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 d�cor, 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 wouldn�t 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 today�s 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 today�s 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 artist�s 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 don�t) 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 d�cor industry.  This is another big growth opportunities that you can get access to by contributing with us.  If you break down the wall d�cor 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

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.

Quote from: whatalife on October 30, 2008, 14:17

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)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

Hi all,

We have launched NoEquivalent�s 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

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.

give up copyright , no way !

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.

If Eugene ever comes back after his one post,

He won't.