The reason why Pixmac might bring extra value "as a middleman" is that we might be smarter and more effective in marketing.

Vita, with all due respect but you didn't counter the allegations of fraud by DT at all: thread here. You have been talking very elegantly and smoothly about transparency, mistakes by others. being smart etc... ignoring the elephant in the room.

Apparently DT did an audit (controlled test-buying by a third party, I presume) and they claim to have found out that you [an unnamed sublicenser] sold their sublicensed content at a higher price point without reporting it. This hurts the DT contributors too since they are paid by DT, not by Pixmac [an unnamed sublicenser].

It was also stated that - even if you [an unnamed sublicenser] only seem to have access to the DT thumbs - you [an unnamed sublicenser] installed a cache system. This means that (if I guess it well) you [an unnamed sublicenser] intercepted the traffic between the full sizes on DT and your(?) own client, you [an unnamed sublicenser] stored those copies in your(?) system, and when another client bought that file you [an unnamed sublicenser] sold him the cached copy. DT didn't get its commission and we, contributors, were robbed. In that case (if it's true) you [an unnamed sublicenser] infringed in a premeditated and fraudulent way on our copyright and you [an unnamed sublicenser] stole our earnings.

DT has been around very long time and it has a very good reputation as to transparency to contributors. If they did an audit and they found irregularities, they will certainly have repeated that audit thoroughly and with all due legal precautions. If DT decides to nail you [an unnamed sublicenser] for those practices they will have had very good reasons. The allegations are very serious.

Vita, with all due respect but you didn't counter the allegations of fraud by DT at all: thread here. You have been talking very elegantly and smoothly about transparency, mistakes by others. being smart etc... ignoring the elephant in the room.

To FD-regular: it's not ignoring the elephant as I stated before. It's being really serious about the issue. I could state an immediate reply to the allegations but I preffer to take the time to do a serious discussion and investigation together with the other party. After that I'd like to make an explanatory statement (ideally together with the other party).

Before that, any statement would be subjective opinion only.

Obviously, we want to know more about what's going on, but I guess waiting for an explanation will have to do. Hopefully, it will come soon.

If Pixmac is no longer a partner of Dreamstime, Fotolia or Big Stock... why are 147 of my images still there?  Kinda curious.... do they have other "partners"?

I was curious about this as well. The number of images I have on there didn't seem to correspond with any agency. Also when flipping through my images, I noticed there were a lot without previews. I didn't know if some of these were eliminated, but the server hadn't updated yet.

...and the longer it takes the more damage Pixmac's name takes. If they're straight in their shoes it shouldnt take long, eh?

If Pixmac is no longer a partner of Dreamstime, Fotolia or Big Stock... why are 147 of my images still there?  Kinda curious.... do they have other "partners"?
  

I don't remember seeing any note about cancellation of Fotolia partnership, I think it's still there.

[upd] ok, I don't see Fotolia in Pixmac's own web page of partners, but on the other hand Colossus is still there even though Pixmac said it's terminated.

It's been done too well already (second picture down):

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/generating-ideas-the-foundation-of-good-stock-photography.html

Quote from: trekandshoot on January 18, 2011, 21:00

If Pixmac is no longer a partner of Dreamstime, Fotolia or Big Stock... why are 147 of my images still there?  Kinda curious.... do they have other "partners"?

 

123RF - is that about the amount that you maybe have on 123RF?

I have far more images (1000+) at 123.  But that could explain it. 

Thanks

There was a posting on Twitter about DT and FT dropping Pixmax with this link to their listed affiliates.

http://www.pixmac.de/partneragenturen#utm_source=2279&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=aff3

So they are still showing Colossus as a partner? Even after colossus (or pixmac, or someone) changed the contributors copyright info and uploaded 292,000 images to pixmac that way? And then zager reported that all 292,000 images had been removed from pixmac? After zager stated that colossus is a partner of pixmac, and colossus is a partner of BigStock. So in case you didn't follow: BigStock > colossus > pixmac (partner of a partner)?

Quote from: gostwyck on January 18, 2011, 11:47

Quote from: zager on January 18, 2011, 11:09

To FD-regular: it's not ignoring the elephant as I stated before. It's being really serious about the issue. I could state an immediate reply to the allegations but I preffer to take the time to do a serious discussion and investigation together with the other party. After that I'd like to make an explanatory statement (ideally together with the other party).

Before that, any statement would be subjective opinion only.

I think you're 'ignoring the elephant' too. Markedly so. I await your explanatory statement with great interest.

This made me smile, thinking of 2 ignored elephants in the room   I hope they both give us updates soon.  Ignoring the elephant in the room would make a good stock photo.

 

One "Gotcha."  
 

Quote from: cthoman on January 19, 2011, 11:45

Yeah, that redistribution and re-redistribution thing is pretty annoying. These partners programs really should be a decision by us. It seems like a simple enough request that I should be able to know and decide where MY IMAGES are being sold. Here's the same link in English:

http://www.pixmac.com/image-partners

Not that it helps because I don't know any of these companies and yet I still have images there.

Sorry, I don't understand - does this page show where they are getting their content FROM or where it is going TO.  Around 1/3 of my stuff is on Pixmac, and I'm not with those sites and can't really tell where it's coming from.

I am assuming that is where their content is coming from, but I certainly could be wrong. In any case, I am thinking that not ALL of the partners will be shown, in either instance.

Quote from: gostwyck on January 17, 2011, 15:47

Btw, from a few cursory searches it would appear that my images have disappeared but they do still have lots from contributors on here (e.g. Lisa 1800 images, Baldrick's T 900 images, Yuri 28K, etc).

Don't know how I managed to overlook this thread...?!  If Fotolia and DT are no longer partnered with Pixmac, then I was wondering how I still have images there.  Just checked at BigStock and for some reason I was opted in to their reseller sales program.  I had thought I opted out of that months ago.  Just opted out again.  Hope it takes this time.

That's exactly what happened to me re: BigStock. I'm wondering if something happened when BigStock redesigned their site. I know I opted out of everything, but when the whole pixmac/BigStock/colossus thing came up the first time around, I checked, and sure enough I was opted in.