pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Huh? Can they do it like this?  (Read 49284 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #125 on: December 14, 2010, 15:06 »
0
Its been 10 days now since FD made the first post, still no sign of his portfolio being reinstated.  I can understand if he can't give us information for legal reasons but couldn't he just let us know that's why there's not been a follow up post?  Perhaps he is just too busy doing other things.

I really don't think we should speculate too much what the reasons are for shutterstock to take down his portfolio.  I just think if they have justification or not, they should still just take down the relevant images and make contact with the contributor before removing all their portfolio.  In a bad year for microstock, this is yet another reason to be concerned for contributors.

There was a post stating that FD was in the middle of relocating ... and internet access is spotty at best, even on the good days.


« Reply #126 on: December 14, 2010, 15:20 »
0

Waiting for the electricity to come back or FD to come back... :D

It could take some time for him to get a new internet connection.  He moved to a new house, and knowing how companies work over there it could take a while before he gets a new connection. When he was here a few months ago i heard some amazing stories etc....

Patrick.

« Reply #127 on: December 14, 2010, 15:28 »
0
He was talking on the DT forums a couple of days ago so my  guess is that he has been advised not to talk publicly about what happpened.

« Reply #128 on: December 14, 2010, 15:31 »
0
He was talking on the DT forums a couple of days ago so my  guess is that he has been advised not to talk publicly about what happpened.

Most probably logged in from an internet caf.

Patrick.


« Reply #130 on: December 17, 2010, 05:12 »
0
Quote
Screw em dude, it's their loss.

No, it's not their loss. They won't feel it, he unfortunetaly will.

Hope everything will be eventually OK.

jbarber873

« Reply #131 on: December 17, 2010, 08:26 »
0
Reading your other post with all you have going on with your own site I would guess strongly that had a lot to do with your removal.  As I mentioned before, they booted me out for being perceived as a part of Fotolia.  I don't think they like any form of competition or potential conflicts of interest.  They did me the same way, no notice..just closed the account.  Wasn't nearly as dramatic for me though as I only had a handful of images up as a test to see how they did there. 

Screw em dude, it's their loss.

Mat

   I don't understand why they would do that. there is no exclusivity requirement. they would be out of business if they booted everyone who has multiple accounts. ???

« Reply #132 on: December 17, 2010, 08:38 »
0
^^^ It's not about having 'multiple accounts', it's about being perceived to be a member of staff or at least on the payroll of a competing agency (such as being a reviewer for example). IS takes the same view and will close the account of any contributor who they discover working for another agency.

It's one reason why starting a 'contributor-owned agency' would be so difficult as everyone joining it risks having all other accounts closed by the various agencies.

jbarber873

« Reply #133 on: December 17, 2010, 18:30 »
0
^^^ It's not about having 'multiple accounts', it's about being perceived to be a member of staff or at least on the payroll of a competing agency (such as being a reviewer for example). IS takes the same view and will close the account of any contributor who they discover working for another agency.

It's one reason why starting a 'contributor-owned agency' would be so difficult as everyone joining it risks having all other accounts closed by the various agencies.

 Well then I guess they have everyone right where they want them.

« Reply #134 on: December 17, 2010, 18:33 »
0
^^^ It's not about having 'multiple accounts', it's about being perceived to be a member of staff or at least on the payroll of a competing agency (such as being a reviewer for example). IS takes the same view and will close the account of any contributor who they discover working for another agency.

It's one reason why starting a 'contributor-owned agency' would be so difficult as everyone joining it risks having all other accounts closed by the various agencies.

 Well then I guess they have everyone right where they want them.

Not really. Everyone would just have to take a major leap of faith in the new contributor-owned agency and be prepared to lose the other agency(ies). The prospect of making 80% of a sale over less than 20% seems like it would more than make up the losses, no?

lisafx

« Reply #135 on: December 17, 2010, 18:39 »
0
FWIW, FD's site is not a competing agency at all.  It just shows images and when you click on them it directs you to one of the existing agencies.  It isn't competing with the agencies.  It's providing free advertising for them! 

« Reply #136 on: December 17, 2010, 18:44 »
0
It isn't competing with the agencies.  It's providing free advertising for them! 
And it isn't forbidden in any site I know!

« Reply #137 on: December 17, 2010, 18:49 »
0
Not really. Everyone would just have to take a major leap of faith in the new contributor-owned agency and be prepared to lose the other agency(ies). The prospect of making 80% of a sale over less than 20% seems like it would more than make up the losses, no?

I think it is quite possible that within another year or two we may have no choice other than to start our own agency. By then virtually the only people making any money in microstock will be the agencies themselves. Over-supply is outstripping demand by such a huge margin that at some point in the near future it will be difficult to survive for all but a very few. Microstock in another 5 years time may be very different.

« Reply #138 on: December 17, 2010, 18:51 »
0
FWIW, FD's site is not a competing agency at all.  It just shows images and when you click on them it directs you to one of the existing agencies.  It isn't competing with the agencies.  It's providing free advertising for them! 

I'd agree with that __ I was just answering jbarber's point. FD states specifically on his site that he only sells images via the linked agencies.

« Reply #139 on: December 17, 2010, 21:11 »
0
FWIW, FD's site is not a competing agency at all.  It just shows images and when you click on them it directs you to one of the existing agencies.  It isn't competing with the agencies.  It's providing free advertising for them!  

I'd agree with that __ I was just answering jbarber's point. FD states specifically on his site that he only sells images via the linked agencies.

Same here. FD's site sends buyers over to one of the microstock's. Not a competing agency at all.

I was just talking hypotheticals.

edit: typo
« Last Edit: December 18, 2010, 07:20 by cclapper »

nruboc

« Reply #140 on: December 17, 2010, 22:22 »
0
Reading the original message from BigStock, it is clear it doesn't have anything to do with posting/selling images from his web site.

Why no update, for the past couple days the OP profile has had an active status, even if he can't talk about the case, he can at least say he can't talk about the case, I think that's the least he can say to all the people that responded in his defense.:

Last Active:  Today at 21:07

Microbius

« Reply #141 on: December 18, 2010, 03:29 »
0
^^
Yes, I think we are letting ourselves get carried away with very few facts.
The initial message says quite clearly it's for copyright infringement.
We need to wait and see.


« Reply #142 on: December 18, 2010, 07:37 »
0
The rumors do raise a good question: is it safe to open your own site to actually sell your own images, or do you risk getting kicked out of SS and the others?  Clearly this isn't the case with FD.  But have there been real cases of this happening?  I am exploring setting up a site to sell my own images, but the risk of getting kicked out of the agencies for doing this is giving me serious pause.

« Reply #143 on: December 18, 2010, 07:52 »
0
The rumors do raise a good question: is it safe to open your own site to actually sell your own images, or do you risk getting kicked out of SS and the others?  Clearly this isn't the case with FD.  But have there been real cases of this happening?  I am exploring setting up a site to sell my own images, but the risk of getting kicked out of the agencies for doing this is giving me serious pause.

No, there isn't any risk of getting kicked out because you sell your images from your own site. Tons of photographers do it already. The risk comes when you start inviting others to sell from one site...that's like an agency.

« Reply #144 on: December 18, 2010, 09:15 »
0
The rumors do raise a good question: is it safe to open your own site to actually sell your own images, or do you risk getting kicked out of SS and the others?  Clearly this isn't the case with FD.  But have there been real cases of this happening?  I am exploring setting up a site to sell my own images, but the risk of getting kicked out of the agencies for doing this is giving me serious pause.

No, there isn't any risk of getting kicked out because you sell your images from your own site. Tons of photographers do it already. The risk comes when you start inviting others to sell from one site...that's like an agency.

So if this is true, I guess it would be important to not make it look like an agency.  My ideas for the site would probably give the buyer the same type of experience as an agency, with some of the same bells and whistles.  It would be a professional looking site to give the buyer confidence.  But if I go too far with this approach the agencies could think I'm setting up a competing site and close my accounts on their sites.  Anyone else have experience with this?  Heard of anyone who ran into problems doing something like this?

« Reply #145 on: December 18, 2010, 09:33 »
0
Isn't our friend Jonathan an agency owner /co-owner? ???

« Reply #146 on: December 18, 2010, 10:10 »
0
OMG! Only just saw this thread. Sorry to hear this, FD!

Why terminating his account should have anything to do with any opinions FD has voiced over here on topics that have nothing to do with what he is being accused of, is beyond me. I hope he'll be able to sort it all out.

What about independants that are inspectors, say at Fotolia? Aren't they allowed to submit to SS? And is that stated somewhere in the SS contract?

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #147 on: December 18, 2010, 10:45 »
0
The rumors do raise a good question: is it safe to open your own site to actually sell your own images, or do you risk getting kicked out of SS and the others?  Clearly this isn't the case with FD.  But have there been real cases of this happening?  I am exploring setting up a site to sell my own images, but the risk of getting kicked out of the agencies for doing this is giving me serious pause.

No, there isn't any risk of getting kicked out because you sell your images from your own site. Tons of photographers do it already. The risk comes when you start inviting others to sell from one site...that's like an agency.

So if this is true, I guess it would be important to not make it look like an agency.  My ideas for the site would probably give the buyer the same type of experience as an agency, with some of the same bells and whistles.  It would be a professional looking site to give the buyer confidence.  But if I go too far with this approach the agencies could think I'm setting up a competing site and close my accounts on their sites.  Anyone else have experience with this?  Heard of anyone who ran into problems doing something like this?

Many photographers sell their own photos from their own sites. What cclapper is saying that unless you recruit a bunch of photographers, then that would be a agency type site. Just selling your own photos on there wouldn't make it a competitor site. You own the copyright.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2010, 10:47 by donding »

nruboc

« Reply #148 on: December 19, 2010, 01:23 »
0
Cmon, Hugo, explain whats going on here, you post this provocative post declaring your innocence, then disappear?  If its all a big mistake, say something, its obvious youre reading.

Why wait, and have your buddies personal message me?

« Reply #149 on: December 19, 2010, 03:59 »
0
OMG! Only just saw this thread. Sorry to hear this, FD!

Why terminating his account should have anything to do with any opinions FD has voiced over here on topics that have nothing to do with what he is being accused of, is beyond me. I hope he'll be able to sort it all out.

What about independants that are inspectors, say at Fotolia? Aren't they allowed to submit to SS? And is that stated somewhere in the SS contract?

me too!
I'm so sorry FD. We are with you!


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle