FAA Launches Art Licensing

[DF_Studios]

FAA's new licensing site "licensing.pixels.com" has been officially launched (not to be confused with plain old pixels.com which sells phone cases and art or the original flavor fineartamerica.com which sells art but not phone cases or licensing).

http://fineartamerica.com/controlpanel/imagelicensingprogram.html

Time to add FAA to the list of stock sites?

[luissantos84]

thanks for posting, haven't received any newsletter!

interesting they have placed SS and GI pricing if we need orientation etc...

[DF_Studios]

I guess the beta period is over.  I have a certain series of duds on the site that get no views.  I think I'll experiment with them in the licensing area.   Anything for possible traffic gain.

[rimglow]

The watermarks are a joke. Watermarks disappear on isolations over white background.  No thanks!

[DF_Studios]

Strange thing is you can start in licensing.pixels.com, click on something and end up in FAA.  Or your entire portfolio will show up under licensing.pixels.com.

There needs to be two separate sites with a wall between them, not just different URLs.

[Mantis]

The watermarks are a joke. Watermarks disappear on isolations over white background.  No thanks!

I'm with you on that.  Besides that I still fail to see the hook that will bring buyers in.  It's great that we can set our own prices but who cares? That same image is available elsewhere.  However, their model is more like Graphic Leftovers where you can buy a single image.  That may be attractive to some buyers but, like GL, they have to be found, have a significant marketing budget, etc.

[DF_Studios]

Setting your own prices is sold as a benefit yet just about everyone is asking for help pricing their stuff.

[DF_Studios]

Typing in a brand name like "Coke" is interesting:

http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/the-diamond-design-jc-findley.html

[Mantis]

Setting your own prices is sold as a benefit yet just about everyone is asking for help pricing their stuff.

It's sold as a benefit to contributors but not to buyers unless we put them up for a buck.

[Ron]

Typing in a brand name like "Coke" is interesting:

http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/the-diamond-design-jc-findley.html

See these art guys have no clue what they are getting in to, or they dont care.

But selling an image of a Coke design with a full commercial licence is bound to get some people in court. And you are not messing with the local grocer on the corner of the street, but with one of the biggest global companies in the world. And then you are also putting the buyer in trouble, and they may come after you as well. You give them a licence, you cant issue in the first place, telling them they can create an ad with the image.

You may use the Licensed Image to create an advertisement that will appear in a physical medium (e.g. magazine,
newspaper, billboard, etc.)

[DF_Studios]

I can't get over the childish sounding explanation of why Pixels can operate a licensing company with one person (Sean doesn't even employ a proofreader):


"Image licensing involves a great deal of trust.   Once you sell your image to a buyer, there is absolutely no way to guarantee that the buyer only uses the image for the purposes that are specified in the license.   For example, if you sell a license that allows a buyer to use one of your images on the cover of 50,000 books, you have to trust that the buyer won't use the image to produce 10 million books... or use it in a TV commercial... or use it in a full-page print ad in a magazine.

You would have no idea that the buyer was doing any of those things unless you happened to catch him red-handed (e.g. by seeing your image in a TV commercial).

If you don't trust your buyers to do the right thing, then image licensing probably isn't for you.   However, before you write off the whole licensing industry, consider the following:

1.   There are lots of honest who do the right thing because they WANT to be honest.

2.   There are lots of honest buyers who do the right thing because they NEED to be honest."

[munrotoo]

The watermarks are a joke. Watermarks disappear on isolations over white background.  No thanks!

It is a definite concern that the previews are so large and for all practical purposes have no watermark. I would probably be interested if it were not for that.

[ShadySue]

Apparently, Sean's time is much too valuabke to sqander on trivia like watermarks.

[DF_Studios]

"We'll be marketing this business to advertising agencies, book publishers, TV production companies, etc"

The boutique agency I deal with for RM hand selects their offerings, has long time contacts and relationships in the industry, sets up a booth at industry tradeshows, does mailings to key people in the industry, has customer support people who do images searches for the client and negotiates the final deal to get the best price possible.  Also they monitor the RM license.  For this I gladly hand over 50% commission.

It takes more than writing a check for a TV commercial.

[Ron]

The problem is that his licencing business is directly linked and related to FAA. If anything goes south, and he needs to cough up, or whatever other implications he has to deal with, will take down FAA as well. In the art work he had a stamp on the market and he was market leader. Now he enters a market run by vultures, and when they bite, and they will, they wont let go.

I dont see Disney being too concerned about a postcard being sold on FAA, but when they see an image of Mickey Mouse with a commercial licence, Sean will find out that in business there are no friends.

[DF_Studios]

Like Disney, its all about selling dreams and fantasy.

[Ron]

Royalty Free
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/drink-coca-cola-dan-sproul.html
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/chicken-oil-company-david-morefield.html
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/americana--disney-music-hall-downtown-la-toula-mavridou-messer.html

[DF_Studios]

And when I click on those links they come up on the FAA site because I must have another window open.  So much for separation between the sites.

[Braznyc]

The other stock photo companies have a team to accept or deny new images.

FAA/Pixels doesn't do that.


Isn't quality important?

[Braznyc]

Licensing images has many legalities involved.

Pixels is trying to create its own laws.

IMO it won't work like that.

[Elenathewise]

I am confused about the fact that you can offer the same image for both RF and RM usage. In stock industry they are mutually exclusive. Maybe FAA means something else by "RM" licensing? Then they shouldn't use the same term in my opinion.

[Ariene]

I find it messy by accident... If you have there RF and RM images just be carefull when setting bulk pricing as you can set all images as RF, ooops.

I like FAA, it's very strong tool to sell prints. But I'm not sure about licensing here... 

[Elenathewise]

My print sales on FAA this month are not going to be even a third of my normal month there. I wonder what's going on. It could be that the site is getting overwhelmed by new images every day, and offering a way to license images will increase the number of images even more. Some people will be uploading images just for licensing, and FAA library will be full of "non-fine-art" regular stock photography stuff. Let's say I came to the site to buy a nice print for my living room and instead I see business handshakes and people pretending to be doctors.  This just doesn't make sense to me.
I loved FAA as a way to indulge my creative side and as a refuge from stock. Now it's all going to be mixed up. 

[Sean Locke Photography]

I am confused about the fact that you can offer the same image for both RF and RM usage. In stock industry they are mutually exclusive. Maybe FAA means something else by "RM" licensing? Then they shouldn't use the same term in my opinion.

No they aren't.  It depends on the rights being sold.  Yes, maybe "restricted license" would make more sense there.

[Elenathewise]

I find it messy by accident... If you have there RF and RM images just be carefull when setting bulk pricing as you can set all images as RF, ooops.

I like FAA, it's very strong tool to sell prints. But I'm not sure about licensing here... 

You can actually offer the same image as both "RF" and "RM" - FAA doesn't stop you from doing that. Edit the image, enter prices in both categories, and voila! In fact, in their description of "RF" and "RM" licensing they never mention they these things should be mutually exclusive. So I bet a lot of people will be doing just that - have the images as both RM and RF. Of course, FAA might say they are not responsible for any problems like that, but somehow I doubt it will save them from trouble... with all the recent lawsuits about copyright infringement and misuse... as one friend told me once, lawyers go for the person who has more money. And there is soo much copyrighted content there!

[Elenathewise]

I am confused about the fact that you can offer the same image for both RF and RM usage. In stock industry they are mutually exclusive. Maybe FAA means something else by "RM" licensing? Then they shouldn't use the same term in my opinion.

No they aren't.  It depends on the rights being sold.  Yes, maybe "restricted license" would make more sense there.

Thanks for correction Sean  - still, regular FAA contributor wouldn't know anything about managing rights. This may create a lot of confusion with both buyers and sellers.

