MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Anyone heard of 3D Studio  (Read 17540 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 19, 2009, 19:20 »
0
I came across this site and was wondering if anyone heard anything about them.

http://www.the3dstudio.com/


WarrenPrice

« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2009, 19:54 »
0
Yeah.  I just got an email from them....a solicitation.

Hello,

I found you online and am sending a quick email to invite you to sell your stock photos/images on The3dStudio.com website.

At The3dStudio.com we are changing the way stock photos and images are bought and sold: We dont use a goofy credit based payment system; we dont require a minimum purchase from our customers; and we dont sell your photos for pennies.

We are a well-established businessover 13 years. We pay an excellent royalty rate60% of every sale goes to you (80% with our affiliate program). We provide real-time reports 24/7 and royalties are paid each month. Our file upload system and product creation form is fast and easy to useit takes just a few seconds to add each photo/image.

There are no set-up, membership, hosting, monthly, or other fees of any kind for photographers or authorswe only make money if you make money.

Please visit http://www.the3dstudio.com for an overview of who we are and what we do. For more information about the benefits we offer, see Selling Products at: http://www.the3dstudio.com/help.aspx

This is not a mass email and you have not been added to a mailing listI just want to make you aware of our web site.

If you have any questions, let me know.

Thank you,
Lisa Anderson
[email protected]

« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2009, 19:55 »
0
Fun you are talking about them, I just received an Email from them asking me if I wanted to be a contributor there. Very polite and well written. I'll tale a look when I have a bit more time.

« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2009, 21:05 »
0
LisaAnderson from 3dstudio has been posting in the 'if I had to start a new microstock' thread.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/if-i-had-to-start-up-a-new-microstock-site/msg108377/?topicseen#new

ironically she complained that everyone is hiding their email addresses :):):)

« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2009, 21:27 »
0
60%, set your own price, most "textures" (which includes architecture images) $5-$10. (I couldnt comment on 3d models).

in my five minute look over lunch, looks ok but I didnt find a terms and agreement (which I have learnt is a good thing to actually read :):))

but
doesnt appear to have ftp :(
has categories and other 'info' to put in :(
has the US withholding tax thing :(:(

not necessarily deal killers, but not as much fun :)

« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2009, 23:00 »
0
I am Matt @ The3dStudio.com and figured I would drop in to maybe address any questions anyone has and just clarify a few things.

1. You do get a 60% royalty rate. Most pictures/images sell for $12 with our smallest size having a $4 minimum but you can set your prices higher if you prefer. Join our affiliate program and those sales pay you 80%.

2. We don't work like the other sites and we very much believe in changing the way stock is bought and sold so you aren't doing a lot of hard work for a few pennies per sale. As you can see on our site, we already have some BIG names in the biz signing up to sell with us.

3. We do NOT offer FTP, but do have a very high end multiple file image upload system that's even better (and far more secure than FTP). We also run and own our own data center and have fast upload speeds. Our product creation form (where you enter keywords, etc) is designed to make your job fast and easy. Adding a photo literally takes seconds.

4. We do have categories (it's more important than you might think) but it's VERY easy to pick one and you only have to pick one. Beyond that it's just name and keywords that you enter (model release is optional).

5. We do have US withholding for those outside the US. Keep in mind you ONLY pay withholding tax on orders placed by customers in the USA. At the same time it is possible to reduce or eliminate this tax for most countries.

Questions? Just email me at [email protected] or reply back to Lisa.

-Matt

« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2009, 02:10 »
0
thanks Matt :)

« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2009, 06:51 »
0
Where can we read the contributors agreement? That's part of why I posted here. It sounds good but the devil is in the details.

« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2009, 07:19 »
0
"Goofy credit based system" ?  That system was essentially what created the microstock market.   It also creates a slight psychological disconnect for buyers between their wallet and their purchase.

Aside from just charging higher prices, how are you "changing" the market?

« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2009, 09:36 »
0
Quote
where you enter keywords, etc

Does this mean that our IPTC data is not populated automatically?

Thanks!

« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2009, 11:19 »
0
Sorry, forgot the agreement link...

http://www.the3dstudio.com/legal.aspx

...it's also posted at the bottom of every page on our site, our login page, and checkout page.

IPTC keyword data IS automatically populated if you have it in your JPGs...speeding up the process that much more for you.

Yes, GOOFY credit based system. As a consumer I shouldn't have to do a bunch of math to figure out how much one image will cost me. At the same time, I shouldn't have to buy XX credits when I only need X. Imagine walking into a Wal-Mart and all of a sudden they decide to work in credits...no consumer on earth would stand for that, so why should they when buying online for stock? We also don't do subscription systems which are a killer when it comes to your profit on a sale (or whatever pennies they call your profit).

I think I listed how we are changing the market, but the key items to note are the hiher royalties we pay (up to 80%), the higher prices we have on images we have, the super fast upload and create system, and the lack of a GOOFY credit system.

Give us a try, it's a great time to get in on our site and get started with us.

-Matt

« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2009, 11:24 »
0
PS - Forgot to mention another major way we are changing the way this industry works:  We are a family owned and operated site, we update our site based on our member feedback. Unlike some of those stock sites where you have no voice at all, here at The3dStudio.com we give you a voice and listen to what you have to say and make changes based on your feedback. We are a user driven community and I think that's another huge advantage that we have.

I've read countless posts (not just here) about all of the problems that photogs have with the current run of stock sites. I've seen some that list out what they'd do differently, etc, and we've actually listened to that sort of feedback and made changes based on it. One of our newest members, LumaxArt, who is now starting an adding frenzy...

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_author=30509

...is one of these key members who has given us a lot of input on how our system should work to be easy and fast.
-Matt

« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2009, 13:00 »
0
"Give you a voice"... until you find it advantageous or useful not to.  Unless you're assigning voting shares to members.  Otherwise, it's just a business that takes suggestions like any other.  "Family run" doesn't mean anything either - it isn't my family.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2009, 13:45 »
0
"Give you a voice"... until you find it advantageous or useful not to.  Unless you're assigning voting shares to members.  Otherwise, it's just a business that takes suggestions like any other.  "Family run" doesn't mean anything either - it isn't my family.

Not much sense in arguing ... just a simple yes, no, or maybe. 

To me, it sounds a lot like CutCaster.  A great idea for contributors but what will be the attraction for buyers?

« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2009, 13:54 »
0
Why would we ever find it advantageous to mute your voice? I guess by having that very thought in your head you must have had a negative experience with some other stock site.

I look at it like this, we are running a business and while I can try to assure you that we are good people (and all family) with good intentions to do the right thing whenever possible the bottom line is that we are a for profit business, right? So lets just concentrate on that one pointmaking money.

How do we, as a business make money? First we need photogs to add their photos and then we need people to buy them. That means we really have twice the work of a more typical business as we need two sets of people to make this happen.

The photogs are customers and the buyers are customers, thats how we see it. We also believe that, while the customer may not always be right, the customer should always be treated with respect and have their voice heard. We should always do our best to help the customer in any way we can and resolve any situations that come up with the customer.

Many times the customer has a valid point, idea, suggestion, request, etc and we would want to listen and honor that when possible. Without the customers we wouldnt have a business. So, with the logic that you are the customer and we need you to make money then why on earth would we not listen to our customers and give them what they want?

Thats just how we work. Family run may not mean much to you, but it means a lot to us and it means we have a lot more to lose than somebody collecting a paycheck for a typical faceless corporation. We put our names behind everything we do. You always know who we are and can always contact us for help, questions, suggestions, etc.

While I understand that there people out there who make think thats all BS and sweet talk, that just isnt the case. I know there will be some jaded folks out there that just dont buy what I am saying, but I guess it will be theyre loss in the end.

I am putting my money where my mouth is right here in writing, and I will continue to do so. If we ever come to a point where you think I am not honoring what I have written then feel free to call me on it and throw this back in my face. Of course, that day wont come as I (and we) just dont work like that. We will be the first company that truly takes your best interests into account for everything we do.

PS I also understand the beast that is the forum and that some folks just like to stir the pot. So, while I dont be drug into that, I am more than happy to answer any questions or comments anyone has.

-Matt

« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2009, 14:00 »
0

To me, it sounds a lot like CutCaster.  A great idea for contributors but what will be the attraction for buyers?
[/quote]

CutCaster doesn't seem to be a big site and they still use credits, such and odd system to me. The attraction to our buyers will be your photos, no goofy credit systems, support by major photogs in the industry, and our top notch customer service.

That last one is important as we actually help our customers faster than anybody else. When a customer emails us or opens a support ticket we usually respond within a few minutes to help them out. Customer service just doesn't exist much in this world these days and even less so online but that's a huge area where we stand above the crowd. Providing excellent customer service is my passion...as corny as that sounds, it is the truth.

-Matt

« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2009, 14:19 »
0
Sorry, and no, I haven't had any particularly bad experience.  But as istock moved from designers little secret to what it is today, there have been changes.  And I don't expect to agree with all of them.  And if you are ever successful enough to be mentionable things will change to.  Like less royalties because you need to expand or whatever.

And again, I don't see a family business as any benefit.  Acclaim had big problems once because of family conflicts.  Instead of a benefit, it becomes a problem.  And where does that leave contributors?

« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2009, 14:21 »
0
We are a user driven community and I think that's another huge advantage that we have.
You are a business not a community, desicions are made to benefit the business, the word users covers both customers and contributors with a different agenda, you have listened to what contributors would change and how they would run a stocksite, how do the customers want you to change and run the website?  

I've read countless posts (not just here) about all of the problems that photogs have with the current run of stock sites. I've seen some that list out what they'd do differently, etc, and we've actually listened to that sort of feedback and made changes based on it.
>...
<...
...is one of these key members who has given us a lot of input on how our system should work to be easy and fast.
-Matt

Take all the artists that post comments in blogs, forums and give feedback, these like me are just a very very tiny minority of artists but the most outspoken, the silent majority just gets on with things and do not visit or even know about the forums, some of the posts you will read are often just 'sour grape' knee jerk reactions to policy changes that leave a bad taste, look around the different microstock websites and a lot of the contributors think they belong to a club or community, and they feel betrayed when the 'friendly stocksite owners' that have many thousands or even millions at stake has to change direction and makes a commercial choice to change policy, to save the business or attract new capital.

If you have artists already some of them would be contributing to the microstock websites, why is there a need to seek input from contributors in an open forum, you have the means to take feedback from your existing artists, you will find that many asset artists never learn or do any research on a new offering, and they are willing to try every new website, not as a thought through business chioce but because they can.

From a customers perspective, I do not care how much you pay your artists or who runs the business, you are a new website to microstock imaging, who are the customers going to be, as I cannot see 'the unique selling point' that will change my habits, a few of us are microstock customers, I purchase small microstock images or graphics for my articles and blogs, at 1 credit for a small ($1.20) but yours are $4, and if I brought a small, medium and large graphic, why would I pay $24 for what will be the same assets I can find on the micros for $15?

If you are recruiting artists from microstock then you will be getting the same images, many artists have collections of macrostock images that the sell as RM and not RF on different sites.

Looking at the stockimages section viewing the section people there is no information to say if the image with real people has a model release, looking at 'The London Eye' images there is nothing to say  No property release' or they are editorial only and cannot be used for commercial use, a buyer would need to filter by these flags in a commercial search, I think you may have a way to go before entering the imaging market.

B.T.W. Stock Photos / Images > People brings up 20 pages of mainly illustrations

If I am right and there are people or body parts in an image with no model release, you should not sell it as RF.

David  ::)  
« Last Edit: July 20, 2009, 14:33 by Adeptris »

« Reply #18 on: July 20, 2009, 14:40 »
0
Weve already figured out our royalty structure over our 13+ years in doing this, we have no intention to change that and even if we did wed simply grandfather in the current members. But, again, we have no need to make any changes there and wont have any.

Adeptris, we are a community first and foremost. We started as a community without any plans to make money, but over the past few years it developed into a profitable business based SOLEY on what our contributors and customers wanted. We exist today because of our members (which are contributors and buyers) and are very much a community.

I think you might have misunderstood what I was writing; I am not looking for input via this forum or any at this point. We DO currently take all of our feedback from our members and we do it via direct communication, and not in an open forum like you suggest we are doing. In fact, open forum is usually the worst place for good feedback because it is just the outspoken few who post which may not represent the overall thoughts of the majority.

Our current site is the way it is because of our member feedback, thats how we know we are doing things the right way. Our new uploader and product creation form for stock images is designed the way it is because of suggestions from a few key photogs.

As for buyers, you are rightthey likely dont care about how much goes in your pocket (though some do!). Thats why we dont advertise that sort of thing to customers all that much. For a customer, we offer a fast and easy purchase without dumb credits. We offer fast and easy downloads as well as very fast customer service replies. We are very much a customer service focused company.

Another advantage we will have is that many photogs wont sell on micro-stock sites now because of the low payouts and forced price systems. With our system they have more freedom on pricing and thus we will end up with a lot of unique content that customers wont be able to get anywhere else.

To clear up the pricing you used, our $4 image will be 800 pixelsmany of those 1 credit small images are much smaller, so not exactly apples to apples. As for the $24 price you quote, our large images are usually $12 (but some photogs will set their images higher).

Check our site again, we do show release information. Each author can upload a model or property release as required. If no release is added we show that as well so the customer knows that know release is on file and thus it may be restricted in use. We cant say how restricted that license is though, what you call editorial can actually be used in other situations (educational, etc). So, instead of telling the customer how it can be used in their part of the world, we instead tell them what we have or dont have on the photo and then they can make up their own mind.

« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2009, 14:41 »
0
Hi Phil,

I am not clear why you say it's "ironic" and that I was "complaining" about people hiding their email addresses. That implies that mine is not available, but yet it's been in my profile since the day I registered with this forum/web site. Now I am not a forum pro, so maybe I am the only one that can see it???

Also, I wasn't complaining about people hiding their email addresses, just saying that I don't understand it. Not just here but in any forum, blog, people's web sites, etc. where they have a product or service they are trying to sell. So many people either want to be invisible, or they make it very hard to get in touch with them by keeping their email secret or using contact forms.

My point was not to criticize or complain--it's each person's choice--but merely to express how mystified I am that someone wanting my business would make it difficult for me to find them.

I have gotten a lot of great info from this site and appreciate it a lot!

Lisa Anderson
[email protected] (in case I am the only one that can see it listed in my profile)

« Reply #20 on: July 20, 2009, 14:59 »
0
I was still wondering why people on this forum think I am hiding so I had 2 friends check my profile and they just got back to me and said they see "hidden" for my email address and our URL. I went back to the profile and I see everything. So I assume I see it because I am logged in and I am the profile owner.

If someone can tell me how to un-hide my info, I would be very grateful. I don't do a lot of forum stuff and now you can see why!  :)

Lisa Anderson
[email protected]

« Reply #21 on: July 20, 2009, 15:03 »
0
About the email adress Lisa, most people hied it from forum posts and website because there are some software scanning the web for email adresses to then made them available for spam and con artists. That's the reason that on my website, I have a contact form instead of displaying my email address.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #22 on: July 20, 2009, 15:05 »
0
Don't worrry about the small stuff, Lisa.   This group is notoriously hostile toward any startup.  Concentrate on marketing your site to buyers.  

I appreciate the email but will be a "wait and see" contributor until I see a lot more than just words.

Good Luck


« Reply #23 on: July 20, 2009, 15:09 »
0
Warren, I think you mispelled 'honest' as 'hostile' ;)

« Reply #24 on: July 20, 2009, 15:20 »
0
Sorry to hear you say that Warren, wait and see doesn't usually get anybody all that far :) Hope you will change your mind and get in early with us!

« Reply #25 on: July 20, 2009, 15:35 »
0
Another advantage we will have is that many photogs wont sell on micro-stock sites now because of the low payouts and forced price systems. With our system they have more freedom on pricing and thus we will end up with a lot of unique content that customers wont be able to get anywhere else.

Check our site again, we do show release information. Each author can upload a model or property release as required. If no release is added we show that as well so the customer knows that know release is on file and thus it may be restricted in use.

Hi Lisa,
I am finding it hard to see where you are going to fit in, as a buyer of microstock I have never had the need to use customer services on a well run website, so I do not think that this is a big selling point for me, maybe I have it wrong and you are a more traditional service like Photographers Direct, and will search and create lightboxes for requests on behalf of the customers, which is a good but sometimes costly service to provide for a valued customer.
  
This is the MicroStockGroup so most of the artists you pick up from your mailshot to the forum users will already be selling on credit based or subscription stocksites and will not fit into the 'wont sell on micro-stock sites' box, so it looks like you and your 'valued community customers' are comfortable with the same image for 12 being on sale as a subscription image.

I did revisit and maybe registered users get an advanced search for released or not, I found a photograph with a person zoomed the image and I did see the text 'Release Information N/A' under the prices but it is not that in your face as I would expect, to me N/A means 'Not Applicable' and not required which I would expect on an image of say a wild bird, but I know it is applicable to an image with a real person holding a camera, the image either has or does not have a model release and or a property release and 'for me as a buyer' the details should clearly state all relevent information so I can make a judgement.

I did look at about 20 shot-for-stock style images with people where I would have expected a model release, but they all said 'Release Information N/A' so maybe it is a functional deficit (sounds better than bug)

If we take 'The London Eye' if it is part of a cityscape then a property release is not required, if it is the primary subject then a property release is required for commercial use, N/A leaves everyone open, for me 'N/A Not Applicable', 'Does have Release', 'Does not have Release' are clearer statements with little room for error.  

Man with Camera

These are just my observations not meant to be all negative, I do wish you well and I like the other elements of your website, while you are here maybe check out the menu item 'Support the Site' and get an image posted with a link so contributors and buyers can find your website  ;)  

Regards

David  ;D
« Last Edit: July 20, 2009, 16:00 by Adeptris »

« Reply #26 on: July 20, 2009, 17:15 »
0
Hi Phil,

I am not clear why you say it's "ironic" and that I was "complaining" about people hiding their email addresses. That implies that mine is not available, but yet it's been in my profile since the day I registered with this forum/web site. Now I am not a forum pro, so maybe I am the only one that can see it???

Also, I wasn't complaining about people hiding their email addresses, just saying that I don't understand it. Not just here but in any forum, blog, people's web sites, etc. where they have a product or service they are trying to sell. So many people either want to be invisible, or they make it very hard to get in touch with them by keeping their email secret or using contact forms.

My point was not to criticize or complain--it's each person's choice--but merely to express how mystified I am that someone wanting my business would make it difficult for me to find them.

I have gotten a lot of great info from this site and appreciate it a lot!

Lisa Anderson
[email protected] (in case I am the only one that can see it listed in my profile)

Hi,

sorry perhaps poor choice of words or the problem of not being able to see expressions etc.  I just thought it amusing that you had commented on hidden email details and then done a mail out. I really didnt mean any offensive, I think it is great when site owners (or reps) get involved here and often provides a different perspective etc. :)

personally I am suffering through someone using one of my email addresses as the bogus address on a spam mailout.  I've had over 700 undelivered or invalid address message emails returned to me in the past 2 weeks.  In amongst them there was 1 saying undeliverable that was extrememly important and very luckily I caught it. I have a old online account that used for signing up for sites and put in signatures etc, had to stop using it because of spam. I skim through it once a month to check anything got real got through (very rare), but it gets 30-40 spam emails a day :(

Phil
« Last Edit: July 20, 2009, 17:27 by Phil »

« Reply #27 on: July 20, 2009, 17:20 »
0
I personally think customer service is very important, and while 9/10 customers may never have to contact a company about a purchase that still leaves a huge number that do. Many customers have questions before making a purchase or after and want to know that the company will stand behind that sale and respond quickly. It's a shame that most companies take days to reply but that is one area where The3dStudio.com is different (and thus better).

I think part of the problem now is that many don't like the idea of selling their image for a few "credits" but feel that they don't have many choices. So, it's not that their okay with it but rather they don't have a better place to go and they'd rather have pennies than nothing I guess. I don't expect many to jump ship with iStock and move to us but I know we will get many who will sell on both for a while, until we can show that they are making more from us than other sites at least.

Since our stock section is new, many features are as well. We do have a release upload function but many of the older photos we have don't have a release attached yet. We are going back through them and attaching them as we can and contacting those authors to upload them when possible. Not every photo of a person needs a release, as the requirement of a release depends on the use. It is perfectly legal to sell the image you linked to, but if you need to use it in an ad then the release is required. While we will, of course, encourage all authors to add releases at this point we won't require them to do so as there are many valid uses that don't require one (editorial, etc). The legal end is up to the customer as always (thats a constant from any site really).

This will likely be my last reply on this for now, but if anybody has any questions feel free to email us at [email protected] and wed be happy to answer them. Its hard to answer certain questions in a forum like this without it turning into a mess of information.

-Matt

« Reply #28 on: July 20, 2009, 18:07 »
0
Don't worrry about the small stuff, Lisa.   This group is notoriously hostile toward any startup.  Concentrate on marketing your site to buyers.  

I appreciate the email but will be a "wait and see" contributor until I see a lot more than just words.

Good Luck



unfortunately there is a history of a lot of hype and promises but with some just plain bloody awful (for the artist) deals (selling copyright or $0.02 commission anyone?), a lot of one post wonders, a number of people starting sites that you can quickly see really dont have a clue what they are doing and havent put any research into it, obvious and glaring problems etc etc.

With the frequency of how often they come up and how many are bad for whatever reason, unfortunately I get very cynical :(

and although I dont really see what is really amazing with the this site (maybe I'm just missing it :)) it does seem "solid"? in the small amount I've looked. It has good commision and pricing is generous by micro standards with no subs and $4 small images.  I like the attitude towards contributors, family run doesnt mean a lot to me, but it does show that there are real people behind it that are hopefully :) less likely to say, hey lets cut the contributors earnigns a bit more to make our shareholders happy :) 

and for me as someone who does a lot of textures and backgrounds it sounds even more promising.  Already established for my main area so hopefully :) there is already sales happening in this area and if I am uploading I might as well throw in the photos too in case that takes off.

« Reply #29 on: July 20, 2009, 18:13 »
0
"Many valid uses"?  So, you haven't even decided if you are offering a commercial or editorial license?  It doesn't sound like this has really been planned out.  How do you plan to cover credit card cost minimums on $4 images while paying out %60 (one advantage of credit packages, which, btw aren't a necessity, but do solve some issues).

« Reply #30 on: July 20, 2009, 19:22 »
0
Thanks Phil, good info there. I understand the hesitation by most people...I too wouldn't just jump on board with any new site that posted here and I don't expect that from everyone reading this. I do like to think we get a bit more credibility since we have been in the "stock" biz for over 13 year now at least. I think it shows we aren't some fly by not operation. I hope a few of you will give us a try. At the very least keep an eye on us and you'll see that we have some big names in the biz already getting started with us.

As for sjlocke, the end use of any image is up to the customer. Of course we are selling a commercial license in most cases, but if the image is of a person and doesn't have a release then you would need there permission for an advertisement (for example) but wouldn't for editorial use. I don't care who you buy from, it's always up to the customer who buys to make sure the image is licensed correctly for their use which is why we show release information on each one. The vast majority (non-people for one example) wouldn't be an issue either way.

As for how we plan to cover our merchant fees on a $4 sale, it's probably best that you let us worry about that :) After all, isn't that why you sell through an agency, so they can handle the business end and you can work on the creative end? Okay, I know that answer isn't good enough for you (ha!) so I will tell you that's a big reason behind our $4 minimum pricing. It let's us pay the merchant fees, pay you as the photog, and still have money left over to run the business. The other guys did the credit system where as we prefer the $4 min instead, we could get by on less than that but feel that $4 is a safer option all around.

« Reply #31 on: July 20, 2009, 23:46 »
0
Since our stock section is new, many features are as well. We do have a release upload function but many of the older photos we have don't have a release attached yet. We are going back through them and attaching them as we can and contacting those authors to upload them when possible. Not every photo of a person needs a release, as the requirement of a release depends on the use. It is perfectly legal to sell the image you linked to, but if you need to use it in an ad then the release is required. While we will, of course, encourage all authors to add releases at this point we won't require them to do so as there are many valid uses that don't require one (editorial, etc). The legal end is up to the customer as always (thats a constant from any site really).

-Matt

Matt,
You talk as a company representative about being customer focused, then follow this with a bad attitude toward giving the customers all the information they need for a purchase, you are quite correct that it is the customers responsibility to use the image correctly, however I could be a small town camera store business and I have a friend or family member that is an art student, I ask them to create some advertising material, they search and find the image in the link on your website a couple of $4 RF downloads and loads of trouble later for wrong use.

You know the market so you might know Alamy they sell 78% editorial images from their 17 million images, as an artist when taking an image live you cannot set the licence on a people shot as RF, the system will not allow it, on the big microsites with 5 - 7 million images on average they will have the same customers that your website will be targetting, some will not allow people shots without a model release others for RF you have to clearly mark the image as 'Editorial Use Only' these are massive website that do thier customers a service by not putting them in a position where they do not clearly have knowledge of the restrictions, with alamy RM the usage selection is the key, with the microsites the Editorial Only flag is the key, that is good customers services as the buyer does not have to send an email to ask.    

My opinion is if an image where the model could recognise themselves or a body part in the image then you need a release to sell as non editorial RF, you can still sell the images for editorial use by placing restrictions on the licenced images to that effect, without a model release you should not really sell the image as RF without clearly stating editorial use if the people are recognisable, as RF allows all uses and you have not restricted to just editorial if you have not given the customer this information.

David  :o
« Last Edit: July 20, 2009, 23:49 by Adeptris »

« Reply #32 on: July 21, 2009, 06:05 »
0
Thank you David, for spelling out the issues better than I can from my phone touchpad :)

bittersweet

« Reply #33 on: July 21, 2009, 09:16 »
0
The restrictions on items for resale seem a little loose for my taste. In fact the whole licensing agreement seems a little loose. Maybe those stricter more explicit ones are also too goofy, but I like being able to read the license and know exactly what the purchaser is and isn't allowed to do. If I can read the fuzzy wording and not be entirely certain, how can I feel confident that my images will not be misused?

The overall impression is that the site is selling the images and it's up to the buyer to decide if they are allowed to do certain things with the images. If they do things that are not allowed, then oh well, the site is not liable at all, because they warned you that you should make sure first. I think I prefer for an agency to be a little more hands-on with taking care of my work.

Microbius

« Reply #34 on: July 22, 2009, 03:49 »
0
I'm confused, any reason why your not getting sued by DC comics for copyright infringement or have they just not spotted the site yet?
http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=0&search=superman
or marvel:
http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=0&search=spiderman
 
etc. etc.

« Reply #35 on: July 22, 2009, 12:21 »
0
Just so everybody is clear, any time a customer buys an image from any stock site it is that customer that is the one who must make sure they can legally use it the way they want. This applies to any customer buying from any stock site...while those other sites may not be as upfront about that, that is how the law is written and we just make a point of being more clear about it.

We are in the process of updating our current photos with licensing information that is more clear so we can list Editorial Only, etc. It's a slow process and will likely take us a few more days to do but that doesn't change the fact that the law still puts the burden on the customer as I mentioned above.

Imagine buying a photo from shutter and it said "release on file" and it turns out that release was forged or missing. Think shutter is on the hook for that? Think again. It's always the customer who is so we are simply trying to make that as clear to them as possible while still showing as much information as we can about each image. We could hide behind pages of lawyer speak like other sites but we prefer our simpler agreement that the average person can understand.

As for DC, if you read our agreement you will see that you can't just buy any old model and use it as it may required additional rights being purchased. This is a standard way of buying/selling in the world of 3d stock...sort of the 3d equivalent of "editorial only".
Again, if anyone has questions please email us ([email protected]) and we can answer any questions you have...but I just don't check here all that often to respond.

-Matt

Microbius

« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2009, 12:58 »
0
I think you don't get my question, what I'm wondering is not who will get sued for using the models of copyright/ trademarked characters once they are bought from the site.

My question is why you aren't sued for making money by selling models of copyright/ trademarked characters.

Whether or not they are misused by your customers, you (and your contributors) are still making money by selling characters you do not own the copyright for. i.e. you have already breached copyright by selling the models, whether or not the customer also the misuses the models (?)

I think maybe your terms aren't all that clear because you don't really get how copyright, and therefore licensing, works.
I could be totally wrong, so please clear this up for me, maybe you have permission from these companies to distribute their trademarked characters (?) Maybe you bought a license from DC allowing the distribution (?)

« Reply #37 on: July 22, 2009, 13:01 »
0
As I said, the easiest way to explain is to think of it like editorial use only. I can sell a photo of a pepsi can as long as it is used for ed use only. If the customer buying wanted to use that photo for anything beyond that then they would need to contact pepsi for additional licensing.

Seriously now, I am unsubscribing from the alerts on this post so if anyone has any other questions just email us or use the contact form on our site.

-Matt

« Reply #38 on: July 22, 2009, 15:02 »
0
As I said, the easiest way to explain is to think of it like editorial use only. I can sell a photo of a pepsi can as long as it is used for ed use only. If the customer buying wanted to use that photo for anything beyond that then they would need to contact pepsi for additional licensing.

Seriously now, I am unsubscribing from the alerts on this post so if anyone has any other questions just email us or use the contact form on our site.

-Matt

Hi Matt,
Just to clear things up do a bit of research, pop over to Alamy who sell mainly 78% editorial images, and search their 17 million images with the keywords Pepsi Can, you will get 97 results many not direct Alamy images but from EU partner collections, about 4-6 images of these are what you might call product shots, now refine the search to RF and you get only 4 results from 17 million and the only Pepsi Can you will see is in a pile of rubbish.

The key here is primary and secondary focus of a copyrighted item, is the image of a can of pepsi, or is the can secondary in the composition.

Now as you know the Customers on Alamy are professional and will know about image use, they are not 'Joe public' paying $1 a pop with no idea about usage rights, so the risk of miss-use on Alamy is minimal compared to a microsite as the Alamy customers will have to state the sector and use for rights managed 'L', any images that are flagged as 'Property Release Required' and 'Do not Have Release', the system will stop the buyer from licensing the image for commercial use, as the options will just not be there.

You cannot have this level of control as microstock RF, which leaves all parties open to a letter from a legal eagle of behalf of a compensation culture vulture, looking to settle out of court.

There is a wealth of information out there, the guys in these forums are normally glad to help anyone that values thier knowledge, and the business models of both Micro and Macro sites are a good starting point in understanding this market, it is wise to follow the leaders as they would have top draw legal advice and would have discussed and maybe tested all these options, done a full risk assesment and if they have decided that this is not worth the risk, just like on twitter follow them for their knowledge.

David  ;)
« Last Edit: July 22, 2009, 15:19 by Adeptris »

« Reply #39 on: July 22, 2009, 15:44 »
0
It would seem that it would be sensible to avoid this, at least until they straighten out their licensing and content issues.

Microbius

« Reply #40 on: July 23, 2009, 03:45 »
0
I think this is a really interesting topic. The difference is that by selling a photo of a Pepsi can as editorial you are not actually making a drink and selling it as "Pepsi".

In the case of the comic book characters it is the character itself that is the asset. I would not be allowed to produce an image with Superman and sell it as wallpaper without express permission from DC. Is a stock agency therefore allowed to sell models or renders of trademark characters?

Irrespective of how the final purchasers use the model, the agency is selling a product (the model) based on a trademarked character without a license from the owner to do so.
i.e. the agency itself doesn't have a license to sell the model in the first place.

« Reply #41 on: July 23, 2009, 05:40 »
0
I think this is a really interesting topic. The difference is that by selling a photo of a Pepsi can as editorial you are not actually making a drink and selling it as "Pepsi".

In the case of the comic book characters it is the character itself that is the asset. I would not be allowed to produce an image with Superman and sell it as wallpaper without express permission from DC. Is a stock agency therefore allowed to sell models or renders of trademark characters?

Both the DC characters and the Pepsi brand and logos are all 'brand assets' and protected by IP and copyright.

With the rendering of the DC Characters then that would be an IP violation as well as copyright, as you are just copying the original artists IP work.
Quote
Intellectual Property
Copyright legislation is part of the wider body of law known as intellectual property. The term intellectual property refers broadly to the creations of the human mind. Intellectual property rights protect the interests of creators by giving them property rights over their creations.

As a photographer you do not necessarily have an unlimited right to take photos of commercial products like a Pepsi Can with the product being the primary subject, and then upload them as commercial stock images or even post them on your own website.  
Pepsi have certain rights to control the use of images of their products, it's highly unlikely that due to the cost of an action that a major company would take action regarding a blog or web photo that wasn't deflamatory!

If a downloaded image was used in a deflamatory way by a competitor then it could be a problem, there are lots of product that you should not use for stock.

I had serveral images rejected on Istock, a girl model with playing cards, on research about the violation I found out that the pattern on the back of the playing cards and the Aces are protected, but the numerals, Jack, King and Queen are not, look at Adidas they have a copyright on not just their name but 'three stripes' on sports goods, Nike on a specific style of a tick symbol.  

Many RF websites have different lists of some copyright content images they will not accept, there is not one resource where a photographer can get all the information, so it is up to everyone to do thier own research, maybe we can have a section on MicroStockGroup for copyright isues, here is one sites example

Quote
Superman and DC Comics
All characters, character names, logos, slogans, books, titles, and related indicia are protected by trademark and copyright by DC Comics and/or WildStorm Productions.

The stocksite do not sell the product but a license to use it, It will comes down to the customer who uses the image, but the bad publicity for the site that supplied it would not be good.

Many websites are small and have operated under the radar, with new tools that search webpages for content violations and can match the content of an image to thier copyrighted material, even if it is a derrivative work will bring this issue to the table again I am sure.  

A recent case saw a music file sharer who was asked to settle out of court which most offenders do, she refused and was fined 1 million at 50k a file, so it may become a market that other law companies will now take up.

We do not read about copyright violations much as the matter is often resolved without the courts, and we do not have the bigger picture only the spot size.  


David  ;)
« Last Edit: July 23, 2009, 06:06 by Adeptris »

« Reply #42 on: July 23, 2009, 07:22 »
0
Interestingly, Turbosquid (http://www.turbosquid.com), probably the market leader for 3d models, also lists several Superman and Spiderman models.

Moonb007

  • Architect, Photographer, Dreamer
« Reply #43 on: July 24, 2009, 13:57 »
0
After getting the email I clicked on the site.  Two things turned me off right away, I didn't even look into all the requirements.  The front page is really cluttered, being in stock photography everything should be well designed as its designers that are looking for images.  Second 90% of the front page is 3D models, which I don't do.  I guess a third thing would be seeing a lot of poorly done images.  I am assuming there is no review process sense its a new sight, but this frustrates buys when they have to sift through junk to get to good images.  I am more open to new sights the most here, but I need to be wow to make it worth my time to try.  As of now, 3D studio is lacking in their welcome mat pers-a.

« Reply #44 on: July 24, 2009, 19:38 »
0
Thanks to all who have posted here and sent emails and messages. I appreciate your willingness to "put it out there" for us to try to absorb as we get further into the stock photo world.

I think I finally got my email address unhidden in my profile; I have no clue what was wrong but it was never intentionally hidden. I prefer emails rather than the secret message system forums use, but I guess I am in the minority on that. I do now understand a bit more about why some prefer to stay hidden, though I still think it's weird if you are selling something. But I am interested in seeing what others think and if we disagree--no harm, no foul.  :)

When I read some of the comments about the look of our site or what we offer or how we offer it, I just want to make it clear that we have never purported to be only a stock site; therefore we probably don't look like other sites you may have seen. It works for us and we change what we need to as issues come up.

The3dStudio.com began as a 3D resource site; that's the backbone of our business yet it's not incompatible with stock photos and images. We have added other compatible products in the past and will continue to do so. There is value to our buyers for us to be a one stop shop.

We work diligently 7 days a week to grow all areas of the business while also responding personally to all our members. We added stock photos and images less than 2 months ago and yes, I agree we have room to improve, but we are doing so daily. It was the right time for us and in real life it's usually not possible to wait for perfect conditions--optimal is the best I can hope for--perfect may never come.

Re all the comments about releases, copyrights, etc., here and elsewhere on the internet, I am sure there is a lot correct and a lot that isn't. I recently saw something (YouTube I think) with attorney Ed Greenburg saying something to the effect that photographers don't ask lawyers about legal matters--they ask other photographers. Maybe it's a lawyer's humorous payback for all the lawyer jokes he's heard, but it's true to some extent.

I think he may be right when it comes to copyright and trademark discussions. There is the law, there is interpretation of the law, and there are rumors and forum posts.  People tend to use phrases and words in ways they understand and are comfortable with: editorial use, RF, commercial use, customer, buyer, publisher, or other terms.

Many misunderstandings and/or criticisms may get pushed along farther than they should because in some situations we may not all always use the same terms in the same way.

Or maybe some got advice from an attorney, some got it from someone who got it from an attorney, and some got it somewhere else.

So again, thanks for all the advice and information.

Lisa
[email protected]

« Reply #45 on: July 24, 2009, 21:42 »
0
I think the problem has arisen because most microstock sites  provide an add-on service to customers as a matter of course, and customers might not realize that it is an add-on, thereby expecting it from any stock site. The service I'm referring to is doing the legal legwork with respect to images sold. While the onus is on the end user, most sites screen the images so that customers don't have to go to the trouble of determing legal usage themselves. This encourages buyers to engage in 'one-stop shopping' - buy image and get legal screening thrown in. The result is that most customers probably assume that every site is doing the same.

« Reply #46 on: July 25, 2009, 02:06 »
0
I think the problem has arisen because most microstock sites  provide an add-on service to customers as a matter of course, and customers might not realize that it is an add-on, thereby expecting it from any stock site. The service I'm referring to is doing the legal legwork with respect to images sold. While the onus is on the end user, most sites screen the images so that customers don't have to go to the trouble of determing legal usage themselves. This encourages buyers to engage in 'one-stop shopping' - buy image and get legal screening thrown in. The result is that most customers probably assume that every site is doing the same.

Averil really good point,
I use Alamy as a reference point when talking about 'Editorial Images', many photographers and buyers think that the term editorial means that 'anything goes' and you can just upload any subject, but recently Alamy have taken down more images for The National Trust, Museums and Heritage properties, and images of London Transport assets as the organisations have contacted Alamy and asked for the images to be taken down for different copyright reasons, as no commercial rights had been given.

No stocksite, photographer or buyer knows all the image subjects that are protected, the big stock site will not just seek advice when there is a question, but they have active legal departments to protect them, what they do well is protect everyone as much as they can making the artist and buyer experience as safe as they can, all we can do with new businesses is suggest that they look at what the big stocksites are rejecting for copyright issues.

New business owners can choose to ignore the artists comments and forum 'Chinese Whispers', it is true artist can not offer legal advice, only the artists own experiences or information gained from the other businesses models in the same market, and the asset library is the new businesses responsibility not the artists, however they should look at any advice with an 'open mind' and take some points onboard, as any changes are better now rather than later, once they are seen on the copyright radar there will be a very big cost in searching through millions of assets to remove the offending items, there will be no point in asking the artist to do it, as many with low or no sales will just not bother.

None of these comments should stop anyone from uploading to 3DStudio, all I would say is to upload images the artist knows are safe until 3DStudio have everything in place, the safe assets would be the ones already accepted by any of the big stocksites.

David  ;)
« Last Edit: July 25, 2009, 02:14 by Adeptris »

« Reply #47 on: July 25, 2009, 03:37 »
0
Interestingly, Turbosquid (http://www.turbosquid.com), probably the market leader for 3d models, also lists several Superman and Spiderman models.


Also Swarzenegger, Angelina jolie and many more.   Dont think we can compare 3d modeling rf with Big 6 photo agencies at this point.  As they said, Its up to the buyer to make sure anything is legal.        Buying a gun is the same thing, right ???   

bittersweet

« Reply #48 on: July 25, 2009, 12:14 »
0
I think the problem has arisen because most microstock sites  provide an add-on service to customers as a matter of course, and customers might not realize that it is an add-on, thereby expecting it from any stock site. The service I'm referring to is doing the legal legwork with respect to images sold. While the onus is on the end user, most sites screen the images so that customers don't have to go to the trouble of determing legal usage themselves. This encourages buyers to engage in 'one-stop shopping' - buy image and get legal screening thrown in. The result is that most customers probably assume that every site is doing the same.

This is exactly on point. It's nice that our opinions can be dismissed as hearsay, ignorance, or whatever other euphemism might be used. However, the bottom line is, if I have a client spending $20k on a print job, they want to be damned certain that the licensed artwork I select is legally sound. I don't have the time or expertise to research that. I'm going to purchase images from a site where I feel some attempt has been made to be sure that the copyrights are held by the artists offering them for license, and that the images can be legally licensed royalty-free for commercial use.

The majority of my clients can't afford macro stock. If you think that it's reasonable to say "Consult your attorney to make sure it's okay to use this $12 image on your brochure," then I believe you are a bit misinformed about your customer.

« Reply #49 on: July 25, 2009, 13:16 »
0
Good info, David and Averil, and nicely presented. Thanks!

David, Im sure are probably correct in your observation that big agencies have legal departments to protect them. I personally cant make a conclusion from that observation that agencies legal departments therefore protect everyone.

Each party (agency, photographer, publisher) has their own agenda and their own legal rights and liabilities, as well as potential rewards and risks. Therefore I dont believe the attorney for one party would be able to--or would agree to--serve or represent the interests of all the parties at the same time, nor would they really be protecting anyone other than their own client.

I know guidelines set by an agency have to be followed by those submitting to that agency. And that someone may choose to adopt those guidelines for themselves, and that other agencies might copy other agencies guidelines.

Some agencies could find it expedient to promote the belief that their guidelines are the only correct legal option or that the guidelines are an industry standard. This would level the playing field for them and like-minded agencies. But if people werent willing to question things and reinvent the wheel, wed all be driving in wooden carts with stone wheels instead of on rubber tires!

I must have missed a post--I dont remember seeing anyones opinion described as hearsay or ignorance.  ???

Personally, if I am spending $20,000 for something, I do my utmost to ensure I have all the facts before buying, direct from a competent source! I might go to an attorney armed with notes about things I had heard or read, to ask their opinion regarding the relevance to MY situation, but I would not operate my business based solely on things I read on the internet.

I find it very interesting that someone wants to be damned certain something is legally sound yet they dont consult an attorney! One wonders where they get their medical advice.  :)

Lisa
@The3dStudio.com

bittersweet

« Reply #50 on: July 25, 2009, 13:55 »
0
You cherry picked items from my post and that is fine. It is there in its entirety for everyone to read if they are interested in what I actually said.

Thank you for your time clarifying your position on things. I definitely feel better informed about your web site and wish you the best of your luck with your new venture.

« Reply #51 on: July 25, 2009, 14:22 »
0
I find it very interesting that someone wants to be damned certain something is legally sound yet they dont consult an attorney! One wonders where they get their medical advice.  :)

Lisa
@The3dStudio.com
Lisa,
I think that we are not communicating here at the same level, it could be that I am reading your posts as being dismissive of our views when they are not really meant to be, while reading it is hard to understand the tone that a reply was written in, which can lead to something written looking defensive or dismissive.

David, Im sure are probably correct in your observation that big agencies have legal departments to protect them. I personally cant make a conclusion from that observation that agencies legal departments therefore protect everyone.
Where did I say protect everyone?, I was talking about good business practices and I wrote "protect everyone as much as they can making the artist and buyer experience as safe as they can".

I find it hard understanding where your reply is coming from as you already run a business, and a lot of your business would be done on trust without a lawyer, as a customer you will need to trust a supplier that you deal with to protect you to a degree, by making sure that to the best of the suppliers knowledge that a purchase is legal and the goods are fit for use, so you can purchase a product or service with some confidence.

What I am saying is that other stocksites carry out a form of 'Due diligence' with each artist and asset that the artist uploads, when I joined the big agencies and before I could upload, I had to upload a copy of my passport for verification, each commercial image with any person or body part I upload must have a copy of the model release uploaded by me and assigned to the image before it is on sale, if not then I can only set a licence of Editorial Only and RM, this to me is reasonable due diligence.

I.M.O. this is not about placing blame if things go wrong, but any businesses greatest duty of care is to their customers, to ensure they have the knowledge and information to make a balanced and informed choice when making a purchase.

If I was a perspective buyer for a large company and I called or emailed your website and asked about your policy statements for due diligence with your asset suppliers and duty of care to your customers, and you came back with 'we offer a high level of contributor and client support' you would not be getting a contract for my business.

Quote
Due diligence in civil litigation is the effort made by an ordinarily prudent or reasonable party to avoid harm to another party, failure to make this effort may be considered negligence, this is conceptually distinct from investigative due diligence, involving a general obligation to meet a standard of behaviour, quite often a contract will specify that a party is required to provide due diligence.

From a customers perspective even with a small $1 purchase, I would expect that the stocksite has carried out a form of due diligence with this asset supplier and expect them to have a duty of care towards me as a customer, it would not protect the website or me from a stolen image or a fraudulent model release, but it would then be fruad and a miss-representation by the artist, and could be subject to a legal proceeding against the artist in question.    

Any product I purchase from a candy bar to a car, I would expect that the company had exercised due diligence with the supplier of the product, and a duty of care to me as the customer in any dispute about the fitness of the product for the required use, that is how I choose where to shop not just on a price point.

We are not trying to be negative, but trying to give another perspective and raise points we are concerned about, maybe a way forward is for you to talk to your legal advisors and discuss a few of the concerns and points we have raised, and see what comes back if they have never been asked before then they have not given you any advice.

David ;)  
« Last Edit: July 25, 2009, 16:51 by Adeptris »

« Reply #52 on: July 25, 2009, 17:10 »
0
Hi David,

My intention is never to be dismissive of anyones views here, or in life. I try to not take personal offense at things and I find most people do the same. I dont feel negativity coming from the forum and I hope you are not feeling negativity from me.

I do think theres a big difference between disagreeing and being negative. I have always assumed the purpose of forums was to exchange ideas for mutual benefit, and that the goal should be to express them in a respectful manner. Which I do think is done here. If we are all the same and agree on everything, wheres the education (or fun) in that?  :)

I probably am communicating from a totally different viewpoint than many of you. I dont see it as a negative when people approach something from different directions and express their views. I dont want to seem dismissive of you folks. I want to understand you all better, since you represent some members of our site, either buyer or seller or both. The more I understand where you are coming from, the better able I will be to understand and serve our current and future members. I truly appreciate all the time and information thats been shared.

I do still stand by my opinionI am not saying I am right and others are wrong--I am just saying what I think on this matter: I find it hard to understand that someone concerned with being certain something is legal wouldnt verify that for themselves, but would be willing to take internet advice, or to rely on their own interpretation of guidelines on a big stock agencys advisors. Maybe that is just one of those agree to disagree topics.

Are our areas of difference here due to the differences between how you creatives (such as photographers) look at the world compared to those like me who are in the business end? Does that even matter--do we have to try to find agreement or can we just express our opinions? Respectfully of course.

As far as my protecting everyone statement. I was trying to state that I cant make a conclusion about protection based on an agency having a legal department. I didnt mean to imply that you had stated that or that you made that conclusion. I was using the quote marks to show emphasis not to attribute words to you. Sorry if I stated it badly and didnt separate it from other statements, no offense meant.

It seems some photographers do think that if an agency has guidelines, the photographer is protected from some liability if they adhere to those guidelines. Maybe thats possible in some situations, but overall I would not agree because I do not believe a photographer bears the liability in the first place in most situations. Of course I understand that one can be right legally and still have to expend time and dollars to prove it; I assume that may be what some photographers are concerned about.

I think we are on the same page about needing to trust those you do business with. I do trust, but I verify. For me, verification cannot be anonymous information from the internet. Its information but not verification. Do not take that as a slam on anyone in this forumI use internet in the overall senseTripAdvisor, blog posts, Amazon.com comments as well as forums, everything you read where you do not personally knowI mean have met the writer in person and KNOW them. Not that I would totally discount internet info as there is much truth from good people out there AS EVIDENCED by this forum! But I could not make my decision about something important solely on that info without proof.

I agree businesses should practice due diligence. With a candy bar I will take it on faith but in legal matters that affect my business I want proof. If I as a photographer verified for myself that the guidelines are based on law and are applicable to me, I might consider that due diligence on the part of me and of the agency.

I dont consider taking advice from someone to be due diligence unless the person had some credentials to back up their advice. Secondhand advice is never something I would rely on in a legal matter. Even a stock sites guidelines to me do not prove due diligence because I dont know the credentials of the writer of the guidelines. To me their guidelines are what they want or require for their benefit, not mine.

As I have said before, we have been in this not quite 2 months, and we are playing catch up in some areas. But just because we are not a threat to Getty doesnt mean we should or will give up.  :) Those who join us are welcome, and we wish only good things to those who dont.

I hope it continues to be positive here, which it seems to be for the most part. Im sure most people who post on forums realize the biggest downside to writing as opposed to talking or personal conversations is that it is hard to capture the feeling, tone, or intention of what is being said.

Happy Weekend!

Lisa

Dont take this wrong, but heres something we discussed at our last meeting that still puzzles us: You mention in your post that you had to upload your passport, and we know some sites require or request photo ID. It struck us as ironic that expert Photoshop folks are being to submit a photo ID online to verify something. If any of you wanted to, couldnt you easily modify the passport or photo ID?

So what is being verified? Honestly, I am not trying to stir the pot but it doesnt make sense to us so we must be missing something. We recognize that a web sites requirements must be met if one wants to join that site, but what exactly is being verified and how is identity verified with a scanned document?










« Reply #53 on: July 25, 2009, 17:59 »
0
Dont take this wrong, but heres something we discussed at our last meeting that still puzzles us: You mention in your post that you had to upload your passport, and we know some sites require or request photo ID. It struck us as ironic that expert Photoshop folks are being to submit a photo ID online to verify something. If any of you wanted to, couldnt you easily modify the passport or photo ID?

So what is being verified? Honestly, I am not trying to stir the pot but it doesnt make sense to us so we must be missing something. We recognize that a web sites requirements must be met if one wants to join that site, but what exactly is being verified and how is identity verified with a scanned document?
Lisa I agree it is good to take different perspectives,
Altering a passport or using someone elses passport as ID would be a serious criminal offence in most countries and most likely would attract a prison term if used for fraud, that is why some agencies will take nothing else as verification, as a company it would show that you had done due diligence on the supplier and everything possible to protect yourselves and your customers from falling prey to fraudsters, that would be the same with offering the correct data boxes for artists to enter the relevent assets data.

The most sophisticated and cunning fraudsters will take care to ensure that their information appears to be 'squeaky clean' and therefore they will pass with flying colours any tests of their credibility.

Scenario #1:
A fraud claim is made and a transaction is examined in detail, the circumstances of the supply and sale of the asset, and the knowledge which was in the possession of the website, the websites awareness of any fraud, as passports are often accepted as due diligence 'fraud indicators' this would likely be a good defence of any claim, also the model release information submitted by the fraudster would help defend any claim.

Scenario #2:
A claim is made and a transaction is examined in detail, the circumstances of the supply and sale of the asset, and the knowledge which was in the possession of the website, the websites awareness of any fraud, as no supplier verification was asked for as a 'fraud indicator' this would likely not be a good defence of any claim, also if no model release information was submitted by the fraudster.

In scenario #2 it could be claimed that the website did not carry out due diligence or a duty of care to the customer so was negligent in all matters, which is a different civil charge to deal with than the copyright theft.


David  ;D           

« Reply #54 on: July 28, 2009, 04:39 »
0
I have just checked back and as promised the People with No Model Releases now say "No Model Release Editorial Only"  ;D

As they 'do as they say on the tin', listen to suppliers and customers and change if needed, we have a new stock image website with an existing customer base, so prehaps worth a second look.

Hope to see thier advertisment on the forums shortly  ???

Notes: Non US artist this is a withholding tax setup until you sort out the IRS, Quote: "If you are located in a country other than the U.S. you must send an IRS W-8 form to us."

No Property Release or RM Options as yet!


David ;)
 
« Last Edit: July 28, 2009, 08:19 by Adeptris »

« Reply #55 on: July 28, 2009, 09:26 »
0
Thanks for checking back with us, David.

We will be discussing some paid advertising soon, though our first stabs at it likely will be directed toward those who buy stock, but I will put the forum on the list for consideration as well.

We have been the term "model release" in a generic sense to apply to both people and buildings so if someone has a released shot of the Eiffel Tower at night (which I was told is what the trademark covers), they could certainly add that product with us and use the "model release" option.   :)

A couple people on our team have been working steadily to approve releases for each of the photos that were on the site when we updated our photo/image product creation form. I don't think they are done yet, so there may still be photos of people where you still see release n/a. We hope to be done very soon.

If anyone has any suggestions for other places we should look for advertising, for buyers as well as photographers, I'd appreciate hearing from you.

Or if you have a great idea for improving our site or how we do things, we would love to hear from you!

Thanks!
[email protected]

« Reply #56 on: July 28, 2009, 10:40 »
0
Yes, it is good to see the changes.  I would suggest actually defining "editorial" usage somewhere.  Your legal page seems a bit light: http://www.the3dstudio.com/legal.aspx .

I would suggest not trying to lump model release and property release together.  They aren't the same thing, and in an image where both are required, it would be confusing to the buyer if there actually was the necessary releases.

« Reply #57 on: July 28, 2009, 11:15 »
0
I think you are right on the MR/PR combo and we will have to address that. I have added it to my list for tomorrow's staff meeting. After your earlier post, one of our team pointed out the type of instance where it could be a problem to have only MR, such as a photo of a person standing in front of the Eiffel Tower at night.  :)

We probably will be updating the legal agreement again after we meet with our attorney in a few weeks. We have many Members from other countries so we hope to be able to keep the "legalese" as short and simple as possible.

Lots of stuff for us to do but we will keep working until we get there!

All of us here appreciate your ideas and willingness to share info.

lisa


« Reply #58 on: July 28, 2009, 11:52 »
0
Thanks for checking back with us, David.

We will be discussing some paid advertising soon, though our first stabs at it likely will be directed toward those who buy stock, but I will put the forum on the list for consideration as well.
<...
>...
If anyone has any suggestions for other places we should look for advertising, for buyers as well as photographers, I'd appreciate hearing from you.

Or if you have a great idea for improving our site or how we do things, we would love to hear from you!

Thanks!
[email protected]


The release question is a little more involved as Sean points out, I have flowers and plants now as editorial when they are really commercial:

It is Four options that decide where the useage sits:
Has People | Model Released | Has Property | Property Released | Licence
>>No <<  |  >>>No  <<<< | >>>>No<<< |  >>>>>No<<<<< | Commercial
>>Yes<<  |  >>>Yes <<<< | >>>>No<<< |  >>>>>No<<<<< | Commercial
>>Yes<<  |  >>>Yes <<<< | >>>Yes<<< |  >>>>Yes <<<<< | Commercial
>>Yes<<  |  >>>No <<<< | >>>>No<<< |  >>>>>No<<<<< | Editorial
>>Yes<<  |  >>>Yes <<<< | >>>>Yes<<< |  >>>>>No<<<<< | Editorial

<<..................>>
The Idea of the Forum Ad is so artists can find you without having to trawl through the forums, I have a 125x125px visible to all regular members and guests in all topics 1/4 of the time - your ad is rotated equally with 3 other ads for $30 a month

Much longer term Rights Managed option as well, some of us have RM commercial and editorial images on other websites so we cannot upload them as RF, there are a few other considerations to look at with RM as well!

RM has a number of other options like sector, country, usage SAA have a pack you can download as a guide!


David ;) 

« Reply #59 on: July 28, 2009, 22:50 »
0
Thanks for the info on SAA and releases.

We briefly discussed RM and likely will do so again so all info will be reviewed as we go forward.

[email protected]


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
23 Replies
13987 Views
Last post February 24, 2016, 08:17
by stefanocarocci
32 Replies
13921 Views
Last post February 23, 2015, 13:04
by Beppe Grillo
2 Replies
2394 Views
Last post September 13, 2017, 08:21
by Jo Ann Snover
0 Replies
1170 Views
Last post August 24, 2018, 07:17
by DavidK
27 Replies
6053 Views
Last post November 20, 2021, 09:43
by Svetikk271089

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle