MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fair trade images and licenses  (Read 9461 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: June 10, 2013, 14:12 »
0
It is not very clear where it is appearing - is it your home page ?


Ron

« Reply #26 on: June 10, 2013, 14:18 »
0
Sorry, the /image page where our portfolio sits

« Reply #27 on: June 10, 2013, 14:24 »
0
Guys, the last bit I need to change, but cant find where. Is that on the PHP file?

I like to use Firebug for finding things. You just right click on elements to inspect them. Usually, you can find a style name or image title that helps you find where that code is faster.

Ron

« Reply #28 on: June 10, 2013, 14:56 »
0
I have found the code, but cant find the file name that has that piece of code  :(

Anyhoo, I dont want to derail this thread. Back to fair trade images  ;D

« Reply #29 on: June 10, 2013, 14:58 »
0
Ron, archive-image.php in main Symbiostock folder.

« Reply #30 on: June 10, 2013, 15:03 »
0
I cannot find it when I look for it on my site - either missing something or it is a setting we can change in the symbiostock pages ?

Ron

« Reply #31 on: June 10, 2013, 15:04 »
0
Ron, archive-image.php in main Symbiostock folder.
Fixed , LOL

Thanks !!

Ron

« Reply #32 on: June 10, 2013, 16:02 »
0
Ron.... make sure you let us know about your blog post when it is up... the more linking we do between blogs the higher our "google juice" is...
Here you go

http://semmickphoto.com/2013/06/10/symbiostock-fair-trade-image-licenses/

Approved by Leo himself  ;) Feel free to quote, link back, ping back, share, whatever is needed to get the word out.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #33 on: June 10, 2013, 16:55 »
0
This whole discussion brings me back to something I tried to explain a while back. We all know that we can't sell a file on Alamy as RM if that file is RF on another site. RM is just a different sort of licence (yes, with different prices for usage, but that is up to the seller/agency to set up those terms). If we have the Symbio sites selling fair trade licenses that have some sort of expiry, then they are no longer RF and so we could logically (and legally?) sell the same image as RM on Alamy and as FT on our own sites.

Yes?

Steve

« Reply #34 on: June 10, 2013, 17:26 »
0
I'm not using SY yet but I plan to after a house move and dealing with a bunch of other stuff.

After reading Ron's Blog and looking at the umming and ah-ing in this thread over terminology, I'm just going to throw this out there. It's particularly appealing given terminology used elsewhere. Well to me, at least and also, I suspect to Ron given his comments elsewhere on MSG.

Anyhow, what about "Co-operative Licensing"?

Fits nicely with Leo's "Symbiotic" undercurrent (what else is symbiosis if not co-operation?) and implies fairness for both contributors and end users.

As for length of licences and stipulating usage, another idea may be to borrow from Creative Commons. So you could have different pricing for commercial vs non-commercial, sensitive use, derivatives, along with 1 year, 3 year, 5 year, or open-ended durations, all carrying an attribution requirement.

So anyone for a CL BY-NC-ND-1-Blogee? (I'm half joking; just an idea but it could be based on something like this).

Feel free to micturate on my french fries if you think I'm off beam.


« Last Edit: June 11, 2013, 04:14 by Imagenomad »

« Reply #35 on: June 10, 2013, 22:21 »
0
A few ideas for our Fair Trade sites for those who want to use the term to try and get somewhere between RF and totally RM

No Royalty free mention on the site only Fair Trade
A fixed term of use - I would think 2 years would be enough  because
books  - if they are being reprinted then they are selling well so can afford to buy again
websites - are usually updated within this time
why should anyone be able to pay a few pounds for an image and be able to use it for whatever they like for forever more?  :)

Any other thoughts from those who would like to use a Fairtrade or FairUse licence (think one word is better so that the initials don't stand for anything else)

first rule == no rules

we can come up with a description and encourage its use, but there's no way we can enforce it, esp'ly since fair trade is already established on several photographer sites.

pricing and length of use are individual decisions - I have no problem with people using my image as long as they wish, esp'ly when the include a link or credit.  my license excludes resale of the image as a  collection, etc

i'll continue to use royalty free first because it gains notice from search engines, but also because many people do understand what it means.  meanwhile most f those who don't understand it are individuals who just want a picture for a blog, print, etc, so what we're calling it doesn't matter.

so, I see fair trade as an additional way to spread the word

RacePhoto

« Reply #36 on: June 12, 2013, 10:35 »
0
Yes and no. RM is one time specific use license, not a term license. RF is a term use or unlimited for whatever they want it for. Part of the problem that makes Alamy confusing is the "exclusive" RM license, which most of us don't get into and even if we do, it's not that often. So the bottom line on the RF vs RM is not exclusive but a use once vs many definition contract.

Yes I like the license term limit. Wouldn't matter much if it's two years or five. (to me) Most people are going to use it and be done, move on. Text books are an obscure example, and they are updated pretty often. They should obtain a new license each time. But the limit does more for my opinion that a buyer doesn't have rights forever, just buying one simple license.

Yes adding a license limit in the metadata is a nice idea, just in case. Many people don't read it and even more, don't even know it exists.  :o

I like the Fair Trade designation and concept. Many people who are into politics and all the social policies, will alike it too. We could call the license, "Tin Can" and it doesn't matter what the name is, it's what's inside. Fair Trade License gives the impression that it should, the artists are receiving a portion of the profits. 100% is a portion, right?

Of course the Green movement has it's own ideas about Fair Trade: Politics and power as usual.

"Fair Trade principles and certification

While ethical trade is part of the spirit of Fair Trade, they are two very different things. In order for a merchant to be able to authentically be able to claim Fair Trade status, the goods and services sold must:

a) Create opportunities for marginalized groups
b) Demonstrate transparent management and full accountability
c) Encourage the independence of producers
d) Pay the producer a fair price
e) Women workers must be properly valued and rewarded
f) Provide a safe and healthy working environment for producers
g) Demonstrate good environmental practices and responsible methods of production
h) Respect the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
i) Promote Fair Trade and educate others on the concept
"

WOW! Can we use the term "fair trade" or are some Green Living anarchists going to come after us? LOL


This whole discussion brings me back to something I tried to explain a while back. We all know that we can't sell a file on Alamy as RM if that file is RF on another site. RM is just a different sort of licence (yes, with different prices for usage, but that is up to the seller/agency to set up those terms). If we have the Symbio sites selling fair trade licenses that have some sort of expiry, then they are no longer RF and so we could logically (and legally?) sell the same image as RM on Alamy and as FT on our own sites.

Yes?

Steve

« Reply #37 on: June 17, 2013, 15:39 »
0
IMO, you can't use "fair trade", because that doesn't apply to the licensing side of the agreement at all.  That relates to something that happens on the back end.  You want a term that in some way describes the license so the buyer has a general idea of what he's getting into.  "Fair trade" is nebulous.  What is "fair" for one person, isn't for another.

"royalty free" - no further royalties to be paid, in contrast with the current at the time system of continuing to have to renew and pay royalties.

New ideas:
LR - limited rights
NFR - no further royalties
OTP - one time payment
RL - rights limited
EZR - easy rights
GR - general restrictions

Personally, I like OTP .  It doesn't have the negative stigma of "limited".

« Reply #38 on: June 17, 2013, 16:02 »
+1
IMO, you can't use "fair trade", because that doesn't apply to the licensing side of the agreement at all.  That relates to something that happens on the back end.  You want a term that in some way describes the license so the buyer has a general idea of what he's getting into.  "Fair trade" is nebulous.  What is "fair" for one person, isn't for another.

"royalty free" - no further royalties to be paid, in contrast with the current at the time system of continuing to have to renew and pay royalties.

New ideas:
LR - limited rights
NFR - no further royalties
OTP - one time payment
RL - rights limited
EZR - easy rights
GR - general restrictions

Personally, I like OTP .  It doesn't have the negative stigma of "limited".

Are you down with OTP?

Leo Blanchette

« Reply #39 on: June 17, 2013, 16:03 »
0
-

« Reply #40 on: June 17, 2013, 16:11 »
0
-

I'm just going to assume this said, "Yeah, you know me".

« Reply #41 on: June 17, 2013, 16:18 »
0
Do we have to call it anything?  I have a licence on my site but have indicated that I am willing to negotiate variations, such as if someome wants sole use for a limited time, which would of course depend on whether it had been used before.  I am trying to remove all public mention of royalty free as if Leo or anyone come up with a rm type plug in I may use that

EmberMike

« Reply #42 on: June 17, 2013, 18:13 »
0

Seems like everyone wants this new license term to do two things at the same time: indicate that the customer is buying direct from the artist and also indicate the type of rights being given. It's tricky.

I like Sean's OTP (one time payment) but that doesn't say anything about buying direct. And of course I love the sound of "Fair Trade" but that says nothing about what the customer is buying.

This is clunky as all heck, but it seems like it should be a mix of the two, a sort of "One-Time Direct License" or something to that effect.

And even then, is "one-time" really right? If someone buys a regular license and then needs to go back and get an EL, that initial license really wasn't "one-time" nor did it cover everything the buyer needed.

Leo Blanchette

« Reply #43 on: June 17, 2013, 18:28 »
0
When I see threads on this issue pop up I'm quite thankful someone is attempting to work this out. I do believe if people can put some thought and energy into this, we can put some licenses up which people can utilize.

I'll stay out of the way, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater! Keep working on licensing ideas which make things a little more consistent and practical.



EmberMike

« Reply #44 on: June 18, 2013, 21:47 »
0

Just to provide another good example of an anti-RF sort of new license, Creative Market came up with their own license type called SimpleLicense: https://creativemarket.com/licenses/simple

Have to give them credit for a good name. It's very user-friendly.

« Reply #45 on: June 19, 2013, 04:29 »
0
Deleted -  decided to stick to my own as there will never be any consensus between everyone so not going to spend any more time on it  :)
« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 06:23 by Tinny »

Ron

« Reply #46 on: June 19, 2013, 06:14 »
0
I am using my version of the SS license. I dont want to adapt to a general umbrella Symbiostock license or whatever direction its going. I dont mind changing the name to whatever, but I am sticking with my own licensing terms if you guys dont mind.

« Reply #47 on: June 19, 2013, 10:33 »
+1
It may be confusing for potential buyers to have many different versions on many different sites on the same network.... but really who reads licenses anyway and how can you track and enforce them?

I think I will keep mine simple, straightforward and fair.

Ron

« Reply #48 on: June 19, 2013, 11:08 »
+1
I am not going to use someone else's license. Agreeing on a mutual license is impossible anyway. We are all individuals, in a network of people who want to sell direct. If we are going to agree on a similar license, similar naming, reviewing each others files, etc etc, then it becomes a regulated thing, which is something I dont want. I want to be independent but happy to be part of this network. Plus, there could be thousands of people using this theme in a year, all doing their own thing. You cant stop nor regulate that.

I started this thread for opinions on renaming royalty free, but I didnt mean to make it mandatory or something. Anyone can call it how they want.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 11:11 by Ron »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
10694 Views
Last post April 11, 2008, 15:07
by zymmetricaldotcom
12 Replies
5806 Views
Last post September 30, 2010, 09:20
by Fotonaut
38 Replies
11180 Views
Last post June 28, 2011, 12:50
by cthoman
0 Replies
1519 Views
Last post June 09, 2013, 17:59
by grsphoto
20 Replies
4241 Views
Last post October 30, 2015, 16:17
by cobalt

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle