MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Pixmac => Topic started by: pjmorley on October 29, 2010, 17:19
-
I happened to be checking Pixmac and noticed that they have API software giving them access to Dreamstime and Fotolia databases which is fine if that's their agreement. Sure enough, my images from Dreamstine and Fotolia are there with my name given as the photographer.
However, there is a contributor there called 'colossus' with a portfolio of around 292,000 images and I see that at least 2 of my images are in that portfolio. That is in addition to my DT and FT images correctly attached to my DT and FT name.
Does anyone know how Pixmac works or is this potentially a 'stolen' portfolio.
The link is here. Check to see if any of yours are there too.
http://www.pixmac.co.uk/author/colossus (http://www.pixmac.co.uk/author/colossus)
-
For example...
My image on Pixmac from the Dreamstime database.
http://www.pixmac.co.uk/picture/time/000000146212 (http://www.pixmac.co.uk/picture/time/000000146212)
clealry states my name and the originating API website.
My image from Pixmac but under the name of colossus
http://www.pixmac.co.uk/picture/close+up+of+an+old+looking+clock+face/000050805451 (http://www.pixmac.co.uk/picture/close+up+of+an+old+looking+clock+face/000050805451)
Apparently someone elses portfolio.
What is odd is the massive size of the colossus portfolio and all seem to have been uploaded in September 2010. I've emailed Pixmac but no reply yet.
-
You would think at least a few red flags would go up for someone who submits 290,000 images. What a shame that this can happen.
-
Your image on Pixmac in the colossus portfolio has been stolen. It says that HE is the photographer and he is not. The way your image appears on Pixmac with your name, coming from DT, is correct. If I were you, I would alert Pixmac and Dreamstime immediately.
Meanwhile, I will continue searching page 10 of 14,625 to see if I recognize mine or anyone else's images. I can't believe these agencies...
-
AFAIK "colossus" is a pseudonym for images from Bigstockphoto.
I'm pretty sure. I contacted them a while ago and they explained that they use the pseydonym due to the higher price point. They didn't want potential buyers to come straight to them, buying the images for a fraction compared to Pixmac prices.
I told them that I'm not happy about the fact that our names are not being used. But obviously that didn't matter to them in regards to the current handling of the files.
I just checked my old emails - it's Bigstockphoto. They used to post the images under the pseydonym "Mediabaker" which was discussed on some forums as well. Very confusing. But supposedly this is all legit.
-
deleted by me.
-
...So why is colossus from the Czech Republic, according to the page? Bigstock, I thought, was a US company.
I cannot answer this for you, but I suggest you contact Bigstockphoto AND Pixmac directly to get valid answers.
I had this conversation (mentioned above) with Bigstockphoto earlier this year. Maybe things have changed...
-
Maybe this helps as well. Old thread about Mediabakery:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/check-this-website/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/check-this-website/)
-
I understood Pixmac worked totally differently that what you are saying click_click, but I have opted out of all partner programs. Will read that mediabakery link.
-
We have recently replied to several emails today regarding this thread and one user suggested we post our own reply here to help with clarity and minimize some confusion. Here is what we said, slightly edited: " I see some frustrated contributors here. Media Bakery (MB) is a legitimate company with North American market share with traditional stock image buyers. About a year ago, we decided to offer microstock images at midstock price points (prices higher than currently offered at traditional microstock companies). The goal is to 'up sell' the images to image buyers who need a bit more from their image vendor than what microstock companies could provide. The name of the game for distributors is to try to build a loyal following of buyers who want great images with great service and this is where MB separates from microstock companies. In order to help do that, and retain customers, we white label all of our content. Ideally, it's a win-win for all parties involved. To help in the clarity with this particular matter, we went ahead and changed the white label notice to just Media Bakery and dropped Colossus RF. While we won't be able to reference the photographer on any one collection, keeping it MB will provide the users in this discussion a bit more sanity and it is easy for us to do with out any damaging impact to MB. Resellers of stock have been around for decades, it's a natural progression for them to start to occur more and more with microstock content. I hope this explanation helps a little. "
This is in that thread you posted, click. Note the bold. If I understand correctly, colossus shouldn't be showing anywhere?
I'm going over to BigStock to double check that I am opted out. I still don't want to participate in these partner programs.
-
Crap, I was opted in. Now I'm opted out. >:(
-
Crap, I was opted in. Now I'm opted out. >:(
Well, that explains a lot.
However, some of my images (even from the same series) are listed in "Budget" and "Premium". This must pi$$ of some buyers for sure.
I don't understand what the whole point of that is.
-
For example...
My image on Pixmac from the Dreamstime database.
[url]http://www.pixmac.co.uk/picture/time/000000146212[/url] ([url]http://www.pixmac.co.uk/picture/time/000000146212[/url])
clealry states my name and the originating API website.
My image from Pixmac but under the name of colossus
[url]http://www.pixmac.co.uk/picture/close+up+of+an+old+looking+clock+face/000050805451[/url] ([url]http://www.pixmac.co.uk/picture/close+up+of+an+old+looking+clock+face/000050805451[/url])
Apparently someone elses portfolio.
What is odd is the massive size of the colossus portfolio and all seem to have been uploaded in September 2010. I've emailed Pixmac but no reply yet.
hey I noticed the one picture under your name Paul has no watermark while the other one that is shown under colossus has "copyright protected" all over it. What's the deal with that??
-
For example...
My image on Pixmac from the Dreamstime database.
[url]http://www.pixmac.co.uk/picture/time/000000146212[/url] ([url]http://www.pixmac.co.uk/picture/time/000000146212[/url])
clealry states my name and the originating API website.
My image from Pixmac but under the name of colossus
[url]http://www.pixmac.co.uk/picture/close+up+of+an+old+looking+clock+face/000050805451[/url] ([url]http://www.pixmac.co.uk/picture/close+up+of+an+old+looking+clock+face/000050805451[/url])
Apparently someone elses portfolio.
What is odd is the massive size of the colossus portfolio and all seem to have been uploaded in September 2010. I've emailed Pixmac but no reply yet.
hey I noticed the one picture under your name Paul has no watermark while the other one that is shown under colossus has "copyright protected" all over it. What's the deal with that??
Who knows? Fotolia seem not to care about protecting images. Even on their own site, the watermark is nothing more than a token gesture. And yet my images brought in from Dreamstime have the original DT watermark. If colossus as said above, is from Bigstock then I'll be opting out of these 3rd party sellers.
-
I see the "thumbnail" watermark from Pixmac on both of those images. What are you guys talking about?
-
I see the "thumbnail" watermark from Pixmac on both of those images. What are you guys talking about?
Oh I see it now....I didn't even notice it because of the texture of the clock. I didn't even notice that on the other one from colossus...all I noticed on it was "copyright protected" written all over it.
My mistake... ::)
-
...
I'm pretty sure. I contacted them a while ago and they explained that they use the pseydonym due to the higher price point. They didn't want potential buyers to come straight to them, buying the images for a fraction compared to Pixmac prices.
...
That kind of reminds me of something ... I heard a sports radio talk show guy once who said that some professional sports teams are operating what are for all practical purposes in-house scalping operations. For reasons of "fairness" or to get good PR, teams usually charge the same ticket price for all regular-season games - but in reality some games are much, much more popular with fans. They avoid the bad PR associated with jacking up prices for those games by moving large blocks of tickets to an apparently arms-length third party company who basically scalps the tickets - but in reality the company belongs to them. They have their cake and eat it too.
It's slightly different in this case in that stock photos are not actually a scarce commodity, and identical product is available simultaneously in unlimited quantities at 2 different prices, but it's essentially the same trick being played on the paying customers.
-
I happened to be checking Pixmac and noticed that they have API software giving them access to Dreamstime and Fotolia databases which is fine if that's their agreement. Sure enough, my images from Dreamstine and Fotolia are there with my name given as the photographer.
....
do you get royalties from sales there? can you make sure you do? because if not, you all are pretty much f**ked.
-
There isn't a way to make sure, as DT doesn't separate out what you got paid from partner programs (pixmac) and what they are paying you. At least I have not found a place where they report that. That's the big problem I have with the partner programs. And I don't think BigStock separates out what comes from colossus or media bakery or whatever, and what comes from their site.
-
There isn't a way to make sure, as DT doesn't separate out what you got paid from partner programs (pixmac) and what they are paying you. At least I have not found a place where they report that. That's the big problem I have with the partner programs. And I don't think BigStock separates out what comes from colossus or media bakery or whatever, and what comes from their site.
That's right unfortunately. I also wish we could get reports separately from the resellers so we can decide if it's worth offering our images there or not.
I dare to assume that the reseller sales numbers are small but in the end it means some sort of additional revenue for the agencies so they will keep offering their API to anyone who wants it.
-
Explanation of this issue:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=93850 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=93850)
The collection is switched off till it's solved/fixed.
Vita, Pixmac's CEO
-
That's right unfortunately. I also wish we could get reports separately from the resellers so we can decide if it's worth offering our images there or not.
I dare to assume that the reseller sales numbers are small but in the end it means some sort of additional revenue for the agencies so they will keep offering their API to anyone who wants it.
They might be small, they might be big. But I have always felt that we contributors should be able to know WHO the resellers are and we should get a report with the sales separated out. I wish I could trust the agencies, but even in a best-case scenario, there is way too much room for error here, intentional OR unintentional.
-
you need to know this project.
I have signed in and hope everybody does the same.
worth a try.
http://monsterprojeckt.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/stock-artist-union-information/ (http://monsterprojeckt.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/stock-artist-union-information/)
-
you need to know this project.
I have signed in and hope everybody does the same.
worth a try.
[url]http://monsterprojeckt.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/stock-artist-union-information/[/url] ([url]http://monsterprojeckt.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/stock-artist-union-information/[/url])
With all due respect, I took a look and clicked on a few links. Looks like another blog. A union for stock artists wouldn't work, that's been established in another thread here. I see a bunch of links to individual photogs ports. So no, I will not be signing in.
-
you need to know this project.
I have signed in and hope everybody does the same.
worth a try.
[url]http://monsterprojeckt.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/stock-artist-union-information/[/url] ([url]http://monsterprojeckt.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/stock-artist-union-information/[/url])
I signed up and I am now getting emails but I am confused about who is responsible for this problem. Is it BigStock that are now owned by SS? If so, I don't see how taking costly legal action against them is going to work.
-
you need to know this project.
I have signed in and hope everybody does the same.
worth a try.
[url]http://monsterprojeckt.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/stock-artist-union-information/[/url] ([url]http://monsterprojeckt.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/stock-artist-union-information/[/url])
With all due respect, I took a look and clicked on a few links. Looks like another blog. A union for stock artists wouldn't work, that's been established in another thread here. I see a bunch of links to individual photogs ports. So no, I will not be signing in.
Likewise, it's kind of amusing. Is this impressive or what? Following the link in the above message.
(http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/50/monsterprojeckt.jpg)
-
This link works http://monsterprojeckt.wordpress.com/stock-artists-union/ (http://monsterprojeckt.wordpress.com/stock-artists-union/)
I did sign up but the emails I have been sent aren't about an artists union, they are about taking an expensive class action that I'm not sure would benefit contributors more than the solicitors. They need a closed forum to discuss this properly.
-
This link works [url]http://monsterprojeckt.wordpress.com/stock-artists-union/[/url] ([url]http://monsterprojeckt.wordpress.com/stock-artists-union/[/url])
I did sign up but the emails I have been sent aren't about an artists union, they are about taking an expensive class action that I'm not sure would benefit contributors more than the solicitors. They need a closed forum to discuss this properly.
+1 This sounds like one of those class action suits where you end up years later getting a check for $1.36, while the law firm gets $15 million for the settlement.
-
This link works [url]http://monsterprojeckt.wordpress.com/stock-artists-union/[/url] ([url]http://monsterprojeckt.wordpress.com/stock-artists-union/[/url])
I did sign up but the emails I have been sent aren't about an artists union, they are about taking an expensive class action that I'm not sure would benefit contributors more than the solicitors. They need a closed forum to discuss this properly.
+1 This sounds like one of those class action suits where you end up years later getting a check for $1.36, while the law firm gets $15 million for the settlement.
Exactly. And a union wouldn't work. Too many scabs, we see that already.
-
Well, I went back to the shutterstock forum to see what was up with this whole 292,000+ images being uploaded by a colossus, and could only find the thread by following the link from here.
Here's a link to the thread, which shutterstock has now locked.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=93850&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=345 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=93850&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=345)
It appears that the metadata was stripped somewhere between bigstockphoto, mediabakery and pixmac. And contributors copyrights were replaced with Photographed by colossus. But no resolution or answers to the questions were forthcoming.
So no one knows how and why contributors' copyright data got stripped and replaced. That is a HUGE problem.
-
Strange how little discussion there is about this. Am I the only one getting the emails? Perhaps people don't want to discuss the situation in an open forum but I do wish there was somewhere to talk about it.
-
Ignore this I found the answer.