| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/27/2005 07:22:18 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by PhotosByAyme:
anders - i agree with you totally ... I'm also dappling in the tock stuff - but not all my prints images are there ... just specifically images that are normally just sitting on my computer and now they can sit at a site where i'll makde some moeny - more effort i put into a shot - i'm gonna charge more through my prints .. not stock |
Is your keyboard giving you some problems? ;o)
I'm guessing that should be "Ganders - i agree with you totally ... I'm also dabbling in the stock stuff"
:o)
Funny that you call him Anders though - see the thread wishing him a happy birthday for a wee anecdote related to that...
:oD
Message edited by author 2005-05-27 19:23:56.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 07:24:27 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by PhotosByAyme:
anders - i agree with you totally ... I'm also dappling in the tock stuff - but not all my prints images are there ... just specifically images that are normally just sitting on my computer and now they can sit at a site where i'll makde some moeny - more effort i put into a shot - i'm gonna charge more through my prints .. not stock |
Is your keyboard giving you some problems? ;o)
I'm guessing that should be "Ganders - i agree with you totally ... I'm also dabbling in the stock stuff"
:o)
Funny that you call him Anders though - see the thread wishing him a happy birthday for a wee anecdote related to that...
:oD |
Arghhhhhhhh it's the spelling police. Run!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 07:34:20 PM · #28 |
| I am amazed that with all the talent and knowledge on this site that the DPC 'bosses' haven't thought of starting up their own stock site with the members as a sort of cooperative, so that both get a fairer deal. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 07:36:54 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by amber:
I am amazed that with all the talent and knowledge on this site that the DPC 'bosses' haven't thought of starting up their own stock site with the members as a sort of cooperative, so that both get a fairer deal. |
Now there's an IDEA!
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 07:37:37 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by ganders:
For those of you ranting against these evil people making money off your hard work, I have news for you. This already happens, every day. It's how the world works! When Alamy sell your image, the guy buying it is intending to make money off the deal. When I write a computer program, chances are the guy who's paying me to do it is going to make plenty more selling it on. This is the way capitalism works - aint it great? |
What? Are you serious? I can't believe you are playing devil's advocate to thievery. I can't imagine anyone would want to be taken advantage of.
I like your cute, clever anology but I never agreed to let anyone but shutterstock sell my photo. They (resellers) have NO right to resell my image without my direct expressed consent. That is the DEFINITION of copyright infringement. People doing this should be sued, hardcore.
Using a photo you legally purchased to use in advertising to get more clients to make more money is nothing like what is being said here. They are directly SELLING the images to third parties for a profit without permission, hence copyright violation. I hope shutterstock catches these idiots and treats them accordingly.
I don't care where I sell my photos, or for how much, or how much some schmuck can sell them for. They are mine, and no one has the right (unless I grant them such right i.e. shutterstock) to sell my photos to anyone! It's illegal to print a copywritten photo, so what do you think selling it is? So if I'm 'ranting' then I always will. For my rights as an artist, and for all other artists being ripped off. It doesn't matter if it's worth .20 or 20,000 it's still mine, and still wrong to sell without my permission. Just another way for corporate america to cut photographers off at the knees. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 07:41:54 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by amber:
I am amazed that with all the talent and knowledge on this site that the DPC 'bosses' haven't thought of starting up their own stock site with the members as a sort of cooperative, so that both get a fairer deal. |
Could it be done though? |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 07:49:22 PM · #32 |
Don't forget, chocolate melts in your hands, but also in your mouth.
Please take tastier photographs.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 07:51:53 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by totaldis:
better hope a shutterstock admin isn't also a DPCer |
I'm sure they are. but who cares, shutterstock is a rip off. You only get .20! only people making money there are the owners and mabey one or two photographers who could be making a TON more money someplace else
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 07:52:42 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by totaldis:
better hope a shutterstock admin isn't also a DPCer |
I believe he is. I remember people bitching about ss and he was trying to justify it. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 08:42:09 PM · #35 |
| The op said that the boss said the picture cost 166.00 to the end user. He didn't sell the picture alone to the client. He used the picture in work that he did! my goodness. If people couldn't use the picture, no matter where it was purchased, what good would any stock site be? to funny. Good for him realizing how much money he can put in his pockets using the micro sites. One more business to spread the word and a little less revenue for the big guys. Hey, tell him about iStock would you. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 10:50:26 PM · #36 |
A New Yorker named Jonathan Oringer runs Shutterstock.com. And yes he is a Registered User here, shutterstock. No challenges entered, no votes cast, no comments made. But he posted to our forums quite a bit last year when he was strating up and needed images. He used dpc to get free publicity and recruit photographers. I doubt if he would have been able to get his business off the ground without the talent he mined from dpc.
It does sound like the use muckpond describes is a violation of shutterstock's Terms of Use. But I doubt that anything will be done about it. Maybe cut off the account used by muckpond's boss, but that's likely as far as it goes. What does he care, he's getting his $139 per month? I don't think I'd want a guy who makes his living by paying photographers 20 cents a shot to be protecting my interests against copyright infringement. He may make a show of protecting his photographers just to try to keep them from leaving, but I doubt it will be anything more than a lot of talk, and a few closed accounts. There will be no court actions against anyone who violated the Terms, there will be no more money going to the photographers who have been exploited.
Read through all the old threads he posted to if you care to spend the time. Not a lot of threads but they are long ones, and he posted multiple times in most if not all of them.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 11:06:30 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by PhotosByAyme:
anders - i agree with you totally ... I'm also dappling in the tock stuff - but not all my prints images are there ... just specifically images that are normally just sitting on my computer and now they can sit at a site where i'll makde some moeny - more effort i put into a shot - i'm gonna charge more through my prints .. not stock |
Is your keyboard giving you some problems? ;o)
I'm guessing that should be "Ganders - i agree with you totally ... I'm also dabbling in the stock stuff"
:o)
Funny that you call him Anders though - see the thread wishing him a happy birthday for a wee anecdote related to that...
:oD |
nope just too quick for the keys :)
geesh kavey - have you are are you a school teacher? LOL
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 11:08:22 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by magicshutter:
What? Are you serious? I can't believe you are playing devil's advocate to thievery. I can't imagine anyone would want to be taken advantage of. |
Along the lines of pcody's post, I do not think ganders was talking about buying images and then reselling those images. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 11:10:28 PM · #39 |
Okay, so if I am in a business in which I need photographs (and I charge my clients to use the photographs), and I can't use the stock photography such as muck's boss has used, then what in the heck is stock photography for??????
Please see one of my earlier posts to see what I mean. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 11:16:47 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by risu81:
Originally posted by magicshutter:
What? Are you serious? I can't believe you are playing devil's advocate to thievery. I can't imagine anyone would want to be taken advantage of. |
Along the lines of pcody's post, I do not think ganders was talking about buying images and then reselling those images. |
right. I was responding to a certain part of his post, which I quoted. He implies that we are out of line for being angry at having our photos sold without our permission. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 11:19:43 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
You may want to check the Shutterstock terms of service. By reselling photos, your boss may be violating the license agreement and therefore copyright law. |
i'm picking on terry by using his quote, but this applies to everyone who was concerned about the reselling of images.
the company i work for is NOT reselling images; they are using them for derivative works and billing the client accordingly. the cost to the client is essentially the time and labor in acquiring the photograph.
all agencies mark up services like printing costs and stock photos on a regular basis -- it's called an agency commission and the cost incurred is essentially our cost to research, acquire, edit as needed, and incorporate the image into the final product. EVERY agency does it and it is perfectly legal. the amount passed on to the client is what varies. in this case, the amount per photo is $166.80
if you don't understand how the people who purchase your photographs are using them, that's another argument for stepping back and really thinking about what you are selling for $.20.
reselling images would be if i downloaded 750 photos per month and then slapped them up on my own website for purchase and download.
as for the dpc stock idea, it's something that has been rolling around in my head for a few weeks. perhaps it's something to pursue, but it would be a gigantic undertaking.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 11:20:04 PM · #42 |
| Muckpond, now that you have helped your boss save thousands of dollars, don't you think it's time to ask for that well deserved raise? That is another good point going for the micro sites. Employers just might be able to pay their employees for their work instead of spending all their money buying overpriced pictures. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 11:25:27 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Okay, so if I am in a business in which I need photographs (and I charge my clients to use the photographs), and I can't use the stock photography such as muck's boss has used, then what in the heck is stock photography for??????
Please see one of my earlier posts to see what I mean. |
The guy can "stockpile" photos he think he might use in design jobs. Maybe he'll use one, maybe not. I seriously doubt if anyone could find a use for all 750 photos, some a few he will sell at a markup, and many will languish on his hard drive. In the meantime, the photographer got paid the (minimal) commission whether the photo gets used or not.
Microstock works for photographers without a lot of time or fancy equipment. There is no way my little cameras (or talent) will sell stock photos to Almay or Corbis -- they are accepted at Shutterstock.
This argument is kind of parallel to the entertainment industry, where you have one person in a film making $20 million, and everyone else making the equivalent of peanuts. "You can make more at a 'real' stock agency" is only valid for those with the equipment, talent, time and commitment to make ago of it; for those of us lack any or all of those characteristics, I have yet to hear anyone offer a viable alternative -- it's either an all-or-nothing proposition, or we can accept our crumbs and be happy someone found a use for our photos.
Right now the market for this quality of photo is $0.20. Anyone wants to start a site where they'll pay me $10 for the same photos, I'll be happy to register there too -- note that Shutterstock places no limitations on using the images for any other use except exclusive sale to a third party -- you can place it with other stock agencies, sell prints, etc.
Message edited by author 2005-05-27 23:26:21. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 11:25:33 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by magicshutter:
Originally posted by risu81:
Originally posted by magicshutter:
What? Are you serious? I can't believe you are playing devil's advocate to thievery. I can't imagine anyone would want to be taken advantage of. |
Along the lines of pcody's post, I do not think ganders was talking about buying images and then reselling those images. |
right. I was responding to a certain part of his post, which I quoted. He implies that we are out of line for being angry at having our photos sold without our permission. |
I see and agree with your point on not wanting to have our photos sold without our permission, but I took the last statement in gnaders posting to be in the context of muckpond's original posting. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 11:27:48 PM · #45 |
i'm not picking on you specifically, but here are a couple of points to your arguments.
Originally posted by ganders:
But if I've done a good job then there are a bundle of other people also giving me their $0.20 - and maybe some of them too are making money off my work. Good for them, and thanks for the pennies. They add up, as Walmart will tell you. |
yes, they do add up. but, unlike sweet, delicious hershey's kisses, the value of a stock photograph gets diluted the more times it is purchased. once a photo gets out there and is seen by the general public (and designers -- who are notorious for comparing every other designer's work they can get their hands on), it's less desirable. the more popular a photo becomes, the less people will want it.
Originally posted by ganders:
For those of you ranting against these evil people making money off your hard work, I have news for you. This already happens, every day. It's how the world works! When Alamy sell your image, the guy buying it is intending to make money off the deal. When I write a computer program, chances are the guy who's paying me to do it is going to make plenty more selling it on. This is the way capitalism works - aint it great? |
you're absolutely right that this is the way the world works. the only part that we have control over is how much we charge for our contributions. for most of us, this means our salary. would you sell a computer program for $.20? probably not (freeware/shareware notwithstanding). if your computer program was worth something to someone, they would pay a reasonable amount for it.
shutterstock, et al. are just preying on people that think they're "not good enough" for "real" agencies. and they, and the downloaders of those works, are making a bundle while the photographers are making 
you're better than that. i'd wager the talent and creativity level of dpc vs. the talent and creativity of a microstock site anyday.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 11:29:08 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by pcody:
Muckpond, now that you have helped your boss save thousands of dollars, don't you think it's time to ask for that well deserved raise? |
don't i wish.... |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 11:50:36 PM · #47 |
| Don't you find it ironic that you don't feel you are worth more? Sorry. Not trying to pick on you. The same advise that you are pushing on the contributors of the shutterstock's of the net might also apply to you. Yet, I have confidence that you are making your decisions based on your situation, not on a situation that someone else feels is better for you. I also have cofidence that people who contribute stock to their choosen site are also making a decision based on their needs and not what everyone else says that their needs should be. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 12:29:51 AM · #48 |
blame capitalism... its all supply and demand - there is demand for cheap photos and there will always be a steady supply of cheap photos.
Personally at this point i upload stock photos only once in a while and have switched to more graphic design stuff. I take some shots specifically for stock sometimes while im taking other shots, sometimes out-takes end up becoming stock shots, other times I might uplaod the main image itself to a stock site. At this point I am in the process of "getting better" and part of this process, at least in the short term, is upgrading to better equipment. With the little i make on these stock sites I aim be able to have my hobby pay for itself. I am never, at least in the forseeable future, going to be making a living off photography. But it would be nice if it pulled its own weight...
If someone profits more from my photos than i do then good for them. In the game of capitalism they have played their cards better.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 12:37:56 AM · #49 |
| The reasons to post photos to ss are all personal to the individual photographer. Various reasons could be as follows, they personally don't want to take the time and energy to try to market their work, maybe even have a fear of trying to market on there own (some people are extremely shy when it comes to real interaction with other people. Another reason is they may not feel their equipment or photos are high quality (although I have seen stuff in stock that I thought was wonderful-but what do I know) or maybe it's just that the extra money would come in real handy in their household , to pay a bill, buy better equipment, save for a studio, who knows. All I am saying is not to be quick to judge. Personally, I would agree with the chocolate lover. I don't have great equipment, can't afford it yet, so I would put my photos that I didn't feel were great in stock, maybe even shoot some specifically for stock purposes for the little extra cash to help me along, these would be the photos that I don't have a great attachment to and would be happy to see them in use instead of lost in my computer. I would save the photos I thought more worthy to put more effort into selling on my own for some big money or to a stock company that pays good. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 12:54:53 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by pcody:
Don't you find it ironic that you don't feel you are worth more? Sorry. Not trying to pick on you. |
actually, and this is completely off-topic, i DO feel that i'm worth more. therefore, i'm leaving my job in the next couple of months and moving into very unknown but potentially more profitable terrain.
i guess this isn't so off-topic, because it precisely mirrors the shutterstock situation. i have a skill at something. someone is paying me crap to use that skill. instead of letting that continue, i'm moving on. it will take a while to market myself and build up some work, but in the end it is going to be infinitely more profitable to me. i just happen to be lucky enough to be in a situation where i'm able to take the time to do that. if photography is a hobby for you, then it appears that you have the time to put some elbow grease into marketing your work and get paid a decent wage to do it.
this wouldn't bother me nearly as much if, like GeneralE pointed out, you got paid $10. $10 is still cheap, but it's still 50 times more profitable than shutterstock. $.20 is just insulting to me.
i'm not pointing the finger at anyone for selling their photos. if you want to do it, that is ABSOLUTELY fine with me. i'm just trying to inject the confidence in ALL of you that you can totally do better. it's your choice if you don't want to.
nico, honestly dude -- your portfolio is amazing. if you think each shot is only worth $.20 then you are selling yourself way short. you all are.
the steady supply of cheap photos is a relatively new twist on an old, old game. if people were willing to say "hey, i'm worth more," then the supply of quality photos at microstock sites would dry up.
Message edited by author 2005-05-28 00:55:29.
|
|
