Some people were wondering how this would work, this is how I see it, how about you?

Basically, with this system, assuming a 'better' case scenario, it looks like the founders will become very rich. You, as a photographer, if you get on the ground floor *and* it takes off, will make "some" money (probably better than you are right now) - but it really makes the founders rich.

a) 23% of the coins are reserved for the founders. At the current capitalization (20 cents), that would be about 6 million. However, they are hoping it takes off, like ETH/BTC, etc - so a coin would 'eventually' be worth $200-$300. (So that 6 million is now worth 6 billion. Split up amonst the team members (22), assuming everyone got an even cut (unlikely, but lets say it was that), thats about 270 million/investor.

b) Another 15% is taken for every transaction (buy/sell/buy/sell/buy/sell). If they got a 5% daily trading volume (seems reasonable looking at current crypto charts), that would be 6.75 million coins, and if it was $200 a coin, that would be $675 million/day, in pure "profit". (or 24 billion/year). Split amonst 22 employees/founders (again, assuming it was even), thats about $1 billion/employee per year for basically doing nothing, especially because the system is 'distributed' (i.e., doesn't really cost them anything to maintain).

c) You, as the photographer, might feel you "got" rich if you were on the ground floor (i.e., sold some cheap $0.20 images now, & kept the coins). Likely, you might say get 100-200 sales  (so 200 coins * $200 = $40,000). Maybe you get 2000 sales. Then that's $400k. You'd "feel" good thinking you were rich. (relatively speaking, for very little effort, $40k isn't bad. And $400k of course is a bit better. Definitely nothing like 1 billion, but you could buy a new car, whereas they could buy a city).

That's a "better" case scenario...

Thing is...

a) If it takes off, other people will copy them. It's not really that hard to make a bitcoin blockchain like they have. Granted - they'll have the first mover advantage - but... really depends if they rich critical mass or not. If they don't, it will be very easy for other people to undercut them at say at 10% cut, or 5% cut, etc, etc... (until eventually it gets to say 1%, or 0.01%, etc).
The founders will still make a healthy profit, but - the size of their profit will depend pretty much on how much of the market they were able to capture first. (Probably part of the reason they are doing the '500 "royalty free" image promo).

So very quickly that 15% "cut" won't be attractive anymore, because someone else is offering a "10%" cut, or "5%" cut, etc, etc.

b) There is NO privacy. Aside from the fact they are a relatively unknown company, demanding id verification/etc - and then 'tagging' each image you upload with your details (making it potentially ripe for identity theft, etc)... You'll have customers that become very wary very quickly if they really want "everyone" knowing what types of images/videos/etc they are purchasing... (i.e., lets say a married guy 'purchases' 2000 lingerie images of various women, then realizes his name/info & complete portfolio is available for the world to see). Would have some explaining to do to his wife...

c) The big guys WILL protect their turf VERY aggressively - especially if these guys start getting the "aggressive" growth they are going for. Shutterstock is already starting to that (granted, "late" to the game with the $1.50 "subscriptions" sales people are complaining about) - but - they are getting on it.

So what will happen?

The first people that upload, I do think will make (relatively speaking) significant sales in the first year (just be aware though you will have absolutely *no* privacy associated with your images (imagine your name and face is tagged with every single image you sent), nor will you have *any* privacy in terms of how much $ you are making. If you are fine/comfortable doing that, then go ahead).

I think if they have the right launch strategy - it will be "possible" that the coin within the next 2 years gets to about $10. Definitely not $200 or even $2000, but still enough to make the founders very rich. (So, not 270 million/founder, but 27 million within a year about $100 million/year for doing nothing. Still "not bad"). But as soon as it starts making some waves, you'll very quickly have copycats. (In fact - reading this thread - I don't believe they were the first one to have this idea - wasn't there someone else here that was talking about that?)

If you as a photographer actually start making a "significant" amount of money (for some people, even $200-$300 is "significant", so you haven't even reached $40k) - VERY very quickly "everyone" else will start flooding the system uploading content/etc, so its harder for you to make sales, etc.

And then I think there will be some news stories talking about people's privacy/etc being compromised, people will "sell off" their coin for fear of losing value. You'll also get market manipulation as some people discover how to manipulate the system to get rich (not much different from the stock market in the 1900's, except now this is all digital).

So... I think you'll see a spike at the launch, a spike probably 3-4 months after that, and then as other people catch on (competitors, agencies, etc) - it will very quickly die down, and maybe settle on $3-$4 a coin. So, if you want to "get rich" (i.e., "maybe" $20-$40k within a year), are comfortable with no privacy, then it would probably be a good idea to upload your portfolio now, and then maybe sell whatever coins you have within 6-7 months before the price drops (mind you - I think I read somewhere that they said they would not allow cash outs until that was implemented 'within a year'. So maybe wait 2-3 months after cashouts become a possibility).

I think for the founders, its a great model if they can sell it. It will make them rich for relatively little effort.

So we'll see.

mm, two things, without actually seeing the picture.

a) Maybe you really do have a good quality image, and the agency you submitted to rejected it. Don't take it personally, not everyone accepts everything. It doesn't necessary mean its a 'bad' image - just means they don't want it for their site.

b) if it is a large cityscape - I find focusing on a stronger lightsource tends to produce a better picture, because then the exposure/etc is set correctly for the surrounding elements. I'd also do a couple tests to see what produces the best results for you.

The issue I seem to have with them is now they seem to have "so many" people submitting stuff, that unless you've been with them for a while, they seem to do mass rejections of content (which is VERY time consuming to upload due to their interface).

You seem to be reading into this what you want.

I am not defending the actions. To be perfectly clear, it is wrong what they are doing. I am saying I think they've figured out how to circumvent getting into trouble for it.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on April 12, 2018, 10:40

For the actual inclusion of full (unwatermarked) images, thats a little murky because they have it like a "database" format for "search"... (i.e., google has been doing that for 20 years, and no one questions them. Just use google image search).

since they are actually linking to the *websites* that have those images on them, and not actually hosting the images, and assuming of course those websites/businesses have licensed the image (whether cc or actual licensed stock), I don't think there is really anything that could be done about that, because "technically" it's not really wrong (again, look @ google image search).

As for the cc attribution... that is different... simply because I don't know if the images they've included are actual cc (creative commons) images, or actual licenseable stock photography... if they are actually 'stock' images (and they are incorrectly identifying them as creative commons) - I don't know if anything can be done about that...

although I don't care for this type of site (because it seems to be circumventing the intent of stock sites for licensed photography) - since they are doing it in a search format (similar to google image search, so they are not actually the 'publisher' of content, rather just a 'forum'), not sure if anything can really be done about it...

Did you look at the site? They clearly say "you can click on your desired Business image and use the Business picture embed code to add to your blogs, forums, websites and other online media. The embed code contains all necessary CC attribution, that are mandatory to include" which is not true and there's no creative commons for a stolen image AND they are crediting the agency not the artist.

Google, nice straw man argument, attempt at diverting from the original question, does none of that. They run a search for people to find something on the web. There's no claim that anything is free to use. Would you make web searches illegal? But I'm nice I'll play along. Google "Note: Before reusing content, make sure that its license is legitimate and check the exact terms of reuse. For example, the license might require that you give credit to the image creator when you use the image. Google can't tell if the license label is legitimate, so we don't know if the content is lawfully licensed."

And search results?



IMAGES MAY BE SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT

Say someone is looking for something you made or you as a photographer, where do you think they will look. Google. When someone is looking for a legitimate use and wants an advanced search, that works, and can search all agencies, where will they go? Google.

Now back to the point. Pinsdaddy and their foreign language version, are linking and promoting illegal use with an incorrect claim that your work is creative commons, and all someone needs to do is, copy and paste it came from "X" agency and it's legal. Plus no watermarks.

Let me see if I understand, you defend the illegal use and the crooks, while you attack a perfectly legal search? Did I get that right?

probably, but why don't you ask them?

I think it will probably be 2-3 years before 4K really takes off. Same with how HD went (although I think that took about 7-8 years).

So, if you shoot in 4k, you'll be 'prepared' for when it becomes popular.

now that is a pretty blatant misuse of the image + obvious commercial purposes, and obviously not for preview/evaluation purposes... that you could probably contact FB about, and get them to remove it.

I think it has to do with desperation. Being desparate for a sale, recognition, etc. Established photographers probably would not be in this boat. But up and coming - to break into the field - probably would.

Plus, it's now a global market place, so $2 is considered "good money". And, you also have people that don't share the same western values in terms of honesty/etc, so if they can steal something, they will. (That isn't to say there aren't western people that would do that, but - it tends to be more prominent in certain other cultures/countries).

The problem, in my opinion, is not with the agencies. They will do whatever they can to line their pockets with cash. There is no "moral" guidelines in the stock business. Most agencies will, if their contributors allow them, to take as much as they can. Period.

The problem, in my opinion, is with the contributors who - for whatever reasons - allow immoral, self-serving, unscrupulous, deceitful behavior by providing and supporting these agencies with material.

The key, if you want to change this kind of behavior, is simply not to contribute material to these agencies. Whether or not you're making some coin - if you don't like the way an agency is treating you, don't supply them with material.

Shutterstock sent out one of their custom shoots.  $200 for five very specific recipes for Nestle.  Each with 4-5 very specific shots.  For $200.

Putting that in perspective (because I am not quite familiar with that) - how much would that go for if it was custom/fixed price work to hire a professional photographer to do that?

What does this mean "Alamy shall act as an agent in respect of the Images" in terms of how they were doing things before? (I didn't see what they had before)

I'm trying to say though - unless the site to the end user explicitly states "preview images may not be used on websites" (which I have not seen from the license agreements I've reviewed), there's not really any enforceability. And even if that was written - it doesn't necessarily mean that it is enforceable, simply because there is the understanding that a preview is an 'evaluation' (incentive to get someone to purchase the full version). As for DMCA notices, it is supposed to apply to full copyrighted content.

It's like say having a bag of cookies for sale in costco, and getting mad at costco because they are giving out free samples to 'non-paying' customers. Sure, some will never have an intention of buying that brand of cookies whatsoever. But others, they think, mm these are good cookies, and then buy them, maybe even buy a few and tell some friends.

I guess to each his own. If you want to get upset because someone is using watermarked content on their site, then go ahead and get upset and chase after every single person doing that. I feel time would be better spent creating new content and looking for paying customers, but - it's your choice.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on April 02, 2018, 12:37

lol, you & shema must be democrats. someone disagrees with you and you resort to silly namecalling, instead of actually thinking about what is being said and addressing that.

And yet you are calling people democrats when a) what does politics have to do with this discussion and b) you are calling them democrats because you think it�s a derogatory term. In essence, doing some of your own name calling. LOL. Clearly a hypocritical Trump supporter. Whatever THAT has to do with people stealing our images. 

lol and how very quickly this gets off topic.

Bottom line. I guess its up to the OP. If he wants to chase after every single person using a 'watermarked' image - which - in the long run really only helps him (because the majority of people who see that, if they wanted the image, would likely purchase it, and as for the current people using it, most likely have no intention of ever purchasing it, especially if you try and force a DMCA notice on them which I believe they would have difficulty enforcing)... then that's his decision.

Better to focus on the people who do want his images, and figuring out how to expand that.