MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New free picture site says you can make money with them ???  (Read 4401 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 21, 2007, 09:54 »
Have you heard about this site: ?   You donate your pictures to their site and make money by visitors clicking on advertising banners when they view your pictures. Right.  Here's an unedited quote directly from their photog terms: "First, make sure that you understand that the photos you upload will be given away and can be downloaded for commercial or non-commercial use."  The owner is apparently making the rounds soliciting photog's to join.  I guess if you are so desperate that you just want to have your pictures viewed and used by the world for basically free, then this site is for you.

« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2007, 10:04 »
Also, I'm not sure how a site like this would work as far as trademarks in photos, but check out these:

Quite a few others, but I've got no more time to waste digging there.
Perhaps because they're free images, it doesn't matter??

« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2007, 11:16 »
Perhaps because they're free images, it doesn't matter??
Maybe the onus falls on the user since they are free.  they aren't buying anything so cant hold you responsible???

isn't this similar to Fotolias original free section?

« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2007, 16:05 »
the ultimate vanity site, maybe???? 

« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2007, 18:18 »
At the company I work for, there are a number of social distribution lists where people talk about hobbies, etc.  I read through the photography list, and some work colleagues were talking about stock and microstock photography.  One guy posted that he shoots primarily wildlife shots and couldn't find much of a market in stock.  But one of his friends ran a site like you described above (free pictures, so revenue is through advertising).  He ended up posting his picts there.  He said he didn't make a lot of money, but he made enough to pay for new camera equipment (whatever that means).

Personally, unless it's a really high traffic site, I don't see how you could make much.

« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2007, 07:23 »
Two months down the track, has anyone tried these guys? Their Alexa stats are looking good - they're getting traffic, but it doesn't look like they have many photos.

Interested to hear of any experiences.

« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2007, 02:21 »
No, because the model sucks. The advertisement income has to be diluted over too many photographers.

And what's more, advertising on websites is doomed. It takes too much bandwidth for the user and it hurts the eyes. After the pop-up blockers, we got the ad-blockers like the one I use on Firefox. Pretty effective, I just don't see any Google ads and others on any site any more. states:

"People are getting a lot more sophisticated when it comes to ad blocking technology. Younger, more technically adept users have extensions installed. Take a look at digg, for example. However, it's going more mainstream. For example, the new version of Camino on the Mac has ad blocking built right into the browser. There will be an arms race between those who serve banner ads and the ad blockers that's similar to the spam wars of today."
« Last Edit: August 20, 2007, 03:27 by FlemishDreams »


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
Last post December 14, 2007, 14:04
by madelaide
10 Replies
Last post April 11, 2014, 00:00
by Me
22 Replies
Last post April 26, 2009, 23:02
by helix7
34 Replies
Last post July 10, 2010, 07:40
by PaulieWalnuts
2 Replies
Last post August 13, 2012, 03:45
by Newsfocus1


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle