The statistics (royalties or downloads curves in the statistics tab) of DeepMeta don't add to the date when the file was downloaded but when the file was uploaded. That is a bit confusing...

they'll never do it. too expensive.

If you ask me, I would delete 2 milon not good enough images from FT database (including about 1000 mine). That would increase sales at least 50%.

Can you explain how that would work? Why would sales increase? If the deleted images aren't selling, why would there be any change? And if they are, why delete them?

I believe there is no problem at Fotolia with too much content. They can easily go to 10 million files with no problem. They probably should work on their search algorithm, but that already is crappy.
I believe they just don't have consistent reviewers. One accepts all, one rejects all. No real reasoning behind it. It's just pure luck.

As I said, I don't often agree with what FT does (and definitely not with the way they treat any kind of possibly negative comment on their forums).
And I surely do not want to defend them.

But the facts as I see it:
Bilderking sells prints on canvas. You can as well upload your own pics and let them print it. There are a number of other companies offering the same, and the price of Bilderking for me looks rather competitive - so if they are making big money on these prints, obviously all the other companies offering such service do so as well.

Any FT customer now could buy a regular (L, XL) license and use that picture to buy a print from Bilderking. I believe that is fully within the license terms of Fotolia.

What they do on top of that: They allow their customers to search the FT database. If a customer finds a picture he wants to have, they buy it from FT on the customer's behalf and print it. They take the same money for the print plus the FT license fee, which they forward to FT.

So to me the difference is: There is one print of one of my pictures hanging in a living room somewhere (same as in the example above). I got paid for a normal license (not an EL, same as above). But: the probability that someone buys a canvas print via such a site is a lot higher than someone going through the effort of setting up a FT account, buying credits, buying a license, downloading a file, uploading the file to a print service and again paying the print service.

So for one sale:
End result for the customer: The same (a picture on the wall).
End result for me: The same (money for one license).
End result for Bilderking: The same (profits from printing one picture on canvas and selling it).
End result for Fotolia: The same (their share for one license)

But in total:
More customers!!!
For me, for Bilderking, for Fotolia.

Am I missing something?

Dirk

By the way: the same normal (non-EL) license allows advertising companies to use the files for huge campaigns. Currently a very big internet company in Germany (www.unitymedia.de) is using a Fotolia picture (http://de.fotolia.com/id/7510786) for a countrywide campaign. It's on their website, on billboards at busstations all over Germany, in flyers they send to households (probably in the hundreds of thousands)...
And all that (if I understand Fotolia's terms correctly) is possible with a normal license, which for this file in the biggest size is 10 credits.

And one question to Istock: are the 20 credits for the print of for the license (and costs for printing come on top of that)?

All this still does not prevent certain sites from rejecting images even if no logos etc. are present in the image. They call it "potential" copyright issue.

Basically - the writing is on the wall for photographers. Soon it will be impossible to photograph any item or object which has been produced or created by any human being by any manufacturing process.

Also, you will not be able to photograph landscapes - there are already a lot of places where you can't take pictures - and this includes national parks, landmarks etc. - even if this is public area. Usually one trust or the other sees the opportunity to cash in, and usually under pretences of "protecting", "preserving" or some such - and usually this is a lot of pure BS.

Basically - anything of value on this Earth has a claim staked out. So, if it has even the slightest "potential" of creating some buck - even from a photograph someone may take - it becomes either "protected", or "culturaly significant", or some other dodgy reason.

While the law does not go as far as the above description - the popular perception certainly shifted the balance in this direction. And the law is usually a representation of perceptions as to what is acceptable and what is not. It does not matter - it will happen sooner or later.

I guess this will also be the time when they will make you to pay for the air you breathe - and don't laugh, the recent activities in the "carbon trading" is a beginning of that - it is just that the general public is too stupid and indifferent to care. Well, the average citizen will care when this happens and I just can't wait to hear all the bleating...

Like or not - the world is slowly becoming one large prison. 

While I could agree with you in some points, I fully disagree to your example of carbon trading. It is not making people pay for the air that they breath but making companies pay for the air they pollute. Which is a good thing.

And to the topic of the thread:
I also believe that in the end it is the buyers responsibility to check if his usage is legally correct. Although the terms and conditions of the different microsites may ask their contributors to provide  that they possess all possible releases (or even want to see them), that does not free them nor the buyer from a certain amount of diligence on their side.
That said, if someone would submit a picture containing a clearly recognizable trademark (something wellknown to the public), the site admits it and a buyer uses this picture e.g. in commercials for a competitive product, I doubt that both buyer and micro agency can claim they just trusted the terms and conditions of the website...

Quote: "This Agreement will be governed under the laws of the Province of Bangladesh and the federal laws applicable therein."

From their membership agreement. Any experts in Bangladesh law around?

It's still up, on the second page when you follow the link.
They sell prints (on canvas or fine art paper) of your picture, so I thought that's allowed with an extended license?

Quote from: dirkr on June 30, 2008, 10:25

when oil starts to be priced in Euros, nobody outside the US will remember the Dollar...

Isn't oil already priced in Euros?  I remember having read about OPEC doing that, at least. I may be wrong.

Regards,
Adelaide

Not yet. Some OPEC countries have been talking about pricing oil in Euros, but so far the US Dollar is still the currency used. As for all other major commodities.
And that is one reason why the Dollar still has some life in it: You need US Dollars to buy Oil.  That creates demand (for the Dollar) and as always in economics, that influences the price (again of the Dollar).

different answer:
when oil starts to be priced in Euros, nobody outside the US will remember the Dollar...

Next step: today they increase the commission for subs:

Ranking    Payment / Download
   0.30 Credit
   0.31 Credit
   0.32 Credit
   0.33 Credit
   0.34 Credit
   0.35 Credit
   0.36 Credit
   0.37 Credit

And I can't find anymore that subs sales do not earn referal payouts (neither on the US nor on the German site - I am sure it was on both).

They seem to be moving, but as usual, no single word from the "officials"...

first sub sale for me today, from a customer that has previously bought from me paying "regular" prices. So much about Fotolia's fairytale of "only new customers buying subs"...