http://licensing.pixels.com/featured/sun-dips-below-horizon-on-grace-bay-beach-jo-ann-snover.html?licensetype=0

You have to start from pixels.com and then at the top of the home page, on the right, you can click Licensing. Then do a search from that screen (and you'll see many fewer products available as not everyone has opted for doing this)

Same. I've logged in today each time I've visited the site (3 times I think). Typically it's only if I change computers.

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 09, 2014, 14:21

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 09, 2014, 10:18

I think it's because we can see nothing's going to play out differently than any others who have tried to start the exact same thing in the past.  It's a site that accepts any image that comes in and wants to payout %80 of the sales which means no money for marketing or improvements.  It's just nothing new, so we can see the end of the story.

actually its 100% for the photographer

Yes, the 20% is added on top. So, if you price an image at �5, the buyer will pay roughly �6.40. �5 to you, �1 (the 20%) to Picfair, and �0.40 to Stripe, who process our payments.

(Benji reply)

That's one way to look at it - 20% added on top.

As a buyer, I'd prefer to just see the price I pay not some price and a bunch of fees to be added (which is more like renting a car from the airport - $100 for the car and $70 in taxes/recovery charges/etc).

If the buyer's price is �6.40, taken as a percentage of the total paid, the photographer gets 78.1% the agency 15.6% and the payment processor 6.3%

It's a bit worse for a �3.00 image (76.9, 15.4, 7.7) and a bit better for a �50 image (80.7, 16.15, 3.15) because the Stripe fee isn't linear (�0.30 and �1.94 respectively).

But if that �50 surfing image were ever to find a buyer, seeing �50 on the search page and then discovering it's really �61.94 would be off-putting, IMO - it's a lot more money

I think one of the first was against StockXpert and they did make some changes as a result, but I can't remember what it was about.

I'll post the e-mail StockXpert sent out after the Town Hall (phone conference call) "meeting" from August 2008 below - it was about the content from StockXpert being moved to JupiterImages Unlimited and photos.com with no opt outs for those who didn't want to participate. We got opt outs (although not ideal in that it was a one time only choice I think). After StockXpert was acquired by Jupiter they were treating StockXpert content more as if it were wholly owned and theirs to do with as they saw fit and contributors wanted to control where the content went.

I think the first protest was when Dreamstime wanted to hold content for 12 months and a number of us withheld uploads for a while and then the hold was reduced to 6 months. I think this was a response to iStock exclusivity, and so was earlier than the Fotolia subscriptions protest (we got two increases in the amount per download plus subs counting as 1/4 DL for ranking purposes).

Other protests you didn't mention were when iStock introduced the first partner program (subs on photos.com and JIU). First it was opt out versus opt in and the amount per download got increased after not so many people opted in (because it was a crappy deal). See here and here and PDN's brief note on this if you want to read the history. They didn't like the red opt out avatars

========================== ancient history boundary line =============================

"Thank you for voicing your concerns on the forum and for participating in our first ever Town Hall conference call last Thursday. We want you to know that we heard (and read) your concerns.

As stated on the call, we want to apologize for how this policy change and its communication were handled. We have taken your concerns seriously and decided to step back and review our initial plan. There will be no changes in your ability to control where your content is distributed. All three opt-out options will remain fully functional.

If you are not familiar with these options, as a contributor to Stockxpert you can earn more by:

Choosing to include your content in subscriptions on Stockxpert and other Jupiterimages sites;
Choosing to include your content with unrelated third parties Jupiterimages does business with, and/or;
Choosing to sell extended rights for your content enabling it to be used in products and services which are sold.
Please review your opt-in selections in your account profile to confirm your selected licensing options.

Based on three factors in the market, we believed the time was right to make all content on Stockxpert automatically available via these three opportunities. First, these options used to be opt-in, not opt-out. We discovered earlier in the year that most contributors wanted to be included in these programs but did not realize they had to opt-in. In response, for contributor convenience and customer benefit we made these options opt-out. Very few contributors opt-out which tells us that these revenue opportunities are viewed positively by virtually the entire Stockxpert community.

Second, the amount of revenue earned through extended licenses was negligible. If you earn a lot of money from extended licenses, you are among an elite few. We thought we could differentiate our community by offering customers a more simplified licensing option while increasing the value of using Stockxpert without taking anything away from contributors.

And finally, the customers on Stockxpert who license your content were expressing confusion over content that was available in the Stockxpert subscription versus content that was only available for single image sales. To adopt a highly customer centric approach, we wanted to have content consistency across any product or service which includes Stockxpert content.

These issues and challenges are real, and as a community, we need to figure out how we're going to address them so that we remain competitive and deliver the best experience for the customer. But as contributors you are customers too and we let you down in how we chose to discuss these issues and in how we decided to bring changes to the community.

While we take a step back to re-assess these issues and how we can have a constructive dialog with the community about them, Jupiterimages will be actively experimenting with the unique opportunities we have to expand your exposure throughout our Jupiterimages properties and worldwide distribution channels. Across all of our businesses we license more than $100 million worth of content annually. We want to leverage this traffic for the benefit of Stockxpert contributors and all our customers. Some of these experiments will be successful others won't be. But we're not standing still.

To that end, shortly we will be launching two new opportunities for contributors to earn additional revenue. These opportunities are linked to your subscriptions opt-in selection and they are completely optional and you may easily opt-out (if you're not familiar on how to do this, directions will follow).

The first opportunity is the coming launch of our Photos.com Plus subscription plan. This opportunity is automatically available to you if you are opted-in to subscriptions. The Photos.com Plus plan is based on Photos.com, one of the oldest and most used photo subscriptions on the Internet. The content in Photos.com is what we call wholly-owned. That means we own it and don't pay any royalties on it. We will be adding a new subscription level for Photos.com customers (Photos.com Plus), and in this we are proactively including Stockxpert contributors in a multi-million dollar revenue stream. Why? Our customers want the fresh, stylized images that you're producing and selling on Stockxpert.

Your images will not only be exposed to thousands more customers and downloads on one of the leading stock photo sites in the industry, but you will also have the opportunity to sell your images at higher price points with the pay-per-download option that is available. On the regular Photos.com subscription, the two highest resolutions are not included. As part of this experiment, we've adopted the same approach for Photos.com Plus and we're excited to see if we can sell microstock images at traditional royalty-free prices, yielding more revenue for everyone.

Another subscription plan where you will earn additional revenue is coming in the near future, the Jupiterimages Unlimited Plus subscription, or JIU+. We have heard you in the forums and we want to let you know about these options ahead of time so that you can make your choice. Again, the Photos.com Plus opportunity and this Jupiterimages Unlimited Plus opportunity are automatically available to you only if you are opted-in to subscriptions. Jupiterimages Unlimited is one of the fastest growing subscription businesses at Jupiterimages and we're excited to add the fresh, stylized images of Stockxpert to the collection for all the same reasons we're doing so for Photos.com Plus.

Experimenting with these new offerings is fairly complex as we're trying to balance the needs and expectations of our customers and those of our Stockxpert contributors. The best source of new subscription sales for both new offerings are from our installed base of existing subscribers so we need to try to match what they're used to without giving away too much value. We're doing our best but it's a bit tricky. The End User License Agreements (EULAs) for Photos.com and Jupiterimages Unlimited, for instance, are different from the EULA for the Stockxpert subscription. So we're making compromises in both as we prepare to bring Photos.com Plus and JIU+ to market. To make this clear, we have created a special web page to help clarify these areas for you. Please visit http://www.stockxpert.com/lpages/contributor to read more.

While we think Photos.com Plus and JIU+ are great opportunities for you to earn more revenue from your images, we also understand and respect that you may not want to be part of these new subscription opportunities. If that is the case, please be sure to visit your account profile and deselect the checkbox under "Number 7 Subscription to Stockxpert.com" by August 15 to be removed. If you are already opted-out of subscriptions, then you don't need to do anything. Understandably, we cannot create opt-outs for each new subscription offering, so if you opt-out of subscriptions, your Stockxpert content will not be available in any subscription on Stockxpert, Photos.com Plus, Jupiterimages Unlimited Plus or any future Jupiterimages subscription offering. For those of you who are interested in being a part of this exciting new subscription, please double check to make sure you are opted in.

Thank you for staying involved. We've definitely learned an important and valuable lesson in how we need to engage with you in the future. While we will continue testing and being an innovative leader in this field, we know we need to be sure to include the community in all future initiatives.

Again, for a better understanding of the Photos.com Plus and JIU+ opportunities, please visit http://www.stockxpert.com/lpages/contributor and remember to opt-in (or out) by August 15.

Please feel free to contact us if you still have questions and thank you for your continued support.

Sincerely,
The Stockxpert Team"

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/is-vivozoom-dead

Pete's post at the end of that thread notes that in 2011 it was indicative that the copyright at the bottom of the home page still said 2010.

And today? "Vivozoom � 2010 Imagepick Inc."

I do have work on FAA and have set up licensing for most of the work I have there (not the editorial stuff; you can create your own licenses, but I don't want to spend the time doing that unless this marketplace takes off).

I've priced things so the buyer pays just about the same price I charge on my own (Symbiostock) site - I would just pay FAA a bit more than I pay PayPal for each transaction. I say would because there have been no license sales thus far. I'm not sure there ever will be because I don't think Sean knows anything about licensing images. There was quite a bit of discussion at the time he launched this and he's a bit messianic about himself and figures any comments that aren't positive are a personal attack.

I'll certainly post here if any sales materialize, but I'm not going to do any marketing on this and I don't expect he (Sean/FAA) is either.

I just had a quick visit with the site and did three searches: happy family, tropical beach and businesswoman office

What a train wreck!

Keyword relevance is the default search result order and for tropical beach, the first 10 results didn't even include a beach (or any type of water). The happy family search produced dogs and a carriage (and a woman with a dog). The first two images for businesswoman office were of security check at the airport.

I can't imagine how a buyer could ever find anything with this search

Then there are the licenses - it appears only Editorial or Extended, but the prices are the same for both, 29 euros for the full size file: editorial example, extended example. And if you look at the editorial example, that's a posed image with women who look like models - how is that editorial in any way - other than the photographer forgot to get a release?

And a "personal print license" for 399 euros for this? And no definition of what this costly license is that I can find?

I cannot see anything to recommend this site - either to contributors or to buyers.

...One thing troubles me though. You can get sued for using a picture without a licence. But how can they possibly know you don't have a licence?
Many images seem to be sold by several agencies, and I guess that Getty wouldn't know if I bought an image they sell on another website, or would they?

Getty is a bit different. They use something called PicScout that they bought out. Lots of Getty content is available from multiple sources though, as is lots of the content from other agencies. Getty has been the most aggressive in pursuing legal action (versus just a demand for a retroactive license). I don't recall any case where an image was licensed from one agency and another agency pursued the user - as long as you keep track of all your licenses, it's not going to be a problem.

A slightly different point of view on the spat - one that makes the publishers seem less like defenders of authors and more like defenders of an old order that really should go...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/04/war-on-amazon-publishing-writers

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/this-is-getting-contagious-123-new-'deal'/msg380439/#msg380439

Quote from: Ron on June 03, 2014, 09:23

You cant delete images from DP, only deactivate. Same with DT. I closed my account about 1.5 years ago on DT and they still had my images when I asked them to reactivate my account.

Sounds like you saved a lot of time not having to reupload your port.  Is that such a bad thing?

The images were no longer there when I returned to DT after 3 years as an iStock exclusive. You can't assume they will still be there (I don't know if it's time or other circumstances that determine that)

I went to the Payoneer web site - where the 123rf press release said I could find fee information.

I'm having a hard time finding a list of fees. It appears from the FAQ that I only get to see those if I sign up (What are the costs and obligations for the Payoneer card?)

http://www.payoneer.com/FAQ.aspx

Why would I sign up if I can't see what the fees will be? Is there somewhere I can read about fees without creating an account?