MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: what is Avopix?  (Read 5436 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 20, 2017, 07:26 »
0
Does anybody know what Avopix is?
https://avopix.com/

The photos link back to Shutterstock but this information is certainly disturbing:


"Free images and videos you can use anywhere
All images and videos on AVOPIX are released free of copyrights under Creative Commons CC0.
You may download, modify, distribute, and use them royalty-free for anything you like, even in commercial applications. Attribution is not required. "


« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2017, 07:55 »
+1
I think you will find it's legit. There are public domain pictures that you can download for free, but also 'premium' images at the top that link back to Shutterstock. The site is offering a small amount of free images but has a referral link to Shutterstock, so it will earn a few cents on each referral.

« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2017, 16:38 »
0
Thank you for your reply, KuriousKat. Yes, makes sense, this is how the site works.

But I think Avopix is a strange site anyway. No contact information anywhere. What legit site has no contact information? When you download a "free" image, how can you be sure that using them is really legal? Only a fool would be using these in advertising, etc. Plus it is confusing that they  say "All images are public domain" and then there are images which link back to SS. Image buyers may believe that the info on this rip-off site applies to the SS photos as well.

I hate free sites like this. First they offer "free " low or mediocre quality photos and make professional photographers starve. Then they take a presentage of our measly earnings with the referrals. These sites are true pests.

« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2017, 18:51 »
0
There are two ways to look at this. We live in a world where there are a lot of free images available and there are a lot of people who are interested in using those images, many of whom have never purchased a stock photo and would never consider looking at a paid site. I know we all hate them, but free sites drive literally hundreds of thousands of visitors per day to Shutterstock in exchange for a cut of the purchase. This saves Shutterstock millions of dollars yearly in advertising costs in a very efficient and cost effective customer acquisition strategy.

« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2017, 02:51 »
+3
There are two ways to look at this. We live in a world where there are a lot of free images available and there are a lot of people who are interested in using those images, many of whom have never purchased a stock photo and would never consider looking at a paid site. I know we all hate them, but free sites drive literally hundreds of thousands of visitors per day to Shutterstock in exchange for a cut of the purchase. This saves Shutterstock millions of dollars yearly in advertising costs in a very efficient and cost effective customer acquisition strategy.

Plus they don't take a percentage of our earnings. Shutterstock pay us the same rate regardless of whether the customer went directly to them or through a Third Party, unlike some sites who pay less to us if the purchase was via a 'partner program'.

« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2017, 07:51 »
0
Somebody pays their slice. If there weren't "free" sites like Avopix, we would earn more. Shutterstock would pay US more. People would not get used to bad ormediocre images and demand everything free. "Free" Sites like this kill serious photography and photographers.

There are two ways to look at this. We live in a world where there are a lot of free images available and there are a lot of people who are interested in using those images, many of whom have never purchased a stock photo and would never consider looking at a paid site. I know we all hate them, but free sites drive literally hundreds of thousands of visitors per day to Shutterstock in exchange for a cut of the purchase. This saves Shutterstock millions of dollars yearly in advertising costs in a very efficient and cost effective customer acquisition strategy.

Plus they don't take a percentage of our earnings. Shutterstock pay us the same rate regardless of whether the customer went directly to them or through a Third Party, unlike some sites who pay less to us if the purchase was via a 'partner program'.

« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2017, 10:42 »
+1
Somebody pays their slice. If there weren't "free" sites like Avopix, we would earn more. Shutterstock would pay US more. People would not get used to bad ormediocre images and demand everything free. "Free" Sites like this kill serious photography and photographers.


i agree. i suspect there are lots of sites like this. they play it like all individuals that get paid as affliates.
some are legit sites, like leaf here, who is also a photographer and stock contributor.
others are just some mofo in a bedroom making as many sites to earn money giving away freebies like youtube, porn movies, best looking hungry women looking for men,etc..
to get what i heard was like click-event or whatever, and yes, they eff-it-up for legit sites and ss
contributors too.
i see another one where he says, something like, download the photo and send me coffee-money,.
ss should not allow this. they should be more vigilant who they allow as 3rd party distribution.

or at least, let us opt out on 3rd party distribution if they don't bother to be stringent.
they are always stringent on the contribution side but for anything that makes them money
they look elsewhere,
not good!

Roy

« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2017, 14:27 »
0
I know, it sucks. If digital photography was never invented less people would be taking pictures for money and the ones that did would have to have a lot more skill. The same thing for Photoshop :)

« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2017, 01:02 »
0
100% correct. I used to make $400 commission on a Image until Microstock and digital came around.Then 20 Cents.

« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2017, 12:34 »
+2
100% correct. I used to make $400 commission on a Image until Microstock and digital came around.Then 20 Cents.

I think by now, everyone knows that. You'0ve been repeating this for years.


« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2017, 15:47 »
+2
100% correct. I used to make $400 commission on a Image until Microstock and digital came around.Then 20 Cents.

I think by now, everyone knows that. You'0ve been repeating this for years.
Glad your paying attention DUMC.May have missed a few. at least what I say has some significance to the topic. anything you have to add or contribute? or just hate.. Old or new "DUMC" Why not Ignore me. it's real easy...... click your Ignored.Post away. At least I use my Real Name.

Everyone? really


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2066 Views
Last post June 30, 2016, 15:40
by ppdd
1 Replies
1778 Views
Last post March 02, 2018, 09:06
by Jo Ann Snover

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle