Author Topic: eyeem and colourbox (Read 20510 times)

andy_arden · « **on:** March 20, 2016, 15:59 »

Hello anybody uploading to eyeem and colourbox? i have around 33k on the big sites and i am really pleased with the results..so just wanted to know if it is worth the effort on uploading on them. Thanks

lostintimeline · « **Reply #1 on:** March 20, 2016, 19:37 »

i used to upload to eyeem and i had 5 sales.but unfo many photos that they choose for the market they go through gettys market and that means they want exclusivity.so if you upload a sellable picture to eyemm it will be licenced through getty and you ll have to remove it from the other sites.
its a nice platform but with gettys exclusivity its a problem

aaronchoiphoto · « **Reply #2 on:** March 20, 2016, 19:46 »

Eyeem pays well.. Had 15 upto 85 dollars per sale. And payment is asap if you choose to cash out early. Last time i checked.. They still dont process iptc info.. So you would have to manually put in everything.
I dont think it is exclusive unless you decide to approve the photos for getty sales. Eyeem and alamy deal are non exclusive. I usually just post up my phone shots there...

hatman12 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 20, 2016, 21:59 »

Colourbox is a very small Scandinavian agency. They have grown and are very professional, but they remain quite small. Commissions are low. Sales volume is very low. I started uploading there when I became non-exclusive in Feb 2014. After a few months of uploading (about 500 images that were proven sellers) I think I earned about $18. I stopped uploading and won't upload any more of my work there.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #4 on:** March 21, 2016, 02:17 »

Colourbox pays super low commissons don't they? I think they earnt okay in volume for the first few contributors then sales got diluted to nearly nil, thinking back to older threads.

andy_arden · « **Reply #5 on:** March 21, 2016, 02:45 »

thank you i think i am going to upload a few files to eyeem but what bothers me is that the photos there have no watermark to be protected at all

MarcvsTvllivs · « **Reply #6 on:** March 21, 2016, 02:57 »

Quote from: lostintimeline on March 20, 2016, 19:37

i used to upload to eyeem and i had 5 sales.but unfo many photos that they choose for the market they go through gettys market and that means they want exclusivity.so if you upload a sellable picture to eyemm it will be licenced through getty and you ll have to remove it from the other sites.
its a nice platform but with gettys exclusivity its a problem

This is wrong on two counts:

1. You can sell through EyeEm without accepting Getty distribution (on a per-image basis).

2. The EyeEm Getty distribution deal is no longer exclusive, which is not reflected on their website yet.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #7 on:** March 21, 2016, 05:13 »

Quote from: andy_arden on March 20, 2016, 15:59

Hello anybody uploading to eyeem and colourbox? i have around 33k on the big sites and i am really pleased with the results..so just wanted to know if it is worth the effort on uploading on them. Thanks

I really don't understand this kind of mentality: You are bringing up agencies on both end of the scale - Colourbox is basically a subscription-at-cheapest-prices-only agency. The average return is below €0.30 per download for me. And with EyeEm/Getty you are planning to sell the same images on the high level of prices with up to $500 for the largest version?

I am trying to supply images to all price levels of the market but I keep a huge difference in the images I sell. Sending masses of images to all markets doesn't sound like a promising strategy for me. The kind of images that sell through EyeEm and Getty that I see on social media are not the typical microstock images; and the typical images that sell in premium collections are not the ones that tend to make high returns in microstock.

I would suggest you first find out what market you shoot for before defining the best distribution channels for those images.

ssviluppo · « **Reply #8 on:** March 21, 2016, 07:23 »

Quote from: MarcvsTvllivs on March 21, 2016, 02:57

Quote from: lostintimeline on March 20, 2016, 19:37
i used to upload to eyeem and i had 5 sales.but unfo many photos that they choose for the market they go through gettys market and that means they want exclusivity.so if you upload a sellable picture to eyemm it will be licenced through getty and you ll have to remove it from the other sites.
its a nice platform but with gettys exclusivity its a problem

This is wrong on two counts:

1. You can sell through EyeEm without accepting Getty distribution (on a per-image basis).

2. The EyeEm Getty distribution deal is no longer exclusive, which is not reflected on their website yet.

andy_arden · « **Reply #9 on:** March 21, 2016, 09:42 »

thank you for your help i will skip colourbox but regarding eyeem why is no one affected by the lack of the watermark because i see a lot of ppl not uploading to 500px because of the watermark. so why upload to eyeem?

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #10 on:** March 21, 2016, 10:19 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on March 21, 2016, 05:13

Quote from: andy_arden on March 20, 2016, 15:59
Hello anybody uploading to eyeem and colourbox? i have around 33k on the big sites and i am really pleased with the results..so just wanted to know if it is worth the effort on uploading on them. Thanks

I really don't understand this kind of mentality: You are bringing up agencies on both end of the scale - Colourbox is basically a subscription-at-cheapest-prices-only agency. The average return is below €0.30 per download for me. And with EyeEm/Getty you are planning to sell the same images on the high level of prices with up to $500 for the largest version?

I am trying to supply images to all price levels of the market but I keep a huge difference in the images I sell. Sending masses of images to all markets doesn't sound like a promising strategy for me. The kind of images that sell through EyeEm and Getty that I see on social media are not the typical microstock images; and the typical images that sell in premium collections are not the ones that tend to make high returns in microstock.

I would suggest you first find out what market you shoot for before defining the best distribution channels for those images.

well said, as i am sure many photographers were shoot for hire before they joined micro as a sideline.
which again, does not make sense when ss tells their contributors not to bother applying for offset since they do not want micro photographers.
they do know how to shoot for whatever market defines the best distribution,
as we did with IS (rf) and other RM market, before Bruce blew up in our faces

50% · « **Reply #11 on:** March 21, 2016, 11:45 »

Quote from: MarcvsTvllivs on March 21, 2016, 02:57

Quote from: lostintimeline on March 20, 2016, 19:37
i used to upload to eyeem and i had 5 sales.but unfo many photos that they choose for the market they go through gettys market and that means they want exclusivity.so if you upload a sellable picture to eyemm it will be licenced through getty and you ll have to remove it from the other sites.
its a nice platform but with gettys exclusivity its a problem

This is wrong on two counts:

1. You can sell through EyeEm without accepting Getty distribution (on a per-image basis).

2. The EyeEm Getty distribution deal is no longer exclusive, which is not reflected on their website yet.

If you submit a picture via EyeEm to the Getty collection it clearly says that the picture and it's similars has to be exclusive please show me exactly where it states different. Pictures solely submitted to the EyeEm Market without the Getty collection are non-exclusive though. I had reasonable sales via the Getty collection but none through the EyeEm Market directly. Eyeem without the Getty collection doesn't make any sense so you have to bite the exclusive bullet.

microstockinsider · « **Reply #12 on:** March 21, 2016, 20:38 »

Quote from: 50% on March 21, 2016, 11:45

Quote from: MarcvsTvllivs on March 21, 2016, 02:57
Quote from: lostintimeline on March 20, 2016, 19:37
i used to upload to eyeem and i had 5 sales.but unfo many photos that they choose for the market they go through gettys market and that means they want exclusivity.so if you upload a sellable picture to eyemm it will be licenced through getty and you ll have to remove it from the other sites.
its a nice platform but with gettys exclusivity its a problem

This is wrong on two counts:

1. You can sell through EyeEm without accepting Getty distribution (on a per-image basis).

2. The EyeEm Getty distribution deal is no longer exclusive, which is not reflected on their website yet.
If you submit a picture via EyeEm to the Getty collection it clearly says that the picture and it's similars has to be exclusive please show me exactly where it states different. Pictures solely submitted to the EyeEm Market without the Getty collection are non-exclusive though. I had reasonable sales via the Getty collection but none through the EyeEm Market directly. Eyeem without the Getty collection doesn't make any sense so you have to bite the exclusive bullet.

I emailed the about that, the reply was (jan 28th 2016):

Thank you for your email. We're happy to answer your questions here We do apologize for that confusion. We actually recently updated our agreement with Getty and images within the Collection are now non-exclusive meaning that the can sold on other platforms, unless Getty selects certain images of yours to be sold in their premium collection. If such images are chosen, we will notify the photographer first for their approval. We are still working on updating our distribution agreement on the site to reflect these changes, but we can confirm that images now on Getty are considered non-exclusive.

andy_arden · « **Reply #13 on:** March 22, 2016, 04:41 »

indeed the getty plan is not exclusive anymore. i wanted to ask you if the lack of the watermark is not a big issue here because i have seen many many wonderfulphotos you cant find on micros that arent protected at all.

50% · « **Reply #14 on:** March 22, 2016, 08:56 »

Quote from: andy_arden on March 22, 2016, 04:41

indeed the getty plan is not exclusive anymore. i wanted to ask you if the lack of the watermark is not a big issue here because i have seen many many wonderfulphotos you cant find on micros that arent protected at all.

If the file is exclusive the non existing watermark is no problem as you can easily track any misuse by Google photo search, I successfully settled fines within the European borders which got me more money than any regular sale would be have. If your image is already spread over multiple agencies you don't have any chance to track misuse and it's not unlikely that you loose some sales at other agencies because your photo is available for free. This is extremely obvious at 500px for example as there are people with no photos at all that put your non-watermarked images in some suspicious collections. But you can't probably stop theft anyway no matter how you decide.

andy_arden · « **Reply #15 on:** March 22, 2016, 09:07 »

Thank you..a hard decision of what to do...

lostintimeline · « **Reply #16 on:** March 22, 2016, 19:52 »

today i had a sale from eyeem .so i guess i cant complaign

ssviluppo · « **Reply #17 on:** March 23, 2016, 11:08 »

I had a sale from eyeem too yesterday
Not bad, the second in this year.

shiyali · « **Reply #18 on:** March 31, 2016, 17:44 »

Quote from: andy_arden on March 22, 2016, 04:41

indeed the getty plan is not exclusive anymore. i wanted to ask you if the lack of the watermark is not a big issue here because i have seen many many wonderfulphotos you cant find on micros that arent protected at all.

Seems it still is. I just got this email from eyeem "Congratulations! One or more of your photos have been exclusively shortlisted to be included in The EyeEm Collection at Getty Images." In the license agreement it says,

Your photos will be sold via Getty Images through their global network
You’ll make 50% of net revenue EyeEm receives from Getty. Photos can be licensed several times from different clients, and you’ll profit from each license purchased
The photos in this Collection are under an exclusive distribution license. This means that they can only be sold and distributed via Getty Images and EyeEm Market

So how can the deal be no longer exclusive? Confusing!

Sebastian Radu · « **Reply #19 on:** April 01, 2016, 01:00 »

Quote from: shiyali on March 31, 2016, 17:44

Quote from: andy_arden on March 22, 2016, 04:41
indeed the getty plan is not exclusive anymore. i wanted to ask you if the lack of the watermark is not a big issue here because i have seen many many wonderfulphotos you cant find on micros that arent protected at all.

Seems it still is. I just got this email from eyeem "Congratulations! One or more of your photos have been exclusively shortlisted to be included in The EyeEm Collection at Getty Images." In the license agreement it says,

Your photos will be sold via Getty Images through their global network
You’ll make 50% of net revenue EyeEm receives from Getty. Photos can be licensed several times from different clients, and you’ll profit from each license purchased
The photos in this Collection are under an exclusive distribution license. This means that they can only be sold and distributed via Getty Images and EyeEm Market

So how can the deal be no longer exclusive? Confusing!

I received the same email $:-\$

shiyali · « **Reply #20 on:** April 04, 2016, 20:27 »

As far as I understand images for sale on eyeem marketplace are non-exclusive. If the image is selected for the eyeem collection on Getty then it is exclusive and cannot be sold anywhere else. Is that correct? Can somebody more in the know chime in please, thanks.

EmberMike · « **Reply #21 on:** April 05, 2016, 11:54 »

You can search around for more discussions about colourbox. Last I checked, they paid really low royalties and I think they actually made the contributors pay the PayPal fees for cashing out, which is pretty unusual in stock these days.

I don't recall seeing much to make me want to join.

shiyali · « **Reply #22 on:** April 12, 2016, 18:10 »

Eyeem just updated their terms of service and clarified the exclusive/non-exclusive issue. Read more here

https://eyeem.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/202750902

dirkr · « **Reply #23 on:** April 13, 2016, 00:39 »

Quote from: shiyali on April 12, 2016, 18:10

Eyeem just updated their terms of service and clarified the exclusive/non-exclusive issue. Read more here

https://eyeem.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/202750902

And as I understand it, that now means automatic distribution of images to Getty and Alamy. So for anyone already with Alamy that might be problematic.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #24 on:** April 13, 2016, 04:34 »

Quote from: dirkr on April 13, 2016, 00:39

And as I understand it, that now means automatic distribution of images to Getty and Alamy. So for anyone already with Alamy that might be problematic.

Why? How?

dirkr · « **Reply #25 on:** April 13, 2016, 04:40 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on April 13, 2016, 04:34

Quote from: dirkr on April 13, 2016, 00:39
And as I understand it, that now means automatic distribution of images to Getty and Alamy. So for anyone already with Alamy that might be problematic.

Why? How?

I am uploading images to EyeEm that are already at Alamy.
I don't want to compete with myself to receive 50% of what I would receive directly from Alamy.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #26 on:** April 13, 2016, 04:56 »

Quote from: dirkr on April 13, 2016, 04:40

I am uploading images to EyeEm that are already at Alamy.
I don't want to compete with myself to receive 50% of what I would receive directly from Alamy.

But then again, you are offering your images at Shutterstock for 38 cents per download; and on 123RF where you might only receive 3% of the customer payment as royalties when your image gets sold through one of their partnerships?!? So you are pretty indiscriminate in where you upload the same images at all price levels and royalty rates but in this case you see a problem?

Well, the solution is easy: Don't put your images in the EyeEm Market then.

dirkr · « **Reply #27 on:** April 13, 2016, 06:26 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on April 13, 2016, 04:56

Quote from: dirkr on April 13, 2016, 04:40
I am uploading images to EyeEm that are already at Alamy.
I don't want to compete with myself to receive 50% of what I would receive directly from Alamy.

But then again, you are offering your images at Shutterstock for 38 cents per download; and on 123RF where you might only receive 3% of the customer payment as royalties when your image gets sold through one of their partnerships?!? So you are pretty indiscriminate in where you upload the same images at all price levels and royalty rates but in this case you see a problem?

Well, the solution is easy: Don't put your images in the EyeEm Market then.

I agree, I distribute broadly...
But what I want to avoid is having the same image on the same agency twice, and one version giving me half of each sale.

PhotoDude · « **Reply #28 on:** April 13, 2016, 12:35 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on April 13, 2016, 04:34

Quote from: dirkr on April 13, 2016, 00:39
And as I understand it, that now means automatic distribution of images to Getty and Alamy. So for anyone already with Alamy that might be problematic.

Why? How?

I guess because we will be competing with ourselves on Alamy, having the same images on Eyeem and Alamy.

shiyali · « **Reply #29 on:** April 13, 2016, 17:42 »

Quote from: PhotoDude on April 13, 2016, 12:35

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on April 13, 2016, 04:34
Quote from: dirkr on April 13, 2016, 00:39
And as I understand it, that now means automatic distribution of images to Getty and Alamy. So for anyone already with Alamy that might be problematic.

Why? How?
I guess because we will be competing with ourselves on Alamy, having the same images on Eyeem and Alamy.

Yes, you can call it competing, on the other hand having the same image twice, once in a collection, once in your own portfolio, may also increase the chance for it to be seen and bought.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #30 on:** April 14, 2016, 01:20 »

Quote from: PhotoDude on April 13, 2016, 12:35

I guess because we will be competing with ourselves on Alamy, having the same images on Eyeem and Alamy.

Obviously. But as I mentioned, many around here are already competing with themselves, offering the same images in $100+ collections they also offer for $0.25 subscriptions. Sure it would be better to get $20 from a sale but then again getting $10 from it is still better than the $0.25

And Alamy has some 60, 70 million images. Sure there are some very small niches where there is a certain chance that the same client will see your image twice. But in most cases your images will rank rather differently being in two different collections submitted at two different points in time. So I guess it's also doubling the chance to get your images seen in many cases.

Well, each to their own. There is no obligation to upload your images everywhere.

AlexRvan · « **Reply #31 on:** April 14, 2016, 01:47 »

What about this Premium Collection? The way I see it I now have to upload my images to EyeEm first, see if they get picked as exclusive for the Premium Collection, upload elsewhere if not picked.
Did I understand correctly?

andy_arden · « **Reply #32 on:** April 14, 2016, 02:22 »

what really bothers me is that there is no watermark to protect the uploaded photos

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #33 on:** April 14, 2016, 05:47 »

Quote from: AlexAndor on April 14, 2016, 01:47

What about this Premium Collection? The way I see it I now have to upload my images to EyeEm first, see if they get picked as exclusive for the Premium Collection, upload elsewhere if not picked.
Did I understand correctly?

I wouldn't really "wait" for it. Getty is really slow in selecting images for their premium collections, it might take months, they even might decide next year to select one of your older images. And the percentage of images selected for this is likely to be very small, like one in a thousand or so. It's not the same as the "EyeEm x Getty" collection was in the past when you got feedback within a week or two.

So when your image gets picked, you can still decide if you want to take the effort to remove it from other agencies. Obviously that would be harder to do if you submit the same images to 20 agencies. But then again I have my doubts if the typical non-exclusive microstock imagery is what Getty is going to choose for their premium collection.

AlexRvan · « **Reply #34 on:** April 14, 2016, 08:44 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on April 14, 2016, 05:47

Quote from: AlexAndor on April 14, 2016, 01:47
What about this Premium Collection? The way I see it I now have to upload my images to EyeEm first, see if they get picked as exclusive for the Premium Collection, upload elsewhere if not picked.
Did I understand correctly?

I wouldn't really "wait" for it. Getty is really slow in selecting images for their premium collections, it might take months, they even might decide next year to select one of your older images. And the percentage of images selected for this is likely to be very small, like one in a thousand or so. It's not the same as the "EyeEm x Getty" collection was in the past when you got feedback within a week or two.

So when your image gets picked, you can still decide if you want to take the effort to remove it from other agencies. Obviously that would be harder to do if you submit the same images to 20 agencies. But then again I have my doubts if the typical non-exclusive microstock imagery is what Getty is going to choose for their premium collection.

Thank you for your answer. I'm not really up to date with Getty's collections and ways of doing things.

Coincidence or not, I just got an email saying that a few of my images have been selected for the premium collection. Lucky I didn't upload them somewhere else.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #35 on:** April 15, 2016, 05:53 »

Quote from: AlexAndor on April 14, 2016, 08:44

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on April 14, 2016, 05:47
Quote from: AlexAndor on April 14, 2016, 01:47
What about this Premium Collection? The way I see it I now have to upload my images to EyeEm first, see if they get picked as exclusive for the Premium Collection, upload elsewhere if not picked.
Did I understand correctly?

I wouldn't really "wait" for it. Getty is really slow in selecting images for their premium collections, it might take months, they even might decide next year to select one of your older images. And the percentage of images selected for this is likely to be very small, like one in a thousand or so. It's not the same as the "EyeEm x Getty" collection was in the past when you got feedback within a week or two.

So when your image gets picked, you can still decide if you want to take the effort to remove it from other agencies. Obviously that would be harder to do if you submit the same images to 20 agencies. But then again I have my doubts if the typical non-exclusive microstock imagery is what Getty is going to choose for their premium collection.

Thank you for your answer. I'm not really up to date with Getty's collections and ways of doing things.

Coincidence or not, I just got an email saying that a few of my images have been selected for the premium collection. Lucky I didn't upload them somewhere else.

Yes, I got the same email. As part of the new arrangement, apparently they went through all the existing uploads to define which pictures go to that premium collection right aways. However, these are all "old" images. I can't be sure how quick they are going to be in the future, it's just my personal expectation that it won't be decided within two or three weeks. But maybe I'm wrong and they will speed up the whole process.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: eyeem and colourbox (Read 20510 times)

Justanotherphotographer

AlexRvan

AlexRvan

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors