Author Topic: Jim Pickerell story on Micro: Daniel Laflor shines (Read 44403 times)

cthoman · « **Reply #50 on:** January 16, 2011, 11:34 »

Wow! This thread got long. Out of all the things happening in micro now, whether or not some guy may or may not be bending "the spirit" of the exclusive rules is pretty far from my mind.

Graffoto · « **Reply #51 on:** January 16, 2011, 11:44 »

Quote from: OM on January 16, 2011, 10:34

A mutually profitable arrangement made by two powerful parties in which both get what they've always wanted.
Rules are for the power-deficient.........."It's a big club and you and I ain't in it" (Paraphrased George Carlin).

+1

Well put. Oh how I miss Mr. Carlin.

gostwyck · « **Reply #52 on:** January 16, 2011, 11:46 »

Quote from: cthoman on January 16, 2011, 11:34

Wow! This thread got long. Out of all the things happening in micro now, whether or not some guy may or may not be bending "the spirit" of the exclusive rules is pretty far from my mind.

Exactly. Istock and Getty just bend their own rules whenever it suits them, always have done and always will. Even the thought that a contributor or two might be doing the same to them I find quite refreshing. I just wish it wasn't ultimately in Istock's favour anyway.

CarlssonInc · « **Reply #53 on:** January 16, 2011, 11:57 »

Screwing people over seem to be acceptable now-a-days. If I felt screwed or was starting to get the feeling that I want to screw someone over I would just leave. I might have been a bit naive regarding this issue, but I do think that was has transpired is all quite sad.

SNP · « **Reply #54 on:** January 16, 2011, 11:58 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 16, 2011, 11:06

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on January 16, 2011, 10:11
I play by the rules, and I despise those who don't (except Michael Schumacher). If everyone was doing what was best for their short-term gain, both in business and in life, it would be awful. I treat people and business in the same way I WANT to be treated, honest and with respect. Sure, iStock's dealings in recent times can be debated, but it doesn't give me a free card to do whatever I please, there is such things as self-respect, as well as contracts, rules and spirit. That's how I I am at least.

I find it somewhat ironic that you describe yourself as some paradigm of virtue or 'ethical man' when here you are virtually convicting people you don't know of falsities and crimes (which you don't even know have been committed), without any evidence other than circumstantial, without actually communicating with any of the parties involved and without hearing their side of the issue. Is that how you would like to be treated?

I'm in agreement with gostwyck and some of the others that Getty is doing the exact same thing to us. they're reaping the benefits of allowing flexible exclusivity to some contributors...however, we're bound by strict exclusivity and it seems that in this scenario Daniel and Yuri have an ideal sales scenario. seems being the operative term. but since Jim used them as an example and got their approval in advance...we're free to discuss them. my sales have been great lately, but despite that, I feel owned...rather than feeling like I belong. that's a pretty major shift.

I understand where Carlsson is coming from. It's easy to razz those of us who are more by the book, and who are afraid of losing our iStock income. and yes, that has made me somewhat nervous about expressing discontent at times. I'm not a wimp by any means, but realistically they reserve the right to terminate my account arbitrarily. so, yes, that scares me. it also makes me angry that they hold so much of the power and that lately exclusivity is flexible depending on who you are, but I've given them that power by remaining exclusive and I understand that. so Carlsson, I agree with what you're saying, and I think it's being taken out of context. + 1 on the sentiment behind your comments.

djpadavona · « **Reply #55 on:** January 16, 2011, 12:02 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 16, 2011, 05:54

And the $4 per download seems a bit high. I thought I remember seeing stats averaging closer to $2 or $3 at most.

I averaged about $2.80 per DL as a Silver. I would have to think that a Diamond producing images with a higher than normal rate of EL sales would push $4. Having not been on that level, it's just a guess.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #56 on:** January 16, 2011, 12:36 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 16, 2011, 08:30

No, it is wrong, and against what exclusivity is supposed to mean. I

I say go for it. Certainly iS and others find ways to construe and change their agreements to their advantage any way they can.

aeonf · « **Reply #57 on:** January 16, 2011, 12:37 »

Quote from: djpadavona on January 16, 2011, 12:02

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 16, 2011, 05:54
And the $4 per download seems a bit high. I thought I remember seeing stats averaging closer to $2 or $3 at most.

I averaged about $2.80 per DL as a Silver. I would have to think that a Diamond producing images with a higher than normal rate of EL sales would push $4. Having not been on that level, it's just a guess.

Same here. 2.80 at 25%

CarlssonInc · « **Reply #58 on:** January 16, 2011, 12:42 »

Quote from: Zeus on January 16, 2011, 12:36

Quote from: sjlocke on January 16, 2011, 08:30
No, it is wrong, and against what exclusivity is supposed to mean. I

I say go for it. Certainly iS and others find ways to construe and change their agreements to their advantage any way they can.

I say if you can't agree with exclusivity go independent.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #59 on:** January 16, 2011, 13:05 »

Quote from: djpadavona on January 16, 2011, 12:02

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 16, 2011, 05:54
And the $4 per download seems a bit high. I thought I remember seeing stats averaging closer to $2 or $3 at most.

I averaged about $2.80 per DL as a Silver. I would have to think that a Diamond producing images with a higher than normal rate of EL sales would push $4. Having not been on that level, it's just a guess.

If anything, I think it's a bit low given how many Vetta (and Agency) files laflor has. As a gold for all but one month of the year I averaged $4 per download.

And as far as the general thrust of the comments about violating the spirit of exclusivity, the RubberBall story really removes any sympathy I might otherwise have had for IS in this situation. Where this situation is someone adhering to the letter of the contract, but not the legal wording. I would also point out that IS has the ability to change the contract at any time for any or no reason. They also have the ability to close an account at any time for any or no reason. Given that it's obvious to a blind person what's going on with Yuri and Daniel and they've done nothing, I can only assume they're OK with it.

And the RubberBall story is that they are selling the images they have in the Agency Collection from their own web site under an RF license. They are labeled as an IS exclusive and if any other exclusive did what they did we'd have our account closed. All the Agency images were brought in with no regard to upload limits that the rest of the exclusives have to live with. In the beginning, they were just bringing in everything even though IS had said they were going through the same inspection process the rest of us went through. The toilet door, pharmacy shelves full of logos, toys with brand names on them, etc. showed that just wasn't what was happening.

I agree that one person behaving badly doesn't justify the rest of us doing it, but it does mean that I wouldn't shed any tears if IS got a taste of their own medicine. In this case, given that I think this is all about power, I think that it may be that Yuri's portfolio is sufficiently important to IS that they won't fuss about Daniel getting exclusive benefits. They're also making a tidy pile from the arrangement too.

It's an oligarchy; it's not necessarily fair or ethical, but the rest of us shouldn't think we can act like the elite, because there are two sets of rules.

SNP · « **Reply #60 on:** January 16, 2011, 13:22 »

^ the tidy pile they're making is indeed their impetus for looking the other way. but I guarantee you if anyone else did it and was caught...we'd be banned. I certainly wouldn't try it, though ethically I see no reason not to. I just wouldn't, again, because of being at such a disadvantage in terms of the power structure. but it has devalued exclusivity a great deal in my mind. I feel like the rules only go one way. very much against the spirit of messages given to us by admins imploring us to be understanding and respectful. respect is a two-way street.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #61 on:** January 16, 2011, 14:03 »

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on January 16, 2011, 12:42

Quote from: Zeus on January 16, 2011, 12:36
Quote from: sjlocke on January 16, 2011, 08:30
No, it is wrong, and against what exclusivity is supposed to mean. I

I say go for it. Certainly iS and others find ways to construe and change their agreements to their advantage any way they can.

I say if you can't agree with exclusivity go independent.

I say good for all the morally upstanding people out there.

RT · « **Reply #62 on:** January 16, 2011, 15:03 »

Personally I take anything Jim Pickerall says with a pinch of salt. I only read the first paragraph of this related blog and it was enough for me to form the opinion that yet again he is using the shock and awe approach based on nothing but his own speculation, there are many great blogs on the subject of stock photography done by people who really know what they're talking about and I don't count his as one of them.

As for Yuri and Laflor being one in the same or other speculations, there were some blatantly obvious similarities when he first came on the scene which some of us discussed then, surprised so many people are making such a thing of it now but I guess they've got Pickerall to thank for that. This guerrilla marketing thing can bite you on the backside sometimes, some never seem to learn.

laflor · « **Reply #63 on:** January 16, 2011, 15:09 »

Hi everyone,

I hope this meet everyone well and in a happy mood.

Frankly, I am offended by the idea that I am Yuri Arcurs in disguise or that he is using me to sell his images. Working my butt of like a mad man, I have produced every single one of my images by my own hand and that has nothing to do with Yuri. I have worked hard, and I mean really, really hard. I have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment and production, I have spent countless hours researching, planning, hiring people, scouting for locations. What to speak of the months on end in Capture One and Photoshop. Just because I happened to have the wits to approach the world's number one micro stock photographer in order to learn the business, that does not make me less of a photographer or contributor than anyone else in the business. Please see things in the right perspective.

Yuri and I sometimes help each other out, and that gives both me and him an edge. The profit margin is of great concern to any good business man. Who wouldn't want to cut one's expenses? I will encourage anyone serious about this business to apply that same principle. For your information we have never shared models. Over time we have independently, on different shoots, hired a few of the same models, because we have used the same model agencies, but we have never shared a model. I can point so several other photographers on iStock that have used many of "my" models, because they are producing in the same city as I am. Just like this guy: www.istockphoto.com/4774344sean on iStock. He has used many of the same models as me, and I don't even know who he is.

And for the record, if you go to Getty you will find tons of the same models used by different photographers. That is the way the pro version of the business works. If you shoot in your garage with a few of your friends, then you won't run into this problem, but if you travel to top stock production locations then this is the situation. Sometimes I get slightly discouraged when I see a batch of fresh images by some other photog with a model I have just shot. But hey, that's the game. I wipe my eyes an run back into the game!

I could make a long list of people who shoot images with similar style like Yuri. And why is that? Because IT SELLS. I produce images that sell. Why not credit me for that. For all you know I may have taught Yuri a thing or two about lighting.

I have chosen a simple life with least possible headaches in terms of upload and management. That is why I am exclusive to iStock.

I understand that when going forward as fast as I have, there will be a lot of jealousy and a lot of curiosity. I will ask you to please respect my privacy and please be professional in your approach. I am in this to produce great images and I don't claim my method will apply for all. For your information I have invested more than $500.000 in microstock and I expect to break even within 3 years of startup. My sales and income reflect that. I studied practically all aspects of the industry before investing in it. That would be VERY essential for anyone erase wanting to do the same. Otherwise one may loose a lot of money and waste a lot of time.

If you care to know, even before starting to shoot stock I was a successful photographer.

Kind regards,
Daniel

ShadySue · « **Reply #64 on:** January 16, 2011, 15:11 »

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on January 16, 2011, 10:54

Quote from: ShadySue on January 16, 2011, 10:39
Quote from: sjlocke on January 16, 2011, 08:30
Other issue is Jim trying to come up with material for his paying audience, trying to convince even more competition to step into the ring. Thanks for that too.
Och well, this particular article won't convince anyone. "You can be successful on the coat-tails of someone who is already successful.
And I'm pretty sure you've said you don't take on apprentices (or any other staff).
But, hey, we could broker a deal whereby you assign copyright on your out-takes to me, I'd upload them all over the place in my own name as an independent and we could split the proceeds 40-60 in my favour. After all, after you set up the shoot, you're covering your expenses already on iStock. I'm taking the time to upload and keyword them. You're making money from your less successful shots of a series and I'm sweetly helping you.
Where "I" and "me" = 'Anyone not iStock exclusive, (so not "I" or "me" ATM'), but "you" = you.

That could be a new business idea - take on out-takes for all iStock Exclusives and sell them under a new name as independent. Is your fee negotiable?

I'm sure you could find a conversation with my computer-phobic husband mutually advantageous.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #65 on:** January 16, 2011, 15:22 »

Without quoting the whole thing, the subject is supported by Dan's response.

Daniel Laflor shines

A very informative and straight shooting response. BRAVO

djpadavona · « **Reply #66 on:** January 16, 2011, 15:24 »

Congratulations Daniel. You are an inspiration to anyone who wants to make a significant life difference in the span of a year.

Regarding iStock potentially allowing an increased uploading capacity to certain members, exclusive or independent. I honestly have no problem with it. It's their business, and I don't think anyone is owed an explanation. They want great content, and they shouldn't have to wait a few years for that content to be slowly uploaded to their benefit. Different rules for different people? Yeah, that's the real world. My differences with iStock revolve around their new commission structure.

ShadySue · « **Reply #67 on:** January 16, 2011, 15:24 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 16, 2011, 15:22

Without quoting the whole thing, the subject is supported by Dan's response.

Daniel Laflor shines

A very informative and straight shooting response. BRAVO

Can you post a URI to the response, please?
Or are you saying his lack of response is the significant factor?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #68 on:** January 16, 2011, 15:29 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 16, 2011, 15:24

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 16, 2011, 15:22
Without quoting the whole thing, the subject is supported by Dan's response.

Daniel Laflor shines

A very informative and straight shooting response. BRAVO
Can you post a URI to the response, please?

See Above.

ShadySue · « **Reply #69 on:** January 16, 2011, 15:57 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 16, 2011, 15:29

Quote from: ShadySue on January 16, 2011, 15:24
Quote from: RacePhoto on January 16, 2011, 15:22
Without quoting the whole thing, the subject is supported by Dan's response.

Daniel Laflor shines

A very informative and straight shooting response. BRAVO
Can you post a URI to the response, please?

See Above.

Oh, right, weird. Your post arrived with me before Daniel's response did.

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #70 on:** January 16, 2011, 15:59 »

I must admit that when reading this thread, it strikes me as quite absurd. What strikes me the most is that there are so many double agendas at play here. The most aggressive arguments are interestingly enough argued from the same group of shooters that are directly competitive to Daniel. Fact is, that Daniel is doing great, and by doing so good as he is, this will provoke. Especially when doing better than people that have started much earlier than him. What you don't know about Daniel is that he was an extremely successful shooter even before he entered microstock with some of the most prestigious companies in Denmark on his client list. Turning stock, was just a change of direction. He had the bankroll, the skills, the gear, the contacts and a good friend (me) that advised him to go exclusive to minimize cost's for distribution. Only 15% of my total income comes from Istock, so being able to share expenses on some shoots was a welcome opportunity, that would not jeopardize my overall income by means of competition. There is nothing new to this, many other exclusive and non-exclusive photographers are already sharing shoots, even models and sets which we have never done.
Shooting with Daniel is inspirational, and I wish to be able to do it more. In 2010 I only had the chance to shoot with him once and he was shooting a couple and I was shooting a teen-age group for Macrostock.
Personally, Daniels is one of the kindest and most humble people i know. He has a presence about him and is almost always smiling. I talked to him today about this post, and he was actually quite sad about what people where saying. Give him some respect for what he has achieved and be better than serving him the very same melody of jealous nonsense talk that I also had to endure when I became a success.
One thing that is completely forgotten in this thread is that he invested a ton of money in this and completely stopped his other commercial work to focus 100% on becoming an exclusive top contributor. He took the jump. No ties, no turning back. Did you do that? Did you actually do that? Perhaps he deserves where he is now.

Oldhand · « **Reply #71 on:** January 16, 2011, 16:08 »

Credit to both - but it has unintentionally outed that Istock loophole.

My great Aunt Bertha hasn't even got a camera, but she's got ID and a paypal account. That's all you need for a second exclusive account at IS.

I thought of it years ago - never acted on it. Nor did I invest any more money in micro. Took a regular job and stayed above board.

Couldn't give a rats ass about the spirit of exclusivity - it's the only way the level the playing field and makes great business sense.

Again - interesting to see it outed here!

Enjoy the topic - Oldhand

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #72 on:** January 16, 2011, 16:37 »

Quote from: Oldhand on January 16, 2011, 16:08

Credit to both - but it has unintentionally outed that Istock loophole.

My great Aunt Bertha hasn't even got a camera, but she's got ID and a paypal account. That's all you need for a second exclusive account at IS.

I thought of it years ago - never acted on it. Nor did I invest any more money in micro. Took a regular job and stayed above board.

Couldn't give a rats ass about the spirit of exclusivity - it's the only way the level the playing field and makes great business sense.

Again - interesting to see it outed here!

Enjoy the topic - Oldhand

Oldhand. You are way off if you think you could outsmart Istock that easy. They would find and shout down your Aunt "Bertha" in a day. No no my friend. Istock knows what they are doing and are way better at finding fraud attemps than that. Exclusivity is not a joke and if you tried something like that, you would probably lose your own account too (as well as Bertha's).

Xalanx · « **Reply #73 on:** January 16, 2011, 16:42 »

Wow and wow... and again wow.
I know Daniel from conversations over the internet and what I can say is that he is one of the kindest persons I ever met. And a "rara avis" in this forum - I don't think you ever saw him attacking someone, or attaching rude comments to replies in a debate.
Good for him and congratulations for such a success!
Think of it - there are also a lot of people who started when microstock appeared on the scene. Why are not most of them at the same level as Yuri? Because they lack some ingredients from the recipe, obviously.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #74 on:** January 16, 2011, 16:46 »

overall apart from this topic.. where is the limit of "copying" other photog pictures? (talking LEGALLY, I guess pride etc doesn´t matter on stock, maybe never will)

this is a question not some attack, I have no problem with others success

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Jim Pickerell story on Micro: Daniel Laflor shines (Read 44403 times)

cthoman

Graffoto

gostwyck

CarlssonInc

SNP

djpadavona

PeterChigmaroff

aeonf

CarlssonInc

Jo Ann Snover

SNP

PeterChigmaroff

RT

laflor

ShadySue

RacePhoto

djpadavona

ShadySue

RacePhoto

ShadySue

Yuri_Arcurs

Oldhand

Yuri_Arcurs

Xalanx

luissantos84

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors