FAA - The Largest Art Site in the World?

[ShadySue]

Thanks Sue.

I posted on FAA forum, and Beth the moderator confirmed when I am visiting the sponsored pages I see my images on 3rd line. So they are using IP or cookies to show me a different result then the buyer.

Sounds pretty dodgy, when the result isn't what they promise.
Why do 'you' need to see 'your' images on the third line?
At least they don't charge money - yet - for this feature, but I'd bet they're intending to monetise it soonish.

[CD123]

I guess they always got away with this type of false information working with the "fine artists". Now they will unfortunately find out that dealing with microstockers are a total different ball game. Not everything they dish up will now gladly absorbed without proper close scrutiny any more. 

[Poncke]

WHen I started explaining why we need a bigger watermark I got the reply from some woman only selling on FAA that that is only important for stock photographers since the images couldnt be used for large prints anyway. So I told her I was a stock photographer and that I am sorry to be one, Shame on me.

[ShadySue]

WHen I started explaining why we need a bigger watermark I got the reply from some woman only selling on FAA that that is only important for stock photographers since the images couldnt be used for large prints anyway. So I told her I was a stock photographer and that I am sorry to be one, Shame on me.

Yes, I had a look around other 'fine art' sites selling prints, and none of the US/UK sample I looked at use watermarks. One can easily get - by right-clicking - smallish copies of artwork by loads of famous living artists from big name gallery sites. I also found some well-known-to-me photographers selling via FAA not using the watermarks.  It's proably not an issue for artists as they're not simultaneously hoping to sell small sizes for web use, and someone who uses their pic on a blog wasn't going to be a print or card buyer anyway.
It'll be easier for files I'm not also selling on Alamy/iStock, as it will be clear if they were taken from FAA. I was trying to work out another way of showing myself if an image came from FAA, e.g. putting a 1px stroke around photos, but of course, when shrunk down to 800x400, it's difficult to see.
I'm not sure what the answer to this is, as it seems that print buyers would expect not to see a watermark.

[stockastic]

Right when I use a proxy I dont see my images either, which is really not cool

This cheap gimmick reminds me of the days when smoking was still allowed in restaurants.  You'd go in and ask for a "non-smoking" table; they'd say sure, and seat you at any table, and take away the ashtray.

[CD123]

With the large image giveaways they allow, it might be better to work under another alias here than with your stock images. Someone liking your stock images, searching under your alias will not then be able to grab some nice freebies at FAA.

[DrC]

They deliver prints, not digital files. Of course one could scan the print and use the image for any purpose but I don't think a buyer in FAA would buy a print having in mind scanning it. He could get a similar image searching online with google images... unfortunately for us, he would not have much difficulties.
In FAA be sure to allow watermarks. Full resolution previews are in image square sections and are watermarked. enabling them increases your chances to sell.

I've been in FAA since August 2011 with a payed account and now have 600+ images there, the best of my microstock portfolio. It's very easy to upload, the system reads iptc metadata, so all keywords and descriptions already in the images are utilized. I have very decent sales and receive monthly payouts of several hundred $$ with no marketing at all, other than post a recent sale in FB every now and then. I'm not active in their forums and I don't comment much on other artists images.
Overall, I can't complain. You should give it a try. 
http://carlos-caetano.artistwebsites.com/index.html

[CD123]

Who is Pixtopin? Traced through Google images some images with Fineartamerica tag.

The images has their logo, but if you go to the page they are on you get to http://www.picstopin.com

Scroll down to the ones below the small images:
http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=631&q=ccaetano&oq=ccaetano&gs_l=img.12...2431.2431.0.3278.1.1.0.0.0.0.220.220.2-1.1.0...0.0...1ac.2.2.img.bu3uPqRiFxU#hl=en&tbo=d&site=imghp&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=ccaetano+fineartamerica.com&oq=ccaetano+fineartamerica.com&gs_l=img.3...107870.137635.0.138229.19.19.0.0.0.0.243.3936.1j1j17.19.0...0.0...1c.1.2.img.4v1b4sf3eXk&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41867550,d.d2k&fp=7c3726083d4281bf&biw=1024&bih=631

Now try the one with the waterfall and yellow flowers in front with Fineart watermark and follow to origin page.

[DrC]

That particular image is not mine, as many others in that search result aren't. Anyway, I'm yet to understand the purpose of that Picstopin site... I noticed large images in there (1200x795 - the two fisherman photo is mine) are only enlargements of much smaller thumbnails. I'ts impossible to do anything serious with those.
At least in every thumbnail of that site is a button to delete it... it promps a popup with a question on why should that image be deleted.

[ShadySue]

Oh, they really need to do something about that watermark.
This looks like some sort of careless smudge (bottom right)
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/snowy-panorama-liz-leyden.html?newartwork=true

[CD123]

Oh, they really need to do something about that watermark.
This looks like some sort of careless smudge (bottom right)
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/snowy-panorama-liz-leyden.html?newartwork=true

Did you not hear, they will not let a dirty old watermark infringe on the viewing pleasure and experience of their fine art customers. Can you imaging a picture of the Mona Lisa with the words "Copyrighted by Leonardo Da Vinci" printed all over it?!!! 
Just don't know why the heck they then actually go to the trouble to ask if you want one? 

[CD123]

Should indicate on their front page: "Watermarks are discreetly placed in the corner of the images, making sure that it does not deface it in any manner and spoil your viewing pleasure"

[ShadySue]

I think the way to get over the greetings card size thing is to upload two versions of images which can't neatly be cropped into 5x7.

I thought I'd seen that you could restrict an image to poster only or greetings card only, but maybe I imagined that. Some of my square images can't be cropped without losing part of the actual subject, but I could probably - eventually - find find the originals and submit a different crop.

I wish I could just turn off greeting cards altogether.

I'm not sure if I've fully understood what you meant, but if you don't want your images to be sold as greetings cards, you could price them out of the market.

[stockastic]

I think the way to get over the greetings card size thing is to upload two versions of images which can't neatly be cropped into 5x7.

I thought I'd seen that you could restrict an image to poster only or greetings card only, but maybe I imagined that. Some of my square images can't be cropped without losing part of the actual subject, but I could probably - eventually - find find the originals and submit a different crop.

I wish I could just turn off greeting cards altogether.

I'm not sure if I've fully understood what you meant, but if you don't want your images to be sold as greetings cards, you could price them out of the market.

Well I'm selling these as - if not 'art', at least 'artistic' and the cropping is part of the composition.  I don't really want them cut down to fit on cards.

They're apparently priced out of the market already, anyway :-)

[steheap]

I've been in FAA since August 2011 with a payed account and now have 600+ images there, the best of my microstock portfolio. It's very easy to upload, the system reads iptc metadata, so all keywords and descriptions already in the images are utilized. I have very decent sales and receive monthly payouts of several hundred $$ with no marketing at all, other than post a recent sale in FB every now and then. I'm not active in their forums and I don't comment much on other artists images.
Overall, I can't complain. You should give it a try. 

Carlos - some great images there - and a very interesting blog - I love the way you composite different parts together to get a striking image!

I'm new on FAA with my artist site and I've loaded it up with a collection of my photos - would you mind sharing what sort of images sell as prints from your portfolio?

Steve
http://steven-heap.artistwebsites.com/

[landbysea]

If you don't want to sell cards, just don't put a price on them and they will not be offered for sale. Also if you do not think your photo would look well printed at 85 to 100 DPI, then just remove the price from the largest size. I do that for some, but also have sold some huge prints with no complaints.

[stockastic]

If you don't want to sell cards, just don't put a price on them and they will not be offered for sale.

Thanks, didn't know that.

[stockastic]

I think prominent watermarks kill sales of 'art' photo prints and I'm willing to take my chances without them.  But people who want to watermark their images should be able to do so.   It is interesting  that FAA's suggestion thread now has a number of angry posts from contributors (I still can't say "artists") wanting better watermarks - it's obviously an issue. 

Unfortunately reading that thread  reinforces the perception that nothing is happening at FAA, no ongoing development, no response to suggestions or requests.   

There's also a thread from someone claiming they made a sale for which they didn't receive payment, and that FAA hasn't responded to emails.

[Poncke]

Yeah, I saw all of that, I am posting in both threads. LOL. But I am getting worried now as its a 3 man operation, and they dont seem to care about genuine concerns. Its almost if they dont care about infringement and just care about raking in the cash.

[stockastic]

Yes, not to put down what they've accomplished, but it's obviously not going anywhere - it is what it is.

What are the alternatives? On SmugMug or ZenPhoto (dumb names IMHO) you can create a good-looking web site, although it's a pain.  But apparently you don't get any sales through SmugMug unless you market yourself - whereas FAA has some number of buyers who search by keyword, color, topic, and you might get a sale that way once in a great while.   

[ShadySue]

Yeah, I saw all of that, I am posting in both threads. LOL. But I am getting worried now as its a 3 man operation, and they dont seem to care about genuine concerns. Its almost if they dont care about infringement and just care about raking in the cash.

I'm sure like has been said above it's because they probably weren't expecting the issue of microstockers. It seems to be normal in the fine art world for reasonably large thums without watermarks, even of very well known contemporary artists. Artists aren't really expecting to sell small digital copies of their work to bloggers, and in some cases, being featured on a blog is extending their exposure, and could even be beneficial.

I wonder what the optimum size for a company is. iS is far too big, and nothing gets done. I was shocked last night to discover that if you make a change in keywording or descriptions on an iStock file, you still have to go back into the file and save again to make the change 'stick'.

The scary thing about a three-man company is what happens if one becomes seriously ill or loses interest.

[stockastic]

I wonder what the optimum size for a company is. iS is far too big, and nothing gets done.

In 30 years in the technology business I worked for companies of every size, including tiny startups that grew.   I think the bad stuff begins when everyone in the the company no longer knows everyone else in the company on a first name basis.  This is typically the point where an "HR Department" is created.  After that, things get weird.  And I think this happens at around 100 people if not fewer.

[ShadySue]

Actually, even fine art photographers have largeish previews: again, they're not in the business of selling thumsized images.
http://www.peterfetterman.com/artists/sebastio-salgado
Seems a bit compressed, but not even right-click disabled and he's my number one top favourite photographer.

On the other hand, if right clicking is disabled, and someone screendumps an image, it's immediately orphaned. Did I say that above? I'm rabbiting ... again ...
(irrelevant anyway, I right-click-saved it and there's no EXIF data there. It's clearly a totally different market and mindset.)

also:
http://www.magnumphotos.com

[Poncke]

Guys, there is an automatic distribution to Amazon on FAA, but thats broken. So if you want your images on Amazon under the Home section, you need to email support and ask them to manually synch your account on Amazon. They will up the price by 15% procent to cover the take from Amazon. Every two weeks you can ask them to sync (if you added new content to FAA). It will probably be fixed at some point.


Just so you know.

[ShadySue]

^^ Tx.