MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: visionbedding.com  (Read 27055 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: July 23, 2011, 06:59 »
0
Just checked one of mine on there, it says includes a $5 license fee. As the extended license for that image would cost 100 credits it's pretty clear that they are not buying extended licenses.
I think this is really outrageous, I wonder just how many of these sites there and how much money Fotolia has been doing us out of with these shady agreements that side step the terms we signed up to?

Personally, I think there are a ton of sites doing this and I don't think it's limited to just Fotolia. I think it's the partner programs, period. There just isn't any policing or accountability. Look at the DT/Pixmac fiasco. These are just two examples that contributors found out about and acted upon. What about the hundreds of others?


Microbius

« Reply #51 on: July 23, 2011, 07:09 »
0
This is a particularly bad example, with Pixmac it was actually DT that took action when they found out their terms were being breached.
In this case it appears that Fotolia may actually have an agreement with these companies to defraud us out of earnings by agreeing to let them sidestep purchasing the correct licenses. Any response from Fotolia about this?

« Reply #52 on: July 25, 2011, 19:19 »
0
I've written to Fotolia Support with just one question:  "Do sales on the visionbedding.com site of images sourced from Fotolia require an extended license?"   I hope they give a clear answer to this simple question! 

Fotolia's response is:  "The Visionbeding site is an api partner and does not require the extended license for their sales. Each and every sale generates commission for the artists in real time like normal sales. It is a great relationship for Fotolia."

That's pretty clear.

« Reply #53 on: July 25, 2011, 19:51 »
0
I've written to Fotolia Support with just one question:  "Do sales on the visionbedding.com site of images sourced from Fotolia require an extended license?"   I hope they give a clear answer to this simple question! 

Fotolia's response is:  "The Visionbeding site is an api partner and does not require the extended license for their sales. Each and every sale generates commission for the artists in real time like normal sales. It is a great relationship for Fotolia."

That's pretty clear.

-----------------------------


Given that FT's terms are "creation of derivative products (posters, t-shirts...) intended for resale " I'm thinking the loophole FT is arguing for is that VB itself never licenses the image.  Rather the customer who wants the image on a comforter or poster licenses the image and so long as the ultimate customer does resell the item, no EL is required.  VB's role is to provide a service to the customer after the image is licensed, putting the image onto some product for the customer's personal use.

I bet if you actually license something through this process, the contract states no resale of the finished product without an EL.   

« Reply #54 on: July 26, 2011, 05:41 »
0
So, any POD site can sign up as an API partner with Fotolia and all we get in commission rates is a 'normal' sale!! Is that not under valuing our work?

And why is it that other agencies state no POD sites can use our images, yet Fotolia gets round this by using such site/s as API partners. No matter how you look at it, even though Visionbedding is termed as an API partner it is still a POD site, nothing more, nothing less.

Is there any way to opt out of being included on API partner sites on Fotolia? Anyone know?

« Reply #55 on: July 26, 2011, 06:09 »
0
A good way to send a message to the agencies is to opt out of all partner programs. If the agency doesn't provide an opt-out, opt-out of the agency.

« Reply #56 on: July 26, 2011, 06:23 »
0
Hey, I've just had a brainwave. There's a printing company just up the road from me, I know the owner well. They print up T-shirts, posters etc etc.

All I need to do is have a word then set up a company and a POD website and become an API partner. I'm not limited to my own small selection of designs, I get everyone's images  ;D

Of course I'm being sarcastic here. But I could do it under FT's terms!!!

« Reply #57 on: July 26, 2011, 07:30 »
0
"Given that FT's terms are "creation of derivative products (posters, t-shirts...) intended for resale " I'm thinking the loophole FT is arguing for is that VB itself never licenses the image.  Rather the customer who wants the image on a comforter or poster licenses the image and so long as the ultimate customer does resell the item, no EL is required.  VB's role is to provide a service to the customer after the image is licensed, putting the image onto some product for the customer's personal use. "

Yes, this is how it works.  There are some businesses doing this with IS - I remember discussing this sort of thing - it might come up in a power search.  It has nothing to do with the API.

Microbius

« Reply #58 on: July 26, 2011, 08:59 »
0
I've written to Fotolia Support with just one question:  "Do sales on the visionbedding.com site of images sourced from Fotolia require an extended license?"   I hope they give a clear answer to this simple question! 

Fotolia's response is:  "The Visionbeding site is an api partner and does not require the extended license for their sales. Each and every sale generates commission for the artists in real time like normal sales. It is a great relationship for Fotolia."

That's pretty clear.

Errr no it doesn't you slimy ******:
From visionbedding.com
"If buying multiple products with the same image, image license fee will be charged only once for the item with the highest priced license fee. All other image license fees will be deducted from your order total"

I'm starting to dislike Fotolia very, very much.
This whole thing seems really dishonest, I can't get over how they are going out of their way to sidestep the licensing rules they show us contributors.

« Reply #59 on: July 26, 2011, 10:02 »
0
From visionbedding.com
"If buying multiple products with the same image, image license fee will be charged only once for the item with the highest priced license fee. All other image license fees will be deducted from your order total"

I'm starting to dislike Fotolia very, very much.
This whole thing seems really dishonest, I can't get over how they are going out of their way to sidestep the licensing rules they show us contributors.

Crikey, it just gets better and better doesn't it!! Now we only get commission once for multiple god knows how many print runs on god knows how many products. That is just unbelievable!!!

With that statement on the VB site it doesn't seem like 'a great relationship for Fotolia' or for their contributors.

I too am beginning to dislike Fotolia. I might just cancel my account with them. If they can treat us like this, then what else can they do to us, sidestep all their licensing rules? Are they doing so badly that they have to revert to dishonesty in order to keep going or what!!!

As some of my sales commissions have gone right down to 19cents an image I am thinking to myself is it really worth staying with them. That is the lowest commission rate I'm getting on any of the sites I upload to, and then to find all this out, well it just beats me!!!

« Reply #60 on: July 26, 2011, 10:06 »
0
Here is one of the old IS threads.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=46759&page=1

Now that I think about it, the recent one I remember is that the site licenses the images to offer them for sale on items, and when the item actually sells, they buy the EL.  I think...

« Reply #61 on: July 26, 2011, 10:13 »
0
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that if I buy an image from Fotolia that I can use that image over and over again as long as I stay within the regular RF license terms.

So how is this any different if a buyer purchases the RF license and takes the image to a POD place and orders a shower curtain, a pillow and some oven mittens with the same image on there? I thought the buyer would be allowed to that.

Surely the POD place would never be the one holding the license and therefore cannot make any further prints from that image (for other customers).

In this case here Visionbedding apparently saves the buyers the hassle of having to buy the images themselves and then upload them to Visionbedding so they can print the products, like Sean already mentioned.

I almost certain that the response from Fotolia:
Quote
... Each and every sale generates commission for the artists in real time like normal sales. ...
was meant to be for every license of one client of Visionbedding. Why would a VB customer have to obey different licensing terms than buying the image him/herself straight from Fotolia?

I'm not thrilled about the way this works but this is the (almost) same scenario like when iStock started pulling cr@p last year and everyone was screaming to leave IS. I cannot afford to leave them.

For anyone who "can" leave Fotolia, more power to you.

Other question would be: Who would still order those items if VB or any other affiliate would have to charge $100 on top of their products and services for an EL?

In the end I'd rather take the couple of $$$ than nothing at all. This is microstock after all and at least VB is not our main source of income...
« Last Edit: July 26, 2011, 10:18 by click_click »

RacePhoto

« Reply #62 on: July 26, 2011, 12:44 »
0
A good way to send a message to the agencies is to opt out of all partner programs. If the agency doesn't provide an opt-out, opt-out of the agency.

Just like my comment that offended some people, "don't like the agency, get out..." I followed your advise and wasn't going to be a hypocrite.

Didn't like the way DT and FT were handling things, I dropped both of them.

I doubt if they care, but I do, and this licensing flaw, recent history of missing commissions, cached images, strange partner programs, plus the attitude of these two sites, was enough for me to say, I don't need them.

« Reply #63 on: July 26, 2011, 15:38 »
0
It is a very comfortable, no-risk solution for the POD companies. Not a single cent invested in images, just a single license paid if/when they sell anything - and a hope that they don't save the image for further use.

« Reply #64 on: July 26, 2011, 16:38 »
0
snip...Why would a VB customer have to obey different licensing terms than buying the image him/herself straight from Fotolia?

What you say makes a lot of sense. 

Microbius

« Reply #65 on: July 27, 2011, 02:19 »
0
snip...Why would a VB customer have to obey different licensing terms than buying the image him/herself straight from Fotolia?

What you say makes a lot of sense.  

Because they are not licensing the image from Fotolia, they are buying a product with the image printed on it (a derivative product) and the  printer/ seller of these products should have licensed the image for this use.
Pretending that the final purchaser of the product is licensing the image from Fotolia is farcical and just a way for the two companies involved to fleece the contributors.
How can the person who buys the product be buying a license direct from Fotolia when they have never heard of Fotolia or been on the Fotolia website?

Also has anyone else noticed that there's not even a copyright notice on the images on the bedding site? Isn't that part of the agreement when you license an image? Even the watermark isn't the Fotolia one, I guess just to make sure the buyer of the products doesn't get to know who it is they are apparently directly buying the license from!!  no wait!!! the bedding company hasn't licensed the images have they, so do they need to credit copyright for all the images they are using, and by the way only describe as our (ie. visionbedding's) designs? Or are they just displaying a load of uncredited unlicensed images on their site?

It all stinks to high heaven.


ETA, after rereading my last point may have been lost in the ranting way I presented it so here's the question more succinctly:

Can visionbedding display our images on their site without any sort of copyright notice to us or even to Fotolia? (bearing in mind that they have not licensed these images)
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 03:05 by Microbius »

« Reply #66 on: July 27, 2011, 04:45 »
0
Yep, VB's own statement:

"Unlike many online retailers, we are selling our own products we created and take great pride in the quality and your satisfaction."

« Reply #67 on: July 27, 2011, 08:34 »
0
... Because they are not licensing the image from Fotolia, they are buying a product with the image printed on it (a derivative product) and the  printer/ seller of these products should have licensed the image for this use....

I totally agree that this is a very thin line of how licenses are being issued. However, VB is "offering" the service for the buyer to take over the part of selecting which of our images are pretty enough to be printed on their products. VB offers to handle the license purchase, which the VB customers don't even understand or know of - why should they. The VB customers want a nice, cozy pillow with a sunset on it, nothing else. They don't want to deal with Fotolia nor do they need to know what else they could do with the regular license they somewhat have purchased. Technically, VB should hand the file to the VB customer after printing and say to the customer: "Hey, btw you paid for this as well, here you have it."

This is the same as if a buyer licenses the image at Fotolia under a standard RF license and uses it to print a large poster for their living room. They are perfectly allowed to do that. Show me the section in the RF license terms that the buyer cannot print our images for personal use? The buyer is not reselling products nor is VB (according to their contract with Fotolia!!!). VB only creates what the customer wants on their product.

Of course it gets fishy if a customer orders 500 pillows, 25 posters of the same image. This should be regulated!

Quote
...How can the person who buys the product be buying a license direct from Fotolia when they have never heard of Fotolia or been on the Fotolia website?

But this is the exact point of Fotolia to expand their business! To reach people who don't even know Fotolia. To make money off of people who never heard of Fotolia. Take the work off of those people's shoulders and let someone else do the service for them. Now we can make money off of people who don't even know they purchased a license from Fotolia. Kind of sick, but technically good for us.

Quote
... Also has anyone else noticed that there's not even a copyright notice on the images on the bedding site?...

That is not cool! Credits should be given absolutely! VB can do their business perfectly professional by still crediting us for the images.

Yep, VB's own statement:

"Unlike many online retailers, we are selling our own products we created and take great pride in the quality and your satisfaction."

To me that sounds the same like any other printing place like Shutterfly, Blurb, Zazzle etc. None of those companies own the images yet they claim the products they produce are of the highest quality. I'm quite sure they are speaking of high quality materials and printing processes rather than "We make the pictures".

The credit line underneath the images would help to clarify that, no doubt.

I want to be credited, absolutely but also I think that the agencies have to stay creative in how they distribute our stuff. I mean how many re-sellers like Pixmac can you have? And is it really worth having affiliates that do the exact same thing FT is already doing (licensing images and nothing more)?

VB amongst others is offering printed products that FT does NOT offer. That's a new distribution channel.

Remember we're discussing in this forums ways how to make more money out of our images like Zazzle, Cafepress etc.? Well FT is doing it and now we're pissing on their bonfire?

I'm a Zazzle proseller and all my single sales are in the range of microstock sales. When an iphone case is ordered I get $10 or $12, that's the same I get for a high res sale at Clipdealer. Other than that the sales are like DT or FT credit sales for larger images and I'm selling products MYSELF (sure with the help of Zazzle but I doubt that any of us can manufacture the amount of Zazzle products at home...).

Having to purchase an EL will break VB's business. The products would be too expensive, no one will buy them or people would just look for images on Google, download them and take them to the printer themselves - if a buyer would even go through so much trouble. What's better now?
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 08:36 by click_click »

Microbius

« Reply #68 on: July 27, 2011, 09:33 »
0
Yep, VB's own statement:

"Unlike many online retailers, we are selling our own products we created and take great pride in the quality and your satisfaction."


To me that sounds the same like any other printing place like Shutterfly, Blurb, Zazzle etc. None of those companies own the images yet they claim the products they produce are of the highest quality. I'm quite sure they are speaking of high quality materials and printing processes rather than "We make the pictures".

The credit line underneath the images would help to clarify that, no doubt.


Actually not in this case as elsewhere they specifically say "our designs"

http://www.visionbedding.com/visionproducts.php

I understand the rest of your points, I just happen to think the thin line has been drawn in the wrong place in this instance.

« Reply #69 on: July 27, 2011, 09:40 »
0
Actually not in this case as elsewhere they specifically say "our designs"

http://www.visionbedding.com/visionproducts.php

I understand the rest of your points, I just happen to think the thin line has been drawn in the wrong place in this instance.


You are absolutely correct! This is not right!

I think we should write both VB and FT about this issue.


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors