pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Vivozoom  (Read 48013 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 10, 2008, 17:56 »
0
I just received a promo offer from Vivozoom.
What's the word on these guys and their 'fresh approach'?


sc

« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2008, 18:05 »
0
Just got one too!!!
Anybody???

sc

« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2008, 12:47 »
0
Bump

« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2008, 13:20 »
0
startup by former Getty executives... and they claim they already got top microstock photographers in their collection...

« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2008, 16:32 »
0
macro or micro?

« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2008, 16:49 »
0
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. 

« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2008, 14:39 »
0

There's some additional information about vivozoom here:

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

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Tom Donnelly

« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2008, 16:46 »
0
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. 

« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2008, 16:50 »
0
I can sum up my evaluation in one word.

Subs.

Nuf said?

« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2008, 17:36 »
0
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!

« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2008, 19:15 »
0
The only difference though is the sub program is like IS's, which is an improvement.

« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2008, 20:06 »
0
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.

« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2008, 20:58 »
0
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.

« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2008, 21:56 »
0
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.

« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2008, 22:35 »
0
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?

« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2008, 02:02 »
0
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]


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?
« Last Edit: September 16, 2008, 03:48 by leaf »

« Reply #16 on: September 16, 2008, 03:39 »
0

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


« Reply #17 on: September 16, 2008, 06:31 »
0
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?

« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2008, 07:15 »
0
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.

« Reply #19 on: September 16, 2008, 07:31 »
0

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.







Microbius

« Reply #20 on: September 16, 2008, 07:34 »
0
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.

« Reply #21 on: September 16, 2008, 08:03 »
0
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? 

« Reply #22 on: September 16, 2008, 08:34 »
0

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












« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2008, 08:58 »
0

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 dont 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


« Reply #24 on: September 16, 2008, 09:11 »
0
Thanks for the response - I'll modify that a bit later.  I've never heard the bit about prohibiting purchases.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3973 Views
Last post January 19, 2009, 15:23
by leaf
42 Replies
11035 Views
Last post April 21, 2009, 01:09
by leaf
18 Replies
4265 Views
Last post July 09, 2009, 03:10
by Magnum
15 Replies
4651 Views
Last post November 06, 2009, 11:32
by PeterChigmaroff
11 Replies
3513 Views
Last post June 20, 2016, 23:15
by stryjek

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results