[Sean Locke Photography]

I find it messy by accident... If you have there RF and RM images just be carefull when setting bulk pricing as you can set all images as RF, ooops.

I like FAA, it's very strong tool to sell prints. But I'm not sure about licensing here... 

You can actually offer the same image as both "RF" and "RM" - FAA doesn't stop you from doing that. Edit the image, enter prices in both categories, and voila! In fact, in their description of "RF" and "RM" licensing they never mention they these things should be mutually exclusive. So I bet a lot of people will be doing just that - have the images as both RM and RF. Of course, FAA might say they are not responsible for any problems like that, but somehow I doubt it will save them from trouble... with all the resent lawsuits about copyright infringement and misuse... as one friend told me once, lawyers go for the person who has more money. And there is soo much copyrighted content there!

They aren't mutually exclusive.  At least not there.  Just putting the letters "RF" or "RM" on something doesn't inherently have meaning.  It's the terms beneath.  So, they offer an unlimited, perpetual use license, and they also offer some more restrictive licenses.  That's it.

[Ron]

I believe there is a lot of law and regulation involved in selling stock images. The agency keeps a finger on things and makes sure most laws and regulations are covered and also does quality checks. While this process sometimes is frustrating for us, and sometimes applied too stringent, I think its better then to have no control whatsoever. Pixels.com is like an outlaw stock agency and everyone can upload anything, and sell for any licence they want. No regulations on copyright, trademarks, quality and licencing terms. We can already see people selling Coka Cola logos with a commercial licence, and I can see someone selling copyrighted artwork with a licence any-time soon. Sean McDunn can say that he is covered by his T&C but I think Coca Cola and the Ansel Adams foundation dont care about that when people run amok with their intellectual property.

[Freedom]

No I will not and cannot sell RF at FAA.

I am happy the way it is at FAA. Many of my images are specially edited for fine art prints and are not available as stock photos. I won't even sell them as RF, nor as prints through GI.

Gee, why are these agencies keeping copying others instead of improving their own niche....

[sweetgirll]

I think these would have to fall into some editorial category.

fashion:
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/versace-dan-sproul.html

Johnny Depp:
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/johnny-depp-luis-santos.html

[DF_Studios]

My sales on FAA were great in Nov, Dec and even Jan.  Started slowing down in Feb and tanked in March.   During this time the relationship with Amazon ended.

Sean Dunn or whatever his real name seems to believe the strengths of FAA is in database programing.  He needs to leave the echo chamber and get some fresh ideas.

[Braznyc]

I think these would have to fall into some editorial category.

fashion:
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/versace-dan-sproul.html

Johnny Depp:
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/johnny-depp-luis-santos.html

Wow!

[tickstock]

.

[Sean Locke Photography]

Did all my responses get deleted from that thread, or am I imagining the last several hours of my life?

[DF_Studios]

Must have hit a nerve.

[Sean Locke Photography]

Nope, my fault.  Apparently, since the threads are unable to paginate, they cut out the middle of the discussion, unless you click a link there.  Just in case you're operating with a 300BPS modem.

[DF_Studios]

LOL! 

FAA/Pixels/Licensing.Pixels etc is basically a middle man between buyer and seller.  I'm waiting to see more effort on the buyers.   If you look at the Pixels TV ad and all of the language on the promotion pieces, everything is targeted towards attracting contributors.  The site explains all the reasons to become a contributor but the other half of the business is buyers.

Where does the company promote the reason for people to purchase/license from this company?  They should recognize their strengths over the competition and be promoting themselves to buyers.

[Freedom]

Just curious, what is the cut for stock photo contributors at FAA?

[Ron]

Just curious, what is the cut for stock photo contributors at FAA?

100%, you set your own pricing and they ad 40% on top of that or something. So theoretically you dont get 100% but if you want to get paid 10 dollar, you will get paid 10 dollar. He just sells it for 14.

[Ron]

Did all my responses get deleted from that thread, or am I imagining the last several hours of my life?

There is a big skip button, if you dont click that, you will skip the middle comments. If you click it, you will see all comments.

[LesPalenik]

Just curious, what is the cut for stock photo contributors at FAA?

100%, you set your own pricing and they ad 40% on top of that or something. So theoretically you dont get 100% but if you want to get paid 10 dollar, you will get paid 10 dollar. He just sells it for 14.

The markup has been reduced to 30%, in other words the artist gets 77% from the selling price.

[Ron]

Just curious, what is the cut for stock photo contributors at FAA?

100%, you set your own pricing and they ad 40% on top of that or something. So theoretically you dont get 100% but if you want to get paid 10 dollar, you will get paid 10 dollar. He just sells it for 14.

The markup has been reduced to 30%, in other words the artist gets 77% from the selling price.

Ok. But you can still get what you want. If you want 300 euro, you can set 300 euro and you get 300 euro. But you do have to consider the 30% so that you dont end up over pricing your images.

[DF_Studios]

You have to ask yourself, where are the buyers going to coming from?

A few FAA members have been approached for licensing deals but they were dealt with one on one via email.  These were just organic - floated in via a Google search.  The deals were made with no commission involved.

[Freedom]

Just curious, what is the cut for stock photo contributors at FAA?

100%, you set your own pricing and they ad 40% on top of that or something. So theoretically you dont get 100% but if you want to get paid 10 dollar, you will get paid 10 dollar. He just sells it for 14.

That is tempting and fair. Let's see how it goes!

[borg]

Solved and deleted.... 

[Uncle Pete]

You mean "Sean Broihier" maybe? 

I think the whole discussion is interesting to watch, but the answer about licensing from Sean (name here) seems naive?  Trust buyers to not use improperly. OK fine with me, I do, but how about trusting people who are selling to not be infringing or just copying photo source materials. Or not be improperly using personal likenesses of celebrities.

Copying is not creative. And if anyone read the forum when the "artists" were bashing Microstock people, was enormously humorous. Why if this plan goes through for RF, the place will be flooded with those Microstock snapshot people. 

This comes from people who transform, filter or re-draw, photo after photo of famous people and sell it as their own art? Highly laughable.

Sorry to ask this, because I don't know, but if someone can paint a Campbell's Soup can or box of Brillo Pads and call it art, (Pop Art) then what's to prevent someone from drawing a Coke can? If they are actually drawing or painting it? I find less conflict with this than selling personal likenesses, or copying them from photos and posters and making modifications.

 

My sales on FAA were great in Nov, Dec and even Jan.  Started slowing down in Feb and tanked in March.   During this time the relationship with Amazon ended.

Sean Dunn or whatever his real name seems to believe the strengths of FAA is in database programing.  He needs to leave the echo chamber and get some fresh ideas.

[pkphotos]

I sell a lot of phone cases at zazzle but none at FAA. I doubt they've had any impression on the phone case market and I can't see them making much impression in image licensing. Pixoto.com are also trying to enter the licensing market from a different angle but it's just not going to happen. At best the owner of FAA may be able to sell his site for a better price somewhere down the track.

[BaldricksTrousers]

Sorry to ask this, because I don't know, but if someone can paint a Campbell's Soup can or box of Brillo Pads and call it art, (Pop Art) then what's to prevent someone from drawing a Coke can? If they are actually drawing or painting it? I find less conflict with this than selling personal likenesses, or copying them from photos and posters and making modifications.

There have been major changes to copyright and probably trademark laws in the US since Warhol was doing soup tins in the 1960s. I don't know if it was legal then or would be legal now but many FAA artists (whether they know it or not) rely on the fact that major companies have no interest in chasing infringers selling a print or two to go on someone's wall. If the logo turned up in a way that was detrimental to the company's image it might be different.

[4seasons]

Royalty Free
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/drink-coca-cola-dan-sproul.html
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/chicken-oil-company-david-morefield.html
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/americana--disney-music-hall-downtown-la-toula-mavridou-messer.html

$31,200.00 for full size Royalty Free license? Sure, why not?

[BaldricksTrousers]

Royalty Free
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/drink-coca-cola-dan-sproul.html
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/chicken-oil-company-david-morefield.html
http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/americana--disney-music-hall-downtown-la-toula-mavridou-messer.html

$31,200.00 for full size Royalty Free license? Sure, why not?

Lol! I wonder how many buyers will want to pay pot luck when images in the collection are priced at random from $3 to $30,0000, each potentially with its own individual license.

[DF_Studios]

I don't think he could sell since he is the only one who knows how the back end works. 

Hopefully he keeps good notes and has a big handbook on hand.

[borg]

Can someone explain to me (who is familiar with FAA), does it possible to set prices for both licenses, RF and RM for particular image?
It's seems so... 

[Sean Locke Photography]

Can someone explain to me (who is familiar with FAA), does it possible to set prices for both licenses, RF and RM for particular image?
It's seems so... 

Sure it's possible.  And preferable, likely.  Ignore the designations of "RF" and "RM" there for a second, because they don't mean what you think they mean...

"Unlimited, perpetual commercial license" - $500 - example
"Advertising, print - 2 years" - $100
"Advertising, digital - 2 years" - $50
etc.

Call the first one RF, the rest RM.  See?  "RM" there is just a subset of "RF".  Price accordingly.

[borg]

Aha! Terminology and variations of usage...

Thanks Sean!

[DF_Studios]

Hints of "big things" coming in the next few weeks.  Maybe they finally have a European supplier or maybe its just expanding to shower curtains.

[Uncle Pete]

Oh that's great, I think some of my scenic shots would be good on shower curtains... 

After a brief seven years or so dabbling in Microstock, I've found that the translation of "Big News" (or we're excited to announce) usually means, we've found a new way to make more money and pay you less.

In other words Big News does not equal Good News.

Hints of "big things" coming in the next few weeks.  Maybe they finally have a European supplier or maybe its just expanding to shower curtains.

[landbysea]

Before you name and shame people in here realize that the easiest way to add pricing to a large amount of images is to opt in the whole portfolio and then remove the ones that don't fit. I am sure a lot of people did this just like they did it when the iphone cases were introduced. They might not have even realized that it was open for business as some were beta testing. That would account for most of the trademark stuff you see.

[Ron]

Well that only shows the system is very prone to abuse, even by mistake, and believe me, telling the judge it was a mistake wont fly. Once the file is purchased, you become liable. Intentional or not.

[borg]

My sales on FAA were great in Nov, Dec and even Jan.  Started slowing down in Feb and tanked in March.  During this time the relationship with Amazon ended.

Sean Dunn or whatever his real name seems to believe the strengths of FAA is in database programing.  He needs to leave the echo chamber and get some fresh ideas.

Are you sure it's over?

Here is my photo on Amazon, again "alive and kicking"...

http://www.amazon.com/Frozen-Europe-Canvas-Print-Art/dp/B00H3BF400

[DF_Studios]

Amazon/FAA relationship --  On the forums we have been told that the deal is over. Yes, Amazon still have FAA product in their database.  It just lingers there for some unexplained reason.

I had a couple of great sales this week. Maybe they are done monkeying around with the site and its getting back on track.  Who knows.

[DF_Studios]

Official word on the Amazon thing:

"We have a limit on Amazon now and you cannot ask to have work there any longer., This is no longer part of a premium package and there are no ways or means to fast forward work there

That is the answer.

If you want to make sure your work is on Amazon I am afraid you are going to have to put it there yourself.

Sorry "

[borg]

I have several photos on Amazon from FAA... Some time those images were there without pricing, so it was impossible to buy them, but now prices are again there and they are available for sale...

I never sold anything on FAA...