DSL provider is unlimited, but has a 'fair use' clause.  My Nokia Comes with Music subscription is unlimited, but has a 'fair use' clause.

Switching gears, do you like the idea of an image warranty?  Would Getty offer a warranty on istock images?  Do they trust their contributors enough to do that?  Even if they did, do you think they would canibilize their traditional RF revenues?

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Microbius on February 20, 2009, 10:45
That doesn't make it sound any less ridiculous.  If I pay to download 750, and I want to use my quota to download for future projects, then I should be able to, without having to justify myself.

Their job is to dictate how I use the content (license), not how I purchase it.  If they can't profitably fulfill their terms of the agreement then they should amend the terms.  "750 downloads a month (btw, you can't really download 750 a month or we terminate you)" is just a come on.

As long as they are upfront about how the service is to be used it is then up to the client to decide if they want to go for it or not.
The idea I think is that the client is paying for access to a large database of images available for them to search and use as they need them rather than for the right to download loads of images and keep them just in case they need them in future. The way I read this is that they are perfectly entitled to download up to the maximum 750 a month provided it is done legitimately for ongoing projects.
Again, I'm happier with this than the Shutterstock model, we have all seen what happens when buyers can stockpile images-- lots and lots of image theft.

Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on February 20, 2009, 10:55
Let's not set hares running.  Prohibiting stockpiling is fairly common.  Shutterstock's prohibition is listed in clause 17.  Furthermore you can't store images for longer than 6 months.

I can't imagine those are things you can possibly hope to police effectively.  Someone downloads 750 images.  Are you going to call them up and demand project listings for all the images?  How are you going to track whether or not they are using images more than six months old?

Quote
Switching gears, do you like the idea of an image warranty?  Would Getty offer a warranty on istock images?  Do they trust their contributors enough to do that?  Even if they did, do you think they would canibilize their traditional RF revenues?

I've read your discussion about image warranties before, but I'm not sure I get the sense of you doing anything different than anyone else, as far as what really protects the buyer.  Maybe you could enlighten us again on what kind of relationship this really means.  You're still having people attest they own the image, and have releases and such.  Unless they check "We, really, really, really own it". :)
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Microbius on February 20, 2009, 11:02
I've read your discussion about image warranties before, but I'm not sure I get the sense of you doing anything different than anyone else, as far as what really protects the buyer.  Maybe you could enlighten us again on what kind of relationship this really means.  You're still having people attest they own the image, and have releases and such.  Unless they check "We, really, really, really own it". :)

I'm a bit hazy on this myself, I would love to get some clarification on this.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 11:14
Stockpiling:  If we notice a client regularly downloading full quota of images we'll investigate under our EULA provisions for the prohibition of stockpiling.   Nothing magical.  Each case on its merits.  Sorry I don't have a better answer for you.

Warranty:  We do the same as every one else who offers a warranty.  Again nothing magical.  Take a look at Getty's or Corbis' EULA.  Would you like Getty to offer a warranty on istock images?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: RT on February 20, 2009, 11:24
Warranty:  We do the same as every one else who offers a warranty.  Again nothing magical.  Take a look at Getty's or Corbis' EULA.  Would you like Getty to offer a warranty on istock images?

I didn't think you were asking for imagery exclusivity, whereas Getty and Corbis do.

Also I thought your warranty is for contributor ownership nothing to do with the image content, have I read that wrong.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on February 20, 2009, 11:25
If you can't be profitable at allowing the client access to 750 images a month, why don't you change your terms, and get rid of the "stockpiling" protection clause?  Why not 500, and not worry about it?  Does anyone need more than 500 images a month?  You're trying to gain customers with your warranty advertising, yet you'll annoy them with your 750 a month (don't check the fine print) advertising.  Speaking of warranties....

Sorry, why don't we go with the basics.

1.  What is a warranty?
2.  What does your warranty offer a buyer?
3.  What are you backing this warranty up with?
4.  If you are sued for violating this warranty, who pays?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 11:30
Stockpiling:  If we notice a client regularly downloading full quota of images we'll investigate under our EULA provisions for the prohibition of stockpiling.   Nothing magical.  Each case on its merits.  Sorry I don't have a better answer for you.

Warranty:  We do the same as every one else who offers a warranty.  Again nothing magical.  Take a look at Getty's or Corbis' EULA.  Would you like Getty to offer a warranty on istock images?


To understand  the magnitude of what we're doing - here is the section covering clients' Sales Warranty - this is in draft, but we're not anticipating any changes to this wording as it stands:

We are guaranteeing that the ownership of the image and its use (so long as it's within the terms of the license we grant you) will not result in a legal problem for you.  For example we guarantee that you will not get:

- Legitimate claims from photographers that the image you were using had not been licensed for resale to the image library you downloaded it from.

- Legitimate claims from property owners that the image you are using contains a protected property that cannot be depicted in an image for resale to the library that you downloaded it from.

- Legitimate claims from models that they had never granted the right to use their image to the photographer/library that licensed you the image.

If you do get a claim, we will defend you provided you notify us of the claim and permit us to handle the defense.



Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 11:35
If you can't be profitable at allowing the client access to 750 images a month, why don't you change your terms, and get rid of the "stockpiling" protection clause?  Why not 500, and not worry about it?  Does anyone need more than 500 images a month?  You're trying to gain customers with your warranty advertising, yet you'll annoy them with your 750 a month (don't check the fine print) advertising.  Speaking of warranties....

Sorry, why don't we go with the basics.

1.  What is a warranty?
2.  What does your warranty offer a buyer?
3.  What are you backing this warranty up with?
4.  If you are sued for violating this warranty, who pays?

It's the same type of warranty that Getty offers on traditional RF.  Why doesn't Getty offer it on istock images.  Huh?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 11:41
Warranty:  We do the same as every one else who offers a warranty.  Again nothing magical.  Take a look at Getty's or Corbis' EULA.  Would you like Getty to offer a warranty on istock images?


I didn't think you were asking for imagery exclusivity, whereas Getty and Corbis do.

Also I thought your warranty is for contributor ownership nothing to do with the image content, have I read that wrong.


Richard.. we're non-exclusive.  Exclusivity is moot.  We aggregate non-exclusive RF images at www.imagepick.com (http://www.imagepick.com) and it's warranted imagery.   

I think the interesting question today is 'What is a warranty'.  That should speak volumes for the maturity of Microstock.  Some get it.  Some don't.  Some get it and fear the implications.  Others welcome it.

Take your pick.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on February 20, 2009, 11:44
We are guaranteeing that the ownership of the image and its use (so long as it's within the terms of the license we grant you) will not result in a legal problem for you.  For example we guarantee that you will not get:

- Legitimate claims from photographers that the image you were using had not been licensed for resale to the image library you downloaded it from.

- Legitimate claims from property owners that the image you are using contains a protected property that cannot be depicted in an image for resale to the library that you downloaded it from.

- Legitimate claims from models that they had never granted the right to use their image to the photographer/library that licensed you the image.

If you do get a claim, we will defend you provided you notify us of the claim and permit us to handle the defense.

What are you doing to actually make sure that any of this is more true than stated at any other site?  All sites require releases and such, and it is in uploading contracts that you own all imagery, etc.  What about falsified releases?  I don't see you as being able to warrant anything more than any other site.

So when some anonymous guy from Russia steals my work and uploads it as his own, and a buyer comes to you all upset, what are you going to say to them?

To put it another way, you haven't really said anything that would make me feel safer, aside from the fact that you said it.

I don't work for Getty, so I don't know.  Maybe they assume there is too much risk from a crowd sourced contributor base.

Ah, there's that word "fear" again, whenever anyone disagrees with anyone else.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: RT on February 20, 2009, 11:50
- Legitimate claims from property owners that the image you are using contains a protected property that cannot be depicted in an image for resale to the library that you downloaded it from.

- Legitimate claims from models that they had never granted the right to use their image to the photographer/library that licensed you the image.

I take it you've registered as a data controller under the Data Protection Act, if not these two clauses are not worth the paper they're written on.

Also how to you intend to verify this information apart from taking the contributors word for it, because if you're not authorised and you do try to verify it you commit offences under the Data Protection Act.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 11:58
Richard, the DP Act applies to UK and Irish companies.

We're a US C-Corp registered in Delaware with servers in Texas.

There's an elephant in the room.

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on February 20, 2009, 11:59
So you don't intend to verify the information?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 12:02
So you don't intend to verify the information?

We're using the same standards we applied at Getty.  Perhaps you could have a word with Jonathan or Bruce and suggest the same?

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: gostwyck on February 20, 2009, 12:07

There's an elephant in the room.

Tom

You're telling me!

I for one am completely confused about these guarantees, TOS, etc, of which you speak. It seems to me that the only people not being offered any sort of guarantee are the contributors themselves __ even on how much they are to be paid.

Just like that elephant __ this is not going to fly either.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on February 20, 2009, 12:09
So you don't intend to verify the information?

We're using the same standards we applied at Getty.  Perhaps you could have a word with Jonathan or Bruce and suggest the same?

Tom

Sorry, I don't know the standards applied at Getty, where there seems to be a much smaller contributor base and more experienced editors than a crowd sourced environment.  Couldn't you fill us in on those standards?

BTW, in contributing to Getty, I've not provided anything more than I've provided to iStock in uploading.  I see no difference.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 12:15
So you don't intend to verify the information?

We're using the same standards we applied at Getty.  Perhaps you could have a word with Jonathan or Bruce and suggest the same?

Tom

Sorry, I don't know the standards applied at Getty, where there seems to be a much smaller contributor base and more experienced editors than a crowd sourced environment.  Couldn't you fill us in on those standards?

BTW, in contributing to Getty, I've not provided anything more than I've provided to iStock in uploading.  I see no difference.

No - I won't provide that information, but you're right, a small contributor base is an important element.

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on February 20, 2009, 12:23
Well, then, will you be detailing to the buyers how you are actually protecting them? 

Just correct me if I'm wrong here.  I'm a contributor there, I upload an image and forge a release.  The model goes to them, they sue you, you pass it on to me, since I lied.  I have no money, so the buyer is screwed.

A contributor in Russia uploads a bunch of imagery that isn't his.  The buyer licenses some and uses it.  The buyer somehow figures out the content wasn't his to license and sues you.  You pass it off to the Russian, who can't be found or sued.  Buyer is screwed.

Contributor uploads image of Eiffel Tower at night.  Somehow, it makes it through inspection.  Buyer uses it, and gets sued by light company.  You pass it off to contributor who had unknowingly uploaded it.  Contributor has no money, buyer is screwed.

Contributor uploads image with model and release.  Buyer uses it in big campaign.  Model is upset and complains and sues buyer.  Buyer sues you.  You point out release, and everyone goes away.

Where does this warranty come into play?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: RT on February 20, 2009, 12:29
Richard, the DP Act applies to UK and Irish companies.

We're a US C-Corp registered in Delaware with servers in Texas.

There's an elephant in the room.

Tom

Tom,

Firstly you have an office registered in London and the vivozoom.com domain name is registered to that address in London, I strongly suggest that makes you liable under the DP Act unless nobody in the UK ever has any sort of access to any information regarding releases.

But most importantly I am based in the UK and if I or any other UK contributors were to upload a model or property release to you that most certainly 100% is covered under the DP Act, with implications for both you and I unless it's done properly.
Vivozoom are third party to any model/property releases and are therefore not privy to the information held within them.
And in case you're wondering what I suggest people do at the moment look up my comments and advice on another thread here regarding releases.

Surely you're aware of how the exclusive content on Getty and Corbis negates this legal obligation for UK contributors, it's why I asked you to clarify the non-exclusive status of images in my comment above.

Tom with all due respect you cannot legally support the warranty that you're offering, certainly not from what you've told me so far.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 12:35
No read it again.  We defend the claim with our own money.

Again, same warranty as a Getty or Corbis would provide.

To see the contrast, here is the 'Warranty' from a popular Microstock site:

THE CONTENT IS PROVIDED 'AS IS' WITHOUT REPESENTATION, WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ISTOCKPHOTO DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT THE CONTENT WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS OR THAT ITS USE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTENT IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE CONTENT PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU (AND NOT ISTOCKPHOTO) ASSUME THE ENTIRE RISK AND COST OF ALL NECESSARY CORRECTIONS.

IN PARTICULAR AND WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING, IF YOU ARE DOWNLOADING CONTENT THAT IS IN A FLASH FORMAT OR FILE (WHETHER .SWF OR OTHERWISE) ISTOCKPHOTO MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY RESPECTING SUCH CONTENT WHATSOEVER, WHETHER AS TO OWNERSHIP, TECHNICAL OR LEGAL COMPLIANCE, OR OTHERWISE.

Recognize that?  Familiar?  Essentially Caveat Emptor.   

Take a look at the posts in this board from number 21 to 27.  You hi-lighted lack of Warranty on your own blog.

Most of our corporate clients aren't allowed to license unwarranted imagery.

Tom
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: gostwyck on February 20, 2009, 12:35

But most importantly I am based in the UK and if I or any other UK contributors were to upload a model or property release to you that most certainly 100% is covered under the DP Act, with implications for both you and I unless it's done properly.


Good point Richard. Did you read the recent article about this issue in Pro Photographer magazine?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: RT on February 20, 2009, 12:42
Good point Richard. Did you read the recent article about this issue in Pro Photographer magazine?

I didn't we've got plenty of toilet paper at home  ;D but now you've mentioned it I'll go out and waste a few quid to get a copy and see what they say.

There is a very easy way for UK photographers to deal with this matter, most of them don't and it amazes me, the data protection law is the most powerful law we have in this country, in realism the chances are nothing will ever happen but if it ever does!
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: null on February 20, 2009, 14:54
Can we apply the same 20 day principle to Vivozoom that you have applied to Shutterstock?  What figure do you get?


Nobody here knows the potential of Vivozoom yet.

Then tell me if you're Ok with your image being sold for 'only 14 cents'?  [url]http://www.fotolia.com/id/11366176[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/id/11366176[/url]).  (their words not mine)


You should compare yourself to Midstock, not to Fotolia  :P

Yes, ELs are a very important part of our model.


Good to hear.

Now get out and take some more great photographs and tell me if the new model release attach is working for you.


Yes Sir!

PS.  We don't do free images.  (sometimes is what you don't do that defines you as much as what you do)


Free images are a bit irrelevant since nobody in his right mind allows it. The ones that tried it had thousands of downloads with no effect whatsoever on their paying portfolio.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on February 21, 2009, 01:03
Anyone see this?

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/02/photoshelter-corrects-microstock-statistic-misprint.html (http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/02/photoshelter-corrects-microstock-statistic-misprint.html)
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: RT on February 21, 2009, 06:20
Anyone see this?

[url]http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/02/photoshelter-corrects-microstock-statistic-misprint.html[/url] ([url]http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/02/photoshelter-corrects-microstock-statistic-misprint.html[/url])


Yes but Photoshelter are a complete joke, their stock site didn't even last a year, if Photoshelter announced the sky was blue I'd go outside to check for myself.
I'm one of the lucky one's that didn't waste my time uploading to them, but I know lots that did. I'm amazed they haven't justed packed up shop and quit.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on February 21, 2009, 08:02
Where's the stat for "buyers who will increase their use of microstock", and "buyers who will start using microstock"?
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on February 21, 2009, 12:22
Hard to square those survey results with this:

http://unsharpmasked.com/blog/2009/02/2009-stock-photo-sales-down-40-percent/ (http://unsharpmasked.com/blog/2009/02/2009-stock-photo-sales-down-40-percent/)
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on February 21, 2009, 15:43
Hard to square those survey results with this:

[url]http://unsharpmasked.com/blog/2009/02/2009-stock-photo-sales-down-40-percent/[/url] ([url]http://unsharpmasked.com/blog/2009/02/2009-stock-photo-sales-down-40-percent/[/url])


"In the mean time… I want to know how you are doing. Please post a comment about your experiences, or what you’ve been hearing."

Nothing to see here.  No profits.  Move along.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on February 22, 2009, 03:30
Hard to square those survey results with this:

[url]http://unsharpmasked.com/blog/2009/02/2009-stock-photo-sales-down-40-percent/[/url] ([url]http://unsharpmasked.com/blog/2009/02/2009-stock-photo-sales-down-40-percent/[/url])


"In the mean time… I want to know how you are doing. Please post a comment about your experiences, or what you’ve been hearing."

Nothing to see here.  No profits.  Move along.


Except that Philip seemed to predict the problems better than most for the traditional shooters..

http://unsharpmasked.com/blog/2008/05/2008-stock-photo-market-crash/ (http://unsharpmasked.com/blog/2008/05/2008-stock-photo-market-crash/)

I can sympathize with the difficulty that anyone would face when your model relied on Getty licensing 100 of your images 10 times a year for $100 net per license.

If you've started out life on Microstock, the issues aren't as daunting. 

For many, it means adjusting to a volume model and often swallowing their pride.    For some, the microstock model is a step too far and they will seek solace in RM.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: null on February 22, 2009, 23:13
For some, the microstock model is a step too far and they will seek solace in RM.

Donnelt, you sound like a very wise guy, but if you're the main programmer of Vivozoom (I hope you are not), I would suggest you'd fire yourself and go breeding carrots or organic veggies. Pardon my French, but I did programming for a living and photography is just fun. Vivozoom is a programming Tchernobyl. First there was the stupid issue with passwords, some code that one can find on all open source forums or even redhot. It took many weeks to solve. Then there is the multipage Model Release attach which is slow like hell.

Hey, just look at Cutcaster, YAY, 123RF as I suggested by email. Simple and fast. Vivo's MRF is even worse than Zymmetrical, and that means a lot. Incidentally, Zymmetrical sells. Just buy the code of YAY or Cutcaster, OK?

For a few weeks, I can't even access Vivo by Firefox since the site comes up CCS-less. I have to use the infamous IE for it. No problem, since I benchmark on 4 browsers myself, but anyways.

In all your wise-talk here, you carefully avoided to answer a few critical questions. First of all how much will Vivozoom pay, being another subscription site. A lot of wisecracks here but never an answer, except "more than Shutterstock". Sure, but give a number, like 1,2,3.

Of the few non-model shots I've uploaded many of my best-sellers at other sites got rejected. Fine for me, since I'm a snapshooter anyways. I understand Vivo only wants the best, and I wish you a lot of success running after RT and Sean Locke. After breaking my head again on the complicated and slow upload and MRF system I just decided Vivo and me are no match. No regrets, you've got AndresR already. Why bother about small shrimps like us? ;-)

Wish you all the best and success! I will mail your boss to cancel my account. I'm sorry but I don't have time for badly programmed subscription alpha sites. ;-)

Honestly, good luck.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on April 22, 2009, 01:02
This is a redacted version of an update sent to Vivozoom contributors earlier this week:

Summary is:


----------------------

xxxxxxxx, thanks for contributing your images. We¹d like to bring you up-to-date on our plans and progress.

LAUNCH

We are presently in a closed-user group test of the customer site and plan to launch the site within the next few weeks

LAUNCH PRICING

Our subscription packages range from single-seat $279 (USD) for 30 days at 15 images per day through $5,999 (USD) for 12-month 25 images per day on a 5-seat license.

Our VivoFlex Option offers our clients the ability to purchase images that can be dowloaded any time over a 12 month period.  Prices range from $149 for 25 hi-res images including vectors through $49 for 12 web-res  images.

We are also offering Enhanced Licenses at a flat $45 to our clients.

PAYOUT

We have now added Moneybookers as an optional payout mechanism in addition to Bank Transfer and Paypal. Payout threshold is the same as Paypal at $50 USD. If you wish to switch to Moneybookers, go to your Account Page in the Dashboard and select 'Moneybookers' for the Payout Method.

RELEASE ATTACH

We received a lot of robust feedback on this! We have recently updated the Release Attach functionality. You can now specify that a release can be attached to just one image, all images on a page or all images in your MANAGE queue. We hope this helps.

CLIENT SITE PREVIEW

We'd like you to take a look at the site before we launch. It's password protected, but for the next few days, you can review it at www.vivozoom.com <http://www.vivozoom.com/>  with the following credentials:

    user: xxxxxxxx

    pass: xxxxxxxx


Note: If you have approved images on the site, your portfolio can be seen at:

    http://www.vivozoom.com/viewportfolio-xxxxxxxx

We provide a  multiple-image-download facility. A client can download (for example) a complete lightbox as long as the subscription quota is available. If the downloads would exceed daily quota, clients can purchase "top-ups" that are valid for 24 hours. Customer feedback on this feature has been universally positive.

We've also taken steps to ensure that we maximize your images' potential. All embedded color profiles of images for web-display have been converted to JPEG working space for browser display. To see this in action, take a look at the following image previews:

(http://eu.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/edbockstock/edbockstock0801/edbockstock080100037/2409494.jpg)

(http://www.dreamstime.com/pasta-sauce-thumb3905826.jpg)


(http://216.139.247.192/img/66/p/66256656_p.jpg)

Our version is a more accurate rendition of the original hi-resolution image with its color profile applied.

WE WANT YOUR IMAGES!

Any images uploaded in the next week should hit the site before we launch. Remember, there are no upload limits on our FTP server, so please continue to submit images and you'll ensure vivozoom is the premier Microstock site for professional image buyers.

Any questions, please email or call our creative director, Stacey Goldberg creative <at> vivozoom <dot> com or call 1 800-476-3899.

Regards,

Lawrence and Tom

RECENT QUOTES FROM ALPHA CLIENTS: (unedited)

"Warranty very important and stands out from the competition" - Major UK Publisher

"Photographs more professional thank istock and Shutterstock"  - Large US Educational Publisher

"Multiple downloads excellent ­ Not on any other Microstock site" - Educational Publisher

"There's really nice photos on the website and refreshing to see something different. I'm sure a lot of us have Photodisc pictures memorized by now (!)" - Large Chicago-based publisher

"Great presentation, layout and speed.."  - Major Contract Publisher (Customer Magazines & Online Branding)
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: leaf on April 22, 2009, 02:17
thanks for the update.
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: download on April 30, 2009, 15:57
Now that we've had an invitation to check out the client side interface and make suggestions, I would hope that there is still ongoing development of the keywording/search engine precision - and/or some serious editing of irrelevant keywords in the collection's images.  I'm no perfectionist or saint when it comes to keywording but I try to put only appropriate keywords with my images.  Sometimes there's the accidental inclusion of a keyword especially with groups of pictures from the same shoot.

But what really concerns me is that some photos from a well-known and talented photographer that are at best only tangentially related to a keyword search phrase I tested ("fitness woman") show up prominently on the first page of results from that search.  Of course the same happens on many other sites but this would definitely make me think "here we go again" if I were a photo buyer.

I know this is a difficult problem to deal with but I hope Vivozoom can set itself further apart from many of the other sites by offering a more accurate keyword search.

I do like the look of the client page and the display of the images - it's an attractive presentation and I like the effort to display images with accurate color. 
Title: Re: Vivozoom
Post by: donnelt on May 02, 2009, 00:50

Download -  thanks for the constructive feedback.  The search engine is constantly reviewed as you can imagine.

There are widespread issues with the quality and consistency of source-keywording.  We provide automated prioritization of principal keywords and ask our reviewers to intervene with manual enhancements where appropriate. 

While we have a smaller collection, some of these shortcomings will be more apparent.  As the collection grows, inappropriately keyworded images will move further down the search results as principal keywords will present a larger match.

I believe we have a better search engine than many.  To take your example "fitness woman", if you ran this search on our site an then tried "fitness womEn", you would get two different search results.  Try the same on Shutterstock. 

The same goes for:

Man vs. Men
Boy vs. Boys
Girl vs. Girls

No search engine will give everyone their own optimal results, but I know that the issues you see are the symptoms of an initial collection and as it grows, the noise levels will decrease significantly.

PM me if you need technical details.  I don't want to ramble on about this (big) subject.

Tom