MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: stockfreeimages.com  (Read 22417 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 15, 2012, 19:29 »
0
dreamstime have launched stockfreeimages.com

- there a PR at http://www.marketwatch.com/story/stockfreeimagescom-launches-offering-400000-free-images-to-designers-webmasters-and-bloggers-2012-03-15

those who have free images on DT also seem to have their images opted into this collection - at the bottom of each image page there are (or should be I guess - it seems that my images on there don't have) thumbs to 8 of your other images on dreamstime.

Fotolia seemed to fail miserably in this space with photoxpress - but least for those with thumbnails on their stockfreeimages page's then they get some 'comeback' to the main DT site - fotolia 'forgot' that bit.

I guess it would have been nice to know before the launch?... or what that have simply meant everyone would pull their free images from DT?

yes there will be plenty of people who this does not affect as they don't have any free images on dreamstime, will be interesting if DT make this work where fotolia seem to loose interest.

(and for the record I have a whopping 6 free images on DT which are only there to test the waters)


« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2012, 20:03 »
0
Morons.  Goes to show none of them care about you/us.

« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2012, 20:17 »
0
Morons.  Goes to show none of them care about you/us.

I think you just came up with their tagline.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2012, 20:22 »
0
I don't get this as a marketing tool. 400,000 images? That gives people 400,000+ reasons to not buy an image. If it's worth using it's worth charging for. Even $1. I just checked the site and there are plenty of usable images. WTH?

Free stuff should only be offered as an incentive to buy something. Buy 100 images get 10 free ones. I'm not seeing how attracting freebie hunters, who typically don't pay for anything and will go out of their way to find free stuff, is a good approach to grow revenue. Someone who is searching for free stuff does not intend to buy anything.

If I can get free gas at one gas station why would I go somewhere else to pay for it?

I hope this fails miserably and should be a lesson to anyone who gets warm fuzzys from offering some of their images for free.

velocicarpo

« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2012, 20:42 »
0
Morons.  Goes to show none of them care about you/us.

So true...

« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2012, 22:26 »
0
Morons.  Goes to show none of them care about you/us.
With more and more "get-rich-quick" contributors from Asia and Eastern Europe it's not too much of a surprise that the agencies have no interest in "protecting" or "tending to" their long standing, successful, individual contributors.

This was the problem to begin with: Microstock, the chance to make (some) cash from (almost) nothing. No editors had to be impressed, no massive gear had to be purchased. Yes, things have moved on but still, as we can see, so many new contributors are flooding the collections at every agency making it so much more difficult for each individual contributor.

It only hurts us not the agencies. They keep on getting swamped with thousands and thousands of images daily no matter what Yuri, Sean or anyone else says or does. Now the whole shebang is a self-runner. The agencies don't even have to beg contributors to come to them, it just happens on its own.

However, the agencies look for other ways to get more buyers and if that means offering free stuff to more people (which could possibly turn them into buyers...) then so they will do that as well. Like I said, they won't take a hit, only every single one of us does...

It never has been fair, but now it's even more unfair...  :-\

« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2012, 23:48 »
0
If I can get free gas at one gas station why would I go somewhere else to pay for it?

I hope this fails miserably and should be a lesson to anyone who gets warm fuzzys from offering some of their images for free.

Because most of the microstock agency's free image offerings are akin to red-diesel (agricultural grade), yes it'll 'do the job', but it's not going to be good for your engine :)

I'm in favour of agencies making free-images offerings, and here's why:

1) Most agency-hosted free images are really crap. There are exceptions of course, but for the most part they are sub-standard when compared to the bulk of the paid collection, particularly in the major demand topics.
2) The upsell from free-to-paid has worked for me, I've been referring free-photo users to dreamstime (and other agencies) for about 2 years now, and they do convert quite nicely into paying buyers. My referral income makes a lot more (especially from dreamstime) on upsold buyers than from contributors (even though I have referred many more contributors).
3) At microstock-expo when I asked his panel about this, Oleg Tscheltzoff said "People who like free, don't want to pay"... which is fair enough, maybe they don't 'want' to pay, but those who are most successful eventually realise they will get more if they do, and fortunately microstock has a very VERY low 'barrier' price.
4) I have a couple of tools to help buyers search for free images, with a focus on the upsell, and I quite often get sent questions like "I like this image *link*" but it's not quite *reason*... where can I find a better version". I then refer those people to a lightbox or search results page of similar images.
5) The main competition to many microstock agencies is creative commons (mainly flickr/google) and wiki-commons. Bloggers want images, and the sheer number of blogs out there is unimaginable, I'd rather the people who 'like free' are getting them from somewhere where there is at-least a chance of them turning in to paying buyers.

I think a free offering is smart, and whilst stockfreeimages.com in particular could use a stronger focus on the upsell, it's neat, easy and quick use, and has potential to reach a lot of people.
If they just add an api I can get on upselling through them too :)

« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2012, 00:04 »
0
Why dont they just market all 400,000 in the free section they started in 2007?  http://web.archive.org/web/20070809014104/http://www.dreamstime.com/free-images_pg1  ???

« Reply #8 on: March 16, 2012, 00:20 »
0
That gives people 400,000+ reasons to not buy an image. 

You said it best.

For those who want to continue to devalue their work, go ahead.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #9 on: March 16, 2012, 07:46 »
0
Here's another way to look at it.

I haven't bought antivirus software in probably 10 years. Why should I? There are dozens of free ones that are good enough. I'm guessing there are millions, or maybe even tens of millions of people, who feel the same way. If there were no free options my choice would be pay, or go without antivirus software. If antivirus was no longer free a good percentage of those people would buy it. Some won't, but using 10 million new sales as an example, multiplied by $30 for the software, equals $300 million. That $300 million would be divided up among all the software companies.

The same thing applies to us. If it wasn't free people would need to pay, or do without. And that new money would get divided up among us. Free takes away from all of us.

« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2012, 07:54 »
0
Morons.  Goes to show none of them care about you/us.

Who? DT or the thousands of individuals who have contributed content to the free section?

Ed

« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2012, 08:03 »
0
I'm convinced that the only way to get the value of an image to increase, is to educate the buyers on how they need to charge more for their product.  I don't understand why a designer can't charge an hourly rate plus out of pocket expenses - out of pocket expenses being the images they buy for use within the design.

The issue is that they are giving their work away for free or pennies, and then they are putting pressure on the agencies to lower prices and give work away for free because the designers don't have the cajones to raise their prices.

People (including contributors to the agencies) need to start learning to say no to low/no paying clients.

« Reply #12 on: March 16, 2012, 10:12 »
0

« Reply #13 on: March 16, 2012, 10:17 »
0

ShadySue

« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2012, 10:18 »
0
Bonkers, I'd say.

"Image use is completely free of charge, but site terms do require users to provide attribution via a creditline. "

Which, judging by the extremely few people who obey iStock's site terms and attribute photos used editorially, will cost them a fortune to police. If they even bother.

ShadySue

« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2012, 10:24 »
0
I'm not seeing how attracting freebie hunters, who typically don't pay for anything and will go out of their way to find free stuff, is a good approach to grow revenue. Someone who is searching for free stuff does not intend to buy anything.
As a former teacher, I can confirm this totally.

« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2012, 10:38 »
0
I really don't mind the "free image of the week" approach that some agencies have on their front page.  It brings people to the site every Monday to see what's new and in most of these cases they can easily click through to the portfolio or "more of this model".

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2012, 10:49 »
0
Here's another way to look at it.

I haven't bought antivirus software in probably 10 years. Why should I? There are dozens of free ones that are good enough. I'm guessing there are millions, or maybe even tens of millions of people, who feel the same way. If there were no free options my choice would be pay, or go without antivirus software. If antivirus was no longer free a good percentage of those people would buy it. Some won't, but using 10 million new sales as an example, multiplied by $30 for the software, equals $300 million. That $300 million would be divided up among all the software companies.

The same thing applies to us. If it wasn't free people would need to pay, or do without. And that new money would get divided up among us. Free takes away from all of us.

Or they would pirate the software and people would download it illegally. Same goes for images. Free isn't something some people will do without. If it isn't given, they'll take it.

I feel, after re-reading my post, that I should add, most people don't have the knowledge to write an anti-virus program of their own if they choose not to buy one, but with cameras on every cellphone these days and a wide variety of people who have the opinion it's "good enough" as you put it, if stock image prices are too high and they can't get one free, they certainly could supply their own. I'm not sure there'd be much extra wealth to divide up.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2012, 11:15 by digitalexpression »

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2012, 11:00 »
0
Bonkers, I'd say.

"Image use is completely free of charge, but site terms do require users to provide attribution via a creditline. "

Which, judging by the extremely few people who obey iStock's site terms and attribute photos used editorially, will cost them a fortune to police. If they even bother.

They won't bother. The free section has always been a self promo tool to attract people to the site in the hopes that the next time they need an image they come back and buy one. DT knows just like everyone else that there will always be losses due to theft. They're trying to reduce the theft somewhat by giving would be thieves a legal way to get free photos. In the process hoping some will look at the higher quality options available and choose to buy one of those instead.

I don't necessarily agree with the strategy but I do accept that as long as I put my property on display, someone will want to--try to--will steal it.

« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2012, 11:15 »
0
By FAR the most popular free site on the web is sxc.hu, which is a massive referral driver for istock. Dreamstime is trying to compete - every visitor they get to their free site is one they don't have to pay to advertise to. Fotolia did the same thing with photoxpress, though that site has shifted a bit. If sxc were not so popular, I doubt this approach would be Dreamstime's first choice.

ShadySue

« Reply #20 on: March 16, 2012, 11:15 »
0
There are loads of photo users who don't require 'picture perfect': adequate and free is good enough.

OTOH, it depends how they're going to set out the new site. There seem to be some 'partners' who apparently offer free downloadable images. When you go to their page and look for e.g. a photo of a horse, and you get one free downloadable image then many more watermarked ones linking to the download page for the image on whichever micro/s they've partnered with.
Don't even know if that works well, but I got a (very) few referrals when iStock was giving them via some 'free' site, so some people must bite.

rubyroo

« Reply #21 on: March 16, 2012, 11:39 »
0
IIRC, sxc.hu was originally the site that drove so much traffic towards StockXpert.  I seem to remember the boss of StockXpert saying they were pretty stunned at the amount of traffic they received via that route.  So... Getty swallowed that up too eh?

But still, I'd much rather see the agencies educating the public on copyright issues by persuading them that the prices they sell at are a bargain, and that the creators can only make a living if they SELL them.  I'd also like to see them try to break the 'everything should be free' mentality by making it widely known that copyright is NOT about the man on the street vs faceless corporates, but is about enabling us little creators to make a living from our titchy share of the cut.

I think someone cleverer than I ought to start a video campaign with depressing, funereal music, that starts 'Imagine a world without images.....' and then displays websites, magazines, etc. solely reliant on text, and puts forward the case for legitimate purchase to support the artists who make the world more visually appealing and help to convey a thousand words with a picture.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2012, 11:44 by rubyroo »

« Reply #22 on: March 16, 2012, 11:43 »
0
IIRC, sxc.hu was originally the site that drove so much traffic towards StockXpert.  I seem to remember the boss of StockXpert saying they were pretty stunned at the amount of traffic they received via that route.  So... Getty swallowed that up too eh?

Actually, sxc was so popular that they spun out stockxpert as a paid site, which sxc then promoted. They were both bought by Jupiter images, which was then bought by Getty a number years ago. When Getty shut down stockxpert, sxc became a referral driver for istock.

And I agree with the rest of your points.

rubyroo

« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2012, 11:46 »
0
Ahhh clever.  An inch by inch approach that worked.  I guess they still have that approach now with Stockfresh.  Hope it works for them this time around too.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #24 on: March 16, 2012, 11:51 »
0
Giving away just a few pictures for free as a promotional tool is fine.

But 400k+ is too much imo: for a popular search, it means many potential buyers can find a suitable free alternative, resulting in a lost sale instead of promotion.

However many other sites have free pictures as well, so - if they all do - I must be wrong and they must know what they do. Possibly ;D
« Last Edit: March 16, 2012, 11:53 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2012, 12:06 »
0
I don't get it. Does it mean DT will offer only those images free to buyers which are kept in free section by "contributor himself" or DT may include even those image to Stockfreeimages.com which we contributors have not offered as free to DT ???

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #26 on: March 16, 2012, 12:06 »
0
IIRC, sxc.hu was originally the site that drove so much traffic towards StockXpert.  I seem to remember the boss of StockXpert saying they were pretty stunned at the amount of traffic they received via that route.  So... Getty swallowed that up too eh?

It helped drive traffic. Traffic itself means very little. How many of you have personal sites that get a ton of traffic and no sales? So did it help drive increasing sales? If so, by how much? How many sales did it take away?

The idea is to drive the right kind of traffic and I don't see freebie hunters as the right traffic. I would love to see stats that prove me otherwise.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #27 on: March 16, 2012, 12:09 »
0
Here's another way to look at it.

I haven't bought antivirus software in probably 10 years. Why should I? There are dozens of free ones that are good enough. I'm guessing there are millions, or maybe even tens of millions of people, who feel the same way. If there were no free options my choice would be pay, or go without antivirus software. If antivirus was no longer free a good percentage of those people would buy it. Some won't, but using 10 million new sales as an example, multiplied by $30 for the software, equals $300 million. That $300 million would be divided up among all the software companies.

The same thing applies to us. If it wasn't free people would need to pay, or do without. And that new money would get divided up among us. Free takes away from all of us.

Or they would pirate the software and people would download it illegally. Same goes for images. Free isn't something some people will do without. If it isn't given, they'll take it.


What?????????? So because people steal stuff we should offer it for free? Maybe we should start stealing cameras from the local electronic stores and maybe they'll start offering them for free. Photoshop gets pirated and they're still charging for it the last time I looked. Why is photography the constant target of free entitlement?

« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2012, 12:16 »
0
Morons.  Goes to show none of them care about you/us.

Who? DT or the thousands of individuals who have contributed content to the free section?

A bit of both. I have contributed to free image of the week promos at sites (I don't think it's ever done anything for personal sales but I think it's a reasonable way for contributors to help the sites). I have never and would never contribute anything to a free section. Once my images are old enough, anything DT wants to consign to the free section will be deleted. I don't do free images and think that anything of sufficient quality to pass inspection shouldn't be offered for no charge.

By and large the difference in quality between the freebies on DT and the paid images is pretty obvious. If someone wants to offer images that didn't meet inspection standards at no charge, then in general that doesn't seem to be any more competition than Flickr with a creative commons license already is.

The new site, vs. free images on DT itself, seems to be little different beyond the URL. The one thing they didn't do though is provide a portfolio link on the paid site from the image on the freebie site. You can see other free images by that person and similar paid images. I think there should be a portfolio link for the contributor to make it easy for someone to find them (in the unlikely event they actually did want to buy credits).

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #29 on: March 16, 2012, 12:29 »
0
I don't get it. Does it mean DT will offer only those images free to buyers which are kept in free section by "contributor himself" or DT may include even those image to Stockfreeimages.com which we contributors have not offered as free to DT ???

I had the same doubt and did a few searches. None of my pictures are on the free site, and free pictures are more or less those already in the free section on the main site. So at least we are reassured that it's a voluntary decision.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2012, 14:41 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #30 on: March 16, 2012, 12:30 »
0
IIRC, sxc.hu was originally the site that drove so much traffic towards StockXpert.  I seem to remember the boss of StockXpert saying they were pretty stunned at the amount of traffic they received via that route.  So... Getty swallowed that up too eh?

It helped drive traffic. Traffic itself means very little. How many of you have personal sites that get a ton of traffic and no sales? So did it help drive increasing sales? If so, by how much? How many sales did it take away?

The idea is to drive the right kind of traffic and I don't see freebie hunters as the right traffic. I would love to see stats that prove me otherwise.

exactly.

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #31 on: March 16, 2012, 12:36 »
0
Here's another way to look at it.

I haven't bought antivirus software in probably 10 years. Why should I? There are dozens of free ones that are good enough. I'm guessing there are millions, or maybe even tens of millions of people, who feel the same way. If there were no free options my choice would be pay, or go without antivirus software. If antivirus was no longer free a good percentage of those people would buy it. Some won't, but using 10 million new sales as an example, multiplied by $30 for the software, equals $300 million. That $300 million would be divided up among all the software companies.

The same thing applies to us. If it wasn't free people would need to pay, or do without. And that new money would get divided up among us. Free takes away from all of us.

Or they would pirate the software and people would download it illegally. Same goes for images. Free isn't something some people will do without. If it isn't given, they'll take it.


What?????????? So because people steal stuff we should offer it for free? Maybe we should start stealing cameras from the local electronic stores and maybe they'll start offering them for free. Photoshop gets pirated and they're still charging for it the last time I looked. Why is photography the constant target of free entitlement?

Has there ever been a point you didn't miss? I was not saying it was OK simply pointing out the enormous flaw in your argument. To suggest if people can't get it free they would see no alternative but to buy it is ludicrous. Digital cameras are everywhere. Anyone can take photos and even if most of it is crap by your standards as you said yourself, many people don't care. Good enough is good enough. Deal with the fact that there will always be people looking to get freebies.

I'll bet real money you're going to miss that point too. Go ahead get even more upset, I'm done with you.

« Reply #32 on: March 16, 2012, 12:39 »
0
I don't get it. Does it mean DT will offer only those images free to buyers which are kept in free section by "contributor himself" or DT may include even those image to Stockfreeimages.com which we contributors have not offered as free to DT ???

I had the same doubt and did a few searches. None of my pictures are on the free site, and free pictures are more or less those already in the free session on the main site. So at least we are reassured that it's a voluntary decision.
Obviously. If DT start donating our royalty free images as free then what would we do ? We can not even pull out all of our images because of their 6 months restriction.. lol i hope this is not the case. Let it not be a start of competition b/w agencies for donating free images what DT has probably started...

« Reply #33 on: March 16, 2012, 12:40 »
0
We need to get our heads out of the sand.

There are many, many people out there who start and end their image searches by looking at sites that offer free pictures, pure and simple.

All this talk of educating these people... really?  Are you going to go door to door and try to convince them they are being bad?

How better to "educate" them on the merits of paying for better images than to set up a site offering free images and give them glimpses of how they could get much better images if they could just part with a buck or two?

This type of approach is probably the only hope for converting people who have no intention of buying.  To "show them the light" you have to talk to them where they're comfortable... and building a site offering free stuff (assuming it's marketed well, has good SEO, etc.) may be the best bet for this.

I think everyone's real fear is that today's paying customer will see this and decide to download free shots instead.  That is a real risk, and I would hope Dreamstime and any other microstock planning such a move has a plan to prevent cannibalization as much as possible.  But the larger risk is to ignore the growing masses who would never even consider microstock.  We all hate it, but the buyers of tomorrow are being trained to never pay for images.  To simply try to wish the problem away will ensure microstock's demise in the long run.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2012, 12:48 by stockmarketer »

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #34 on: March 16, 2012, 12:43 »
0
I don't get it. Does it mean DT will offer only those images free to buyers which are kept in free section by "contributor himself" or DT may include even those image to Stockfreeimages.com which we contributors have not offered as free to DT ???

I had the same doubt and did a few searches. None of my pictures are on the free site, and free pictures are more or less those already in the free session on the main site. So at least we are reassured that it's a voluntary decision.
Obviously. If DT start donating our royalty free images as free then what would we do ? We can not even pull out all of our images because of their 6 months restriction.. lol i hope this is not the case. Let it not be a start of competition b/w agencies for donating free images what DT has probably started...

DT can't offer images for free that are in contributors portfolios without consent. That would make them guilty of copyright infringement. You still own the images you offer for sale on DT. If you find one of those for free on this new site you can file a law suit against DT. Don't worry,

WarrenPrice

« Reply #35 on: March 16, 2012, 12:43 »
0
Morons.  Goes to show none of them care about you/us.

Who? DT or the thousands of individuals who have contributed content to the free section?

A bit of both. I have contributed to free image of the week promos at sites (I don't think it's ever done anything for personal sales but I think it's a reasonable way for contributors to help the sites). I have never and would never contribute anything to a free section. Once my images are old enough, anything DT wants to consign to the free section will be deleted. I don't do free images and think that anything of sufficient quality to pass inspection shouldn't be offered for no charge.

By and large the difference in quality between the freebies on DT and the paid images is pretty obvious. If someone wants to offer images that didn't meet inspection standards at no charge, then in general that doesn't seem to be any more competition than Flickr with a creative commons license already is.

The new site, vs. free images on DT itself, seems to be little different beyond the URL. The one thing they didn't do though is provide a portfolio link on the paid site from the image on the freebie site. You can see other free images by that person and similar paid images. I think there should be a portfolio link for the contributor to make it easy for someone to find them (in the unlikely event they actually did want to buy credits).

Not agreeing or disagreeing; just pointing out that many of my images rejected at one site may be accepted and sell very well at another.  Finding them for FREE at DT is not a good thing.

Also, if it isn't good enough to sell, it might be better to avoid having a "poor quality" image representing the entire portfolio of an artist.  Better to delete than display a crappy example of my portfolio.

I think.   :P

WarrenPrice

« Reply #36 on: March 16, 2012, 12:50 »
0
I don't get it. Does it mean DT will offer only those images free to buyers which are kept in free section by "contributor himself" or DT may include even those image to Stockfreeimages.com which we contributors have not offered as free to DT ???

I had the same doubt and did a few searches. None of my pictures are on the free site, and free pictures are more or less those already in the free session on the main site. So at least we are reassured that it's a voluntary decision.
Obviously. If DT start donating our royalty free images as free then what would we do ? We can not even pull out all of our images because of their 6 months restriction.. lol i hope this is not the case. Let it not be a start of competition b/w agencies for donating free images what DT has probably started...

DT can't offer images for free that are in contributors portfolios without consent. That would make them guilty of copyright infringement. You still own the images you offer for sale on DT. If you find one of those for free on this new site you can file a law suit against DT. Don't worry,

You obviously have not followed Dreamstime's logic on this subject. 

« Reply #37 on: March 16, 2012, 12:55 »
0
DT's existing free section (on the DT site) has images that by and large I think are substandard. DT (and other sites) have rejected images of mine that I think aren't even close to substandard - at DT the biggest issue is a crackpot similars policy. Perhaps I should rephrase slightly to say that images that would get rejected a the majority of the top and middle tier sites don't represent any competition beyond what's already out there.

I wouldn't want any poor quality image of mine on a free site for just the reason you state, but it doesn't hurt me as a contributor if someone else chooses to do that. I was talking from the point of view of us as a group of contributors and what agency actions hurt us or help, in general. The issue of what helps or hurts an individual contributor is often different.

« Reply #38 on: March 16, 2012, 12:56 »
0
Here's another way to look at it.

I haven't bought antivirus software in probably 10 years. Why should I? There are dozens of free ones that are good enough. I'm guessing there are millions, or maybe even tens of millions of people, who feel the same way. If there were no free options my choice would be pay, or go without antivirus software. If antivirus was no longer free a good percentage of those people would buy it. Some won't, but using 10 million new sales as an example, multiplied by $30 for the software, equals $300 million. That $300 million would be divided up among all the software companies.

The same thing applies to us. If it wasn't free people would need to pay, or do without. And that new money would get divided up among us. Free takes away from all of us.

Or they would pirate the software and people would download it illegally. Same goes for images. Free isn't something some people will do without. If it isn't given, they'll take it.


What?????????? So because people steal stuff we should offer it for free? Maybe we should start stealing cameras from the local electronic stores and maybe they'll start offering them for free. Photoshop gets pirated and they're still charging for it the last time I looked. Why is photography the constant target of free entitlement?

Has there ever been a point you didn't miss? I was not saying it was OK simply pointing out the enormous flaw in your argument. To suggest if people can't get it free they would see no alternative but to buy it is ludicrous. Digital cameras are everywhere. Anyone can take photos and even if most of it is crap by your standards as you said yourself, many people don't care. Good enough is good enough. Deal with the fact that there will always be people looking to get freebies.

I'll bet real money you're going to miss that point too. Go ahead get even more upset, I'm done with you.

To think that everyone with a camera can do easily decent (just decent, not great) stock photos is very candid. But then again, that's what I used to think before getting in microstock. Yes, amateurs can get a decent, let's say, landscape photo by chance, but not much more.
The problem is that some of these free photos at SFI o what's its name, are decent. I'll keep that in mind as a costumer, for projects without budget, but I'll go on buying at istock when needing professional stuff.

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #39 on: March 16, 2012, 12:57 »
0
I don't get it. Does it mean DT will offer only those images free to buyers which are kept in free section by "contributor himself" or DT may include even those image to Stockfreeimages.com which we contributors have not offered as free to DT ???

I had the same doubt and did a few searches. None of my pictures are on the free site, and free pictures are more or less those already in the free session on the main site. So at least we are reassured that it's a voluntary decision.
Obviously. If DT start donating our royalty free images as free then what would we do ? We can not even pull out all of our images because of their 6 months restriction.. lol i hope this is not the case. Let it not be a start of competition b/w agencies for donating free images what DT has probably started...

DT can't offer images for free that are in contributors portfolios without consent. That would make them guilty of copyright infringement. You still own the images you offer for sale on DT. If you find one of those for free on this new site you can file a law suit against DT. Don't worry,

You obviously have not followed Dreamstime's logic on this subject. 

Really? How did Dreamstime get to decide the law? They may take consent from simply not responding to an email but they don't just offer up photos as free without consent of some kind. If you tick the button that says if your pic doesn't qualify it can be offer for free then that's consent. If there are no sales after 4 years and they send you an email to say you can either re-keyword, donate or delete and you ignore that email, that's consent. Don't ignore emails and delete your images if you don't want them offered as free. They can give my photos away as long as they continue to pay me royalties for each download but they cannot, by law, decide that my photos are now free without my consent.

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #40 on: March 16, 2012, 13:04 »
0
Here's another way to look at it.

I haven't bought antivirus software in probably 10 years. Why should I? There are dozens of free ones that are good enough. I'm guessing there are millions, or maybe even tens of millions of people, who feel the same way. If there were no free options my choice would be pay, or go without antivirus software. If antivirus was no longer free a good percentage of those people would buy it. Some won't, but using 10 million new sales as an example, multiplied by $30 for the software, equals $300 million. That $300 million would be divided up among all the software companies.

The same thing applies to us. If it wasn't free people would need to pay, or do without. And that new money would get divided up among us. Free takes away from all of us.

Or they would pirate the software and people would download it illegally. Same goes for images. Free isn't something some people will do without. If it isn't given, they'll take it.


What?????????? So because people steal stuff we should offer it for free? Maybe we should start stealing cameras from the local electronic stores and maybe they'll start offering them for free. Photoshop gets pirated and they're still charging for it the last time I looked. Why is photography the constant target of free entitlement?

Has there ever been a point you didn't miss? I was not saying it was OK simply pointing out the enormous flaw in your argument. To suggest if people can't get it free they would see no alternative but to buy it is ludicrous. Digital cameras are everywhere. Anyone can take photos and even if most of it is crap by your standards as you said yourself, many people don't care. Good enough is good enough. Deal with the fact that there will always be people looking to get freebies.

I'll bet real money you're going to miss that point too. Go ahead get even more upset, I'm done with you.

To think that everyone with a camera can do easily decent (just decent, not great) stock photos is very candid. But then again, that's what I used to think before getting in microstock. Yes, amateurs can get a decent, let's say, landscape photo by chance, but not much more.
The problem is that some of these free photos at SFI o what's its name, are decent. I'll keep that in mind as a costumer, for projects without budget, but I'll go on buying at istock when needing professional stuff.

Did I say that? Did I use the english word for decent? I thought I used the word crap. What language am I communicating in? Hello. That seems like english to me. How is it so many people completely miss the point? I don't know why I bother. You say something, some newton takes it the wrong way and there's a fight. nice website.

« Reply #41 on: March 16, 2012, 13:13 »
0
Here's another way to look at it.

I haven't bought antivirus software in probably 10 years. Why should I? There are dozens of free ones that are good enough. I'm guessing there are millions, or maybe even tens of millions of people, who feel the same way. If there were no free options my choice would be pay, or go without antivirus software. If antivirus was no longer free a good percentage of those people would buy it. Some won't, but using 10 million new sales as an example, multiplied by $30 for the software, equals $300 million. That $300 million would be divided up among all the software companies.

The same thing applies to us. If it wasn't free people would need to pay, or do without. And that new money would get divided up among us. Free takes away from all of us.

Or they would pirate the software and people would download it illegally. Same goes for images. Free isn't something some people will do without. If it isn't given, they'll take it.


What?????????? So because people steal stuff we should offer it for free? Maybe we should start stealing cameras from the local electronic stores and maybe they'll start offering them for free. Photoshop gets pirated and they're still charging for it the last time I looked. Why is photography the constant target of free entitlement?

Has there ever been a point you didn't miss? I was not saying it was OK simply pointing out the enormous flaw in your argument. To suggest if people can't get it free they would see no alternative but to buy it is ludicrous. Digital cameras are everywhere. Anyone can take photos and even if most of it is crap by your standards as you said yourself, many people don't care. Good enough is good enough. Deal with the fact that there will always be people looking to get freebies.

I'll bet real money you're going to miss that point too. Go ahead get even more upset, I'm done with you.

To think that everyone with a camera can do easily decent (just decent, not great) stock photos is very candid. But then again, that's what I used to think before getting in microstock. Yes, amateurs can get a decent, let's say, landscape photo by chance, but not much more.
The problem is that some of these free photos at SFI o what's its name, are decent. I'll keep that in mind as a costumer, for projects without budget, but I'll go on buying at istock when needing professional stuff.

Did I say that? Did I use the English word for decent? I thought I used the word crap. What language am I communicating in? Hello. That seems like English to me. How is it so many people completely miss the point? I don't know why I bother. You say something, some newton takes it the wrong way and there's a fight. nice website.

Well, you were implying that people wouldn't care using crap instead of decent images. Sorry if I didn't meet your standards, professor.

« Reply #42 on: March 16, 2012, 14:00 »
0
I just merged the two threads about this .. sorry for the overlap.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #43 on: March 16, 2012, 19:26 »
0
DT's existing free section (on the DT site) has images that by and large I think are substandard. DT (and other sites) have rejected images of mine that I think aren't even close to substandard - at DT the biggest issue is a crackpot similars policy. Perhaps I should rephrase slightly to say that images that would get rejected a the majority of the top and middle tier sites don't represent any competition beyond what's already out there.

I wouldn't want any poor quality image of mine on a free site for just the reason you state, but it doesn't hurt me as a contributor if someone else chooses to do that. I was talking from the point of view of us as a group of contributors and what agency actions hurt us or help, in general. The issue of what helps or hurts an individual contributor is often different.

The comment wasn't aimed at you or what you said; I just quoted you as a segue into what I was going to say anyway.   ;D

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #44 on: July 02, 2012, 18:10 »
0
Because most of the microstock agency's free image offerings are akin to red-diesel (agricultural grade), yes it'll 'do the job', but it's not going to be good for your engine :)

Not true!

The only difference is they add red to it so they can differentiate between the two and charge tax on the regular undyed diesel other then that they are the same and it doesn't hurt your engine.

« Reply #45 on: July 02, 2012, 18:18 »
0
I don't think that giving images away for free is a good policy. You might think that submitting a couple of images for free can make no harm, but just as in microstock it is all about numbers. When ten thousands upload 10 free images than you have 100 thousands free images available. Those numbers really can affect sales.

« Reply #46 on: July 02, 2012, 18:30 »
0
Because most of the microstock agency's free image offerings are akin to red-diesel (agricultural grade), yes it'll 'do the job', but it's not going to be good for your engine :)

Not true!

The only difference is they add red to it so they can differentiate between the two and charge tax on the regular undyed diesel other then that they are the same and it doesn't hurt your engine.

how many types of "clients" there are in micro(stock)?
- the ones who stole (leaving watermark or removing it, google)
- the ones who will get the free pics and leave (ex: new bloggers without any budget)
- the ones that might pay for it but would appreciate it for free
- the ones that will pay for it and use it in unproper ways
- the ones that will really respect the agencies/contributors licenses etc

that said if we give more and more our work for free it will certainly damage us, yep those are the crappy "potential buyers" but if they havent got them for free they would perhaps pay for it, if not, thats their problem

even if serious buyers/designers could get our pictures for free they would love it, so lets not give them a/that chance

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #47 on: July 02, 2012, 19:58 »
0
Because most of the microstock agency's free image offerings are akin to red-diesel (agricultural grade), yes it'll 'do the job', but it's not going to be good for your engine :)

Not true!

The only difference is they add red to it so they can differentiate between the two and charge tax on the regular undyed diesel other then that they are the same and it doesn't hurt your engine.

how many types of "clients" there are in micro(stock)?
- the ones who stole (leaving watermark or removing it, google)
- the ones who will get the free pics and leave (ex: new bloggers without any budget)
- the ones that might pay for it but would appreciate it for free
- the ones that will pay for it and use it in unproper ways
- the ones that will really respect the agencies/contributors licenses etc

that said if we give more and more our work for free it will certainly damage us, yep those are the crappy "potential buyers" but if they havent got them for free they would perhaps pay for it, if not, thats their problem

even if serious buyers/designers could get our pictures for free they would love it, so lets not give them a/that chance
I was talking about the diesel fuel!

Otherwise i would have quoted the whole thing.

Lagereek

« Reply #48 on: July 08, 2012, 01:10 »
0
Morons.  Goes to show none of them care about you/us.

Who? DT or the thousands of individuals who have contributed content to the free section?

Oh, the people supplying ofcourse! they are the morons,  adding fuel to the fire. Not the agencies.

Poncke

« Reply #49 on: July 08, 2012, 04:57 »
0
Here's another way to look at it.

I haven't bought antivirus software in probably 10 years. Why should I? There are dozens of free ones that are good enough. I'm guessing there are millions, or maybe even tens of millions of people, who feel the same way. If there were no free options my choice would be pay, or go without antivirus software. If antivirus was no longer free a good percentage of those people would buy it. Some won't, but using 10 million new sales as an example, multiplied by $30 for the software, equals $300 million. That $300 million would be divided up among all the software companies.

The same thing applies to us. If it wasn't free people would need to pay, or do without. And that new money would get divided up among us. Free takes away from all of us.

Or they would pirate the software and people would download it illegally. Same goes for images. Free isn't something some people will do without. If it isn't given, they'll take it.


What?????????? So because people steal stuff we should offer it for free? Maybe we should start stealing cameras from the local electronic stores and maybe they'll start offering them for free. Photoshop gets pirated and they're still charging for it the last time I looked. Why is photography the constant target of free entitlement?

Has there ever been a point you didn't miss? I was not saying it was OK simply pointing out the enormous flaw in your argument. To suggest if people can't get it free they would see no alternative but to buy it is ludicrous. Digital cameras are everywhere. Anyone can take photos and even if most of it is crap by your standards as you said yourself, many people don't care. Good enough is good enough. Deal with the fact that there will always be people looking to get freebies.

I'll bet real money you're going to miss that point too. Go ahead get even more upset, I'm done with you.

To think that everyone with a camera can do easily decent (just decent, not great) stock photos is very candid. But then again, that's what I used to think before getting in microstock. Yes, amateurs can get a decent, let's say, landscape photo by chance, but not much more.
The problem is that some of these free photos at SFI o what's its name, are decent. I'll keep that in mind as a costumer, for projects without budget, but I'll go on buying at istock when needing professional stuff.

Do you know what the actual difference is between amateur and professional? Not having a go at you, honestly, but if you knew the actual difference, you wouldnt make that statement.

Poncke

« Reply #50 on: July 08, 2012, 05:01 »
0
DT's existing free section (on the DT site) has images that by and large I think are substandard. DT (and other sites) have rejected images of mine that I think aren't even close to substandard - at DT the biggest issue is a crackpot similars policy. Perhaps I should rephrase slightly to say that images that would get rejected a the majority of the top and middle tier sites don't represent any competition beyond what's already out there.

I wouldn't want any poor quality image of mine on a free site for just the reason you state, but it doesn't hurt me as a contributor if someone else chooses to do that. I was talking from the point of view of us as a group of contributors and what agency actions hurt us or help, in general. The issue of what helps or hurts an individual contributor is often different.

Thats a very valid point indeed. Because similars are basically of high quality and would have been accepted, without the similars policy, for the RF section. So they now end up as free DLs (if the contributor has the option ticked)...... truly shocking

Poncke

« Reply #51 on: July 08, 2012, 08:39 »
0
There is a pop up on the site now, promoting stuff, this is one of the quotes
Quote
A free image section with over 510,000 free images waiting to be downloaded. For free.

But there is not one mention of the high quality images for sale

RacePhoto

« Reply #52 on: July 20, 2012, 22:54 »
0
Morons.  Goes to show none of them care about you/us.

No need for three pages of debate, you just covered the whole topic.

Red diesel is nothing but dye, bad analogy. It's the same as what they sell at the gas station for vehicles.

Or maybe it was a perfect mistake, because the refused images are often identical to the ones for sale, similar rejections, and therefore potential buyers get free useful images, of the highest quality and we lose sales.

Anyone who thinks free images are good, needs to work one day a week, for free, for your employer, to prove how good you are, so they will pay you for the other four days?

Now that's the same as giving away free images!  ;D

« Reply #53 on: July 21, 2012, 00:55 »
0
Ah.... so that's where all the rejected similars go. 


 

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results