|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Ava Glass
27
« on: December 09, 2014, 19:10 »
I consider a glamour shot one in which a woman dresses up, has her hair styled, makeup done, and, well, looking glamorous. Beauty, poise, elegance, and classy might be words i think of when i see a glamour shot. I don't consider the images in question "glamorous". I consider them sexual in nature. Nothing to do with glamour. I am guessing a male photographer has given the title "glamour" to these shots in order to make them seem more mainstream and acceptable. I can see Victorias Secret using these shots because their business revolves around sex. JCPenney sells lingerie but i bet you wouldnt see it in one of their ads.
Is there a market for that type of photography? Sure! Clearly the image has been used in ways that it relates to!
In the UK, "glamour" modeling can mean "page three" topless stuff. It's a term. Jordan is a "glamour model."
28
« on: December 09, 2014, 19:07 »
I further hope he prevails because it will benefit us all. What would be amazing would be to have Shutterstock stand up strongly behind the photographer and defend this frivolous lawsuit.
They're not the only defendants. The model is also suing Playboy, Amazon, Wallsheaven, erotica authors, pick-up artist gurus, strip clubs, radio stations, escort sites, UPROXX, Model Mayhem, and porn sites. I'm interested in finding out if this case defines erotic fiction as pornography or not. The porn and escort sites, however, blatantly violated the license--I mean the ones who didn't just steal the pic.
29
« on: December 09, 2014, 16:13 »
Maybe the agencies should just drop the pretense and loosen the terms overall. That way, photographers and models would know what they're really getting into.
Perhaps microstock is too big to police, and people who want protection should do RM.
30
« on: December 09, 2014, 15:39 »
Perhaps the photographer and the model were both naive for believing that Shutterstock would take action against such blatant violations.
From what I can tell it doesn't look like they are complaining that Shutterstock didn't take any action, the complaint seems to be that Shutterstock licensed images to the companies that violated the TOS in the first place. It seems impossible for Shutterstock to know which companies are planning to violate the TOS in advance.
I meant in the context of the photographer and model's interaction. He told her that she wouldn't appear on escort sites because it was against the ToS. That was naive. Did Shutterstock do anything? I don't agree with the model's argument that Shutterstock is at fault for customer violations, but at this point the ToS seem like mere suggestions. I see them violated all the time and the agencies do nothing. Well, Bigstock did take action against this person: https://kdp.amazon.com/community/thread.jspa?threadID=213169
31
« on: December 09, 2014, 15:25 »
Perhaps the photographer and the model were both naive for believing that Shutterstock would take action against such blatant violations.
32
« on: December 09, 2014, 14:27 »
I looked at some of the case documents on PACER. This is what Shutterstock is arguing: Plaintiff also alleges -- and thus also admits -- that, later she signed a "Universal Adult Model Release for all Agencies" that does not limit use of the photographs and in fact instead expressly authorizes unrestricted use of them. While Plaintiff generally alleges breaches of Shutterstock's Terms of Service, she was not a party to those terms; does not and cannot allege that she was; and, does not allege -- and cannot in good faith allege -- that she is an intended third-party beneficiary of them. To me, it sounds like Shutterstock is saying that unscrupulous buyers can throw out parts of the license terms if the model release is written in a certain way. It probably isn't what they mean, but it how its coming across. I suppose they mean that violations of the ToS are up to the agency and maybe an image's copyright holder to take care of. However, has Shutterstock or the photographer taken any kind of action against the porn and escort sites, who VERY CLEARLY violated the terms?
34
« on: December 08, 2014, 05:27 »
35
« on: December 07, 2014, 23:13 »
37
« on: September 08, 2014, 22:38 »
I think the biggest problem iStock will have with their new arrangement is that there will be two collections of images, one three times more expensive than the other, with no really obvious (visual) reason why the expensive ones are expensive.
As I understand it, some exclusive content will be in Essentials, so having things that are only on iStock isn't the reason items cost more.
Given the Getty dumps into Vetta and signature - some of which is truly rubbish (http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/close-up-of-orange-slice-25406418?st=288a235) - there will be a lot of the higher price stuff that just defies logic from a buyer perspective.
Until they address that (and it's hard to see how they can without upsetting exclusives or Getty), I don't see how buyers will find shopping at iStock appealing.
https://twitter.com/ilona_andrews/status/503247244800569344Dear iStock, go home, you are drunk.
http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/blank-book-21381392?st=24d71e8
I am not paying you $73 for that image.
38
« on: August 22, 2014, 00:13 »
Which makes me ask, why hasn't some agency come into the market at 50%
There have been, like Pond5, but they're full of the same images as the big microstock sites, so there really isn't much of a reason for customers to leave their pre-existing accounts, subscriptions, and credit packs. I don't understand why people upload the same images to Alamy, 500px, or Pond5 as they do to DepositPhotos.
39
« on: August 21, 2014, 22:41 »
I suppose the point is moot though, since I don't see most micros moving in that direction and away from crowdsourcing.
Isn't lowering the entry-barrier how microstock started? Cheaper pictures because istock utilized decently-talented amateurs? Any agency with a strangely-high barrier to entry risks being undercut by an agency with a lower barrier and similar quality images. Again, similar quality. Different quality should be a different market. Also, you used the term "microstock" when Ed suggested *all* agencies. My whole point is that there are lots of different kinds of images, agencies, and picture-buying markets out there. A blanket statement like Ed's is strange.
40
« on: August 21, 2014, 21:17 »
Here's the thing...if you have a portfolio of 500-1000 images and they are all street snaps then the agency can easily judge what they are going to get. If a person doesn't have a portfolio of that size, an agency can quickly determine the experience of the photographer and that photographer's seriousness of being a professional.
 You really think that someone who creates images like this should really wait until he/she amasses 500-1000 until he/she even thinks about applying to any stock agency? This image is from Arcangel. Arcangel Images, Trevillion, Red Edge, and Demurez Cover Arts are agencies that cater to publishers. Book publishers. They're old fashioned because the old RM method of negotiating price based on region, print-run, and duration doesn't work for the legions of self-publishers out there. Instead of creating special collections to cater to this exploding market, these agencies are leaving money on the table while the authors go to Shutterstock or the DPC. It's stupid. ETA: Seriously. Look at this forum thread to see Demurez Cover Arts turn off a bunch of potential buyers. http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,139244.msg2038169.htmlSome choice quotes: "I registered, and still can't see prices.""They have some nice art, but rights managed stuff seems to be lingering in the 20th century with poor terms for digital publication"
"Yeah, the rights and pricing issues are making this not look as exciting any more. It would be great to see a site like this for cover specific stock that had more realistic rights and pricing."
41
« on: August 21, 2014, 18:41 »
1) Barriers to entry are too low. If you don't have an online portfolio of 500-1000 images available to be glanced over (not necessarily acceptable to the agency), then your application for submission to any stock agency should be automatically rejected. Uhh...no. Any stock agency? The nice--but too old-fashioned for today's publishing world--book cover RM agencies [ETA:like Arcangel or Trevillion] only require about 10-40 images, because those images take more artistry and effort. I think 40 images is too high because it makes the initial investment too much for illustrators. What about them? It's not all about street snaps and stuff on white.
42
« on: August 21, 2014, 18:03 »
Yes, I agree. But that doesn't answer the question of who decides the pricing and how to determine which images should be priced higher. If we leave it up to the contributors themselves it will be chaos.
When pixels.com started licensing, a photographer priced her photo of the moon for $30,000. Heh. Amazon prevented this with self-published authors by offering its sweet 70% cut only to books priced between $2.99-$9.99. Outside that range, authors only get 35%. It gives authors a big incentive to stay within a certain range, yet gives them plenty of room to fiddle with their prices and find a book's "sweet spot." And authors talk to each other about pricing. Norms have been established. So it's not impossible to have a large picture site with varied image pricing. Contributors just need guidelines. ETA: now Amazon has introduced Kindle Unlimited. Subs. So far the return to authors has been about $1.60-$2.00 per borrow. It's still new, but from what I've seen authors are putting in short books, old books, loss-leaders, etc. Not too many are opting-in a new 100,000-word novel because they can charge $3.99 and up and get more. ETA2: I forgot to mention that Amazon is now beta-testing an algorithm that suggests a price based on different factors and sales data. I wish Amazon got into image licensing.
43
« on: August 21, 2014, 17:06 »
Whatever the product - if the producer has no control over prices, and there's no relationship between cost of production and the selling price - it can't work. At least not for a lot of producers.
I've never understood why an apple on white should cost the same as an elaborate fashion shoot. I do understand, however, why agencies don't care. They're not putting in the effort or the money to make those pics, so it's all the same to them.
44
« on: August 20, 2014, 17:09 »
i think that applies to most things in life, really. like fast food outsells your cordon bleu restaurants, garbage reading outsells good books, lady gaga outsells ella fitzgerald,etc..
Yup. "Premium" images should be a lower-volume, higher-price business model with a defined market. "But what about rights-managed," you ask? There are lots of price points between $10 and $600+. Plus, rights-manged sites aren't very accessible to markets like self-publishing. Last weekend, I posted a link to a photographer's port on Solid Stock Art on a popular self-publishing forum. You can see the very positive reaction here: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,192510.msg2713108.htmlThe images are perfect for book covers. Solid Stock Art doesn't do subs or credit packs, but these authors didn't seem to care. The price point of around $40 seemed just fine because the images are very useful. I know some of you have issues with Solid Stock Art because of the EL thing. My point still stands. If it was Pond5 instead of Solid Stock Art, the result would have been the same. There should be certain types of images for the sub sites, and certain types of images for other sites. FYI: book covers don't need ELs, just SLs.
45
« on: August 14, 2014, 19:09 »
They'll only be the leader if a large amount of talented contributors decide to put their work only on Pond5. If people continue to put all of their work on all of the sites, the cheapest sites will win out in the long run. I think it's really that simple.
When I visited Pond5, I saw many images that are on regular microstock sites. I'll guess that people prefer to use image packs, subscriptions, credit packs, Dollar Photo Club, etc. when they can, so even if they see an image on P5 that they like, they'll just buy it from another site. Those subscriptions and packs are pretty powerful. I think P5's stills would sell better if people uploaded different, better quality images there. I think stock needs more quality stratification between 35 cent microstock and really expensive RM.
46
« on: August 01, 2014, 11:33 »
DT's "Sell the Rights" isn't what the OP is asking about. When a customer buys the rights at DT, the buyer still must share the image with everyone else who licensed the image prior to the rights sale. The OP is asking about images that are intended to be licensed only once. An example of an agency doing this would be Hot * Stock's Killion Collection. [ETA: This forum apparently censors the name of the agency.] http://hotdamnstock.com/product-category/the-killion-collection
47
« on: June 04, 2014, 20:35 »
Important quote from that Guardian article: Legacy publishers pay authors only twice a year. (Has there ever been anything like that in any other industry?) They generally pay us only 12.5% in digital royalties, compared to the 70% we get from Amazon. They insist on taking control of our copyright not for a reasonable term, but forever. Amazon made a lot of authors happy and finally able to earn a living.
48
« on: May 20, 2014, 20:59 »
About that romance author, it's more likely that she set up some kind of automated system that repeats tweets. A book cover site I follow does that.
And yes, the self-publishing community has heard of and likes the DPC. I've seen at least two authors notice the disappearing images though.
ETA: I bet some of them are annoyed that Konrad Bak pulled his images. He's a stock photographer that some authors know by name as in "I'll just put a Konrad Bak on my short story."
49
« on: May 20, 2014, 15:55 »
This is at least the third time DP has run this deal. It's not new. First time I saw it was last fall, and then it popped up again early this year.
50
« on: May 05, 2014, 14:26 »
I wonder if Deposit Photos is feeling the pressure because of Fotolia's Dollar Photo Club. I see Deposit Photos is running another promo on Mighty Deals. http://www.mightydeals.com/deal/depositphotos.html?ref=awnews&refNL=It's funny, because when the Dollar Photo Club came out, it reminded me of the Deposit Photos promo packs, except the Dollar Photo Club is all the time, well-promoted (not tucked away on some deal site), and has a $10 option. Hmm, now I also wonder if Fotolia saw what Deposit Photos was doing, and decided to do "better."
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
