pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Agency collection? oh! boy!  (Read 29920 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2010, 05:50 »
0
Not exactly RM. At least as I understand it RM specifies exactly how long an image may be used.
Also as I understand it RM often requires an image not be made available for anyone else to license during that use period.

Please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken about this.

You wanted more money if the pic is used in something 'big' (otherwise you feel ripped of). Well that's exactly what RM does. Interesting how it gets reinvented. It can exclusive for a time period, and it should be for any self respecting company that doesn't want their 'face' to pop up in the competitions ad, and that means even more money for the shooter.


« Reply #26 on: December 01, 2010, 05:53 »
0
Anyone remember this?  April 24, 2007
Quote
The managers of micro-stock site Lucky Oliver have attempted to find a middle ground between the low, low micro-stock prices and the higher prices one expects to pay for higher end royalty free imagery.  Aptly named midstock, the model allows for Lucky Olivers best-selling photographers to set their own prices for images of their own choosing.  In addition, the midstock images will appear more prominently in search results by way of placement in a highlighted grouping of images called Sideshow.
http://www.abouttheimage.com/2744/micro_stock_site_lucky_oliver_introduces_new_midstock_pricing_option/author3

Perhaps the flaw with the Lucky Oliver model was that they were using most of the same images that sold at lower prices on their rival sites but I still think it's ironic that they led the way in microstock sites selling higher priced images within their main site.  

I don't think istock will suffer the same fate as Lucky Oliver but it does seem like a big gamble to me, especially with all the other changes they have made that have angered both contributors and buyers.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2010, 05:55 by sharpshot »

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #27 on: December 01, 2010, 05:59 »
0
What you are wishing for is RM. Interesting how microstockers -which is based on RF- dream about RM in the name of fairness, after they underminded that licencing scheme and pricing. What a facepalm. : )


While it may be true that RF undermined RM, RF at trad agencies long predated microstock.

I think tightening up the licensing terms for a standard license (and reducing the print run limits a bit) makes sense, but you can't realistically do RM licensing on a mass-market scale. Extended licenses - as prepackaged RM rights - have worked well with microstock IMO.

"but you can't realistically do RM licensing on a mass-market scale."

????????? getty and the like have millions of RM images. Extended license sucks for two reasons. It doesn't seem to cover some serious ATL print ad usage for example in most cases, if the print run is not large, altho it would be fair to ask a higher price for that stuff, like in RM. Second: almost nobody takes it seriuosly, because almost nobody takes the sites or it's contributors seriuosly, sadly. I garantuee you there many pictures purchased for EL type usage witout EL, because frankly, they dont give a fck, many don't even know about it. Tineye ain't gonna find you billboards in Hungary or south France. Actually tineye won't find you most of the stuff on the net.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #28 on: December 01, 2010, 06:13 »
0
While they may not have gotten the collections right, they got the idea right. Prices need to go up overall and especially for premium content.

Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?
....
The problem is that I don't think IS knows where the line is between premium and average content. They'll continue experimenting until they find it.  At least somebody is trying.

but right there you seem to display the same attitude as IS an the rest, that has higher class creatives rolling on the floor laughing (or crying) when IS 'staff' tries to separate a real premuim content for them: coming up with only technical parameters. IS and SS is full of xxxxxxx MP 'model' shots that could make a graphic artist rather stare at a brick wall (any MP), or carve his eyes out with his nails like dr. Weir in event horizon, beleive me. : )

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #29 on: December 01, 2010, 06:50 »
0
While they may not have gotten the collections right, they got the idea right. Prices need to go up overall and especially for premium content.

Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?
....
The problem is that I don't think IS knows where the line is between premium and average content. They'll continue experimenting until they find it.  At least somebody is trying.

but right there you seem to display the same attitude as IS an the rest, that has higher class creatives rolling on the floor laughing (or crying) when IS 'staff' tries to separate a real premuim content for them: coming up with only technical parameters. IS and SS is full of xxxxxxx MP 'model' shots that could make a graphic artist rather stare at a brick wall (any MP), or carve his eyes out with his nails like dr. Weir in event horizon, beleive me. : )

Don't bother painting me as an IS fanboi. I don't agree with them all the time but they're at least trying something. What are the rest of the sites doing to address pricing? Anything?

It's not about class. It's about costs. The shoot of models with pro equipment cost a lot more than the passing snapshot of the brick wall. Ultimately, it's the perceived value of the image regardless of what it cost to create. But people with $200 compacts usually aren't setting up model shoots, right? It's all relative.

We need a new license model that matches today's market. The current micro RF doesn't take usage, costs, perceived value, or anything else into consideration. Micro RF is too generic and too cheap. Macro RM is based on old media, is too complex, and too easily gamed. Macro RF is being choked by Micro RF. A new model needs to be created that raises prices overall to a happy buyer/seller median and takes cost and other factors into consideration. Vetta and Agency are workaround band-aids due to a lack of relevant pricing model that matches today's environment.

Photographers may have had it good in the old days but today that has swung way too far in the opposite direction in favor of buyers.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #30 on: December 01, 2010, 07:15 »
0
"Ultimately, it's the perceived value of the image regardless of what it cost to create."

yep, and thats very apparent in micro galleries where you often see pretty hq setups used to create junk, thats what I was talking about. It would be pretty hard to convince higher class creatives -or anyone- that they should pay a lot for a shot with crap lighting, composition and confused looking semi ugly ppl because it's a 24 MP L lens shot with strobes. Costs? The guy spent money on creating junk? He (she) is a pest, who has, and uses resources to create even more visual litter, that's the last thing the world needs. I don't think we need more licencing schemes. Just raise prices, or get rid of RF. but... how do you do any of those??

« Reply #31 on: December 01, 2010, 07:31 »
0
I think the answer is fair pricing for better images (Vetta), fair commission for the contributors AND a better licensing model.
A national magazine (Time) should not be able to get away with running a cover image and only paying a few pennies + extended license. Neither should a national or multi- national be able to put a model's image on a multi- million dollar product (Shampoo for instance) and only have to pay a few dollars + extended license. That is just highway robbery.

A cheap image for a blog is fine. A cheap image for a website that will be changed out in a few weeks, also fine.
We need to have a better license set up for the use of our imagery.

The problem with the last chapter is that blog might get really popular and seen by millions of people. Web sites are essentially "worldwide" and yet web uses are the most cheap ones, you often need just a small size image and it can be used on site of a huge company without any extended licences. They can also be distributed as banner ads on thousands of web pages.

My solution for the modern world where print is in decline: One price, one size (some sites are already trying this). Let's say $10 for a image, regardless of size. The big sizes gets cheaper and the small sizes more expensive. The current relation between size and price is just stupid. The sites should really give up the "cheap images from $1" thinking.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #32 on: December 01, 2010, 07:46 »
0
My solution for the modern world where print is in decline: One price, one size (some sites are already trying this). Let's say $10 for a image, regardless of size. The big sizes gets cheaper and the small sizes more expensive. The current relation between size and price is just stupid. The sites should really give up the "cheap images from $1" thinking.

Flat pricing isn't good for buyers or suppliers.

Price it too cheap ($1) and contributors won't make enough money. Price it too high ($1,000) and, unless it's a rare/spectacular/valuable, it won't sell. Prices need to match perceived value.

Pricing will end up tiered which is where it's already headed. Poor sellers in oversaturated categories will decrease in cost or at least stay with micro pricing. Good sellers in oversaturated categories will increase in cost. Unique images or underserved categories will get premium pricing.

And what? "The big sizes gets cheaper and the small sizes more expensive". Meaning XS is $10 and XXXL is $5? Why would anybody not buy the XXXL?

« Reply #33 on: December 01, 2010, 07:57 »
0
And what? "The big sizes gets cheaper and the small sizes more expensive". Meaning XS is $10 and XXXL is $5? Why would anybody not buy the XXXL?

Sorry my bad english... I meant that the big sizes gets cheaper from what they are now and the small sizes gets more expensive from what they are now. Also a flat pricing somewhere in the middle. I would of course the prices to get much higher but that's just wishful thinking.

I have very little big sales (XL-XXXL) at sites that charge the highest price (for example XXXL at istock costs 25 credits.). Most of my sales are between XS and L. If every sale would be 10 credits regardless of size I would me much better off. And at a price around $10 still everyone could afford to buy the image.

One local small agency has only two prices: print and web, and they cost 100% and 25%. I think that's an easy solution and the price of large and small image are much closer than - let's say - the IS difference of 100% and 4% (XS vs XXXL)

I really can't see why images for web/mobile etc. should be cheaper than for print.

I'd rather have a tiered system based on the image quality or sales or something than size which makes no sense at all nowdays (It propably did in the 1990's)
« Last Edit: December 01, 2010, 08:07 by Perry »

« Reply #34 on: December 01, 2010, 08:04 »
0
snip
Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?

Because it shouldn't matter whether an image was taken with an expensive camera or a cheap camera. If the image is good, it shouldn't matter whether an exclusive took it or a non-exclusive took it. If it is a best-seller and it's making money, THAT's the deciding factor. If the image bombs, then by all means it should be eliminated from the collection. And the determinations about who gets to contribute should be all about the image, not about what camera that person shoots with or whether they are exclusive or not. My image that has sold 1,000 times should be worth just as much as an Agency image that has sold 1,000 times. Just as my image that has sold 0 times should be booted, just like an Agency image with 0 downloads should.

All images should be valued on how many times they have sold. Period. But exclusives aren't going to like that because human nature tends to make people think that they are better than someone else and they will constantly try to find someone who is lower in class than themselves. This is a business, not a human nature study.

I am all for raising contributor's prices but a whole bunch of exclusive contributors think that that they should be treated special just because they decided to go spend $5 or $30k on a camera. This business is about selling images, not about who has the biggest and best toys and who can play the game better.

I don't EVER expect to see my image which has sold over 1000 times move to the back of the sort just because I made a choice to stay independent or because I am not willing to keep spending tons of money on equipment or models or whatever. But that's what a whole bunch of exclusives at IS are on board to see happen. And really, Getty/IS themselves!

Now the game is all about who has what, not about how the images are selling. Like jsnover mentioned earlier in another thread, the eyes aren't on the ball anymore. They are on things like who spends the most money buying equipment or who sucks up to the IS admins the best.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #35 on: December 01, 2010, 08:05 »
0

My solution for the modern world where print is in decline: One price, one size (some sites are already trying this). Let's say $10 for a image, regardless of size. The big sizes gets cheaper and the small sizes more expensive. The current relation between size and price is just stupid. The sites should really give up the "cheap images from $1" thinking.

They are not trying, SS has been doing that for ages now... but with a very low price of course : ) The buyers love it, and SS makes a lot of money. The contributors... not so. As always.

« Reply #36 on: December 01, 2010, 08:11 »
0
Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?

If the image subject is what the customer wants and it's a small size image, even a gazillion pixels doesn't mean anything.

It's really ironic that the megapixels keep going up but more and more images are used in smaller and smaller sizes.

« Reply #37 on: December 01, 2010, 08:26 »
0
How about letting the image price fluctuate inside certain borders? The image could have a certain start price that is set by an editor (not a pixel peeping reviewer) according to three factors: Cost/effort of creating the image, Subject matter, Artistic quality.

In addition to that the image would change it's price using a simple mathematical formula and sales statistics. If an image gets "hot" the price could go up, and when it's sold less the price gets down. And if the price gets too down the image is removed from the collection. If the start price has been wrong, the image price will start to rise or fall. This system would work a bit like a "stock market".

DT prices it's images according to sales, but that's an unfair system for the new images. It also "punishes" old images that have in many years slowly gathered downloads. Prices get too high for an old image that isn't up to modern standards.

« Reply #38 on: December 01, 2010, 08:32 »
0
^^^Looks like what cutcaster have done but it hasn't caught on yet.  They even let buyers make a bid at a lower price.  I have the feeling buyers prefer fixed prices, hopefully cutcaster can still prove that wrong but it really doesn't look promising at the moment.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #39 on: December 01, 2010, 08:35 »
0
how do you estimate cost / effort looking at an image?? artistic quality... there are probably a handful of people in any city who can judge that (or none)

RM could be extended for variable web usage, based on seo rank / alexa rank - commercial / non commercial, etc. Even more power to google : ((

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #40 on: December 01, 2010, 08:35 »
0
snip
Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?

Because it shouldn't matter whether an image was taken with an expensive camera or a cheap camera. If the image is good, it shouldn't matter whether an exclusive took it or a non-exclusive took it. If it is a best-seller and it's making money, THAT's the deciding factor. If the image bombs, then by all means it should be eliminated from the collection. And the determinations about who gets to contribute should be all about the image, not about what camera that person shoots with or whether they are exclusive or not. My image that has sold 1,000 times should be worth just as much as an Agency image that has sold 1,000 times. Just as my image that has sold 0 times should be booted, just like an Agency image with 0 downloads should.

All images should be valued on how many times they have sold. Period. But exclusives aren't going to like that because human nature tends to make people think that they are better than someone else and they will constantly try to find someone who is lower in class than themselves. This is a business, not a human nature study.

I am all for raising contributor's prices but a whole bunch of exclusive contributors think that that they should be treated special just because they decided to go spend $5 or $30k on a camera. This business is about selling images, not about who has the biggest and best toys and who can play the game better.

I don't EVER expect to see my image which has sold over 1000 times move to the back of the sort just because I made a choice to stay independent or because I am not willing to keep spending tons of money on equipment or models or whatever. But that's what a whole bunch of exclusives at IS are on board to see happen. And really, Getty/IS themselves!

Now the game is all about who has what, not about how the images are selling. Like jsnover mentioned earlier in another thread, the eyes aren't on the ball anymore. They are on things like who spends the most money buying equipment or who sucks up to the IS admins the best.

As I mentioned, ultimately it's about the buyers perceived value and photos should be priced accordingly. How that pricing gets established is still up for debate.

For whatever reason you seem to be one of the people with a grudge against all exclusives and paint us all as self consumed. Your words shape your credibility.

There is favoritism everywhere in life. Human nature drives business and it affects everything and everybody, including exclusives. I've had zero Vetta images approved although at least a handful are as good or better than some people who seem to have been born with a Vetta spoon in their mouth.  

« Reply #41 on: December 01, 2010, 08:44 »
0
how do you estimate cost / effort looking at an image?? artistic quality... there are probably a handful of people in any city who can judge that (or none)

It's easy. It doesn't have to be anything too exact, just for example three categories:
3=expensive/hard (a group of people in a location)
2=medium (decently lit objects, one person in studio etc.)
1=cheap/easy (brick wall in available light)

Artistic quality is a bit more difficult... also the "needed images" factor is a bit difficult.

Artistic quality could be as following:
3=high (a "stopper", an image that looks interesting, images with emotion, creative images)
2=medium (more elaborate object shots, good solid people shots)
1=low (isolated on white objects, basic people shots)

But the main point was that the that's only the starting price, the price will go up or down depending on the demand. Of course the system could work without a special starting price, but it might take an unnecessary long time for the image to hit the "sweet spot" because the system would only allow relatively slow price movements.

My fluctuating price system would be very rewarding for images that are in high demand and punish bad stuff. It would encourage people to submit quality instead of quantity. If you hit a jackpot with your image you could have an image that both sells well and sells at a high price.

With current systems you can either upload some mediocre stuff that gets downloaded 10 times, or put 10 times more time and effort to it to make an image that gets downloaded 100 times. Neither of these options make it possible to make MORE money for your work.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2010, 08:56 by Perry »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #42 on: December 01, 2010, 08:56 »
0
how do you estimate cost / effort looking at an image?? artistic quality... there are probably a handful of people in any city who can judge that (or none)
It's easy. It doesn't have to be anything too exact, just for example three categories:
3=expensive/hard (a group of people in a location)
2=medium (decently lit objects, one person in studio etc.)
1=cheap/easy (brick wall in available light)
It's not that easy.
I travel many thousands of miles to shoot.
Maybe someone local can shoot the same pics, and has more time to wait for excellent light etc, but it costs them much less.
(However, in the specific example I'm thinking of, there don't seem to be locals supplying the market.)
How would an editor decide on 'cost of production'?

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #43 on: December 01, 2010, 09:01 »
0
how do you estimate cost / effort looking at an image?? artistic quality... there are probably a handful of people in any city who can judge that (or none)


It's easy. It doesn't have to be anything too exact, just for example three categories:
3=expensive/hard (a group of people in a location)
2=medium (decently lit objects, one person in studio etc.)
1=cheap/easy (brick wall in available light)

Artistic quality is a bit more difficult... also the "needed images" factor is a bit difficult.

Artistic quality could be as following:
3=high (a "stopper", an image that looks interesting, images with emotion, creative images)
2=medium (more elaborate object shots, good solid people shots)
1=low (isolated on white objects, basic people shots)

But the main point was that the that's only the starting price, the price will go up or down depending on the demand. Of course the system could work without a special starting price, but it might take an unnecessary long time for the image to hit the "sweet spot" because the system would only allow relatively slow price movements.

My fluctuating price system would be very rewarding for images that are in high demand and punish bad stuff. It would encourage people to submit quality instead of quantity. If you hit a jackpot with your image you could have an image that both sells well and sells at a high price.


okay, estimate the cost of this:   (and effort? - what is that?)
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPpONUfCOI/AAAAAAAAAF4/HEJvnGM81rY/_MG_7541.jpg
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPo13gs9kI/AAAAAAAAAF0/hlDk1wl__PU/_MG_7540.jpg

Fotolia does smthng like that, don't they? you can increase your prices if you want after reaching a level. Yuri wrote increasing his prices a lot hardly effected sales. That shows the shots are too cheap. (doh, what a discovery).

« Reply #44 on: December 01, 2010, 09:03 »
0
It's not that easy.
I travel many thousands of miles to shoot.
Maybe someone local can shoot the same pics, and has more time to wait for excellent light etc, but it costs them much less.
(However, in the specific example I'm thinking of, there don't seem to be locals supplying the market.)
How would an editor decide on 'cost of production'?

This is a bit tricky, I admit. But as I said, this would be only one factor in the starting price and if the starting price is wrong it will either climb up or fall down.

In travel photography there is still the "effort" factory that applies, this could be interpreted
3=hard (model-released travel images, places that are clearly hard to access like mountain tops, aerial photos, underwater etc.)
2=medium (places shot clearly with tripods, night shots)
1=easy (tourist snapshots of places that are already shot to death)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #45 on: December 01, 2010, 09:10 »
0
It's not that easy.
I travel many thousands of miles to shoot.
Maybe someone local can shoot the same pics, and has more time to wait for excellent light etc, but it costs them much less.
(However, in the specific example I'm thinking of, there don't seem to be locals supplying the market.)
How would an editor decide on 'cost of production'?

This is a bit tricky, I admit. But as I said, this would be only one factor in the starting price and if the starting price is wrong it will either climb up or fall down.

In travel photography there is still the "effort" factory that applies, this could be interpreted
3=hard (model-released travel images, places that are clearly hard to access like mountain tops, aerial photos, underwater etc.)
2=medium (places shot clearly with tripods, night shots)
1=easy (tourist snapshots of places that are already shot to death)
I really wouldn't trust a reviewer to have that sort of general knowledge in all specialisms. I've seen too many badly-labelled images on all sites, even macros.

« Reply #46 on: December 01, 2010, 09:12 »
0
okay, estimate the cost of this:   (and effort? - what is that?)
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPpONUfCOI/AAAAAAAAAF4/HEJvnGM81rY/_MG_7541.jpg
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPo13gs9kI/AAAAAAAAAF0/hlDk1wl__PU/_MG_7540.jpg


"effort" is how much work, time, skill, patience, photoshop work is needed for creating the shot.

I'd say your images may be in the highest category (at least in the medium category); released model, outdoor location with lighting and a classic car. Requires scheduling, planning and time.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #47 on: December 01, 2010, 09:14 »
0
okay, estimate the cost of this:   (and effort? - what is that?)
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPpONUfCOI/AAAAAAAAAF4/HEJvnGM81rY/_MG_7541.jpg
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPo13gs9kI/AAAAAAAAAF0/hlDk1wl__PU/_MG_7540.jpg


"effort" is how much work, time, skill, patience, photoshop work is needed for creating the shot.

I'd say your images may be in the highest category (at least in the medium category); released model, outdoor location with lighting and a classic car. Requires scheduling, planning and time.


that's your cost estimate?

« Reply #48 on: December 01, 2010, 09:21 »
0
It's not that easy.
I travel many thousands of miles to shoot.
Maybe someone local can shoot the same pics, and has more time to wait for excellent light etc, but it costs them much less.
(However, in the specific example I'm thinking of, there don't seem to be locals supplying the market.)
How would an editor decide on 'cost of production'?

This is a bit tricky, I admit. But as I said, this would be only one factor in the starting price and if the starting price is wrong it will either climb up or fall down.

In travel photography there is still the "effort" factory that applies, this could be interpreted
3=hard (model-released travel images, places that are clearly hard to access like mountain tops, aerial photos, underwater etc.)
2=medium (places shot clearly with tripods, night shots)
1=easy (tourist snapshots of places that are already shot to death)
I really wouldn't trust a reviewer to have that sort of general knowledge in all specialisms. I've seen too many badly-labelled images on all sites, even macros.

Yes, but the main point is that it's just a part of the starting price calculation, and the price would change additionally according to the sales. Maybe the system would work with every image starting at a "medium" price point, who knows. The cost would be less when each image wouldn't have to be reviewed for pricing.

But the main point is that prices of "hot" images would go up and price of "bomb" images would go down. Also images that were hot years ago would get cheaper when their downloads goes down due to their age. Now at DT many old images suffer for their high price.

« Reply #49 on: December 01, 2010, 09:23 »
0
okay, estimate the cost of this:   (and effort? - what is that?)
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPpONUfCOI/AAAAAAAAAF4/HEJvnGM81rY/_MG_7541.jpg
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPo13gs9kI/AAAAAAAAAF0/hlDk1wl__PU/_MG_7540.jpg


"effort" is how much work, time, skill, patience, photoshop work is needed for creating the shot.

I'd say your images may be in the highest category (at least in the medium category); released model, outdoor location with lighting and a classic car. Requires scheduling, planning and time.


that's your cost estimate?


it's cost and effort. It may not have cost you $$$ if the model is your friend and the car is yours. But it clearly has taken you much more time and effort to create these images than shooting an isolated apple.

It's also very much about perceived cost/effort. "How much money/work would be required if I shot a similar image myself?".
« Last Edit: December 01, 2010, 09:32 by Perry »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
215 Replies
44192 Views
Last post September 20, 2010, 07:06
by Microbius
6 Replies
4881 Views
Last post September 17, 2010, 01:08
by leaf
85 Replies
25548 Views
Last post November 09, 2010, 20:54
by Chico
10 Replies
4194 Views
Last post October 28, 2010, 11:34
by WarrenPrice
6 Replies
3642 Views
Last post July 30, 2011, 13:19
by leaf

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle