pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Discussion Group for a possible new Business Model ..  (Read 9733 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 09, 2009, 05:47 »
0
There was a post recently about collectives and how to increase the photographers share, and what would be the best model, there were several directions and a vote that was evenly split.

I had a good think about a new model, one that is not just another agency and some of the answers that were posted had good input, and I came up with a solution from these that I think could work.

I have had some interest from forum members, that would get involved developing a working solution but no one on the business and marketing yet, but I am still interested in what other have to say about the merits of this specific model.

So I do not bog down this forum with posts, I have setup a discussion group, just to discuss a possible future model and posted a blog there with the concept outline.
  
This is an open discussion group, and I would appreciate any input from Photographers, Buyers and Agents about this particular model and a way forward that increases the Photographers Share.

The Concept Page http://groups.google.com/group/digital-media-artists-alliance/web/concept

The Group http://groups.google.com/group/digital-media-artists-alliance

Thanks

David
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 01:47 by Adeptris »


michealo

« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2009, 08:40 »
0
I thought it doomed to failure but I didn't want to rain on your parade.




RT


« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2009, 08:50 »
0
I thought it doomed to failure but I didn't want to rain on your parade.

Ditto

« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2009, 08:55 »
0
I thought it doomed to failure but I didn't want to rain on your parade.

Thanks for the reply, likely the same one that many start ups have had, some fail some do well that is the way of it, there was a guy who's idea was giving away images for free, just imagine that for free, he started a website called istockphoto, I wonder what happened to that idea, it could never work but maybe as things went on he may have monitized it in some way.

David  ;D

michealo

« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2009, 09:07 »
0
I thought it doomed to failure but I didn't want to rain on your parade.

Thanks for the reply, likely the same one that many start ups have had, some fail some do well that is the way of it, there was a guy who's idea was giving away images for free, just imagine that for free, he started a website called istockphoto, I wonder what happened to that idea, it could never work but maybe as things went on he may have monitized it in some way.

David  ;D

Doing it then was different, doing it know isn't

« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2009, 10:42 »
0
It is different and it might work.  There will always be people saying it will never work and sometimes they will be spectacularly wrong.  I know someone who used to work for IBM and thought microsoft were a joke :)

michealo

« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2009, 11:02 »
0
You seem to have identified storage costs as the reason agencies can't or won't pay more to contributors. What data do you base this on?

Do you plan to have an inspection process? Or a free for all like SV?

And why is this better than Featurepics? which pays 70%



WarrenPrice

« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2009, 11:05 »
0
I'm willing to listen ... maybe even participate.  What the Heck ... I buy Lotto Tickets.

« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2009, 11:09 »
0
I joined the group but wouldn't it be better to have this discussion here?

« Reply #9 on: June 09, 2009, 11:27 »
0
You seem to have identified storage costs as the reason agencies can't or won't pay more to contributors. What data do you base this on?

Do you plan to have an inspection process? Or a free for all like SV?

And why is this better than Featurepics? which pays 70%


You need to think outside of the Agency concept, your images are assets which at the moment many scatter to the different servers owned or rented by websites all over the world, as someone has said today what happens if one of the sites you upload to goes bang, and the servers loaded with your assets which are often abroad are sold on in a fire sale.

Photographers assets have a value that we do not protect enough, we allow other to control these assets.

The revenue that you receive from your assets is classed as royalties, stock imaging websites licence your images and hold your royalties until you have reached a royalty level, one that they have set to pay you out, if you never reach the payout point they keep your royalties is that right.

The concept of the model I would like to look at is where the Photographer has full control over their Assets until point of transaction, where you upload once to a standard template which includes licence type, keywords, release information, price band etc:, this data and a thumbnail is submitted to a search engine not the prepared image, which stays under your control you agree that the image will be available and if you withdraw it from sale there would be a 48 hour notice period to inform any agency that is hosting your image.

Instead of you uploading to many agencies you upload once, the agencies then search for images they want rather than inspecting images that they do not need, from the search results they can then invite your image thumbnail or comp into thier library, and that is all they need to sell your Image, when a sale takes place they request by automation the full size image, the transaction is recorded and metadata added to your image and then copied across to the agency.

When the Agency request the full size image they have agreed to the price you have set, they make the commision they have added to your sales price.

The Photographers would have the control of thier assets back, less work uploading, more time to take photgraphs, the agencies will have a search engine where they can search for specific images within a price band and add them to thier library without having to store full size images that they really do not want.    

David  8)
« Last Edit: June 09, 2009, 11:33 by Adeptris »

« Reply #10 on: June 09, 2009, 11:38 »
0
I joined the group but wouldn't it be better to have this discussion here?

Hi Sharpshot,
As this would be a project that would take about a year to bring about, and there would have to be a lot of discussion threads to keep it on track, I thought it would need it's own place.

We would feedback to this forum

David.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #11 on: June 09, 2009, 17:12 »
0
I f&^cking LOVE this idea, well done David for putting it to paper..

Many years ago a group of photographers got together and founded a little company called Magnum. They came up with a 'new' concept, that instead of having the client dictate the price and keep rights to all photos shot under contract, the photographer should set the price, keep the copyright, and sell TO MULTIPLE clients. The idea was new, the usual people said it would never work, and those people are now posting to microstock enoying the copyright these people brought abaout, and they are still saying ideas like this will never work.

Time to get a backbone and take power back from the agencies. THEY SHOULD NOT BE SETTING THE PRICE, YOU SHOULD BE!!!!!!!!!!! I really hope this idea works.. also another two cents, I would much prefer a yahoo or google group if possible? I haven't heard of the other site and I'm imagining most people have to sign up to join the group..

« Last Edit: June 09, 2009, 17:14 by hqimages »

« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2009, 00:44 »
0
I f&^cking LOVE this idea, well done David for putting it to paper..

Many years ago a group of photographers got together and founded a little company called Magnum. They came up with a 'new' concept, that instead of having the client dictate the price and keep rights to all photos shot under contract, the photographer should set the price, keep the copyright, and sell TO MULTIPLE clients. The idea was new, the usual people said it would never work, and those people are now posting to microstock enoying the copyright these people brought abaout, and they are still saying ideas like this will never work.

Time to get a backbone and take power back from the agencies. THEY SHOULD NOT BE SETTING THE PRICE, YOU SHOULD BE!!!!!!!!!!! I really hope this idea works.. also another two cents, I would much prefer a yahoo or google group if possible? I haven't heard of the other site and I'm imagining most people have to sign up to join the group..

Thanks for the positive input, I am finding it hard to put the concept across, that it is not another agency but a search engine that connects photographers (Digital Artists) to Customers and Agencies that want to include thier images.
 
That's a plan I wil look at setting up a Google Group today.

David
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 02:13 by Adeptris »

« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2009, 01:48 »
0

WarrenPrice

« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2009, 13:13 »
0
Okay, I joined the group.  Now what?

Actually, I like the idea.  I'll have to discuss the matter of establishing some galleries with my webmaster.  It may take a lot of effort?

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #15 on: June 10, 2009, 13:35 »
0
It will be a lot of effort.. and with no investment/money won't work.. Don't know how that will get sorted but, that's what the group is for!

I did already build my own web site to sell my images, and I could do it for anyone, but it's HARD, it takes weeks to do, it costs money.. and I can't see microstock contributors paying my fee, or even half of it to be honest.. and there's no way I'm building web sites for people for free.. it's just to hard, it takes too much time, and it's a headache.. especially with the kind of functionality that we need.. but.but.but. It is possible in theory, that each contributor could have their own web site, with prices set per image, and have a communal web site that searches all the web sites in the 'group'.. takes time, takes money, in fact, it's a full-time job for approx 3 people..

« Reply #16 on: June 10, 2009, 13:43 »
0
There are many easy to use blog or CMS software anybody can use. Some ISP like GoDaddy have one click installs for them. We can target some of them with some easy to plugin scripts similar to what Google does with AdSense or Analytics.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #17 on: June 10, 2009, 13:48 »
0
Can't do that, well, the way I see it..

Each photographer should have their own web site with full check-out functionality for image buyers. The price for each image is set on that web site. They can promote it locally, they are not competing with anyone else, their web site is for their images only.

They then allow potential distributors to sell their images, kind of like a referral scheme, the price is already set, and you give a % of the sale price for each referral sale.. that's how I see it working..

Then you need to have an api or some way that a distributor could take the images from the entire group of web sites (they would need to be hosted with the same hosting company to make things easier), and display them/sell them on their own web page.. this would be open for anyone to do..

« Reply #18 on: June 10, 2009, 14:01 »
0
For example my personal blog is using WordPress which give me opportunity to plugin anything written in PHP. If we can provide library that can be easily used then it will take care of API for some files I upload to my hosted server.

« Reply #19 on: June 10, 2009, 14:04 »
0

WarrenPrice

« Reply #20 on: June 10, 2009, 15:42 »
0
After doing all this work, posting, marketing, selling, billing, etc.   Why do I need a global search engine? 

What is the search engine searching on?  Doesn't Google offer much the same capability ... for finding me/my images? 

I like the "group" idea, I think, but what's in it for me?

Don't count me out; just color me skeptical.


« Reply #21 on: June 10, 2009, 15:46 »
0
I guess Google will not "see" images on users websites, otherwise anybody could download them for free. Our search engine will only index sites that are registered with it and offer API a.k.a backdoor to see images :-) There must be some sort of handshake between legitimate search engine and the site.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #22 on: June 10, 2009, 15:47 »
0
It's not really a global search engine, I think an api is a better word to use, you want a way for distributors to be able to display the images, whether via a global search, or categorised thumbs, or both.. you just want as many re-sellers as possible to plugin to the group's images in exchange for their commission based on the sale price (set by the image owner)..

« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2009, 16:54 »
0
It's not really a global search engine, I think an api is a better word to use, you want a way for distributors to be able to display the images, whether via a global search, or categorised thumbs, or both.. you just want as many re-sellers as possible to plugin to the group's images in exchange for their commission based on the sale price (set by the image owner)..


Thats correct, I have created a simple graphic overview model and posted it on the group site, so you can get a better idea of the flow in a visual format.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/digital-media-artists-alliance/web/model-overview

It is not a website but a search and logistics tool, the API would not be public there would be some form of registration, the API would only grant access to metadata and thumbnails until a transaction takes place, the agreed price bands would cover all media RM, RF, Micro Midstock and Macro the Artist woud decide where each image fits, keywording would have to be an agreed  CV controlled vocabulary, the scope is massive when you think about digital media delivery this way, from Bloggers, Agencies, Merchants, Organisations and Direct Client Sales

These are some of the issues that need to be sorted out, Warren asked what is in it for Him, the concept is what share of work you put in, you get that same percentage share of the enterprise, there are a lot of options, one missing member at the moment is the marketing and business head.

The database indexes the metadata including the location of the images, and an indexing engine stores and retrieves the data, at the moment the best starting option is a product called Zebra, if it kicks in big time then a more commercial engine could be looked at.

David  ;D
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 16:59 by Adeptris »

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #24 on: June 10, 2009, 17:07 »
0
I think you're missing the creation of a web site for each contributor under their own url also.. otherwise, what's the difference between this method, and new web sites such as zymmetrical where they set their own price too..

WarrenPrice

« Reply #25 on: June 10, 2009, 17:18 »
0
My concerns, David, are/were more about the work that I am/will be putting into creating a fully functioning e-commerce site that does everything.  Actually, the work that my (friend) webmaster would put together.  Once I have a library or libraries of images and the capability to market, sell and collect from customers (shopping basket, paypal account, etc), where, how, and why do I connect to the API (search engine)?  Will I need to keyword everything and upload thumbnails to a central location?  HOW is the API going to link to me?

Do I really need the API after developing my fully-function e-merce site?  I think I like this but can't seem to wrap my simple mind around it.  May be my problem is age-related?   :-\ ;D

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #26 on: June 10, 2009, 17:34 »
0
My concerns, David, are/were more about the work that I am/will be putting into creating a fully functioning e-commerce site that does everything.  Actually, the work that my (friend) webmaster would put together.  Once I have a library or libraries of images and the capability to market, sell and collect from customers (shopping basket, paypal account, etc), where, how, and why do I connect to the API (search engine)?  Will I need to keyword everything and upload thumbnails to a central location?  HOW is the API going to link to me?

Do I really need the API after developing my fully-function e-merce site?  I think I like this but can't seem to wrap my simple mind around it.  May be my problem is age-related?   :-\ ;D

I suppose you could use your own api for your own website, as long as you can separate your images from the others on the server.. I feel like it's all backwards.. first stop should be, have each person develop their own web site to sell their own images, next stop put those images out as a communal database for distributors.. but, I guess you could start with the image storage, develop the api to adhere to usernames, and then each contributor can build their own web site using it, and decide for themselves whether they want to allow distributors access to the api for their images also, or not..

« Reply #27 on: June 10, 2009, 17:43 »
0
I think you're missing the creation of a web site for each contributor under their own url also.. otherwise, what's the difference between this method, and new web sites such as zymmetrical where they set their own price too..

Free website tools would be included but not the core, the difference is now you upload the same image, in different keyword and attribute templates, accepting different prices from many websites, this new model you upload only once, then via the API the different agencies can request you image thumbnail and data to add to thier library, this does not waste your time or assets uploading to get a rejection for 'not what we are looking for' or 'we have to many of this style'.

Now you upload many times and spread your assets all over different servers, new model upload once, set the price and keep control.

David  ;) (Long day)

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #28 on: June 10, 2009, 18:00 »
0
I think you're missing the creation of a web site for each contributor under their own url also.. otherwise, what's the difference between this method, and new web sites such as zymmetrical where they set their own price too..

Free website tools would be included but not the core, the difference is now you upload the same image, in different keyword and attribute templates, accepting different prices from many websites, this new model you upload only once, then via the API the different agencies can request you image thumbnail and data to add to thier library, this does not waste your time or assets uploading to get a rejection for 'not what we are looking for' or 'we have to many of this style'.

Now you upload many times and spread your assets all over different servers, new model upload once, set the price and keep control.

David  ;) (Long day)

I getcha now! I don't think I'm on the same wavelength though.. this model still forces the contributor to be dependant on distributors, and I feel it doesn't have enough going for it.. I don't know.. you'll see the same users sell their image from this at 20 euro let's say, and the same image at SS for 20 cent. I feel like if photographers were given their own web site with a checkout, without competition, it would shift in their mind the balance of power or dependancy on distributors..

I can see it's handy to have one copy of an image as opposed to many, and uploading to one site instead of many, and ok, people can set their own prices, but prices will need to be standardised then because people will keep undercutting each other until the big fish are the only ones left.. and if the price is standardised to a value more expensive than let's say, istock, but the same images are on istock for 200% cheaper, the api will be useless.. I think photographers first need to sell from their own web sites, and feel the power of it ;) They might even sell from their own web site exclusively if it works, and THAT is when you get a communal api that is WORTH a lot, and can actually result in new websites, re-selling images at a set price, that are NOT available anywhere else cheaper. You want it, find the photographer, or find a distributors web site..
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 18:02 by hqimages »

« Reply #29 on: June 10, 2009, 18:06 »
0
Would not be nice if in future IStock understand our API and you can register your site with them instead of uploading individual images. We can give them 25% for this :-)

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #30 on: June 10, 2009, 18:12 »
0
Istock are already doing this model, they now 'share' their 'communal' database of images across to photos.com.. and I'm sure there will be many more sites to come.. they will end up with the top 6 sites, all with the same istock images at different prices.. SAME images, DIFFERENT prices.. I find it a joke really.. oh and always less commissions to the artist, that's a given.

That's why, this idea, I get it, and maybe it is good, but it would only be good for an agency that can undercut the cheapest microstock site.. because the same images go around and around.. I wish photographers would get the concept of setting a price, and not going below it, but it's impossible not to go cheaper, with such massive competition between each person for downloads.. that's why I would love to see photog with their own web sites, and promoting themselves to their local community of business people too, then perhaps having a communal search engine, that searches the images yes, but re-directs the buyer to each photographers own web site to checkout.. again the images have to be only available via their web site, or at another web site at the same price or higher, it doesn't work if they undercut themselves.

« Reply #31 on: June 10, 2009, 18:29 »
0
This model will not prevent some photographers from setting very low prices. They are free to do that. Maybe there will be competition between photographers eventually when they notice that setting very high prices will produce not results. However nobody is forced to that form the beginning.

There sites that act like that already but they parse agency websites and harvest image thumbnails. When you want to buy images you are redirected to original image page.

Imagine that they do not have to do web scrapping but there is clear API to get images. Even agencies with tons of images can implement this API and act like one huge contributor.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 18:37 by melastmohican »

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #32 on: June 10, 2009, 18:33 »
0
This model will not prevent some photographers from setting very low prices. They are free to do that. Maybe there will be competition between photographers eventually when they notice that setting very high prices will produce not results. However nobody is forced to that form the begining.

Right, and the people with the most images can afford to go the lowest, so they will wipe out the other image contributors, that's why I think step 1 is to get your own web site, sell it yourself, promote it yourself, think local. Step 2, figure out how to bunch this group of web sites built on the same platform and all at different prices, together to buyers, in a way that doesn't encourage low pricing, or undercutting the competition.. what you could do is have a search engine that searches all sites, but you can only have your images indexed by the engine, if your images are priced over a certain amount..

« Reply #33 on: June 10, 2009, 18:41 »
0
I think we have to agree on completely open model or maybe we can establish lower limits but then who is going to say what is too low?

If API is successful I think we will have large number of contibuting sites and one or few rogue contributors will have no affect on prices. Think about it as if was a stock exchange :-)

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #34 on: June 10, 2009, 18:47 »
0
I think we have to agree on completely open model or maybe we can establish lower limits but then who is going to say what is too low?

If API is successful I think we will have large number of contibuting sites and one or few rogue contributors will have no affect on prices. Think about it as if was a stock exchange :-)

You see, the API won't be successful, if the same image under the api at x amount, is available elsewhere for cheaper.. it will never work if that's the case.. what you could do is only allow contributors with exclusive images that perhaps they are already selling via their own web site, share those images across the api or global search feature.. or you could state that only images not available elsewhere for cheaper are allowed to be shared, eg you could price it at zymettrical and still be allowed to share with the api as a non-exclusive image because the price is the same..

« Reply #35 on: June 10, 2009, 18:52 »
0
This should be contributors individual decision if he/she keeps uploading same files to other agencies it's not a fault of the API, it's bad strategy. Some people already differentiate, do not upload to subscription sites or upload only smaller files there. It's strategy too.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #36 on: June 10, 2009, 18:56 »
0
This should be contributors individual decision if he/she keeps uploading same files to other agencies it's not a fault of the API, it's bad strategy. Some people already differentiate, do not upload to subscription sites or upload only smaller files there. It's strategy too.

It's a fault of the API. If we want to have people re-sell the images, as many people as possible, then it has to be more competitive than what's out there. Since we can't be competitive in price, since the cheapest price is free :) we need to be more creative, with things like exclusive images, or this image is NOT available anywhere else for cheaper. That will give re-sellers the confidence to invest in, and build, their own web site around our images.

« Reply #37 on: June 10, 2009, 19:03 »
0
It was discussed here before. Everybody shall stop contributing to all agencies and put images in one place where it's priced right. It's not going to happen. We will to take down 1000lb gorilla at once. Agencies can survive without some of the contributors while these people might have businesses around selling photos and they will go down if they do not sell for a while. I believe in gradual transition. Let's say that at first we put our "best" shots in our system only and give scraps to agencies. If it takes off we can lower "other contributions" until everything new goes to our system.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #38 on: June 10, 2009, 19:21 »
0
It was discussed here before. Everybody shall stop contributing to all agencies and put images in one place where it's priced right. It's not going to happen. We will to take down 1000lb gorilla at once. Agencies can survive without some of the contributors while these people might have businesses around selling photos and they will go down if they do not sell for a while. I believe in gradual transition. Let's say that at first we put our "best" shots in our system only and give scraps to agencies. If it takes off we can lower "other contributions" until everything new goes to our system.

No not all the images, that's why this needs to be baby steps
Step 1, have your own web site to sell downloads of images at your own price, keep contributing to all your agencies
Step 2, having made a few sales on your web site, perhaps locally if you can promote it that way, to people who wish to support you as an artist, even if they do know they could get it cheaper elsewhere, you begin to think it might be a good idea to have some images on your web site only available from there, and use it as a selling point to your customers, exclusive images
Step 3, you have made more sales on your own exclusive images, new customers have found their ideal image on your site, and know they cannot get their hands on it any other way, now you are ready to mark that exclusive image for sharing
Step 4, once marked for sharing, you recieve more downloads referred to you by various distributors web sites, and you keep track of what commission you owe them, and you are responsible for paying them once they reach a certain amount


« Reply #39 on: June 11, 2009, 01:45 »
0
Great Input,
It seems the idea is getting discussed here and in the Group site, for now we should not get bogged down in fine detail at this stage, that will be dicussed at each stage.

Quote from: The KISS principle
KISS is a modern acronym for the empirical principle "Keep it Short and Simple," or the more recent and disparaging "Keep it Simple, Stupid", KISS states that design simplicity should be a key goal and that unnecessary complexity should be avoided.

Initail process is to agree that the concept is really viable, and discuss the foundation this has to be a solid engine where modules can be devloped for the different outlets.

I see the debate on pricing, the idea is to have different price bands with levels, these will have a lower and upper level, where the photographer places an image will be thier choice, but the image will only belong to one price group, so if you have 10,000 images or 10 the revenue per sale would be the same if they are all in the same Price Band and Level, that is what the buyer has to pay you.

If you contribute to one of the microstock agencies and your same image is on sale via the engine, you might choose a price band of microstock and a level of medium, you would now be competing with your own images, but any sales will come at 100% to the photographer at the time of sale.

I do not see there is a problem as many already have the same images with Shutterstock and Istock, there is a difference with the sales price to the Customer and revenue to the photographer.

An Idea has been floated that we set the retail selling price and a rebate value that will be paid to the Agent, this can also be discussed as it would allow for a fairer system for direct sales to the public via blogs etc:, currently the Music CD and Video DVD Sales work use this model, the price is set the same and global for all outlets, then discounts and rebate % are agreed with each merchant or Agent.

David  ;D  
« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 01:53 by Adeptris »

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #40 on: June 11, 2009, 03:38 »
0
many already have the same images with Shutterstock and Istock, there is a difference with the sales price to the Customer and revenue to the photographer.

This is a huge problem, for example, istock have now shared their photos across to photos.com, so instead of a nice 5 credit sale, the photographer now gets 30 cent, the reason this is happening is because istock wants to undercut shutteerstock. If we don't tackel this issue with an idea based on fair trade, with an api to include EXCLUSIVE images not available for cheaper anywhere else, it will NOT work.

« Reply #41 on: June 13, 2009, 07:20 »
0
I have now connected DWL to the Bloggers of the world, it's part of a plan to get indexed by Google and a bit more exposure for this idea.

http://digitalweblogistics.wordpress.com/ (Link added to microstockgroup)

The logo has been designed to give Digital Web Logstics an identity!

There is some positive feedback from twitter contacts, and a few more are now following and other tweeters are forwarding my tweets to their contacts, all good networking and publicity.


David


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
1991 Views
Last post October 24, 2007, 03:33
by stokfoto
20 Replies
6133 Views
Last post April 16, 2008, 12:00
by lisafx
4 Replies
1828 Views
Last post January 12, 2009, 03:11
by Clivia
1 Replies
1535 Views
Last post July 23, 2013, 07:30
by williamju
1 Replies
1360 Views
Last post May 17, 2018, 02:51
by mindstorm

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results