Author Topic: PureNatureStock.com - Nature Lovers RF Stock Site. (Read 17908 times)

DigitalDarrell · « **on:** February 26, 2007, 12:28 »

Hello all,

I've been a member here for a while now. I own a large Nikon forum and website. (PlanetNikon.com) Recently, I started a new Nature Stock Agency with 50% commission. I have 15 photographers now. I hope I may humbly post my site here, so that others will know about it. It is new, and we are acquiring images. We offer FTP and HTTP uploads, IPTC data automatic pickup.

Since this is a brand new site, we will have no sales initially. Once we break 1000 images (at 800 now) I will be actively marketing this site to book publishers, magazines, designers, etc. I will be marketing aggressively once I have enough images to market something. I am looking for premium quality nature stuff from around the world, and offer premium commission at 50% on gross sales.

If allowed to make this post, here is a link to the site. The signup link is on the bottom left of the screen. (Use photographer, not member).

Thank you for allowing me to make this post. If I am out of line, I apologize in advance. Come visit:

http://www.purenaturestock.com/index.php

Warm Regards,
Digital Darrell

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2007, 13:28 »

This is interesting, but we all will probably need some information first. Just a few thoughts:

First, what is your pricing strategy? I can't find anything about pricing, other than prices on individual photos. Second, if you're going to be marketing to marketing/publications outlets, you're seriously under-pricing yourself. Third, how do you intend to market to these outlets? What kinds of connections/expertise will give you an "in" to these markets? Fourth, you need to clean up the legal language you provide. You have a number of typos in your license/usage documents, and some of the usage terms are very vague. It would be very difficult to enforce some of the terms of usage.

I think you're going to have a hard time with the image base I saw. You need a number of "wow" shots to feature on the front page that will get you going. I'm not saying you need an Ansel Adams or someone like that, but images from places like the Maroon Bells near Aspen, CO would really help.

Do you take Canon images?

DigitalDarrell · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2007, 14:22 »

Hello Professor!

Yes, this is a learning experience for myself, and many of my photographers. I've been doing RF stock for about a year on all the other sites.

I am also a writer for my own websites, a print magazine or two, and Nikonians.org. I know a few editors here and there. I have lots and lots and lots of sales and marketing experience from my "other" job. I am in the process of creating this site and will market it aggressively once you have uploaded those "wow" shots you were speaking of!

Here is my current pricing info which is right in line with iStock and other RF sites:

$10.00 for 12+ Megapixel Full-Size JPEG
$8.00 for 8-10 Megapixel Full-Size JPEG
$6.00 for 6-7 Megapixel Full-Size JPEG
$4.00 for 3-5 Megapixel Full-Size JPEG
$3.00 - 1024 pixels wide Web-sized Large
$2.00 - 800 pixels wide Web-sized Medium
$1.00 - 400 pixels wide Web-sized Small

Commissions are 50% of gross sales.

I am going to limit the number of photographers that can join this site. I want to market people with talent, and develop an image base that will allow exclusive higher pricing in the future. Right now, I am just getting started and have a ways to go. PNS will be a Boutique agency with world class images soon. Especially once YOU start uploading!

Warm Regards,
Digital Darrell
www.PureNatureStock.com

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #3 on:** February 26, 2007, 14:49 »

Well, err, I don't know about my stuff

. Take a look at my images on Lucky Oliver and send me a PM if you like the outdoor photos. We'll see . . .

Quote from: DigitalDarrell on February 26, 2007, 14:22

Especially once YOU start uploading!

Honestly, if you're trying for a niche/boutique market, you shouldn't be pricing competitively with the likes of Istock. Rather, you should try to up the quality and then price yourself proportionately higher. Obviously, you don't want to be up with Getty, but you might consider pricing the largest images up around $75--and make sure that the images you offer are worth that price. I mean, be really, really picky about what you'll offer; take the time to collect some truly fine images. Otherwise, you don't have anything to offer that can't be found on Istock, Shutterstock, or the others. There are LOTS of landscape/outdoors photos out there. You need to find a significant differentiator for your site to make it work. Boutiques only work when they do something totally out of the ordinary. Take a look here to see what I mean about truly incredible work: http://www.illustratedlight.com/pages/David%20Clack%20Pages/dcportfolio.html. Pay particular attention to his black and white work. (This site doesn't give you a real sense of what this work is like. I've seen the gallery, and it really blows me away.)

I honestly hope your site does work. Landscape photography is one of my passions. I can't get enough.

DigitalDarrell · « **Reply #4 on:** February 26, 2007, 14:58 »

I will create special categories for those with lots of images from a particular area. If you have considerable images from a state park or other beautiful area, I'll add a sub-category to our system just for your images.

I mentioned limiting the number of photographers because I want each photographer to have a chance to make good sales, instead of being buried under thousands of other photographers, and millions of other images. To me, it would be better to have 5 or 10,000 super-duper images than 10 Million images of toasters on white backgrounds.

There are plenty of stock agencies in this world, but very few of them are truly nature based. For years, it has been known that nature images do worst for photographers on big stock sites. It is not because few nature images are sold; there are probably more nature images sold than any other type. The problem is the massive competition in the nature field.

So, I says to myself, "Self, why not form a pure nature stock agency, and market directly to book publishers, magazines, designers and other types that buy lots of nature images." Instead of just adding my images to the huge, gigantic, enormous pile of images in the other agencies, I thought I would form a real Nature Stock agency, and call it by the name of Pure Nature Stock. In fact, my logo is "Pure Nature ... Pure Stock ... PureNatureStock.com"

So, even with others laughing that, "it will never work." And with some being concerned about my lame terms (since I'm not a lawyer), I'll press onward in my quest to form the world's best Pure Nature Stock agency. I'll hire a lawyer to write some really good terms soon, and solve that problem. First, I must acquire world class nature images, or even just plain beautiful nature images. Will we be successful? Who knows! The world is mean, fast, and tough. However, I know a few people, and know how to contact others. I'll get the clients. I need YOUR images. I think the commission rate is better than most, and with a smaller boutique agency base, there ought to be more opportunity for sales individually.

Are you willing to take a chance? I have no idea how this will turn out, but I am going to work VERY hard to market this baby, and I think we'll be very successful. The only thing I lack (besides some better terms) is some great images from places like Maroon Bells near Aspen, CO. What chance will you take? Some uploading time, and extra keywording (yuck!). But, I think it will be worth it in the long run. You know you have some great nature images that agencies have rejected because, "We have too many of this type of image in our database." Well, we DON'T! We want them. We need them. We need YOU!

Gotta walk before we run...be we'll be running in a reasonable time, I am sure of it!

Submit your best ... hide the rest!

Warm Regards,
Digital Darrell
www.PureNatureStock.com

yingyang0 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 26, 2007, 16:21 »

Quote from: DigitalDarrell on February 26, 2007, 14:58

And with some being concerned about my lame terms (since I'm not a lawyer), I'll press onward in my quest to form the world's best Pure Nature Stock agency. I'll hire a lawyer to write some really good terms soon, and solve that problem.

I just signed up to have my application reviewed and I noticed two things:

1) there are photos of buildings on the newest uploads. I thought this was a nature stock agency?

2) You really should get a lawyer to fix your terms before accepting photographers/images, because they are way off. One example is that your indemnity clause renders itself null and void. You can't have the photographer and the agency both indemnify each other. Here's why: if someone sues for a copyright violation they're going to name both the photographer and the agency. So when it says "Agency and Photographer shall each indemnify and hold harmless the other from and against any and all claims..." that clause nulifies itself.

In layman's terms here is what your idemnity clause ends up saying, "When we get sued for copyright/trademark/etc. infringement the photographer agrees to pay for the agency's costs and any judgement against the agency, while the Agency agrees to pay the photographer's costs and any judgement against the photographer. Oh, and everyone is one there own when it comes to incedential and punitive damages."

In the end the Agency would be getting the short end of the stick because the photographer would likely end up with the judgement against him/her and the Agency would have to pay. Not only that but your "indemnity" clause directly contradicts term 28.

You're also missing a choice of law (jurisdiciton) clause, and maybe a binding arbitration clause. Term 27 doesn't have any effect because as Justice Cardozo once said "an agreement to agree is no agreement at all", so you can't say that the parties have to agree on a moderation agent. Also, right after the moderation you say that both parties waive all jurisdictional defenses? If you're trying to create a binding arbitration clause then waiving jurisditional defenses is the wrong thing to say, because it implies that you'd be in court (jurisdictional defenses are only raise in a court of law, not "moderation").

Also, "moderation" itself is not binding on either party so the disagreement would likely end up in court and because you (the agency) have agreed to waive your jurisdictional defenses I could sue you anywhere I want.

And don't get me started on the End User Agreement. "This agreement is made by and between Pure Nature Stock (otherwise listed herein as You or Your) who creates an account for the right to access, acquire, and use Materials from this website." The End User Agreement is an agreement between Pure Nature Stock and itself!

Here is the end lesson. Either write terms of a contract in clear, non-"legalise" or hire a lawyer to write it so that it is clear to lawyers/judges, and don't start accepting uploads without getting your legal stuff in order.

madelaide · « **Reply #6 on:** February 26, 2007, 16:45 »

Hello DigitalDarrell,

This site can be very interesting to me, as nature (landscape, wildlife, flora) is my favourite subject. Having said that, I share Yingyang's concern about the "non-nature" images, which make the site not so "pure nature" in the end.

Also, it's curious to have a category for "Blue Ridge Parkway" only.

What is the minimum file size in pixels?

Regards,
Adelaide

yingyang0 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 26, 2007, 17:04 »

At this point I'd recommend no one sign up for this site. If you read all their terms and agreements you'll see some disturbing things:

1) "Pure Nature Stock hereby represents that it owns all rights and copyrights to all materials on our website..." They're saying they own the copyrights to your photos!

2) There is no limit on the number of uses per license. In essence the standard license is what all the other sites sell as an extended license.

3) Businesses can use your photo as their business logo or trademark (which is expressly forbidden in every other stock agency license).

4) As I already stated in my previous posting, the Photographer's terms are worded in such a way as to render the whole agreement void and the End User Agreement isn't even a contract with the end user (it is a contract between Pure Stock and itself).

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #8 on:** February 26, 2007, 17:44 »

Unfortunately, I have to agree. At this point, the specifics aren't ironed out enough and the terms provide inadequate protection to the photographer.

Quote from: yingyang0 on February 26, 2007, 17:04

At this point I'd recommend no one sign up for this site. If you read all their terms and agreements you'll see some disturbing things:

1) "Pure Nature Stock hereby represents that it owns all rights and copyrights to all materials on our website..." They're saying they own the copyrights to your photos!

2) There is no limit on the number of uses per license. In essence the standard license is what all the other sites sell as an extended license.

3) Businesses can use your photo as their business logo or trademark (which is expressly forbidden in every other stock agency license).

4) As I already stated in my previous posting, the Photographer's terms are worded in such a way as to render the whole agreement void and the End User Agreement isn't even a contract with the end user (it is a contract between Pure Stock and itself).

DigitalDarrell · « **Reply #9 on:** February 26, 2007, 18:16 »

This was the default wording to the terms. I will look at this closely. If you read my photographers terms you will find that I clearly state that the photographer always keeps his copyrights.

I appreciate the pointers here. I've not paid attention to these terms, as I did not write them. I am going to look at the file right now, and see what the problems are. I'll be back shortly.

DigitalDarrell · « **Reply #10 on:** February 26, 2007, 18:19 »

I can see that I was a little preliminary in accepting photographers yet. My terms are clearly not ready. Sorry for the aggravation. I'll get this fixed quickly.

DigitalDarrell · « **Reply #11 on:** February 26, 2007, 18:47 »

I have modified the terms of the END-USER contract from what you read above, to the following:

END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT (EULA). By downloading any image or material from our website, you hereby agree to the following terms and conditions as outlined herein, and as listed elsewhere on our website:

This agreement is made by and between Pure Nature Stock and the END-USER (otherwise listed herein as You or Your) who creates an account for the right to access, acquire, and use 'Materials' from this website.

Pure Nature Stock hereby represents that it is a non-exclusive agent of the creators of Materials presented for licensing by this website, and is not the holder of copyright to these materials. The creator of the Materials owns all rights and copyrights to their Materials on our website, and while being used by the END-USER (You) under the terms of this agreement.

'Materials' from our website will constitute and be defined as any photo, image, design, or layout represented on the Pure Nature Stock website. By downloading any Materials from Pure Nature Stock you are asserting your declaration that you have read, understood, and agreed to all terms and conditions listed in this Agreement, and otherwise identified on our website.

I will now proceed to the rest of the contract. I have an idea that I will limit the term of use by the end user to a specific period of time, along with a maximum number of uses of the licensed image. Many sites allow long-term usage of the image, but I don't think that is in our best interests. I am going to examine the terms of several major sites to see what they offer and adjust my terms.

As the muscleman said, "I'll be back..."

yingyang0 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 26, 2007, 19:49 »

Digital Darrell,

You're still trying to use lawyerly language, and it's not having the effect you're looking for. It's not as bad as the first one, but it still doesn't look professional. Here are some examples:
1) You say the contract is between Pure Nature Stock and "the END-USER". End user is the wrong "term of art". The purchaser will likely be a designer who would not be the end user. If the purchaser isn't the end-user then there is no privity of contract between your Agency and the end-user, only between your Agency and the purchaser. The more appropriate wording would be "This agreement shall be between Pure Nature Stock ("PNS") and you ("Purchaser"), who..."
a) This brings out another question: Is Pure Nature Stock a legally formed company, or just your website? If it is a registered company, then the contract should be between Pure Nature Stock, Inc. (or whatever your company is called) and the purchaser. If it is not a legally formed company, then neither the user agreement nor the photographer's agreement can be between them and PNS.

2) You keep using two phrases that don't add to the clarity the document, only words. "made by and between", "will constitute and be defined as".

3) "you are asserting your declaration that.." This one belongs in number two, but I am singling it out to say that you should have either asserting, or declaring, but not both.

4) You use "Materials" in the paragraph before you define it.

5) You say "END-USER (otherwise listed herein as You or Your)" but later you define END-USER again with "END-USER (You)". This is not needed.

6) You can't bind people to "terms and conditions as outlined herein, and as listed elsewhere on our website" without specifying exactly were on your website these additional terms can be found, and what they are.

...I have many more but the point is to get a lawyer if you want the contracts/agreements to sound lawyerly. Otherwise stick with plain/short sentence. Remember that contracts are to lawyers as photo are to photographers. Contracts, and the words used to create them, are an art form. Everyone thinks they can write a contract, or take great photos, but only people with the knowledge and skill can make long lasting ones.

Your contracts are the most important part of your business, especially because you're selling intellectual property. I wouldn't have even considered opening a stock agency without having at least two lawyers/firms on retainer. One as general counsel who is versed in contracts, and the second would be an intellectual property firm (perferably one that has first amendment experience).

DigitalDarrell · « **Reply #13 on:** February 26, 2007, 20:05 »

Excellent suggestions yingyang0. I appreciate your clear experience. I've seen you hanging around on SS also, and I often find your forum interventions effective remedies.

I am a writer and can write well, so I am going to rewrite the contract with no lawyer-like terms, only easy to understand words. If you log in to read it for the next several hours, who knows what you find. I may add a clause that the image buyer must buy a hamburger once per year for each photographer.

I have added a Standard and Negotiated Extended license section. This will take several more hours to construct as I study 5 other agencies terms and conditions. It is vastly improved as it is now, but still needs conversion to plain English. I'll have this done by tomorrow.

Now...back to work!

DigitalDarrell · « **Reply #14 on:** February 26, 2007, 20:48 »

Okay, the image licensing contract is rewritten in plain English, is easy to understand, and covers the bases for the type of business Pure Nature Stock does.

I am open to any other meaningful suggestions as to wording and clauses, but it appears to be substantially the same as other RF licensing contracts, except that it is easier to understand.

If you have questions or comments, let me know. Otherwise, let's go sell some images.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 26, 2007, 22:38 »

Quote from: DigitalDarrell on February 26, 2007, 20:05

This will take several more hours to construct as I study 5 other agencies terms and conditions. It is vastly improved as it is now, but still needs conversion to plain English. I'll have this done by tomorrow.

Besides the numberous grammatical errors in the "fixed" version, it is still not legally sound. The quote above explains why. Even a lawyer who specializes in contracts wouldn't have been able to write a contract or fix the one you had in the few hours you took. I think you're still not considering the significance of those contracts. You cannot be changing them every few days or hours. Once someone downloads/uploads the photo under that contract, you're bound by it so it has to be perfect. I'm sorry but I don't think you have the knowledge to write these contracts.
1) You still don't have a proper integration clause.
2) You don't have a choice of law (jurisdiction) clause.
...and others

Really I can't express in writing what a mistake you're making by not consulting a lawyer on this. For some reason you're not willing to spend the small fees for a properly created set of legal agreements when your potential liability is huge! All your attempts to disclaim and indemnify don't mean anything because of what is still missing from your contracts and the way they are written. Currently someone could sue you in Europe, get a default judgment, and come to the US to have it enforced. This would be completely acceptable because your contract is currently governed by the CISG internationally (a simple "this document isn't governed by CISG" won't work). Not only that, but if any jurisdiction you're sued in doesn't allow indemnificaitons or disclaimers of warranty then you're very screwed.

Good luck with your venture. When I see that you're taking this seriously (hired a lawyer, formed an actual company) then I'll probably upload. Although you still haven't stop the photographers from uploading non-nature shots. You only have a few photographers and you have isolated photos of playing cards on your site already.

DigitalDarrell · « **Reply #16 on:** February 27, 2007, 00:37 »

Don't get overly excited YingYang0!

I never said that I was not going to use an attorney to finalize everything. I am forming an LLC as we speak. I am aware of the need for guidance in doing these licenses. I am adding information to the contracts to save time at the attorneys office. I will have all contracts in place before the sales begin. We are really just getting started. Here are my fresh new Integration and Jurisdiction Clauses:

I. CONSENT TO JURISDICTION AND FORUM SELECTION. The parties hereto agree that all actions or proceedings arising in connection with this Agreement shall be tried and litigated exclusively in the State and Federal courts located in the County of Knox, State of Tennessee. The aforementioned choice of venue is intended by the parties to be mandatory and not permissive in nature, thereby precluding the possibility of litigation between the parties with respect to or arising out of this Agreement in any jurisdiction other than that specified in this paragraph. Each party hereby waives any right it may have to assert the doctrine of forum non conveniens or similar doctrine or to object to venue with respect to any proceeding brought in accordance with this paragraph, and stipulates that the State and Federal courts located in the County of Knox, State of Tennessee shall have in personam jurisdiction and venue over each of them for the purpose of litigating any dispute, controversy, or proceeding arising out of or related to this Agreement. Each party hereby authorizes and accepts service of process sufficient for personal jurisdiction in any action against it as contemplated by this paragraph by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to its address for the giving of notices as set forth in this Agreement. Any final judgement rendered against a party in any action or proceeding shall be conclusive as to the subject of such final judgement and may be enforced in other jurisdictions in any manner provided by law.

...

K. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement (and any documents referred to in it) contains the whole agreement between the Parties relating to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and supersedes all previous understandings and agreements between the Parties relating to these transactions. Each Party acknowledges that, in agreeing to enter into this Agreement, it has not relied on any representation, warranty, collateral contract or other assurance (except those set out in this Agreement and any documents referred to in it) made by or on behalf of any other Party or any other person whatsoever before the execution of this Agreement. Each Party waives all rights and remedies which, but for this Clause, might otherwise be available to it in respect of any such representation, warranty, collateral contract or other assurance, provided that nothing in this Clause shall limit or exclude any liability for willful misconduct or fraud.

Got any more great suggestions, oh lawyerly type? You have saved me a lot of time, and even reaffirmed my desire to set the LLC up quickly. You may have poisoned my new nature stock site (on this site) with your zealousness toward the law, but it will all work out fine in the end, I'm sure!

DISCLAIMER: Anyone who uploads images just remember, our local forum attorney has warned us that the contracts should be in place first. Read my current upload contract and if it seems unclear, don't upload images. If you decide to sue me just after uploading images, simply read my Jurisdiction clause above, and you'll see clearly how to proceed.

In any case, I'm not some weird image stealing crook, just someone who loves nature, loves photography, loves people, and would like to make some money so he can buy bigger lenses.

What would this world be without lawyers? Why, we couldn't even figure out how to sue each other without them!

Hmmm...

Warm Regards,
Digital Darrell

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #17 on:** February 27, 2007, 01:02 »

Darrell,

I think you need to step back a bit. You're clearly being defensive when YingYang is merely pointing out the morass you're potentially creating for yourself. If you think he's overreacting, think again: You've already put yourself in a seriously tenuous position by soliciting and accepting photos from other photographers. Granted, the lion's share of the images are your own, but that doesn't lessen the danger.

The man's a lawyer. I would think that you would listen to him rather than poking him with a verbal stick. If you are serious about this venture, and I think you are, you must protect yourself and those photographers whom you are soliciting. Toward this end, I seriously recommend that you (1) cease operations until (2) you've formed a registered LLC and (3) created a legally defensible, binding terms of service. As I was trying to point out earlier, you've jumped the gun in trying to build your collection. Your site is incomplete, your business plan is incomplete, and you've created the potential for legal liabilities for yourself. I appreciate enthusiasm, but it must also be tempered by a hard-nosed business sensibility.

You will run into a lot of resistance here if you aren't careful. A number of us have been burned by companies that made a lot of promises and then folded.

Quote from: DigitalDarrell on February 27, 2007, 00:37

Got any more great suggestions, oh lawyerly type? You have saved me a lot of time, and even reaffirmed my desire to set the LLC up quickly. You may have poisoned my new nature stock site (on this site) with your zealousness toward the law, but it will all work out fine in the end, I'm sure!

DISCLAIMER: Anyone who uploads images just remember, our local forum attorney has warned us that the contracts should be in place first. Read my current upload contract and if it seems unclear, don't upload images. If you decide to sue me just after uploading images, simply read my Jurisdiction clause above, and you'll see clearly how to proceed.

In any case, I'm not some weird image stealing crook, just someone who loves nature, loves photography, loves people, and would like to make some money so he can buy bigger lenses.

What would this world be without lawyers? Why, we couldn't even figure out how to sue each other without them! Hmmm...

Warm Regards,
Digital Darrell

DigitalDarrell · « **Reply #18 on:** February 27, 2007, 01:10 »

For anyone curious about this amazing exercise in the power of contract law here are links to my current contracts:

Photographer's Terms & Conditions (for YOU, see bottom of signup form and click link for terms):
http://www.purenaturestock.com/photographer_signup.php

Licensing Terms of Use (for buyer):
http://www.purenaturestock.com/licensing.php

Website Terms of Use (for everyone who clicks on my site):
http://www.purenaturestock.com/terms_of_use.php

Darrell's Lament:

Oh how I wish for the simpler days of youth, when a new bicycle and a kiss on the cheek by that pretty girl were my strongest desires. Now, I am am beset by lawyers dropping from the skies like rain, asserting that we all are crooks; hoping to goad us into suing one another, while forcing us to have Jurisdiction Clauses just to sell our humble photos for a few cents profit each. I thought digital photography and Photoshop were complex...but this...whoooeeeee!

May you have a nice night's sleep, dream of new lenses, and awake fresh to take your best images ever!

Warm Regards,
Digital Darrell
www.PureNatureStock.com, www.PlanetNikon.com

DigitalDarrell · « **Reply #19 on:** February 27, 2007, 01:40 »

Quote from: Professorgb on February 27, 2007, 01:02

I think you need to step back a bit. You're clearly being defensive when YingYang is merely pointing out the morass you're potentially creating for yourself. The man's a lawyer. I would think that you would listen to him rather than poking him with a verbal stick.

I am poking him with a verbal stick in jest, not seriously. Everyone wants and needs the opportunity to poke a lawyer with a stick once in a while. If he's truly working on being a lawyer, he'll need to build up a thick skin for this kind of poking, 'cause when it comes from others it won't be in jest. In fact, he probably appreciates the opportunity to flex his litigation muscles with an opponent who does appreciate his advice, but likes some good natured bantering. I am a forum owner, and I know better than to flame a fellow poster, especially one who is trying to help.

Let me make very clear, this:

1. I am forming an LLC, and it will be in place before the first picture is sold.

2. My lawyer (yes, I already have one) will read over, correct, expand, and approve my final contracts, before the first image is sold.

3. Anyone who uploads images must do so with the understanding that my Photographer's Terms & Conditions are not complete. I cannot forsee that they will change much from the scope of what I posted in the link above, except maybe for some other unreadable stuff that lawyers insert into perfectly readable contracts.

4. The promises I make are: I am in this for the long haul, am semi-retired, have the resources to make this work, have my own server webfarm and control my own hardware/software, and am not about to go away. This has been a dream of mine for several years now. I am no fool, have built several successful "hard-nosed" businesses, and have selected this for my retirement income (I am 48).

So, if any of you kind-hearted photographers, who are not hardened by this world's greed and litigious attitudes, and who have always wanted to submit to a Nature Stock site, and finally, are not scared away by all this scary contract talk; I offer you my baby agency, who will soon grow up into a mature stock agency. (Gaacck!, a run-on sentence if I ever saw one)

My current Photographer's Terms state that I will remove your images with 30-days notice. Plus, my software allows you to remove your own images en-mass. So, fear not...all is well...help me build this site, and in a couple of weeks, when my contracts are solidified, we just might make some money together. Nothing is certain in this world, but your investment is mainly keywording time, and if you have IPTC data in place, even that is gone.

I am having a good time, and I already have 23 photographers pumping images in daily. I think I'll close my site to photographers after about 50 have signed up, and maintain the level at 50, so that we can make some reasonable money. I'll never be an IS or SS, or even a DT, but I will be PNS (PureNatureStock) the finest boutique Nature Stock Agency on earth. (I hope!)

Warm Regards,
Digital Darrell
www.PureNatureStock.com

rjmiz · « **Reply #20 on:** February 27, 2007, 03:46 »

I joined

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #21 on:** February 27, 2007, 03:55 »

Yeah, me, too, am just waiting for that they will review my application, although I do not know which adress makes it acceptable and which not

CJPhoto · « **Reply #22 on:** February 27, 2007, 06:49 »

i will join once everything gets settled.

No point agreeing to an agreement which will be chagned before the it goes live.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 27, 2007, 08:52 »

Quote from: Professorgb on February 27, 2007, 01:02

...The man's a lawyer...

Just for the record I am a law student, so not a member of the bar quite yet (only a few months left to go). Everyone in my family is some kind of lawyer, some criminal, but most are intellectual property or corporate. (Sometimes they post on my account when I tell them of an interesting situation.)

I was only giving my personal problems with the contracts that stopped me from wanting to join. If someone expect me to indemnify them against suit, then I expect to only have to pay those cost when the mistake is mine and not because the license is poorly written. Intellectual property suits cost $100,000+ to litigate so I don't lke the idea of being bound to contracts that are questionable. Remember that you're not selling photos, you're sell licenses, which are nothing more than contracts.

DigitalDarrell · « **Reply #24 on:** February 27, 2007, 09:13 »

YingYang0,

After sleeping on it I am making changes today. I have called my attorney and am arranging for the contracts to be reviewed and supplemented by him. I appreciate your input on this.

To Others,

If any of you do decide to join, it is with the understanding that the site is not ready for marketing images yet. I am creating an LLC (corporation), which will take a little time. And, these contracts must be finalized. I still am only going to have about 50 photographers, and I am up to 29 right now.

I am also removing any image not related to nature directly. I am convinced that a "Pure" Nature Stock agency is different enough to draw buyers, and will proceed in that direction. No pictures of a woman sitting at a park bench enjoying her notebok computer. A picture of the same woman climbing up a cliff face is fine...IF...you have a model release. If we display people they must be enjoying nature in some way.

This whole genre is still under development in my mind, and I would appreciate your thoughts on what is really a nature image. Comments?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: PureNatureStock.com - Nature Lovers RF Stock Site. (Read 17908 times)

DigitalDarrell

Greg Boiarsky

DigitalDarrell

Greg Boiarsky

DigitalDarrell

yingyang0

madelaide

yingyang0

Greg Boiarsky

DigitalDarrell

DigitalDarrell

DigitalDarrell

yingyang0

DigitalDarrell

DigitalDarrell

yingyang0

DigitalDarrell

Greg Boiarsky

DigitalDarrell

DigitalDarrell

rjmiz

Freezingpictures

CJPhoto

yingyang0

DigitalDarrell

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors