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: e=mg2 on June 25, 2009, 14:16

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: gostwyck on June 25, 2009, 13:34

Quote from: zymmetrical on June 25, 2009, 13:22

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,

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.

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

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

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

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

(...)
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

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.