MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: FAA now talking about 'subscriptions'  (Read 18554 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: March 29, 2016, 14:21 »
+3
This could present a huge problem,  selling images for the purpose of art is different copyright wise than selling them for commercial display.  Artistic print verses distribution.

Are FAA members and FAA ready to review / copyright all images??

So the question is,   is it art or commercial use  ??


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #26 on: March 29, 2016, 14:26 »
+1
This could present a huge problem,  selling images for the purpose of art is different copyright wise than selling them for commercial display.  Artistic print verses distribution.

Are FAA members and FAA ready to review / copyright all images??

So the question is,   is it art or commercial use  ??

They already have opt-ins for selling images as stock, though Jo-Anne's one sale is the only one I've heard of.

There are presumably similar problems with selling images of 'famous people', classic cars, Sydney Harbour Bridge etc on T-shirts etc.

And I still don't understand why they don't have to charge and process VAT for sales in the EU.

« Reply #27 on: March 29, 2016, 14:34 »
0
I don't think FAA's owner pays much attention to things like the fine points of licensing.  The 'opt-in' might have some accompanying fine print that he feels covers him.  Many of the contributors to his site will have no idea what this distinction means. 

The FAA forum admin has already jumped in to say she's personally "in" because hey, why not, and that the poll shows 80% "yes" and it's only people posting on the forum who seem to be negative.

I'm not going to worry about it because I don't think it will ever go anywhere.  Nobody wants a big glowing screen on their wall, even if it's showing paintings from the Louvre.

« Reply #28 on: March 29, 2016, 15:41 »
+1
I'm not going to worry about it because I don't think it will ever go anywhere.  Nobody wants a big glowing screen on their wall, even if it's showing paintings from the Louvre.

it's hard to say though. we look from our own oldschool perspective.
recently i went to a restaurant and my grand-niece said, "oh look, so cute , they have a fish tank with so many nice fish... oh, it's not real !!! "
some ppl think it's cute, until you realise it's not real. 

we used to think no one would be silly enough to pay a framed photo with a picture
of rusty walls with noise the size of golf balls. at a photo club last winter,
the guy sold 4 framed pictures for $250 each of just that.

others think a glowing screen on the wall with a paintings from the Louvre is cool too,
like having a museam with no worry for thieves still your paintings...

you know what i mean???

« Reply #29 on: March 29, 2016, 16:33 »
+1
Some people would be interested in having an expensive new device to impress their friends.  A few hotel lobbies and medical offices might nibble, but in the end they don't really care about what's on their walls and won't spend money for that purpose - and they won't want another device to fiddle with and maintain.   FAA has a long history of chasing after the Next Big Thing while neglecting the core business. We've seen licensing, 'designer discounts', the mall retail deal, and now this. 

« Reply #30 on: March 29, 2016, 18:13 »
0
My doctor's office has two large changing screens in the waiting room with mostly soothing landscape scenics and they look very nice. Too bad artists will get peanuts for their photos being on the screen.


« Reply #31 on: March 29, 2016, 18:24 »
0
Some people would be interested in having an expensive new device to impress their friends.  A few hotel lobbies and medical offices might nibble, but in the end they don't really care about what's on their walls and won't spend money for that purpose - and they won't want another device to fiddle with and maintain.   FAA has a long history of chasing after the Next Big Thing while neglecting the core business. We've seen licensing, 'designer discounts', the mall retail deal, and now this.

precisely my point why it will sell ! like all those bells and whistle in cars, or digital cameras, gadgets for "guitarists, drummers,etc".  gadgeteers have lots of money to throw to show their buddies they have the latest NBT as you so rightly calls it.

the "pros" don't need all these things, and will not waste their money upgrading every year to the NBT.
the market is always alive with the guy and gal who wants the NBT.
it's what shareholders like to hear... quick profit, no long term value.

you can see it as you drive along the streets during garbage pickup days in the "wealthy" district...
lots of last year's NBT on the sidewalk. still new!

« Reply #32 on: March 29, 2016, 18:39 »
0
Well no doubt I'm out of date and it's already happening.   However as wordplanet points out, it's going to be canned 'playlists'.   People who buy these things aren't going to spend time searching through FAA for things they like, then finding out  the photographer hasn't opted in to this program.  FAA will hand-pick images from their proven best sellers, who for all I know will be paid something significant for the usage.

« Reply #33 on: March 29, 2016, 19:03 »
0
Well no doubt I'm out of date and it's already happening.   However as wordplanet points out, it's going to be canned 'playlists'.   People who buy these things aren't going to spend time searching through FAA for things they like, then finding out  the photographer hasn't opted in to this program.  FAA will hand-pick images from their proven best sellers, who for all I know will be paid something significant for the usage.

well , that's fair result then. those who opted out now end up with nothing.
the keyword is "paid something significant"... which we all look for these days
of far and few "significant" pay.
if this is what happens, then FAA is in the right direction for contributors interest...

« Reply #34 on: March 29, 2016, 19:52 »
+3
Well no doubt I'm out of date and it's already happening.   However as wordplanet points out, it's going to be canned 'playlists'.   People who buy these things aren't going to spend time searching through FAA for things they like, then finding out  the photographer hasn't opted in to this program.  FAA will hand-pick images from their proven best sellers, who for all I know will be paid something significant for the usage.

well , that's fair result then. those who opted out now end up with nothing.
the keyword is "paid something significant"... which we all look for these days
of far and few "significant" pay.
if this is what happens, then FAA is in the right direction for contributors interest...

Well maybe not.  What I meant was, those 'best selling' contributors, some of whom are big names, might be able to cut their own deals. The rest of us - if we participated - would get pennies.   Who knows.

« Reply #35 on: March 31, 2016, 10:21 »
0
NO.
subscription already destroyed the stock business good enough.
anyway, for me, this will mean account closing at FAA because of my iStock exclusive agreement.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2016, 10:28 »
0
NO.
subscription already destroyed the stock business good enough.
anyway, for me, this will mean account closing at FAA because of my iStock exclusive agreement.
Obviously, you can close there if you wish, but not because of your iS exclusivity. You can opt out of selling files there altogether, whether RM or RF. This subs deal, whether you like it or not, is also optoutable, and whether you opted in or not, it's nothing to do with your iS exclusive contract.
Again, you can leave FAA if you want, for any number of other reasons.  ::)

« Reply #37 on: March 31, 2016, 23:32 »
+1
I voted yes, I'll consider it.  My opt in opt out decision will largely be based on the percentage of revenue assigned to the artists.  It would need to be at least 50% to entice me to participate.  However, I don't anticipate this amounting to a major revenue boost.

« Reply #38 on: April 01, 2016, 07:48 »
0
The smart thing would be to give contributors a template and let them create their own slide show of images uploading it into a special area.  Interesting,  even for desktops/screen savers,  I don't know if I have seen slideshows for sale before.

This would also allow the contributor to get royalties from all the images. 

Also, if it is for a 4k display, I think (doing the math) it would be an 8mp image, maybe enough to steal and misuse maybe not ?

« Reply #39 on: April 01, 2016, 11:07 »
0
I voted yes, I'll consider it.  My opt in opt out decision will largely be based on the percentage of revenue assigned to the artists.  It would need to be at least 50% to entice me to participate.  However, I don't anticipate this amounting to a major revenue boost.

As with any subscription, there's no way to know what percentage of revenue we're actually getting, because we never know how much the customer 'paid' for our image.  In this case there might be a big up-front cost and a low monthly 'fee'.   We might trust FAA's reporting of how much screen time our image received - but how much did the customer 'pay' during that time?

It's moot, anyway, because we won't be offered anything approaching 50%, my guess is closer to 5% of revenue - however FAA choses to calculate it.     

« Reply #40 on: April 06, 2016, 09:15 »
0
Never sold anything there since 2012. Sold some images on Imagekind that attracts less viewers...  :o

That's not going to make any difference. A big "whatever"! ;D

« Reply #41 on: April 06, 2016, 10:08 »
0
Never sold anything there since 2012. Sold some images on Imagekind that attracts less viewers...  :o

That's not going to make any difference. A big "whatever"! ;D

Does Imagekind read IPTC data on upload?

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #42 on: April 06, 2016, 13:15 »
0
Never sold anything there since 2012. Sold some images on Imagekind that attracts less viewers...  :o

That's not going to make any difference. A big "whatever"! ;D

Pretty interesting how peoples experiences can be so much different. I do great on FAA and I don't think I ever sold anything on Imagekind. So for me, no, I really dont want anything subscription-related added to FAA or anywhere else that doesn't already have subs.

« Reply #43 on: May 18, 2016, 12:16 »
+3
Another hair brained idea to leverage the contributors art.  Sad thing is it is yet another distraction to an already over stretched, skeleton crew staff.  It took two weeks for a contributor's problem to get solved recently because Sean was "in meetings" for two weeks. 

Licensing on FAA went no where as it had no follow through.  This wacky product with its robotic recharger is not going anywhere fast.  How many will sell?  Couple thousand a most.  And they will come preloaded with a bunch of free stuff that will be find for the typical nerd who buys one.  No one will even bother with it after the novelty wears off after two weeks.

« Reply #44 on: May 18, 2016, 12:53 »
0
Another hair brained idea to leverage the contributors art.  Sad thing is it is yet another distraction to an already over stretched, skeleton crew staff.  It took two weeks for a contributor's problem to get solved recently because Sean was "in meetings" for two weeks. 

Licensing on FAA went no where as it had no follow through.  This wacky product with its robotic recharger is not going anywhere fast.  How many will sell?  Couple thousand a most.  And they will come preloaded with a bunch of free stuff that will be find for the typical nerd who buys one.  No one will even bother with it after the novelty wears off after two weeks.

Couldn't agree more - this one will sink without a trace.  Who wants their work in this channel, for pennies?  And why does Broihier (FAA) waste his time on stuff like this?


« Reply #45 on: May 18, 2016, 14:40 »
0
Probably looking for an exit strategy.  Right now all he has is a front end to third party suppliers. 

« Reply #46 on: September 06, 2016, 10:27 »
+3
I still believe that FAA is a waste of time.
It's always the same "successful" people selling their art there.
No rotation. The search engine is tweaked in favor of a few selected artists.

Chichikov

« Reply #47 on: September 07, 2016, 08:21 »
0
Never sold anything there since 2012. Sold some images on Imagekind that attracts less viewers...  :o

That's not going to make any difference. A big "whatever"! ;D

Does Imagekind read IPTC data on upload?

No
And they accept only 10 keywords

So much waste of time.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
7599 Views
Last post June 18, 2006, 13:55
by Quevaal
16 Replies
9193 Views
Last post February 22, 2017, 19:16
by stockastic
11 Replies
5888 Views
Last post March 10, 2020, 07:54
by Mumut Greenstripe
33 Replies
5702 Views
Last post June 08, 2020, 17:59
by Jo Ann Snover
1 Replies
2115 Views
Last post June 10, 2020, 10:39
by whtvr

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle