MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Ashley Art Studio selling on Amazon  (Read 7784 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« on: December 18, 2016, 15:36 »
0
Anyone know how Ashley Art Studio gets the original images that they are selling on Amazon?

https://www.amazon.com/Ashley-Giclee-Brilliant-Sunrise-Reflecting/dp/B01J6X74XC/ref=cm_cd_al_qh_dp_t

This is one of mine, and I guess they could have licensed it from one of the stock agencies for resale? They do claim to be sharing the proceeds with the original artist.

Steve



« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2016, 17:35 »
+2
This is the stuff that really gags me, and makes me think it's about time for me to pull out of microstock completely.  Unless maybe there's an agency that won't sell my work with this kind of license?

« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2016, 18:55 »
0

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2016, 20:22 »
0
Anyone know how Ashley Art Studio gets the original images that they are selling on Amazon?

https://www.amazon.com/Ashley-Giclee-Brilliant-Sunrise-Reflecting/dp/B01J6X74XC/ref=cm_cd_al_qh_dp_t

This is one of mine, and I guess they could have licensed it from one of the stock agencies for resale? They do claim to be sharing the proceeds with the original artist.

Steve

"we believe in supporting artists" yet they don't credit the original artist. I guess if they paid even 1c for a pic they'd be 'sharing the proceeds".
You'd have to see if either
   a. you have the right sort of EL from any of your selling points, or
   b. check if any of your selling points allows this sort of sale without an EL.
Trouble is, I believe that
   c. some image libraries allow potential print vendors to offer works for sale but only pay for the EL if actually sold, which requires a surprising amount of trust.
If a or b above don't apply, I guess you could write to Ashley Glicee and ask them if they could tell you where they bought the image, for your records, then check if the T&C of that company allow c.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2016, 21:36 »
0
They appear to have around 3200 different prints for sale on Amazon and they can't have licensed all of those in advance - it wouldn't make sense. So they probably license the image when it sells as was suggested. Even then, to license a full EL from Shutterstock must be $100 or so, which makes their first print a definite loss. Sort of suggests they would just get a standard license at that time to make the business model work!

Funnily enough this image had an $84 single sale on Shutterstock at the beginning of December, but that seems to be too much of a coincidence

Steve

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2016, 22:24 »
0
Have your ever looked at AliExpress? Don't get me started! They even took one of my photos that wasn't for sale on microstock and are selling it. I can't find a link to send a notice either.

It really sucks for sure ... I don't know if agencies allow for this kind of distribution or not.

« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2016, 23:59 »
0
Nice shot! 

It would be very interesting to know how this works - I would think you should get a sub sale at least for the ad and then an EL or something similar if it sells.  Bigstock I think allows single-image products where we get less than a dollar - not sure if that includes resale but that might be how they are doing it.  If that is the case then their idea if supporting artists is not very much.   It would be worthwhile to write them and ask - not fair of them to sell your work like that without your permission.

« Reply #8 on: December 19, 2016, 00:53 »
0
Who is Ashley Art??

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: December 19, 2016, 06:02 »
+1
Nice shot! 

It would be very interesting to know how this works - I would think you should get a sub sale at least for the ad and then an EL or something similar if it sells.  Bigstock I think allows single-image products where we get less than a dollar - not sure if that includes resale but that might be how they are doing it.  If that is the case then their idea if supporting artists is not very much.   It would be worthwhile to write them and ask - not fair of them to sell your work like that without your permission.
If they happen to have bought a suitable licence, they don't have to ask permission.
However, it does seem an extremely 'loose' arrangement whereby they can buy an ordinary licence and if they happen to sell, they'll 'remember' to pay, esp if just one sale wouldn't break even. Probably they don't even have to tell the agencies that's their intention.

« Reply #10 on: December 19, 2016, 08:52 »
0
Yes, I'm sure they don't have to, I just don't think it's fair of them to do it especially since they say they are supporting artists.  Much better for them and the artists to make contact I would think - unless of course the artist cut is tiny and then they probably want to keep it the way it is.

« Reply #11 on: December 19, 2016, 09:45 »
0
CanStockPhoto and fotolia allow for pod resale in an EL if i am correct

« Reply #12 on: December 19, 2016, 11:55 »
+1
Nice shot! 

It would be very interesting to know how this works - I would think you should get a sub sale at least for the ad and then an EL or something similar if it sells.  Bigstock I think allows single-image products where we get less than a dollar - not sure if that includes resale but that might be how they are doing it.  If that is the case then their idea if supporting artists is not very much.   It would be worthwhile to write them and ask - not fair of them to sell your work like that without your permission.
If they happen to have bought a suitable licence, they don't have to ask permission.
However, it does seem an extremely 'loose' arrangement whereby they can buy an ordinary licence and if they happen to sell, they'll 'remember' to pay, esp if just one sale wouldn't break even. Probably they don't even have to tell the agencies that's their intention.

It works through an API, a lot of sites use Fotolia, they don't download the image from Fotolia until it's sold. 

« Reply #13 on: December 19, 2016, 11:56 »
+2
The whole idea of licensing something as 'stock' and reselling it as 'art' is just plain wrong.  I don't care if it's legal.  It's wrong.  Deceptive, misleading, unethical, and shabby.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2016, 13:10 by stockastic »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #14 on: December 19, 2016, 12:40 »
0
The whole idea of licensing something as 'stock' and reselling it as 'art' is just plain wrong.  I don't care if it's legal.  It's wrong.  Deceptive, misleading, unethical, and just plain shabby.
Just one more thing to check out when choosing agencies, then.

« Reply #15 on: December 19, 2016, 12:56 »
0
The whole idea of licensing something as 'stock' and reselling it as 'art' is just plain wrong.  I don't care if it's legal.  It's wrong.  Deceptive, misleading, unethical, and just plain shabby.
Just one more thing to check out when choosing agencies, then.

Would this even be in the TOS, in any clear explicit way?  Or would you need to be a lawyer just to figure out that it's allowed?

« Reply #16 on: December 19, 2016, 13:55 »
0
The whole idea of licensing something as 'stock' and reselling it as 'art' is just plain wrong.  I don't care if it's legal.  It's wrong.  Deceptive, misleading, unethical, and just plain shabby.

Just one more thing to check out when choosing agencies, then.


Would this even be in the TOS, in any clear explicit way?  Or would you need to be a lawyer just to figure out that it's allowed?


I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like Adobe allow anything you can think of and all things not invented yet.

Adobe Stock Contributor Agreement
Additional Terms to Adobe.com Terms of Use

http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Contributor_Agreement-en_US-20160721_1200.pdf

2.1
General License to Our Users.
You grant us a license to further sublicense our right to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, publicly perform, and translate the Work on a non -exclusive, worldwide, and perpetual basis in any media or embodiment, subject to any restrictions you have designated at the time of upload via the Website. The license to our end users may include the right to modify and create derivative works
based upon the Work, including but not limited to the right to sell or distribute for sale the Work or any
reproductions thereof if incorporated or together with or onto any item of merchandise or other work of
authorship, in any media or format now or hereafter known, provided that such end users use of the modified
Work is limited solely to the same uses permitted with respect to the original Work. We may include your Work
in our products and offerings and will pay you pursuant to section 6 below.

BD

« Reply #17 on: December 19, 2016, 14:27 »
0
Have your ever looked at AliExpress? Don't get me started! They even took one of my photos that wasn't for sale on microstock and are selling it. I can't find a link to send a notice either.

It really sucks for sure ... I don't know if agencies allow for this kind of distribution or not.


Their policy: http://rule.alibaba.com/rule/detail/2049.htm

But good luck filing a complaint...it is in Chinese I think: https://legal.alibaba.com/index.htm?spm=a271m.8038972.0.0.zJTdEr

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: December 19, 2016, 14:36 »
+1
The whole idea of licensing something as 'stock' and reselling it as 'art' is just plain wrong.  I don't care if it's legal.  It's wrong.  Deceptive, misleading, unethical, and just plain shabby.
Just one more thing to check out when choosing agencies, then.

Would this even be in the TOS, in any clear explicit way?  Or would you need to be a lawyer just to figure out that it's allowed?
Clear enough on iStock:
"Extended licence ...
Physical products
    Items for resale (posters, postcards, mugs, t-shirts, etc.)
    Online print on demand products"

   
Perfectly clear on SS, who may allow it doesn't allow it by special arrangement:
  "AN ENHANCED IMAGE LICENSE grants you the right to use Images:
        In any manner permitted under a Standard Image License, without any limitation on the number of reproductions, impressions, or budget;
        Incorporated into merchandise intended for sale or promotional distribution (collectively "Merchandise"), including, without limitation, textiles, artwork, magnets, wall-art, calendars, toys, stationery, greeting cards, and any other physical reproduction for resale or distribution, provided that such Merchandise incorporates material creative or functional elements apart from the Image(s).
        In wall art (and without requiring further creative or functional elements) for decorative purposes in a commercial space owned by you or your client, and not for sale.
        Incorporated as elements of digital templates for sale or distribution.

If the Standard or Enhanced Image licenses do not grant the rights you require please contact Customer Service. "


Alamy RM has it as a rights managed possibility (if it could count as a 'retail poster')
ot sure if you could do it via Alamy RF, I can't find T&Cs on a quick shuftie, but all RF can be sold on a non-exclusive RM basis  ::), so I guess so.

I'm sure you can check out others for yourself.

« Reply #19 on: December 19, 2016, 14:50 »
+2
No doubt it's allowed in a legal sense.   And that all agencies are the same in this regard.

This makes make feel good about the fact that I stopped submitting to microstocks almost 2 years ago.  Since then, I've tried to do photos I actually feel good about, and sell prints on a POD.   I'm a small player with no advertising or promotion, but even so I now make a lot more that way than I do on the micros.  And my print sales are increasing, while microstock is sinking.

So most of my best photos aren't on microsotock anyway, and won't be.  And like I said, I'm thinking it's about time to pull the plug on these so-called "agencies" which, IMHO, are the furthest thing from being your "agent".

I've been waiting for the next 'exciting announcement' from SS so I could be dramatic about closing my account in response.  But maybe it would just be a good way to start the new year.

« Last Edit: December 19, 2016, 14:52 by stockastic »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
6462 Views
Last post April 28, 2008, 21:19
by litifeta
97 Replies
27805 Views
Last post October 08, 2010, 12:24
by FD
7 Replies
4530 Views
Last post October 08, 2011, 17:31
by cascoly
5 Replies
3241 Views
Last post August 13, 2013, 22:03
by landbysea
10 Replies
3695 Views
Last post February 10, 2015, 07:07
by Perry

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle