I think this is more than just "no multiseat licenses" are needed as they market this service with "we have great new user interface which enables you to share the bought images with your colleagues and PARTNERS, only one lisence is needed" > partners can be, and often are people working for other/different companies than the image buyer. So this is allowing users to freely deliver images to 3rd party users, without any extra fee: see their latest newsletter in Finnish:) here: http://newsletter.123rf.fi/02-2013/ (image showing the newsletter attached, too). This will mean many users will share for free the images to their dealers and retailers etc.  This is totally against common delivery terms, and will again cut down the turnover. One can always try to say "this is limited to one company only" but that is not how the users are now reading the terms and  using the service.

Quote from: daffodil on February 07, 2011, 03:43

So it looks like this  "other company" first wanted you to represent them but after you started to grow bigger and more "dangerous" competitor in form of getting more images and more photographers of your own, they did not like that and terminated the contract. I must say this is exactly what should change in Microstock; "traditional" agencies do not have so many photographers of their own anymore but they too represent freelancers, and yet they are willing to have re-sellers, even in same market area as they have their own selling offices, and at the same time the re-sellers can naturally build their own business and represent photographers freely. Someone here said it is "sleezy" to invite photographers attend directly; I see nothing sleezy in that, every company, including I as a photographer, must have freedom to develop the business without any competitor or business partner trying to prevent that.

Oh really? <sigh>

I can't help noting that 'daffodil' has only just joined MSG, has felt the need to respond only to this topic and both of their posts read like a press release from Pixmac themselves. Funny that.

I am not writing any press releases on behalf of Pixmac or any other agency, but just writing my thouhts and feelings about our industry in common. I also always try to figure out what might be behind the "curtains", too. And I certainly am not one of those writing here all the time, mostly complaining; if I have any problems with some of the agencies or other partners I work with, I contact them as it usually is the only way to solve matters, complaining here does not help anything. But it is great pity that we can not even try to discuss about anything without getting negative replies back - so sad.

After following this topic, and other common writings about using re-sellers in Microstock, the following questions have raised in my mind:

Why don't we find the use of re-sellers good thing, in common? It however offers us possibility to get our images pushed harder, and it is well proven procedure in image industry.

Why the re-sellers are often not allowed to tell/show who are their partners? Is it because the various agencies do not want to tell the photographers there is someone else also creating sales - perhaps good sales? As far as I know, the re-sellers really are forbidden to show the name of the image supplier/agency. Agencies like Alamy, Corbis etc always show who are their re-sellers, and their re-sellers are openly allowed to show who they are representing. Microstock could/should learn from this habit.

Why are the agencies not showing in their sales reports the origins of the sales = the name of the re-seller - is that again because they do not want to tell the photographers there is someone else than themselves creating the sales?

Why are the agencies stating the top price the re-seller must use? Is it because they are afraid of our images could be sold with higher prices than what they use themselves? Nice way to prevent the photographers to get more money.

Why are the agencies stating/agreeing the share of photographers commission in some dollar amount only, instead of clearly showing the gross sales prices received and our agreed x% of that? When using re-sellers this gross sales price naturally should/would be the gross price the agency received from the re-seller (>original gross sales price > minus re-seller commission > net price reported to agency > in photographer's report > net price minus agreed commission %). If no re-seller is used, this system would still always leave us the certain agreed % - and not make it possible for the agency  to reduce the sales prices but still keep as much or almost as much money as earlier - and the only one suffering is the photographer

Why do we feel re-sellers could not sell images with higher prices than the original supplier? Wouldn't it only be good for us - providing we get higher fee ourselves, too.

Why do we attack the re-sellers about problems in reporting or showing the origin of images - we can do it, but at the same time we should demand information about the terms that the origins have stated to the re-sellers - from the origins. These suppliers might have their "fingers" in it anyway and the re-seller is not to be blamed about everything.

About this particular case and topic: when serious accusations like this are made, I trust the one that made this accusation in the beginning will come in public again, and tell about the result of real audit that has been conducted (?). At the same time, the other part in this case must be allowed to give their statement. The decent way to handle this case would have been to first make the audit, see the results - and only then make it public.

This is how I would see fair Microsoft world.