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.

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?

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?

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

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?

Uploading to them is never time efficient because 90% of them never reach a payout.

At Pixmac there's no expiration of contributor credits. So anyone making a selling content can reach payout.

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?

Yes. The commision would be the same in case you're on the base level on both sites. That means 30% from gross sale for you. If the image is uploaded to DT and sold on DT or Pixmac you should get exactly the same money. We're not selling DT images in subscription at Pixmac, so you can't reach those customers if you've uploaded only to DT.

Duplicates are handled by our duplicate detection system. So there should be no duplicates at Pixmac.

Thanks for answering the questions here Vita

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.

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.

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 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.

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.