Quote from: madelaide on June 25, 2009, 23:08
Once I was searching images in Alamy and saw the SAME images as RF and RM.  Not similars, clearly the SAME images.  Author's names were not the same, if I remember it right, one with a person name and the other with some fantasy name.  I emailed Alamy and they apparently don't mind because images come from two different agencies, so it's like they wash their hands about this duplicity.

This is a different issue, and according to alamy this goes against the contract between the agency and the photographer. I also detected situations like these and questioned alamy. They've told me that it was not acceptable and were going to investigate it further.

Quote from: whatalife on June 25, 2009, 22:26
I can't believe I am wasting my time like this, but it is wrong for you to so aggressively assert something that is patently false and that clearly you have not bothered to verify for yourself. There are unfortunately people who will assume that what you say is true, and not bother to read the licensing terms on their own. This is shirking their own responsibility, of course, but there is no sense allowing rampant misinformation to be spread.

These are from the four sites I purchase macro imagery from. If you are interested in others, I suggest you look them up yourself. In all cases, I would urge everyone to familiarize themselves with the terms of use and licensing agreement of ANY site before agree to them, and before you find yourselves in a potentially troublesome position. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.

I only included rights which are available via EL on some micros, particularly in response to your claim that other than redistributing the image straight off the site, a macro RF license contains no restrictions.

Ok,

Those traditional agencies place some restrictions (although less than micros) in their RF licenses. But the fact is that they only sell exclusive content, so they are out of this debate anyway as this issue does not affect them.

Alamy, that is the most known (only?) non-exclusive Macro only restricts:

"You must not incorporate Images (or any part of them) into a logo, trade mark or service mark."

So, alamy that is the agency that has to do directly with this issue, if I read the EULA correctly only restricts this use.

Besides they are aware of this and in numerous debates by their contributors they've never shown themselves against selling Micro images there. They've even answered me that.

Quote from: Adeptris on June 25, 2009, 20:48

Quote from: e=mg2 on June 25, 2009, 18:59
Is it immoral for the car seller to charge 40.000$, when you can drive the same car for 50$ a day? No, because it's A DIFFERENT SERVICE.

So before coming here discussing ethics and legalities study this subject a little more.

Regards,
e=mg2

Different Service but the exact same Asset!

How would you feel when you pull up in your 40.000$ car and your neighbour says, I had that exact car last week for 50$ a day I remember the plate, when you thought by going to the higher end Dealer you was getting a car that had not been a part of a hire fleet, and the mileage was only the delivery miles, would you say the dealer was un-ethical?

David  

Sorry but I think I didn't understood you question clearly.

But from what I understood I don't see the reason for the one paying those 40.000$ to be upset since he will OWN the car, and the other only had a limited use of the vehicle for a day...

Now if the car dealer told the buyer those were deliver miles and in fact he'd be hiring the car, that another issue. Which is very different from the discussion here. That would be dishonest. But if the buyer knows that the car was used for hire, where's the problem?

The same with Micro and Macro. If someone needs an image to be used forever or in ways or scale that the Micro license doesn't allow, than he needs to pay a premium in a site like alamy.
If he needs an image to be printed in 500 flyers of his restaurant for a limited time than he has the chance to license the image in micro.

Since alamy in non-exclusive, I think buyers there know that the photo in question may be selling somewhere else. Like in any other business it's a question of looking around for the best deal for your needs.

And there's also the prestige question. Some buyers may prefer to carry a brand like alamy in the credits of the photos instead iStock. So they prefer to pay a higher commission, despite being the same image.This also happens in every business, where you pay for the brand without no real added value in the product. Nothing new in fact.

Regards,

Quote from: zymmetrical on June 25, 2009, 20:37

Quote from: e=mg2 on June 25, 2009, 20:16
No, nothing was deleted. I still would like to see where I called anyone stupid or ignorant...

But apparently it seems ok to Mr zymmetrical for someone to cast a doubt about others honesty and ethics...

Regards,

Sir,

My original message was by large on the level with what you have stated. I simply find it unnecessary to involve the words 'stupid' and 'ignorant' in a normal discussion. On my first Googling of your name I found a pretty rancid remark against an agency (people, humans) who tried their best in their own circumstances to make things work out. It could very well be anyone who made that blog comment in your name but I would take it that you admit it was you. 

I did not edit, alter, or intentionally amplify this result, it's simply what showed up first. I do not know you or your work, and cannot claim this is what you are about. All I ask for is a bit more civility and less jumping on people instead of indicating their message is a cliche or has been "seen a thousand times". It is unnecessary and clearly belittling to posters who ask questions in good faith.

No it wasn't in the level I've stated. You've put words in my mouth, claiming I've said things I didn't!!!

And yes that was my comment in the link, and I think I'm entitled to be upset to see bad management to throw in the garbage months of work of thousands of contributors, including mine and of friends I got in that project.

Am I not happy to loose hundreds of hours of work, No! Am I not entitled to be upset? Yes I am!

Do you think it was only the Photoshelter management that gave it's best to make that project successful? Photographers did their best too. Stock agencies are partnerships and photographers have the right to be angry when those who KEEP COMMISSIONS to manage the business don't do a good job!

And believe me that I wasn't the worst in comments, by far!

As for the original message on this thread, I think it's important for people to investigate, to research, prior raising questions that put in questions the honesty, morals and ethics of their fellow photographers. The second answer in this thread even states:

"it goes a bit deeper than a mere moral dilemna.

I'm pretty sure it's illegal."

Is this a civil, fact based statement that I must handle with love and flowers!!!

When I have a doubt I google, I search inside the forums and try to get information before I start a thread. Especially in sensitive issues.

Quote from: whatalife on June 25, 2009, 20:17

Quote from: e=mg2 on June 25, 2009, 18:59
Even if the image is the same, the license is not as the RF license in micro is full of restrictions. If you buy all the Extended Licenses available in micro you still won't have the liberty that the Macro RF License gives you.

The Macro RF license allows you to use that image for EVER, in ALL supports and without ANY limitation in the number of prints.

It's hard to tell for sure what you mean here, but if you are saying that macro RF has no limitations, you are mistaken. Products for resale is definitely prohibited on several of the macro sites from which I have licensed imagery. If you are strictly speaking as to number of prints, your claim may be true. Since I have not gone and checked every macro agency to verify, I would be reluctant to issue any blanket statements about what licenses do and do not allow.

From what I've read from alamy RF license there's no restrictions, except reselling the image itself which is logical. And there are others where it's the same, although I would have to read the license again to be sure.

What macros have those restrictions? Getty, Corbis or any other of the majors?

Regards,

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 25, 2009, 19:38

Quote from: gostwyck on June 25, 2009, 19:34

Quote from: zymmetrical on June 25, 2009, 19:22
Except for the part where he calls people with differing opinions ignorant and stupid?

But he (or she) doesn't actually say that __ but hey, don't let's get the truth in the way!

I didn't see anyone say ignorant or stupid either.  Was something deleted?

No, nothing was deleted. I still would like to see where I called anyone stupid or ignorant...

But apparently it seems ok to Mr zymmetrical for someone to cast a doubt about others honesty and ethics...

Regards,

Quote from: zymmetrical on June 25, 2009, 19:36
Saniphoto, don't feel like you need to withdraw, these discussions are why this forum is here. I am sorry if people are sometimes not civil about it but that's how it goes. Simply click 'ignore' on the account names and the bad vibes magically disappear.      (not that I have ever done that personally, sometimes people just get worked up and then come around - myself included)

Look it's the Knight in the shining Armour, riding a white horse to help the maid in distress!!!

Will you stop the personal attacks and discuss the issue? If anyone here is not being civil it's you because you've distorted completely what I've said.

People should research these issues before raising them, especially because they start discussions doubting other peoples honesty and ethics!

But I guess that doubting other people ethics it's ok to you right? Very civil indeed...

Quote from: saniphoto on June 25, 2009, 19:29
all right, it seems that was a silly thread, after all... judging from the very 'polite' answers I got here.
So, bye, I will not bother anymore with my 'ignorance'. Thank you 'Einstein', you must be a real genius, as your nick imply.
I just add that your reply is even very useful and informative, for who like me didn't realize or thought about this aspect of the argument (yes, I hear you call me stupid, again...), but your 'ass kicking attitude' was very useful for me to understand also and especially what kind of people 'rules' these forum...  

Just some questions for you:

Can you point out where I've called you stupid or ignorant?

Can you point me a dictionary where "Statement" is synonym of people or person?

Have you read the RF Licenses of Micro and Macro agencies before coming with these questions?

And have you searched other previous discussions where this issue was debated?

You see, everyone is entitled to an opinion but some research before raising some topics doubting the ethics of others is really important.

What I find odd is that you take offense for thinking that someone called you stupid and ignorant, but it seem perfectly normal to you, to DOUBT OTHER'S HONESTY!!!

Regards.

Quote from: zymmetrical on June 25, 2009, 19:22
Except for the part where he calls people with differing opinions ignorant and stupid?

I also don't find much credibility in someone who can come up with a lame statement such as the last comment on http://www.microstockdiaries.com/how-to-change-the-stock-photo-market.html. This business begins and ends with respect, not crapping on people.

Listen Mr,

I find it truly, truly, disgusting that you've distorted what I've said. And It was made in with bad faith giving you little credibility.

I never called anyone stupid, and especially by simply having different opinions than mine!

But IT'S A FACT that this issue brings a lot of stupid and ignorant STATEMENTS - if you check the dictionary, "statements" is not a synonym of person, people or anything of the sort.

So, IT'S YOU, YES YOU, who's implying that someone making a stupid and ignorant statement, is by itself stupid and ignorant.

But despite your pathetic attempt on a personal attack, nothing of what I said is wrong. This is an issue brought out by people who don't understand the basics of the business and yes, it ends with a lot of stupid and ignorant statements. I've read it a thousand times.

As for the link you've provided tell me if I was wrong in anything I said? Even today I've read statements in Macro foruns where there's still a lot of anger against the attitude of the Photoshelter management towards the decisions on their business. They were bad managers, they took a lot of wrong decisions and in the end they've betrayed their contributors because they've thrown down the drain months of work of their contributors so they could keep their "ideals"!

You should grow up and discuss issues, instead of making personal attacks. You've never referred to any of my arguments, just attacked me personally. And this shows a lot about you. If you don't like strong opinions go to the kindergarten.

e=mg2

Quote from: Oldhand on June 25, 2009, 17:18
Quite agree Zeus, however that's the second traditional outlet to fold on me so far this year. The economy will recover, micro is here to stay. I genuinely believe the impact of micro is greater than that of the economy.

I appreciate a lot of people on this forum don't have macro portfolio's, so am just trying to pass on some info.

Rgds

Oldhand

I have a Macro portfolio and my sales are getting better every month... While my micro income has stalled...

What does that prove?

As for Micro damaging the Macro, I think that Micro is an easy scape-goat for the incompetence of some of these agencies.

Do you see RM in Micro? Do you see expensive productions in Micro? No!

So how can Micro make a Macro agency to close? The only reason is that the Macro agency has a poor portfolio and/or is incapable to market their imagery.

In every industries you have low-cost and high-end (from cars to yogurts), and the low-cost never closed the competent high-end competitors.

The economy is in fact the main guilty for this situation.

Regards,
e=mg2

This question is typical from those who don't understand the business, and usually ends up with a lot of ignorant and stupid statements.

The whole base of the stock industry is the license, and this is extremely different from micro and macro.

Even if the image is the same, the license is not as the RF license in micro is full of restrictions. If you buy all the Extended Licenses available in micro you still won't have the liberty that the Macro RF License gives you.

The Macro RF license allows you to use that image for EVER, in ALL supports and without ANY limitation in the number of prints.

Make an experience: check the price of the RF in alamy, and then sum all the extended licenses in IS to get an approximate liberty in the usage of an image.

In most cases iStock is more expensive than Alamy! And despite this you still have restrictions!

It's the same as if you rented a car (micro), or you bought the same car (macro). In one case you'd pay 50$, and in the later you'd pay, lets say 40.000$.

Is it immoral for the car seller to charge 40.000$, when you can drive the same car for 50$ a day? No, because it's A DIFFERENT SERVICE.

So before coming here discussing ethics and legalities study this subject a little more.

Regards,
e=mg2

Hi,

What will Veer do about the watermark? In isolated objects it's totally useless in most cases.

This means that Veer is offering our images for the web sizes, and it's an invitation for image theft, especially in a segment that brings a lot of sales in micro, the xs sizes.

We've gone through this ordeal with Snapvillage, and I would expect it to be taken care from the start with Veer!

Regards,
e=mg2

Quote from: Whitechild on May 30, 2009, 00:13
Will Getty do the same one day?

As much as I know they already do it for a long time...

Quote from: sharpshot on May 28, 2009, 21:04
I pay taxes in my country and as far I know the stock sites in my country don't withhold 30% tax and make people from selected countries fill out forms to get it back while keeping it from others.

I don't see why SS are doing this when other companies aren't.  Some of them obviously think this is just red tape that can be ignored and others have set up their finances outside the US while keeping their employees in the US.  Snap village were based in Ireland but they are owned by a US company, it can't be that difficult to set up.  It is obvious to me that SS need to look at this again.

What other companies aren't doing this? The "other" companies are in Canada, France, Romania, etc.!

From the Big six only SS, 123rf and BS are in the US. And how do you know that BS and 123rf are not breaking the law by not collecting the taxes? So, who's wrong here? SS or BS and 123rf?

Getty (and thats' GETTY!) and the defunct Photoshelter also withhold the 30% for taxes and they were from USA. Again, who's wrong here? Do you think that a company the size of Getty could get away with a illegality of this size? They would be stealing 30% of hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Do you think that their photographers, many of which earn hundreds of thousands of dollars per year would allow to be "robbed" in 30% of their income? They all would be in another stock agency by now and Getty would be gone!

I don't know about the laws in your country, but that is YOUR country. YOUR country makes the laws the way they want. USA makes the laws the way THEY want. If you don't like it no one is forcing you to accept them. Just leave and submit to the other agencies.

I also don't like to have to pay 10%, but I'm a professional and I must comply with my obligations. The time for happy snappers is gone. Microstock is maturing into a real business and people either step up the game or leave.

If the SS doesn't want to change their accounting to other countries it's their right. They'll suffer the consequences in the end.

e=mc2

Quote from: Aetherial on May 29, 2009, 07:55

Quote from: e=mg2 on May 28, 2009, 20:08
If you work for a company, how would you like for it to move for a different country? Should the employees at SS be thrilled with the idea of having to move to a foreign country and turn their lives upside down so they could keep their job in a time of world crisis just to satisfy a bunch of people who don't take this activity seriously?

you forget one important thing: IT'S NOT EMPLOYEES OF SHUTTERSTOCK THAT MAKE THE CONTENT THEY'RE SELLING, IT'S THE CONTRIBUTORS, MOSTLY FROM OUT OF US. Employees are just administrators, guys with bunch of servers as someone noticed. Digital Railroad sank, Lucky Oliver sank, Photoshelter sank, Shutterstock will float as long as people making images are making it float, not guys in the board room making insulting posts to their business partners (yes, we're their business partners, vendors that is) on their forum.

if you're fishing for shrimps in the middle of Sahara, of course it makes sense to move somewhere where there are shrimps, even if it is "problem" for you.

I'm sorry to say but the only insults I've read on the forums were from the photographers and not from the SS staff. A real mass hysteria. Totally unprofessional from the photographers part.

90% of those posts were simple insults from people who look at this BUSINESS as a paid hobby with no responsibilities at all. The time of paid hobbies is long gone, now you either take this seriously or you're out. And paying taxes, like it or not is part of a serious business.

I also think this could, and still can, be better handled by SS and I'm not happy paying taxes, but once again we're talking about the law of a sovereign country.

We may not like the decisions taken by the SS administration but the agency is THEIR business and they are entitled to do whatever they want with it. Even sunk it! We have the right to make proposals and try to bend things in our interest but the agency is their business. And they even gave us room to express our opinions! In my former company that didn't happen at all and we all knew physically and contacted daily! So I think SS did an acceptable job here.

And Photography is OUR business, and we're also entitled to do whatever we want, namely, stop submitting to SS and go elsewhere. It's not like there's a shortage of micros out there.

Time will tell about SS decisions. At the end they have the right to run THEIR business (agency), as much as we have the right run OUR business (photography) in the way we want.

e=mc2

I'm as "happy" as anyone else with this issue, but if these are the US laws what would you want SS to do?

Should SS stage a Coup-d'etat in US so they could change the Tax Laws at gun point?

What's the part that this is THE LAW OF A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY that you don't understand?

If you work for a company, how would you like for it to move for a different country? Should the employees at SS be thrilled with the idea of having to move to a foreign country and turn their lives upside down so they could keep their job in a time of world crisis just to satisfy a bunch of people who don't take this activity seriously?

I don't like this issue either since I'll have to pay 10% and I already pay the taxes in my country, but this business is getting serious, and I, as a stock photography professional must comply with professional standards. All my income is from stock and so I wont play with issues like taxes and my duties.

Even if people earn 1 dollar per month in SS, that qualifies them in my view as professionals since they earn money from this activity. If you don't want to comply with the professional standards maybe it's time for you to leave microstock for people that take this seriously.

Sorry but as I said I don't like this issue either, I think it could have been better handled but comments are reaching to a point where most people are loosing their credibility. They are starting to sound as irresponsible whining babies.

So, do you also evade taxes in your country like you're demanding SS to do?

Regards,
E=mg2

Quote from: lisafx on May 06, 2009, 23:44

Fotolia's prices are indeed cheaper, but their royalties are significantly higher to non-exclusives - which is most of their contributor base.  They start you at 30%, I believe.  As an emerald (roughly equivalent to istock's diamond) get 38% plus was able to double my prices. 

So ITLR for most people the RPI is higher at Fotolia then IS, even with the lower prices.  My RPI on istock is 1.10 and 1.55 on Fotolia.  For a Fotolia exclusive the payout starts at 41% for white level and goes up to 61% for diamond level. 

And yes, they do have subscriptions, and yes that sucks.  But at least I get a guaranteed .35/DL and they count 1/4 toward new levels.

Besides this, FL pays in Euros to me which is a big advantage with the weak dollar.

Still, I consider FL the least trustworthy micro as they make unilateral changes, many of which against the interests and opinion of contributors, and especially do not announce anything, which implies bad faith in their intentions. In the least it's extremely unprofessional and disrespectful for contributors.

I make some money with them (my 3rd micro) but hardly trust them.

Quote
(...)
A practical issue at hand right now is that the SAA simply does not have the resources to expand our already busy advocacy role and education to an entirely new set of contracts, shoot methodology, and general support as would be needed for the micro end of the market.  While industry buzz is much about micro, and it is without a doubt gaining share, the majority (80-90% by current estimates) of stock revenues continue to be generated by traditional licenses.  Our priority must be to serve the business interests and needs of our current membership.
(...)
Shannon Fagan

President
Stock Artists Alliance
www.stockartistsalliance.org

Well, well, well... How manipulative can someone be?

From what I've heard from SAA members, Micro is destroying the stock industry; because of Micro I can no longer put food in the table for my children; Global Warming and AIDS are Micro fault's, and let's bun micro photographers in the stake after a Spanish Inquisition torture session. The last two may be exaggerated but are close to the feelings of the SAA members.

But it seems that, after all, Micro represents only 10-20% of the industry!!! How cataclysmic can that be?!! After all the BS and hate I've read in the last years that's how destructive Micro is?

And because of that it doesn't justify for the SAA to support Micro photographers, against the agencies which were destroying stock and all the previous cra* I've read from their people!

Am I missing something or is this just a polite way to say "Scre* You"?

I was less than impressed by this organization, but after that answer I can only say that at this moment they deserve little respect from the Micro photographers, and surely no confidence.

This answer only shows that they don't want to have anything to do with Micro, and are not shy in being manipulative.

Regards

Quote from: AaronBooth on February 06, 2009, 22:09
Stay tuned for February 23rd when the first batch of SV images go live on Veer Marketplace.

What I haven't understood so far is if everyone on SV will have their accounts transfered, or Veer/SV will be choosing the members to be transferred.

Is there any clear answer to this I've missed?

Regards,

Hi,

I think it's becoming more and more important by the day, the creation of an organization that could defend the stock industry photographers. A place where professional stock photographers, as well amateurs could exchange their opinions and draw tactics for their own protection.

But also, an organization with the ability to monitor the legality of agency contracts and decisions, and even take legal actions against abuses from the agencies.

People often comment that it's impossible to make the micro photographers act together. This is something often read when boycotts are proposed against a specific agency for whatever reason. But the main reason for this lack of unity is the fact that photographers feel that there's no coordination and in the end nothing will happen to the agency.

If agencies felt that legal actions could be taken against them, and photographers knew that this could happen in their defense, a lot more coordination would be seen. Of course there would still be those that would not want to join of participate, and that's natural, but things would have a different strength.

As an example, I think I can cite what happened last year when Getty introduced the 49$ fee for web use in all their collections (RF and RM). After an uproar among the traditional stock photographers and the actions of some organizations, Getty ended up changing this strategy in some important points. They didn't end the price program but were forced to make adjustments. And this happened because some organizations representing a lot of photographers were involved.

I can also point  what happened with Fotolia subscriptions last year, which did not end them but made the agency add benefits for the photographer like counting the downloads for the photographer ranking, or what happened with Stockxpert with the deal with Photos.com/Jupiter Unlimited where they ended up changing the conditions of the buyers license so they could not get a license for 0.30$ with the benefits of an EL.

This only shows that even disorganized and based solely with a lot of noise in the forums, photographers can defend some of their interests. Having an organization would work much, much better.

I don't think that this could even be seen as a threat to the agencies. In fact, a good photographers' organization could bring benefits to honest and respectfull agencies by boasting their credibility among photographers, and benefiting from their commitment to submit images there.

But the first step must be made by the top stock photographers. Not only because they have a deep knowledge of the industry, even in legal terms but also because they gather a lot of attention from all the business and can mobilize a lot of people.

P.S.: it already exists at least one known organization of stock photographers, that I know of, but unfortunately they are completely anti-micro.

Best regards.