to cclapper:

I'll try to explain the difference between a third party reseller and affiliate. Pixmac is not an affiliate partner that takes the buyer to the original site (via link). Pixmac is a re-seller that shows watermarked images on its website and when the customer is decided to download the particular image it asks the supplier's site for the hires file while paying for it in the same moment 'in the background'. That's the API connection thing.

All the original hires files were always in the suppliers system only. Pixmac only gets hires files that have been purchased by a buyer. To be able to send the file to the buyer. Caching system temporarily stores files that were recently purchased only. Not all the files available at suppliers server nor all the resolutions without paying for each of them.

As for the bold parts in your quote, I can't comment them now. Sorry for that.

According to DT, high rez images were cached on your system and sold directly from your site and that is NOT how the whole API partner program was supposed to work. You don't address anything about that.

'The error technically happened when our customer purchased a previously downloaded image.'

To avoid technical problems such as broken download, bad connection, non-responsive servers and other technical issues the caching system allows to store the purchased files for a limited time for the buyers. Without the need to pay twice for the files while the customer is the same. Although it is an added value for the customer it is a thread for the contributor.

I am assuming that is where their content is coming from, but I certainly could be wrong. In any case, I am thinking that not ALL of the partners will be shown, in either instance.

At Pixmac website, you can pick and choose who will be reselling your images if those are uploaded to Pixmac directly. As for the link to partner agencies, it's outdated and Colossus will be removed by tomorrow. That page contains some of our supplier partners.

As for the main issue, it's still in the investigation progress. Sorry for the delay, but I need to be clear that we examined the data and everything well. Will keep you posted...

Issue with rimglow was discussed via Personal Message.

Local time of initial request:
Friday, December 12, 2008 4:55 PM

Local time of Pixmac reply:
Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:58:57 +0100

1. We have sent the email mentioned above only to photographers that requested information about Pixmac�s source of photos during the partnerships. The emails were taken from our customer support history of questions only. We thought it is fair to tell those photographers about the change.

TO rimglow: Please, could you state your email here? We will get back to you with n exact date and time when you communicated with Pixmac customer support. We�re not crazy to do any �robo calls�.

2. The statement about 11 million images was taken off the homepage.

3. BigStock was never a direct partner of Pixmac, it was Colossus Agency (Media Bakery). And after the discovery of the issues discussed elsewhere, Pixmac immediately took offline the content and ceased the partnership few days later. We asked Colossus for more information about the issue, but we don�t have it yet.

4. Unfortunately downloads of photos supplied by agencies are not reported in photographer reports on sourcing agencies. There�s no way how Pixmac can change that. Our way to change this was to set and stick to the Declaration of Fair Stock Photo Agency, where photographers clearly see which downloads are via the agency directly and which are via distributor such as Pixmac. For example, this already allows Pixmac's direct photographers to sign-off any distributors of Pixmac if they want. With a single click.

5. The reason why Pixmac might bring extra value "as a middleman" is that we might be smarter and more effective in marketing. And we can reach new customers in several other countries. In the end all parts of the chain should be happy. On the other hand we take all the issues discussed here or on other forums always very seriously and we are taking steps to explain and avoid any of them in the future.

There is no need to plea for our trust simply share the numbers and you will have created the first transparent microstock agency, and if you do that you will have every single microstock photographer flocking to your site myself included. In no time you will be larger than any other agency.  Think about it...seriously think about it.  

Thank you lightscribe for writing this. Thank you for inspiring me. I'll do what I can to make Pixmac truly transparent. I am the kind of a guy that speaks through results rather than through 'bla bla bla' (I hope you could feel it in the Press Release). I agree with you. I will keep this in mind and will use my time to create the transparent agency you've described that doesn't actually need any PR at all.

Thanks.  Do you have a dedicated qualification process?

You don't have to pass an exam to be able to upload to Pixmac. On the other hand a team of people is doing the approval.

Maybe some information for Pixmac might help to understand some of our "distrust":

- At most agencies that offer an API/affiliates do not disclose who their resellers are. We don't get a word from either the source agency nor the affiliate agency (without asking). Once we find our images at unknown agencies we get nervous and have to start our own detective work to figure out which agency is collaborating with who.

Not that this is only time consuming and nerve wrecking but also it doesn't build any trust with either agency.

We're changing that (according the Declaration). So at Pixmac you have a list of reselling agencies and you are able to check/uncheck any of those. Currently at Pixmac it's under: My Account > Settings > For Contributors

- Right now, ever since Pixmac started I still don't know which of my images is coming from what agency. AFAIK Pixamc is affiliated with Fotolia, Dreamstime and Bigstock amongst others I suppose.

We're trying to show it on the picture detail. And the Photographers Avatar is replaced by logo of the supplying agency.

- I couldn't figure out how to interpret affiliate sales that came through Pixmac on any of the affiliated source agencies. We just see regular sales which could also be affiliate sales. It would be fantastic if we could see affiliate sales reported separately with the name of the affiliate. This alone could be a very powerful feature so we know how well an affiliate is performing.

It would be great. We will implement it soon.

Under which conditions would it be beneficial to upload directly to Pixmac? Just so we can sell our images there under the subscription plan as well? What is the commission on subscription sales? What are the contributor terms? I can't find that information on the Pixmac web site.

Yes: Subscription+API resellers of Pixmac content. As for the commissions it's in the release: http://blog.pixmac.com/2138/microstock-maturity-by-pixmac/ and terms are here: http://www.pixmac.com/page/termsandconditions

After seeing 292,000 images uploaded to Pixmac via the BigStockPhoto API in which all contributors copyrights were changed to someone named Colossus, some of which may or may not have been my own personal images, I wouldn't touch this site with a 10-foot pole.

Hmm. Thank you. Have you read the Shutterstock discussion from start to end?

With what little information I was ever able to obtain, the commissions you get from the BigStock-Pixmac alliance are NOT the same as what you get from the images directly posted on BigStock. I would guess that the same is true for DT.

To recap that again. That situation was that Pixmac represented a collection from Colossus agency and Pixmac had only little metadata given by Colossus agency. Pixmac was not aware that it was a BigStock sourced collection. More details at Shutterstock's forum.

I don't see how this is even possible to compare revenue. Neither DT or BigStock separates out sales that are made from pixmac, so the number is a cloud of smoke and mirrors that contributors can NEVER verify. Contributors have asked over and over to have this whole business transparent, but it hasn't happened. I wonder why that is. If we are being paid the same commission at both places, why wouldn't both sites be willing to disclose the numbers? To just state here that we are receiving the same amount doesn't fly with me anymore.

Anybody can do a test purchase and see the numbers. At Pixmac we're going to clarify the numbers a bit more than what's an 'industry standard' as stated in the Press Release.

Another thing that I was told when pixmac first came on the scene is that only thumbnails resided at Pixmac (for those images that were being sold through partner APIs). My images were being shared through BigStock. So when a person clicked on a thumb in pixmac and wanted to buy, the purchase was supposed to be made directly through BigStock and the person was actually taken to the BigStock site and the image would be downloaded there. That is NOT how it was discovered to be working. In fact, it was discovered that all hi rez images had been transferred over to pixmac.

Not true. More details in the Shutterstock discussion.

If any of my facts are incorrect, please correct me. And contributors are free to deal with whomever they wish, but because none of the above points can actually be verified and we are forced to take the word of one person here, I for one will not be participating in either partner programs OR uploading directly to pixmac.

Well, you can verify that.

As far as I know, the answers to the following have NEVER been forthcoming:
1. Who actually changed the copyright information on the 292,000 images that went from BigStock to Pixmac, which were reflecting the copyright as being by Colossus?
2. What sort of security does pixmac now have in place in order to prevent the same thing from happening again?
3. What happened to all 292,000 of the hi rez images that this Colossus/Media Bakery/pixmac had?

1. Probably Colossus. We at Pixmac have asked the question. But no answer came. The collection was shut down immediately after the issue arised.

2. More activity on our side. More verification before any contract is made. Have you read the "Declaration of Fair Agency" before? Simply: We don't want to happen it again, because we don't need publicity like this again. Does that make sense?

3. Pixmac never had hi-res files from BigStock. So Colossus never had hi-res files, what I'm aware.

That whole issue was swept under the rug, and as far as I know, NO ONE has been forthcoming as to what actually happened. I personally am not inclined to trust anything anymore that isn't specifically in writing.

Your choice. The issue was discussed and I personally did everything possible to clarify the issue at Shutterstock's forum. If there's anything unclear and not clarified in the Shutterstock forum, ask me.

Again, if all commissions are in writing (and I mean in plain English) and things are spelled out specifically and numbers CAN be tracked and verified, please feel free to correct me and please point us to all the places where those numbers can be verified.

thank you for coming in and responding to the inquiries here.  So, can you clarify this?  If an image is on the base, non-exclusive, and it is sold on PixMac through the link from Dreamstime, does it earn the same amount as it would if it was instead uploaded directly to Pixmac instead of through teh DT partnership?

also, if our image is already on PixMac from a partner site, wouldn't uploading to PixMac cause duplicates?  which brings another question, how do you handle duplicate images if you get images from the same photographer from both Fotolia and DT and/or other partner sites?

Yes. The commision would be the same in case you're on the base level on both sites. That means 30% from gross sale for you. If the image is uploaded to DT and sold on DT or Pixmac you should get exactly the same money. We're not selling DT images in subscription at Pixmac, so you can't reach those customers if you've uploaded only to DT.

Duplicates are handled by our duplicate detection system. So there should be no duplicates at Pixmac.

Uploading to them is never time efficient because 90% of them never reach a payout.

At Pixmac there's no expiration of contributor credits. So anyone making a selling content can reach payout.

...but, if they already have my DT images thru the partnership program does it make any sense to RE-upload? Is there a way to dump the DT partnership and receive higher commissions by selling directly thru pixmac?

The simple answer is "No you doens't.". If you're happy with DT functionality and the revenue it brings to you it's easier for you to stay there only and be transfered to Pixmac via API. We're updating on daily basis, so anything you upload to DT is mirorred at Pixmac within 24h.

On the other hand, thumbs from DT are smaller than tumbs from direct Pixmac uploaders, so you'll receive a bit lower attention. And also our re-selling partners don't get your content via our API and your content is not included in subscription offering at Pixmac.

Explanation of this issue:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=93850

The collection is switched off till it's solved/fixed.

Vita, Pixmac's CEO