|
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 - donnelt
26
« on: February 20, 2009, 11:35 »
If you can't be profitable at allowing the client access to 750 images a month, why don't you change your terms, and get rid of the "stockpiling" protection clause? Why not 500, and not worry about it? Does anyone need more than 500 images a month? You're trying to gain customers with your warranty advertising, yet you'll annoy them with your 750 a month (don't check the fine print) advertising. Speaking of warranties....
Sorry, why don't we go with the basics.
1. What is a warranty?
2. What does your warranty offer a buyer?
3. What are you backing this warranty up with?
4. If you are sued for violating this warranty, who pays?
It's the same type of warranty that Getty offers on traditional RF. Why doesn't Getty offer it on istock images. Huh?
27
« on: February 20, 2009, 11:30 »
Stockpiling: If we notice a client regularly downloading full quota of images we'll investigate under our EULA provisions for the prohibition of stockpiling. Nothing magical. Each case on its merits. Sorry I don't have a better answer for you.
Warranty: We do the same as every one else who offers a warranty. Again nothing magical. Take a look at Getty's or Corbis' EULA. Would you like Getty to offer a warranty on istock images?
To understand the magnitude of what we're doing - here is the section covering clients' Sales Warranty - this is in draft, but we're not anticipating any changes to this wording as it stands: We are guaranteeing that the ownership of the image and its use (so long as it's within the terms of the license we grant you) will not result in a legal problem for you. For example we guarantee that you will not get: - Legitimate claims from photographers that the image you were using had not been licensed for resale to the image library you downloaded it from. - Legitimate claims from property owners that the image you are using contains a protected property that cannot be depicted in an image for resale to the library that you downloaded it from. - Legitimate claims from models that they had never granted the right to use their image to the photographer/library that licensed you the image. If you do get a claim, we will defend you provided you notify us of the claim and permit us to handle the defense.
28
« on: February 20, 2009, 11:14 »
Stockpiling: If we notice a client regularly downloading full quota of images we'll investigate under our EULA provisions for the prohibition of stockpiling. Nothing magical. Each case on its merits. Sorry I don't have a better answer for you.
Warranty: We do the same as every one else who offers a warranty. Again nothing magical. Take a look at Getty's or Corbis' EULA. Would you like Getty to offer a warranty on istock images?
29
« on: February 20, 2009, 10:36 »
We really would not expect any of our customers to download their full quota - this would most likely be stockpiling, which is contrary to our terms (and in which case we would terminate the license).
This could be one of the most ridiculous things I've read on these boards. Isn't false advertising and entering into a contract knowing the terms are false, illegal in some countries? It is not up to you to determine what the buyer is or isn't doing with their purchase.
Looks like just another subscription site. People, I thought you all decided subscription sites weren't really healthy for this trade group.
Let's not set hares running. Prohibiting stockpiling is fairly common. Shutterstock's prohibition is listed in clause 17. Furthermore you can't store images for longer than 6 months. My home DSL provider is unlimited, but has a 'fair use' clause. My Nokia Comes with Music subscription is unlimited, but has a 'fair use' clause. Switching gears, do you like the idea of an image warranty? Would Getty offer a warranty on istock images? Do they trust their contributors enough to do that? Even if they did, do you think they would canibilize their traditional RF revenues? Tom
30
« on: February 20, 2009, 06:08 »
Flemishdreams... wow! Thanks for going into this in some depth. Can we apply the same 20 day principle to Vivozoom that you have applied to Shutterstock? What figure do you get? Then tell me if you're Ok with your image being sold for 'only 14 cents'? http://www.fotolia.com/id/11366176. (their words not mine) Yes, ELs are a very important part of our model. Now get out and take some more great photographs and tell me if the new model release attach is working for you. Tom PS. We don't do free images. (sometimes is what you don't do that defines you as much as what you do)
31
« on: February 20, 2009, 02:57 »
Shutterstock - comparison made as I discerned that you were represented by them. Their submit home page says 25c and 30c if you earn over 500 USD. FD says 33c and RT says 38c. Confusing, isn't it? Happy to take the higher figure! It makes the argument I am making about the improbability of max downloads even more convincing. Doesn't it? I still hope we win you over Richard. Once we do, we'll go after Sean Locke!  Tom
32
« on: February 19, 2009, 18:49 »
Hi Lawrence,
Thanks for your reply, although I do find it most unusual, on one hand you're saying the buyers are allowed to download a certain number of images under the subscription package but then if they do it may be contrary to the terms and you'll terminate their license, that doesn't make sense and I can't see how you could legally enforce it, but without seeing the buyer terms and conditions it's hard to say.
Also if you anticipate that the average client will download only 5-10 images over a month why not just restrict the package to say 50 a month maximum?
I'm concerned that you've not thought this through, and I know for sure that a couple of the people giving you advice on microstock are nowhere near as knowledgable as they have lead you to believe they are, I became aware of this last year and made a comment on this forum about it.
But my biggest personal concern is that you are targeting a market which for me personally gives me a better return than microstock and for a very good reason, as has been mentioned, these buyers have avoided the microstock industry, what you're offering to these buyers will I have no doubt be successful if done correctly but under your current terms to the detriment of the contributors.
I am a realist which is why I started contributing to microstock in the first place much to the displeasure of traditional stock purists, I still believe in microstock and that a market is in place for the two levels of selling stock imagery to co-exist, but I for one will not be supporting your site under the present conditions, I will however monitor it with great interest and wish you and Tom all the best.
Richard, thanks for your good wishes and your considered postings. You're not the only one that believes our approach is wrong. Others think we're irresponsible by 'destroying price premiums' (see half way down: https://secure.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=4429). Perhaps I read 'Atlas Shrugged' at very formative years, but I have no doubts that this is the next and final phase of Microstock. Will it deliver a knock-out blow to over-priced RF - maybe not, but it will help put some value and respect back into RM. Tom
33
« on: February 19, 2009, 18:34 »
...
On Vivozoom, as far as I can see, you have attach the MRF first to all shots in the queue, then submit. There is no way to attach now and then when you have spare time, and submit those few.
..
Flemishdreams - no - that's not right, you can selectively submit any images you want at any time, leaving the rest for a later submission. Also - take a look at the new update to the release attachment tool. You can attach one or more releases to multiple images in just 4 clicks. Just like you asked for. Let me know what you think and thanks for keeping us on our toes.. Tom
34
« on: February 19, 2009, 18:28 »
donnelt (Tom) I take it the site is due to launch very soon, I have a couple of questions:
1. Am I right in understanding that you will be offering a subscription package to buyers for $300 a month with a daily download limit of 25, and if they choose to use their full limit the contributors net commission will be 16 cents per image.
I've taken this figure from the contract example.
2. Is it correct that if a buyers account goes into bad debt or their payment bounces that Vivozoom will take a clawback from the contributors commission relative to the images that buyer bought.
I'll be honest with you I'm not too keen on these terms, you're about to start offering a warrantied image service to buyers who have traditionally spent hundreds on photos and who traditionally quite often disappear into the night without a trace, and the result of this is that we the contributors get a possible 16 cent per image and the knowledge that we may have to pay that back knowing our image has already been used.
I have no doubt your site will be succesful with the old traditional buyers, they get 750 photos for the price that they've been used to paying for one!
The contributors seem to be getting ..........
Richard .. Lawrence has responded to point 1 by explaining how we're doing things differently. To add to this point, until you know what the average downloads per subscription are, you cannot be sure that your 25c per download on SS represents a fair return. But let me put it this way using UK prices; if all SS clients in the UK downloaded their full quota of 750 images at UKP149, SS couldn't keep the lights on. On your second point, well, we're not that original. Other sites have these provisions already. Take a look at your contract ( http://submit.shutterstock.com/tostos.mhtml) with SS - see 7.f. Were you aware of this? We're both reserving the right to do this. However, Vivozoom is not reserving the right to change the contract without your consent. If you change your mind, we'd be delighted to represent you. Tom
35
« on: February 18, 2009, 08:01 »
I have been uploading by FTP but right now a couple of hundreds are stuck in the queue since their model release attach procedure is terribly slow and complicated.
FlemishDreams .. we have uploaded an interim fix to allow releases to be attached in bulk to all images on a page or all uploaded images in that batch. You can now simultaneously attach multiple releases to multiple images. I hope this goes some way to help ease the process of attaching releases. Tom
36
« on: January 02, 2009, 04:43 »
How will the new site attract the customers/buyers.I have no doubt the content will be first class as i have seen the files created by the talent assembled on this forum and istocks.
Sales make a site/business tick along and i doubt you have the resourses to match istockphotos extensive advertising budget...
Shank-ali.. I too would have serious doubts about uploading to new and unproven sites. No question and I wouldn't blame you if you decided to wait-and-see. New businesses have to bring something new to the market and I believe we are changing the landscape of microstock with an image warranty ( http://submit.vivozoom.com/en_uk/warranty.htm). We have one or two other improvements that we hope clients will enjoy but fundamentally, we want to remove the perceived and real risk of the use of Microstock for mainstream professional users (Agencies, Publishers and Corporations). Tom
37
« on: December 30, 2008, 08:37 »
Good Luck with the new site Tom.You certainly seem to be on the ball and keeping the hungry thong informed which is a good thing.
I stared at this for 10 minutes before I got the joke!
38
« on: December 30, 2008, 06:51 »
Nice new contributor login page. Is the site going live soon?
Wish I could see that contributor page. My password is not accepted, and when I change it successfully... it doesn't work at the next logon. Last October I found out that the password has to be very short, but there is no hint whatsoever how long or short exactly... VZ promised this issue would be solved then but it's apparently still there. So sorry but I don't have time any more to help debug a site. Once bitten by LuckyOliver, twice shy. Too many sites, too little time 
FlemishDreams.. the password is restricted to 13 characters in length at this time. As a result of your earlier correspondence, I have a work-item outstanding to: 1. Increase the limit to 20 characters 2. Indicate on the choose-password field that the limit is a length of 20 With so many other priorities arising, this slipped down the list, but I haven't lost sight of it. Sorry for the delay.. In the meantime, if you want me to reset your password, please either PM me or email me or Stacey (you know our email addresses). Happy New Year Tom
39
« on: December 16, 2008, 15:16 »
No Tom, my question is not so much about any one photo of mine that was rejected for the need of a property release as it was a general question about whether property releases were needed for photos of private residences which were shot from public streets. I will not upload any more photos of houses unless the situation changes - or unless I can get property releases (which I'm not planning to do).
Ken, checked with my colleague and the answer is yes, a release is required in these situations. Tom
40
« on: December 16, 2008, 03:10 »
Hi Tom - I see VivoZoom also has a similar policy regarding property releases for photos of residential homes, taken from public streets, where there are no identifying numbers, logos, people, property visible through windows, etc. Could it be that since these kinds of images are typically accepted on most other microstock sites (one in particular with very stringent acceptance rules in this regard) that your lawyer would consider this another case of being overly cautious?
Otherwise looking forward to the launch of the site.
Ken
Ken - possibly, but in general, if the property is an identifiable house (as in the owner would recognise and be able to prove that it was his or her property), then a release would be required. I know this can be infuriating as the rules seem to change, are different at many sites and can be interpreted incorrectly by reviewers from time to time. With your help, we'll try to codify the rules as acuurately as we can, but there will always be gray areas. If you have an image in particular that you felt was judged too harshly, I be grateful if you could let me know. tom <at> vivozoom.com
41
« on: December 11, 2008, 13:33 »
A couple of questions:
................
I also received rejections on two of the images I submitted - one was of some 4WD vehicles with plates etc removed, another of a boat with a resort in the background, again with identifying features removed - both images were rejected for property release issues. Is the policy of your site to require releases for all property or vehicles, even where all trademarks and number plates have been removed, or are there areas where such images can be submitted?
Holgs - Provenance is very important to our clients and we warrant the use of the images whereas most others so not. That's why you may see us doing things that don't jive with other sites' approach. On this occasion, we decided to double check with our lawyer (probably the most experienced in the stock industry) who said we were overly cautious. The 4x4 and the boat were NOT deemed to be "Trade Dress" - a term meaning that although no logos were visible, you could still identify the make/model. For instance, a VW Beetle. Please resubmit and there will be no release issues. Now, I'm sure many are thinking this is way over the top, but please remember, we're trying to open Microstock to a whole market who do not have faith in the Provenance of many sites' images. It's a differentiator and one that we hope will increase your revenues rather than canibilize existing sales from other sites. Tom
42
« on: December 09, 2008, 10:36 »
A couple of questions:
I attempted to upload a batch of images via FTP about a week ago, but now can't see the images coming up anywhere - do these just take some time or am I missing a page somewhere?
I also received rejections on two of the images I submitted - one was of some 4WD vehicles with plates etc removed, another of a boat with a resort in the background, again with identifying features removed - both images were rejected for property release issues. Is the policy of your site to require releases for all property or vehicles, even where all trademarks and number plates have been removed, or are there areas where such images can be submitted?
Hi Holgs.. sorry for the delay in responding... I'll take a look at the missing images and respond to you via email. On releases, we are trying to take a very safe approach to all releases to satisfy the needs of corporate clients, but if you want me ask our team to provide a better explanation or supplementary information on a particular image, let me know. Tom
43
« on: November 13, 2008, 07:57 »
Micth .. looks like you were onto something. I contacted a couple of experts in the field of metadata. One of them (David Riecks - www.controlledvocabulary.com) pointed out that the PLUS coalition has established some advanced principles for embedded release information. You can see the structure at http://ns.useplus.org/LDF/ldf-XMPSpecification. Of course there are some drawbacks, there are not many tools that allow the creation of this data, but he provided me with some great examples of stuff available today and the impression that Photoshop CS4 will probably support these fields. It also seems that it's getting widespread industry endorsement: http://www.abouttheimage.com/3978/mcgraw_hill_houghton_mifflin_harcourt_pearson_plus_image_licensing_standard/author2
I can't think of a more simple solution than integrating IPTC data with model releases... that way the site's system and your personal system are easy to manage. Sites could even implement a "show me more with this model" very simply. A spreadsheet is not the right solution.
Granted, for people like Rinder with 6000 old images, that would be a total pain in the tush to go back and update all images. But going forward, it would be so simple if all sites were to come to an agreement and did it the same way (yes I'm a dreamer). Someone's got to start and set an example... 
Everyone loves how easy it is to put keywords in the IPTC once and all the sites use those upon upload... why not do something similar with model/property releases?
44
« on: November 06, 2008, 18:03 »
Ken - I've used many of these sites and yes, they have their distinct advantages. I know we can improve this release-attach process on VZ but the next improvement (to avoid duplication of effort) really ought to be an industry convention at minimum and standard at best for a many-to-many correlation. Given a free hand and some good suggestions I'm sure we could design the ultimate system, but if it remains a unique and proprietary model, we're still stuck with doing things differently for each site. And then another site will invent something better and then... etc.. Tom Yep... but in many shoots we get shots of (say) just the vacant dining table taken before the models are seated.
If the sites agreed on a metadata standard, you'd create that list once and if all sites supported it, it would be worth the effort
The suggestion of attaching all releases to all shots for all models may end up with a still-life shot (of a dining table) showing "model released". Now this may not seem like a big deal, but when we're trying to attract a buyer who seeks high provenance credentials, it doesn't set the right scene.
There has to be a better way without every site doing its own thing...
Tom
well in that case - say 5 shots of the candlesticks, table, chairs etc.
i would click 'attack all 200 shots with release X'
then I would 'unclick those 5 shots with no model'
click 'submit'
that would be 6 clicks. still pretty quick.
also as download mentioned most people have their images organized in folders so images are uploaded in an organized fashion.
45
« on: November 06, 2008, 17:54 »
Mitch - this is good stuff. I think the core IPTC is being extended, but only to include a flag that indicates whether the image is or is not Property and/or Model Released. IPTC is meant to be a self-defined data structure in that all information describes the image content and there is no "meta-meta" construct. However, if the industry could agree on (what is called) an "escape sequence" in (say) the keywords, then we could hi-jack the keywords fields to provide a list of property and model release filenames. For example, suppose we agreed that a keyword commencing %%M was the filename of a model release and %%P was a property release, we could then match available releases automatically. This would be an unauthorised and unsupported use of the IPTC standard, but many good ideas like yours have originated from a bastardisation of standards. Tom model / property releases... what about a totally new system? Suppose that a photographer were to embed a special code in the IPTC data (one of the rarely used fields - say maybe the 'writer/editor' or some other field) that had a specific key to their model / property release. Then, when the photo is uploaded, it could be matched to an uploaded model/property release. Obviously, the release upload would have to have that same special key in it - that way the files could be matched.
Doing it this way would even save the photographer time since once the release is uploaded and the photog puts the release numbers in the IPTC data, then for each subsequent file, they wouldn't have to do anything since the system could automatically pick up the model release out of the IPTC data and match it to the existing release.
I'd use a unique code made up of my name and my own release number - say something like "mitch-aunger-MR001'. This wouldn't mess up the keywords, and would still allow everyone to know which release went with which image very easily especially if the site managed releases based on this same unique key. The data would be imbedded in the files, so things would be easy to keep track of.
All of the sites could easily use the same methodology and maintenance would be much easier on everyone as long as everyone found the same IPTC field to use (which might be the only sticking point in this scheme?)
Obviously, it would be up to the photographer to ensure that the special IPTC data were applied to files with the model in it (not including just the table example).
46
« on: November 06, 2008, 17:46 »
Yes the "exception" route makes a lot of sense in this scenario. Yep... but in many shoots we get shots of (say) just the vacant dining table taken before the models are seated.
If the sites agreed on a metadata standard, you'd create that list once and if all sites supported it, it would be worth the effort
The suggestion of attaching all releases to all shots for all models may end up with a still-life shot (of a dining table) showing "model released". Now this may not seem like a big deal, but when we're trying to attract a buyer who seeks high provenance credentials, it doesn't set the right scene.
There has to be a better way without every site doing its own thing...
Tom
well in that case - say 5 shots of the candlesticks, table, chairs etc.
i would click 'attack all 200 shots with release X'
then I would 'unclick those 5 shots with no model'
click 'submit'
that would be 6 clicks. still pretty quick.
also as download mentioned most people have their images organized in folders so images are uploaded in an organized fashion.
47
« on: November 04, 2008, 17:00 »
Yep... but in many shoots we get shots of (say) just the vacant dining table taken before the models are seated. If the sites agreed on a metadata standard, you'd create that list once and if all sites supported it, it would be worth the effort The suggestion of attaching all releases to all shots for all models may end up with a still-life shot (of a dining table) showing "model released". Now this may not seem like a big deal, but when we're trying to attract a buyer who seeks high provenance credentials, it doesn't set the right scene. There has to be a better way without every site doing its own thing... Tom Yeah, i don't know any microstock shooter who keeps track of their releases that way. If no one allready has that typed in, it would be a LOT of work to get it all set just for one site.
typing the image names of thousands of images and then typing which model releases follow along sounds like a daunting task.
It would be easier to be able to upload 200 images then click a button and say 'attach all 200 images with release X' ... submit
2 clicks and releases for 200 images are done.
48
« on: November 04, 2008, 16:20 »
Leaf - am extremely interested in folks views of which one is best. Each seems to have their favourite but I had a vision of a "non-proprietary" system that could be used across microstock sites. The simple interface I had in mind (and indeed have built and used on one of the top shooter's collection) is a simple CSV file (a very portable, non-proprietary format) that lists the relationship between images and their releases. This is fed into the bulk-attach script which then pairs releases with images, issuing any error reports (missing images, missing releases). This worked like a dream. I'm reluctant to build a system that only works with vivozoom. I'd spoken to a few shooters whose workflow included such a CSV table. But it's clear that few others maintain their releas-to-image relationships in this format. Tom Just an idea... The easiest and best web tool to attach MRs to uploaded images is the one 123RF has. It's worth the time to check it. I wish all agency would have the same.
Have you tried crestock? I like theirs better.
49
« on: November 04, 2008, 12:25 »
Thanks for the info Valaaami.. Tom Just an idea... The easiest and best web tool to attach MRs to uploaded images is the one 123RF has. It's worth the time to check it. I wish all agency would have the same.
50
« on: November 04, 2008, 09:05 »
Laurin.. thanks for advice as always. As mentioned previously, we can auto-attach releases in bulk, but it's a back office tool and it's not ready for general consumption. Just upload the images via FTP (drag and drop a complete folder and and subfolders) and send me a spreadsheet and I'll do the rest. It's clearly an area where we need to do much more work. I'll work on a web-interface for this tool and get back to you when we've made some progress. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Tom hey Tom, As you know I've been around the block a few times But, One thing is clear and I mentioned it to you when we talked a year ago.
"The site that makes uploading easy will be the winner in Everyones Minds." I don't know if your a submitter But, For those of us that take this seriously, It is by far the most tedious thing we do and the most cost effective thing we do.
:
:
:
Best, Laurin
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
