pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Has anyone tried Photoshelter  (Read 27722 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 25, 2007, 17:06 »
0
I noticed they are spending up big on arranging meetings in the US between photographers and designers.

It is a pay site, do you think it has potential?


« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2007, 02:46 »
0
I'd be interested in an answer to this, too, as I've been casting an eye over them.

« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2007, 03:09 »
0
I have been accepted recently to submit to their collection.  This has no fees and sells photos for higher prices than microstock, so I am sending them some that are not on the micros.  They launch the collection in November.

http://mp.photoshelter.com/

« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2007, 03:09 »
0
well you could sign up for the 50 MB account and check it out...

« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2007, 04:56 »
0
I have been accepted recently to submit to their collection.  This has no fees and sells photos for higher prices than microstock, so I am sending them some that are not on the micros.  They launch the collection in November.

http://mp.photoshelter.com/


It looks like an interesting site.  Also interesting that they are looking for 'everyday' type images with 'feel' and not dry stock that is cold.

« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2007, 05:52 »
0
I took a look at the PhotoShelter Collection Contributor's Agreement (@http://mp.photoshelter.com/about/policies/contributor).  Here are some of my comments:

"You may set the pricing for your Contributed Content; however, the minimum sale price for any image sold on the Website shall be $50.00."

This makes me think that they are looking for content that is different from what is normally submitted to most other microstock sites.  That elusive "midstock" that some people are talking about.  They don't mention it, but I wonder if they will take images that are on other microstock sites?  After all, a buyer might get upset to find that they paid $50 for an image when they could have gotten it for $1 somewhere else.

"All sales of Contributed Content are subject to a thirty (30) day return period."

Seems like an extraordinarily long time for a user to decide that they don't want a digital image.  IMO, seven (7) days should be more than sufficient for a return period.  After all, a buyer would only need to look at the image at full-size once they download it to make sure that it is of good quality.

"All payments to you will be made forty-five (45) days after the sale date."

Why is there another 15 day waiting period (after the 30 day return period) to receive payment?  Seems like an awful long time.

"No payments to you will be made in the event the buyer ... fails to pay for the purchase notwithstanding PhotoShelters reasonable efforts to collect payment within forty-five (45) days."

I'm baffled on this one!  Wouldn't the buyer be purchasing the image with credits that they already bought?  How would this clause ever get enacted?

"Any sales of Contributed Content made by you using the PhotoShelter e-commerce services or Website shall be subject to a fee of thirty percent (30%) of the sale amount (unless you are a Flagship Photographer, in which case our fee will be set by the Fee Schedule emailed to you by PhotoShelter at the time you first joined the marketplace site, or unless you are a Beta photographer, meaning you were accepted into the site prior to November 4th, in which case our fee will be 15% for a six-month period on all images submitted on or before November 4th, 2007, with that six month period beginning November 5, 2007 and ending May 4th, 2008, at which time our fees on all of your images will be 30%), which fee shall be payable to PhotoShelter."

So it seems that if you sign up before 11/05, that you will receive an 85% royalty for 6 months and then the normal 70% thereafter.  This is a little different than what they are touting on their front-page ("Earn 85% commission on all images submitted before November 5th").  But I still think that it is acceptable since it is on the high end of the commission scale.  I just wish that companies wouldn't try to twist things so much to get people to do things.

"You may elect to receive payments for sales of your Contributed Content by check, ACH, or PayPal. In the event you elect to be paid by check, PhotoShelter will issue your payment check no more than once each calendar month and only in months when the amount due to you from PhotoShelter is at least $100."

They don't seem to indicate the minimum payout for ACH or PayPal.  And they don't seem to offer Moneybookers at this time (this might be a problem for those that can't get PayPal).  They also don't seem to mention MassPay, so I'm not sure if there will be a fee upon payment.

What do you guys think???

« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2007, 06:10 »
0
I think they compare more to a macrostock site like Alamy.  The $50 is a minimum, you can set prices higher.  I haven't been with Alamy long but looking at the forums, some people get a refund months after buying an image, if they haven't used it.

I am not going to upload any microstock photos there.  It would be bad to receive a nice payment and then loose it because I was selling the same photo on a microstock site.  I know some people do this with Alamy but it doesn't makes sense to me.

« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2007, 08:09 »
0
I think they compare more to a macrostock site like Alamy.  The $50 is a minimum, you can set prices higher.  I haven't been with Alamy long but looking at the forums, some people get a refund months after buying an image, if they haven't used it.

I am not going to upload any microstock photos there.  It would be bad to receive a nice payment and then loose it because I was selling the same photo on a microstock site.  I know some people do this with Alamy but it doesn't makes sense to me.

I don't think there is too much of a problem selling an image for $50 on this site and on the micros as well.
Images don't sell on the micros for $1.00 very often.  It is more like $2.00-$10.00 for the buyer.  We RECEIVE $1.00.  So if an Xlarge image sells for $10.00 and an XXL image sells for $15.00 at istock, the $50 at photoshelter isn't really that different.

Groceries have that much different in prices in different stores.

« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2007, 08:11 »
0
in response to geopappas.

I don't think i have a problem with any of their terms.  If they want to give a refund 6 months later that is fine by me.  they have to give money back as well, so it is not like they are ploying against the submitter - I feel it is more of a business decision on how they want to run things.

I like their style and site, so I think it could be good - now to see if they get any customers.  Too bad they weren't ready earlier for the fall rush.  They will be ready to go just in time for the january slump.

« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2007, 08:23 »
0
The $50 is a minimum though.  It depends on the use and for a photo that might cost $10 on a micro, it might be closer to $150 with photoshelter. I don't feel comfortable selling the same photos at those different prices.

« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2007, 08:27 »
0
i guess it depends on how their pricing structure works - which they haven't published yet.... we shall see.

« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2007, 10:27 »
0
Most microstock sites sell the smallest size for 1 credit (which equates to about $1).  That would compare to the smallest size on Photoshelter for $50.  So their is a pretty large difference in pricing.

Larger sizes on the microstock sites sell for more (up to $20), but PhotoShelter will charge more for larger sizes as well.

Although I personally don't have a problem with people selling images for different amounts on different sites, many people do have a problem with it.

« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2007, 13:38 »
0
Most microstock sites sell the smallest size for 1 credit (which equates to about $1).  That would compare to the smallest size on Photoshelter for $50.  So their is a pretty large difference in pricing.

Larger sizes on the microstock sites sell for more (up to $20), but PhotoShelter will charge more for larger sizes as well.

Although I personally don't have a problem with people selling images for different amounts on different sites, many people do have a problem with it.

where did you see that the smallest size was going to sell for $50.00.  I only saw that we could price our images for $50.00 minimum.  Perhaps they are only going to sell one size / which is the large size.

« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2007, 17:40 »
0
Most microstock sites sell the smallest size for 1 credit (which equates to about $1).  That would compare to the smallest size on Photoshelter for $50.  So their is a pretty large difference in pricing.

Larger sizes on the microstock sites sell for more (up to $20), but PhotoShelter will charge more for larger sizes as well.

Although I personally don't have a problem with people selling images for different amounts on different sites, many people do have a problem with it.

where did you see that the smallest size was going to sell for $50.00.  I only saw that we could price our images for $50.00 minimum.  Perhaps they are only going to sell one size / which is the large size.

Well, I never thought of it that way.  I just assumed that they would follow the lead of the majority of sites and offer various sizes.

So I did a little more investigating and found the following statement in their Submission Guidelines:

We encourage you to submit the largest file size you have, up to 100MB. This will enable us to create the widest range of sellable sizes to buyer (e.g., from cell phones to billboards).

This seems to indicate that they will offer various sizes.

« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2007, 18:08 »
0
Here is some more info from their Pricing Tutorial:

"RF images are priced according to size. Basically, we take the image you submit and create a size chart of available sizes for the buyer to purchase. This is why we recommend you submit the highest resolution image possible, because it allows us to sell a wider range of sizes."

"The system will not allow you to price any image for less than $50. If you want to sell your work for less, there are several microstock sites on the internet that are built for such low-priced imagery. However, professional buyers expect to pay more for high quality imagery and have the budget allocated accordingly. If imagery becomes commoditized, photographers will no longer be able to make a living from their work, and the whole industry will lose. Please have confidence in your work and price it according to industry standards - and never below $50."

« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2007, 21:09 »
0
My first post here after lurking quietly for a while... (blush)

I went to PhotoShelter's Chicago seminar last week and signed up out of curiosity (post 3 to 10 eval images). I got accepted, then saw the pricing when I processed a few images.

I spoke with one of PhotoShelter's founders afterward (one of the coolest last names I have ever seen, "Sanschagrin") and heard some interesting background.

They seem to be comparing their offer to Getty (who has their share of trouble these days), more than running up against the microstocks. I still don't know what "midstock" is exactly, maybe this is in that vicinity.

For licensing, a contributor has to choose RF or RM as a single choice across all images. You can change the choice any time I think, and it applies to all future sales and images. There's a sample pricing wizard to see what RM rates would apply for different uses and volumes.

For each image, PhotoShelter defaults to a middle range out of three choices (whether you opt for RF or RM) and the contributor can keep the default or price each image lower or higher, and change pricing any time. (You can set "profiles" and reuse the profiles for certain types of images.) But you can't set an arbitrary price tag on images.

Compared to most microstock sites I've used the past few weeks (haven't uploaded many images yet) I was quite impressed by this process, usability, and quality of their site. Even the way they map keywords to an internal database seems to make sense. It takes a while to prepare an image though, comparable to IS.

The huge difference with PhotoShelter is the contributor keeps 70% of the sale. (To ramp up, they are offering 85% of all sales for images uploaded before sometime early Nov.)

They have budgeted to spend around $1M in a first round of advertising, at launch. It's one thing to have images and a solid site; but another to bring a volume of buyers.

Interesting discussion here about what images would be posted exclusively or not, on lower vs. higher cost sites. I don't have my mind made up on this.

« Reply #16 on: September 27, 2007, 02:31 »
0
thanks for the info cameraB

I am guessing though you will not be able to switch back and forth between RF and RM.  if an image is sold as RF there is NO going to RM after that as the rights are no longer managed.  The first buyer all ready ruined the possibility of controlling the rights.

I also guess that if they are starting pricing at $50 for a smallish sized RF image, then they would be classified as macrostock.  Alamy sales for small images net pretty small amounts too - and they are considered macro.

Another thing to consider about pricing is the rights they offer. Alamy image sales offer many right - making it almost an extended license equivalent at the micros.

« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2007, 05:49 »
0
For licensing, a contributor has to choose RF or RM as a single choice across all images.

My understanding is quite different.  The way I understand it, you choose a license type (RF vs RM) for each image.  The online Pricing Tutorial makes the following statements:

"In our system, you must first select a license type for an image, and then price the image according to that license type."

"Some photographers will price all of their images according to one license type, but some will use a mix; pricing certain types of images as RF and others as RM."

You can change the choice any time I think, and it applies to all future sales and images.

Once again, that is not my understanding.  Here is a quote from the online Pricing Tutorial:

"Bear in mind that once you sell an image as RF, you cannot subsequently sell it as RM."

« Reply #18 on: September 27, 2007, 08:00 »
0
The way I understand it, you choose a license type (RF vs RM) for each image.

Oops, you're right, GeoPappas, I misunderstood this, at first it looked to me like a global choice. You can select Rights Managed or Royalty Free on a per image basis. Sorry about the confusion.

From one of the FAQ's:

Which License Type is Right for Me?
The PhotoShelter Collection is a marketplace for commercial stock imagery, and our buyers are generally sophisticated photo buyers who license images for a living. They are very familiar with all of the various licensing methods. Deciding which license type is right for you is a personal business decision that you must make.

Our research shows that commercial photo buyers do not favor one license type over the other; they just have a need to come up with a price quickly and easily. The PhotoShelter Collection pricing system for both RM and RF provide them with the quick and easy pricing the need, no matter which method of pricing you choose.

If you are not a full-fledged professional photographer, you are new at pricing, and you are not sure what kind of demand there will be for your work, we recommend that you follow our suggested default pricing categories in either in RM or RF.

Some photographers will price all of their images according to one license type, but some will use a mix; pricing certain types of images as RF and others as RM.

Also, dont be shy about asking your peers for help or opinions. Check out the Forums for discussions on the topic of licensing and pricing. Youll soon find out that this is a very hot topic, as some people tend to feel passionately about one license type over another.

« Reply #19 on: October 01, 2007, 14:12 »
0
just uploaded to photoshelter - one photo... ouch
It is like istock - except worse.... very time consuming.  I can understand how it will be good for the buyers to have all the info, but the implementation is also sort of cumbersome so it goes slow :(

I guess if they get the sales it will be worth it but...

« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2007, 16:42 »
0
"No payments to you will be made in the event the buyer ... fails to pay for the purchase notwithstanding PhotoShelters reasonable efforts to collect payment within forty-five (45) days."

I'm baffled on this one!  Wouldn't the buyer be purchasing the image with credits that they already bought?  How would this clause ever get enacted?

In Shutterpoint, a buyer doesn't buy credits, he simply buys a photo.  I think they (SP) only accepts CCs and Paypal for payment, yet they pay us only 30 days after the purchase.  I don't know if there is any accounting reason to explain this (other than keeping our money for a few days).

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2007, 16:50 »
0
What is the connection between

http://www.photoshelter.com/ 

and

http://md.photoshelter.com/ ?

The first has a link to the second, but is a site with a large portfolio already.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2007, 16:54 »
0
the first one is a 'pay per file online' site - where i believe you can upload basically what you want.

the second is more of a typical setup where it is free to have images online, they accept or reject images and take a cut of the sales.

« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2007, 17:02 »
0
Leaf,

Thanks for the clarification.  So it's more or less like Shutterpoint vs KeenImages.

Any experiences with the original (paying) site?

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2007, 22:57 »
0
Leaf,

Thanks for the clarification.  So it's more or less like Shutterpoint vs KeenImages.

Any experiences with the original (paying) site?

Regards,
Adelaide

The paying site is something similar to Smugmug, but more directed towards pro's. You can sell prints etc. through them. They are considered to be very professional, but also relatively expensive. Good solution for sports-photographers etc. who sell many prints.

« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2007, 23:39 »
0
...yet they pay us only 30 days after the purchase.  I don't know if there is any accounting reason to explain this (other than keeping our money for a few days).

The fancy word for this is "float." In some cases, the money that can be earned off interest from "floating" the income for a few days or weeks can be a successful business model.

With today's ease of transferring funds, any website that takes 30 days to pass the money along to its final recipient is leveraging float. It's not a bad practice necessarily, unless you're the one at the end of the food chain. :-)

For microstocks, when the money is in-hand as soon as credits are purchased, the float can be even longer.

« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2007, 00:11 »
0
Coming from the financial/business perspective of this (my day job), I challenge anyone to try the "float" business model.  It's a great scapegoat for those that don't know the ins and outs, but in all practicality, unless you are doing hundreds of thousands of transactions PER DAY, it isn't worth the money.  This business model is mostly successful in the leasing industry.  The going interest rate is currently between 3 and 4 percent...think about how much money it would take to make the returns lucrative, then subtract the potential transaction fees.

Adelaide - I was with Shutterpoint for a while and I walked away - I think Photoshelter has much more to offer.  I haven't heard the same bad things about Keene images, but if they run it the same way, I would expect Photoshelter to be more successful in the long run.  There are a lot of "big players" (i.e. professional photographers with their livelihoods at stake) backing this agency.

« Reply #27 on: October 03, 2007, 15:21 »
0
Given that some sites sell so little and take so long to pay me because it takes years to reach a pay-out, they certainly win a lot with this floating money. At least from me!  :D

Regards,
Adelaide

dk

« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2007, 10:04 »
0
Hi, been reading the forums for a while but this is my first post.

I have a question, what do you guys think - i have a different portofolio for alamy and the micros. Which of these two portofolios you think is better to upload to photoshelter? Should i upload my micro or macro images to them?

Thanks in advance



« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2007, 10:08 »
0
well, the initial price point on Alamy looks similar to the Photoshelter prices, HOWEVER when you consider licensing the prices on alamy are not all that different that micro prices (extended licenses).

If you want to keep them seperate though, I would suggest uploading your alamy portfolio on photoshelter.

dk

« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2007, 10:12 »
0
thanks leaf for the quick reply!

and congratulations for your amazing work

jsnover

« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2007, 10:58 »
0
I have a question, what do you guys think - i have a different portofolio for alamy and the micros. Which of these two portofolios you think is better to upload to photoshelter? Should i upload my micro or macro images to them?

I am uploading my (new and still building) Alamy portfolio to PhotoShelter Collection. I think given the price differences even if it were RF licensing, it wouldn't be good business to offer the same images via the micros and Alamy/Photoshelter.

I'm selling mine RM at both Alamy and Photoshelter. It does make a new category of decision though (for some images) - which group of sites to upload to. I guess it'll get easier to decide once I get a better grip on sales patterns for the RM stuff.

dk

« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2007, 15:21 »
0
thanks jsnover for your anwser.

i was thinking of uploading some stuff on midstock sites as well - like mostphotos and l.oliver and the same question comes up on what to upload there as well. I did a very specific search on both istock and l.o. The search for "agaric amanita" returned 16 results on both sites. None of the images found were on both sites.

i hope we don't need a third portofolio for midstock!

 :)

« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2007, 17:35 »
0
I have a question, what do you guys think - i have a different portofolio for alamy and the micros. Which of these two portofolios you think is better to upload to photoshelter? Should i upload my micro or macro images to them?


I am uploading my (new and still building) Alamy portfolio to PhotoShelter Collection. I think given the price differences even if it were RF licensing, it wouldn't be good business to offer the same images via the micros and Alamy/Photoshelter.

I'm selling mine RM at both Alamy and Photoshelter. It does make a new category of decision though (for some images) - which group of sites to upload to. I guess it'll get easier to decide once I get a better grip on sales patterns for the RM stuff.


I would tread with caution when posting RM stuff on two sites (and double check if it is allowed)
- I expained myself more in THIS POST

jsnover

« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2007, 18:58 »
0
I'll look into that, but I did not think that Alamy required exclusivity for any of its images for any license type.

What I thought was that you need to know who has used it, where and for what - which you do even if it's sold through multiple agencies as long as it's RM. I think Alamy has to ask the copyright owner if someone wants exclusive rights when you sell the image as "Licensed", so I would always know.


« Reply #35 on: October 04, 2007, 20:25 »
0
There's no exclusivity requirement at Alamy.

http://www.alamy.com/contributors/default.asp

Right there in the middle: We are non-exclusive and we do not edit your images.

« Reply #36 on: October 04, 2007, 20:50 »
0
The only issue that you may have is if a customer requests exclusivity.  If you have an image on Alamy, and a customer requests exclusivity through Photoshelter, you probably won't be able to do it in that it takes Alamy 3 months to remove the image from the site.  What you can do instead is apply restrictions to the image at Alamy for a given region (or even worldwide depending on the rights the customer is requesting).  This only applies to licensed images.

Photoshelter is still in beta but I'd imagine you will have the ability to do the same.

If on Alamy you select the rights protected license, then you are saying that the person licensing the image can get exclusive rights without having to go through Alamy's member services in order to get exclusive rights.

jsnover

« Reply #37 on: October 04, 2007, 21:48 »
0
If on Alamy you select the rights protected license, then you are saying that the person licensing the image can get exclusive rights without having to go through Alamy's member services in order to get exclusive rights.

All my Alamy images are Licensed, not rights protected. And as an FYI, Alamy takes 6 months, not 3 to delete images after you request it.

« Reply #38 on: October 04, 2007, 22:07 »
0
Then you should be OK.  If Alamy hears from a customer that wants exclusive rights, then Member Services will give you a call or contact you via email before licensing the image to the customer to ask if exclusivity is available.  If you can restrict the usage on your other non-exclusive rights managed sites, then all you have to do is just that when (if) Member Services calls you.  You don't need to delete the image (sometimes exclusivity is country/region based so you'll have to update the restrictions at other agencies).

With relation to image deletion, what a lot of folks do is restrict the image first (on a worldwide basis), wait until the next refresh (24 business hours) then they mark it for deletion.  You can't do both at the same time - Member Services has caught on to the trick and both changes won't be saved (the only saved change will be the image is marked for deletion).  If you want your image deleted within 3 months, then change the new "disambiguation" questions to be unfavorable.  Otherwise, you're right, it's 6 months.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2007, 22:37 by wysiwyg_foto »

« Reply #39 on: October 05, 2007, 15:58 »
0
Hi All,

Alamy has 3 different license types, Royalty Free, Licensed and Rights Protected. Both L and RP licenses are RM type licenses with one big difference. In L images they will ask you if anyone wants exclusivity, with RP they assume the images are exclusive to them so they won't ask before selling an exclusivity license.

As for that old discussion on having the same images on Alamy and microstock, i believe that the contract differences (limitations with microstock) and size of the images available may justify the price increase... What is not very good is the extended license prices on most places. Those should be more like alamy prices.

By the way, Alamy has just changed dramatically their database approach and most probably their search engine. Now we have 3 keyword fields (Essential, Main and Comprehensive) and a lot more fields to identify and catalog the images like if it is a cut out, how many people are in it, date taken, etc.
The only problem is for those images already online, which will take a great deal of work to set them up according to this scheme (not mandatory, but advisable).

Regards
Francisco Leito

« Reply #40 on: January 03, 2008, 00:29 »
0
This year I'm applying to Photoshelter and possibly Alamy. 

Does anyone know - on Photoshelter, if my application is approved will my photos show up in my portfolio automatically?  I'm wondering what I'll send over - I'll come up with something other than my micro work if the approved are placed for sale automatically.

Also - if I have photos from the same shoots as those on the micros - can I send over something that is essentially the same?  Maybe as RF?   I know there is nothing that says don't send to both, but I think we all agree to keep our portfolios separate... thoughts on similars? 

« Reply #41 on: January 03, 2008, 01:31 »
0
Photoshelter will put the approved images from your application up for sale (actually, they will put it in the approved folder and you have to make them live)

Olga

« Reply #42 on: January 05, 2008, 05:58 »
0
so has anyone else gotten any images online here?  I have 5 or so, but not sure I will upload more or not.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2008, 07:33 by leaf »

« Reply #43 on: January 05, 2008, 06:14 »
0
so has anyone gotten any images online here?

I just tried them two days ago with three pictures, I'll let you know if they accepted them (otherwise, I'll send three others, and three others, and...).

« Reply #44 on: January 05, 2008, 07:29 »
0
I have just applied with 7 images. They say it takes 2-3 days for review.

vphoto

« Reply #45 on: January 05, 2008, 07:47 »
0
I have about 30 there.  It is easy to upload to them and they accept most of my photos.  I am not uploading my microstock photos.

« Reply #46 on: January 05, 2008, 08:55 »
0
I have about 30 there.  It is easy to upload to them and they accept most of my photos.  I am not uploading my microstock photos.

Easy???  how do you mean?  I felt like it was istock X 3, 4 pages of stuff to go through to upload 1 photo, with disambiguation for each keyword on a separate page!!!

« Reply #47 on: January 05, 2008, 10:12 »
0
I found it about the same as istock.  The disambiguation was just a lot of mouse clicks.  I prefer uploading to them than alamy, as it takes at least 3 weeks for me to get a review with alamy.

« Reply #48 on: January 12, 2008, 04:59 »
0
I'd like to revive this old thread about the Photoshelter collection, since I was accepted yesterday. I'm now crawling slowly through the do's and don'ts, but since this site is fairly new, there is not much info on forums from real contributors.

Content: does the PSC really prefers people shots over landscape/objects shots, as they state?

Reviewers: are they liberal or conservative? Do they prefer plain from the cam (like iStock), artsy, or popped-up (like ShutterStock). What are the most frequent reject reasons and do they also use the this is not commercial reason?

I read about the upload/cooking process on tags/description. It seems to be as cumbersome as the one on iStock. Is it really that bad?

Finally, what about view count and sales there? Or is it still too early?

« Reply #49 on: January 12, 2008, 09:19 »
0
We have upload over 100 images to PSC and it is much better than IS by leaps and bounds IS has one of the worst upload systems.

They have several different categories that cover different styles and you can have some shot there that would be rejected from all the micros, just remember you cannot upload images to PSC that you have on microsites, PSC is traditional stock pricing, we use them and Alamy for our RM stock.

They are to new to have sales figures up and have just started advertising the site. The stat system is nice as you can see all the stats for your images.

« Reply #50 on: January 12, 2008, 22:06 »
0
 I got accepted, but found the interface cumbersome. May be I will take another look.
vphoto

« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2008, 00:40 »
0
We have upload over 100 images to PSC and it is much better than IS by leaps and bounds IS has one of the worst upload systems.
Agreed. They also have that stupid upload limit that is fine for people with constant net access, but nor for me. I'm lagging behind there 400 images and I will never catch up. I also can't afford to do the cumbersome disambiguation process online. They should have an offline application for that.
ust remember you cannot upload images to PSC that you have on microsites, PSC is traditional stock pricing, we use them and Alamy for our RM stock.
That isn't in their user agreement, as far as I could read. They are non-exclusive. I will upload some selected shots on PSC that are on micro too, and then see. If they sell, I can always disable them on micro. Eggs and baskets.... After all, they are just beginning.

« Reply #52 on: January 13, 2008, 09:09 »
0
That isn't in their user agreement, as far as I could read. They are non-exclusive. I will upload some selected shots on PSC that are on micro too, and then see. If they sell, I can always disable them on micro. Eggs and baskets.... After all, they are just beginning.
It may not be in thier user agreement but if you upload them as RM there could be other issue plus ethically it is just wrong to sell an image as both. 

« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2008, 22:03 »
0
just a thought...

what is terms of the rf license? is it a restricted license like with most micros or the more general like alamy (allows unlimited print runs etc etc)?

if it is like alamy, then that is a microstock extended licence, so pricing at $50 for full size is the same as a luckyO or dreamstime and cheaper than stockxpert or Istock for the same license ???

Phil


budgaugh

« Reply #54 on: January 17, 2008, 16:45 »
0
So is anyone actually selling anything at Photoshelter?

« Reply #55 on: January 20, 2008, 15:47 »
0
Do they have a decent watermark?

Regards,
Adelaide

budgaugh

« Reply #56 on: January 21, 2008, 00:42 »
0
They put your name on the photos as a watermark  across the top and bottom.   


« Reply #57 on: February 01, 2008, 19:31 »
0
Hi all,

Did anyone already go through the hassle of Photoshelter's tax form submission ?
It seems that even non-US-residents have to request a US Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) in order to claim a reduced rate of withholding under a tax treaty. Otherwise, PS will withhold 30% from all payments.

Does it really have to be that complicated ?

See : http://psc.photoshelter.com/mem/learn/payment/tax
(you may have to be logged-in to access this link)
 
« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 19:34 by ErickN »

« Reply #58 on: February 01, 2008, 21:30 »
0
Can i upload my images from microsites to Photoshelter?
RF?

« Reply #59 on: February 02, 2008, 00:20 »
0
Hi all,

Did anyone already go through the hassle of Photoshelter's tax form submission ?
It seems that even non-US-residents have to request a US Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) in order to claim a reduced rate of withholding under a tax treaty. Otherwise, PS will withhold 30% from all payments.

Does it really have to be that complicated ?

See : http://psc.photoshelter.com/mem/learn/payment/tax
(you may have to be logged-in to access this link)
 


I encountered the same problem after all the hassle to get one (1 !) photo accepted. I am not a US citizen, I don't live in america, I don't intend to... I don't see why I should register with their tax offices. I quit.

« Reply #60 on: February 02, 2008, 10:28 »
0
I encountered the same problem after all the hassle to get one (1 !) photo accepted. I am not a US citizen, I don't live in america, I don't intend to... I don't see why I should register with their tax offices. I quit.

Have you contacted support about this issue?

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #61 on: February 02, 2008, 11:31 »
0
I read it too. If you don't register with the US tax office as a non-US resident/citizen, they withhold 30%. That's a bit crazy and it's even against their own constitution: no taxation without representation.

I submitted 10 images a while ago out of my last months' batches, that were accepted everywhere (DT,SS,etc...): 5 models and 5 nature/urban shots. I took the occasion to check what happened and all model shots were rejected because the poses and the expressions were unnatural. Have to add those were isolated, so the PSC doesn't want isolated shots.

My waterfall shots were soft rejected because they belong to the news and not the creative category. Well, those waterfalls have been around for some thousands of years I figure, so I can't see what news value they have. Also, PSC doesn't like vibrant colors, so slide that saturation slider in PS way down to B&W.

One shot was accepted, a bunch of guitars on a street sale. But it wasn't live yet since I needed to fill in first a bunch of things I don't understand. If you need to fill out that stuff for every photo, it's even more time than Istock.

Then I did a search on "Asia Waterfall" to see how my competition was doing, since I regularly get EL's on my Asian waterfall shots. Just 23 matches, and in one third, the waterfall was not really visible. Came across a plain women with her back in the sun and blown-out highlights in a jungle scene that was totally shadowy but popped up clearly with a shadow-recovery procedure. She was feeding the ducks in a pond. The waterfall obviously was 1km down the road. A mediocre snapshot.

I asked for the license price of that shot in one European country for one year and it was above 2,000$. But what a bargain! Incorporate it in a corporate presentation and showing it once was only 200$. Boink.

Finally I checked their watermark. One small line on top and on the bottom, and a giant clean "thumb".

Can't see who's going to buy there, and who's going to upload. Me thinks its an undercover operation of the American IRS to get money in ;-)

In short, I deleted my one approved shot, and will just keep my account in case the site takes off. Sometimes, miracles happen.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2008, 11:37 by FlemishDreams »

« Reply #62 on: February 02, 2008, 11:41 »
0
I got accepted at Photoshelter a couple of weeks ago and I can't see myself uploading anything there until they streamline the keywording process... needs lots of work...

« Reply #63 on: April 10, 2008, 12:01 »
0
How is sales at Photoshelter?

Have anyone here got any sales recently

« Reply #64 on: April 10, 2008, 13:17 »
0
I've been there for about two months - no sales yet, but I upload only 10 images per day, so my portfolio is still quite small.

My general feeling is that sales are very slow. My plan is to keep uploading until I have 1200+ images online. Their keywording system (called 'tagonomy') is a little bulky - if I'm not making $100+ per month by then I'll abandon them.

Go here to see my portfolio.

« Reply #65 on: April 10, 2008, 13:38 »
0
It may not be in thier user agreement but if you upload them as RM there could be other issue plus ethically it is just wrong to sell an image as both. 

No it's not.

Rights Managed is that you are managing where the image is used.  Rights Managed is traditionally cheaper than Royalty Free because you are only allowing that image to be used X amounts of times in X countries on the front cover of X magazine.

Royalty Free is a license for the end user to use the image as many times as they like.  You no longer have control over the image.

So of course you can sell an image as both.  What you cannot do, however, is offer an image EXCLUSIVELY to a client (be it industry, country, continent) if you have sold it Royalty Free.  You can only offer exclusive deals to clients on images where you have monitored the usage through Rights Managed sales.

« Reply #66 on: April 10, 2008, 16:00 »
0
Photoshelter's rules state that you cannot list an image as RM on Photoshelter if you have ever listed it as RF on Photoshelter or anywhere else.

« Reply #67 on: April 11, 2008, 02:16 »
0
Photoshelter's rules state that you cannot list an image as RM on Photoshelter if you have ever listed it as RF on Photoshelter or anywhere else.


Sorry, I should have cropped that quote a bit further!

I was disagreeing with the bit it's ethically wrong to do, not the specific TOS of PhotoShelter.

Any agency that says that is a little backwards, since I could have it RM on Alamy, and it then PhotoShelter could still sell it in a competing market, which is what I guess they want to avoid.  They're trying to offer some sort of exclusivity illusion, which in fact they're not managing to do.

« Reply #68 on: April 11, 2008, 02:46 »
0
here is a bit of reading for you all :)

blog about selling RF and RM of the same image

another blog - same subject

Alamy thread about selling an image RM on alamy and RF on micros

another persons opinion

From all that i gathered that there is no rules against selling an image on Alamy as RM and on the micros (or elsewher) as RF.  Some people just feel it is bad business practice, immoral etc. etc. Others feel it is OK.

I am not sure where I stand but I think it is safest to stick to one licensing type/image
« Last Edit: April 11, 2008, 04:28 by leaf »

grp_photo

« Reply #69 on: April 11, 2008, 03:43 »
0


From all that i gathered that there is no rules against selling an image on Alamy as RM and on the micros (or elsewher) as RF.
NO NO NO Leaf you are completely wrong!!! I'm a little bit shocked you really should know better! Alamy has a clear policy that a picture must be under the same licensing model at any other agency. Please contact Alamy-Support directly if you don't believe me your account will be closed if you selling the same picture as RM and elsewhere as RF. As a moderator you shouldn't spread wrong information!!!

« Reply #70 on: April 11, 2008, 03:56 »
0
Yes, i see.

I would offcourse not sell THE same picture as RF and RM.

But i would consider to only sell "small" 4mpx at microstock of the same theme, and full sized 10 mpx and upwards as RM.

If i go to a shooting and get 200 shots, i maybee consider to use 10-20 of them. In the end maybe 1-5 are pics that i can stand 100% behind. Then i get maybee about 10 more that is technically nice - very nice, but not excellent.

If i get shots with room for webdesign creative and they don't are exactly what the customer from the start asked for, they may still have some value as microstock?!

But i am sceptical to "give" away fullsized pictures for less than a dollar. I am a little worried that the feeling is that everything digital should bee for free is getting too much acceptance.

Thats why i consider to have my best 5% of shots only bee available as RM.

« Reply #71 on: April 11, 2008, 04:38 »
0


From all that i gathered that there is no rules against selling an image on Alamy as RM and on the micros (or elsewher) as RF.

NO NO NO Leaf you are completely wrong!!! I'm a little bit shocked you really should know better! Alamy has a clear policy that a picture must be under the same licensing model at any other agency. Please contact Alamy-Support directly if you don't believe me your account will be closed if you selling the same picture as RM and elsewhere as RF. As a moderator you shouldn't spread wrong information!!!


Well I was in the opinion for a long time that it was not possible to list the same image as RF and RM .. but then after reading all those links i attached I wondered this morning if it IS possible, just really foolish, or should NOT be done.

alamy says
Quote
To ensure customer confidence in your images and avoid potential legal problems you must not submit the same or similar images as different licence types.

link


I am not selling any images with two different license types, so I don't have to worry.  I am just trying to clear this up, as there seems to be an awful lot of confusion.. if you read the links I mentioned earlier you will see how many people have as many different opinions.  With something as black and white as this there shouldn't be any confusion (but perhaps i am not helping at all)

perhaps this blog then says it best
Quote
The RM model is selling managed rights. The RF model is not selling managed rights. By their very defintion to any rational person they cannot co-exist for the same image.


By definition you cannot sell an image saying the right are managed, and then turn around and sell it RF saying the rights are not managed.....
« Last Edit: April 11, 2008, 04:43 by leaf »

« Reply #72 on: April 11, 2008, 04:45 »
0


But i would consider to only sell "small" 4mpx at microstock of the same theme, and full sized 10 mpx and upwards as RM.


Resizing doesn't change the picture.  The rights follow the image no matter how large or small it is.  A picture is a picture is a picture.

« Reply #73 on: April 11, 2008, 05:21 »
0
I think I know what Leaf is trying to say.  I'll try and put it in simple terms, because the two terms "rights managed" and "royalty free" are confusing.

Imagine I have one picture, and three customers.  I sell the image to the customers as follows.

Customer 1: I sell him the rights to use the image on front front page of his magazine, but only in Australia, and only for the June issue.  He pays $100 for these rights.

Customer 2: I sell him the rights to use the image in his travel company broshure for the whole of 2009 and 2010.  After that he needs to contact me to keep using it.  He pays $500 for these rights (because he's getting more than customer 1).

Customer 3: He just loves my picture.  He wants to use it all over the place, on his website, in magazines, as advertisement and on postcards and calendars.  I figure "woah, I can't be bothered to deal with all this paperwork" so I sell him the rights to use it anywhere he likes for as long as he needs for $1000 (because he's getting way more than both customer 1 and 2).

I just sold customer 3 a royalty free license, but I didn't break my "rights managed" terms with the first two customers.

Traditionally rights managed license sold for less than royalty free licences because the customer gets less (unless they want exclusive use of an image for one reason or another, but that's different and totally separate).  This is the beef that most traditional stock photographers have with microstock.  We are letting people use our images for anything they want FOREVER for a buck.  Traditionally a licence like this would have cost thousands.

So yes, you can sell images both rights managed and royalty free at the same time.  The simple reason is, you don't have to tell your clients who you have sold the image to previously, at what price, or what license, unless they want some sort of special exclusive deal.

It's not unethical, royalty free is just a different name for a type of managed licence.  It is still "managed" in a way, because the end user can't use it for deflammatory purposes, and they have to pay more if they want to print X amount of copies, or use it for print on demand.  So it's still "rights managed" it's just a very, very liberal license.

The reason that people like PhotoShelter don't want royalty free images on their site, is to keep the microstock images away.  They rightfully understand that their customers would be pissed if they found the same image with a better licence deal for so much less money.  Of course, if you're negotiating with customers privatly, it's not a problem.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2008, 05:25 by Seren »

« Reply #74 on: April 11, 2008, 05:55 »
0
well i disagree with you on a number of point seren, so I will start with this one.

RF is NOT traditionally cheaper than RM

In the olden days of film and transparencies, everything was sold as rights managed.  Then came along the Royalty Free license.  Some photographers thought it was the end of the stock world (just as they later thought of microstock) because the images were being sold so cheaply.

The reason RF is sold cheaper than RM is because there is no control over it's uses.  With a RM image you could tell the client what it has been used for, and where.  With RF that control is lost and so the value of the images decreases.

« Reply #75 on: April 11, 2008, 06:02 »
0
I know resized photos are not different, but if you take two shots from the same shooting for me they are not always the same.

If i take the best one to RM and keep it at 10mpx + and take the otherone to microstock and resize it to 4mpx i gain many in many ways.

1. Customer gets what he pays for, if you pay more you get the best.
2. Shorter upload/download time for customers that don't want/need fullsized pictures.
3. I gain additional sales/customers from a shootings that otherwise was "off" or out of reach for small to medium sized company's.
4. Microstock agencies get very god quality for attracting new customers.  
5. Midstock and the REAL BIG 6 can still be around (for me thats important, as i aspire to make a living from photo)




« Reply #76 on: April 11, 2008, 06:04 »
0
here is a good info website written by jupiter images about Royalty Free and Rights Managed licenses and how they differ

http://www.stockphotography.com/faq/CompareGuide/Pricing.html

be sure to click on the next on the bottom to read the whole article.

and yes I got back to my original belief and agree with GRP photo, that you CANNOT license one image in two different ways RF and RM

« Reply #77 on: April 11, 2008, 06:22 »
0
A very god link Leaf, Thanks!

And about the two pics that are i my previous post, they are what i call different, showing the same place, but for me they are of different quality and value.

The first one is for mee, more artistic and stronger. Ok, it has a limited "web" usability, but could bee great for a branding race for large prints and outdoor marketing.

The second one is more "traditional", not a snapshot but more common and could bee used in more different ways.

I do belive they should not cost the same, and defenetly not 1 dollar for indefinite use. 

Ill do this kind of giveaways only once to get accepted into the agencys then i will surely downsize and separet them for the different kind of use.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2008, 06:23 by windmill »

« Reply #78 on: April 11, 2008, 06:52 »
0
well i disagree with you on a number of point seren, so I will start with this one.


Sorry Leaf, I mistook what you were saying.

But initially RF was sold at a higher price than RM.  Certainly in the UK market, which is what I have experience of.

« Reply #79 on: April 11, 2008, 06:53 »
0
My problem with RM is that the images really need to be exclusive to the agency in order for them to be truly managed.

What is to prevent one company from licensing an RM image on one site (e.g., Alamy) and another company from licensing  the same RM image on another site (e.g., MyLoupe) for the same terms?

For example, what is to prevent a hospital from licensing an RM image of a teenager for an ad on healthy living from one agency, while a non-profit organization licenses the same RM image for an ad on AIDS?

Do the RM agencies require exclusivity?  If not, then how can they truly manage the images?

« Reply #80 on: April 11, 2008, 06:59 »
0
My problem with RM is that the images really need to be exclusive to the agency in order for them to be truly managed.

What is to prevent one company from licensing an RM image on one site (e.g., Alamy) and another company from licensing  the same RM image on another site (e.g., MyLoupe) for the same terms?

For example, what is to prevent a hospital from licensing an RM image of a teenager for an ad on healthy living from one agency, while a non-profit organization licenses the same RM image for an ad on AIDS?

Do the RM agencies require exclusivity?  If not, then how can they truly manage the images?

well lots of sites do require exclusivity, but the ones that don't will then have to ask you if it is possible to get an exclusive license for a certain area / usage.

« Reply #81 on: April 11, 2008, 07:03 »
0
My problem with RM is that the images really need to be exclusive to the agency in order for them to be truly managed.

What is to prevent one company from licensing an RM image on one site (e.g., Alamy) and another company from licensing  the same RM image on another site (e.g., MyLoupe) for the same terms?

For example, what is to prevent a hospital from licensing an RM image of a teenager for an ad on healthy living from one agency, while a non-profit organization licenses the same RM image for an ad on AIDS?

Do the RM agencies require exclusivity?  If not, then how can they truly manage the images?

well lots of sites do require exclusivity, but the ones that don't will then have to ask you if it is possible to get an exclusive license for a certain area / usage.

I don't follow.  How would asking the artist do anything?  If the artist submits their images to sites, then they have lost control of the usage of their images (because the sites have usage control as well).

Do Alamy or MyLoupe require exclusivity?

« Reply #82 on: April 11, 2008, 07:12 »
0
no they don't but when an image is licensed as RM you get info on how it was used.

If a customer wants to purchase an exclusive license of your image through Alamy, Alamy will email you and ask if you are able to give that exclusivity.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
3378 Views
Last post April 22, 2012, 05:22
by PaulieWalnuts
3 Replies
3167 Views
Last post December 10, 2012, 20:17
by PaulieWalnuts
11 Replies
2735 Views
Last post July 13, 2013, 09:45
by gemmy12
7 Replies
3421 Views
Last post January 10, 2014, 10:18
by Silberkorn
6 Replies
2601 Views
Last post November 15, 2014, 03:15
by skyfish

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results