Author Topic: New stock agency - FAA / Pixels.com (Read 43413 times)

Gunter Nezhoda · « **Reply #100 on:** March 22, 2014, 19:19 »

Quote from: Ron on March 22, 2014, 16:43

I havent checked back but he is talking a lot, but not answering real concerns about watermarking etc. Nothing changed, they never address questions about changing stuff they have no interest in changing.

I dont care, it will not work anyways. Buyers can buy my images elsewhere. If people start reporting steady sales, I can easily opt in.

Excellent, knock it, don't support, don't care, have a negative attitude, but if it works - grab it and complain that he makes to much money on contributors

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #101 on:** March 22, 2014, 19:32 »

Quote from: Gunter Nezhoda on March 22, 2014, 19:12

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 22, 2014, 12:18
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 22, 2014, 11:37

From the latest things he has written it is apparent that the EL is not an EL at all, it is RM. So people should be selling either RF or EL but not both. Very confusing. Also, he keeps referring to iStock as Getty. At least, when he says Getty I think he means iStock....

FAA Sean really doesn't understand half as much as he thinks he does - plus he's really dogmatic and defensive. Tough combination to have any sort of useful conversation with.

But you do realize that this guy built a multimillion Dollar company out of his garage?

I do, but that has nothing to do with him knowing anything about licensing stock, or brain surgery or anything else. Hats off to him for his accomplishments, but he needs access to accurate information to make good decisions.

You can't say yes to anything someone says just because you respect his accomplishments.

stockastic · « **Reply #102 on:** March 22, 2014, 21:16 »

I'd like to do more with print sales and 'art' photos - and say to heck with stock.

What this Pixels.com thing really means to me is that Sean McDunn is going to waste his time and energy trying to cook up some goofy new stock business. That means nothing to me - I'm convinced it will go nowhere. On the other hand, for several weeks the FAA forum moderator has been teasing a supposed major upgrade to the FAA art site, supposedly to roll out soon. I wonder if that's really going to happen, and if it does, if it turns out to be all that major.

EmberMike · « **Reply #103 on:** March 22, 2014, 21:18 »

Quote from: Gunter Nezhoda on March 22, 2014, 19:19

Excellent, knock it, don't support, don't care, have a negative attitude, but if it works - grab it and complain that he makes to much money on contributors

So someone needs to support a bad idea just to be able to express why they think it's bad?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #104 on:** March 23, 2014, 02:11 »

Quote from: Gunter Nezhoda on March 22, 2014, 19:12

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 22, 2014, 12:18
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 22, 2014, 11:37

From the latest things he has written it is apparent that the EL is not an EL at all, it is RM. So people should be selling either RF or EL but not both. Very confusing. Also, he keeps referring to iStock as Getty. At least, when he says Getty I think he means iStock....

FAA Sean really doesn't understand half as much as he thinks he does - plus he's really dogmatic and defensive. Tough combination to have any sort of useful conversation with.

But you do realize that this guy built a multimillion Dollar company out of his garage?

He fused the ideas of automation, online marketing and taking a slice as a middle-man and applied his programming expertise to it. That was brilliant, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he understands stock. He seems to be thinking of it as just another kind of print sale. I'm not really sure he understands print selling, either, or he might not be so cavalier in his attitude towards copyright and trademarks (basically that this things don't matter .... well, officially the site says it has zero tolerance to copyright infringement, but it takes no action when breaches are pointed out by a third party).

Ron · « **Reply #105 on:** March 23, 2014, 02:37 »

Quote from: Gunter Nezhoda on March 22, 2014, 19:17

Quote from: ShadySue on March 22, 2014, 19:13
Quote from: Gunter Nezhoda on March 22, 2014, 19:12
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 22, 2014, 12:18
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 22, 2014, 11:37

From the latest things he has written it is apparent that the EL is not an EL at all, it is RM. So people should be selling either RF or EL but not both. Very confusing. Also, he keeps referring to iStock as Getty. At least, when he says Getty I think he means iStock....

FAA Sean really doesn't understand half as much as he thinks he does - plus he's really dogmatic and defensive. Tough combination to have any sort of useful conversation with.

But you do realize that this guy built a multimillion Dollar company out of his garage?

And if he's not careful, he could lose it all in lawsuits.

I wish I could say that about myself

You are selling unreleased work as RF, so you might end up getting what you ask for sooner or later

DF_Studios · « **Reply #106 on:** March 23, 2014, 06:56 »

Gunter - relax. A real maverick doesn't care what naysayers think. A brilliant idea has been conceived, built and will launch on schedule.

landbysea · « **Reply #107 on:** March 23, 2014, 11:02 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 23, 2014, 02:11

......... I'm not really sure he understands print selling, either, or he might not be so cavalier in his attitude towards copyright and trademarks (basically that this things don't matter .... well, officially the site says it has zero tolerance to copyright infringement, but it takes no action when breaches are pointed out by a third party).

I am not sure you really understand print sales. Art is not like commercial stock. There is a lot more leeway on trademarks. And if the trademark holder does not object or may even encourage it, why should they pay attention to all the ignorant third party police trying to eliminate competition? Cellphone cases on Pixels, aside it is an art site with all the freedom (and responsibilities) that go with it. Maybe you have been brainwashed by the stock sites into surrendering your freedom of speech or forgetting you have it.

DF_Studios · « **Reply #108 on:** March 23, 2014, 11:39 »

Ron · « **Reply #109 on:** March 23, 2014, 11:46 »

Quote from: landbysea on March 23, 2014, 11:02

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 23, 2014, 02:11
......... I'm not really sure he understands print selling, either, or he might not be so cavalier in his attitude towards copyright and trademarks (basically that this things don't matter .... well, officially the site says it has zero tolerance to copyright infringement, but it takes no action when breaches are pointed out by a third party).
I am not sure you really understand print sales. Art is not like commercial stock. There is a lot more leeway on trademarks. And if the trademark holder does not object or may even encourage it, why should they pay attention to all the ignorant third party police trying to eliminate competition? Cellphone cases on Pixels, aside it is an art site with all the freedom (and responsibilities) that go with it. Maybe you have been brainwashed by the stock sites into surrendering your freedom of speech or forgetting you have it.

Stealing images is never okay. Derived works of stolen images of famous people is not allowed. Maybe Coca Cola is lenient towards print sales, slapping a filter on a Madonna image, you dont own copyright to, and putting it up for sale, is stealing and copyright infringement Its not allowed, not even if FAA turns a blind eye.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #110 on:** March 23, 2014, 11:56 »

Quote from: landbysea on March 23, 2014, 11:02

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 23, 2014, 02:11
......... I'm not really sure he understands print selling, either, or he might not be so cavalier in his attitude towards copyright and trademarks (basically that this things don't matter .... well, officially the site says it has zero tolerance to copyright infringement, but it takes no action when breaches are pointed out by a third party).
I am not sure you really understand print sales. Art is not like commercial stock. There is a lot more leeway on trademarks. And if the trademark holder does not object or may even encourage it, why should they pay attention to all the ignorant third party police trying to eliminate competition? Cellphone cases on Pixels, aside it is an art site with all the freedom (and responsibilities) that go with it. Maybe you have been brainwashed by the stock sites into surrendering your freedom of speech or forgetting you have it.

I don't claim to be any sort of expert on online print sales - they are a very minor sideline for me - but I do know that selling someone else's photographs as being your own work is not an assertion of freedom of speech, it is theft. A lot of people are taking film studio publicity pictures and claiming copyright to them - in some cases several different "artists" claim to own the rights to the same photograph, which is not in the public domain.

I also know that if you copy a photo - making a painting of it or using a variant as part of some other artwork, then at some point it becomes a new work, but that's not what I'm talking about.

If a photograph is in copyright then and has not been made public domain then I fail to see how you might think that simply lifting a copy of it from somewhere gives you the right to sell it as you own art.

If somebody doesn't care if their trademark or photograph is being sold by someone else then that is their affair. I honestly don't know if it is permissable to produce copies of trademarks for sale as art or not, it's not an issue that I need to bother about. Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could answer that one.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #111 on:** March 23, 2014, 12:20 »

It seems that trademarks cannot be produced and sold as art UNLESS they are incidental to a broader subject

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/18230119312/big-ruling-says-using-trademarks-artistic-works-can-be-protected-under-first-amendment.shtml

So I guess a picture of a skyline with a McDonalds sign in it would be OK but a picture purely of a Mcdonalds sign wouldn't. There are plenty of pictures purely of logos and nothing else on FAA.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #112 on:** March 23, 2014, 12:30 »

Browsing around over there, I didn't realize how much selective coloring, vignetting, solarization, toning, bad HDR and terrible text overlays were required to be called "art". The way some of these guys are defending this stuff as worth thousands per license, you'd think they painted the Mona Lisa.

Ron · « **Reply #113 on:** March 23, 2014, 12:33 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 23, 2014, 12:30

Browsing around over there, I didn't realize how much selective coloring, vignetting, solarization, toning, bad HDR and terrible text overlays were required to be called "art". The way some of these guys are defending this stuff as worth thousands per license, you'd think they painted the Mona Lisa.

Exactly.

Check out the most awesome place on the internet to show your FAA artwork. Make a cup of coffee for yourself while the site is loading. http://qthecollection.com/qtalk/index.php

DF_Studios · « **Reply #114 on:** March 23, 2014, 12:50 »

"an elite collection of fine art photography from a select group of photographic artists"

That's a mouthful!

LesPalenik · « **Reply #115 on:** March 23, 2014, 13:21 »

Quote

Hero worship aside, there is nothing there that a decent web coders could not do. Which bring a great opportunity to someone like our very own Leo of Symbiostock fame.

How about creating a wordpress template that could be integrated with pictureframes.com's reseller program? Rather than sending traffic to FAA, one could concentrate on sending traffic to their own gallery with pictureframes.com handling fulfillment.

I was thinking along the same lines. Taking it one step further, the picture print and framing component could be fulfilled by multiple partners, in many cases local companies, which would save also on shipping costs (especially if the end customer is located outside USA).

DF_Studios · « **Reply #116 on:** March 23, 2014, 14:27 »

pictureframe.com already has this set up. Anyone can utilize their reseller program for $100 a year. They handle all the back end. Once you start getting complicated it doesn't work.

DF_Studios · « **Reply #117 on:** March 23, 2014, 14:31 »

What are you buying with your commission money?

ShadySue · « **Reply #118 on:** March 23, 2014, 14:46 »

Quote from: Gunter Nezhoda on March 22, 2014, 19:12

But you do realize that this guy built a multimillion Dollar company out of his garage?

Are his trading figures in the public domain? Can you post the link, please?

Ron · « **Reply #119 on:** March 23, 2014, 14:55 »

Quote from: DF_Studios on March 23, 2014, 14:31

But seriously, beyond the unrealistic expectations of the participants and the trademark issues and the watermark issues etc etc. The question no one seems to ask is why hand over any commission to FAA if they are not bringing any value.

"They" don't have a client base, "they" have no expertise, "they" offer no customer services, no tracking, no screening, no legal protection, etc. What are you buying with your commission money?

THAT. And to add.... they do NO marketing either. Its all up to us to make HIM money.

DF_Studios · « **Reply #120 on:** March 23, 2014, 15:17 »

Its surprising that someone in say - Germany - hasn't approached FAA to be their partner with FINEARTGERMANY.COM or any of the other domains they have.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #121 on:** March 23, 2014, 15:21 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 23, 2014, 12:30

Browsing around over there, I didn't realize how much selective coloring, vignetting, solarization, toning, bad HDR and terrible text overlays were required to be called "art". The way some of these guys are defending this stuff as worth thousands per license, you'd think they painted the Mona Lisa.

You simply don't understand Sean, because you are not one of the world's greatest living artists and photographers. Unlike me.

Mantis · « **Reply #122 on:** March 23, 2014, 18:29 »

Quote from: Ron on March 22, 2014, 16:43

I havent checked back but he is talking a lot, but not answering real concerns about watermarking etc. Nothing changed, they never address questions about changing stuff they have no interest in changing.

I dont care, it will not work anyways. Buyers can buy my images elsewhere. If people start reporting steady sales, I can easily opt in.

what i want to know is why did sales from faa fall off the face of the planet.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #123 on:** March 23, 2014, 20:51 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 23, 2014, 11:56

I don't claim to be any sort of expert on online print sales - they are a very minor sideline for me - but I do know that selling someone else's photographs as being your own work is not an assertion of freedom of speech, it is theft. A lot of people are taking film studio publicity pictures and claiming copyright to them - in some cases several different "artists" claim to own the rights to the same photograph, which is not in the public domain.

I also know that if you copy a photo - making a painting of it or using a variant as part of some other artwork, then at some point it becomes a new work, but that's not what I'm talking about.

This is NOT a new work. So that how much is rather difficult to determine.

If that's what the people from FAA who repaint famous works are defending. They will some day get a seriously sad lesson.

Very simple, don't copy, don't steal and it's fine. There's no defense for plagiarism in the name of "art", and claiming it's some kind of freedon.

Fairey sued for a declaratory judgment that his poster was a fair use of the original photograph. The parties settled out of court in January 2011, with details of the settlement remaining confidential.

Trust me, AP didn't pay Fairley for the misuse.

DF_Studios · « **Reply #124 on:** March 24, 2014, 07:33 »

Different than business cycles when departments get new budgets to work with in the beginning of the year.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New stock agency - FAA / Pixels.com (Read 43413 times)

Gunter Nezhoda

Jo Ann Snover

stockastic

EmberMike

BaldricksTrousers

Ron

DF_Studios

landbysea

DF_Studios

Ron

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

Sean Locke Photography

Ron

DF_Studios

LesPalenik

DF_Studios

DF_Studios

ShadySue

Ron

DF_Studios

BaldricksTrousers

Mantis

Uncle Pete

DF_Studios

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors