Author Topic: Vivozoom (Read 71775 times)

RT · « **Reply #150 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 ..........

Lawrence · « **Reply #151 on:** February 19, 2009, 13:49 »

Quote from: 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 ..........

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.

null · « **Reply #152 on:** February 19, 2009, 14:34 »

Ouch RT, thanks for spelling that out...

Quote from: Lawrence on February 19, 2009, 13:49

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".

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

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.

RT · « **Reply #153 on:** February 19, 2009, 17:38 »

Quote from: Lawrence on February 19, 2009, 13:49

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.

donnelt · « **Reply #154 on:** February 19, 2009, 18:28 »

Quote from: 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 ..........

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) 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

donnelt · « **Reply #155 on:** February 19, 2009, 18:34 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on January 20, 2009, 07:12

...
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

donnelt · « **Reply #156 on:** February 19, 2009, 18:49 »

Quote from: RT on February 19, 2009, 17:38

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). 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

RT · « **Reply #157 on:** February 19, 2009, 19:04 »

Quote from: donnelt on February 19, 2009, 18:28

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) 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.

RT · « **Reply #158 on:** February 19, 2009, 19:11 »

Quote from: donnelt on February 19, 2009, 18:49

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). 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

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.

null · « **Reply #159 on:** February 19, 2009, 19:44 »

Quote from: donnelt on February 19, 2009, 18:28

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?

Just asking, no harm intended.

donnelt · « **Reply #160 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

MikLav · « **Reply #161 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.

null · « **Reply #162 on:** February 20, 2009, 04:32 »

Quote from: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 02:57

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.

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$.

Quote from: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 02:57

Happy to take the higher figure!

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

Quote from: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 02:57

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

RT · « **Reply #163 on:** February 20, 2009, 05:46 »

Quote from: 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

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

Good luck with Sean!

donnelt · « **Reply #164 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. (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)

RacePhoto · « **Reply #165 on:** February 20, 2009, 08:32 »

Quote from: 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.

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.

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #166 on:** February 20, 2009, 09:35 »

Quote from: Lawrence on February 19, 2009, 13:49

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.

Microbius · « **Reply #167 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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #168 on:** February 20, 2009, 10:34 »

Quote from: 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.

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.

donnelt · « **Reply #169 on:** February 20, 2009, 10:36 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 20, 2009, 09:35

Quote from: Lawrence on February 19, 2009, 13:49
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

Microbius · « **Reply #170 on:** February 20, 2009, 10:45 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 20, 2009, 10:34

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #171 on:** February 20, 2009, 10:55 »

Quote from: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 10:36

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".

Microbius · « **Reply #172 on:** February 20, 2009, 11:02 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 20, 2009, 10:55

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.

donnelt · « **Reply #173 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?

RT · « **Reply #174 on:** February 20, 2009, 11:24 »

Quote from: donnelt on February 20, 2009, 11:14

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Vivozoom (Read 71775 times)

RT

Lawrence

null

RT

donnelt

donnelt

donnelt

RT

RT

null

donnelt

MikLav

null

RT

donnelt

RacePhoto

Sean Locke Photography

Microbius

Sean Locke Photography

donnelt

Microbius

Sean Locke Photography

Microbius

donnelt

RT

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors