MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Image Sleuth => Topic started by: Anita Potter on July 19, 2011, 17:17
-
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 (http://visionbedding.com)
-
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.
(http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x70/cclapper/lisafxImage.png)
-
The image IDs match to Fotolia image numbers so I assume it's a Fotolia affiliate.
-
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.
-
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 (http://en.fotolia.com/Info/SizesAndUses)
-
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)...
-
From Fotolia "Sizes and uses":
Creation of derivative products (posters, t-shirts...) intended for resale is allowed but requires an extended licence
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/Info/SizesAndUses[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/Info/SizesAndUses[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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!!!!
-
You can ask FT to turn off all your EL's for you. They're pretty good about doing that.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
...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.
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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 >:(
-
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 (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!!!
-
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 :-\
-
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.
-
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.
-
Should this thread (or some of it) be re titled and moved to the Fotolia section? Seems the topic if now far wider and more important than the one bedding company.
-
I found my images too , including the most recent ones - no copyright or any reference to the image owner , seemingly bogus ratings and comments ???. It looks more like a scam than a partner site .
-
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.
Exactly, which is why I opted out of the Extended License contract for all my images a few days ago, thinking that POD sites such as Visionbedding would need to purchase an EL for the print on demand product, now only to realize that my images could still remain on that POD site, and any other POD sites that may come along in the future.
So, if we don't want our images on POD sites the only thing we can do is not upload them to Fotolia. Seems the only option now.
When I was checking through Deposit Photos' licensing terms I couldn't find anything about POD sites, so I contacted them to ask them what their policy was and their reply was 'No, definitely not, they do not allow images to be used on POD sites, even with an EL license'.
So, how come Fotolia as one of the big 4 agencies does allow it, when others are adamant not to allow it, and it seems like this particular company Visionbedding is not even purchasing an EL for the images.
-
I found my images too , including the most recent ones - no copyright or any reference to the image owner , seemingly bogus ratings and comments ???. It looks more like a scam than a partner site .
I don't think it is a scam. The seemingly bogus ratings and comments are probably just a marketing ploy hyping up the products. I do think it is a legitimate company trying to make a go of the business, but that's not the point here. The point is that this is a POD site which does not appear to be using the correct license for our images via Fotolia. Not only that, why is Fotolia allowing POD sites to use our images when others clearly do not allow it, as said in my previous post.
Plus it is becoming apparently clearer now that we are unable to opt out of having our images displayed on this (and possibly others) POD site.
Yep, I think you're right too about no reference to the copyright owner. Is it not a policy of Fotolia that the name of the copyright owner of the image/s should be displayed clearly alongside the image on the site. Good point there. On one of Visionbedding's pages they have the following statement:
"Unlike many online retailers, we are selling our own products we created and take great pride in the quality and your satisfaction."
It's the 'we created' part that got to me, that implies to me that they created the designs as well as the product!!!
-
Has anyone confronted Fotolia directly about this, on the forum or by email?
-
I haven't had a response from visionbedding yet re which particular stock site they sourced my example image from. As I said earlier, the visionbedding image number does not match the Fotolia ID number for the image I queried. Do we know for sure that Fotolia actually is the source agency? ???
-
The number in the image url for the ones I checked DO match up.
Right click the image and copy the image URL, you get this:
http://www.visionbedding.com/cached_images/small/VB_Small_1906660_MG8jxKiaSLD5pCDa7LMsldVOldsFcz.jpg (http://www.visionbedding.com/cached_images/small/VB_Small_1906660_MG8jxKiaSLD5pCDa7LMsldVOldsFcz.jpg)
The number in the middle is 1906660
Stick that in Google image search and you get:
http://www.fotolia.com/id/1906660 (http://www.fotolia.com/id/1906660)
And so on. Ties in for all the ones I checked.
-
And here's a line from their css style sheet "category.css"
.fotolia_image { text-align: center; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 450px; height: 300px; display:inline }
-
The number in the image url for the ones I checked DO match up.
Right click the image and copy the image URL, you get this:
[url]http://www.visionbedding.com/cached_images/small/VB_Small_1906660_MG8jxKiaSLD5pCDa7LMsldVOldsFcz.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.visionbedding.com/cached_images/small/VB_Small_1906660_MG8jxKiaSLD5pCDa7LMsldVOldsFcz.jpg[/url])
The number in the middle is 1906660
Stick that in Google image search and you get:
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/id/1906660[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/id/1906660[/url])
And so on. Ties in for all the ones I checked.
You're absolutely right - I checked some other images of mine, and the id's do tie in to Fotolia. Thanks for the tips on how best to check! :)
-
No problem. I really want to post about this on the Fotolia forum, but as I'm anonymous here I'm worried that I'm going to give my ID away by starting a thread over there now!
Could someone post a link if they spot a thread started on their forum?
-
Has anyone confronted Fotolia directly about this, on the forum or by email?
Not particularly confronted them, but I gave them my reason for wanting to opt out of the Extended License option. I also gave them the url of the Visionbedding website basically telling them that I did not want my images on this or any other POD site.
The only reply I got from them was that they had reset my options re the Extended License. Nothing more, I think I posted my reply earlier in this thread.
-
Thanks toots, I saw that. Was just hoping to get some feedback on their official line on this and on POD sites in general.
Maybe someone will stop in here and let us know if this is okay with them or not (?)
-
Should this thread (or some of it) be re titled and moved to the Fotolia section? Seems the topic if now far wider and more important than the one bedding company.
I'm not sure if it can be moved, but I know the person who started it and will ask them to see if they are able to retitle it and move it to the Fotolia forum.
-
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.
I guess they really like to treat us like mushrooms - feed us crap and keep us in the dark
-
Should this thread (or some of it) be re titled and moved to the Fotolia section? Seems the topic if now far wider and more important than the one bedding company.
I'm not sure if it can be moved, but I know the person who started it and will ask them to see if they are able to retitle it and move it to the Fotolia forum.
In that comment I meant the Fotolia section of MSG as the subject has broadened out now. A lot of people may ignore it thinking that it's just about the one bedding site, but really it has become about the whole way Fotolia licenses images. The comment was really meant for Tyler to see if he thought maybe it should be in that section. Or I guess we could just start a new thread with a more general title.
-
Should this thread (or some of it) be re titled and moved to the Fotolia section? Seems the topic if now far wider and more important than the one bedding company.
I'm not sure if it can be moved, but I know the person who started it and will ask them to see if they are able to retitle it and move it to the Fotolia forum.
In that comment I meant the Fotolia section of MSG as the subject has broadened out now. A lot of people may ignore it thinking that it's just about the one bedding site, but really it has become about the whole way Fotolia licenses images. The comment was really meant for Tyler to see if he thought maybe it should be in that section. Or I guess we could just start a new thread with a more general title.
Haha, yeah I did realize what you meant about moving it to the Fotolia section on here, not to Fotolia's site forum itself lol.
We could start a new thread, but a lot has been said in this one, so it would be ideal if the whole thread could be moved rather than starting a whole new one.
How would you go about requesting it be moved. I have by the way contacted the person who started this thread via a private message on another forum. Depends when that person reads it.
-
Leaf will be reading it soon so I guess he'll decide if it's a good idea or not! I guess Anita will have to agree to as she's the OP
-
Leaf will be reading it soon so I guess he'll decide if it's a good idea or not! I guess Anita will have to agree to as she's the OP
Right, Anita won't mind, I'm pretty sure of that.
-
Yeah I don't mind at all now that we sort of know whats going on and where it's from. So Leaf pretty please move this to the appropriate forum.
-
I asked visionbedding to confirm whether or not a particular image had sold through them. This is their response: "sure - log into your fotolia account and it will tell you there". I've responded to say that Fotolia does not tell contributors who has bought our images (although they used to do so), and asked them to check their records and tell me about this particular image. ::)
-
I'm now wondering if we should ask Visionbedding if they are purchasing an Extended license for the images when they are printed on their products.
We may get a better answer from them than if we asked Fotolia.
I may do that tomorrow, it's late here now, will do it when I'm not so tired.
-
I asked visionbedding to confirm whether or not a particular image had sold through them. This is their response: "sure - log into your fotolia account and it will tell you there". I've responded to say that Fotolia does not tell contributors who has bought our images (although they used to do so), and asked them to check their records and tell me about this particular image. ::)
Oh dear, I hope you haven't given them any ideas! ;D
-
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?
-
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!
-
I'm an FT total exclusive and if I do an advanced search for an image of mine which can only be offered through Fotolia, I came up with the following offer on one of my images: $26.44 for a 16" x 16" poster including $14.00 image license.
The image # given by VB is the same as the FT# of the image. The license fee is the price of an 'L' license for this image. This image does have an extended license option which I haven't modified to take account of my status but it remains $20 for the EL..................soooooooooo, they are not charging the EL price and only the 'L' price which, in this particular example, is the maximum size.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!!!
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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!!!
-
Here is one of the old IS threads.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=46759&page=1 (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...
-
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:
... 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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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."
-
... 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!
...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.
... 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?
-
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 (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.
-
Actually not in this case as elsewhere they specifically say "our designs"
[url]http://www.visionbedding.com/visionproducts.php[/url] ([url]http://www.visionbedding.com/visionproducts.php[/url])
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.