pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: NoEquivalent Art - A new Art and Stock photography site  (Read 12346 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 29, 2008, 21:09 »
0
We have started a new site, under the name NoEquivalent Art, which specializes in selling unique edition art and stock photography images.  While we are not selling to consumers yet we have launched a preview version of our store to gather feedback on our business model as well as allow interested artists to join.

You can find us at artist.noequivalent.com [nofollow].  Feel free to let us know what aspects of our business model you like as well as the ones you find challenging.  A quick preview of the advantages we offer artists would include features like:
    -  Selling to multiple industries through a single artist control panel
    -  A limited size collection that offers an artist significant long term financial earnings

Thanks in advance for your feedback.


« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2008, 21:25 »
0
Assign copyright to the buyer? You're kidding, right? Please tell me you are  ???

bittersweet

« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2008, 22:03 »
0
Um. no way.

« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2008, 22:36 »
0
Like, you're kidding aren't you.

What is your name, what is your experience? It costs us lots of money and time to set up new accounts. You use Corbis, Getty and Alamy as benchmarks against which artists can compare incomes! say what!

What is your marketing plan? How much capital do you have?

Are you willing to pay us to upload to a new site?

Who will your customers be? How will you get to them? What committment do they have to you?


« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2008, 22:43 »
0
Here's the domain info. I still can;t stop laughing  ::)

Registrant:
   NoEquivalent Art Ltd.
   5863 Leslie St. Suite 445
   Toronto, Ontario M2H 1J8
   Canada

   Domain Name: NOEQUIVALENT.COM
      Created on: 18-Sep-07
      Expires on: 18-Sep-09
      Last Updated on: 18-Sep-08

   Administrative Contact:
      Lai, Sean 
      NoEquivalent Art Ltd.
      5863 Leslie St. Suite 445
      Toronto, Ontario M2H 1J8
      Canada
      6472997326      Fax --

« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2008, 01:51 »
0
Quote
Each image sells for somewhere between $500 and $800 with the artist receiving 40% of the image price

Selling an image for $500-$800 and giving away the copyright to the buyer (and deleting your own high res image) is extremely low.  That is the price that Alamy sell a RF image for.  A licensed image (with not exclusive rights) for a full page magzine page for a year is around $2300 and I can still sell the image again and again.  And since generally is is a few images in a portfolio which earn all the $$ it probably WOULD sell several times...
so.....

No thanks.

Microbius

« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2008, 03:51 »
0
this is really crazy. If you think selling the exclusive use of an image at these prices is "selling at a premium" you have no understanding of this market.

« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2008, 04:08 »
0
hahahaha, oh my. Good luck with this new revolutionary business model, can't wait to see how it evolves.

grp_photo

« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2008, 07:14 »
0
I think the comments are a little bit arrogant. Sure you shouldn't give them pictures that really your heart hangs on but you all do Microstock and now you cite earnings possibilities from RM and traditional RF ::). Come on to be honest with most pictures at Microstock you will never earn more than 500$ in a life-span (sure there are exceptions but they are really rare compared to the rest). Also with more and more pictures in the Microstock-Database the feasible life-span earning of a picture will sink drastically. You must be really naive if you think you can make a lot of money from the pictures you produce now in 10 years they will have no value at all in 10 years.
That said i don't think this concept will be a success either but i didn't like the comments on it. Maybe Eugene can comment why he thinks this will be a success that market research he did for this concept is there really a need from the buyers side for this concept etc.?

bittersweet

« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2008, 07:19 »
0
I think the comments are a little bit arrogant. Sure you shouldn't give them pictures that really your heart hangs on but you all do Microstock and now you cite earnings possibilities from RM and traditional RF ::). Come on to be honest with most pictures at Microstock you will never earn more than 500$ in a life-span (sure there are exceptions but they are really rare compared to the rest). Also with more and more pictures in the Microstock-Database the feasible life-span earning of a picture will sink drastically. You must be really naive if you think you can make a lot of money from the pictures you produce now in 10 years they will have no value at all in 10 years.
That said i don't think this concept will be a success either but i didn't like the comments on it. Maybe Eugene can comment why he thinks this will be a success that market research he did for this concept is there really a need from the buyers side for this concept etc.?

My shock was based on the impression that the images which they will be selling are NOT the type of dime a dozen micro images that we sell every day. They are unique individual pieces of art, for which there are "no equivalents". I have no doubt that there will be artists who are fine with selling their unique one of a kind illustrations for a couple hundred bucks. I, however, am not one of them, and therefore my original reply of "no way" is exactly what is was intended to be.

« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2008, 07:24 »
0
I think the comments are a little bit arrogant. Sure you shouldn't give them pictures that really your heart hangs on but you all do Microstock and now you cite earnings possibilities from RM and traditional RF ::). Come on to be honest with most pictures at Microstock you will never earn more than 500$ in a life-span (sure there are exceptions but they are really rare compared to the rest). Also with more and more pictures in the Microstock-Database the feasible life-span earning of a picture will sink drastically. You must be really naive if you think you can make a lot of money from the pictures you produce now in 10 years they will have no value at all in 10 years.
That said i don't think this concept will be a success either but i didn't like the comments on it. Maybe Eugene can comment why he thinks this will be a success that market research he did for this concept is there really a need from the buyers side for this concept etc.?

The reason I compared this site to macro agencies is because on noequivalent website they compare themselves to getty, corbis and alamy.

The average image on microstock won't earn $320 (40% of $800) but the 10% of images in a portoflio that carries the weight will earn each earn well over that amount in their lifetime.  On this site, the MAX your 'best seller's will ever earn are $320 because they will only be sold once.

grp_photo

« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2008, 07:34 »
0
Leaf from the pictures you have very early in the Database at some Microstocksites you may really have some good lifespan results. But I'm talking about now and with most pictures you produce now you won't have good lifespan results at all. And as time goes on it will go even worse. Think about it Fotolia now have over 4 Million pictures in its Database and they started only three years ago (if i remember right).
The world is vomiting pictures to make a living from stock you must have really an incredible amount of pictures in the future therefore an individual picture will have a really bad lifespan earning.

bittersweet

« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2008, 07:49 »
0
grp, are you connected to this new venture in some way?

« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2008, 07:51 »
0
Well I agree that what you say sounds right, but my graphs and numbers confirm otherwise.  

If our images were earning less and less over time our RPI should slowly be going down.  An image today should earn less per month than an equivalent image earned 2 years ago.  The results however are quite opposite.  In the last 4 years my RPI has only increased.  I think this is due to improved quality of the images i submit, sites charging more, and more sites opening up.  

I think perhaps it could be true to say there are more images getting 0 downloads, but on the other hand there is also more images getting a very large amount of downloads as microstock becomes more popular.

grp_photo

« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2008, 07:52 »
0
No why are you thinking? Do you really believe in good lifespan earnings for pictures you produce now or in the future? There may be some really really rare exceptions but in general you will have a rude awakening if you really believe this.

edited this answer was a response to whatalife.

« Reply #15 on: October 30, 2008, 07:56 »
0
Yes I do believe in at least decent lifespan.  If per image sales were declining the numbers would show it.  I could agree that it might happen in the future, but it isn't happening yet.  I think however, before it happens microstock agencies will get stricter and cull poor shots.  If I didn't believe that this was a viable business I wouldn't be doing microstock full time.

I think poor shots will die quickly and have a harder time selling but good shots will sell better than ever.

bittersweet

« Reply #16 on: October 30, 2008, 07:58 »
0
No why are you thinking? Do you really believe in good lifespan earnings for pictures you produce now or in the future? There may be some really really rare exceptions but in general you will have a rude awakening if you really believe this.

edited this answer was a response to whatalife.

I was just curious.

I do commissioned illustrations for clients who get a RM agreement. The illos are mine, not theirs. I make $4-600 on their license. When their terms are up, I am free to do what I want with the image. If I ever chose to outright sell an image, I would never give an agent 60% of the selling price.

I do not expect to make hundreds on every image I create for microstock, though I have some which have made that and more. But we are not talking microstock, are we?

grp_photo

« Reply #17 on: October 30, 2008, 08:03 »
0
Well I agree that what you say sounds right, but my graphs and numbers confirm otherwise.  

If our images were earning less and less over time our RPI should slowly be going down.  An image today should earn less per month than an equivalent image earned 2 years ago.  The results however are quite opposite.  In the last 4 years my RPI has only increased.  I think this is due to improved quality of the images i submit, sites charging more, and more sites opening up.  

I think perhaps it could be true to say there are more images getting 0 downloads, but on the other hand there is also more images getting a very large amount of downloads as microstock becomes more popular.
Well i agree this is true for the past that was the reason i'm talking about now and the future. I agree there is still some growing potential for Microstock and even Stock in general i also agree that i expect the prices to still go up in Microstock and down for tradtitional. But the increase of demand doesn't match the increase of pictures anymore there is already a gap between demand and supply and this gap will increase a lot in the not so far away future.

grp_photo

« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2008, 08:09 »
0
Yes I do believe in at least decent lifespan.  If per image sales were declining the numbers would show it.  I could agree that it might happen in the future, but it isn't happening yet.  I think however, before it happens microstock agencies will get stricter and cull poor shots.  If I didn't believe that this was a viable business I wouldn't be doing microstock full time.

I think poor shots will die quickly and have a harder time selling but good shots will sell better than ever.
I agree that it will be harder to get images accepted at Micros (we all know this is happening right now ;) ). I agree that it will be possible to make the a living in the future of Stock (but it will be harder). But RPI and lifespan earnings will be go down in general. Maybe we should check this thread and our numbers in 1,2,5 and 10 years  ;D

« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2008, 08:11 »
0
HA,.. :)  I was thinking about my reply from your previous post and thought, perhaps I should suggest we check this thread in a few years ... but you just said that yourself :)

Even though several million images sounds like a lot, there is an awful lot of crummy images on microstock and still quite a few holes.  I think there could still be a couple years of hole plugging to go.  Anyhow, I guess we will see in a couple years!

The future is very unkown tho,  microstock is still very young and things are changing almost monthly.

grp_photo

« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2008, 08:21 »
0
lol  :D

« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2008, 08:25 »
0
Keep laughing. Assigning copyright to the buyer, who will likely be an unknown recipient is just wrong, and anyone experienced in the industry knows this.

« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2008, 08:41 »
0
Hey Eugene, where do you get your data for those optimistic graphs on the 'Reward' page from?

The top graph shows your company earning from $50 million to $250 million. How do you arrive at those figures? When do you plan on achieving them? End of the year? Next year? 10 years time? Next century?

The bottom graph makes no sense. What does it mean?

But the graphs look impressive, I'll grant you, with your contributors appearing to earn handsome sums.

Only thing is, are they based on any sort of reality?

« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2008, 08:55 »
0
I had a boss once who loved pie charts. You could feed him any nonsense in a report as long as you generated a pie chart. That's what graphs are worth.

RacePhoto

« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2008, 10:50 »
0
Assign copyright to the buyer? You're kidding, right? Please tell me you are  ???


I think that this is a deal killer, unless there's some reason why someone should pay $200 (40% of $500) and own exclusive rights to someones photo? I understand the theory and the basics of the contract. No similar shots, all copies destroyed. I think their intention is that a buyer has a true exclusive.  ;D Licensed images get a year, why would someone want to buy all the rights to a photo for life? Why would an artist give up all rights forever?

About the question of earnings from one photo over it's lifetime. Here are some IS numbers (http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/) that I roughed out.

Of the ten Black Diamonds, which I think everyone will agree are the cream of the crop, Ave. DL per file is 80. I understand there are more sites, but they don't produce as many sales or the higher commission. Very rough calculations say that over ten years one of these photos, on IS from one of these top sellers, will earn $280. I don't know if the Ave. DLs will drop or stay the same or increase, so I based that on DLs staying the same.

Ave. DL per photo, entire site IS. 16  :o Ave DL per file middle users 11 times.

What grp and most others are saying is true. In the life of a single Micro photo, it will probably never equal one exclusive sale. But these aren't going to be stock shots from the impression I get of the site. They will be unique shots.

The agent taking 60% and the lifetime copyright are just a bit much. I'd still have to see why a buyer would want this type of photo, for what use? How much of a demand is there? If the shot is that unique, why would I want to give it up? Microstock there are many "not so unique" photos, so I can't say that comparing them is fair.

If someone wants to buy a "unique" one of a kind photo, highest quality, for lifetime exclusive, I'd think they would be willing to pay more than a microstock price for it.

If Eugene ever comes back after his one post, maybe he can explain the market and the intentions better. I'm trying to understand where the demand is for this type of contract and this type of artwork? It seems unusual that there's something beyond Licensed Exclusive that some buyer needs to have?

« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2008, 12:12 »
0
There are so many posts that I will try to answer the underlying questions in most of them.

Product:  We sell both Art images and Stock images.  Art images are sold to consumers, mainly targeting home dcor, while Stock images are sold to businesses within the stock industry.  Thus, not all images need to be Art; many will be sold to businesses.  If in any way we believed that the quality of micro-stock images was much lower than those of macro-stock images we probably wouldnt post onto this forum.  We review each image submitted separately and since an image posted with us cannot have been sold through any other site there is no label such as a micro/mid/macro image.  They are all images from quality member photographers.  Furthermore, since the number of contributing artists to our store is limited we get to know our artists and their work on a more individual level, understanding our members approaches.

Price:  Industry statistics show that the average stock image in todays stock industry earns a photographer about $11 a year.  (This number might even be on the high side since researchers admit that people making more money are more likely to participate in such surveys)  We offer photographers to earn 20 years worth of income in one sale.

Single Sale
We understand that if you compare current exclusive image sales to our prices it appears that our prices are just a fraction of theirs but the question really is how many of the current exclusive sales even happen.  It is quite simple to put any price tag on a product just to watch it sit on the shelf and never get sold.  While there are millions of photographers with hundreds of millions of images there is only a limited amount of demand for the product in its current form.  Practically any industry statistic would tell you that the vast majority of todays stock photographers cannot make a living in the field.

Lets say you take all the images you have/had posted in the past 10 years and total the income you have received from them.  Then divide this income by the number of images that you have/had posted during this time so you can see how much money you are really making on a per image basis.  If you end up with a large number then I congratulate you as you are probably in the top few percent of the industry and I encourage you to continue doing what you are doing.  On the other hand, if you are part of the ninety-some percent of the photographers that struggle to make money in the industry you will understand why keeping the product in its status quo is not working.

We change the product to get that demand up but at the same time do not sacrifice the returns that the artist would receive elsewhere.  Furthermore, we limit the number of members to make sure that your earnings grow in line with our demand unlike any other site out there that just churns out images at the artists expense.

Demand
The amazement of some individuals that was displayed in this forum will quickly speak to the amount of value that you are adding to your product by selling it with us.  For example, right now, businesses out there need to pay an arm and a leg to get an exclusive image (which is why they dont) while we sell it for an affordable price.  Why would a business need an exclusive image?  Well if you need images to use as basis for a marketing campaign, you do not want them to be used elsewhere.  Same applies to any public imagery a business releases as a representation of itself.

We also sell unique art at competitive price into an industry much bigger than stock photography; the wall dcor industry.  This is another big growth opportunities that you can get access to by contributing with us.  If you break down the wall dcor industry by product and price that is comparable to our product you will realize that the market within those criteria is gigantic.  People want to have a picture on their wall that they can tell their friends I have the only copy of this.

Why compare to macro-stock?
While there is really no one we can compare ourselves to because we are original, we wanted to give you some benchmark.  We decided to talk about the macro-stock industry as we expect a lot of business demand to be generated from there. We are an affordable alternative to the macro-stock product and even if the image in question is only 95% of the quality of a macro-stock shot, (which a subjective statement by itself) a business has the option to pay much less with us for a product that is of comparable quality.

Eugene

grp_photo

« Reply #26 on: October 30, 2008, 14:11 »
0
Wow Eugene thanks for the lengthy and thoroughly answer  :)
I will probably test waters with some images though it will take a few weeks as i have currently other things to do.

bittersweet

« Reply #27 on: October 30, 2008, 14:17 »
0
If someone should decide to make you the exclusive marketer of their image, what does that mean? I understand they will not be seeking to sell it elsewhere, but is there a length of time that their image is locked in while you are attempting to sell it?

I looked briefly on the site but could not find the answer to this question, so my apologies if it is right in front me and I've overlooked it.

« Reply #28 on: October 30, 2008, 15:54 »
0
If someone should decide to make you the exclusive marketer of their image, what does that mean? I understand they will not be seeking to sell it elsewhere, but is there a length of time that their image is locked in while you are attempting to sell it?

I looked briefly on the site but could not find the answer to this question, so my apologies if it is right in front me and I've overlooked it.

as far as i understood.  While it is for sale on that website you cannot have it being sold anywhere else.  They require exclusive rights to the image.  If the image sells, you loose ALL rights to do anything with the image again.  You sell the copyright to the buyer, just like if you were to sell a car to someone - you give it to the buyer and cannot use it anymore.

bittersweet

« Reply #29 on: October 30, 2008, 16:26 »
0
If someone should decide to make you the exclusive marketer of their image, what does that mean? I understand they will not be seeking to sell it elsewhere, but is there a length of time that their image is locked in while you are attempting to sell it?

I looked briefly on the site but could not find the answer to this question, so my apologies if it is right in front me and I've overlooked it.

as far as i understood.  While it is for sale on that website you cannot have it being sold anywhere else.  They require exclusive rights to the image.  If the image sells, you loose ALL rights to do anything with the image again.  You sell the copyright to the buyer, just like if you were to sell a car to someone - you give it to the buyer and cannot use it anymore.

Yes, I understand that part. My question is more what if they do not sell it? How long (if at all) am I locked into letting them try before I can remove it from their site and do something else with it? Must it sit there for a certain period of time? or am I free to remove it at my discretion (provided it has not sold)?

« Reply #30 on: October 30, 2008, 17:18 »
0
Gee, really unique art. Hmmm, I'd like something one of a kind by Art Wolfe on my wall. Maybe Eugene should contact Art and see if he's willing to sign over copyright. Or maybe just easier to solicit the inexperienced and naive.

« Reply #31 on: October 30, 2008, 17:20 »
0
Well Eugene, all good and well arguing the merit of the business model, but ...

Who the bloody hell are you?

I harp back to my original reply. Why on earth would we bother to load to another site when we have seen so many go belly up after all our effort.

What is your plan, man?

Tell us why we should bother to do business with you. What are you offering? In this day and age if you want to attract good images you are going to have to come up with a plan to get us onboard.

This forum is full of introductions from new site owners, and full of stories about sites winding up.


grp_photo

« Reply #32 on: October 30, 2008, 17:42 »
0
Gee, really unique art. Hmmm, I'd like something one of a kind by Art Wolfe on my wall. Maybe Eugene should contact Art and see if he's willing to sign over copyright. Or maybe just easier to solicit the inexperienced and naive.
Come on its an unique system i have my doubts and reservations too but nobody forcing you to try and join nor is it a system that will affect your sales on other sites so i really don't understand your bitching!
I have already a six digit number of pictures on my harddrives and very few of them are old scans most of them are made in my 5 and half years of digital i also have many many Folders of slides and negatives from my analog days in which i hardly look in it. Sure there are pictures and sessions which i would never sell the copyrights but i also have thousand of pictures which are really good but not very important to me personally.
Picture producing on a high level is really no problem for me (i also enjoy this most), my problem is editing, sorting, keywording, uploading etc.
So if i find the time i will give this concept a try, nothing to loose for me.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2008, 17:44 by grp_photo »

« Reply #33 on: October 30, 2008, 17:58 »
0
Sorry but reassigning copyright to a buyer upon sale, no matter how obscure, old, or seemingly insignificant the work, is simply absurd. Have no problem with licensing exclusive rights to use, since I contract many out of my private stock, but copyright always remains with me.

grp_photo

« Reply #34 on: October 30, 2008, 18:21 »
0
Sure its up to you how you handle this!

« Reply #35 on: October 30, 2008, 18:30 »
0
Well I for one - regardless of copyright or the business model concepts - want to know how much money I am going to make.

So unless I hear about how this is going to be achieved from the site, or there is some guarantee of sales, I am not interested.

Just far too many new players thinking they will just get some server space, suck in heaps of photographers to load their stuff, and wait and see.

« Reply #36 on: October 31, 2008, 15:03 »
0
Quote
Yes, I understand that part. My question is more what if they do not sell it? How long (if at all) am I locked into letting them try before I can remove it from their site and do something else with it? Must it sit there for a certain period of time? or am I free to remove it at my discretion (provided it has not sold)?


Great question, I will make sure to include this in our FAQ page.  No, there is no lock-in period for an image; you can publish and remove images at will.  (Although removal takes 48 hours due to possible conflict with a customer simultaneously purchasing the image) From a business advice perspective, we discourage artists from posting images for a few weeks and then removing them purely due to the fact that interested buyers take their time when purchasing; but there is no rule to force you to keep it with us for a specific period of time.

Quote
Well I for one - regardless of copyright or the business model concepts - want to know how much money I am going to make.

So unless I hear about how this is going to be achieved from the site, or there is some guarantee of sales, I am not interested.


This is an interesting question to which it is difficult to give a non-arbitrary answer.  We have not started selling to customers yet so there are no past statistics to rely on.  I cannot guarantee your sales and if I tried you should probably be suspicious.  The only way to discuss future potential is to discuss the merits of the business and I think we have gone through, and artist.noequivalent.com [nofollow] is filled with, how and why an artist will make money.

You can wait and see how NoEquivalent does in practice and if you take this approach I would definitely understand.  Though keep in mind that at that point our community will probably be full (1000 artists is not a lot) and it would be more difficult for you to join.  (Although we will maintain waiting lists, so it is not impossible.)

Quote
Just far too many new players thinking they will just get some server space, suck in heaps of photographers to load their stuff, and wait and see.


It is always the people taking that calculated risk, making that move they believe in early, that realize the biggest gains.  I am not talking about joining something that you do not believe will work.  If you believe that we are just another micro/macro stock site then you shouldnt join because there are much bigger and more established players you can work with.  But I hope that by now you understand we are not similar to any other business out there and if you understand why NoEquivalent will work then make sure you do not wait too long.  Unique opportunities do not present themselves often.

Eugene

« Reply #37 on: October 31, 2008, 17:58 »
0
What a concept! Not only are we asked to upload to yet another unproven site with all the time and energy that takes. We're also instructed that, essentially, this must be new work for most of us--not uploaded elsewhere before! Just plain crazy!

But wait, there's more! In the unlikely event there are enough suckers to send in enough images to make a decent size image selection pool, then, in the unlikely event one of our images sells we can never again make a sale on that image--even on the same site that is asking for exclusivity!

This must be a hoax site. Absolutely no other explanation!

I'd go on but my computer notifies me that I've used up my allotment of patience and exclamation marks.



dbvirago

« Reply #38 on: October 31, 2008, 18:06 »
0
Assign copyright, excluding claim of authorship, to the buyer.

No. Next?

« Reply #39 on: November 01, 2008, 10:53 »
0
Eugene must have forgotten to address copyright in his reply back.

Maybe "This is an interesting question to which it is difficult to give a non-arbitrary answer."


bittersweet

« Reply #40 on: November 01, 2008, 11:02 »
0
Eugene must have forgotten to address copyright in his reply back.

Maybe "This is an interesting question to which it is difficult to give a non-arbitrary answer."



Since the question preceding that response said "regardless of copyright", it looks like he understandably interpreted the question to be about money, rather than about copyright.

This actually sounds more like a "work for hire" deal, only with you doing the work prior to the hire. ;)
« Last Edit: November 01, 2008, 11:04 by whatalife »

« Reply #41 on: July 02, 2009, 13:30 »
0
Hi all,

We have launched NoEquivalents gallery in April and have already had many great successes.  Finally, our customers have found a product that is superior to all alternatives and our artists have benefited because they now have a way to sell their images often, at a premium, and over the long run [nofollow].

We invite everyone to visit our gallery and take a look at the only place that offers completely unique art and stock photography [nofollow].  If you would like to join this up and coming trend then visit our artist portal [nofollow] and learn more about what we offer member photographers.  You can also read about us at the NoEquivalent blog [nofollow] or follow us on twitter [nofollow].

Eugene

« Reply #42 on: July 02, 2009, 15:15 »
0
How much have u sold so far (art/stock), and how many images do you have?

I have a few good ones good for canvas on wall but not stock. What about qualitycontrol?

« Reply #43 on: July 02, 2009, 16:37 »
0
you are saying you are charging a premium and perhaps compared to default price of buy the rights on DT you are more expensive.  I wouldn't consider this premium pricing.  For what you are offering the buyer, you could easily be 5 times the price (around what many people reprice the rights option on DT) and still not be considered premium. Your 'premium' pricing is around standard macro RF licensing pricing (and you compare yourself to macro agencies) and is very cheap compared to RM licensing. This price would buy a large print from some fine artists let alone one from a limited edition set.  Considering you are a fraction of the price of rights managed and offer a huge amount more this can only really be considerd bargain basement pricing.

I fail to see how you "offers an artist significant long term financial earnings" as each image can only be sold once? unless you gaurentee sales of every image, you offer the artist no more than any other stock site. Actually less, as for most people some images sell well and repeatably (regardless of whether micro / macro etc) and some images do nothing, unless you have a method to ensure every image sells, Artists will end up selling their "best sellers" only once and be left stuck with non sellers.    

small collection so you are going to be selective? and as the terms of sale including destruction of similars, there is again issues with earnings here depending on how similar? are we talking series or shoot exclusivity here? If you take and sell 1 in 10 images that may be accepted elsewhere, your returns become extremely poor.  I think this will need to be very very clear to both buyers and artists with numerous examples, otherwise someone will very get upset when they what they consider a similar to their image used elsewhere or artists will be very upset when they find they just sold who knows how many images for one price? Will you defend your artists legally if a buyer claims an image too close? or your buyers if an artist goes an puts something similar on flickr?

Your agreement also says you promise not author a similar work?  for how long? forever?  again the similars issue comes up.  Some sites go crazy and consider the entire concept a similar "too many of this type".  If I sell a portrait of say a lamb, I am never legally allowed to take another portrait of lamb even for my own use? what about wildlife species?  I take 6 images of different species of lizards in the same pose / position, I can tell them apart at a glance and see that they are all different, but most people (and sites except for wildlife sites) just say lizard?  If I take an image in 10 years time that you say is too close I have broken the terms of agreement?  Again I see you needing a good legal team.

I dont see how all this can equate to higher earnings for artists, everything to me seems to be a reduction in earnings, especially over the long term. I would earn more by allowing transfer of rights on images on DT or by putting the images on Alamy or one of the various art sites or even selling prints at the markets.

Certainly hope for this concept does not catch onto to other agencies who then undercut and we find in a few years mid or micro pricing including copyright.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2009, 22:07 by Phil »

« Reply #44 on: July 02, 2009, 16:49 »
0
How much have u sold so far (art/stock), and how many images do you have?

I have a few good ones good for canvas on wall but not stock. What about qualitycontrol?

looking around seems they have about 150-200 images

gbcimages

« Reply #45 on: July 02, 2009, 17:14 »
0
give up copyright , no way !

« Reply #46 on: July 02, 2009, 18:59 »
0
Can I buy images on your site and then resell them as stock? Or make prints and sell these? Or greeting cards, calendars, web templates etc...?


« Reply #47 on: July 02, 2009, 19:33 »
0
Can I buy images on your site and then resell them as stock? Or make prints and sell these? Or greeting cards, calendars, web templates etc...?



if you buy and get the copyright you own it just as if you took the image, so yes you can resell on stock or anywhere.  If the person who took the image wants to use it say for their own web page they legally have to buy a licence from you (or at least ask your permission) the same as any other person as it is no longer their image.

« Reply #48 on: July 02, 2009, 21:07 »
0
Usually it is very difficult to transfer full ownership rights, I wonder what their contract looks like.

I could understand the right for exclusive personal or promotional use, but to have the right to resell the image as stock, art prints or electronic templates - wouldnt that destroy this whole concept of uniqueness?


« Reply #49 on: July 04, 2009, 10:11 »
0
If Eugene ever comes back after his one post,

He won't.

« Reply #50 on: July 17, 2009, 21:31 »
0
Quote
How much have u sold so far (art/stock), and how many images do you have?


In the first month we sold 10 images [nofollow] and sales have been steady since.  We are laying a lot of marketing groundwork now that we expect to pay off soon with further growth in sales.

Quote
I have a few good ones good for canvas on wall but not stock. What about qualitycontrol?


We will be offering a top-quality giclee printing service for our art customers that will result in unique prints on fine art canvas for customers looking for this.  We check all images submitted to us for quality and have published an image submission guide [nofollow] that explains what we look for.  If you are looking to sign up then please visit our artist sign up [nofollow] page.

Quote
For what you are offering the buyer, you could easily be 5 times the price (around what many people reprice the rights option on DT) and still not be considered premium.


The current market for exclusive / full-rights stock images is practically non-existent because of this exact perception.  To elaborate, if one says that the copyright of an image is worth, using your example, 5 x 800 = 4000 US dollars, then it is cheaper for a company to run an assignment and get a whole photoshoot-worth of images, with all copyrights attached and the images are custom to their needs.  So this pricing does not make sense and so the market doesn't exist in any material fashion.

We are looking to create this market by (1) giving a stock photography option for designers/publishers [nofollow] that makes financial sense and (2) offer affordable unique fine art [nofollow] for consumers.  In terms of sales, the potential of this business model is very big because, as you say, there is so much value embedded in the product that it makes sense to buyers.

Quote
as the terms of sale including destruction of similars, there is again issues with earnings here depending on how similar? are we talking series or shoot exclusivity here? If you take and sell 1 in 10 images that may be accepted elsewhere, your returns become extremely poor.  I think this will need to be very very clear to both buyers and artists with numerous examples


The concept of getting rid of similars is there to avoid what we refer to as "double takes" of practically the same image, defeating the exclusivity of owning one of those images.  A similar image is something REALLY similar to another image and can be considered largely identical.  Since we did our due diligence, working with a top IP law firm, we can tell you that no one can force a photographer to get rid of images that are reasonably different.  (whether from the same photoshoot or even the same subject)  Such a request, even if agreed to through a contract, would not be upheld in a court of law.

Quote
Can I buy images on your site and then resell them as stock? Or make prints and sell these? Or greeting cards, calendars, web templates etc...?


Buying images and reselling them as stock cannot be done through conventional media because a noequivalent sale does not transfer a completely unencumbered copyright.  A condition that is put on the transfer is that a buyer cannot claim to be the author of the image must identify the original photographer if asked.  This would make the image not re-sellable through any major agency's agreement as a complete copyright is required to post images.  While theoretically possible, an as-is sale becomes very complicated to say the least.

Images can be made into prints, greeting cards, calendars, etc and resold as such.

Eugene


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
4675 Views
Last post June 24, 2007, 20:45
by fleitao
3 Replies
2565 Views
Last post August 12, 2008, 20:53
by dnavarrojr
143 Replies
31222 Views
Last post February 15, 2009, 10:54
by Graffoto
18 Replies
6604 Views
Last post January 25, 2009, 22:28
by m@m
4 Replies
2627 Views
Last post May 07, 2009, 23:54
by eppic

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results