| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/17/2007 04:59:23 AM · #1 |
Today I got an email via Flickr from the president of this stock company. They want to represent me.
They work on a non-exclusive basis. They are a Rights Managed Photo Stock Agency.
What does this mean? Does anybody know this stock agency? Does anyone have photos in there?
//www.painetworks.com
Message edited by author 2007-07-17 04:59:50. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 09:31:20 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 09:35:47 AM · #3 |
Never heard of them, Hann, but their website says:
"HISTORY & MISSION
We have been business since 1978, providing quality images to Advertising Agencies, Publishers, and other picture buyers. In 1996, we put our website online.
Our MISSION is to provide a unique picture resource service to photo buyers and to provide an alternative marketing tool for Photographers.
Painet Inc PO Box 431 New Rockford ND 58356"
North Dakota? There are people up there? Wow! ;)
Non-exclusive means you can have the same images on other stock sites at the same time you list with them. Rights managed means the customer contracts to use the image for a specific use/# of prints, etc. If they want to reuse it for another purpose, they have to purchase use contract again.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 09:43:04 AM · #4 |
is that a good thing?
I have no clue about photostock-sites and the business..
the target group sounds very interesting, and it seems like (from the site) they really look into what they sell to who, instead of going for a lot of selling, just to make money.
to be honest, I have no clue if it's smart to get in stock, for me. but this guy said that 75-80% of my images on flickr could be accepted. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 10:32:53 AM · #5 |
what else are your images doing? mine were just sitting around on my hard drive - so I uploaded them to Alamy. Now they make money. Around $2,500 so far.
Non-exclusive is good - other agencies can then represent the same images for you.
I'd look at the "out" clause - how do you get out of the deal if you're not happy with it - then if that's satisfactory, try it.
I have an agency that doesn't sell anything for me - 800 images up there and not one sale. I figure 'what the heck' might as well let them stay and maybe one day I'll get a check.
sounds like a pretty good deal to me - I'd definitely take the next step with them and see... |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 10:37:30 AM · #6 |
This agreement shall be for one (1) year from the date of this document, and at each expiration date it shall renew itself automatically for a like period unless terminated by either party in writing, by Registered mail, sixty (60) days before any expiration date.
Looks like you'll try it for a year - or more - if you don't write to them.
They take 40% of the sale - that's a bit high - but their rates they sell at seem good to me.
I'm interested in what you decide - let me know. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 10:42:51 AM · #7 |
thanks for your thoughts Doug..
they also have a plan B (free) which says:
sales commission rate to photographer: 100%
but I haven't looked into that. First I wanted to make a decision yes / no, and after that "the how" ;) |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 12:43:40 PM · #8 |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 12:49:52 PM · #9 |
| Don't know them. Doug and I use the same two stock companies, Alamy is hit and miss, sold a pic last week for $300 and Dec thru Feb almost $2000. The other is Myloupe, last year I sold three with them but very very slow. Unless they really get marketing I don't think they are worth the time now. I keep hoping they get it turned around but too slow now. Even with the slower sales it is so much better than micro. One of my Alamy pics in Feb sold for $800 and another for $615. That's a lot of 25 cent micro sales. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 12:52:30 PM · #10 |
| ok, weird question. why do they ask around $300 for macro, BUT only $1 for micro? |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 01:26:59 PM · #11 |
Oh boy .....this will only open the micro versus macro vs full price stock arguement up again . SO LET's NOT START THAT FIGHT HERE.
.
It's all based on how the agency looks at photogs. The higher priced ones look at photogs as professionals who deserve to be paid for there work. The same basic photo sold at Shutterstock for $1 or Alamy for $800 will be used ther same way by the buyer. So why sell your pic for a billboard advertisement that the sign company charges $2000 a month to a client and you can get either 25 cents or $600 . That's the difference. Give your work away for pennies or sell for dollars.
Originally posted by biteme:
ok, weird question. why do they ask around $300 for macro, BUT only $1 for micro? |
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 04:55:54 PM · #12 |
hump de bump one more time
Listen to me what I said
Try to get it through your head
A little bit of circumstance
A chance to make out |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 05:09:06 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Oh boy .....this will only open the micro versus macro vs full price stock arguement up again . SO LET's NOT START THAT FIGHT HERE. |
It's a shame, then, that you ask not to start the fight but go on to put only one side of the argument.
Fundamentally the difference is that one end of the market sells on high price / low volume while the other end sells on low price / high volume. I think that's the fairest summing up without trying to push one side in quite such a blatant manner. |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 11:39:03 PM · #14 |
There was nothing "blatant" read it again...the difference withthe same photograph is inone thenphotog gets several hundred dollars and the othe the photog gets several cents. Both make money, with macro you have to sells more to equal a single in full price. Not one sided at all. Each photog must decide what their time, equipment and skills are then decide how they want to sell their work. High priced sales does not mean hi volumn sales. I know someonce who has the same photos in several different miocro sites. In Shutterstock they sell more often because of how SS works. The client pays a flat fee each month for a set number of photos. Many times the client buys photos that they don't need just because they pre-paid. In Dreamtimes, IStock and another one the photos sell less often becasue the client pays only for the pics they want. Both programs work, you need to choose. No fight just a personal decision on what fits your style best. And by the way SS is probably more strict on quality than most high cost agencies. All said, quality of photo for $1 or $500 is mostly minimal. Another difference is the better most well known high priced stock companies may not accept photos taken with less than 8, 10 or even 12 Mp cameras. The lower cost companies will accept as low as 3 or 4 Mp or even lower. They both have their place, I don't see how I only showed one side. Shame on you Ganders for trying to start a fight, didn't work ... and yes with your 20D you can work for most of the stock companies except a few high end that required a minimum of 12 Mp. I just hope as well as a hobby maybe we can all sell a few prints and pay for our fun.
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Oh boy .....this will only open the micro versus macro vs full price stock arguement up again . SO LET's NOT START THAT FIGHT HERE. |
It's a shame, then, that you ask not to start the fight but go on to put only one side of the argument.
Fundamentally the difference is that one end of the market sells on high price / low volume while the other end sells on low price / high volume. I think that's the fairest summing up without trying to push one side in quite such a blatant manner. |
|
|
|
|
07/19/2007 06:05:37 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
There was nothing "blatant" read it again... |
I'm sorry, but when you use phrases like "The higher priced ones look at photogs as professionals who deserve to be paid" you are making it painfully clear where you stand on the debate, and implying that the micro end of the market view their contributors as amateurs who don't deserve to be paid.
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Shame on you Ganders for trying to start a fight, didn't work ... |
I very carefully phrased my response to try and answer the actual question about the two different models, without resorting to cheap tricks about referring to macro agencies as the ones who "think their photogs deserve to be paid".
Shame on you for trying to stifle debate with your "let's not start that fight here, but here's one side of the argument" nonsense. If you seriously didn't want to get into the micro/macro fight in this thread then you should have had the integrity to direct the OP to one of the many other threads we've had on the topic without pushing your own agenda so cynically. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/03/2025 09:36:51 AM EDT.
