MyLoupe Unfair? - DPChallenge Forums

01/12/2006 06:47:03 PM · #26

Really?
How interesting...
In that case, f**k 'em!

Edit to clarify - by f**k 'em I mean don't waste further time, try elsewhere instead... incase anyone was thinking I meant have a go at them!

Message edited by author 2006-01-12 18:56:45.

01/12/2006 06:47:26 PM · #27

Originally posted by Kavey:

Originally posted by idnic:

Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:
umm... not to be rude Kavey but did you guys read the posts? They are NOT the same images.

That is correct, I am not trying to offer MyLoupe the same images I have already posted to micro sites.

Seems to me that the assumption they are making is that you WILL load the same images - otherwise why would they say they were worried about their clients being able to buy the images you give them elsewhere for a $1?

Why would they ASSUME I would do that rather than ask me not to or have me sign exclusivity with them for the shots I submit to them?

01/12/2006 06:47:39 PM · #28

Originally posted by Kavey:

Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:
umm... not to be rude Kavey but did you guys read the posts? They are NOT the same images.

We could not in good conscience have one of our clients paying our prices for an image that could be obtained elsewhere for $1 or so.

This sentence from MyLoupe suggests that their issue IS with the same images.

Well- that's kinda the problem I guess!

01/12/2006 06:48:09 PM · #29

Can only assume they have had someone do that to them in the past...
Alamy certainly doesn't stipulate anything like this.

01/12/2006 06:49:07 PM · #30

I don't think they made a sweeping political statement, only robbed themselves of one very motivated photographer. :(

mesmeraj

01/12/2006 06:49:10 PM · #31

nm - i missed the whole second page - sorry!

Message edited by author 2006-01-12 18:49:41.

01/12/2006 06:49:13 PM · #32

Cindi- have you tried Almay yet?

01/12/2006 06:50:42 PM · #33

Could you imagine how much of a pain in the ass it would be to keep track of millions of images and if the same ones are being sold on microstock sites?

Cheaper to refuse.

01/12/2006 06:50:56 PM · #34

Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:

Cindi- have you tried Almay yet?

I prepared a submission for QC, was returned for insufficient postage, DUH!! but..... - thank god, because I have completely rethought my workflow AND image choices (not to mention they changed their guidelines slightly). Now have another CD ready, will mail it this weekend.

01/12/2006 06:51:09 PM · #35

Originally posted by Kavey:

Can only assume they have had someone do that to them in the past...
Alamy certainly doesn't stipulate anything like this.

yet.

01/12/2006 06:52:26 PM · #36

Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:

umm... not to be rude Kavey but did you guys read the posts? They are NOT the same images.

On a side note, WonderBread, you say you don't want to be rude but, if that's the case, why not simply ask me if perhaps I've misunderstood and point out my error rather than suggesting I haven't bothered to read the thread? That IS rude, in my opinion.

Idnic, am certainly interested in their response to you. In the meantime, may be worth your considering Alamy instead - they don't have any stipulations about where else you can sell the images you give them, though I'd still caution not selling same at micro sites, and they have been really polite and helpful in all my dealings with them so far.

01/12/2006 06:53:16 PM · #37

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by Kavey:
Can only assume they have had someone do that to them in the past...
Alamy certainly doesn't stipulate anything like this.

yet.

that's what I was thinking...

01/12/2006 06:54:32 PM · #38

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by Kavey:
Can only assume they have had someone do that to them in the past...
Alamy certainly doesn't stipulate anything like this.

yet.

Yes, fair point. To be honest, I have a lot of sympathy for traditional macro sites deciding to stipulate that they don't want any images submitted to them which are also submitted to micro stock sites.

I don't think it's reasonable for them to suggest that a photographer should not sell different images via those sites, nor images that are not identical but are clearly similar (i.e. from the same shoot).

01/12/2006 06:55:40 PM · #39

Originally posted by Kavey:

Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:
umm... not to be rude Kavey but did you guys read the posts? They are NOT the same images.

On a side note, WonderBread, you say you don't want to be rude but, if that's the case, why not simply ask me if perhaps I've misunderstood and point out my error rather than suggesting I haven't bothered to read the thread? That IS rude, in my opinion.

Please don't take offense damnit this is why I don't like the threads I'm sorry if I was rude and a horrible person.

01/12/2006 06:58:17 PM · #40

Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:

Originally posted by Kavey:

Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:
umm... not to be rude Kavey but did you guys read the posts? They are NOT the same images.

On a side note, WonderBread, you say you don't want to be rude but, if that's the case, why not simply ask me if perhaps I've misunderstood and point out my error rather than suggesting I haven't bothered to read the thread? That IS rude, in my opinion.

Please don't take offense damnit this is why I don't like the threads I'm sorry if I was rude and a horrible person.

Hey, let's not go overboard - I didn't say you were horrible! Nor did I even think it! But best way to keep the forums pleasant is to be civil. Putting a disclaimer of "not being rude but" infront of something doesn't actually mean you aren't! :o) But, no biggie, let's not worry about it further! :o)

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/12/2006 06:58:25 PM · #41

:) We know you mean no harm, Linda.

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

01/12/2006 06:59:37 PM · #42

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Also, Not haveing any idea who else is using the same image has put egg on the face of many corporations. When's all said and done, spending a few thousand on an image instead of 3 dollars is cheaper than the PR nightmare of using an image that your main competitor is using in a competeing ad. Dell and Gateway used RF images from the same shoot in their back to school campaigns last year. How embarassing.

Once again Brent you're muddling up "microstock" and "royalty-free".

Both Alamy AND MyLoupe offer Royalty Free licensing, which has the potential to result in exactly the same issues that you're trying to blame entirely on microstock.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/12/2006 07:14:40 PM · #43

BTW Idnic, DO send some of your stuff to Alamy again... provided you haven't got it on micro sites that baby portrait you have in your profile page bio is absolutely perfect stock photography - beautifully taken, gorgeous subject and really modern in terms of that wonderful close intimacy/ crop. It'd be perfect for stock!

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

01/12/2006 07:20:05 PM · #44

I think it's reaching too far on their part but they have nowhere to go given their existing clients, so I understand why they take that position. I would certainly not be happy as a client to find a pic for a few bucks that I just paid a lot more to get from one of the macro sites. I think all the macro sites will end up going this way or more restrictive (exclusive) because I cannot see a better business plan for them (apart from starting a micro under a seperate banner but that might hurt them).

I assume you pointed them at a micro-site for the approval examples - how else would they know that you have them out there? Maybe that is not the best plan if that's how they know.

Personally I think it would be reasonable for them to require that you don't have the same image on both types of sites but if the photographer wants to do both with different images that should be their business (I see advantages/disadvantages to both models).

As for the Dell/Gateway thing, well I think they were stupid not to get exclusive use on an image for mass advertising. For localised advertising or for a small company I might understand but not these companies.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/12/2006 07:22:27 PM · #45

I understand MyLoup's point. Makes sense to me in the perspective of things.

But perhaps stating that you'd like to host the majority of your future work with them...

:)

John White

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/12/2006 07:23:58 PM · #46

Go to Alamy.
Your work is very good and it will sell.
You will be surprised how much you will get for good images on the traditional stock sites.

01/12/2006 07:24:18 PM · #47

Originally posted by ganders:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Also, Not haveing any idea who else is using the same image has put egg on the face of many corporations. When's all said and done, spending a few thousand on an image instead of 3 dollars is cheaper than the PR nightmare of using an image that your main competitor is using in a competeing ad. Dell and Gateway used RF images from the same shoot in their back to school campaigns last year. How embarassing.

Once again Brent you're muddling up "microstock" and "royalty-free".

Both Alamy AND MyLoupe offer Royalty Free licensing, which has the potential to result in exactly the same issues that you're trying to blame entirely on microstock.

Nope. Your failing to see the picture. If this happens when you sell a RF image for $300 a hundred times, imagine how more likely this becomes when you sell the same image a thousand times for a $1.

I understand the stock and photography pricing market VERY well.