| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/11/2005 09:39:52 AM · #1 |
interesting concept
sign up is a little buggy... |
|
|
|
08/11/2005 10:36:43 AM · #2 |
Very interesting.
I wonder the usefulness of providing them with DSLR pics?
If I were to get a professional quality shot, does anyone know a better organisation that could represent me?
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 11:28:54 AM · #3 |
While this is a nice idea for mobile phone users, this doesn't seem the best deal for serious shooters - you only get a 50% cut, which isn't great for editorial use. You get no control of how your image will be used or what sort of publication it will be sold to, and hence no control over the price they'll get you... and you're not guaranteed to be credited for your image. Moreover, they demand a 3-month exclusive license on the entire series of images, not just what you send them, and keep a perpetual license to use your image after that, even if you unsubscribe.
This all seems very inflexible - assuming you do obtain a unique "scoop" photo, you should be in a position to set your own terms with the publications you sell it to.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 01:26:27 PM · #4 |
Hi guys
Thanks for your interest and for your comments!
I think the conclusion that Scoopt is more appropriate for amateur than professional photographers is quite fair. In fact, our target and typical member isn't really a photographer at all, just a member of the public with a cameraphone or digital camera who might one day find him/herself in the right time and the right place and take a newsworthy, publishable photo. Our aim is to prevent such people from being exploted by the mainstream media and to ensure that they get a fair deal. This includes retaining copyright and getting a 50% share of each and every sale (so no more free content for newspapers feeding off citizen journalists' goodwill, and no more signing away universal rights for the price of a hot dinner).
I would just comment that we do in fact waive our exclusive licence in virtually every case *except* where we think we have a really hot photo which a newspaper will want on an exclusive first-use basis. We also waive our non-exclusive licence altogether where we think the photo is simply unsellable, either now or somewhere down the line from a stock image gallery (although we haven't yet added anything to this effect to the terms and conditions).
I believe that a 50/50% split is about right given that we are representing *complete* amateurs in what is essentially a professional market, and going to great lengths to protect their rights (even when they don't know that they have rights or that they need need protecting!). The bottom line is that we offer the public an easy, painless and profitable route to the paying market in the mainstream media. All they have to do is send us their photos.
But we *do* welcome professionals and serious amateurs, too -- in fact, we have had many pros sign up, much to my own surprise -- and we are delighted to handle digital SLR and any other digital images, not just cameraphone pics.
All the best, and thanks again. Our business model is shaped by such exchanges. We sincerely do want to offer the fairest deal for all concerned.
Cheers
Kyle
Scoopt
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 01:30:51 PM · #5 |
I know of a guy who just made $10,000 in one day independantly selling his photos of that canadian plane crash. He only got $600 from CNN i believe, the money came from magazines mostly. He just called their tip lines.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2005 01:50:54 PM · #6 |
riot said:
"they... keep a perpetual license to use your image after that, even if you unsubscribe."
Just to refresh, when you submit a photo to Scoopt we automatically acquire a three-month exclusive licence. This, I believe, is essential for all concerned. If we have a buyer who demands an exclusive, we have to be able to offer that... and we simply can't do this if the member goes off and uploads the pic to flickr or some such. Please remember that we're dealing with members of the public who, as a rule, know nothing about copyright and don't necessarily understand that they can easily devalue their own work by publishing it elsewhere.
But... as I said in my earlier post, in practice we usually waive the exclusive licence; and we will also frequently waive our non-exclusive licence too.
So... what if we also made it possible for a member to selectively remove any or all pictures from our library, thereby unlicensing Scoopt? And what if we also made it the case that unsubscribing from Scoopt would automatically revoke all current licences? That would remove the issue of the perpetual licence.
The concern for us as an agency is that an old image in the library could suddenly become newsworthy again somewhere down the line, and at that point a member might pull it and take it elsewhere in search of a better deal (we're not going to be the only 'citizen journalism' agency forever, I fear). With other agencies, there is often, perhaps always, a time lag built in, to the effect that the licence remains in force for a given period after the picture is pulled. This gives the original agency a chance to continue to market the newsworthy-again pic for a limited period, which is frankly only fair.
My question to you all is this: as photographers, what period between pulling a photo and regaining complete control would you consider acceptable? A month? Three months? A year? Or should it be instant, even if it means the agency that worked so hard to represent you at the outset sees no gain when a photo suddenly acquires new value?
I'd appreciate your thoughts!
Cheers
Kyle
Scoopt
|
|
|
|
08/12/2005 01:59:13 PM · #7 |
Not that this type of photography would interest me past the point of curiosity, but I think 3 months is fair.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2005 02:00:12 PM · #8 |
Kyle, 1-3 months seems reasonable to me.
I see your problem - if you don't gain some sort of exlusivity the images are harder to sell. That hurts the submitter and Scoopt.
I'd imagine most amateur submitters with a mobile won't worry about an exclusivity clause. I'd only be worried as a semi-pro if it was a REALLY hot image.
As long as the agency is actively trying to re-sell your image in months following the initial publication, I think that would make me happy. See kyebosh's post.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2005 02:28:58 PM · #9 |
| three months seems fair, what kind of news connections do you guys have to make this profitable? Is it world wide are just centric to just a specific area of the world? thanks for posting! |
|
|
|
08/17/2005 12:47:08 PM · #10 |
|
|
|
11/03/2005 02:40:12 PM · #11 |
Just visited the Scoopt.com website and their FAQ still talks about "perpetual" license even if the photog leaves the agency. Has anyone here had any dealing with them? made any sales?
|
|
