That's stupid.  You can't charge less for a large size.  You'd just buy large and downsize it.  You can't do the reverse.

What needs to happen is to slide slowly towards a usage based component.  Maybe start with a personal use license for up to M size at lower price, to cover students, prints, scrappers, etc.  See if they can handle watching for inappropriate use.

I think the industry needs to get back to what it was really selling originally: quality services and convenience. I personally believe a "usage rights" based model isn't the way to go for various reasons, too many to discuss here. I also think the price per image really needs to be determined by the actual production value of the shoot. It makes no sense at all to sell images from a $5,000 shoot for the same price as images from a $1,000 shoot.

Imagine what kind of images would be produced for microstock if the royalty rates actually reflected the shoots initial investment...

R90

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=49241

I'm pretty sure this is just flat out against IStock policy.
Don't you have to tick a box saying the illustration is your own work (not only that you own the copyright but that you actually created it)?

A simple contract transferring all rights to the images is all you need. Its sorta like a model release for second shooters, you release all rights to the material.

While I agree about the idiocy of this law and the difficulty IRS will have enforcing it, I don't plan to ignore it.  Having already been audited for Use Tax, and having to pay over 2k in back taxes, I don't want problems with the IRS too. 

We may want to ignore our government, but they don't want to ignore us

True, its not without its risks, but I believe the US is finally hitting the boiling point all forms of government eventually reach when the people they govern simply disband that government by any means necessary. The other option... they just leave, while they still can. I've researched expatriation and citizenship renouncing for my own future safety, only to discover I'm basically locked into being a tax paying US citizen for at least 6 years, with another 10 years back tax liability after renouncing citizenship!!!! One of the essential characteristics of a free country is the right to leave at will, expediently if desired. That right no longer exists, especially if your wealthy...

I have found MOST over seas photo agencies in emerging markets to be nothing more than very lousy resellers of content produced by western companies, and I'm always shocked at the lack of "indigenous" faces - which only highlights their lack of leadership, much less anyone actually curating the collections. "Dumping Ground" is something that comes to my mind every time I find one. If you look up the traffic stats for these sites, it paints a very bleak picture, no pun intended.

Quote from: steve_b7 on October 06, 2010, 11:18

http://www.fotegrafik.com
They are specialised in asian subjects. seems they have many quality in stock.
Don't know if they have many customers yet.

They are based in Singapore, the only location I trust in SE Asia. Thanks for the heads up. I'll call them when I'm back in the area there next week. What you saw is mostly from Blend Images. Their own content looks like tourist snapshots in Asia. I'm inclined to give them a chance since I tend to get fed up with the rush downward of microstock.

I've been looking at them for a while now, sent them an email inquiring about them, never got a response. I really like the idea that they are based in Singapore, but what turns me off is that they are choosing to do business in the US Dollar, not exactly the currency of the future.

If you wanna totally kill an industry, regulate it, works like a charm...

How do you figure out the number of credits you sold?

Sell what really sells in this business:

Customer Service.

Lol, just listen to the appendix. It contains some examples of questionable USA patents. Lol, hilarious  

"Force sensitive, sound playing condom .... it could play whistling dixe..... "

Quote from: cardmaverick on August 09, 2010, 01:49

Stuff like this only illustrates why IP laws are complete crap. This business does not sell IP, it sells a service, because quite frankly thats all it really can sell. I've personally talked with people who have worked at several "trad" agencies for the last 20 years, and they actually agree and understand what I'm talking about. As the world becomes more digitized, IP laws become exposed more and more for the complete ridiculousness that they are.

Now this is sort of an odd statement.  Perhaps you can elaborate a bit more.

Sure thing. This business is isn't about rights, its about convenience. The original concept behind stock photography wasn't really about trying to save money on assignment shoot costs, it was more about finding images that were already made. In other words, customers were attracted to the model because they didn't have to wait weeks for a shoot to turn around, they didn't have to worry about how the images would turn out or if the photographer was a total PITA to work with, etc... They could find exactly what they wanted, and obtain it overnight if needed, and they could even talk to real humans at the agency who knew the collection well enough to help locate the desired types of shots.

Those are all services, they have absolutely nothing to do with IP laws, and this is where 99% of all micro agencies have screwed up.

I know how much istock contributers love to hate the istock back end for submissions, but if you seriously look at the powerful search options of the istock search engine, its no wonder why they are the leader in the business. That search engine is a service, thats what you're really paying for, even though it isn't presented that way when you check out.

Now digital technology has really changed things up, because its akin to a physical store keeping all its merchandise outside in the parking lot with little stickers on everything that says: please don't take me. People here seem to think that because we have IP laws, its a solid enough foundation to build a business model on top of. Right? I mean you can always just "sue your way to profit, right?" HELL NO. For one, its rarely, if ever, profitable to sue for damages over a micro stock image. The amount you'd win probably won't be greater than your legal bills. The best you can do is scare tactics like cease and desist letters, but those are a more formal way of saying, "please stop, I'll loose money taking you to court, which makes it pointless, so hopefully this letter will scare you enough to pay up." If this business wants to survive online, it had better find a more secure way to present the photos being purchased, it also needs to "get with it" on the customer service end of things as well. I've been lampooned a few times over suggestions that agencies be more restrictive on access to their collections. It's fine to disagree, but don't moan and groan with threads like this when all you're stuff is being taken and used and you find yourself with no compensation or profitable legal options.

If you really want to understand the anti IP position in more detail, I really encourage reading or listening to "Against Intellectual Property", its available for free online at the Ludwig von Mises Institute website. It's helped me see this business with a much clearer perspective.

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=226

If you have any other questions, please ask, I'll try my best to answer them.

I started reading some of the comments at the end of the site. Bad mistake. I posted a few myself, but really it is kind of pointless. But it does show the level of ignorance out there regarding intellectual property. And some posts show just plain ignorance.  

I find this rather amusing. You should read "Against Intellectual Property". Most people who champion intellectual property tend to be equally "ignorant" about it.

Stuff like this only illustrates why IP laws are complete crap. This business does not sell IP, it sells a service, because quite frankly thats all it really can sell. I've personally talked with people who have worked at several "trad" agencies for the last 20 years, and they actually agree and understand what I'm talking about. As the world becomes more digitized, IP laws become exposed more and more for the complete ridiculousness that they are.