I dont care if they are desperate but the subs on FT just went up by 15% points for me, which can mean a 400% increase on a XL sub sale. Without opting in to DPC. I take that raise any day of the week.

The only way this will really work is if people continue to opt out of DPC. They'll still get a raise in commission, but their sales on FT won't be undercut by sales on DPC.

It's a choice between a slightly lower (but higher than it was) commission on subs sales vs. a slightly higher commission that will quickly disappear as DPC sales take over and Fotolia sales drop.

I know we are all frustrated with DPC, but .. er.. isn't this good news?

Fotolia are making it more lucrative to be part of DPC.  Isn't that what we want/wanted?

just asking.....  (goes and hides behind the tomato shield)

Not necessarily. DPC will still undercut regular sales everywhere else, so you'll get fewer and fewer Fotolia (and other site) sales, so the "huge" increase in commission won't amount to anything.

Agreed...I didn't see any put downs of LisaFX, simply people disagreeing. If DPC goes kaput, she earns more for her sales through Fotolia. I wish I had more files to opt out.

Quote from: Shelma1 on May 13, 2014, 08:44

Quote from: bunhill on May 13, 2014, 08:37

Quote from: Shelma1 on May 13, 2014, 08:20

They pay the reporters, the editors, the delivery people, the printer, the paper manufacturer, the owners of the building they're in, they pay for ink, for web hosting, web design, marketing, etc. etc. etc. But the photographer works for "exposure." Why is he the exception? Surely the newspaper can afford to pay something once a week.

So shouldn't stock models always get paid too then ?

Yes.

I am not paying my dad when I photograph him around the house.

Really? I would offer to pay him a portion of my sales of his image. Of course, if he's like my dad, he would vehemently refuse to accept payment.

Here's an example. My niece is absolutely beautiful (she's seven years old). Instead of asking if I could shoot her, I suggested my sister get headshots and I could introduce her to casting agents to get some work in print ads or commercials if she thought it would be fun. That way she could put the money aside for college. My nephew modeled for awhile because he thought it was fun. Once it was not fun, that stopped. But he was paid. (He modeled for Fisher-price toys.)

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on May 13, 2014, 06:03

Some hobbiests are thrilled just to have someone compliment their work which is totally understandable. So then some vulture asks to use it in a magazine for free. Sure, good bragging rights to friends and family. Then there are those photographers who value any kind of exposure. I can see certain types of exposure having a benefit but in my experience it's rare. There needs to be a measurable exchange of value.

Funnily enough, it can work sometimes, outwith the stock world.

For example, one of our top broadsheets has a Photo of the Day feature, for which the tog doesn't get paid. My Dad would dearly love me to have a photo there for his friends to 'notice' the credit. There were a lot of photos there from my area by one tog, which Dad had noticed often enough to ask if I knew him. I didn't, until he started coming to my Camera Club this session. Anyway, cutting to the chase, I happened to mention to another couple of members about him giving away his pics for free in the newspaper. Discovered that he is in a craft fair group locally, and the huge exposure his photos get in this quality paper,  read by many, probably most people who will go to these fairs, attracts people to his work - they assume as he is always getting his photos in that quality paper, he must be really good. They said local people talk about him in awe and reverence all the time (in fact, he's perfectly competent, but no better than the rest of us.) So although most photographers hereabouts find that photos don't sell at craft fairs, he does well, because he has a 'name'.

A friend, also not in stock, has done a lot of free gigs which have led him to get commissions private work and also other benefits, e.g. some of the models he has paid to build his portfolio (I suspect, but he hasn't actually admitted that he's hoping to start a studio when he quits his day job) have either started volunteering for the charity he works for, or their friends have. He even found an excellent employee who was a friend of a model and is a perfect fit, apparently. He's picked up weddings, parties, selling via Photobox (for a group he was providing 6x4 prints for free, but many of the members buy bigger photos for themselves).
I have to say, he's far more entrepreneurial than I am. I couldn't make that work, but he does.

I see no problems withpro bono if I want to do it. If it's a good cause I want to support, what difference does it make if I give them a donation, bake cakes, work in a charity shop, rattle cans, or take publicity photos?

If commercial entities ask for my photos free, no way: that's a different matter altogether.

It's great that the exposure brings him sales. But why doesn't the newspaper pay him? Serious question. They pay the reporters, the editors, the delivery people, the printer, the paper manufacturer, the owners of the building they're in, they pay for ink, for web hosting, web design, marketing, etc. etc. etc. But the photographer works for "exposure." Why is he the exception? Surely the newspaper can afford to pay something once a week.

I'll tell you my "almost free" story. I was asked to do a brochure for a church, and they had a very tiny budget for design (nonprofit, right?). So I agreed to do the job for next to nothing. Well, the job expanded to 3 times the original size, but the tiny budget stayed the same. Then they invited me to a meeting at the church. It was in one of the most exclusive (rich) communities in NJ, surrounded by huge estates with thoroughbred horses, pet llamas, etc. And they proudly showed off the just-installed MARBLE floors and a three million dollar pipe organ. Not only that, but they decided the brochure should be more luxurious, so they were paying the printer twice as much for heavyweight paper. AND flying in an organist from Italy to play the new pipe organ for the first time in a special concert. In other words, they were paying everyone super-full-price for their super-expensive work...except me. 

Am I reading that right...is it close to a million images difference in some categories? Does that mean more than a million have been opted out?

Quote from: wordplanet on May 12, 2014, 12:33

Quote from: bunhill on May 12, 2014, 12:25

I don't think I can actually see a lot of difference between getting zero and getting less than $1

99 cents x 1,000 downloads = $990.00
$0 x 1,000 downloads = $0

Now do you see the difference?

I am not suggesting that you always work for free. I am pointing out that working for free is sometimes worth considering. And you should never be offended if someone asks - because it is a perfectly normal request.

Also - 1000 downloads at less than $1 is more or less working for free. Where as 1000 downloads some of which are for less than $1 but most of which are for very much more is a thing potentially worth bothering with.

If it takes me an hour to draw something and I make $990 from 1,000 dls, I make $990/hour. Which is exactly the same as working for free, yes, I see your point. 

Yep, finally got in on my iPad. Wasn't working for me earlier. My link:

http://crated.com/Shelma1

Artist dies of exposure. Story at 11.

For me the site is up, but the forums...and my sales...are down.

What does it mean when someone "collects" something?