MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: DeviantArt Eyeing Stock  (Read 12099 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 15, 2010, 05:36 »
0


« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2010, 05:52 »
0
Some members there are very confused, and some even against the idea of selling images ("I understand why one would want to do this venture, but in doing so it may kill what has kept this so pure. The offering of these works for free to other artists, asking only a link to the finished piece." or "As a COMMUNITY OF ARTISTS, don't you think it's better if we all pool our resources, rather than try to make money out of each other??").

Did you see this link too: http://stockproject.fotolia.com

So in the end their members who want to sell stock will submit to Fotolia?

« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2010, 07:32 »
0
Hm, I understand it the other way around: Fotolia will sell stock images to DeviantArt members. Or not?

« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2010, 07:45 »
0
^ I think the complete plan is both ways. To sell stock images is available now, I guess. The second part is in discussion.

« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2010, 11:24 »
0
I read some of the text on the site and in Fotolia's blog. While I can see why FT might like to sell images to deviantART members, it seems they're heading into a pile of complex issues if they start accepting uploads from the work created using modified stock images. I can't see how you can have clear copyright to sell a derivative work (of an RF licensed stock image) as RF stock. If that's where phase 2 might go, I can see a bunch of gnarly issues with copyright.

And this quote made me laugh "Fotolia, a leading microstock provider worldwide, is the perfect partner for this project as they're a company that is truly committed to using community involvement to change the traditional business of microstock offerings."

FT has an incredibly heavy hand in censoring just about anything even vaguely critical of them in their own forums and is one of the main reasons we have so many anonymous posters here - they have said they won't tolerate criticism of them by contributors even in off site forums. And now they're all about community involvement?

« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2010, 11:50 »
0
What is this all about?

http://stockproject.deviantart.com/


Sounds like they are chumming the waters for new competition for us. Does that mean Fotolia will be filled with Anime and Vampire stuff now?  ;D Or are they just trying to sell images to all the people that like to do photo manipulation?

« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2010, 12:20 »
0
Sounds like they trying to copy Getty/Flickr move.

BTW I read some rumors about AOL with some investment firms taking over Yahoo to sell it into parts. Will Getty buy Flickr?

lisafx

« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2010, 12:58 »
0
I read some of the text on the site and in Fotolia's blog. While I can see why FT might like to sell images to deviantART members, it seems they're heading into a pile of complex issues if they start accepting uploads from the work created using modified stock images. I can't see how you can have clear copyright to sell a derivative work (of an RF licensed stock image) as RF stock. If that's where phase 2 might go, I can see a bunch of gnarly issues with copyright.


Absolutely!  DeviantArt is filled with images created from stock images.  Many times not even licensed stock images. 

It's a smart business move for Fotolia to target DeviantArt artists as a market for purchasing our stock images.  I doubt it will be able to go the other way around, though.  Too many legal issues.

I'm certain that's what ultimately stopped Flikr from turning into a microstock site itself too.  Way too many images hosted there by people who don't own copyright.  In the end it made more sense for Getty to mine the talent there and bring them in to their own collection. 

« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2010, 13:24 »
0
DeviantArt are real jerks too about taking down infringers of copyright. I have been trying to get images pulled from them for over a month. They have no customer service just bots and autorun crap. I guess its time to pull my port from Fotolia.

« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2010, 15:25 »
0
Yes, only a tiny percentage of the stuff you see on 'art' sites is stockworthy in any way. People who make such images and give them away do so for vanity reasons and will have little if any sense of the commeriality of images, or be able to endure rejections of most of they wonderful 'art' by microstock reviewers.
...Does that mean Fotolia will be filled with Anime and Vampire stuff now?...

« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2010, 16:33 »
0
There's a copy of Fotolia's press release on StockPhotoTalk.

At the end is a statement about the second phase which clearly says to me they plan to offer deviantART content as stock:

"The fully integrated product, expected next year, will provide members with seamless on-site access to microstock assets and create a unique deviantART collection from the communitys resources."

I guess when that part is live we'll have to watch very very closely to see that no RF licensed microstock work is included in any derivative deviantART works offered for sale.

Xalanx

« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2010, 16:46 »
0
I guess when that part is live we'll have to watch very very closely to see that no RF licensed microstock work is included in any derivative deviantART works offered for sale.

Indeed that's the main concern. Hands up who's trusting FT to act in our best interest with this !! ... crickets ...

Pixel-Pizzazz

« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2010, 21:27 »
0
Their definition of "What is a royalty free image?"
from this page http://stockproject.deviantart.com/, is ... different.

« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2010, 21:40 »
0
"A royalty free image means that the price of the image is the same no matter how long you use the image for or how many prints you require. Thus, when you buy an image under a royalty free license, you can use this image without a time limit and as many times as you like, provided it is for the same client, campaign or project."

Sigh.

helix7

« Reply #14 on: October 16, 2010, 04:04 »
0
Gotta love the comments on DA about selling stock and agencies requiring Social Security numbers:

"That's ridiculous. Why would they require that? I don't have to report my earnings of selling photos on Fotolia (or prints on dA) if I don't feel like it."

I didn't know that "I don't feel like it," qualifies someone as exempt from paying income taxes.

:)

Carl

  • Carl Stewart, CS Productions
« Reply #15 on: October 16, 2010, 04:45 »
0
Gotta love the comments on DA about selling stock and agencies requiring Social Security numbers:

"That's ridiculous. Why would they require that? I don't have to report my earnings of selling photos on Fotolia (or prints on dA) if I don't feel like it."

I didn't know that "I don't feel like it," qualifies someone as exempt from paying income taxes.

:)

According to the laws, the selling of stock imagery is not a federally taxable activity in the U.S.

« Reply #16 on: October 16, 2010, 06:09 »
0
According to the laws, the selling of stock imagery is not a federally taxable activity in the U.S.

Oh, I would love to see where you came up with that one.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #17 on: October 16, 2010, 07:44 »
0
Gotta love the comments on DA about selling stock and agencies requiring Social Security numbers:

"That's ridiculous. Why would they require that? I don't have to report my earnings of selling photos on Fotolia (or prints on dA) if I don't feel like it."

I didn't know that "I don't feel like it," qualifies someone as exempt from paying income taxes.

:)

According to the laws, the selling of stock imagery is not a federally taxable activity in the U.S.

The IRS must be a regular visitor at your house.

« Reply #18 on: October 16, 2010, 11:50 »
0
According to the laws, the selling of stock imagery is not a federally taxable activity in the U.S.

The IRS must be a regular visitor at your house.

Maybe he meant, according to his _in-laws_... ?

« Reply #19 on: October 16, 2010, 12:28 »
0
That made me giggle. I think  that the US gov loves to earn money they do need it, to not collect taxes is like mmm hell freezing over, or world peace, unicorns. ::)

lisafx

« Reply #20 on: October 16, 2010, 18:07 »
0
According to the laws, the selling of stock imagery is not a federally taxable activity in the U.S.

Oh, I would love to see where you came up with that one.

Yeah, seriously!  What "laws" is that according to?  Clearly my accountant is unfamiliar with them... ;)

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #21 on: October 16, 2010, 22:47 »
0
According to the laws, the selling of stock imagery is not a federally taxable activity in the U.S.

The IRS must be a regular visitor at your house.

Maybe he meant, according to his _in-laws_... ?
Haa, good one!

jbarber873

« Reply #22 on: October 18, 2010, 21:24 »
0
According to the laws, the selling of stock imagery is not a federally taxable activity in the U.S.

Oh, I would love to see where you came up with that one.

Yeah, seriously!  What "laws" is that according to?  Clearly my accountant is unfamiliar with them... ;)

He's probably thinking of sales tax, as there is no sales tax liability if you are selling images online with no physical delivery. But you do have to pay income tax on your earnings, or the man will come and take you away...

lisafx

« Reply #23 on: October 19, 2010, 14:21 »
0


He's probably thinking of sales tax, as there is no sales tax liability if you are selling images online with no physical delivery. But you do have to pay income tax on your earnings, or the man will come and take you away...

Ah, okay.  That makes sense.  However, even though you don't have to pay sales tax, you do have to pay "use tax" on anything you buy to use in your business, at least in Florida.  That includes all those online purchases from out-of-state sites that don't charge sales tax.   I got stuck paying around $1,200 in back use taxes when the state audited me.   

jbarber873

« Reply #24 on: October 20, 2010, 18:23 »
0


He's probably thinking of sales tax, as there is no sales tax liability if you are selling images online with no physical delivery. But you do have to pay income tax on your earnings, or the man will come and take you away...

Ah, okay.  That makes sense.  However, even though you don't have to pay sales tax, you do have to pay "use tax" on anything you buy to use in your business, at least in Florida.  That includes all those online purchases from out-of-state sites that don't charge sales tax.   I got stuck paying around $1,200 in back use taxes when the state audited me.   

In NY, the word is that a sales tax audit will be the worst experience you have ever had. I long ago stopped using my resale certificate to do anything other than collect tax. I pay sales tax on everything, even if it means the state gets 2 taxes on the same item. They like it that way, and it's not my money. I once had an ad agency deduct sales tax from a current invoice for past invoices that they decided they shouldn't have paid sales tax on, and I ended up with maybe 10% of what i was owed. I dropped a dime on them to the state, and they had a huge problem and had to pay the state a lot of back taxes. But guess who didn't get his money back?  :D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
7194 Views
Last post May 16, 2009, 17:14
by Phil
58 Replies
13389 Views
Last post January 26, 2010, 06:41
by Klauts
23 Replies
6258 Views
Last post January 10, 2010, 21:16
by madelaide
9 Replies
2813 Views
Last post July 30, 2012, 12:47
by michaeldb
8 Replies
2508 Views
Last post January 23, 2015, 20:23
by Fuertegfx

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results