PLEASE-O-PLEASE import Big Stock Photos upload system into Shutterstocks site!!! Shutterstock uploading is so arcane compared to all the other agencies.

Quote from: cardmaverick on September 14, 2009, 01:08

Prices are subjective, and furthermore, determined by the CUSTOMERS, not the producers.

Kind of. It's still supply and demand.

Prices are determined by the median point at which customers are willing to pay and producers are willing to sell.

If producers all give in to requests for free work, than the median price is free. If producers as a whole refuse to sell below a certain price point, and there is customer demand for that product/service, then that price becomes the median.  

Yea supply and demand matter, but customer subjectiveness matters most. Just because a good is scarce doesn't mean its valuable, its only valuable when a person is willing to pay high amounts of money for it and there is no guarantee a mob of people will increase the value . It really all boils down to the subjective value the customers have for the good in the first place. If the costs are above the customers subjective value, then the producer failed to predict the subjective value of the product. Supply and demand are more like influences on the customers subjective value, so they still factor in, but in the end the real price setter is the customer.

Free stuff isn't always bad, neither are low prices. I hear lots of photographers complain about the low commissions but never about the falling price of computers and storage they use.

Any updates on the uploading procedures?

Welcome to the "more creative" side of the business folks.

As for doing "freebie" gigs for exposure, etc... its true, it can work in your favor over the long run especially if you do it heavily with younger upstarts who could one day finally be "somebody's" in the business. Freebie gigs are more like "interactive networking". One of my first demo reels, filled mostly with footage from freebie gigs, landed me a long term realationship as a Director of Photography with TIME Magazine, which I still happily maintain. I doubt I would have even gotten a phone call from them without that footage.

As for these fashion mags, I suspect many have a hard enough time paying their staff, just like the majority of indi films have a hard time even breaking even after years on the market.

Quote from: cardmaverick on September 08, 2009, 01:22

PLEASE go back to the old upload/tagging methodology! This non-batch approach is very unattractive, the old system is what kept many uploading there.

Agree.
Also, I had 300 images untagged and now imptc data has desapear

It sounds like bugs are being ironed out over there still, like a delete button for uploaded images.

A patent attorney that does not believe in IP 
Can you say Oxymoronic?

LOL, I did find that funny myself.

The arguments put forth were weak and unsupported.

I wouldn't totally agree its weak or unsupported. Ideas snowball naturally, I bet you've had some of your own, but they only came into existence by adding on top of other peoples ideas that you were taught, observed, etc... Now imagine having to pay "X" of dollars for every idea you've had that built on top of or slightly modified someone else's - simply because its "too similar" to some other persons idea. It quickly gets ludicris, especially when you're dealing with methods/ways of doing things.

Even if you can't accept his concept of ownership, you have to to at least acknowledge the fact that IP laws have expiration dates as being an argument against their own validity! If you really own the idea - why have an expiration date or need for renewal of ownership???

I'm not saying don't give credit where credit is due, or go out and pirate DVDs, I'm simply stating the obvious - you can't own ideas unless you keep it to yourself, but even that doesn't mean it won't pop up inside some other persons brain. The real solution is to be the first one to the market, and to continue innovating with newer better ideas before others can catch up. As for free market protection of ideas, theres plenty of mechanisms already in place, simply because its so darn hard to enforce IP laws as it is, people have taken matters into their own hands. Why do you think all photo agencies watermark their sample shots?

The idea of "owning ideas" is ridiculous. Watch this and I guarantee you'll never look at patent or copyright in the same way ever again. I disagree with the lecturer about about free market licensing though, I think something would rise up even if you couldn't go after 3rd parties, you could institute all kinds of penalties for letting it out to them.

Intellectual Property and Libertarianism

LOL, "Bridezilla". It's the reason I DON'T do weddings.

Honestly, even assignment commercial work for television - which I've done (I was a cinematographer for a series of Court TV commercials years back) - isn't always fun. I had a never ending train of people trying to dictate the look, feel, angles, etc... I can understand the appeal financially of doing portraiture or weddings, but I also have meet many burnouts, lots, who used to do that type of work. Some really love it, and never get tired. Great for them! Stock work is ever changing for me, feels more "free".

As for stock photographer earnings, they can certainly compete or be higher. It all boils down to the photographer.

Looks like the 3.0 version of Mostphotos is going up. Their site seems to be down at the moment.

Quote from: Perry on August 30, 2009, 11:21

Cool! And the sales at Veer seem to be just a bit less than at StockXpert
If I had a Big 6, Veer would be 6th. And Veer site has just launched, I have high expectations for the future...

Are we talking about the same site? Congrats to you. They are way down on my list in the wait and see category. Regardless, it is nice to see they are implementing contributors suggestions. It is a really positive sign.

I've begun seeing sales pop up over there, doing much better with less images than Vivozoom, which seems to be "out of beta but not really".

But no details about what sort of adjustments, if any, will be made.  Meanwhile they're taking as much as 87% commission on the sale of your image. (Yes, you made $1.88, and they got a $12.62 commission)

..... and they also dumped lots of money into advertising your image, hosting it, providing not only a searchable database to find it, but also a payment system for buying, etc... Last time I checked, my brother only gets about 20% at Getty for Flickr RF licenses - but all he does is upload his content with basic legal docs and description. He's never ever keyworded a single shot. So what I'm saying is they do a whole bunch for him, and so do the micros, but its probably more in the form of advertising, dealing with customers, etc... as we do a lot of back-end work, but the bonus is we get to control that - and its quality. I think having keyword control is actually very powerful, so I don't begrudge having to do it.

I'm not getting all hot and bothered by this, it's a volume based model anyways, with several purchasing options, furthermore, were headed into what will eventually become a very bad depression, and until hyperinflation hits, prices have to go down, and so will consumer spending. Such is life, I just try to take the best possible position.

BTW, no one ever said they'd dump the old On Demand setup, they can have both at the same time, as they are different.

Quote from: cardmaverick on August 25, 2009, 14:39

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on August 25, 2009, 14:30

Hi Card Maverick,

 You wouldn't think a national brand would risk that chance to save a couple of dollars on a photo but I have just had many of my Micro images just used to launch a new Glidden paint campaign. I think they used 5 different shots. On their cans and paint swatches. I was pretty surprised. Still, our RM images are still our best returners, so far.

Best,
Jonathan

Wow, thats interesting. Maybe they thought the usage risk was low enough. I still wonder about the more "super niche" subjects though, stuff that would require buying from an RM agency in order to find what they really need. Lots of stuff in microstock is technically good enough, but all to often the content isn't right or the supply is just to small to choose from. Many images are hard to find due to amateur keywording, etc...

There's all kinds of micro content on the Glidden stuff, including lisafx from here.  I don't see that as particularly branding oneself around an image.  More just "happy painter examples".  There are different images on every can.  It isn't like every can has the exact same image.  So, if you see it somewhere else besides the paint can, I doubt people are going to be confused about anything, no big deal.

Thats a great observation. What I originally was referring too was more like the "coke bears" - that type of usage.

Hi Card Maverick,

 You wouldn't think a national brand would risk that chance to save a couple of dollars on a photo but I have just had many of my Micro images just used to launch a new Glidden paint campaign. I think they used 5 different shots. On their cans and paint swatches. I was pretty surprised. Still, our RM images are still our best returners, so far.

Best,
Jonathan

Wow, thats interesting. Maybe they thought the usage risk was low enough. I still wonder about the more "super niche" subjects though, stuff that would require buying from an RM agency in order to find what they really need. Lots of stuff in microstock is technically good enough, but all to often the content isn't right or the supply is just to small to choose from. Many images are hard to find due to amateur keywording, etc...