@lisafx  Isn't that what the SR-EL license is at Dreamstime? 

Yes, that is correct.

I would like to have somebody who sold the exclusive USAGE rights NOT the copyright to respond to me via PM.

Thanks.

Why? Can't we all know it? 

I don't want to see a "discussion" with people claiming to know better without having sold exclusive usage rights before.
Too many trolls here that don't contribute anything constructive.

Also, the ones who did sell exclusive usage rights would be hesitant posting details on a public forum.

Nothing personal.

Quote from: click_click on May 17, 2009, 22:05

The remedy is quite "simple". Do better, produce more.

If everybody is doing that, it won't help 

Imagine everybody soon having a 65Mp Hasselblad, shooting with 10 4000w lightboxes in a 50,000$ studio, with Claudia Schiffer as business model with headset, shaking hands with Brad Pitt, and selling those shots for 0.35$ on CheaperStock - what would change?

Haha. I know what you think but that's not what I meant.

Obviously you have to use your brain too!

First of not too many could afford what you mentioned above...

Secondly if you're smart you have to go into a niche market.

BUT

if you decide to go into a market that is saturated only make sure you do it better. Then you won't have to worry. It works.

There are still saturated areas with quite lousy images. Just because a lot of people do them means that the images are great. 

If you have an eye what sells and know what your skills are you will know which areas to cover. Like I said, use your brain.
Some people believe it's a no-brainer to sell photos online. And just because some people have 3000 or more images on there doesn't mean that they do well or have outstanding images...

You can make a living with 600 exceptional photographs/illustrations. There are people who do that. But they won't talk because then you would really see where the money is 

Keep browsing through popular portfolios. You'll see.

Quote from: jim123 on May 17, 2009, 02:12

I'd like to write this off to recession, but wonder if that's really it, or is it just seasonal, or what.
Any thoughts, validation, or reality check comments are very appreciated and THANKS FOR THIS BOARD - nice to find it!

Attribute part of it to the number of "Make money with your images" websites and "classes" that have appeared in the last year or so.

Plus the people who believe:

500 images = $500 a month
1000 images = $1000 a month
5000 images = $5000 a month

and not just that. They expect this to stay like that for eternity 

Here is the reality check:

Improve you work, learn, research, talk to professionals in the industry and most importantly: shoot, shoot, shoot as much as you can.
Also upload those shots of course.

Only a steady growing portfolio and increasing quality will pay off. Otherwise you'll be disappointed sooner or later.

Quote from: click_click on May 14, 2009, 18:51

Out of curiosity: Are you only able to send them the pics they chose from Flickr also for the future? Or can you upload to them more, once they want some of your Flickr stuff?

It's by invitation only, and you have to list an image there exclusively for two years. You can list images as RF or RM.

sharply_done, I think I worded my question wrong.

Once they select some of your images and you are represented by Getty. Will you have an active account with them that allows you to upload more imges straight to them?

Maybe this is better formulated...

Unfortunately I can't say much about it right now. What I can say is that we think finding those who have used your images without permission and making it easy for them to pay and get that permission is a route we're interested in.

If your feature works the way you just said, you will become a multi billionaire.

You would have created what all major stock agencies have been working on for years without success. It would be the "holy grail" of image licensing!

Still, making it easy for someone to pay, doesn't mean they will pay...

I wish you all the best of luck and please do post your further progress in this forum!

I should also mention that we're looking into a feature/technology that could potentially trump watermarking for protecting your images. It would also allow you to monetize photos of yours that have been used without permission. After all, it's not that people use your images that is the issue, it's that they didn't pay for the right to use them.

This sounds very interesting and I would like to heart a lot more about that.

Especially about the part where you say

... It would also allow you to monetize photos of yours that have been used without permission...

How would that work?

OK my 2 cents,
I tried that road too and it barely worked - maybe because I'm not coder enough to handle it.
I used several CMS and they all had restrictions. Restrictions that just wouldn't allow you to get the perfect site.

When you consider the psychology side of what makes a good commerce web site you need to think of what your buyers' needs are. For instance there is specific info on the internet that explains which backgrounds (color, patterns) work well for selling images in order not to distract your buyers as well as many more rules that help getting and keeping buyers.

So, there is the technical side, the psychological side, the payment side and also the time you need to nail it all together.

One important thing would be: your own site design - correct? Now how can you combine your layout with a CMS that is powerful enough for what you need or use other services to incorporate them into your existing layout.

Then consider how powerful and user friendly the CMS are/is that you chose to use. Are they really what you need? Are they really what your buyers want/need? I'm speaking of light box features, zoom features, pricing feature, licensing feature etc.

You find yourself quickly in a situation where the CMS you need doesn't exist. At least not as of now. You will end up investing your time to customize it to your needs which means fiddeling around with HTML, PHP, SQL etc.

Long story short, the closest of what I believe is "workable" (although I never tried it out) would be a Pro account with Smugmug. They allow you to integrate their back-end into your layout. And their back-end is quite powerful. Their features are what photo buyers are looking for. The licensing is a little weak but for RF it should be quite ok.

Most importantly Smugmug's systems if FAST. You need to be fast when it comes to image buyers. You're dealing with big file size (considerably) and you have no time to waste hoping your potential buyers have the patience to wait for your CMS/PHP/SQL query to be scrambled together in a short amount of time.

Check out smugmug.com and look at the pro sites that they feature. I think it's a nice product and it's not too expensive. They offer printing services as well - but you'll see. Long list of features.

I've quit the do-it-all-yourself business. It eats your valuable time producing good content.

Hope it helps.

I would like to see subs commission increase to $0.50, not stay where they are.

There is something called "reality" happening around us - heard about it?

Wake me up when royalties for subscription will hit the 50 cents mark.

I'll be cashing in those 25 cents subs sales from Crestock while we're waiting for the industry "to change to a fair commission policy".

Don't forget to blame me btw when your sales drop at Shutterstock which has nooooothing to do with the 80.000 newly accepted submission every week.

You think Crestock's 25 cents are a problem? Wait until Shutterstock hits the 20 Million mark...

Yuri knows well his maths as well you know yours.

About pointing finger - well I am pointing at ANYONE WHO UPLOAD to such agencies - Not only you or Yuri ;-)

I am not uploading there and I said why I don't upload there. I believe that my expirience and straight given oppinion in this public forum about that is enough.

THIS IS THE POINT: Buyers want it cheap? Well what would you do? You'll give that images cheap? OK come on and work for me then cheap. I will pay you 8 hours of your work say $1 OK? It is because my buyer is paying me $3 for all work needed to be done...

Get reasonable and cut such buyers off! What would happen then? They will pay the price asked or steal from you.

As I said: WE HAVE POWER - NOT AGENCIES just because we are those who CREATE. Agencies are just our retail service! So who has the right to say that you will get 25 cents per image sold for $1? Agency? Come on dude - you are smart and you are acting as you can't do anything about it... That is the main problem... All are happy with peannuts!

If there are low priced sales it is OK with me. But let's be real. Our work, equipment, time spent in production and post, expences for this and that is worth just 25% - 30% of sale price? And agency with its expences, equipment and marketing should have all the rest of sale price? NO - That is my point!

Trust me - iStock can pay you at least 50% more commissions and not even to feel that!

So there is the main what I'd like to happen: to see 50/50 in some more agencies - not as today just in few! How to achieve that? Just pull off all your images from sites who don't run fair policy and they are toast!

And it is very personal if I do something hurting you and opposite!

If you can't understand this I said - then I give up.

Sorry Milinz, I'm not your "dude".

I find it quite disrespectful to approach anybody like that - at least where I come from.

I know this can go on forever but it really buggles me that you claim "people like you" (now you officially included Yuri AND me) are ruining the industry by doing business with Crestock. I don't have to explain that too thoroughly to you but besides the fact that some photographers DO NOT upload to Crestock, there are also quite a few WHO DO.

Obviously all those who do "support" this bad, bad agency must be very, very stupid because all those contributors must want the industry to crash according to your theory - since you claimed that Crestock is: (your quote:

They go for that to get all other sites out of business with giving unfair discount on already unfair prices on subs!

That would mean that everybody uploading to Crestock is an idiot (that would include Yuri)... and pretty much self destructive. I'd be surprised to see Yuri making such a huge mistake.

Buyers want it cheap? Well what would you do? You'll give that images cheap? OK come on and work for me then cheap. I will pay you 8 hours of your work say $1 OK? It is because my buyer is paying me $3 for all work needed to be done...

It appears you have not understood the principle of Microstock. It's about volume. Regarding your statement, not one single photographer would be able to generate income if it would work like that.

You can't compare apples with pears. Working 8 hrs for $1 is miles away from selling a $1 image 2000, 3000 or more times. Honestly, and I really want to understand how you could possibly compare it that way? Please explain.

Needless to say that I have to turn your offer down. Crestock is paying me more a day than that 

If there are low priced sales it is OK with me. But let's be real. Our work, equipment, time spent in production and post, expences for this and that is worth just 25% - 30% of sale price? And agency with its expences, equipment and marketing should have all the rest of sale price? NO - That is my point!

If you see it that way, simply don't participate in microstock. As mentioned above, it's about volume.

It's a free world. Nobody is forcing you to upload your entire content to the micros. If you have a shoot that calculates down to $50 expenses per shot and more, just upload the dang thing to a traditional macro agency. There you will get your return.

As I said: WE HAVE POWER - NOT AGENCIES just because we are those who CREATE. Agencies are just our retail service! So who has the right to say that you will get 25 cents per image sold for $1? Agency? Come on dude - you are smart and you are acting as you can't do anything about it... That is the main problem... All are happy with peannuts!

I never said I can't do anything about whatever... I never complained about Crestock in the first place, so you can count me out on that one.
Secondly, if we, I or you have the power, go sell your stuff yourself on your own site and keep the 100%. There are plenty of photographers that can do that - I can't. It will cost you lots of first hand experience, time, nerves and money and a this point I'm better off having a variety of agents.

I can do a lot - if it comes down to Crestock buying out all other Micros because they will lose all the subscribers, then and only then I will put everything I produce to the Trads. But as of now, a little bit here and a little bit there works just dandy for me.

Ultimately I don't think your experiences can be applied to every single photographer on this planet so why tell them what to do? What works for you might not work for someone else.

Oh yeah one more thing, if there is no photographer, there is no agent. If there is no agent, there won't be a photographer (making money).

That is what I am talking about - Only your earnigs matter - shortminded indeed.

What are you talking about? "Only my earnings matter?" Since when am I supposed to worry about your earnings? I do my job, I get paid. Period. Go do yours  instead of blaming me for short mindedness...

Did you saw Crestock 50% off on subscriptions? They go for that to get all other sites out of business with giving unfair discount on already unfair prices on subs!

Do you seriously believe that a tiny company like Crestock could possibly become a serious competitor by offering the first subscription purchase for 50% off?

So you are saying that ALL subscribers at ALL microstock agencies are NOW going to Crestock and completely destroy the microstock industry?
Crestock has been offering that deal for a while now - I wonder why I'm still making money on other subscription sites then...

Yes, you just continue to work with them and you'll soon get your money only from them.

I have confidence that Shutterstock or Getty is not going to be bought out by Crestock so I still count on that income in the future.

Also, I believe there is someone smart in Corbis, Getty or on some other strong agency who will realise what is the problem... So, due to people like you who like to have 'regular' payouts from lowest pricing sites this industry will turn to NANO - no more micro ;-) You will earn 5 cents download soon... What a life dude... I am really sad about that!

I guess you will have to be sad then. You're either a Macro or Ex-Macro photographer or quite new to the microstock business to make such an assessment.
You refuse to accept that people don't want to spend a lot of money for anything which includes images. That's why microstock became so successful and turned the stock industry upside down.

It's not me the photographer, changing the stock world - it's the demand AND the suppliers (agencies) that make the prices.

If you don't want to participate in the industry get out of the business entirely and stop complaining about individual photographers  "who turn micro into nano"

By the way: That Getty was doing is calculated on that you are doing on CS. But on long term it is bad for contributors everywhere! Only agencies will earn money! They count on your picture of 'Regular' payouts to people who will give away their images for free... If you don't understand it what to say further?

"Only agencies will earn money!" - You do realize that this is how it works, right?

I really don't care what agencies you support of who you are with. Go talk to Yuri about your problem and tell him to drop Crestock because then they could close their doors. Maybe your more successful there.

We should stop supporting such ripping off agencies! Feel free to do so.

This kind of feels like history repeating itself. Scary...

Thank you! Can you provide us with some tool that supports .ru domains?

Google spit out these results:

http://www.nic.ru/whois/
or
http://www.ripn.net/nic/whois/en/index.html

If it's not working just do a search on Google for: "Whois ru"

There are really tons of websites like this. Is it really enough to write only to the agency from where are images taken?

If the source of the images is on that web site please do contact the agency and give them the link.

If you find one of your images there, write to the web host for copyright infringement. Like I said before when you as the copyright holder write to the web host they will remove the site (most of the time temporarily) so you pretty much "just" scare the webmaster for a bit. If you "only" write to the webmaster they just remove the image and keep doing what they are doing (which is what they shouldn't be doing...).

Once the complaints to the web host reach a certain level the web host will ban the user. It's most likely not going to stop the user but it creates a lot of work for them to migrate/re-upload their site and get a new domain/DNS update. Those things always create headaches even if you want it to do yourself...