MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: visionbedding.com  (Read 21987 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 19, 2011, 17:17 »
0
Thought I'd post over here as there are a lot of photos and illustrations on this site and we can't seem to figure out who or what this site is and what place they got all these images from.  I recognize a lot of peoples works on there.

If anyone can shed a light it would help.  I tried to do some digging to find out who the site was actually owned by but came up with squat.

visionbedding.com


« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2011, 17:44 »
0
Thanks for posting, Anita. I browsed through a couple of categories, but didn't see any of mine. But like you, I did notice a couple that I have purchased in the past (from stock agencies with proper license) for projects.

I also noticed one that I think belongs to lisafx. I took a screenshot with the URL so she can find it, if she wants. I think the western guy in red is Lisa's model. If not, so sorry.


« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2011, 17:51 »
0
The image IDs match to Fotolia image numbers so I assume it's a Fotolia affiliate.

« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2011, 17:54 »
0
The image IDs match to Fotolia image numbers so I assume it's a Fotolia affiliate.

Perhaps, but they are selling those images on Print-on-Demand products. Does FT have a license for that? If so, then there might not be an issue.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2011, 18:02 »
0
From Fotolia "Sizes and uses":

Creation of derivative products (posters, t-shirts...) intended for resale is allowed but requires an extended licence

http://en.fotolia.com/Info/SizesAndUses
« Last Edit: July 19, 2011, 18:06 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2011, 18:03 »
0
The image IDs match to Fotolia image numbers so I assume it's a Fotolia affiliate.

Perhaps, but they are selling those images on Print-on-Demand products. Does FT have a license for that? If so, then there might not be an issue.

As always in situations like this, Fotolia will claim that in case of an order the file will be purchased as EL (I assume)...

« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2011, 18:31 »
0
From Fotolia "Sizes and uses":

Creation of derivative products (posters, t-shirts...) intended for resale is allowed but requires an extended licence

http://en.fotolia.com/Info/SizesAndUses


Well, one of images is on this site, and it has comments underneath its main ordering page from customers who have purchased the product with my design on, and I have never received an extended licence commission rate for it. Not from FT or any other agency.

« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2011, 18:55 »
0
If you go to create a product it states that price includes licensing fee, but the licensing fees I saw were only 5 or 10 dollars.

« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2011, 19:21 »
0
If you go to create a product it states that price includes licensing fee, but the licensing fees I saw were only 5 or 10 dollars.

Yeah I noticed that too.

One of the customers who bought a product with my image on who left the comment stated he needed it and got it before April. I never received my measly $8 dollars EL commission. Should I contact FT and ask them why I have never received any EL's for this image, and point them to the page with the comment on?

There is also a comment from another customer who says they received it, so that's twice it's been sold that I know of and still no EL commission.

I'm now editing all of my images on FT one by one unchecking the Extended License box. Tedious job, but I don't want any of my images going to a POD site, especially not for a measly 8 dollars!!!! And which I'm not receiving!!!!

« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2011, 19:52 »
0
You can ask FT to turn off all your EL's for you. They're pretty good about doing that.

« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2011, 19:58 »
0
You can ask FT to turn off all your EL's for you. They're pretty good about doing that.

Really, I think I'll do that then, with an explanation as to why I want them all taken off.

If I point out that I've never received my EL commission rate for products sold with my image then they might just look into that eh?!?!

Yeah, good idea  ;D

« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2011, 20:26 »
0
Without digging to deep I found 12 of mine over there, don't know if any sold or not and I defiantly have never got an EL through Fotolia.

-Don

« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2011, 20:43 »
0
I've just written to FT about this. I asked them to opt out all my images from the Extended License contract and gave them the reason why.

I have given them the url of the site where my image is up for sale as a poster, and which has obviously been sold at least twice  according to the comments from customers on there.

I have also told them that there are many other contributors from FT whose images are on that site who have not received any ELs as well. I know this because we have been discussing it on the SS in-house forum.

FT may or may not know about this company, if they don't then they might just look into the site to see what is going on.

I will report back if FT responds to me regarding this POD site.

« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2011, 20:55 »
0
I think I recall a discussion several years ago regarding an arrangement of this sort.

 The deal was that they don't buy an EL but each time they sell a print they buy a license just for the size needed for that print. There was some discussion about whether this was right from a contributor's point of view and I think the agency argument was that if the buyer purchased a license they'd be entitled to make themselves a print of what they licensed to hang on their wall. The only difference here was that the print seller was doing the purchase on the clients behalf. The thing that's so hard to police is whether they really are buying a new license for each print.

« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2011, 21:08 »
0
Exactly jsnover.

I built a website for someone who could not pay me for the work all in one go. The arrangement was that I would get a commission on each booking that came in. At first it worked ok then it soon fizzled out and I never did get the full amount for building that site.

You cannot trust companies to be honest. There is no transparency for something like this. As you say, no policing, it is not possible to police.

« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2011, 10:38 »
0
Just got my reply from FT:

"I have set your images to sell only under the Standard license. Changes will reflect in the next few minutes.

Kind regards,

Fotolia Team U.K."

No mention from them of the POD site at all, to say they knew about them, or they were looking into them, nothing. Just the above statement.  Well what did I expect from FT lol.

« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2011, 20:41 »
0
I found several of my images on this site, in just two minutes of digging.  Curiously, two different images have identical comments posted by the same customers. ??? What's going on there?

« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2011, 21:39 »
0
...One of the customers who bought a product with my image on who left the comment stated he needed it and got it before April....

I got the identical comment on two of my images that I've looked at so far.  So I wouldn't assume that there was necessarily any sale at all!

I've written to visionbedding asking a few questions.  BTW, the image I asked about has a different ID # on their site compared to its Fotolia #, so I'm not assuming that they sourced it from Fotolia.

« Reply #18 on: July 20, 2011, 22:15 »
0
I do wonder how many bogus testimonials from fake buyers a site like that might seed itself with to look more legit. (they may well be perfectly legit, sort of like a busker throwing a few bills into the hat to prime the pump so to speak.

It would be funny if they had to admit that to avoid paying royalties though.

I saw a too good to be true price listed for a camera and looked at the reseller ratings page for the place and about 1/2 the comments were from people who got the classic NY camera rip off bait and switch and the other half were gushing praise - so I assume they are from the site owners trying to boost the ratings.

« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2011, 22:50 »
0
One thing in Visionbedding's favour is that they responded immediately to my questions.  This is what they said:

"We completely understand your questions and concerns.

First, Im not sure that image you are referencing has sold at all - I think you may be confusing the reviews - those reviews are by product type for example on this page http://www.visionbedding.com/rainforest-river-panorama-custom-size-suede-fabric-p-2429853.html
- the reviews are for the "fabric" product type (not the particular image) so those reviews you are seeing are customers who have purchased that kind of fabric not that particular image.

We have full rights to all the images you see on the website as we have an agreement with a stock gallery which is where you must have uploaded your images to. You will be paid each time an image sells according to the agreement - some of the images on the website sell regularly and some never - depends on the image as there are more than 10 million.  You will be paid each time that image is used so many artists are paid regularly over and over for the same image - it just depends on how popular that image is.  The fee is transferred directly as the two systems are connected so you will be paid for each sale individually.  We can not download the large image file until the stock gallery has been paid first.  If you do not show any fees paid in your account then that image has not sold yet.  When you do sell an image it will tell you who that image was sold to as well.

I hope that answers your questions...
"

I've replied to ask them a second time which specific stock site they sourced the particular image from, and to confirm whether or not it has sold at all.

« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2011, 08:17 »
0
You will be paid each time an image sells according to the agreement - some of the images on the website sell regularly and some never - depends on the image as there are more than 10 million.  You will be paid each time that image is used so many artists are paid regularly over and over for the same image - it just depends on how popular that image is.  The fee is transferred directly as the two systems are connected so you will be paid for each sale individually.  We can not download the large image file until the stock gallery has been paid first.  If you do not show any fees paid in your account then that image has not sold yet.  When you do sell an image it will tell you who that image was sold to as well.

According to FT's licensing agreement for POD sites shouldn't an EL license be purchased by this company for an image to be printed? Yet they say each time an image sells the contributor will get paid, but an EL license per image sold would cost this company more than the license fee they have included with each product ($5 or $10). So, it sounds like you just get a regular sale and not an EL sale.

I have now opted out of the EL licenses at FT as I don't want my imges on any POD sites, but if this company is only paying regular fees then my images will stay on this site, even though it is a POD site. Looks like I have no control over this except to delete all my images from FT  >:(

Microbius

« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2011, 08:22 »
0
Well as far as I can tell from the Fotolia terms the site would need an extended license for each sale. ETA Not so sure about this now, they may only need one extended license per image??
As it seems that the price of the items is some times lower than the cost of an extended license there is definitely something fishy here.

ETA:
I would like some questions cleared up by Fotolia regarding whether customers are permitted to use our work on Print On Demand sites.

Based on my interpretation of the guide to uses here:
http://en.fotolia.com/Info/SizesAndUses

"MEDIA AND USES.....
PRODUCTS........
Creation of derivative products (posters, t-shirts...) intended for resale (Extended licenses)"

I interpret this to mean that provided an extended license is purchased the customer can use the image for their own print on demand site.

However, it cannot mean the image can be sold by the customer on third party sites such as Zazzle or Cafe Press as the customer would have to misrepresent the ownership of the image copyright to abide by the third party sites terms or sub-license the image to Zazzle for printing, neither of which the customer has the right to do.

Fotolia need to be more explicit in their terms about this!!!
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 08:42 by Microbius »

« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2011, 15:00 »
0
Hmmm, interesting, I've just read a post on another forum where the contributor has NOT opted in to Extended Licenses and yet his/her images are on this Visionbedding POD site!!!

Rather disconcerting is all I can say   :-\

« Reply #23 on: July 21, 2011, 20:05 »
0
I think I recall a discussion several years ago regarding an arrangement of this sort.

 The deal was that they don't buy an EL but each time they sell a print they buy a license just for the size needed for that print. There was some discussion about whether this was right from a contributor's point of view and I think the agency argument was that if the buyer purchased a license they'd be entitled to make themselves a print of what they licensed to hang on their wall. The only difference here was that the print seller was doing the purchase on the clients behalf. The thing that's so hard to police is whether they really are buying a new license for each print.

This is exactly what I was thinking. It seems sort of like a loophole though.

Microbius

« Reply #24 on: July 22, 2011, 02:57 »
0
Shouldn't make a difference, they would still need an extended license rather than a standard one. Again the quote from the licence terms:

"PRODUCTS
Packaging creation
Advertising products creation
Creation of derivative products (posters, t-shirts...) intended for resale (Extended licenses)"

So the creation of derivative products would require an extended license irrespective of print run etc.
If Fotolia are allowing this sort of thing they are totally misinforming contributors about what they allow buyers to do with each license.

ETA just looked on the SS forum where it's being discussed, people are getting a bit sidetracked by whether a new standard license is being purchased for each download or not. The license terms clearly state that derivative products require an extended license. Even if they did purchase a standard license for each sale, that wouldn't cover the printing of the product. They would need an extended license. If they are claiming that they are not buying the licence but rather the final buyer of the product is, that's equally dodgy, as they do not own the copyright and cannot sublicense our work. It's all looking very mucky.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2011, 03:11 by Microbius »


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle