FAA Official Announcement

[KimsCreativeHub]

Thanks Sue! 

[ShadySue]

@shadysue I just sent my cousin a  referral link, I will let you know how it goes for me

Hi, Kim ~
How did it work out?
To recap, a friend took out a FAA site using my reference code and I didn't get the $5.
I wrote to them and got the reply that it was not a paid for site.
I replied to that, with a screenshot of their referral system as it was explained on their site, which at no place indicated that it had to be a paid for site.
I got no reply to that email.

I have now heard from my friend that he upgraded to a paid for site several days ago, well within the 30 days, and again the money did not 'immediately appear in my balance' as promised in my screenshotted referral scheme.

I will follow this up again. However, if their system does not work as promised in this instance, how can we know if it works properly in other areas. It's not the $5 I'm really concerned about, though that is a Principle.

[cathyslife]

.

[tickstock]

.

[ShadySue]

Anything I need to know about for submitting as an exclusive at iStock.?  Any options or restrictions, like selling prints of the same work on FAA and licensing them on iStock. that might be prohibited?

No, you can sell the same work. FAA are not (currently) selling RF, only print-on-demand which is allowed by the EASA.

[tickstock]

.

[ShadySue]

Anything I need to know about for submitting as an exclusive at iStock.?  Any options or restrictions, like selling prints of the same work on FAA and licensing them on iStock. that might be prohibited?

No, you can sell the same work. FAA are not (currently) selling RF, only print-on-demand which is allowed by the EASA.

Sounds good, I guess I'll give it a try.

Choose someone else to get their referral code from, and that'll be another check.

[tickstock]

.

[BaldricksTrousers]

@ron  they have an option tic box for watermark I ticked it and no watermark .

What is strange is they have a statement next to it saying that buyers are les likely to buy if they see a watermark ?

I don't think that's entirely strange. if buyers think the final print will have a watermark on it, who would buy it?

[KimsCreativeHub]

@shadysue I just sent my cousin a  referral link, I will let you know how it goes for me

Hi, Kim ~
How did it work out?
To recap, a friend took out a FAA site using my reference code and I didn't get the $5.
I wrote to them and got the reply that it was not a paid for site.
I replied to that, with a screenshot of their referral system as it was explained on their site, which at no place indicated that it had to be a paid for site.
I got no reply to that email.

I have now heard from my friend that he upgraded to a paid for site several days ago, well within the 30 days, and again the money did not 'immediately appear in my balance' as promised in my screenshotted referral scheme.

I will follow this up again. However, if their system does not work as promised in this instance, how can we know if it works properly in other areas. It's not the $5 I'm really concerned about, though that is a Principle.

Hi Sue,

My cousin has not signed up yet, I will be visiting her at the end of the mo and I will help her with it.

[KimsCreativeHub]

*Watermarks*

I am realizing its a different world at FAA

And I will remove them.

[ShadySue]

I just had this reply:
"Liz,
X just signed up on 09/26/2013.  He has thirty days to cancel his premium
membership.  The $5 won't be credited to your account until 10/26/2013.
Sean"

Again, that's NOT what it says on their referral page. That needs to be spelled out. I realise that trading standards are almost non-existent in the USA, but that same site is FineArtEurope and FineArtEngland, inter alia, so they need to conform to UK/EU laws.

I'm sure they don't have the huge international legal team that iS seems to have, to enable them to dig below the law.

(Again, it's not the $5, it's the principle and the honesty.)

[tickstock]

.

[ShadySue]

My point is that their ad needs to say that the person has to take out a Premium Site and that you have to wait the 30 days.
That is NOT what it says, no matter how much sense it may make.
http://fineartamerica.com/announcement-artist-websites-referral-program.html

[KB]

That is NOT what it says, no matter how much sense it may make.
http://fineartamerica.com/announcement-artist-websites-referral-program.html

Here's what it says:
When someone clicks on your advertisement and then signs up for a new website on artistwebsites.com, you'll instantly earn $5.00.

Yes - it's really that easy.   You'll receive an e-mail notification whenever a new member signs up via one of your advertisements, and the $5.00 will instantly appear in your online balance.

Here's what it meant to say:
When someone clicks on your advertisement and then signs up for a new website on artistwebsites.com, you'll instantly earn $5.00, if they also sign up and pay for a premium account, and after 30 days pass.

Yes - it's really that easy.   You'll won't actually receive an e-mail notification whenever a new member signs up via one of your advertisements, and the $5.00 won't instantly appear in your online balance, but rest assured you will be paid, eventually.

[ShadySue]

Update: The previous reply from FAA (above) was, "The $5 won't be credited to your account until 10/26/2013."
So as my friend's account passed the 30 days on 26th without being cancelled, I emailled them on Monday (28th) when the money didn't appear in my balance. I got an email yesterday telling me the $5 has now been added.

As of this minute, their referral programme page still says:
" When someone clicks on your advertisement and then signs up for a new website on artistwebsites.com, you'll instantly earn $5.00.
Yes - it's really that easy.   You'll receive an e-mail notification whenever a new member signs up via one of your advertisements, and the $5.00 will instantly appear in your online balance. "

Note that I never got the 'email notification', so if I hadn't known about the sign-up, and followed it up three times, I wouldn't have got the $5.

Again, it's not the $5, it's the principles of honesty and technical reliability I'm concerned about.

[BaldricksTrousers]

Sue, Sean is basically an automation geek. The site has hardly any staff, ordering happens automatically. So you can be pretty confident in his technical skills. I've never seen the slightest suggestion of any dishonesty in the way FAA operates. It's a pleasant relief from microstock in that regard, so I'd put down any minor deviations from the published terms to oversight rather than malice.

[ShadySue]

Sue, Sean is basically an automation geek. The site has hardly any staff, ordering happens automatically. So you can be pretty confident in his technical skills. I've never seen the slightest suggestion of any dishonesty in the way FAA operates. It's a pleasant relief from microstock in that regard, so I'd put down any minor deviations from the published terms to oversight rather than malice.

I do know that; but you'd think they'd change the stated terms on their referral page - I've pointed it out three times now. I don't think that it's unreasonable for them to want a paid for site and for that to be confirmed or they'd get all sorts of abuse, but that must be stated up front.

I know, I know - I live in a country which has relatively robust trading standards and advertising regulations, but still ...

[Ron]

Sue, Sean is basically an automation geek. The site has hardly any staff, ordering happens automatically. So you can be pretty confident in his technical skills. I've never seen the slightest suggestion of any dishonesty in the way FAA operates. It's a pleasant relief from microstock in that regard, so I'd put down any minor deviations from the published terms to oversight rather than malice.

I do know that; but you'd think they'd change the stated terms on their referral page - I've pointed it out three times now. I don't think that it's unreasonable for them to want a paid for site and for that to be confirmed or they'd get all sorts of abuse, but that must be stated up front.

I know, I know - I live in a country which has relatively robust trading standards and advertising regulations, but still ...

I fully agree with you Sue. That statement is false, its not an oversight, its just plain wrong. Its also not an unfortunate misunderstanding, or open for interpretation. Its false advertisement.

[stockastic]

I think the real problem with  FAA today is that it's just one guy, and that is a pretty hard limit on what it can do or become.  And apparently that isn't going to change.  It's screaming for competition but so far, no one else really does what they do.