Quote from: cthoman on January 14, 2011, 23:23
Also, since when do printers give things away for free? My printers always wanted to charge for even thinking about making a change.

Even if he plays by the rules and only downloads the images he directly uses for that brochure, I'm sure that the $200 can be partially or completely recouped by slight increases in other parts of the job. I've never seen a subscription agreement and don't know in which ways it deviates from a simple download agreement. But if the printer is in breach of the contract, how is this policed?

Edit: had a quick look at a FT subs agreement and the conditions for use of the downloaded images do not appear to deviate from the standard download use agreement. Whether downloaded via the subs program or the conventional download, I couldn't see any time-limiting usage terms in either.

For a number of years I've been lucky to work for a client that requires an A4 sized, full color product brochure twice every year. Until recently this brochure consisted primarily of product photo's ( made by us) with some graphics provided by the printer. Occasionally, we were also asked to provide some extra shots from stock archives and we have been small, occasional buyers of both iStock and FT images (by download).........helps cash in some of my FT credits too!

In July 2010, the client requested us to search stock agencies to find images specifically including people which were to be used as background shots to give the rather stuffy brochure a more modern appeal. The client told us that for the right shots he was prepared to pay up to €60/download..........no doubt brought up in the RM days! Unnecessary of course, I don't think we paid more than €15/shot and we never charged on top of what it cost us to buy. The new approach was successful and this time around (Easter brochure), at client's request, we viewed around 6,000 images to arrive at our selection for him of ~100 shots. Toady he phoned to thank us for our selection which he could show the printers. However, for those extra shots, the printer had made him an offer he could hardly refuse. The printers told him that they had access to a 'royalty free' archive and that they would provide him with all the shots he needed for free.

I have no doubt that though our use of microstock, the printer has now discovered the joys of microstock + subscription. For $200 he takes out a one month FT sub which allows him to download 750 images which he can store for future use of his clients at 30 cents/image. Must be the cheapest form of customer loyalty ever invented.
Wish I had thought of it earlier..........but maybe my contributor mind-set prevented me.

Just been browsing the various country sites of FT and for buyers it seems like the FT credits have been re-adjusted to $1 values in the various currencies. A credit for a UK buyer is 63 pence and for a Eurozone buyer it is €0.75.

In light of this discovery, I don't see how FT can be paying a percentage (depending on rank/exclusivity etc) of €1.00 credit to the contributor....likewise how can they pay UK contributors the old 75 pence per credit earned if they are selling credits at 63 pence...........I have a sneaky suspicion that we will be informed of these pricing changes after the fact, at sometime in the future. 

I declined the opportunity to give any files free to a commercial organization but I wonder, as the files are free, do you still get any name credits for those free files? If not and if FT refuses to remove the files from their free section on re-payment of 50cents by you, couldn't you just close the FT account and go exclusive with DT but not submit those FT free files to DT? Effectively you would be throwing away those files but if your name is not attached, who is to know that they're yours in in the first place?

The crazy thing about the free files is that FT's original agreement was for 18 months but was changed surreptitiously to 5 years without any form of consultation or signed alternative contract AFAIK. But I could be wrong about that.

Somewhere between instant (within an hour) and a couple of days. Never longer. Contributors seem to have more joy 'phoning support than emailing them, so 'phone if you can.

Looks like an attempt to break every law in the book on branding , trade names and image rights.

Give CHANEL a heads up and see if they will stop them.................'Fragrance by Chanelle'.............c'mon.

Mwah + lips looks like a logo to me.

Quote from: MatHayward on November 22, 2010, 19:22
I could be wrong, but I think it is 2 years of being unsold that drops the price down to 1 credit.  Also, even when you did accept the 50 cents so your photo could be sold on the free site, your image(s) still remained for sale in the Fotolia database as well.  They were not removed or deleted.  The 50 cent offer is no longer valid however.

Mat

Quote from: OM on November 16, 2010, 12:35
There was a discussion some time ago on FT forum about the unsold files. I had the impression that you either took their 50 cents and your files went into the free section or you declined payment and removed the 'offending' files yourself.
Not so according to one of the moderators. Moderator ignored the notices, retained files in their portfolio and did not collect 50 cents. Now, of course, the new rule has been introduced that if you have files unsold after 12 months and they have been 'marked up' according to your ranking/exclusivity, then those files will revert to a single basis credit price  until you have sold one of those files more than 5 times; at which point you may return to a basis price of 2, 3, 4 in accordance with your ranking/status. The onus is on the contributor to keep count of the files that become eligible for 'restoration' after 5 sales, should they wish to do so. Needless to say, demotion of any files to single credit status without sales for 12 months, is fully automated and immediately effective!

Sorry Mat. 12 months.

From FT forum:

"Recently, we've been receiving a lot of requests from contributors to
remove underperforming files from their portfolios. Apparently, most
photographers think that there is no chance of selling an image if it
hasn't been downloaded at least once in the last year.

Since then, our product and marketing teams have been working hard on
creating a solution that benefits both contributing artists and
customers alike. Our belief is that if one of your images was accepted
into Fotolia's collection, it is an image that deserves to be sold and
used.

To make your images even more attractive to customers, we're
introducing a new pricing strategy for images that have not been
downloaded in the last 12 months. These images will be priced at
Fotolia's best rates - 1£ for XS, to 10£ for XXL. If your images are
already priced at this level, images in your portfolio will remain
unchanged. Once the affected images are downloaded at least 5 times,
you will be able to set their maximum prices once again.

Along with our other sales and marketing initiatives, we're
anticipating increased sales when this new policy comes into effect
September 1st, 2010.

Best Regards,

Team Fotolia"

Quote from: Elenathewise on November 17, 2010, 16:30
I asked them what's going on. Here is the answer I received. Amazing, isn't it? They seem to think they can treat contributors as retards.

Question   I see that my files are limited to a maximum extended license price of 100 credits instead of 200 as it used to be. Why has this changed? Was this change announced? Can it be corrected?

Elena Elisseeva (elenathewise)
Answers:   
Fotolia :   Hi Elena,

We have checked your account and noticed the the maximum price you can have for the EL license, according to your rank and exclusivity, is 100 credits each. Please visit http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors for more information.
Kind regards,   11-17-2010 04:51 pm



I also sold a few of 200 ones a month. I'll be losing 100-200 dollars a month because of this.

Support's reply to your query re-confirms my suspicion that it consists of no more than HAL9000 operating out of somewhere on the Indian sub-continent. Wondered why THE CHAD had been hanging around the FT forum for a couple of days answering 'little' questions like, "What does the green 's' mean next to my image?" He was really there to capture the blow-back (or lack of it) from this 'little,' unannounced major change

Horst P Horst

There was a discussion some time ago on FT forum about the unsold files. I had the impression that you either took their 50 cents and your files went into the free section or you declined payment and removed the 'offending' files yourself.
Not so according to one of the moderators. Moderator ignored the notices, retained files in their portfolio and did not collect 50 cents. Now, of course, the new rule has been introduced that if you have files unsold after 12 months and they have been 'marked up' according to your ranking/exclusivity, then those files will revert to a single basis credit price  until you have sold one of those files more than 5 times; at which point you may return to a basis price of 2, 3, 4 in accordance with your ranking/status. The onus is on the contributor to keep count of the files that become eligible for 'restoration' after 5 sales, should they wish to do so. Needless to say, demotion of any files to single credit status without sales for 12 months, is fully automated and immediately effective!

Quote from: WarrenPrice on October 12, 2010, 20:56
I'm having a terrible week.  Nothing makes sense.  No sales and I was expecting a bunch.  Last Tuesday I had 15 sales on Shutterstock. Today -- ONE!

I had an image selling like crazy on SS.  I sent it to Dreamstime and it was rejected.
Dreamstime acceptance ratio was on the rise, taking nearly everything.  Last two weeks ... the bottom fell out.  They don't want any of my stuff.

There is no rhyme nor reason. 

Sorry!  Just had to blow off a little steam.
Isn't October supposed to be a good month?   

It's not you Warren. After a bumper first 3 weeks of Sept. at FT (double a normal month) sales for me this month have, so far, been VERY low. Got a small port but nevertheless, disturbingly quiet even in subs. Mat Hayward mentioned that he thought they fiddled around with the search on FT toward the end of last month because he had also taken a bit of a hit............but who knows!

Quote from: cclapper on October 12, 2010, 21:44

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 12, 2010, 21:22
why have you left Fotolia? communication with them? thanks

I left a couple of years back during some uproar over something they did to contributors. To be frank, I can't even remember what the "crisis du jour" was, but basically I had had it and took my photos down. Something similar to the latest istock restructuring.

A lot of others here are still with them and doing well, but I think the drama still continues.

No truly earth-moving changes there in the past 10 months. Files without a single sale within 12 months have been demoted to a basis single credit status instead of 2,3,4 or whatever the starting price. Sold to contributors on the basis that a lower price will encourage buyers to purchase. Whereas in reality they're all on page 500+ of the search and will never be seen again, except perhaps by visiting aliens.

Funny thing is eyesight. Until the age of 42 I had good eyesight for both distance and reading. Slowly but surely my arms became too short to read a newspaper/book but were still fine for focusing a manual-focus lens. Now, 18 years on, I need a +3 correction (reading glasses) for viewing a monitor and a +1 correction on my DSLR for distant scenes as well as macro shots (35mm slide copying) through a camera. I suspect that viewing through a DSLR is effectively viewing at infinity.
For driving and long-distance vision, I also use  +1 reading glasses. I'm lucky because I don't need to visit an optometrist to purchase hideously expensive bits of plastic with (-) correction lenses...........all (+) correction lenses are available at the druggist or department store for less than €5. In 18 years, my correction for reading glasses has gone from +1 to +3.

This is all as nature intended! As you and wife grow older, it is difficult to see the lines of age appearing on spouse's face, preserving the illusion of youth.

Explains much, unfortunately.

Quote from: elvinstar on October 02, 2010, 19:41
Mother and son is exclusive (link)

So is the family (link)

I didn't look up the others. Maybe we should all email her to let her know that there are other agencies out there!

Judging by the name of the photographer (Dutch) and that a lot of his photo's are made in Berlin and the Netherlands, it wouldn't be unreasonable to suppose that featured female is not a US taxpayer!

Small port. Total exclusive FT and BME by a long chalk thanks to 2 EL's and doubling my prices on best selling images.
Views slightly down and volume down but quite a few XL dl's and few subs. Doubt it will last but 2X normal month in Sept.

Quote from: Randy McKown on September 30, 2010, 06:24
Here in a few years Wal-Mart will get into the microstock game and then all of them will die off.

Only if they can source all their images in China as they do their merchandise.

Quote from: Phil on September 18, 2010, 12:47
FT images can be turned on and off exclusive as you like - the button can be changed in 'edit data' for each images at any time, but you have to go through and do each image individually.

A number of people have reported very good results with being able to double and triple the price for good sellers, personally I played around quite a while with best sellers, but my sales plummeted, but mine are pretty generic so I think people just went ot the next image, but as said it works for some.

I like to experiment occasionally. In the past, I've stopped subs at FT........that lasted about 3 weeks cuz all sales dropped dramatically. Now that FT is downgrading the credit price to 1 credit basis price on all files that haven't sold for one year, I'm now experimenting with a 2 credit basis price on all files that are selling.........not very successfully I'm afraid to say. Haven't sold a sausage in 4 days now either in dl or subs.

Experiment about to be terminated although I had made my regular monthly sales amount by last week from some XL's and X's earlier in the month.

Quote from: Dreamframer on September 18, 2010, 11:39

Quote from: Clivia on September 18, 2010, 11:19
On sites where I have reviewed every file was 'weighted' by the reviewers, and the contributors were not told about it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens at Fotolia.
I think it's also unfair that reviewers know which files they are reviewing. Their objectiveness is compromised this way, and in worst case scenario they have the power to decide about contributor's future. It's also unfair to buyers, because reviewers are deciding which images are going to be easier, or harder to find. In other words, some valuable image may be doomed from the moment of acceptance if reviewer thinks it doesn't have value. And don't tell me that reviewers exactly know what will sell the best, cause they don't. Even the smartest reviewers can't really predict the future of certain images, especially because they review hundreds and thousands ever day.

When any reviewer who is also a contributor knows who the contributor is (and maybe even which country they are from), this must undoubtedly lead to bias. Imagine a contributor/reviewer, with a good-selling file of a particular subject, sees a new file submitted of that subject which is clearly better, they cannot reject on quality, non-commerciality etc but they could score it low on the 'secret file' so that it's hardly ever seen again (if that is the way it works).

Quote from: Clivia on September 18, 2010, 11:19
On sites where I have reviewed every file was 'weighted' by the reviewers, and the contributors were not told about it.

Thanks for the info, Clivia. Always wondered about that.

On FT you can choose to be totally exclusive or have some images exclusive as a partly exclusive contributor.

http://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors

As partially exclusive you can increase the credit price of your exclusive files once the bronze level has been achieved (I think) but your non-exclusive files remain pegged at multiples of one credit until you achieve emerald status.

With exclusive files, you can opt out of subscriptions. (The way the system works, this may not be advisable from the start). Every time someone with a subscription searches on keyword and your image doesn't come up, it receives zero points in the whole system. After a while, it gets relegated to the 'forgotten' pages.

Whether you can switch images from exclusive to non-exclusive or vice-versa, I'm not sure. Perhaps the choice has to be made at the keywording stage and before review.

Edit: Found the piece about why contributors should allow subs.

http://blog.fotolia.com/uk/guideline/microstocktips.html

"Visibility
By following the rules above, you will achieve a better visibility. But there are further tips to increase your visibility:

1. By allowing the sales in subscription you will improve the ratio sold/views for each one of your contents. When a subscription customer wants to buy your image and you don't allow the sale in subscription, your content will be marked at 0 sold for 1 view. The ratio sold/view is an important criteria within our search engine. Images that are sold each time they are viewed receive a better visibility in the results page."

Quote from: leaf on September 18, 2010, 10:45

Quote from: OM on September 17, 2010, 23:46
I have a fabulous example of how it's all bunk (first 7 keywords are important). I submitted 3 files on the same subject. All were accepted. The keywords and their order on all is almost the same (certainly the first 10 are identical and have the same order). The only things that differ are the titles. On two I placed the word 'vintage' first. They have received 39 and 51 views respectively. On the third, I placed 'vintage' as fourth word of the title. That image has received zero views. None of the images has sold either as DL or sub. The only other difference between the 3 images is that the one without any views has a minimum credit price of 2, whereas the other 2 with views both have a minimum credit price of one.

Conclusion: It's either the the first word of the title which has nothing to do with the keywords/order or prospective buyers select exclusively on low price. Must admit it's bizarre.

or else the reviewer gives the file a 'rating' and that rating has a very strong influence on the search results.

If that's the case, it's secret and not in the terms and conditions.

I have a fabulous example of how it's all bunk (first 7 keywords are important). I submitted 3 files on the same subject. All were accepted. The keywords and their order on all is almost the same (certainly the first 10 are identical and have the same order). The only things that differ are the titles. On two I placed the word 'vintage' first. They have received 39 and 51 views respectively. On the third, I placed 'vintage' as fourth word of the title. That image has received zero views. None of the images has sold either as DL or sub. The only other difference between the 3 images is that the one without any views has a minimum credit price of 2, whereas the other 2 with views both have a minimum credit price of one.

Conclusion: It's either the the first word of the title which has nothing to do with the keywords/order or prospective buyers select exclusively on low price. Must admit it's bizarre.

Quote from: KB on September 16, 2010, 03:47
Reminds me of Fotolia's "Infinite" collection when it began. Has that one gotten any better?

Nope, only more pluriform. Denying valuable page space to images that stand a far better chance of selling. Be fair, buyers go to microstock for low prices and when they see the infinity prices, I'm sure they give up and go elsewhere.

Behind such violent storms on the sea of stock tranquility, I smell a banksters bum reeking havoc amongst the korporate kleptocracy as it attempts to get it's a** together to preserve their bonuses. Just as a high tide lifts all ships, let us hope that when the tide goes out only IS has been caught swimming nekkid and that FT's lauding here has not been overly premature.
(No need to call me on spelling either!)