pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Oringer Blog: Why going exclusive as a microstock photographer doesnt work.  (Read 21471 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Poncke

« Reply #25 on: January 13, 2013, 15:05 »
0
The blogg is called " why exclusivity doesnt work"
Exclusivity does work but not on a micro platform.

The blog post is entitled "Why going exclusive as a microstock photographer doesnt work.

So you agree with him. Which bit is BS ?
ROFLMAO !!! Never seen someone  contradict himself that fast in the same thread.


« Reply #26 on: January 13, 2013, 15:06 »
0
I think the element Jon didn't get - but I hope he now does is that this isn't just about hurting exclusive photographers.


The link is broken


http://digitalbristles.com/temp/Oringer-twitter.jpg

« Reply #27 on: January 13, 2013, 15:14 »
0
The blogg is called " why exclusivity doesnt work"
Exclusivity does work but not on a micro platform.

The blog post is entitled "Why going exclusive as a microstock photographer doesnt work.

So you agree with him. Which bit is BS ?
ROFLMAO !!! Never seen someone  contradict himself that fast in the same thread.

Well you havent seen much then. I was just taking exclusivity a bit further and on a broader scale then just micro. Thats all. Ofcourse I forgot. Its strictly a micro forum. Appoligies for that.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #28 on: January 13, 2013, 15:24 »
+2
The blogg is called " why exclusivity doesnt work"
Exclusivity does work but not on a micro platform.

The blog post is entitled "Why going exclusive as a microstock photographer doesnt work.

So you agree with him. Which bit is BS ?
ROFLMAO !!! Never seen someone  contradict himself that fast in the same thread.

Well you havent seen much then. I was just taking exclusivity a bit further and on a broader scale then just micro. Thats all. Ofcourse I forgot. Its strictly a micro forum. Appoligies for that.

The clue is in the name of the forum.
Another clue was in the name of the post by JO.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #29 on: January 13, 2013, 15:28 »
0
And FWIW, I don't agree with JO's ideas.
The reason it doesn't work is that when you're exclusive, it's easier for an agency to shaft you.
If you have your images over ten agencies, it's easier to drop one of them.

The disadvantage of independence is that if all the images are on all the agencies, the only difference can be price (leading to a race to the bottom) or search.

Search is partly the responsibility of the contributor, but spam and ignorance are rife on all sites.  SS has some very good search results, often muich better than iStock's since iS ditched BM2, but in other searches they're just as spam/ignorance ridden.

« Reply #30 on: January 13, 2013, 16:05 »
0
can anyone paste a link to ClaridgeJ's portfolio? would like to see the most experienced expert's work.

« Reply #31 on: January 13, 2013, 16:07 »
0
.

« Reply #32 on: January 13, 2013, 16:12 »
+1
can anyone paste a link to ClaridgeJ's portfolio? would like to see the most experienced expert's work.

Pretty much most of us could provide that link ... but it surely it should be ClaridgeJ himself who owns up, I mean delights us with such an experience.

« Reply #33 on: January 13, 2013, 16:13 »
0
can anyone paste a link to ClaridgeJ's portfolio? would like to see the most experienced expert's work.

Heck! Im not the only one, youve got experienced ports like Lisa, Joann, Luis, gostwyck, Pauls, there is a whole string of them. For whatever its worth. go to SS and search,  chris56, pseudo for lagereek  btw.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 16:16 by ClaridgeJ »

« Reply #34 on: January 13, 2013, 16:17 »
0
can anyone paste a link to ClaridgeJ's portfolio? would like to see the most experienced expert's work.

Heck! Im not the only one, youve got experienced ports like Lisa, Joann, Luis, gostwyck, Pauls, there is a whole string of them. For whatever its worth. go to SS and search,  chris56, pseudo for lagereek  btw.

take me out of there, not that I wouldn't want too but nah ;D

Poncke

« Reply #35 on: January 13, 2013, 16:21 »
+1
can anyone paste a link to ClaridgeJ's portfolio? would like to see the most experienced expert's work.
You might be surprised in what you are going to find out, but its some quality stuff for sure.

« Reply #36 on: January 13, 2013, 16:32 »
0
got it. thx
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 16:43 by dreamstock »

« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2013, 16:43 »
+5
did he not make a statement that he was leaving ms?

'Tis a rare week that he does not declare so!

« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2013, 18:03 »
0
can anyone paste a link to ClaridgeJ's portfolio? would like to see the most experienced expert's work.
You might be surprised in what you are going to find out, but its some quality stuff for sure.

It is indeed.

« Reply #39 on: January 13, 2013, 19:50 »
0
I think the element Jon didn't get - but I hope he now does is that this isn't just about hurting exclusive photographers.


The link is broken


Should now be OK - sorry.

Ed

« Reply #40 on: January 13, 2013, 20:25 »
+1
Nonsense.

Quote
Weve sold over a quarter of a billion assets over the past 9 years.

They haven't sold a darn thing.  They've licensed (rented) the use of other people's assets.  They are in the business of licensing OUR intellectual property.

« Reply #41 on: January 13, 2013, 20:35 »
-1
:
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 04:08 by gostwyck »


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #42 on: January 13, 2013, 20:38 »
0
To be exact, they sell licences to use stock files.

Ed

« Reply #43 on: January 13, 2013, 21:30 »
0
Nonsense.

Quote
Weve sold over a quarter of a billion assets over the past 9 years.

They haven't sold a darn thing.  They've licensed (rented) the use of other people's assets.  They are in the business of licensing OUR intellectual property.

Nonsense? You idiot. You don't generate sales of $160M per annum without having "sold a darn thing".

I challenge you to create the same steadily rising income for thousands of photographers with or without "selling a darn thing".

Let me be clear - SHUTTERSTOCK DOES NOT SELL ASSETS.

I know it's hard for the groundlings to grasp.  Shutterstock licenses intellectual property.  Synonyms for license => RENT or LEASE.  If they're SELLING your intellectual property, then it isn't yours after you sell it.

Get it through your head - YOUR intellectual property that YOU create is YOURS and nobody else's.  Unless you are creating that property on someone else's behalf in the form of an employee relationship, YOU will own that property until at least 70 years after YOUR death unless you specifically agree to sell it.

Unless I'm missing something, Shutterstock has not modified their contributor agreement to state that they are selling YOUR copyrights.  If you think otherwise, then YOU'RE the idiot. 

EmberMike

« Reply #44 on: January 13, 2013, 21:44 »
0
...exclusivity has one very large advantage (both imnage and artist exclusivity). it is much better to protect your IP if you know the file could have only been bought at agency xyz...

Right, they have that one advantage. But that one thing isn't enough to help me pay the mortgage with warm and fuzzy feelings about being with a single agency who can better react to infringements. Like most people, I pay my bills with money, and I make a heck of a lot more money by working with multiple agencies. I would not be doing this full-time if I were exclusive. It would be impossible to survive.

If IP protection is sealing the deal on exclusivity for anyone, I think those people need to seriously reassess their priorities.

« Reply #45 on: January 13, 2013, 23:54 »
+1
Which is exactly what everyone is doing...very sadly so...

Poncke

« Reply #46 on: January 14, 2013, 13:05 »
0
Nonsense.

Quote
Weve sold over a quarter of a billion assets over the past 9 years.

They haven't sold a darn thing.  They've licensed (rented) the use of other people's assets.  They are in the business of licensing OUR intellectual property.

Nonsense? You idiot. You don't generate sales of $160M per annum without having "sold a darn thing".

I challenge you to create the same steadily rising income for thousands of photographers with or without "selling a darn thing".

Let me be clear - SHUTTERSTOCK DOES NOT SELL ASSETS.

I know it's hard for the groundlings to grasp.  Shutterstock licenses intellectual property.  Synonyms for license => RENT or LEASE.  If they're SELLING your intellectual property, then it isn't yours after you sell it.

Get it through your head - YOUR intellectual property that YOU create is YOURS and nobody else's.  Unless you are creating that property on someone else's behalf in the form of an employee relationship, YOU will own that property until at least 70 years after YOUR death unless you specifically agree to sell it.

Unless I'm missing something, Shutterstock has not modified their contributor agreement to state that they are selling YOUR copyrights.  If you think otherwise, then YOU'RE the idiot.
What about selling the licence? Thats a sale. So they sold stuff. They didnt sell the file, but they did sell the licence to use it.

« Reply #47 on: January 14, 2013, 14:54 »
0
SS sells a service, not a product.   I have a little problem with calling a service an "asset".   In a strictly grammatical sense, one could say they sell assets in the same sense that Ticketmaster sells tickets. 

Oringer's claim to be selling "assets" strikes me as just another sign that these agencies are gradually starting to think they somehow own the content on their servers and can sell it any way they see fit, as Getty is now doing with images on IS. 



« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 15:03 by stockastic »

Poncke

« Reply #48 on: January 14, 2013, 15:05 »
0
SS sells a service, not a product.   I have a little problem with calling a service an "asset".   In a strictly grammatical sense, one could say they sell assets in the same sense that Ticketmaster sells tickets. 

Oringer's claim to be selling "assets" strikes me as just another sign that these agencies are gradually starting to think they somehow own the content on their servers and can sell it any way they see fit, as Getty is now doing with images on IS.
In financial terms asset is used correctly I think

Quote
In financial accounting, assets are economic resources. Anything tangible or intangible that is capable of being owned or controlled to produce value and that is held to have positive economic value is considered an asset. Simply stated, assets represent value of ownership that can be converted into cash (although cash itself is also considered an asset).[1]
The balance sheet of a firm records the monetary[2] value of the assets owned by the firm. It is money and other valuables belonging to an individual or business.[1] Two major asset classes are tangible assets and intangible assets. Tangible assets contain various subclasses, including current assets and fixed assets.[3] Current assets include inventory, while fixed assets include such items as buildings and equipment.[4]
Intangible assets are nonphysical resources and rights that have a value to the firm because they give the firm some kind of advantage in the market place. Examples of intangible assets are goodwill, copyrights, trademarks, patents and computer programs,[4] and financial assets, including such items as accounts receivable, bonds and stocks.

« Reply #49 on: January 14, 2013, 15:51 »
0
In financial terms asset is used correctly I think

Quote
In financial accounting, assets are economic resources. Anything tangible or intangible that is capable of being owned or controlled to produce value and that is held to have positive economic value is considered an asset. Simply stated, assets represent value of ownership that can be converted into cash (although cash itself is also considered an asset).[1]
The balance sheet of a firm records the monetary[2] value of the assets owned by the firm. It is money and other valuables belonging to an individual or business.[1] Two major asset classes are tangible assets and intangible assets. Tangible assets contain various subclasses, including current assets and fixed assets.[3] Current assets include inventory, while fixed assets include such items as buildings and equipment.[4]
Intangible assets are nonphysical resources and rights that have a value to the firm because they give the firm some kind of advantage in the market place. Examples of intangible assets are goodwill, copyrights, trademarks, patents and computer programs,[4] and financial assets, including such items as accounts receivable, bonds and stocks.

I'm not a lawyer or an  accountant but I'd say SS negotiated an agreement on behalf of an owner of IP, granting limited rights to use that IP.   I wouldn't see that as an 'intangible asset' because it's not something that can be re-sold (although in some sense it would transfer along with other business assets in the event the business is sold).   

I could be wrong in some narrow legal sense, but to me Oringer's use of "asset" seems pretentious and disingenuous.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 15:54 by stockastic »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
5685 Views
Last post August 01, 2008, 09:31
by Dreamframer
6 Replies
3674 Views
Last post June 24, 2009, 20:00
by PaulieWalnuts
15 Replies
10127 Views
Last post September 04, 2011, 16:25
by velocicarpo
5 Replies
3082 Views
Last post October 10, 2012, 10:43
by RacePhoto
27 Replies
6718 Views
Last post July 04, 2021, 16:11
by alexandersr

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle