pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: FAA Launches Art Licensing  (Read 8071 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 07, 2014, 16:20 »
+1
FAA's new licensing site "licensing.pixels.com" has been officially launched (not to be confused with plain old pixels.com which sells phone cases and art or the original flavor fineartamerica.com which sells art but not phone cases or licensing).

http://fineartamerica.com/controlpanel/imagelicensingprogram.html

Time to add FAA to the list of stock sites?


« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2014, 16:25 »
0
thanks for posting, haven't received any newsletter!

interesting they have placed SS and GI pricing if we need orientation etc...

« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2014, 16:32 »
0
I guess the beta period is over.  I have a certain series of duds on the site that get no views.  I think I'll experiment with them in the licensing area.   Anything for possible traffic gain.

« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2014, 16:52 »
+3
The watermarks are a joke. Watermarks disappear on isolations over white background.  No thanks!
« Last Edit: April 07, 2014, 17:02 by rimglow »

« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2014, 16:54 »
0
Strange thing is you can start in licensing.pixels.com, click on something and end up in FAA.  Or your entire portfolio will show up under licensing.pixels.com.

There needs to be two separate sites with a wall between them, not just different URLs.

« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2014, 18:13 »
0
The watermarks are a joke. Watermarks disappear on isolations over white background.  No thanks!

I'm with you on that.  Besides that I still fail to see the hook that will bring buyers in.  It's great that we can set our own prices but who cares? That same image is available elsewhere.  However, their model is more like Graphic Leftovers where you can buy a single image.  That may be attractive to some buyers but, like GL, they have to be found, have a significant marketing budget, etc.

« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2014, 18:33 »
0
Setting your own prices is sold as a benefit yet just about everyone is asking for help pricing their stuff.

« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2014, 18:34 »
0
Typing in a brand name like "Coke" is interesting:

http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/the-diamond-design-jc-findley.html

« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2014, 18:45 »
0
Setting your own prices is sold as a benefit yet just about everyone is asking for help pricing their stuff.

It's sold as a benefit to contributors but not to buyers unless we put them up for a buck.

Ron

« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2014, 02:46 »
+2
Typing in a brand name like "Coke" is interesting:

http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/the-diamond-design-jc-findley.html


See these art guys have no clue what they are getting in to, or they dont care.

But selling an image of a Coke design with a full commercial licence is bound to get some people in court. And you are not messing with the local grocer on the corner of the street, but with one of the biggest global companies in the world. And then you are also putting the buyer in trouble, and they may come after you as well. You give them a licence, you cant issue in the first place, telling them they can create an ad with the image.

Quote
You may use the Licensed Image to create an advertisement that will appear in a physical medium (e.g. magazine,
newspaper, billboard, etc.)

« Reply #10 on: April 08, 2014, 06:29 »
+1
I can't get over the childish sounding explanation of why Pixels can operate a licensing company with one person (Sean doesn't even employ a proofreader):


"Image licensing involves a great deal of trust.   Once you sell your image to a buyer, there is absolutely no way to guarantee that the buyer only uses the image for the purposes that are specified in the license.   For example, if you sell a license that allows a buyer to use one of your images on the cover of 50,000 books, you have to trust that the buyer won't use the image to produce 10 million books... or use it in a TV commercial... or use it in a full-page print ad in a magazine.

You would have no idea that the buyer was doing any of those things unless you happened to catch him red-handed (e.g. by seeing your image in a TV commercial).

If you don't trust your buyers to do the right thing, then image licensing probably isn't for you.   However, before you write off the whole licensing industry, consider the following:

1.   There are lots of honest who do the right thing because they WANT to be honest.

2.   There are lots of honest buyers who do the right thing because they NEED to be honest."

« Reply #11 on: April 08, 2014, 06:44 »
0
The watermarks are a joke. Watermarks disappear on isolations over white background.  No thanks!

It is a definite concern that the previews are so large and for all practical purposes have no watermark. I would probably be interested if it were not for that.

ShadySue

« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2014, 07:11 »
0
Apparently, Sean's time is much too valuabke to sqander on trivia like watermarks.

« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2014, 07:23 »
+1
"We'll be marketing this business to advertising agencies, book publishers, TV production companies, etc"

The boutique agency I deal with for RM hand selects their offerings, has long time contacts and relationships in the industry, sets up a booth at industry tradeshows, does mailings to key people in the industry, has customer support people who do images searches for the client and negotiates the final deal to get the best price possible.  Also they monitor the RM license.  For this I gladly hand over 50% commission.

It takes more than writing a check for a TV commercial.

Ron

« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2014, 07:48 »
+3
The problem is that his licencing business is directly linked and related to FAA. If anything goes south, and he needs to cough up, or whatever other implications he has to deal with, will take down FAA as well. In the art work he had a stamp on the market and he was market leader. Now he enters a market run by vultures, and when they bite, and they will, they wont let go.

I dont see Disney being too concerned about a postcard being sold on FAA, but when they see an image of Mickey Mouse with a commercial licence, Sean will find out that in business there are no friends.

« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2014, 07:52 »
0
Like Disney, its all about selling dreams and fantasy.


« Reply #17 on: April 08, 2014, 07:59 »
0
And when I click on those links they come up on the FAA site because I must have another window open.  So much for separation between the sites.

« Reply #18 on: April 08, 2014, 09:53 »
0
The other stock photo companies have a team to accept or deny new images.

FAA/Pixels doesn't do that.


Isn't quality important?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2014, 10:04 by Braznyc »

« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2014, 09:56 »
0
Licensing images has many legalities involved.

Pixels is trying to create its own laws.

IMO it won't work like that.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2014, 10:04 by Braznyc »

« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2014, 10:37 »
+1
I am confused about the fact that you can offer the same image for both RF and RM usage. In stock industry they are mutually exclusive. Maybe FAA means something else by "RM" licensing? Then they shouldn't use the same term in my opinion.

« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2014, 10:42 »
0
I find it messy by accident... If you have there RF and RM images just be carefull when setting bulk pricing as you can set all images as RF, ooops.

I like FAA, it's very strong tool to sell prints. But I'm not sure about licensing here...  :-\

« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2014, 10:54 »
+6
My print sales on FAA this month are not going to be even a third of my normal month there. I wonder what's going on. It could be that the site is getting overwhelmed by new images every day, and offering a way to license images will increase the number of images even more. Some people will be uploading images just for licensing, and FAA library will be full of "non-fine-art" regular stock photography stuff. Let's say I came to the site to buy a nice print for my living room and instead I see business handshakes and people pretending to be doctors.  This just doesn't make sense to me.
I loved FAA as a way to indulge my creative side and as a refuge from stock. Now it's all going to be mixed up.  :(

« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2014, 11:02 »
0
I am confused about the fact that you can offer the same image for both RF and RM usage. In stock industry they are mutually exclusive. Maybe FAA means something else by "RM" licensing? Then they shouldn't use the same term in my opinion.

No they aren't.  It depends on the rights being sold.  Yes, maybe "restricted license" would make more sense there.

« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2014, 11:02 »
0
I find it messy by accident... If you have there RF and RM images just be carefull when setting bulk pricing as you can set all images as RF, ooops.

I like FAA, it's very strong tool to sell prints. But I'm not sure about licensing here...  :-\

You can actually offer the same image as both "RF" and "RM" - FAA doesn't stop you from doing that. Edit the image, enter prices in both categories, and voila! In fact, in their description of "RF" and "RM" licensing they never mention they these things should be mutually exclusive. So I bet a lot of people will be doing just that - have the images as both RM and RF. Of course, FAA might say they are not responsible for any problems like that, but somehow I doubt it will save them from trouble... with all the recent lawsuits about copyright infringement and misuse... as one friend told me once, lawyers go for the person who has more money. And there is soo much copyrighted content there!
« Last Edit: April 08, 2014, 11:12 by Elenathewise »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
3159 Views
Last post May 24, 2008, 22:31
by audiomicro
6 Replies
3851 Views
Last post May 26, 2013, 06:37
by Poncke v2
3 Replies
2311 Views
Last post September 13, 2012, 07:38
by microstockphoto.co.uk
52 Replies
7108 Views
Last post May 28, 2013, 19:22
by roede-orm
21 Replies
13264 Views
Last post August 20, 2014, 11:58
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results