The world of advertising and the arts and photography in general is very much about people starting out, or being tried out by working for free. Whether as interns or assistants, or unpaid runners etc. You start out sleeping on a friend's sofa and getting the coffees. That's definitely one part of how people have always built working relationships.

That's never been part of my world.

Everything is broken, probably time for you all to close up shop and move on.

Been there. Done that.

Quote from: cthoman on November 03, 2013, 09:33

Personally, I try not to be confrontational in the responses I give to email inquiries. They're just going to lead to exchanges like this and nothing is resolved or changed.

I don't think Travis was confrontational in his response. He was professional and very plainly explained why he can't and won't work for free.

I've had the unfortunate opportunity to work for a dirtbag like Torres before, the sort of people who are happy to take and take from artists for their own benefit and profit but don't see the need to pay for the work. I actually really like that people are calling out these predatory art directors and helping to spread the word that this kind of stuff is not acceptable.

No, I thought he was very professional and polite, but even opening a dialogue seems to lead to confrontation. I think it is because what you are really saying (between the lines) is "why don't you pay me you cheapskate". Just like when they say, "I love your work, but I can't pay you". Does anybody really think they love your work at that point? 

If I own a coffee shop (like in the example), I don't need to explain to anybody why I need to charge for coffee. I just point to the board with the prices and ask if they want to order something.

I'd totally agree with this except for the word "artists".  Skill, professionalism, commercial acumen, yes but no more artistic than a good software developer - of course there are some exception but how much stock, in general,  would you hang on your wall?

If the guy at Subway is a sandwich artist, then I get to call myself one too. 

IStock's loss of sales is iStock's fault, not other people's. Consider these points:
After setting up TS, Getty decided to advertise it on the iStock homepage as a cheaper option
The iStock website is horribly slow even when it's working, costing customers valuable time
iStock prices were pushed up too far on a significant part of the content, encouraging budget buyers to look elsewhere for content (I think they even made some comment once about wanting corporate budgets, not low-volume buyers).
iStock pricing is extremely confusing and files can change price dramatically at any time, depending on the latest whim
iStock chose to tick-off its suppliers by squeezing them in innumerable ways, ensuring that it got a heap of bad publicity (and probably alerting a lot of customers to cheaper alternatives in the process)
Getty decided to swamp iS with mountains of third-rate material from old collections it had lying about, hoping to rake in a big return, but actually devaluing the collection
Getty decided to slash iStock's profitablity by cutting the cost of half its files by about 60%, thereby pulling some sales off the higher-priced material without - by all accounts - pulling in any extra customers.
Getty/iS decided to wipe out the community spirit that had allowed it to sail on with exclusives and a number of buyers alike viewing the collection through rose-tinted glasses.

Now, how much of that is really Shutterstock's fault?

It's not Gordon Gekko's fault that greed is so good. It just is. 

Very entertaining and true. Now, I feel guilty that I didn't pay anything to read it.

Without feelings of respect, what is there to distinguish men from beasts?
Confucius

Pants? 

Most people aren't thinking clearly here - they're too distracted by the $15,000 dollars. 

If you think logically this is far worse than the Getty/Google deal.  Fritz sold the rights to 7000 for $15K, netting him $2.14 per image.  The Google deal netted effected contributors $14 per image and everyone went apesh!t.

I think the Google deal is still worse because it wasn't by choice.

I joined recently. I haven't had any sales. I did get an email the other day saying they were changing the vector pricing from $50 to $35. Not a big deal since the $35 is more in line with other pricing. Still, I guess the precedent of lowering prices makes me a little nervous. We'll see how it goes though.

Wow! Minuses on that post. I guess nobody else has tried to use the site and been totally frustrated. I know the woman on the homepage isn't responsible, but her smiling at my misery doesn't help matters.

It does seem to be working fairly decently now though. I think I've finish my shopping phase and just need to pick a plan for next year to replace my current one.

How does symbiostock make money then?

@chromaco,

So you're suggesting making Stocksy or something similar?

I have several years of making web apps, I have the skills to make this.

It was more about creating a community and platform for artists to sell their own work than making money. That doesn't mean that you can't make paid plugins or even build a better mousetrap. I'd mentioned Picture Engine earlier. It's hard to say how big the market is for artist run sites though. It may be too niche to be profitable.

No, I'm not from Pixoto. I have no idea why would draw the conclusion, looking at my posts.

I was thinking about starting a similar site, before I discovered pixoto, 500px, photorankr, etc.

I was wondering from photographers if they think any of these sites will have successful marketplaces.

Eg, 500px just launched a commercial marketplace, with a 5 year plan.

I'd bet against them if I was going to bet. New sites tend to do low volume, so cheap prices don't tend to make them profitable.