MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: StockXpert Images on Photos.com  (Read 109914 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #250 on: August 04, 2008, 21:04 »
0
Wait, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you have to opt out of subscriptions to opt out of Photos.com. Does that seem odd to anyone else? What's the point of the third-party opt-out if staying in for subscriptions means your work appears on third-party sites anyway?

I guess by "unrelated third party" they mean "outside of JupiterImages". But yes, it does sound weird. Anyway, I'm opted-out of both ! Physical goods for resale, and unlimited print distribution are stil there for 30 cts...

[EDIT] Oh, and if I understand their chart correctly, Unlimited Plus doesn't even offer PPD ? Does it mean that even XL and XXL sizes sell for 30cts a piece ?
« Last Edit: August 04, 2008, 21:10 by ErickN »


« Reply #251 on: August 04, 2008, 21:07 »
0
My greatest concern was not being able to opt out, in that regards, excellent news!

« Reply #252 on: August 04, 2008, 21:40 »
0
Quote
In response, for contributor convenience and customer benefit we made these options opt-out. Very few contributors opt-out which tells us that these revenue opportunities are viewed positively by virtually the entire Stockxpert community.

In other words, people didn't want to do it, so we made them do it by default.

This whole thing still sounds shady.  I'm glad you guys are going over it with a fine toothed comb.  Still sounds like they want to take advantage of you.

Quote
Our customers want the fresh, stylized images that you're producing and selling on Stockxpert.

So, why don't they move their asses over to StockXpert?

I see nothing about changing the EULA.  If you still offer your images on photos.com, you get to give away your rights without compensation.  I think I'm going to take the Paul C. route and start selling calendars.

Quote
We've definitely learned an important and valuable lesson in how we need to engage with you in the future.

ie,. we're going to sugar coat everything, so you have no idea how we're screwing you over.

« Reply #253 on: August 04, 2008, 21:45 »
0
Quote
In response, for contributor convenience and customer benefit we made these options opt-out. Very few contributors opt-out which tells us that these revenue opportunities are viewed positively by virtually the entire Stockxpert community.

In other words, people didn't want to do it, so we made them do it by default.

This whole thing still sounds shady.  I'm glad you guys are going over it with a fine toothed comb.  Still sounds like they want to take advantage of you.

Quote
Our customers want the fresh, stylized images that you're producing and selling on Stockxpert.

So, why don't they move their asses over to StockXpert?

I see nothing about changing the EULA.  If you still offer your images on photos.com, you get to give away your rights without compensation.  I think I'm going to take the Paul C. route and start selling calendars.

Quote
We've definitely learned an important and valuable lesson in how we need to engage with you in the future.

ie,. we're going to sugar coat everything, so you have no idea how we're screwing you over.

Sean,

With that insight you should be presenting the news on TV __ worldwide. The ratings would go off the scale.

« Reply #254 on: August 04, 2008, 21:53 »
0
personally I get about 1 el a month across all sites. I would guess that a hell of a lot of calendar, mug etc sales happen with just buying normal download as who would know?

but to allow it for $0.30, I am still undecided,

but I prefer the sugar coating and starting with an apology compared to another site, who after making concessions came raving and ranting about troublemakers and how they are going to ban people blah, blah, blah.

Phil

« Reply #255 on: August 04, 2008, 22:06 »
0
They did nothing but blow smoke up are asses on this one. Giving us an opt out does nothing to solve the greater issue of undermining an already undermined industry. Allowing print resale for a 30 cent commission simply shows what greedy *insult removed* all these agencies are becoming. I swear if just one agency would step up and prove that they knew there place in the industry and would treat  the content providers like clients (which we are)  then I would give serious consideration to providing exclusive content to that agency. Of course that will never happen so I will continue to whore my elf out to all the pimps for my penny here and my penny there.

« Reply #256 on: August 04, 2008, 22:10 »
0
Let me see if I understood (it's too late here and I'm tired):
- by opting-out in StockXpert subs (what I already have), I'm out of Photos.com, as I wanted
- ELs in StockXpert are still a choice (I'm in)
- Partner sales will be available only for those who have opted-in in subs (I had opted-in on this, but I have no idea if I ever sold through it).

ELs are rare indeed for me, maybe a dozen accross all sites (mostly in FT).

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #257 on: August 04, 2008, 22:33 »
0
Hi Adelaide,

The Stockxpert subscription option is for StockXpert subs and all other Jupiterimages sub programs. So, yes, by opting out of StockXpert subs, you have opted out of Photos.com Plus.

3rd party licensing is a separate option that includes any partnership and licensing opportunities outside of Jupiterimages. We currently do not engage in these types of partnerships, so you have not sold any images through this option.

Does this clarify things?

-Steve
« Last Edit: August 04, 2008, 22:35 by steve-oh »

« Reply #258 on: August 04, 2008, 22:39 »
0
Steve,

Why don't you have a separate opt-in/opt-out choice for Photos.com?

Supri

Hi Adelaide,

The Stockxpert subscription option is for StockXpert subs and all other Jupiterimages sub programs. So, yes, by opting out of StockXpert subs, you have opted out of Photos.com Plus.

3rd party licensing is a separate option that includes any partnership and licensing opportunities outside of Jupiterimages. We currently do not engage in these types of partnerships, so you have not sold any images through this option.

Does this clarify things?

-Steve

« Reply #259 on: August 04, 2008, 22:57 »
0
Hi Supri,

We want to start with creating some consistency across all participating JI products and services, which is why we tied it into StockXpert subscriptions. With that said, nothing is set in stone.

Thanks,
Steve
« Last Edit: August 04, 2008, 22:59 by steve-oh »

« Reply #260 on: August 04, 2008, 23:22 »
0
Well, if it stays as it is now. I will give photos.com a short trial. If the sales come with a lot of volume ill consider staying opt-in. But if the volume isn't enough to offset the horrible .30c EL commission. I'm out. I would much prefer to have a separate opt-in/out option for photos.com as well.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2008, 23:26 by Kngkyle »

« Reply #261 on: August 04, 2008, 23:25 »
0
With that said, nothing is set in stone.

Steve

Strictly speaking that's not exactly true Steve is it?. I can think of lots of things that are most definitely set in stone. I mean take the Rosetta Stone for example. I hope you're not proposing to alter the ancient Egyptian/Greek text on that are you __ even if it might help drag Photos.com from the abyss?

« Reply #262 on: August 04, 2008, 23:35 »
0
I finished deleted my portfolio at StockXpert. 1000 images. I can produce about 40+ images per week. for me uploading to multiple sites is a burden. StockXpert was my 7th earner and unless they become  the 3rd for most people here I will not upload to them again.


« Reply #263 on: August 04, 2008, 23:52 »
0
I don't get this consistency thing. If everything is going to be so consistent, what's the point with multiple brands anyway. Isn't the whole point with multiple brands that they cater for different needs and different tastes? To me, this looks as if they are going to offer the same product with different packaging, and where the packaging decides the prise, not the product.

Photos.com is a very obvious low price, low quality thing, while StockXpert is good quality, but more expensive. Why not keep it that way? It's as if GM started selling Cadillacs in Chevrolet outlets for slightly more than Chevrolets, but much cheaper than in their Cadillac outlets. If they did, they would destroy both brands. I think that is what JI is about to do with StockXpert and photos.com right now.

« Reply #264 on: August 05, 2008, 00:36 »
0
I thought StockXpert would offer us an opt out and I am pleased that I didn't waste time deleting my portfolio. 

I am disappointed that they can't give us the same EULA with photos.com subscriptions as they can with StockXpert.  That forces me to opt out and I am sure it will force a lot of others to opt out.

All this talk about consistency but that is not consistent.  They need to address this, as a lot of people wont want to have anything to do with a site that undermines the other sites.

I am also disappointed with just 30 cents commission for subscriptions when all the other big sites have raised theirs.  What possible motivation can I have to accept up to 25% lower commission than on other sites and give the option to the buyers to put my images on products without an EL?

If the subs commissions were 40 cents, I would have to consider it again.

DanP68

« Reply #265 on: August 05, 2008, 01:25 »
0
I'm very disappointed.  I thought for certain the EULA would be changed, and instead we get an opt-out which means we will be giving up sub earnings just to defend ourselves from the Photos.com deal.

I see no logic in this.  The major contributors are all going to opt out, so StockXpert just lost a ton of sub sales on their own site, and Photos.com will see none of that material.  Assuming Yuri and Iophoto opt out, StockXpert will no longer be able to offer their material via subscription.  This seems like a horrible move for StockXpert.  If they had simply changed the EULA, none of this would be necessary.

I've lost a lot of confidence in this decision. 

« Reply #266 on: August 05, 2008, 01:35 »
0
This industry is already undermined and accepting the subscription plan here as it now stands only deepens the undermining of the industry.

It is well past time that these greedy agencies came back to the realization that WE are the ones that THEY work for not the other way around. The Agency is the AGENT that means they make their livings off of our talent. They own nothing but servers, we own the content and as such if we stand UNITED on issues we remain in control.

It is time for the contributing content creators in this industry to grow sacks and stand up against this fiscal abuse.

It truly is sad that JI and StockXpert have gone down the same greed lined path as the rest of this industry. I actually liked it here but the truth is that under the current conditions I am done here. My legacy portfolio can remain as long as it does not contribute to the undermining of my sales elsewhere and everyone else here needs to stand up and take the same stance here and WE WILL WIN THIS ONE.

DO NOT OPT IN TO StockXpert / PHOTOS.com Subscriptions. To do so only weakens an already terminally weak industry. The health and strength of this industry lies firmly in the hands of the contributors. We own the content and as such we own the power! To win though WE have to ACT TOGETHER!

cphoto

  • CreativeShot.com
« Reply #267 on: August 05, 2008, 01:39 »
0
I'm very disappointed.  I thought for certain the EULA would be changed, and instead we get an opt-out which means we will be giving up sub earnings just to defend ourselves from the Photos.com deal.

I see no logic in this.  The major contributors are all going to opt out, so StockXpert just lost a ton of sub sales on their own site, and Photos.com will see none of that material.  Assuming Yuri and Iophoto opt out, StockXpert will no longer be able to offer their material via subscription.  This seems like a horrible move for StockXpert.  If they had simply changed the EULA, none of this would be necessary.

I've lost a lot of confidence in this decision. 

I agree with you.

The right thing to do would have been to put the Photo + EULA at least at the same level than other comparable subscription models agencies (SS/DT/IS etc).

Jupiter Images had a huge opportunity to make photos.com one of the premier stock site in this industry but by keeping the EULA almost unchanged and the price so low most contributors will stay away.

It seems that Jupiter Images is killing its own traditional stock business by trying to sell exceptionally good content (StockXpert collection) at a record low price.  That will hurt everyone in the long term (traditional and micro agencies).

« Reply #268 on: August 05, 2008, 02:22 »
0
I can't see why it's a problem opting out of subs at StockXpert. Are anybody making big money on subs there? If not, if StockXpert subs die a silent death, all the better for our earnings.

As for photos.com, it's a nice domain name with garbage quality contents, and the photo buyers probably know that already. Whatever the terms are, I see no reason to have my name associated with a low class sales outlet. The microstock business is shaky enough as it is without it. Why spend a lot of money and resources giving the garbage truck a new layer of paint, when they already have a nice little limousine called StockXpert?

« Reply #269 on: August 05, 2008, 02:29 »
0
I agree that opting in is a bad idea. We need to keep the prices moving in the right direction. No one is going to look out for us except for us.

« Reply #270 on: August 05, 2008, 02:35 »
0
@ CPphoto, we do not know at which  price they will sell our images, do we?
Or do you refer to record low price to selling Els?

It is unfortunate that the StockXpert subscription opt in/opt out is linked to the photos.com subscription but at least they offered an opt out.

They apparently realized they made a mistake and said sorry. You will not find a lot of agencies who will apologize for past mistakes. Compared to Fotolia for example they let people speak up their mind on their forum and apologized for what they did and gave contributors the chance to opt out of this deal altogether. For this I am thankful and I will continue to submit to StockXpert and even if I am not a fan of StockXpert subscription I will also try out the subscription option for at least a short time which is linked to the Jupiter deals. Then I will reevaluate again.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2008, 02:37 by Freezingpictures »

grp_photo

« Reply #271 on: August 05, 2008, 02:48 »
0
Thank you Steve and StockXpert! :D :)
Nothing is changing for me i optioned out for subs before and will remain optioned in for ELs and Partnersales.

« Reply #272 on: August 05, 2008, 02:50 »
0
I'm not happy about having to opt out of subscriptions entirely, but it's far better than being forced to leave StockXpert. I was really hopeful it wouldn't come to that, and I'm relieved that StockXpert didn't force it on us in the end. ;D

« Reply #273 on: August 05, 2008, 02:50 »
0
Agreed with Freezingpictures.

I think StockXpert handled this well.  They made a mistake, let people speak their minds on their forum and actually found out what the contributors thought, admitted that they made a mistake, and made an effort to correct it.  Of course everyone is not going to be pleased with the new deal, but they DID add an opt out option.

@featurepics, yes I think we know the prices.
Check out this page
http://www.stockxpert.com/lpages/contributor/

Quote
PRODUCT FEATURES
Site StockXpert     Photos.com Plus JIU+
Pay-per-Download Cost$1 - $20/image$49 - $299/imageN/A
Pay-Per-Download Royalty 50%30% (XL, XXL, EPS)N/A
Subscription Download Royalty 0.300.300.30
Subscription Download Limit 25 day25 day w/ 750 month maximum25 day w/ 750 month maximum


Even though the photos.com site allows some extended license type uses, it still does not allow
  • Physical Goods (for resale through on-demand services)
  • Electronic Products/Templates (for resale)
  • Electronic Products (for resale through on-demand services)
  • Mobile Display

those things are in the regular StockXpert extended license but not in photos.com Plus, or JIU+ .. so the extended license on those sites are fairly limited.  

If in turn there is a reasonable amount of pay-per-download sales on Photos.com Plus, then I think it might be worth offering images there.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2008, 02:52 by leaf »

« Reply #274 on: August 05, 2008, 03:28 »
0
They made a mistake, ...

They made the mistake of believing that photographers enjoy being stabbed in the back. Then, when it appeared that photographers weren't masochists after all, and some of them drew their guns, they were suddenly "Oh, so sorry...". Either that, or they are completely ignorant with regards to the microstock photography business.

With StockXpert, they have a very nice stock portfolio, and with photos.com, they have a great brand name. So, they wanted to combine the two, which is understandable. What is not acceptable is the kind of "changing the rules so that we make more and you make less" that they and other microstock agencies have been trying lately.

Ethics aren't much valued these days. It's very much "if you don't get caught, it's ok", and if you do get caught, you just say you're sorry and launch plan B.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
32 Replies
21858 Views
Last post January 20, 2009, 20:33
by maco0708
6 Replies
5201 Views
Last post May 06, 2009, 11:15
by goldenangel
8 Replies
6001 Views
Last post May 24, 2011, 00:11
by cthoman
4 Replies
3573 Views
Last post April 18, 2012, 06:53
by ShadySue
14 Replies
5173 Views
Last post June 15, 2017, 01:26
by DallasP

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors