| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/07/2009 06:48:16 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by BobbyXu:
I will check that out and see if it looks like something I could adapt that will make it easier. The site is still in beta, so there will hopefully be continual improvements and additions as it grows. |
Perhaps you an add a forum for suggestions and bug reports. An exchange of ideas ought to provide more/better solutions than just a barrage of emails. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 06:45:01 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The thing of it is, this new site is a *marketplace* and it is time-restricted: you will post images for the buyer's consideration, and if he chooses not to buy them, within the timeframe of the "job", then you've still got all the rights to that shot and can do what you want with it. Heck, if *after* posting it you find a "better" use for it *within* the timeframe, I see nothing to keep you from taking it down and selling it elsewhere. It's not that big a deal. |
Yeah I see that and if it was a licensing arrangement (even something exclusive for some period of time after initial use) I would think it's good (like photographersdirect.com in a lot of ways).... The issue for me comes with the advertisers ownership of the image after the intended use (assume that occurs as planned).
I know the reality is that the image is most likely not useful for other purposes and I am probably just reacting to the rights grabs that are all too common now. The other taint for me is that I don't do this as a living [clearly from my images :-)], so there is no need to compete to the lowest dollar. If I was doing this to pay for food then I suspect I would be more interested in this type of deal for certain images that I guess (and it's a guess) have no residual value for other uses. Not sure I would shoot specifically for it but there might be a market in it. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 06:22:22 PM · #3 |
| I will check that out and see if it looks like something I could adapt that will make it easier. The site is still in beta, so there will hopefully be continual improvements and additions as it grows. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 05:46:59 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by BobbyXu:
As for photographers, I think the advantage comes from being able to see exactly what the advertiser is currently looking to purchase. You can go out and shoot stock shots all day and not have any idea if someone is actually interested in buying them. Here, you know that what you are shooting at least has an audience. |
I absolutely agree with the benefits of spec shots, both from the point of view of an advertiser as well as a photographer. I really enjoy shooting spec stock, and it was one of my favorite features from Photoshelter Collection (which have since closed their doors). I'd encourage you to take a look at and compare fotolibra's model -- a established macrostock site which does spec. Their criteria is well-defined (including technical specs of the submitted images, as Paul alluded to in an earlier post), which is another attractive feature for photographers, since you know exactly what you can and cannot submit.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2009 05:40:58 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The thing of it is, this new site is a *marketplace* and it is time-restricted: you will post images for the buyer's consideration, and if he chooses not to buy them, within the timeframe of the "job", then you've still got all the rights to that shot and can do what you want with it. Heck, if *after* posting it you find a "better" use for it *within* the timeframe, I see nothing to keep you from taking it down and selling it elsewhere. It's not that big a deal. |
AH! There, indeed, is the subtle point I had missed. You are, of course, exactly right. I was assuming it would be the usual "stock portfolio" site, but yes, I now grasp the "submission-per-time-restricted-job" nuance. Well said. Indeed, an interesting twist.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2009 05:36:03 PM · #6 |
cdrice,
Approaching this from the advertising side, finding images that actually fit exactly what you want for your ad is a problem that is very frustrating and time consuming for advertisers. Another issue they face is finding high quality images that not only fit their needs, but that have never been used by competitors. You often see the same image used by several competitors because of licensing. This site addresses both of these issues. It also allows custom work to be done from remote locations and the ability to see work from more than one or two photographers.
Those are just a few of the advantages voiced from advertisers who have expressed interest in the site.
As for photographers, I think the advantage comes from being able to see exactly what the advertiser is currently looking to purchase. You can go out and shoot stock shots all day and not have any idea if someone is actually interested in buying them. Here, you know that what you are shooting at least has an audience. You probably wouldn't be out shooting that shot anyway if they hadn't requested it, but retaining the right to show it in your portfolio still allows you to show it off, just not sell it again. Again, that is the case only if the image is purchased from you. Job listings last 2 weeks, so after that you should know if you can post it elsewhere or not.
The business model is set up to allow photographers to work with advertisers in a way that they previously couldn't, by being able to collaborate on jobs that are available but you might not know about for whatever reason, whether it be distance or just lack of exposure by either party. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 05:29:09 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by cdrice:
Putting my photographer hat back on, I would have to treat this site as an "exclusive content" site. If I submit photos to it, I'm locked in, since I couldn't sell them anywhere else. I supposed I technically could, until the photo is actually sold *on* that site, but just imagine the headaches involved in having to take the image down anywhere else I've listed it. Too much trouble for most stock shooters, I would imagine -- it would be treated as an exclusive site.
I guess I'm just a little confused where the OP is positioning themselves in the market, considering what's already available. I'll all for competition and a free economy, etc... I'm just not sure where this site is trying to compete. Again, not meant to sound snide -- but I just don't quite understand their model. |
The thing of it is, this new site is a *marketplace* and it is time-restricted: you will post images for the buyer's consideration, and if he chooses not to buy them, within the timeframe of the "job", then you've still got all the rights to that shot and can do what you want with it. Heck, if *after* posting it you find a "better" use for it *within* the timeframe, I see nothing to keep you from taking it down and selling it elsewhere. It's not that big a deal.
Gawd knows, in my pro days I did LOTS of work for clients where they paid me for the work ouright and owned it, I never had a problem with that, it was not work I expected to be shopping around forever. Most of what we do, let's face, it is pretty routine, mundane.
It's just a marketplace, and potentially an interesting one.
R. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 05:23:14 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by BobbyXu:
GeneralE, the only thing you can't do with the image if it sells is sell it again. You still retain all personal rights to the image. Using it for personal use is protected in the language of the agreement you make with the site. |
That's good to know, but apparently it needs to be made more clear, because I tried to read everything before I submitted an image and I didn't find any explicit language to that effect.
I have a 6MP camera -- maximum full-frame is 2816 x 2112 pixels, and I can upsize with PS CS2 if needed. Good enough? |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 05:16:02 PM · #9 |
| GeneralE, the only thing you can't do with the image if it sells is sell it again. You still retain all personal rights to the image. Using it for personal use is protected in the language of the agreement you make with the site. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 05:14:12 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
In principle, I agree ... in practice I'm willing to try it on one photo and see how badly I feel about it later.
Outright selling of an image is nothing new in the art world -- it's all painters ever do -- but, as in microstock, the price seems about an order of magnitude less than historic values. |
Absolutely, I understand and agree. In general, we all have our price. That's not meant to sound snide, it's just true. Somebody offers me the right price any of my photos, you can bet I'll be printing out release forms. I appreciate the painter analogy as well, but comparing paintings (a tangible, physical "thing") to digital photography (a far more liquid, sometimes hard to quantify, much less enforce ownership for) is perhaps misleading.
To bring this back to the OP, I'm actually a little confused how a buyout license is really advantageous to the advertiser in the first place -- what would be their motivation? I'm not a advertiser, but if I put on my make-believe-advertiser hat and compare paying $150 to buyout a spec shot, vs. paying a restricted licensing fee based on my usage and distribution -- I guess it obviously boils down to my usage/distribution and/or how important it is for me to spec my shot (i.e. I can't find the shot I want anywhere else). Even then, I dunno -- I could spec a shot at a macro site like fotolibra for less than $150; I just wouldn't get a buyout. Why would I want to buyout anyway? If it's an advertisement, why not just license it for the terms of my advertisement cycle?
Putting my photographer hat back on, I would have to treat this site as an "exclusive content" site. If I submit photos to it, I'm locked in, since I couldn't sell them anywhere else. I supposed I technically could, until the photo is actually sold *on* that site, but just imagine the headaches involved in having to take the image down anywhere else I've listed it. Too much trouble for most stock shooters, I would imagine -- it would be treated as an exclusive site.
I guess I'm just a little confused where the OP is positioning themselves in the market, considering what's already available. I'll all for competition and a free economy, etc... I'm just not sure where this site is trying to compete. Again, not meant to sound snide -- but I just don't quite understand their model. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 05:12:34 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by BobbyXu:
If you have an image of a historic event or something, of course you would never sell the copyright, but if all they are asking for is a shot of a field with a blue sky, then does it matter all that much? You can most likely even go out and take a similar shot the next week for stock photo sites if you wanted to. |
In this case, I have two or maybe three images which fit the requested description pretty closely, and have not been previously posted as stock images.
However, the requested image requires a child as subject -- to avoid release issues, in this case any submitted images will include my son. I don't see why I should be prohibited from printing these picture for my mother, including in a family newsletter or blog, or even posting it here for promotion and criticism of both my photography and the stock site. As I mentioned, I'd consider it like any other copyrighted image I came across -- subject to the Fair Use doctrine but not beyond.
I figured out that I should post a watermarked, reduced-size image, and only send the full-sized image upon sale, though that procedure could be made a bit clearer.
I think each photo request should specifification of the minimum pixel dimensions required for the full-sized image, and whether quality upsampling is allowed to meet such a requirement. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 04:55:47 PM · #12 |
I just wanted to address what yall are discussing here.
You are absolutely right, selling copyright is not something you always want to do, and that is what is required by the site, if your image sells.
You don't have to go out and shoot the shot they are asking for, but if you think you could do a shot easily and well then maybe it wouldn't be such a bad way to grab some extra cash.
This isn't going to replace stock photography and isn't meant to, just a good way for advertisers and photographers to collaborate on some basic images and meet everyone's needs in the process.
If you have an image of a historic event or something, of course you would never sell the copyright, but if all they are asking for is a shot of a field with a blue sky, then does it matter all that much? You can most likely even go out and take a similar shot the next week for stock photo sites if you wanted to.
I just wanted to let yall know that this is out there and hopefully it will be more useful than you might originally think!
~Rob |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 04:28:04 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by cdrice:
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by "Link":
You retain the copyright to your work until you are paid for it. If a Client chooses your image and pays you for it, they receive full rights to it. |
If I read this the right way....Nice :-/ ... I think I'll pass somehow..... |
Wow. No kidding. Yeah, I'll stick with the usually paltry offerings I receive from alamy and fotolibra (hey, it adds up, and some sales are a lot better than others).
Restricted licensing while retaining copyright is a guuuuuud model, ummmmmkaaaaaay? Don't give up copyright. Giving up copyright on your own work is baaaaad, ummmmmkaaaay? (Apologies to Mr. Mackie.... Ummmmkaaaaay?) |
In principle, I agree ... in practice I'm willing to try it on one photo and see how badly I feel about it later.
Outright selling of an image is nothing new in the art world -- it's all painters ever do -- but, as in microstock, the price seems about an order of magnitude less than historic values. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 04:17:07 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by "Link":
You retain the copyright to your work until you are paid for it. If a Client chooses your image and pays you for it, they receive full rights to it. |
If I read this the right way....Nice :-/ ... I think I'll pass somehow..... |
Wow. No kidding. Yeah, I'll stick with the usually paltry offerings I receive from alamy and fotolibra (hey, it adds up, and some sales are a lot better than others).
Restricted licensing while retaining copyright is a guuuuuud model, ummmmmkaaaaaay? Don't give up copyright. Giving up copyright on your own work is baaaaad, ummmmmkaaaay? (Apologies to Mr. Mackie.... Ummmmkaaaaay?)
|
|
|
|
07/07/2009 03:34:22 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by "Link":
You retain the copyright to your work until you are paid for it. If a Client chooses your image and pays you for it, they receive full rights to it. |
If I read this the right way....Nice :-/ ... I think I'll pass somehow.....
Message edited by author 2009-07-07 15:34:50. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 02:00:34 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... if you've got a stock image of a kid jumping in a pool already, there's nothing to keep you from offering that up. |
Unfortunately, there is ... see my previous post and their artist's guidelines. |
Well, I didn't really *mean* "listed on a stock site", I meant "an image in your stock", as in your personal files ...
R. |
Well, dang it, it's a measure of poor condition of the economy that I went back to the folder from which my already-posted stock images came, and actually found a couple I'm willing to submit. I'm thinking that continuing to use it for "personal or critical/artistic uses" will continue to be legal anyway -- just can't sell it to anyone else. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 01:12:49 PM · #17 |
| I'm going to keep checking back. I shoot for the love of photography, so even if I take 10 or 100 images and none get bought, at least I'm sharpining my skills. It costs me nothing to go out and shoot. So why not give it a shot, excuse the pun. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 01:00:50 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... if you've got a stock image of a kid jumping in a pool already, there's nothing to keep you from offering that up. |
Unfortunately, there is ... see my previous post and their artist's guidelines. |
Well, I didn't really *mean* "listed on a stock site", I meant "an image in your stock", as in your personal files, but I do see what you mean. And my reply wasn't well-worded.
R. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 01:00:14 PM · #19 |
| I thought in Canada if you are commissioned to do a specific shot you give up the copyright anyway. Different rights to the rest of the world. Although you are in the US so you probably retain copyright unless specified in the contract. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 12:57:42 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... if you've got a stock image of a kid jumping in a pool already, there's nothing to keep you from offering that up. |
Unfortunately, there is ... see my previous post and their artist guidelines.
Message edited by author 2009-07-07 13:00:17. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 12:55:14 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The only listing up so far is "Kid Jumping in Pool," and my kids are currently across the street in the pool... hmm. |
Well, I happened to have a couple of images like this, but then I noticed that these folks are requiring not only an exclusive license and listing, but an outright sale and transfer of copyright -- once they pay you you will no longer have any right to use the image yourself.
Message edited by author 2009-07-07 12:56:06. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 12:52:54 PM · #22 |
| The model is not unlike photographersdirect.com. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 12:52:45 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by rob_smith:
Yeah but if you shoot 10 shots and none of them are bought then you are working for nothing. Or if one is bought you are working for a tenth of what you are capable of.
Good point on the business model, I suppose it's like those sites where you can post a want ad for a website and people pitch their web development services, the difference being they don't all do the work first. |
Look at it this way: anything that doesn't get bought can be used for stock. We photographers shoot for stock all the time anyway, don't we? At least in THIS model we know specifically what a client wants, and we can tailor our shooting to that.
R. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 12:47:45 PM · #24 |
Yeah but if you shoot 10 shots and none of them are bought then you are working for nothing. Or if one is bought you are working for a tenth of what you are capable of.
Good point on the business model, I suppose it's like those sites where you can post a want ad for a website and people pitch their web development services, the difference being they don't all do the work first. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 12:45:54 PM · #25 |
Rob,
Yep! That's pretty much it. Getting easy shots that are custom made is an arduous task for advertisers and most of the shots they need aren't all that expensive or time consuming. This allows photographers to pick up a little extra work if they want; an easy solution that benefits both parties!
Rob |
|
