MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: New stock agency - FAA / Pixels.com  (Read 20174 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #225 on: April 22, 2014, 14:54 »
0
 ;D
« Last Edit: May 23, 2015, 21:50 by DF_Studios »


Ron

« Reply #226 on: April 22, 2014, 15:32 »
0
FAA is currently promoting its new licensing gimmick with a "tweet" contest.  Surely there has to be a more effective way to reach the target audience of professional image buyers.  Seems like a cheap-o way to do a promotion ($75 to the winner).

Can't they afford ads in the trade magazines?
Thats what they do, they send out a site mail, get their 175k contributors to Tweet like the wind, pay 75 dollar and get 200xfold worth of advertising in return. No wonder the guy made millions on his own. He is a business genius.

« Reply #227 on: April 22, 2014, 17:04 »
+3
 >:(
« Last Edit: May 23, 2015, 21:50 by DF_Studios »

Ron

« Reply #228 on: April 22, 2014, 17:10 »
0
Well one way or another he made millions, and only has to pay a staff of 2.

ShadySue

« Reply #229 on: April 22, 2014, 17:15 »
0
Well one way or another he made millions, and only has to pay a staff of 2.

Millions in profit?

« Reply #230 on: April 24, 2014, 13:50 »
+2
Got a big old email about their purchase of the domain pixels.com .

"3.   Pixels.com is an amazing domain name!   In our opinion, it's the best domain name on the internet for anyone involved in the visual arts.   The word "pixel" is pronounced (and spelled) almost exactly the same in every language on the planet.   We're in the business of creating print-on-demand products from digital pixels... Pixels.com is the perfect name."

Frankly, I think 'pixels' is a very late 90's kind of name.  I mean. It was cool when Pixar was named or Million Dollar Homepage sold pixels.  Art buyers don't know what a 'pixel' is.

« Reply #231 on: May 01, 2014, 00:28 »
0
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/tango-in-paris-erik-brede.html

Someone who is probably not Konrad Bak is licensing[ ETA: for commercial stock] an image using one of Bak's most popular stock photos.

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-beautiful-young-lady-image16542488

People here should probably look for their images at Pixels.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 01:22 by Ava Glass »

Ron

« Reply #232 on: May 01, 2014, 00:50 »
-1
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/tango-in-paris-erik-brede.html

Someone who is probably not Konrad Bak is licensing an image using one of Bak's most popular stock photos.

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-beautiful-young-lady-image16542488

People here should probably look for their images at Pixels.
If they bought it on FT its probably allowed.

« Reply #233 on: May 01, 2014, 01:06 »
0
My head tilted a full ninety degrees, and I went to look at FT's EL agreement. Then I realized you were probably joking.

Ron

« Reply #234 on: May 01, 2014, 01:13 »
0
My head tilted a full ninety degrees, and I went to look at FT's EL agreement. Then I realized you were probably joking.
Not joking. FT allows for POD.

Quote
If the image is to be integrated into a derivative item or items for resale such as postcards, posters, or website templates - buy an Extended RF License.

Quote
Print on demand services*   -   Unlimited

« Reply #235 on: May 01, 2014, 01:21 »
0
But I wasn't talking about the PoD part of FAA/Pixels. There are a few EL's that allow for PoD.

I was talking about the commercial licensing.

Ron

« Reply #236 on: May 01, 2014, 01:28 »
0
But I wasn't talking about the PoD part of FAA/Pixels. There are a few EL's that allow for PoD.

I was talking about the commercial licensing.
Ok, sorry, its still early here, you are right. Maybe you should contact Konrad on DT

« Reply #237 on: May 01, 2014, 01:56 »
0
I started by PMing the Pixels artist. I don't think any licenses have sold over there yet.

This might be a case of the artist enabling licensing for his entire port, and forgetting that some of his work shouldn't be offered.

« Reply #238 on: May 02, 2014, 15:57 »
+1
It worked. The artist was friendly and removed the pic from the licensing program.

« Reply #239 on: May 03, 2014, 03:01 »
+2
"Artist"?

ShadySue

« Reply #240 on: May 04, 2014, 19:56 »
0
OK, I didn't check out the way they were offering stock until I happened to notice a typo and went in to edit it. (I had checked that I was interested in principle in RM, but hadn't looked further.)

So, for RM, they have:
Packaging, publishing etc: "Minimum units: 10,000".
Huh, so someone with smaller needs (200 boxes, 2000 print run, whatever) has to purchase a minimum of 10,000?
That might be normal in the US for all I know, but not in smaller countries.

« Reply #241 on: May 04, 2014, 20:15 »
+1
OK, I didn't check out the way they were offering stock until I happened to notice a typo and went in to edit it. (I had checked that I was interested in principle in RM, but hadn't looked further.)

So, for RM, they have:
Packaging, publishing etc: "Minimum units: 10,000".
Huh, so someone with smaller needs (200 boxes, 2000 print run, whatever) has to purchase a minimum of 10,000?
That might be normal in the US for all I know, but not in smaller countries.

You can make your own licenses (I haven't) - the idea is you get to set whatever you think works in terms of price and terms.


ShadySue

« Reply #242 on: May 04, 2014, 20:18 »
0
OK, I didn't check out the way they were offering stock until I happened to notice a typo and went in to edit it. (I had checked that I was interested in principle in RM, but hadn't looked further.)

So, for RM, they have:
Packaging, publishing etc: "Minimum units: 10,000".
Huh, so someone with smaller needs (200 boxes, 2000 print run, whatever) has to purchase a minimum of 10,000?
That might be normal in the US for all I know, but not in smaller countries.

You can make your own licenses (I haven't) - the idea is you get to set whatever you think works in terms of price and terms.

Oh, you're right, I remember they said that before they launched. Thanks for the reminder.
I was just going to ask 'no editorial option?', but that would be in your own licence terms. I'll look into it.
Tx again.

« Reply #243 on: May 09, 2015, 04:32 »
+1
How is it going with FAA licensing? Has anybody sold any images ?

« Reply #244 on: May 10, 2015, 09:56 »
+1
I follow the FAA forum, and there hasn't been any discussion of this in weeks.   I think it went nowhere.  The owner/operator of FAA seems to be always flitting from one great new idea to the next.   

ShadySue

« Reply #245 on: May 10, 2015, 10:07 »
+1
I follow the FAA forum, and there hasn't been any discussion of this in weeks.   I think it went nowhere.  The owner/operator of FAA seems to be always flitting from one great new idea to the next.
True, as in "great".
Maybe they'll merge with iS: they seem to have the same 'groping in the dark' philosophy.

Microstock InsiderEnvato Elements

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
6984 Views
Last post May 16, 2009, 17:14
by Phil
5 Replies
2521 Views
Last post May 02, 2011, 19:16
by RacePhoto
212 Replies
38081 Views
Last post September 06, 2012, 13:46
by JPSDK
2 Replies
2774 Views
Last post April 29, 2013, 15:19
by Simply
2 Replies
2160 Views
Last post August 27, 2013, 08:36
by williamju

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements