Author Topic: Pixmac Announcement (Read 23889 times)

jamirae · « **on:** January 03, 2011, 11:37 »

From the thread "And the Pay rise is..." -- I posted this there, but it probably is better as its own topic.

Quote from: bobbigmac on January 02, 2011, 22:18

Pixmac just made a pretty nice announcment about pay rises. They may not be iS or SS or whatever, but they way they're going it's a bright start

http://blog.picniche.com/microstock/pixmac-offers-a-new-deal-for-microstock-photographers/

I just read this and was wondering if anyone here is using Pixmac. I had not really paid much attention to them - they look more like a reseller of images from dreamstime and some other sites but you can also directly upload to them. Is anyone using them and have they been growing as it seems to indicate? I see from the monthly earnings survey that they are a low earner (or at least not reported much by MSG members).

also.. MSG blog post about it is here
http://blog.microstockgroup.com/major-press-release-from-pixmac-fairness-in-front/

louoates · « **Reply #1 on:** January 03, 2011, 12:13 »

I always admire the enthusiasm generated by start ups in this business. But I've learned not to spend any more time with them until they start climbing into the middle tiers. Uploading to them is never time efficient because 90% of them never reach a payout. I also don't buy the reasoning that somehow contributors have some kind of obligation to help them do so. Sorry, if an up and coming site can't finance some up-front incentive to upload -- CASH -- I see no reason to waste my time. Many of us have had our fill of the Lucky Olivers of this business who had such high hopes, glowing forecasts, and such low market execution. I wish all the best to Pixmac and the others. Hope to see them down the road.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #2 on:** January 03, 2011, 12:55 »

Very Interesting ... but, if they already have my DT images thru the partnership program does it make any sense to RE-upload?
Is there a way to dump the DT partnership and receive higher commissions by selling directly thru pixmac?

Guess I should go there to ask such questions?

jamirae · « **Reply #3 on:** January 03, 2011, 13:35 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on January 03, 2011, 12:55

Very Interesting ... but, if they already have my DT images thru the partnership program does it make any sense to RE-upload?
Is there a way to dump the DT partnership and receive higher commissions by selling directly thru pixmac?

Guess I should go there to ask such questions?

that's one of the things I was wondering as well. if you're going to ask, can you post the response you get back in here?

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #4 on:** January 03, 2011, 14:00 »

@Jami,
I posted a comment at the end of the referenced blog post. Left link to this thread, suggesting that PixMac come here to answer.

zager · « **Reply #5 on:** January 03, 2011, 14:11 »

Thank you louoates for mentioning that. I completely agree with you. As a CEO of Pixmac I hope some people try us and with the growing sales contributors start to tell each other. On the other hand I know everyones time is valuable. So there's no need to immediately upload your files to Pixmac directly if you're not sure.

We've tried to pay for upload in the beginning, but the result is that it's like a magnet to frauds and low-quality sellers.

We'll be around. Doing our job well. And showing how good we are in online marketing and how fair we try to be to contributors. It all needs time. So far we're in healthy condition. For example we've 'saved' part of the content from Polylooks a startup agency from Germany. We're pretty effective in advertising and we love the job we do.

I'll do anything possible not to end up as Lucky Oliver or others :-)

Vita, CEO of Pixmac

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #7 on:** January 03, 2011, 14:35 »

Quote from: zager on January 03, 2011, 14:15

Quote from: WarrenPrice on January 03, 2011, 12:55
...but, if they already have my DT images thru the partnership program does it make any sense to RE-upload? Is there a way to dump the DT partnership and receive higher commissions by selling directly thru pixmac?

The simple answer is "No you doens't.". If you're happy with DT functionality and the revenue it brings to you it's easier for you to stay there only and be transfered to Pixmac via API. We're updating on daily basis, so anything you upload to DT is mirorred at Pixmac within 24h.

On the other hand, thumbs from DT are smaller than tumbs from direct Pixmac uploaders, so you'll receive a bit lower attention. And also our re-selling partners don't get your content via our API and your content is not included in subscription offering at Pixmac.

I didn't see the answer to "eliminating the middle man." How would uploading images to DT and Pixmac at the same time work? Would we earn more for the image loaded directly to Pixmac?

bizair · « **Reply #9 on:** January 03, 2011, 15:27 »

I can't even find how to get accepted or how to upload, on the Pixmac site.

jamirae · « **Reply #10 on:** January 03, 2011, 15:37 »

Quote from: bizair on January 03, 2011, 15:27

I can't even find how to get accepted or how to upload, on the Pixmac site.

that was my question. I thought I had stumbled upon it earlier, but then went back to try to find it again and could not.

jamirae · « **Reply #11 on:** January 03, 2011, 15:48 »

Quote from: zager on January 03, 2011, 14:51

Quote from: WarrenPrice on January 03, 2011, 14:35
I didn't see the answer to "eliminating the middle man." How would uploading images to DT and Pixmac at the same time work? Would we earn more for the image loaded directly to Pixmac?

Compare the revenue that DT offers and ours in the Press Release. It's based on the history you have on either site. If you'd be at the base level you'd earn 30% at Pixmac or DT for non-exclusive image.

thank you for coming in and responding to the inquiries here. So, can you clarify this? If an image is on the base, non-exclusive, and it is sold on PixMac through the link from Dreamstime, does it earn the same amount as it would if it was instead uploaded directly to Pixmac instead of through teh DT partnership?

also, if our image is already on PixMac from a partner site, wouldn't uploading to PixMac cause duplicates? which brings another question, how do you handle duplicate images if you get images from the same photographer from both Fotolia and DT and/or other partner sites?

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #12 on:** January 03, 2011, 16:24 »

Quote from: zager on January 03, 2011, 14:51

Quote from: WarrenPrice on January 03, 2011, 14:35
I didn't see the answer to "eliminating the middle man." How would uploading images to DT and Pixmac at the same time work? Would we earn more for the image loaded directly to Pixmac?

Compare the revenue that DT offers and ours in the Press Release. It's based on the history you have on either site. If you'd be at the base level you'd earn 30% at Pixmac or DT for non-exclusive image.

Are you being evasive, zager? I'm wondering if you are right at the edge of a "conflict of interest?"

leaf · « **Reply #17 on:** January 04, 2011, 04:40 »

Thanks for answering the questions here Vita

davidm · « **Reply #18 on:** January 04, 2011, 04:55 »

Quote from: zager on January 04, 2011, 03:47

Quote from: bizair on January 03, 2011, 15:27
I can't even find how to get accepted or how to upload, on the Pixmac site.

It's upon request at [email protected]. Or you can upload your first JPG file to ftp.pixmac.com with your login/password and the section will be activated automatically. We're working on making it more automated...

Uploads to Pixmac will be simpler soon with upcoming LightBurner/ProStockMaster - Pixmac integration.

cathyslife · « **Reply #19 on:** January 04, 2011, 08:33 »

After seeing 292,000 images uploaded to Pixmac via the BigStockPhoto API in which all contributors copyrights were changed to someone named Colossus, some of which may or may not have been my own personal images, I wouldn't touch this site with a 10-foot pole.

With what little information I was ever able to obtain, the commissions you get from the BigStock-Pixmac alliance are NOT the same as what you get from the images directly posted on BigStock. I would guess that the same is true for DT.

Quote

by zager:
Compare the revenue that DT offers and ours in the Press Release. It's based on the history you have on either site. If you'd be at the base level you'd earn 30% at Pixmac or DT for non-exclusive image.

I don't see how this is even possible to compare revenue. Neither DT or BigStock separates out sales that are made from pixmac, so the number is a cloud of smoke and mirrors that contributors can NEVER verify. Contributors have asked over and over to have this whole business transparent, but it hasn't happened. I wonder why that is. If we are being paid the same commission at both places, why wouldn't both sites be willing to disclose the numbers? To just state here that we are receiving the same amount doesn't fly with me anymore.

Another thing that I was told when pixmac first came on the scene is that only thumbnails resided at Pixmac (for those images that were being sold through partner APIs). My images were being shared through BigStock. So when a person clicked on a thumb in pixmac and wanted to buy, the purchase was supposed to be made directly through BigStock and the person was actually taken to the BigStock site and the image would be downloaded there. That is NOT how it was discovered to be working. In fact, it was discovered that all hi rez images had been transferred over to pixmac.

If any of my facts are incorrect, please correct me. And contributors are free to deal with whomever they wish, but because none of the above points can actually be verified and we are forced to take the word of one person here, I for one will not be participating in either partner programs OR uploading directly to pixmac.

As far as I know, the answers to the following have NEVER been forthcoming:
1. Who actually changed the copyright information on the 292,000 images that went from BigStock to Pixmac, which were reflecting the copyright as being by Colossus?
2. What sort of security does pixmac now have in place in order to prevent the same thing from happening again?
3. What happened to all 292,000 of the hi rez images that this Colossus/Media Bakery/pixmac had?

That whole issue was swept under the rug, and as far as I know, NO ONE has been forthcoming as to what actually happened. I personally am not inclined to trust anything anymore that isn't specifically in writing.

Again, if all commissions are in writing (and I mean in plain English) and things are spelled out specifically and numbers CAN be tracked and verified, please feel free to correct me and please point us to all the places where those numbers can be verified.

zager · « **Reply #20 on:** January 04, 2011, 08:55 »

Quote from: cclapper

After seeing 292,000 images uploaded to Pixmac via the BigStockPhoto API in which all contributors copyrights were changed to someone named Colossus, some of which may or may not have been my own personal images, I wouldn't touch this site with a 10-foot pole.

Hmm. Thank you. Have you read the Shutterstock discussion from start to end?

Quote from: cclapper

With what little information I was ever able to obtain, the commissions you get from the BigStock-Pixmac alliance are NOT the same as what you get from the images directly posted on BigStock. I would guess that the same is true for DT.

To recap that again. That situation was that Pixmac represented a collection from Colossus agency and Pixmac had only little metadata given by Colossus agency. Pixmac was not aware that it was a BigStock sourced collection. More details at Shutterstock's forum.

Quote from: cclapper

I don't see how this is even possible to compare revenue. Neither DT or BigStock separates out sales that are made from pixmac, so the number is a cloud of smoke and mirrors that contributors can NEVER verify. Contributors have asked over and over to have this whole business transparent, but it hasn't happened. I wonder why that is. If we are being paid the same commission at both places, why wouldn't both sites be willing to disclose the numbers? To just state here that we are receiving the same amount doesn't fly with me anymore.

Anybody can do a test purchase and see the numbers. At Pixmac we're going to clarify the numbers a bit more than what's an 'industry standard' as stated in the Press Release.

Quote from: cclapper

Another thing that I was told when pixmac first came on the scene is that only thumbnails resided at Pixmac (for those images that were being sold through partner APIs). My images were being shared through BigStock. So when a person clicked on a thumb in pixmac and wanted to buy, the purchase was supposed to be made directly through BigStock and the person was actually taken to the BigStock site and the image would be downloaded there. That is NOT how it was discovered to be working. In fact, it was discovered that all hi rez images had been transferred over to pixmac.

Not true. More details in the Shutterstock discussion.

Quote from: cclapper

If any of my facts are incorrect, please correct me. And contributors are free to deal with whomever they wish, but because none of the above points can actually be verified and we are forced to take the word of one person here, I for one will not be participating in either partner programs OR uploading directly to pixmac.

Well, you can verify that.

Quote from: cclapper

As far as I know, the answers to the following have NEVER been forthcoming:
1. Who actually changed the copyright information on the 292,000 images that went from BigStock to Pixmac, which were reflecting the copyright as being by Colossus?
2. What sort of security does pixmac now have in place in order to prevent the same thing from happening again?
3. What happened to all 292,000 of the hi rez images that this Colossus/Media Bakery/pixmac had?

1. Probably Colossus. We at Pixmac have asked the question. But no answer came. The collection was shut down immediately after the issue arised.

2. More activity on our side. More verification before any contract is made. Have you read the "Declaration of Fair Agency" before? Simply: We don't want to happen it again, because we don't need publicity like this again. Does that make sense?

3. Pixmac never had hi-res files from BigStock. So Colossus never had hi-res files, what I'm aware.

Quote from: cclapper

That whole issue was swept under the rug, and as far as I know, NO ONE has been forthcoming as to what actually happened. I personally am not inclined to trust anything anymore that isn't specifically in writing.

Your choice. The issue was discussed and I personally did everything possible to clarify the issue at Shutterstock's forum. If there's anything unclear and not clarified in the Shutterstock forum, ask me.

Quote from: cclapper

Again, if all commissions are in writing (and I mean in plain English) and things are spelled out specifically and numbers CAN be tracked and verified, please feel free to correct me and please point us to all the places where those numbers can be verified.

cathyslife · « **Reply #21 on:** January 04, 2011, 09:08 »

You are giving all the same generic answers as you did when it all happened.

Yes, I read the thread in the Shutterstock forum from beginning to end, as I believe my images were affected, because I was unknowingly opted in at BigStock for partner programs. No, I do NOT see specific answers to my questions. They are all corporate spin answers.

There is NO definitive way for contributors to see EXACTLY how much money they have made from any particular sale that was made by pixmac through BigStock. Sure, you can say we make 30% (or whatever %) of the sale, but there is NO way to confirm specifically what 30% of how much. If you can specifically point me to the exact place on BigStock where a sale for x amount of dollars netted me this % of that sale, and that resulting dollar amount is y, I will apologize profusely and eat my words.

Quote

Quote from: cclapper
As far as I know, the answers to the following have NEVER been forthcoming:
1. Who actually changed the copyright information on the 292,000 images that went from BigStock to Pixmac, which were reflecting the copyright as being by Colossus?
2. What sort of security does pixmac now have in place in order to prevent the same thing from happening again?
3. What happened to all 292,000 of the hi rez images that this Colossus/Media Bakery/pixmac had?

1. Probably Colossus. We at Pixmac have asked the question. But no answer came. The collection was shut down immediately after the issue arised.

2. More activity on our side. More verification before any contract is made. Have you read the "Declaration of Fair Agency" before? Simply: We don't want to happen it again, because we don't need publicity like this again. Does that make sense?

3. Pixmac never had hi-res files from BigStock. So Colossus never had hi-res files, what I'm aware.

And by the way, I am not saying that pixmac is the only company culpable here. We are never going to know the whole facts.
I for one am taking a pass on the whole pixmac site. Others can decide for themselves.

Blufish · « **Reply #23 on:** January 04, 2011, 09:26 »

I would like to thank pixmac for coming to this forum and trying to clear the air. MANY other sites don't give a d&mn and we all know who they are. I haven't decided to upload there or not, but appreciate the effort put forth to come here and clear the air.

click_click · « **Reply #24 on:** January 04, 2011, 10:31 »

Maybe some information for Pixmac might help to understand some of our "distrust":

- Most agencies that offer an API/affiliates do not disclose who their resellers are. We don't get a word from either the source agency nor the affiliate agency (without asking). Once we find our images at unknown agencies we get nervous and have to start our own detective work to figure out which agency is collaborating with who.

Not that this is only time consuming and nerve wrecking but also it doesn't build any trust with either agency.

- Right now, ever since Pixmac started I still don't know which of my images is coming from what agency. AFAIK Pixmac is affiliated with Fotolia, Dreamstime and Bigstock amongst others I suppose.

- I couldn't figure out how to interpret affiliate sales that came through Pixmac on any of the affiliated source agencies. We just see regular sales which could also be affiliate sales. It would be fantastic if we could see affiliate sales reported separately with the name of the affiliate. This alone could be a very powerful feature so we know how well an affiliate is performing.

Under which conditions would it be beneficial to upload directly to Pixmac? Just so we can sell our images there under the subscription plan as well? What is the commission on subscription sales? What are the contributor terms? I can't find that information on the Pixmac web site.

jamirae · « **Reply #25 on:** January 04, 2011, 10:43 »

Quote from: Blufish on January 04, 2011, 09:26

I would like to thank pixmac for coming to this forum and trying to clear the air. MANY other sites don't give a d&mn and we all know who they are. I haven't decided to upload there or not, but appreciate the effort put forth to come here and clear the air.

I agree with this. Still evaluating everything, however I do appreciate that we have not gotten any snarky reply from Pixmac (Zager) and appreciate you, zager, continuing to try to address each question.

jamirae · « **Reply #26 on:** January 04, 2011, 10:43 »

Quote from: click_click on January 04, 2011, 10:31

Maybe some information for Pixmac might help to understand some of our "distrust":

- At most agencies that offer an API/affiliates do not disclose who their resellers are. We don't get a word from either the source agency nor the affiliate agency (without asking). Once we find our images at unknown agencies we get nervous and have to start our own detective work to figure out which agency is collaborating with who.

Not that this is only time consuming and nerve wrecking but also it doesn't build any trust with either agency.

- Right now, ever since Pixmac started I still don't know which of my images is coming from what agency. AFAIK Pixmac is affiliated with Fotolia, Dreamstime and Bigstock amongst others I suppose.

- I couldn't figure out how to interpret affiliate sales that came through Pixmac on any of the affiliated source agencies. We just see regular sales which could also be affiliate sales. It would be fantastic if we could see affiliate sales reported separately with the name of the affiliate. This alone could be a very powerful feature so we know how well an affiliate is performing.

Under which conditions would it be beneficial to upload directly to Pixmac? Just so we can sell our images there under the subscription plan as well? What is the commission on subscription sales? What are the contributor terms? I can't find that information on the Pixmac web site.

+1

ThomasAmby · « **Reply #28 on:** January 04, 2011, 11:20 »

Sorry if I missed it, but if my content is already at Pixmac because it's on DT/BigStock/FT, won't there be duplicates when I upload directly to Pixmac? And are you ok with this?

click_click · « **Reply #29 on:** January 04, 2011, 11:26 »

Quote from: ThomasAmby on January 04, 2011, 11:20

Sorry if I missed it, but if my content is already at Pixmac because it's on DT/BigStock/FT, won't there be duplicates when I upload directly to Pixmac? And are you ok with this?

He posted on the first page that duplicates are filtered out.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #30 on:** January 04, 2011, 11:45 »

Directly:
Is there no legal agreement between you and FT/DT/BS that restricts your communicating directly with THEIR contributors?

zager · « **Reply #31 on:** January 04, 2011, 12:34 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice

Directly:
Is there no legal agreement between you and FT/DT/BS that restricts your communicating directly with THEIR contributors?

We don't have emails or any other contact info about contributors from sourcing agencies. We don't do any mass marketing towards contributors at our sourcing agencies. It's up to each contributor to upload there or there.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #32 on:** January 04, 2011, 12:54 »

Quote from: zager on January 04, 2011, 12:34

Quote from: WarrenPrice
Directly:
Is there no legal agreement between you and FT/DT/BS that restricts your communicating directly with THEIR contributors?

We don't have emails or any other contact info about contributors from sourcing agencies. We don't do any mass marketing towards contributors at our sourcing agencies. It's up to each contributor to upload there or there.

I think you said, "Yes, we have an agreement but I am not in violation?"
That sounds like "Spin;" a warning sign to me.

Lee Torrens · « **Reply #33 on:** January 04, 2011, 14:55 »

There's lots of sharks in this industry but Vita (zager) is not one of them. I've spent time with him in person and had many long email discussions over the past two years. It's understandable given what's happened recently, but it's also unfortunate that someone with honorable intentions is treated with such suspicion, especially when there are others in this industry that deserve more suspicion than they get.

Pixmac may not be a good fit for you. I wrote a review that concluded that it's probably not in the best interests of most contributors to submit there (although that was before the recent commission changes). But if it carries any weight for you, I vouch for Vita.

And just for the record, I think this "fair" stuff is pure BS, and Vita knows that, but he seems to have more empathy for us contributors than I do.

cathyslife · « **Reply #34 on:** January 04, 2011, 15:18 »

Quote from: Lee Torrens on January 04, 2011, 14:55

There's lots of sharks in this industry but Vita (zager) is not one of them. I've spent time with him in person and had many long email discussions over the past two years. It's understandable given what's happened recently, but it's also unfortunate that someone with honorable intentions is treated with such suspicion, especially when there are others in this industry that deserve more suspicion than they get.

Pixmac may not be a good fit for you. I wrote a review that concluded that it's probably not in the best interests of most contributors to submit there (although that was before the recent commission changes). But if it carries any weight for you, I vouch for Vita.

And just for the record, I think this "fair" stuff is pure BS, and Vita knows that, but he seems to have more empathy for us contributors than I do.

And I can appreciate that you might know zager personally, and someone else out there might know you personally. I know neither of you personally. I am certain you can understand why folks are suspicious when NONE of these sites, not just pixmac, want to put specifics in writing. Everything is smoke and mirrors. We are told we get 30% of something, but in many cases, we never really know what that is.

Too many people are relying on their stock commissions to help them pay their electric bills, let alone pay for trips around the world and million dollar condos (I am referencing KT from IS). To be fair, all anyone is asking is that specifics are in writing, and that just doesn't seem to happen. I am pretty sure you as a business person makes certain that everything you do is in a written contract, yet we are constantly asked to "just believe". We aren't children. And just because you vouch for him, doesn't mean I believe you. You know the old saying...trust but verify. We just want to be able to verify.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #35 on:** January 04, 2011, 16:29 »

Quote from: Lee Torrens on January 04, 2011, 14:55

There's lots of sharks in this industry but Vita (zager) is not one of them. I've spent time with him in person and had many long email discussions over the past two years. It's understandable given what's happened recently, but it's also unfortunate that someone with honorable intentions is treated with such suspicion, especially when there are others in this industry that deserve more suspicion than they get.

Pixmac may not be a good fit for you. I wrote a review that concluded that it's probably not in the best interests of most contributors to submit there (although that was before the recent commission changes). But if it carries any weight for you, I vouch for Vita.

And just for the record, I think this "fair" stuff is pure BS, and Vita knows that, but he seems to have more empathy for us contributors than I do.

Straight answers, usually a simple "Yes" or "No," go much further toward building trust than blowing a bunch of evasive smoke and mirrors.
Is what Pixmac doing legal?

ed: is it ethical?

redo · « **Reply #36 on:** January 04, 2011, 17:39 »

I searched my illustrations at pixmac and found most of them (all budget-prices), but I don't like what I see !!
My illustrations are on dreamstime, bigstock, fotolia, and so on....
My EPS-prices at dreamstime are between 14 and 34 credits, at fotolia at 8 credits and bigstock at 6 credits.
At pixmac all my illustrations (EPS) are at 5 credits (=7,76 $).
Also at pixmac some of my illustrations are there three times (with different picture-numbers), all with 5 credits.
And some of my illustrations are not there...
That looks not professional (or correct) for me.
My portfolio at pixmac is there since 30. 11. 2010, this is shown at the pixmac-portfolio-site.
For me it's ok, when pixmac sells my dreamstime-portfolio with dreamstime-prices and also not 3 times the same illustration for 5 credits.

Good is, that I sold only 1 illustration at this price at pixmac.

bizair · « **Reply #37 on:** January 04, 2011, 17:57 »

Quote from: zager on January 04, 2011, 03:47

Quote from: bizair on January 03, 2011, 15:27
I can't even find how to get accepted or how to upload, on the Pixmac site.

It's upon request at [email protected]. Or you can upload your first JPG file to ftp.pixmac.com with your login/password and the section will be activated automatically. We're working on making it more automated...

Thanks. Do you have a dedicated qualification process?

davidm · « **Reply #38 on:** January 05, 2011, 02:00 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on January 04, 2011, 16:29

Is there no legal agreement between you and FT/DT/BS that restricts your communicating directly with THEIR contributors?
...

Straight answers, usually a simple "Yes" or "No," go much further toward building trust than blowing a bunch of evasive smoke and mirrors.
Is what Pixmac doing legal?

ed: is it ethical?

Warren,
Not all the questions can be answered Yes or No. Try this one:
- Did you stop drinking vodka every morning?

Anyway, I also like simple answers. So here is how I see it.

I am not a lawyer, but I am quite sure that both Fotolia and Dreamstime have enough money to employ good lawyers. You know lawyers - would they find anything illegal in how Pixmac do the business, the company will not be where they are now. As long as the contact details of the contributors are not passed to Pixmac, they simply can not contact the contributors directly - no emails, no phones and no addresses. And for FT/DT it would be crazy to pass such a sensitive data to the partners, so I am sure they do not do that.

From the other hand, talking in public forums like MSG, issuing press releases, PPC ads and social networks utilization is a normal way of doing online marketing, for any business, - so I do not see anything 'unethical' here.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #41 on:** January 05, 2011, 06:12 »

"Pixmac sells thousands of images a month" from millions of files available via reseller agreements.

That says it all really. It's the sort of dilution that screams "bottom tier" for artists but may still bring in a respectable income for a site owner.

cathyslife · « **Reply #42 on:** January 05, 2011, 08:26 »

Quote from: davidm on January 05, 2011, 02:00

Quote from: WarrenPrice on January 04, 2011, 16:29
Is there no legal agreement between you and FT/DT/BS that restricts your communicating directly with THEIR contributors?
...

Straight answers, usually a simple "Yes" or "No," go much further toward building trust than blowing a bunch of evasive smoke and mirrors.
Is what Pixmac doing legal?

ed: is it ethical?

Warren,
Not all the questions can be answered Yes or No. Try this one:
- Did you stop drinking vodka every morning?

Anyway, I also like simple answers. So here is how I see it.

I am not a lawyer, but I am quite sure that both Fotolia and Dreamstime have enough money to employ good lawyers. You know lawyers - would they find anything illegal in how Pixmac do the business, the company will not be where they are now. As long as the contact details of the contributors are not passed to Pixmac, they simply can not contact the contributors directly - no emails, no phones and no addresses. And for FT/DT it would be crazy to pass such a sensitive data to the partners, so I am sure they do not do that.

From the other hand, talking in public forums like MSG, issuing press releases, PPC ads and social networks utilization is a normal way of doing online marketing, for any business, - so I do not see anything 'unethical' here.

I beg to differ. I know lawyers...if they find anything illegal, they just rewrite the clauses in the agreement so that the illegal becomes legal. And get their share of the big pie.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #43 on:** January 05, 2011, 10:28 »

Quote from: davidm on January 05, 2011, 02:00

Quote from: WarrenPrice on January 04, 2011, 16:29
Is there no legal agreement between you and FT/DT/BS that restricts your communicating directly with THEIR contributors?
...

Straight answers, usually a simple "Yes" or "No," go much further toward building trust than blowing a bunch of evasive smoke and mirrors.
Is what Pixmac doing legal?

ed: is it ethical?

Warren,
Not all the questions can be answered Yes or No. Try this one:
- Did you stop drinking vodka every morning?

Anyway, I also like simple answers. So here is how I see it.

I am not a lawyer, but I am quite sure that both Fotolia and Dreamstime have enough money to employ good lawyers. You know lawyers - would they find anything illegal in how Pixmac do the business, the company will not be where they are now. As long as the contact details of the contributors are not passed to Pixmac, they simply can not contact the contributors directly - no emails, no phones and no addresses. And for FT/DT it would be crazy to pass such a sensitive data to the partners, so I am sure they do not do that.

From the other hand, talking in public forums like MSG, issuing press releases, PPC ads and social networks utilization is a normal way of doing online marketing, for any business, - so I do not see anything 'unethical' here.

It wasn't a trick question, David. Even you, however, managed to avoid an answer.

And, yes, with a background in journalism, I understand SPIN.

lightscribe · « **Reply #44 on:** January 06, 2011, 02:17 »

Quote from: cclapper on January 04, 2011, 15:18

Quote from: Lee Torrens on January 04, 2011, 14:55
There's lots of sharks in this industry but Vita (zager) is not one of them. I've spent time with him in person and had many long email discussions over the past two years. It's understandable given what's happened recently, but it's also unfortunate that someone with honorable intentions is treated with such suspicion, especially when there are others in this industry that deserve more suspicion than they get.

Pixmac may not be a good fit for you. I wrote a review that concluded that it's probably not in the best interests of most contributors to submit there (although that was before the recent commission changes). But if it carries any weight for you, I vouch for Vita.

And just for the record, I think this "fair" stuff is pure BS, and Vita knows that, but he seems to have more empathy for us contributors than I do.

And I can appreciate that you might know zager personally, and someone else out there might know you personally. I know neither of you personally. I am certain you can understand why folks are suspicious when NONE of these sites, not just pixmac, want to put specifics in writing. Everything is smoke and mirrors. We are told we get 30% of something, but in many cases, we never really know what that is.

Too many people are relying on their stock commissions to help them pay their electric bills, let alone pay for trips around the world and million dollar condos (I am referencing KT from IS). To be fair, all anyone is asking is that specifics are in writing, and that just doesn't seem to happen. I am pretty sure you as a business person makes certain that everything you do is in a written contract, yet we are constantly asked to "just believe". We aren't children. And just because you vouch for him, doesn't mean I believe you. You know the old saying...trust but verify. We just want to be able to verify.

I completely agree. And yes I agree Pixmacs concept of "fair" is BS. It used to be the industry "fair" practice to present the contributer with a balance sheet for each sale that included the actual price the image was purchased for with a simple subtraction of the agencies commission percentage subtracted, sites were still allowed to negotiate prices with buyers as long as the purchase price was clearly shown on the balance sheet.

If Pixmac actually wants to be transparent, why not simply present photographers with their sales reports similar to the way agencies like Alamy currently do. Every single time a sale occurs for me on Alamy it lists sale price minus 40% commission.

That is what I consider a fair contract. I pay Alamy 40% commission for representing me (I keep 60% of my sales). Along with fair commissions they clearly and transparently let me know how much my images are selling for. Before you go jumping in saying they are a macro agency. They really are not since they have been selling $5 images now, but somehow still manage to be transparent.

Promising that I get to keep 25 cents an image and also promising that you will "only" take 70% of the sale of my work is hardly making any attempt at being "Fair"...in fact it is like stealing all of the money out of my wallet and then saying "thanks for letting me rob you here is a shiny quarter for your troubles"

Sorry for my skepticism I am jaded by too many kind words from CEOs, rather than saying you want to be more transparent...how about you actually just be more transparent, this nonsense has got to end in this industry. We are getting slaughtered here left and right, commissions being cut so low that 25 cents is supposed to sound like fair wages.

I would love to find a new outlet for my images, if you really want to listen and this isn't some PR stunt to keep everyone from jumping ship after your last copyright theft debacle, than I would urge you to please take a look at how Alamy reports its numbers. If you are truly flexible and willing to make changes please put in your contract that for all sales the purchase price as well as the commission you take will clearly be stated for each sale. Stock photography has always worked like this, it is only recently that micro sites try to be sneaky. There is no need to plea for our trust simply share the numbers and you will have created the first transparent microstock agency, and if you do that you will have every single microstock photographer flocking to your site myself included. In no time you will be larger than any other agency. Think about it...seriously think about it.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #46 on:** January 17, 2011, 17:44 »

bump

Just want to remind that Pixmac was asked previously about the legality/ethics of their solicitations.

There never was a straight answer.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #47 on:** January 17, 2011, 18:09 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on January 17, 2011, 17:44

bump

Just want to remind that Pixmac was asked previously about the legality/ethics of their solicitations.

There never was a straight answer.

I thought I understood the answer the first three or four times, he answered you.

They can't contact suppliers directly, they don't get any private information about suppliers, they can't target partner program members.

They can come to forum and talk openly about their business and agency.

Example: He can write to me, or you, and the whole forum in general. I might have PP images on their site, I might not, Pixmac doesn't know. Is that clear enough?

You see that as a loophole and unethical? You would say, he can't write on any forums or discuss Pixmac anywhere?

This has nothing to do with the rest of the questions, just the one you write about every five messages.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #48 on:** January 17, 2011, 19:01 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 17, 2011, 18:09

Quote from: WarrenPrice on January 17, 2011, 17:44
bump

Just want to remind that Pixmac was asked previously about the legality/ethics of their solicitations.

There never was a straight answer.

I thought I understood the answer the first three or four times, he answered you.

They can't contact suppliers directly, they don't get any private information about suppliers, they can't target partner program members.

They can come to forum and talk openly about their business and agency.

Example: He can write to me, or you, and the whole forum in general. I might have PP images on their site, I might not, Pixmac doesn't know. Is that clear enough?

You see that as a loophole and unethical? You would say, he can't write on any forums or discuss Pixmac anywhere?

This has nothing to do with the rest of the questions, just the one you write about every five messages.

i must not be as smart as you, Race. Or, maybe I missed the simple "Yes" or "No." I still don't see the answer to the question about legality or ethics of what Pixmac was doing. It seems that Dreamstime didn't see a straight answer either.

Edit: are you suggesting that what Pixmac was doing was legal ... and ethical?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #49 on:** January 17, 2011, 19:29 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on January 17, 2011, 19:01

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 17, 2011, 18:09
Quote from: WarrenPrice on January 17, 2011, 17:44
bump

Just want to remind that Pixmac was asked previously about the legality/ethics of their solicitations.

There never was a straight answer.

I thought I understood the answer the first three or four times, he answered you.

They can't contact suppliers directly, they don't get any private information about suppliers, they can't target partner program members.

They can come to forum and talk openly about their business and agency.

Example: He can write to me, or you, and the whole forum in general. I might have PP images on their site, I might not, Pixmac doesn't know. Is that clear enough?

You see that as a loophole and unethical? You would say, he can't write on any forums or discuss Pixmac anywhere?

This has nothing to do with the rest of the questions, just the one you write about every five messages.

i must not be as smart as you, Race. Or, maybe I missed the simple "Yes" or "No." I still don't see the answer to the question about legality or ethics of what Pixmac was doing. It seems that Dreamstime didn't see a straight answer either.

Edit: are you suggesting that what Pixmac was doing was legal ... and ethical?

In my somewhat uninformed opinion, and based on the information here, yes. They are not contacting contributors directly and not targeting people using information gleaned from the operation of their site. He's just writing in a public forum, "hey y'all come on over and send us some photos."

Since I can't read the contracts, it's what he has been answering when you asked. Maybe not the same words and maybe I'm wrong?

[OPINION]

Again as far as what's there, how it got there, how much commission, I don't have a clue and as far as I know, I've never made a cent from Pixmac, but I could be wrong about that too. I think all the agencies should be reporting where we get sales, not just dropping some spare change on us and saying, partner sale or the size and nothing saying from where. Also the questions about how much did it sell for, even though I understand that a partner has to pay more people than the source agency, should be disclosed.

Don't some other secondary sites aka partners, also sell our images for much higher prices? And we still get the leftovers like some beggars after the banquet?

How about fotosearch and their much higher prices? Doesn't that seem a bit odd to anyone? Then about the other partners, some we don't even know who they are. Isn't there something wrong with that mystery?

I don't find someone coming around stumping for their agency, that's above board, up front, is a problem. Instead of like some of the shills that try to slide into the forum and ask questions, or talk about I had 100 sales on "X" last month. when everyone else doesn;t get 100 views on "X" in a month.

Or the potential of people shilling the polls to make a fairly dormant agency get a higher rank.

Nope I don't find that being above board, posting in the forums in the open, is unethical. I wish there was more of it from all the agencies. A number of agencies have someone who checks in here now and then and gives direct answers to issues. I like it! Rather then picking and pecking away at those people, maybe we should embrace them and thank them?

I like all of them that present information and inform us about the truth. I'm not just a Pixmac apologist.

Here's one of my favorite search pages there. (NOT Mine and not really a Favorite)

Does this count for the 11 million?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Pixmac Announcement (Read 23889 times)

WarrenPrice

WarrenPrice

WarrenPrice

WarrenPrice

WarrenPrice

WarrenPrice

WarrenPrice

WarrenPrice

WarrenPrice

RacePhoto

WarrenPrice

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors