Quote from: cardmaverick on December 22, 2011, 19:00

I don't believe in "use" based pricing, that's a total racket...

And unlimited usage and time is even more ridiculous.

I'm not sure who came up with RF but they didn't get much right including the name. Free? Plus we can't even track which image is legit or pirated. Way to go RF inventor.

A new license should be single-use, time-limited, and be tracked. This way we could actually get some recurring revenue from renewals and easily nail image thiefs.

The way things are going now with questionable demand, massive supply increases, and all you can eat licensing ain't a real good mix for our future.

As nice as the usage model appears, you'll never be able to enforce what you want. That's why I think it's silly for us to go down that road. Like it or not, you have to build a business model that address's market place reality, and our reality is that:

1.) IP laws are clearly useless (and cause photographers problems to boot!) - Hell, SOPA, the latest draconian IP law proposal will cripple the whole freaking internet. Can only imagine how great that'll be for selling pictures to bloggers....

2.) Tracking usage for several hundred million image purchases is ridiculous, not to mention unprofitable at our current micro prices.

"RF" exists because people don't like rights managed. Imagine Wal-Mart charging you more money for the oven your buying because you plan to use it at your business to turn a profit, and even have it on display too. Now imagine that they demand $X for every product you sell made in the oven. That's how image buyers feel. Why should I pay more than the next guy? Why should I put up with such a PITA? It's the same product others purchased for less money and harassment. Whine and cry all you like, but hey, that's reality, it pissed people off and they didn't like it.

A studio owner out here told me a about a photographer here in Salt Lake City who used to shoot the symphony. He charged them license fees to use the images. Guess what. They don't use him anymore. Why? The recurring license fee model pissed them off.

I think one of the big issues with microstock is the disconnect between prices paid and amount of money spent on the productions. This is a problem that needs to be solved.

I don't believe in "use" based pricing, that's a total racket... imagine paying $20 for a shirt, then suddenly one day you appear on national news wearing that shirt and suddenly you get a bill for $4,000. Anything involving "rights" that don't actually exist anyways won't be viable and already isn't. When we sell our images, we need to assume right off the bat that they will be used in every way imaginable, big or small because that's already what's going on! That means the prices need to be higher. It's that simple.

I like what shutterstock is doing with individual image purchasing. This should have been implemented from day one YEARS ago. Imagine how much money could have been made if they had done that in the first place.

Had a quick look at the Einsteins and they do look quite impressive in terms of specs. Don't know how the quality is and the support in Europe and/or rest of the world (outside U.S.).

From what I understand, PCB has amazing customer service for repairs. All you do is mail the unit to them, which might be a hassle for overseas people, but I've heard they do not charge more than cost of parts for repairs. So a fix that is only $5 parts is all you'll pay. I once saw a video tour of their facility and Paul showed off the repair center, pretty impressive.

Just to make a point, the idea that an agency must take the images you have created that sell well at other sites is a bit of a blind demand. Some agencies want to create a certain look and feel for their collection, other sites might not be targeting the market that likes your top selling images, etc...

Considering the way "wikiwarriors" used to recommend replacing correct keywords with incorrect ones on iStock and then have those suggestions approved, I find it hard to imagine that anyone can do a proper keywording job on images they know nothing about.

How is that so? All you need to do is look at the image and have experience with how photo buyers search for images. It's not that hard, just time consuming and tedious.

I found 2 of my EPS-illustrations at alamy. Someone offers my illustrations as jpgs, only the colors are changed.

I wrote a mail to alamy, that I am the copyrightholder with links to some agencies, where my EPS-illustrations are sold.

And I got this short answer from alamy:
"The procedure here is such that since the images have been uploaded to alamy by XXX, he has to send us a mail requesting deletion of images which you claim is yours.
Kind regards,"

I was really surprised !
Normally agencies react correct by deleting the pictures/portfolio of the theaf, when I can easily show by links to the original EPS-files, that I am the copyrightholder.

The rules at alamy are so, that the theaf has to mail to alamy to delete the stolen pictures ?

Totally grazy and unacceptable !

How are they supposed to know your the real owner of the "original EPS" file? Sure, they have a JPG, but for all they know, you could have "stolen" that EPS file you're using as proof.

Imagine what it would be like if anyone could just point a finger, yell "copyright infringer" and get the persons account deleted....

You may be correct that once information gets out its free.

That does not mean that universities are not selling information. It only means that people are willing to pay to get access to the best, latest, cutting edge information and have someone that understands it intimately, explain it to them.

What about drug companies?
They get to have patents on their products. That is IP protection.
Without that, there would be no incentive to spend millions of dollars on research plus going through the burdensome process of getting FDA approval.

The "incentive problem" is a fallacy, and you can use it in both directions:

If all you have to do is make one successful IP creation and live off of its royalties, etc... why would you ever bother to produce more stuff? You're already a millionaire off say, a movie. You're life is secure, why risk anymore money on creating other things? After all... it's a financial risk with no guarantee of success, even with tons of IP laws, you can still lose big.

... and people still produce stuff. Even without IP, they will still produce for one simple reason - people want what we make.

The only thing that changes is the business model!

I keep on pounding the "business model" drum because thats what needs to change. If we strip away IP laws, yes, some industries will radically change, but they won't die, they will simply change how they operate.

BTW - the big pharma example is not too far off from Fashion (physical objects resulting from ideas), they spend millions to produce and distribute their clothes, just like drug companies spend millions... and yet they have no IP laws helping them. They still produce because people still want their stuff.

Another point, you don't seem to be saying that people shouldn't have to pay to use digital media, but that they should be able to use the, say, image as they wish once they do.
So what is your point? that the license should be broader? that it should't be called a license? what?
Also most IP protection is there to stop people using digital media without having paid for the use, given that you don't seem to be saying everything intangible should be free, what do you have against this?

You also need to bear in mind that what is happening now is not that distributors are pocketing the larger percentage and screwing the artist, but that distributors like Rapidshare are taking 100% and not passing anything at all onto the artist or considering the cost of production in any way.
Clearly this has to stop if any decent content is going to be produced.

I think you're starting to catch on to this. If we were to operate in a market where once you sold the product and lost total control, then YES. You could say it's akin to selling all the rights, thus the prices would need to be higher. It just makes sense. I know a studio that will sell RAW files to its wedding clients. They charge $800-1,000 for those files. Why? Because they know that once they let them go, the have no more opportunities to make money off of that particular client.

My main argument against IP is that it's akin to outlawing the free breathing of air. It so quickly becomes so ridiculous, not to mention lopsided. Clearly our business gets more government favors than the fashion business who would love to have IP laws so they can sue their way to profits.

I just want people in this business to start finding business models that can work in world where people will (and already do!) buy an image once, then use it forever, or even flat out "steal" the sample image with useless agency watermark in the corner of the image. Let's not forget the file sharing as well.

Once people accept this stuff will always happen, we can start pinpointing things we can do that simply can't be packed into a torrent file and distributed all over the web, etc...

One idea I've floated to image buyers that is always welcomed is the idea of paying to create a customized search algorithm for a particular clients tastes and needs. A "search brain" of sorts. If the price is right, many will leap all over that. Just talk to anyone who's tried to find clients images they like. It can be a terrible process. Imagine charging to analyze images they like (color, composition, etc...) and then being able to search with a true custom algorithm that fits the client like a glove.

You can't easily steal that, and people want to buy that.

So why aren't we doing that? Probably because people are stuck in their old ways, stuck enough that would probably give that away for free and still think selling imaginary "rights" is the way to go, LOL. Crazy.

Quote from: cardmaverick on November 29, 2011, 16:29

Quote from: Graffoto on November 29, 2011, 16:26

This whole premise is idiotic. Information WANTS to be free? No PEOPLE want everything for free.

What does a university like Yale or Harvard sell? Its information!!!
OK, they call it an education but an education is just information presented in a formal manner.

Taken to its logical conclusion university should be free.
Oh and all those folks that sell how to books? Those should be free right?
Oh and lets post detailed information on how to source, assemble and detonate a nuclear device for free as well...after all information WANTS to be free!

Balderdash!

Schools don't sell information - last time I checked, what they sell are things others discovered on their own or in groups of people.

What schools do sell:

The help of seasoned professors

A degree that certifies subject competence

That's basically it.

"Things others have discovered" = Information! Intellectual Property.

You missed the point. Anyone can figure it out on their own. The schools are selling access to professors to help learn subjects and degrees to certify they have learned them well, the information itself is readily available if you want to discover it yourself. I think my wording threw you off, sorry about that.

This whole premise is idiotic. Information WANTS to be free? No PEOPLE want everything for free.

What does a university like Yale or Harvard sell? Its information!!!
OK, they call it an education but an education is just information presented in a formal manner.

Taken to its logical conclusion university should be free.
Oh and all those folks that sell how to books? Those should be free right?
Oh and lets post detailed information on how to source, assemble and detonate a nuclear device for free as well...after all information WANTS to be free!

Balderdash!

Schools don't sell information - last time I checked, what they sell are things others discovered on their own or in groups of people.

What schools do sell:

The help of seasoned professors

A degree that certifies subject competence

That's basically it.

Quote from: cardmaverick on November 29, 2011, 00:28

Quote from: stockastic on November 28, 2011, 21:45

"Piracy" used to mean that you boarded someone's ship using violence and intimidation, and stole their goods, which meant they didn't have those goods any more.

Today it's used to describe someone taking a photo of a statue in a public park.  

What I see is mostly just a lot of stinkin' rich suits telling Congress that the laws have to change because they're not making as much money as they used to.

I love your example with the statue. Imagine all the stuff we COULD shoot and SELL if we dumped our IP laws.

So let me ask if I understand, you don't care if I steal your images and sell them, and give you nothing? Just want to make sure I understand you point of no IP laws. You enjoy working for free?

Personally when I work to create something, I'd like to get paid for it, otherwise why am I doing it? I can go pile bricks or slap down hamburgers at a fast food joint and make better money. (or worse, do what I actually do for a living, but I'm not going there!) LOL

ps It's not illegal to shoot and sell many statues, it's just another of the CYA policy of agencies.

One of the big problems with stock photography is that our agencies LET people easily take our images. Now, once I sell you something however, yes, you can do what you want with it.

Imagine the producer of your favorite sofa you purchased knocking on your door demanding money every time you sit on it and on top of that, telling you that you have no right to sell it at a flee market when you no longer want it.

It's crazy. IP is no different.

BTW - Artists don't have to starve, but to be honest, even WITH IP LAW - artists still starve... so let's not even venture down that road.

Quote from: cardmaverick on November 28, 2011, 18:11

Quote from: RacePhoto on November 28, 2011, 15:03

Well maybe somewhere in the middle, we will actually have some protection and get paid for our work, some day?  

It's called change your freaking business model and get over it. That's all this is about - a bunch of people clinging to a broken, horribly failed business model and trying to get a useless government to save it.

Way back in the day the world had full time creative's who didn't have the benefit of IP laws, the difference was simple, they had a different business model.

Way back in the day as in before the internet? Back then violating someone's copyright took more than a right click "save as". There were IP laws back then too but the difference was if you wanted to steal an image you had to scan it out of a printed catalog the agencies sent out. You ended up with a rescreen of a thumbnail which never really looks good. It was harder to violate copyright then. What business model do you suggest that would allow for photographers to get paid while distributing product over the web?

I'm referring to times prior to all IP laws. Waaaaay back in the day. Last time I looked into it, authors for example, still made a living, but their business models worked differently than they do today - they also had to be more prolific. Same thing for composers.

This can be a very long discussion, but look at this way. IP laws are nothing more than an economic distortion caused by useless governments. Imagine the government trying to force you to buy your air from people selling oxygen tanks. How long do you think that will last? Sure, they could fine you all day long when your walking down the street without your little mask and tank, but how many people do you think would actually be buying new tanks of oxygen every time it ran out? None. It's an outlandish, colorful way of making my point, but it makes it easy to understand. Ideas are not property, and they never will be. The digital age has only made this more apparent to the public, and those who depend on the old ideas and have no good new ideas are simply tying to protect themselves with more useless laws that will actually hurt our business more than it helps it.

Imagine a crack down on trade dress - the shapes and designs of virtually any object. That alone would totally destroy our business.

Think about that. Would you be quick to support more draconian IP laws now? If you are, you're literally holding a gun to your business' head, because IP laws actually work 100% against the stock photo business concept.

What the future of this industry is happens to be very uncertain, but I can tell you this much, the concept of selling "licenses" is NOT the future. It's time for us to get over it and start thinking outside the box about services we can sell that cannot be so easily taken by others without paying.

Some good examples of companies that "get it", Apple and Adobe. Apple is all closed source because it's more reliable for them to control their product, far more reliable than a draconian IP law. Adobe programs are slowly moving online. Right now you can buy a month of access to a program on your local machine. In the future, it will be hosted on a super computer and you have a subscription. Might sound crazy now, but it will be far more profitable when the technology to support that arrives.