Number four looks like Red Bream

Recently found one of my images used in a printed magazine with a print run of approx 1.3 million copies.

User of the image is a national organisation in the UK requiring paid membership, of which I am a member.

Image is available on several ms sites that I submit to, but had never had an EL licence on any of them.

I emailed the editor asking where the image was obtained from, adding that I was unable to find any licence purchase applicable for a print run of this quantity.

Got a very quick reply from the editor advising that the image was obtained from a microstock site (name supplied but not included here) using a standard monthly subscription, and added that after checking they now realized that the image was not licensed for the size of the print run.

They have apologized and asked me to let them know how much to compensate for the image misuse and to provide an invoice so that they can arrange payment.

The image is relatively simple isolated object that was used inside of the magazine at half page size.

If the correct EL had been purchased when the image was downloaded it would have cost them approx �80 GB Pounds (approx $120).

So the question is what would a reasonable amount to request be?

Don't want to be unreasonable and ask for too much but also don't want to ask for too less.

Any advice appreciated.

Glad it's not just me.

Have been going mad for half an hour trying to get in.

Assuming that SS sold the image to this publisher in questions what the "best" thing that could happen?

That after spending 1 hour of research where the image might have been downloaded from and contacting the publisher and Shutterstock, the publisher just has to license it again a second time for another 25-38 cents for the remainder of the print run to be legally covered?

I've given up on these kinds of infringements.

The best thing that could happen is that the publisher is forced to purchase the EL that they should have originally purchased for that sized print run.

The image can only have been purchased from SS or 123RF both with >250,000 needing an EL.

There are a couple of other reasons for me wanting to follow this up as well. I pay a reasonable amount of money to belong to the organisation that publishes this magazine, so why should I allow them to use my image without paying for the correct license.

Its also about educating buyers, giving them the benefit of the doubt that they may not be fully aware of the requirement for an EL. If they are aware of the EL requirements and are purchasing and using images without an EL, the agency needs to make that stop.

The magazine is a regular user of stock images each month - what if all these images were purchased without an EL?

Well these are my reasons for following this up.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/comparison-of-standard-rf-license-agreements/

thanks Barry, yes have seen that one and shows 250,000+ for both SS and 123RF as needing EL.

Advice needed now is what is best approach now that cant confirm which of those two agencies it was purchased from.

Just found one of my images in a printed leisure magazine in the UK.

Initially quite pleased to find an image in print, especially when it is in a magazine for a club I belong to and the copy is posted out to members, and was delivered and posted through the letterbox.

Wasnt quite so pleased when I noticed that the magazine distribution is 375,000+ copies. The image is a low selling one and I can only recall ever selling once on shutterstock as a sub sale. Will be going off to check the other agencies that the image is on shortly, but cant recall it selling anywhere else, but not 100% sure.

Bit of advice needed as to next steps - had thought about sending a polite email to magazine thanking them for buying the image and asking where they purchased it from.

Next option would to be contact shutterstock direct and ask them to look into it, but think I need to be quite sure it came from Shutterstock first.

Any help and advice appreciated.

Edit Update: Have now excluded all agencies except Shutterstock and 123Rf - see updated post below.

You can count me in for deactivating 200 on Feb 2nd.

Only got a small port of just over 400, so will delete half initially and if no drastic improvements are made to the IS / Getty / Google mess by the end of Feb, will deactivate the remainder.

Will miss the money, but cant sit there and do nothing, and unless a significant amount of contributors take action, it will only get worse with more images being added to Googledrive.

now I am with 3 sales for 2.16$ but on the bottom stats I have 3 sales for 1.84$, is that the cut from 50% to 45%?

Thats so 123RF can remind you what you would have been paid before they cut your royalty rate

Quote from: alids on December 23, 2012, 02:19

Quite a bit has been said lately about the actual commission paid per credit by 123RF due to the selling of discounted credits, with many people claiming that a large quantity of their credit sales are discounted to some degree or other.

Based on my last couple of hundered of credit sales at 123RF, I have received �200.53 in commissions from 508 credits. This is from 195 actual credit image sales, which should represent an acceptable sample size to base some calculations on.

This equates to an actual average price paid by the buyer of $0.79 per credit (however I have seen much larger discounts on individual sales - many in the 50% plus discount range).

Using the average credit price paid by the buyer we can come up with a $ royalty commision for each image size for each of the proposed new levels at 123RF, something which has been hard to do in the past due to the wide range in actual dollar commissions recived due to the dicounted credits.

The following tabel shows the $amounts paid for the new levels, based on $0.79 per credit purchase price.

123RF                         Small   Medium   Large   XLarge   XXLarge
Image                         400x    881x      2607x   3600x    2800x
Dimensions                  247      544       1609     2221     4214
Level 1 (30%)              $0.24    $0.47    $0.71   $0.95    $1.18
Level 2 (35%)              $0.28    $0.55    $0.83   $1.11    $1.38
Level 3 (40%)              $0.32    $0.63    $0.95   $1.26    $1.58
Level 4 (45%)              $0.36    $0.71    $1.07   $1.42    $1.78
Level 5 (50%)              $0.39    $0.79    $1.18   $1.58    $1.97

This can then be compared to Fotolia and Depositphotos:

Fotolia                       XSmall   Small   Medium   Large   XLarge
Image                        485x     850x    1691x     2360x   4214x
Dimensions                 282      565      1124       1568    2800
White Level (20%)      $0.20    $0.60   $1.00      $1.40   $1.60
Bronze Level (23%)    $0.23    $0.69   $1.15      $1.61   $1.84
Silver Level (25%)      $0.25    $0.75   $1.25      $1.75    $2.00


Deposit Photos           XSmall   Small   Medium   Large   XLarge
Image                       425x     867x    1735x      2454x   4214x
Dimensions                282       576     1153       1630     2800
Green Level (44%)     $0.35   $0.66    $1.32      $1.76   $2.64
Bronze 46%               $0.46   $0.92   $1.84       $2.76   $3.68
Silver 48%                 $0.48   $0.96   $1.92      $2.88   $3.84
Gold 50%                  $0.50    $1.00   $2.00      $3.00   $4.00

One thing that people do need to take into account is the actual images sizes sold, eg 123RF does not have XS and therefore a 123RF small equates to a Fotolia / DP XSmall. However Large is comparable across all 3 of the sites.

If we take Large as an example even a lowly White Level contributor at Fotolia would earn $1.40, a Green Level contributor at DP would earn $1.76, whereas a Level 1 contributor at 123RF would earn $0.71 (next year), with even a Level 5 Contributor at 50% (next year) only earning $1.18.

123Rf seems to compare better at the small/medium sizes but pays much less from large image size upwards.

Hopefully this goes some way to showing the levels of actual $royalties paid and clearly shows that the actual %commission isn't the be all and end all in determining whether a site pay a good or bad commission.

123Rf has been seen as paying a high commission % up till now, however 50% of a low credit price (especially when discounted further for buyers) equates to a lower royalty payment in $ than many sites paying a lower %.

Food for thought and some discussion.

Andy, great effort putting that together.  I'm guessing your intention was to compare the three cheapest micro sites that are leading the race to the bottom? 

I appreciate your effort because apart from them ripping us off in the other ways, you've just highlighted another reason for me to leave.  Considering DP will give a better return than 123rf will next year, and that I've left DP because they're too cheap and their commissions are too low, what does that say about 123rf?

123 may compare better than FT at the lower levels but we have to remember that not too long ago FT didn't look like that.  They've had two commission cuts in the same year and have changed their levels, moving the goalposts for everyone which resulted in many contributors turning against them.  So showing that 123rf who is a low volume, relative new site is not much better than FT, who has been around, is a high volume site and a top earner doesn't say much for them apart from saying that 123 has a real nerve thinking they can get away with acting as bad as the big boys without seeing any consequences.

Thanks again.

The main reason for comparing against Fotolia and DP was due to the previous cuts at FT and the previous concerns over low  prices and commissions at DP.

However when 123RF plan to drop their commissions for most, with even a large download for a level 5 contributor paying less than an entry level contributor would receive at both Fotolia and DP, then the comparisons should be made and people should take note. Plus anyone below level 5 is going to get shafted even more.

With the comparisons put side by side, each individual contributor can make a personal decison based on their port size, sales, level next year and expectations for 123RF. Until I carried out the comparison I had assumed that DP would be lower, but it seems that 123Rf are lower now and will be even lower for the majority next year.

My port (although small - only 600 images) will be getting deleted in the new year. With their low image credit prices, discounted credit pack prices I think they are heading the race to the bottom more so than others and dont really have the volume of sales to pull stunts like this.

Quite a bit has been said lately about the actual commission paid per credit by 123RF due to the selling of discounted credits, with many people claiming that a large quantity of their credit sales are discounted to some degree or other.

Based on my last couple of hundered of credit sales at 123RF, I have received �200.53 in commissions from 508 credits. This is from 195 actual credit image sales, which should represent an acceptable sample size to base some calculations on.

This equates to an actual average price paid by the buyer of $0.79 per credit (however I have seen much larger discounts on individual sales - many in the 50% plus discount range).

Using the average credit price paid by the buyer we can come up with a $ royalty commision for each image size for each of the proposed new levels at 123RF, something which has been hard to do in the past due to the wide range in actual dollar commissions recived due to the dicounted credits.

The following tabel shows the $amounts paid for the new levels, based on $0.79 per credit purchase price.

123RF                         Small   Medium   Large   XLarge   XXLarge
Image                         400x    881x      2607x   3600x    2800x
Dimensions                  247      544       1609     2221     4214
Level 1 (30%)              $0.24    $0.47    $0.71   $0.95    $1.18
Level 2 (35%)              $0.28    $0.55    $0.83   $1.11    $1.38
Level 3 (40%)              $0.32    $0.63    $0.95   $1.26    $1.58
Level 4 (45%)              $0.36    $0.71    $1.07   $1.42    $1.78
Level 5 (50%)              $0.39    $0.79    $1.18   $1.58    $1.97

This can then be compared to Fotolia and Depositphotos:

Fotolia                       XSmall   Small   Medium   Large   XLarge
Image                        485x     850x    1691x     2360x   4214x
Dimensions                 282      565      1124       1568    2800
White Level (20%)      $0.20    $0.60   $1.00      $1.40   $1.60
Bronze Level (23%)    $0.23    $0.69   $1.15      $1.61   $1.84
Silver Level (25%)      $0.25    $0.75   $1.25      $1.75    $2.00


Deposit Photos           XSmall   Small   Medium   Large   XLarge
Image                       425x     867x    1735x      2454x   4214x
Dimensions                282       576     1153       1630     2800
Green Level (44%)     $0.35   $0.66    $1.32      $1.76   $2.64
Bronze 46%               $0.46   $0.92   $1.84       $2.76   $3.68
Silver 48%                 $0.48   $0.96   $1.92      $2.88   $3.84
Gold 50%                  $0.50    $1.00   $2.00      $3.00   $4.00

One thing that people do need to take into account is the actual images sizes sold, eg 123RF does not have XS and therefore a 123RF small equates to a Fotolia / DP XSmall. However Large is comparable across all 3 of the sites.

If we take Large as an example even a lowly White Level contributor at Fotolia would earn $1.40, a Green Level contributor at DP would earn $1.76, whereas a Level 1 contributor at 123RF would earn $0.71 (next year), with even a Level 5 Contributor at 50% (next year) only earning $1.18.

123Rf seems to compare better at the small/medium sizes but pays much less from large image size upwards.

Hopefully this goes some way to showing the levels of actual $royalties paid and clearly shows that the actual %commission isn't the be all and end all in determining whether a site pay a good or bad commission.

123Rf has been seen as paying a high commission % up till now, however 50% of a low credit price (especially when discounted further for buyers) equates to a lower royalty payment in $ than many sites paying a lower %.

Food for thought and some discussion.

Added my thoughts on 123RF page - good for buyers to see how contributors are going to be treated.

For me enough is enough - a 30 % pay cut down to level 2 for me is just too much.

Port being deleted early next year unless 123RF reconsider.

Another unhappy contributor here.

One thing that hasn't been touched on much is that the 123RF commission % is based on the price the buyer paid for the credits and not based on 1 credit = $1.

It appears that 123RF seems to quite heavily discount their credit packages.

From a quick review of my last 100 credit sales, 308 credits were required for their purchase.

One would assume that at a 50% royalty that the commission would be close to $154, however the actual commission received was actually $126.

This represents an average credit discount of 18% given by 123RF to its buyers, which takes a substantial chunk out of our commission earnings.

I have had some XXL and XXL TIFF sales where the discount that 123RF must have given to the buyer is close to 60%.

Based on an average discount of 18% (from review of my last 100 credit sales) our sales are currently already being sold at what is effectively a percentage much lower than 50%, by hiding it behind buyer credit discounts.

If 123Rf are planning to increase sales dramatically as Alex says, how much of that is going to be at the cost of the contributor, by large credit discounts to buyers, even before they cut the commissions.

The proposed cut in commissions coupled with the fact that our dollars received are often based on substantial buyer credit discounts is just one step too far.

Alex if you are out there, I would like to here your reply to this.