pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fotolia Premium Subscription video royalties  (Read 19720 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 07, 2009, 19:46 »
0
Hello Everyone,

I was just wondering your thoughts on the Fotolia videos pricing for the Premium Subscription.  As far as I can tell, with the Premium Subscription, we will be making (depending on rank - I'm bronze) $3.60 for an HD/NTSC/PAL or whatever size video.  I do not feel that $3.60 is fair price for most of those sizes...small web maybe, but not an HD/NTSC/PAL.

Was just wondering what others thought???

Snaprender


« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2009, 20:44 »
0
I'm waiting for reponse from FT support. If there is no changes I will delete all my video files from this week. Video is new at FT and sales are very slow. No pain to lose few dollars now.
I can lose much more in short time, when my HD sales from pond5, IS, SS... from 12-30$ become 3.8$.
With 249$ buyer can have 60 HD at FT. It's just insane. Kill it before it's too late.

« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2009, 20:57 »
0
I'm waiting for reponse from FT support. If there is no changes I will delete all my video files from this week. Video is new at FT and sales are very slow. No pain to lose few dollars now.
I can lose much more in short time, when my HD sales from pond5, IS, SS... from 12-30$ become 3.8$.
With 249$ buyer can have 60 HD at FT. It's just insane. Kill it before it's too late.

I am also waiting for a response from FT support.  I know of one other person who said support confirmed all video sizes are included in the subs, but I want to wait for my response from them before acting.  I will probably just take my whole portfolio (pic, vectors and video) off.  Their constant changes are becoming too much for me.

« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2009, 23:07 »
0
I am usually patient but I just went ahead and deleted the few video clips I have uploaded there.  It takes time to edit and upload HD clips and I will stick with the sites that pay me more than I get for stills.

« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2009, 02:11 »
0
this will depreciate the stock footage market VERY soon. I think that we must act on the bitter lesson learned with subscriptions and protect the video pricing. I have prepared my first couple of tens videos for upload and, sorry, FT is not going to get them. Istock video exclusivity is starting to make sense.

« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2009, 03:04 »
0
ok, quick question from someone who admittedly has no idea, why is video different to say illustration which can take hours or photography which can also take hours for the right shot (not to mention almost $20000 now in gear, books, workshops etc) ?

(please take this as asking a question by someone who has no idea :), not as someone trying to start a fight :))



« Last Edit: July 09, 2009, 03:10 by Phil »

« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2009, 03:15 »
0
For video, the equipment can cost a lot more, some of the cameras make the 5DMKII look cheap.  A decent tripod can cost more than a still camera.  I don't have one yet but it restricts what I can do.  You might need a faster more expensive computer, it usually takes me much longer to take a 20 second clip than take a photo.  It takes longer to edit the files and it takes significantly longer to upload a 500mb file.  There is much less competition, it isn't a saturated market.  I think video clips should definitely be priced much higher at the moment.

« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2009, 03:50 »
0
ok, quick question from someone who admittedly has no idea, why is video different to say illustration which can take hours or photography which can also take hours for the right shot (not to mention almost $20000 now in gear, books, workshops etc) ?

(please take this as asking a question by someone who has no idea :), not as someone trying to start a fight :))
Like Sharpshot said +
- in video you have to use 95% time tripod with special head or steadycam (90% of my photos are taken without tripod)
- try to remove logos, tattoos. blur people in background in 20 seconds video (= 20s*30fps = 600images)
- special lights, more power = heavy battries
- no bracketing, no hdr. Difficult to fix exposure problems
- models more expensive
- good video = hundreds of good consecutive photos stitch together
- storage (original, edited file and sometimes different upload formats for different sites) - let's say 1-2 Gb for 1 video.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2009, 03:53 by rene »

« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2009, 09:46 »
0
Like the others said, a 20 sec. video @ 30 fps is 600 pictures.  For 3D or Vectors...its not only making or modeling you image, but then animating it into different positions for 10-30 seconds.  There is a big difference.

« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2009, 09:58 »
0
So, I finally kinda of got confirmation from Fotolia that all video sizes are included in the Premium Subsciption.  They never really answered my questions directly.  It was a 'yes' or 'no' answer, but it was close enough.  I then wrote support asking them to remove all of my videos and they will not do that.  I will have to do it manually or just remove my whole account......I think I will just remove my whole account.

« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2009, 12:40 »
0
ok, quick question from someone who admittedly has no idea, why is video different to say illustration...

I don't think it is. When I was independent, I didn't upload my vector illustrations anywhere but iStock because for a complex vector (not the simple ones or icon sets) I thought the pricing wasn't right. Many sites didn't make any distinction in price based on the complexity of the vector file. For a subs sale the pricing problem was even worse.

The other sites got large JPEGs of the vector image which I had no problem selling at subscription prices - buyer paid less but got less value too.

I think HD video for subscription commissions is exactly in the same boat - a very high value thing going for next to nothing. It should be web videos only, IMO.

If FT doesn't get any/much video content, they'll have to rethink their decision. Unfortunately, past experience suggests that there will always be someone willing to sell for a very low commission; let's hope the majority of contributors don't.

« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2009, 12:52 »
0
ok, quick question from someone who admittedly has no idea, why is video different to say illustration...

I don't think it is. When I was independent, I didn't upload my vector illustrations anywhere but iStock because for a complex vector (not the simple ones or icon sets) I thought the pricing wasn't right. Many sites didn't make any distinction in price based on the complexity of the vector file. For a subs sale the pricing problem was even worse.

The other sites got large JPEGs of the vector image which I had no problem selling at subscription prices - buyer paid less but got less value too.

I think HD video for subscription commissions is exactly in the same boat - a very high value thing going for next to nothing. It should be web videos only, IMO.

If FT doesn't get any/much video content, they'll have to rethink their decision. Unfortunately, past experience suggests that there will always be someone willing to sell for a very low commission; let's hope the majority of contributors don't.

I've already emailed them asking them to remove my entire portfolio.  I also hope that the majority does not allow their HD/NTSC/PAL to go for such low prices.

« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2009, 13:21 »
0
OK, just read this post and deleted all my video files in the transfer queue. It seemed crazy enough that they only accepted images below 300MB, but now they finally show that they dont have a clue about the footage market.

Too bad, fotolia!

« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2009, 14:36 »
0
I just also started to delete my videos...pjuhhh...What are they thinking...
/lena

« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2009, 01:50 »
0
thanks for the response. I see the differences and similarities.  images banged out fast with little work or thought, no big deal, but others you think there is too much work here for micro :)

grp_photo

« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2009, 03:51 »
0
Fotolia just started with Video-Clips and are not an important moneymaker at all in this segment at the moment, because of this I can see for the first time that a boycott could be success-full.
 They really need your clips but you don't miss anything if you don't give it to them. Everyone who knows a producer of Video-clips should tell them about it and invite them to this boycott.
Would be great to see one success-full boycott at last in the Microstock-Business. And Fotolia though success-full is definitely one of the most contributor-unfriendly agencies they really  need to be set to their limits.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2009, 03:53 by grp_photo »

« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2009, 04:32 »
0
Fotolia just started with Video-Clips and are not an important moneymaker at all in this segment at the moment, because of this I can see for the first time that a boycott could be success-full.
 They really need your clips but you don't miss anything if you don't give it to them. Everyone who knows a producer of Video-clips should tell them about it and invite them to this boycott.
Would be great to see one success-full boycott at last in the Microstock-Business. And Fotolia though success-full is definitely one of the most contributor-unfriendly agencies they really  need to be set to their limits.
Agree 100%
I've deleted all my videos. I hesitate to delete my full size images and upload them downsized to 4-5MP. Only 5cts more for high resolution photo is no good deal.

« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2009, 05:25 »
0
ok, quick question from someone who admittedly has no idea, why is video different to say illustration which can take hours or photography which can also take hours for the right shot (not to mention almost $20000 now in gear, books, workshops etc) ?

(please take this as asking a question by someone who has no idea :), not as someone trying to start a fight :))

illustrations are different from videos in that way that as with photos, it is the content present with micro stock agencies for a really long time and illustrators didn't defend the price of their work when they had the opportunity, so subs agencies managed to depreciate it.

« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2009, 09:04 »
0
Okay...my 300+ videos are now off Fibtolia. They told me they couldn't just delete my videos, that they would need to delete my whole portfolio....so I said, then delete my whole portfolio.  Oddly enough, the mystical and mysterious deleting fairy managed to only delete the videos.  So, if they try and tell you that they cant just delete videos, let the support person know that yes they can.

Fibtolia videos online last night: 36,525
Videos online this morning: 36,221

Just when you thought numbers were supposed to go up LOL   ;D
« Last Edit: July 10, 2009, 09:08 by snaprender »

« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2009, 10:47 »
0
Fibtolia videos online last night: 36,525
Videos online this morning: 36,221

Sadly, now later in the day there is 36,579.  Apparantly everyone didn't read the newsletter.

« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2009, 10:53 »
0
Fibtolia videos online last night: 36,525
Videos online this morning: 36,221

Sadly, now later in the day there is 36,579.  Apparantly everyone didn't read the newsletter.

I know even though I am signed up for the news letter...I never got mine.  I actually found out from here (MSG), and there will always be the people who dont care...or think it is inevitable and decided they must go with the flow (I know one of these people and this is what I was told by him when I notified him about the premium subs and what they mean). :'( 

« Reply #21 on: July 11, 2009, 16:47 »
0
ok, quick question from someone who admittedly has no idea, why is video different to say illustration which can take hours or photography which can also take hours for the right shot (not to mention almost $20000 now in gear, books, workshops etc) ?

(please take this as asking a question by someone who has no idea :), not as someone trying to start a fight :))

Honest truth?  Photographers sold out and let stock sites rape them.  Since most footage people went through that, they know the signs and will hopefully be more pre-emptive in fighting sites that try this crap.

« Reply #22 on: July 11, 2009, 16:51 »
0
illustrations are different from videos in that way that as with photos, it is the content present with micro stock agencies for a really long time and illustrators didn't defend the price of their work when they had the opportunity, so subs agencies managed to depreciate it.

Exactly...  Photographers and Illustrators let the agencies control the pricing and while they constantly whine about it, money talks and they continue to allow the abuse.  Given that most people in the footage side of the business came from the photo side, they're not gonna let it happen so easily this time...

I just deleted my 144 clips from Fotolia.  Which saddens me because I just started getting sales there.

« Reply #23 on: July 11, 2009, 18:37 »
0
ok, quick question from someone who admittedly has no idea, why is video different to say illustration which can take hours or photography which can also take hours for the right shot (not to mention almost $20000 now in gear, books, workshops etc) ?

(please take this as asking a question by someone who has no idea :), not as someone trying to start a fight :))

Honest truth?  Photographers sold out and let stock sites rape them.  Since most footage people went through that, they know the signs and will hopefully be more pre-emptive in fighting sites that try this crap.

yep I think you nailed it.  they offered what was unfortunately lacking in the market, a way for average photogs to make some money and gain skills and knowledge.  oh well, at least we can keep discouraging people from the nanostock.

« Reply #24 on: July 12, 2009, 17:47 »
0
Hello, for for a year or 2 I sometimes info snack on this forum,  good info here.  I wasnt really compelled to participate till this issue occurred. Anyhow I am / was using the mentioned site but now will end all operations of  buying, selling and recommending this site to others to buy or sell.  This lowball game is frankly quite pathetic and an overly greedy treatment of the talents whom provide the content that make them what they are today. Hopefully talented people who value their craft and want to retain some value to their work will move away from this site.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
39 Replies
16606 Views
Last post July 13, 2009, 18:24
by Squat
6 Replies
4121 Views
Last post July 19, 2009, 09:34
by willie
34 Replies
11695 Views
Last post July 30, 2009, 20:47
by a.k.a.-tom
19 Replies
9638 Views
Last post September 10, 2009, 15:34
by NitorPhoto
84 Replies
15096 Views
Last post October 07, 2011, 07:32
by sam100

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results