It only says "old credits". I was under the impression that these "old credits" don't even exist anymore or at least expired.

All I know are credits from 2008, 2007, 2006 and "old".

So this image went over the table for 3 "old credits" although a current customer pays 10 credits.
That's a far stretch IMHO.

I don't understand your sale.

But I have it beat. Looks at these two:

2 credits (old)  $0.43     maximum     
1 credit (old)     $0.20     maximum

$0.63 total for the two of 'em! 

This brings up a good question. How long should a credit be good for? Perhaps every couple years these old credits would be converted to new ones of lesser value to the customer. Ones that are more in line with current pricing.

Hopefully there are very few of these old credits remaining, but I agree. There should be a reasonable time limit (2 years? 3 years?).

So there really was a time when you could buy a maximum size image for a single credit on DT?

Picture is in The Financial Times but NO EL?




One of my pictures was is the Financial Times  at last weekend.
This picture in on several stock agencies and it was downloaded couple of times
at Dreamstime (subscription 0.35$) and couple of regular download on Sutterstock (0.33$).

I would like to ask you. Should I count on the money of EL or somehow (special contract with the customer) or the 0.30$ (-ish) what I can get for the picture which is in paper?

Thanks for Your help

Quote from: KB on December 10, 2009, 19:54
Hopefully there are very few of these old credits remaining, but I agree. There should be a reasonable time limit (2 years? 3 years?).

So there really was a time when you could buy a maximum size image for a single credit on DT?

There was an explanation on their forum about the credit prices.  Seems the date ... 2008, etc.  is not really a factor?  I don't have a link to the explanation.  Maybe a search would find it?
My RPD is dropping constantly.  A most recent $1.04 credit sale may be just enough to keep the RPD above a dollar.  Really sad that not only RPD has dropped ... sales are not so hot either.   

Quote from: fazon1 on December 11, 2009, 11:54
Picture is in The Financial Times but NO EL?




One of my pictures was is the Financial Times  at last weekend.
This picture in on several stock agencies and it was downloaded couple of times
at Dreamstime (subscription 0.35$) and couple of regular download on Sutterstock (0.33$).

I would like to ask you. Should I count on the money of EL or somehow (special contract with the customer) or the 0.30$ (-ish) what I can get for the picture which is in paper?

Thanks for Your help

It depends on which agency they bought it from, and what the circulation is of the FT edition that it appeared in (congratulations, by the way!).

SS allows up to 250,000 reproductions; DT up to 500,000.

One of the downsides of being independent; we can't know which agency our image was purchased from, unless it's named as part of the photographer's credit line.

According to wikipedia, FT's circulation runs from 75,000 for the UK edition up to 430K for the international edition.

Basically, I'd say you're out of luck pursuing an EL, as they very well may not have needed one.

Quote from: KB on December 11, 2009, 18:38
One of the downsides of being independent; we can't know which agency our image was purchased from, unless it's named as part of the photographer's credit line.

Don't all (most) agencies require credit to agency and photographer when used for editorial purpose?  Unless in the present case it was advertisement, shouldn't a credit be given.

Quote from: KB on December 10, 2009, 01:42
I don't understand your sale.

But I have it beat. Looks at these two:

2 credits (old)  $0.43     maximum     
1 credit (old)     $0.20     maximum

$0.63 total for the two of 'em! 

Great to see someone else raking it in with microstock sales.  One more sale like that and you might have made a dollar.

Quote from: madelaide on December 11, 2009, 20:44

Quote from: KB on December 11, 2009, 18:38
One of the downsides of being independent; we can't know which agency our image was purchased from, unless it's named as part of the photographer's credit line.

Don't all (most) agencies require credit to agency and photographer when used for editorial purpose?  Unless in the present case it was advertisement, shouldn't a credit be given.

Some do, some do not. DT does, but as far as I could tell, SS does not.

In which case, if this was used editorially, perhaps it was purchased from SS (either that or FT didn't provide a credit line when they were supposed to).