Hello everybody,

I've been approached by a manager from Freepik Company;

- We found your portfolio and we would like you to become a contributor in Freepik as well. This would be a non-exclusive agreement and we would pay you a fixed price for this content that will be offered for free to our users.

Did this already happened to anyone?  What are your thoughts?

Not a good idea to accept that offer... When people buy them free on their site, why they pay and purchase from other websites that you are contributing your files..

@Ambu I tend to feel the same as you, but Adobe Stock is doing the same thing with their free collection and contributors are diving into it.
Freepik wants hundreds of videos of mine on non-exclusive model for 7-8$ per video. It is tempting...

@zastavkin Some videos never get sold on other websites and some sells for pennies on SS, AS, etc....

I see your point. The problem is that the transaction is for an indefinite period of time.
So if Freepik were to offer the same commercial model as AS would you accept it?

Hello everybody,

I've been approached by a manager from Freepik Company;

- We found your portfolio and we would like you to become a contributor in Freepik as well. This would be a non-exclusive agreement and we would pay you a fixed price for this content that will be offered for free to our users.

Did this already happened to anyone?  What are your thoughts?

they approached me as well...i won't give to them any of my files...i don't want to lose sales on other agencies for few bucks...

I see this wrong logic from time to time in discussions. No, no one buyer will search for your image on other agency to buy it cheaper. Even if he want it's almost impossible to find it in the search straight away, as a whole this does not work. Selling in many agencies will only extend your income and competition between them and from there better commissions to the contributors. I'm in this business from 2007 and I'm full-time and I have experienced view on all this.

I see this wrong logic from time to time in discussions. No, no one buyer will search for your image on other agency to buy it cheaper. Even if he want it's almost impossible to find it in the search straight away, as a whole this does not work. Selling in many agencies will only extend your income and competition between them and from there better commissions to the contributors. I'm in this business from 2007 and I'm full-time and I have experienced view on all this.

I believe you are right and I see same way this issue. I do not go buy butter to other store because is cheaper, I buy where I am already shopping. buyer is always buyer. This days is no time for something like that. Especially for big businesses.

I see this wrong logic from time to time in discussions. No, no one buyer will search for your image on other agency to buy it cheaper. Even if he want it's almost impossible to find it in the search straight away, as a whole this does not work. Selling in many agencies will only extend your income and competition between them and from there better commissions to the contributors. I'm in this business from 2007 and I'm full-time and I have experienced view on all this.

this.

customers usually have one agency company plan. they don't have the time to click around everyhwere. they just want a file that fits their project and get out. their boss pays the plan, so the price is not their problem.

Many are talking about buyers, and saying that they don't have time to check all websites.

But the website mentioned is here wants to purchase them to offer them for free, and their subscription plans have unlimited number of files for less price.
What about thieves who download those free files, or subscribe them for less price to download all files and sell them on other websites?
We noticed many posts, even someone recently posted that half of his portfolio stolen and uploaded to Shutterstock by a thief.

Where those thieves getting those files? Do they pay and download for higher prices on some websites ? or they download for free or pay very less to download unlimited files from websites like these?

Thieves are a problem for stock agencies. Usually such accounts do not last long.

I see this wrong logic from time to time in discussions. No, no one buyer will search for your image on other agency to buy it cheaper. Even if he want it's almost impossible to find it in the search straight away, as a whole this does not work. Selling in many agencies will only extend your income and competition between them and from there better commissions to the contributors. I'm in this business from 2007 and I'm full-time and I have experienced view on all this.

I agree that individual buyers will generally not search to find a specific image at the cheapest price. However, it does not follow that it's fine to supply free and all-you-can-eat low price agencies.

Over time, and in general (i.e. not for any particular contributor) Unsplash, pexels, the various free sections at agencies are all eroding anyone's ability to make a decent living licensing stock. It used to be that free images were of obviously lower quality than paid ones, but that's no longer true. In looking at uses of an image featured in another thread here there were many hundreds and all the credits I saw were for Unsplash and pexels, not iStock (where it originated).

I've been licensing stock images since 2004 and about the only constants have been agency drives to increase their share of the buyer's money and contributors ignoring long-term harms for short-term cash. Often the excuses of the form "it's all going to hades anyway, so might as well make a little money before it does" or "if I don't someone else will and then I'll lose out on both short and long term"

We are too diverse a group with too many divergent points of view (and many contributors who don't do the math often enough to see what's in their interest and what isn't) to balance out the agencies' power and self interest.

And Freepik's history is deeply unsavory. I wouldn't trust them further than I could throw them. And I'm not all that good at throwing

Quote from: Deyan Georgiev Photography on February 16, 2024, 07:56

I see this wrong logic from time to time in discussions. No, no one buyer will search for your image on other agency to buy it cheaper. Even if he want it's almost impossible to find it in the search straight away, as a whole this does not work. Selling in many agencies will only extend your income and competition between them and from there better commissions to the contributors. I'm in this business from 2007 and I'm full-time and I have experienced view on all this.

I agree that individual buyers will generally not search to find a specific image at the cheapest price. However, it does not follow that it's fine to supply free and all-you-can-eat low price agencies.

Over time, and in general (i.e. not for any particular contributor) Unsplash, pexels, the various free sections at agencies are all eroding anyone's ability to make a decent living licensing stock. It used to be that free images were of obviously lower quality than paid ones, but that's no longer true. In looking at uses of an image featured in another thread here there were many hundreds and all the credits I saw were for Unsplash and pexels, not iStock (where it originated).

I've been licensing stock images since 2004 and about the only constants have been agency drives to increase their share of the buyer's money and contributors ignoring long-term harms for short-term cash. Often the excuses of the form "it's all going to hades anyway, so might as well make a little money before it does" or "if I don't someone else will and then I'll lose out on both short and long term"

We are too diverse a group with too many divergent points of view (and many contributors who don't do the math often enough to see what's in their interest and what isn't) to balance out the agencies' power and self interest.

And Freepik's history is deeply unsavory. I wouldn't trust them further than I could throw them. And I'm not all that good at throwing

I only point on the fact that is not profitable to reject license posabilities. Not about free images, of course I'll never support this option.