FFA - Print Quality / Licensing

[MacHeath]

Hi all, new to the forum here.

I perused the other threads about FFA but did not see anyone directly addressing the following questions. Does anyone have knowledge of the following aspects of FFA:

1). Assuming one has good quality digital scans (scans from negatives) uploaded to FAA, and assuming the photoshop corrections and color space are done correctly, how good is the print quality from FFA?

2). I have a contract with Corbis. Many of the images are set as exclusive with Corbis. I'm considering joining FFA (and after careful research I think it meets my needs), but the thing I am concerned about is the fact that in the FFA general contributor contract there is a clause stating that uploading an images gives FFA the right to sell AND to license ("By submitting images to Fine Art America, You grant to Fine Art America a worldwide, non-exclusive right to sell, license, sublicense, reproduce...."). I sent a question to FFA asking for clarification, but have not had a clear response yet. The initial response was that "we can't license to third parties" and I asked why the general contributor contract has the word "license" in it, haven't had a response yet. So my question here is -- does anyone have any knowledge of FFA licensing practices when the artist does NOT want them to license images out for third party commercial use. Basically, I want to use Corbis for all my commercial licensing, and FFA for all my print sales.

Any light on either of these questions will be appreciated.

[Semmick Photo]

I have bought a 108" canvas of this image and I have to say the quality is good. The image was printed at their UK printer, not the US printer. But I have heard nothing but praise about the quality of FAA prints.

The canvas came out great, maybe a tad darker, but not much.

http://semmickphoto.com/image/chicago-skyline-at-night

[stockastic]

A guy recently posted his story on FAA's forum.  He'd ordered 10 prints for a customer, some were acrylic and a couple were metal, and his experience was not good. After a couple of weeks, 2 of the acrylics fell off the wall - the print was held to a wooden backing by double-sided tape, the backing warped and the tape let go.  One of the metal prints was ok, the other was someone else's image.  The actual reason he posted was that he was unable to get any response from customer service, via email or phone.

Someone from FAA jumped in of course, apologized, took it offline and we never heard the final resolution.

[MacHeath]

... the print was held to a wooden backing by double-sided tape, the backing warped and the tape let go...

That's pretty bad. Presumably, however, if the print is decent and the customer was reimbursed for the framing, the customer could go to a frame shop for real framing.

But that's one of the things I've been looking for: customer satisfaction.

[Semmick Photo]

Best is to go with hearsay stories then someone actually posting a first hand experience.

[MacHeath]

Best is to go with hearsay stories then someone actually posting a first hand experience.

Thanks for the advice. I'm actually reading voluminous amount of information on FFA from a variety of sources so that I can make a fully informed decision about whether to use it. Choosing a platform for one's photography is a very important decision, and not to be made lightly. I want to hear of direct experience of course, but stories like the one recounted above are also useful (i.e., thanks for your advice about hearsay, but it isn't really useful to me as I know how to evaluate such comments).

cheers! 

Oh by the way Semmick, I really like your Chicago photos - nice work!

[cuppacoffee]

Why not join with one image and order it yourself. Then you can see what a customer would receive if they placed a similar order.

[stockastic]

Unfortunately I can't give a link to that FAA forum thread because it's 'private' - i.e. members only.  But that's what he posted.

[MacHeath]

Why not join with one image and order it yourself. Then you can see what a customer would receive if they placed a similar order.

I'll certainly order myself a print if I join (probably a few times if I'm selling various images, as a continual check on quality).

So far, in my research across various blogs and reviews I've turned up:

* a general consensus that their customer service is horrible, but they WILL refund orders if item is return (they won't exchange items because they do everything through different third-party venders).

* Overall approval of quality of prints

* Various concerns about some contributors submitting photographs that they do not own copyright for (I actually found one of my photos being sold by someone else as theirs, and I filed a complaint showing the same image listed on my Corbis account; their legal person is looking into it). I actually saw a contributor on FFA saying he found a photo of Jackie Kennedy at a Goodwill store, went home and scanned it and uploaded it to FFA and is trying to resell prints of it. The FFA site seems to be rife with copyright violation by similar people.

* Artists are generally satisfied with the platform, and are making some money, though the artists also complain that they have to drive viewers to the site because FFA doesn't do enough to advertise (I don't anticipate this as a problem in my case)

* Artists are generally dissatisfied with the control over size options for prints (this may in turn be reliant on their actual cropping in photoshop, not sure until I go in and try it)

* I have not seen any complaints about the actual frames, but I get the impression that the artists/photographers have generally not ordered frames for themselves. The lack of customer complaints (on the internet) about framing probably says something to the effect of good quality.

* The $30 annual fee is automatically withdrawn from your CC, which many members find irritating.

What I have NOT seen anywhere is any discussion about my #2 question regarding licensing and the contract. I suspect that the vast majority of contributors on FFA do not read the contract carefully. The inclusion of the word "license" in the general contract is worrisome because it appears to grant FFA the unlimited right to license images regardless of contributors' wishes.

[stockastic]

MacHeath, I'd say your summary is pretty accurate.    It's a mixed bat.

I would only add that FAA contributors are also frustrated by search ranking that's heavily - some say almost exclusively - weighted by past sales.  Of course the same is true of microstock but it seems to go a lot further at FAA.   Since there's no incoming inspection, sellers can stuff keywords at will.   And the ranking boost is applied per contributor, not per image.  If you do your own marketing, what FAA does offer is a good UI for print and framing options.

Another downside is that it's a one-man operation and it isn't really evolving or going anywhere.  The presentation is getting very dated.

The big attraction at FAA is the ability to set your own markup to whatever you want.
 

[Semmick Photo]

It is FAA (not FFA) to prevent some confusion, and their photo licencing is a chaos. I wouldnt get involved with that. I am sure Sue or Jo Ann can chime in about that.

[MacHeath]

It is FAA (not FFA) to prevent some confusion, and their photo licencing is a chaos. I wouldnt get involved with that. I am sure Sue or Jo Ann can chime in about that.

Right, and I wouldn't want to use them for licensing, so that works out.

Where their contributor contract says "You grant to Fine Art America a worldwide, non-exclusive right to sell, license..." (etc.), I assume this sloppy and conflated language simply reflects their attempt to have a one-size-fits-all agreement. The reality is that sales and licensing should be in two totally different agreements. I assume there is nothing nefarious in this contract. However, it makes me very nervous to agree to something (licensing) that I don't want. This the main thing preventing me jumping in with FAA (and thanks Semmick for the correction on the acronym).

Does anyone here know if other POD platforms have similarly conflated language in their contributor agreements? This is potentially something that drives me to a different POD provider based only on the comfort of clear language in a user agreement.

[ShadySue]

It is FAA (not FFA) to prevent some confusion, and their photo licencing is a chaos. I wouldnt get involved with that. I am sure Sue or Jo Ann can chime in about that.

Sorry, I can't help, I hadn't noticed MacHeath's valid point. H*ck, that might not even have been there when I signed up as they didn't license images then.
I keep wondering why they don't have to make non-US residents jump through the tax hoops for that the other US agencies do. Are we actually forced to pay US tax?  The only tax info I've been able to find on the site is for US citizens.
Certainly I made a sale through FineArtEngland, and it was charged in UK�, yet paid to me in US dollars; so I lost twice - from the �� being changed to $$, then I had to pay the conversion fee from US$ to � via PayPal. It's just insane. I then wanted to up my prices to make up for the currency loss, but my low-for-FAA prices there are already well above that of prints etc here.

[Mantis]

I have bought a 108" canvas of this image and I have to say the quality is good. The image was printed at their UK printer, not the US printer. But I have heard nothing but praise about the quality of FAA prints.

The canvas came out great, maybe a tad darker, but not much.

http://semmickphoto.com/image/chicago-skyline-at-night

That's beautiful.

[wordplanet]

A friend ordered one of my prints on metal there and it was beautiful and I've sold many framed prints and acrylic prints there and none were ever returned - I've had no complaints. Those other sales were all to strangers but none were returned and no one ever contacted me with a problem.

You don't have to license images there - it's your choice - their licensing isn't set up well so I just sell prints, some pillows, iPhone cases and cards. You have to sell all kinds of prints if you choose prints, but you don't have to sell products if you choose not to. I have some editorial images that I sell as prints only, since they aren't model released and so are inappropriate for products other than prints. A lot of people sell images on iPhone cases and other products that IMHO they shouldn't without releases - trademarked stuff and unreleased people - not to mention all the photoshopped images of celebrities. It's a free for all like many other POD sites.

I ordered cards when I first joined to check the quality and they were lovely but pricey. I've heard people complain the cards are dark but mine were spot-on. My husband also ordered a couple of pillows with my work and they were lovely, though one had the zipper on top which was annoying - Customer Service was bad and I gave up though I've heard from others that returns are fine.

Have you considered Crated? I sold a framed print there and have heard their quality is excellent. Haven't bought my own work yet but they have a wholesale program for artists. My gallery is here if you want to check them out: https://crated.com/mariannecampolongo

[landbysea]

"By submitting images to Fine Art America, You grant to Fine Art America a worldwide, non-exclusive right to sell, license, sublicense, reproduce, prepare derivative works incorporating, publicly display, market, sublicense and sell any images uploaded by You and accepted by Fine Art America in exchange for specified compensation as agreed upon by You and Fine Art..."
http://fineartamerica.com/termsofuse.html?document=contributortermsofuse
Basically the license and sublicense only applies if you have an agreement and are compensated. I am no lawyer but that's how I read it.
Istock by Getty gave approval to the site for their exclusives. Although the TOS probably changed. I never heard it to be an issue and they only license if you agree separately to do that through the Pixels licensing site.

I can verify that the post by stockastic is correct in that the complaint is in the forums. I have made a hundred sales with no returns.
Most of your assessment is correct. Customer service gets in the woods around holiday time.
The automatic renewal is problematic for some. But if you just order a new CC the one they have on file becomes void and your account will close. You can then send in new info and it will reopen.

There is no inspection for copyright. They are not required to be the copyright police and are not providing a warranty for that. They only take down if there is a complaint by the copyright holder. This leaves it wide open for abuse, but 99% of what some think is not legal actually is. And I am speaking strictly about prints and not products.

Please correct your title and posts to say FAA not FFA. I mean if you are going to use just the first letters at least use the right first letters.

[landbysea]

 Glitch post