Author Topic: Dreamstime selected as a beta provider of stock photos for Google display ads (Read 69234 times)

chromaco · « **Reply #200 on:** February 24, 2015, 16:29 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on February 24, 2015, 16:18

I guess it's not worth taking legal action against the people who've gotten in touch about cleaning up the image? Can't you at least send them a bill? That works well for Getty.

I wouldn't even know where to start fighting this.
These people are crazy. They are actually offended that I won't do it for them. They think they are entitled to a nice clean vector file because the site they got it from said it was "easy to use". They also took the time to search and find my sites so they could send me an e-mail. Same image in a nice clean "non-autotraced" format is available for $14.75 on that very site. When I direct them to the link I never hear from them again.

One of those free sites has the same image 10 times with slight variations by 10 different "artists"

This is why "deals" like this one are so bad. They re-enforce this free notion and we are jumping up and down happy as clams because we made $22.

My solution - don't sell any new art via subscription until I have determined it won't sell at a much, much higher price. And certainly don't opt in to situations where it can be obtained for free.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #201 on:** February 24, 2015, 16:38 »

You might seriously consider having a lawyer write up a demand for payment and email it to these people. Getty charges punitive fees well over the price of licensing the image. Even if only 1 in 10 is intimidated enough to pay, the letter could pay for itself and you might make some money from the image. Don't know if it's worth your time.

chromaco · « **Reply #202 on:** February 24, 2015, 16:51 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on February 24, 2015, 16:38

You might seriously consider having a lawyer write up a demand for payment and email it to these people. Getty charges punitive fees well over the price of licensing the image. Even if only 1 in 10 is intimidated enough to pay, the letter could pay for itself and you might make some money from the image. Don't know if it's worth your time.

I appreciate that, but its not my style. Just because other people can be like that doesn't mean I need to be. I learned a lesson from that image that in the long term will pay off much more handsomely than any earnings I would have gotten. I spend a lot of time controlling my own future and as a result I have never posted a complaint about earnings. I do however comment a lot about things that I view as harmful to my own future. This situation is one of those times. And no, its not about Dreamstime or any other agency... it's about us as a collective and how we keep shooting ourselves and each other in the foot.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #203 on:** February 24, 2015, 17:58 »

Quote from: pixel8 on February 24, 2015, 14:12

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 24, 2015, 11:38

The big difference here is that Google is redistributing the image to its clients, like a distributor or partner agency - Google sells ads and is offering images as part of the package (a discount, effectively, so the ad buyer doesn't have to buy their own license).

A designer is hired to produce a brochure for a client and the client licenses the image. The designer produces a web site for another client and the client licenses the image. Each of those clients may use the image multiple times in multiple projects, but client A cannot share the license with client B because that's redistributing the image, something their license prohibits.

The Google/DT deal is different, and not in a good way

So what your saying is that when Google lets one of the 10,000 clients use the image those clients can now also use it 10,000 times, thus 10,000 X 10,000 = 100,000,000 ?...

No. Google can't transfer the right to redistribute to anyone else. The issue is that Google sells it multiple times - each time to a different client - when the contributor only gets paid for one sale to Google.

stockmarketer · « **Reply #204 on:** July 07, 2015, 06:27 »

Did wave 2 of the Google purchases hit today? Woke up to a large number of $2 subscription credits this morning. Anyone else?

skyfish · « **Reply #205 on:** July 07, 2015, 06:39 »

Instead i have refunds because of possible card fraud, 2 identical sales, and today i see again 2 identical sales in the same time.

fotografer · « **Reply #206 on:** July 07, 2015, 08:03 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on July 07, 2015, 06:27

Did wave 2 of the Google purchases hit today? Woke up to a large number of $2 subscription credits this morning. Anyone else?

None here, usual slow start to the week

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #207 on:** July 07, 2015, 12:30 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on July 07, 2015, 06:27

Did wave 2 of the Google purchases hit today? Woke up to a large number of $2 subscription credits this morning. Anyone else?

I don't think so. For me DT has been dead since June 26th - must have rotated to the bottom of the search.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #208 on:** July 07, 2015, 13:01 »

No, not Google deal, Small subscription package that gives non-exclusives $2.

stockmarketer · « **Reply #209 on:** July 07, 2015, 14:15 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on July 07, 2015, 13:01

No, not Google deal, Small subscription package that gives non-exclusives $2.

Huh, hadn't heard of this one. By Small you mean it's a small package or deal, not on the scale of the Google deal, right? Because the sales I've seen today are Large and not Small downloads.

Do we know more about this deal? Did others see a bunch of these today? I saw a large string of them, all at once. Nothing like that has happened for me since the big Google download day.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #210 on:** July 07, 2015, 19:05 »

5 and 10 image all in one subscriptions

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_35047

CP · « **Reply #211 on:** December 12, 2016, 16:08 »

And the second phase, when contributors would supposedly get the big(ger) bucks? People have been asking about it on the DT message boards and the company's response has been... deafening silence.

Giveme5 · « **Reply #212 on:** December 12, 2016, 16:22 »

OLD THREAD ALERT...

CP · « **Reply #213 on:** December 12, 2016, 21:41 »

So what if a thread was started a long time ago? Either it is still relevant (and this one is) or it isn't.

I doubt I'm the only one who finds it fishy (to put it kindly) that Dreamstime tells its contributors: "Great news! Google is buying your photos on two phases. On the first, you'll get paid a little, on the second you'll get paid much more," then the deadline for the second phrase comes and goes without DT posting any information/making any payments, and refuses to answer contributors' questions about it.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #214 on:** December 13, 2016, 00:42 »

I'd sure like to know when we're gonna get more money.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Dreamstime selected as a beta provider of stock photos for Google display ads (Read 69234 times)

chromaco

Shelma1

chromaco

Jo Ann Snover

stockmarketer

skyfish

fotografer

sgoodwin4813

cuppacoffee

stockmarketer

cuppacoffee

CP

Giveme5

CP

PixelBytes

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors