MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Private Collections  (Read 7963 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« on: August 13, 2008, 10:09 »
0
I have this theory and am curious what others think. Has microstock been around long enough now that most designers private collection of images has gotten large enough that they don't need to sign up for subscriptions or do individual downloads very often?


« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2008, 10:15 »
0
some designers retire, some loose the data on their computers, some can't find the images they bought, some always look for newer images. thus a  photog would be always to sell at least one image during a lifetime.


« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2008, 10:53 »
0
I don't think it would look too cool for a graphic designer to design a pamphlet, magazine, or website for a client using all the same images that the previous client(s) received.

« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2008, 11:21 »
0
The designers I know look for unique images for every new project they work on. I think there will always be a need for new photos and sometimes people want those odd photos that mostly go ignored. Surprising and sometimes unpredictable what people need and will download.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2008, 14:28 by epantha »

« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2008, 11:29 »
0
I don't think it would look too cool for a graphic designer to design a pamphlet, magazine, or website for a client using all the same images that the previous client(s) received.

Depends on the image :)  But I agree.

What I find interesting is the flood of "Collection Sets" of good quality stuff on CD or DVD available on eBay and Amazon.  My boss bought one on Amazon for $50 that had 250 great landscapes at 11"x17" 300 dpi resolution.  The publisher is from Malaysia.

I think a lot of people came flocking to microstock thinking it was a gold mine, discovered it was actual work (not money for nothing), so they're dumping their stuff for pennies.

I saw something similar happen with web scripts about 4 years ago where the market got flooded by cheap packages from India and Malaysia which killed the market.

I do some freelance programming jobs on the side through a couple of internet sites and I'm seeing tons of requests in the graphics section of the sites for custom photos and footage that is selling extremely cheap.  And people are selling it, including all resale rights for next to nothing.  Pretty disheartening.

chumley

« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2008, 12:34 »
0
.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2008, 17:58 by chumley »

« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2008, 00:52 »
0
While I don't doubt that designers stockpile their downloaded images you will find that Stockpiling images for extended periods of time is typically prohibited in the EULA of the various subscription based agencies.

bittersweet

« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2008, 01:35 »
0
While I don't doubt that designers stockpile their downloaded images you will find that Stockpiling images for extended periods of time is typically prohibited in the EULA of the various subscription based agencies.

Really? I did not know that. I thought royalty free was a license without an expiration date. I wasn't aware that some sites had stipulations on the length of their royalty free licenses. I will definitely be careful about that before purchasing from a new site. Thanks!

« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2008, 17:20 »
0
While I don't doubt that designers stockpile their downloaded images you will find that Stockpiling images for extended periods of time is typically prohibited in the EULA of the various subscription based agencies.

Quite impossible to enforce, I would say.

Regards,
Adelaide

bittersweet

« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2008, 18:25 »
0
While I don't doubt that designers stockpile their downloaded images you will find that Stockpiling images for extended periods of time is typically prohibited in the EULA of the various subscription based agencies.

Quite impossible to enforce, I would say.

Regards,
Adelaide

I think that is a very true statement, especially since many images are available on more that one site. I'd love to see how they enforce this one:

Quote
If you plan on using or do use Images as part of work for a client or customer, you must keep accurate and detailed records of the use of each Image. These records must include the name of the client or customer, the Shutterstock Image number as well as the date or dates on which the Images were used. You shall deliver copies of such records to Shutterstock at Shutterstock's request. You may use Shutterstock Images for no more than three (3) clients per thirty (30) day subscription you purchase. To determine the number of clients for whom you may use Images, multiply the number of one (1) month subscriptions purchased by three (3). For example, if you purchase six (6) one (1) month subscriptions, you may service eighteen (18) clients during the period of your subscription. For customized subscriptions intended to service a larger quantity of clients, please contact Shutterstock Support.


chumley

« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2008, 23:10 »
0
.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2008, 17:57 by chumley »

johngriffin

« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2008, 12:26 »
0
I should have maybe explained some more.

i think the quality of microstock is good at most levels, its just the direction of pricing which scares me and why I referred to a "race to the bottom."  This is where you keep devaluing your content and agencies will compete with one another by offering the cheapest deal to attract buyers.  This is a death spiral and one that can be changed.  This is really bad for mass of photographers who supply the agencies with their material.   I also understand the supply argument which others may use against this.

You said, "I cannot control this market it is worth multi millions of dollars and this cannot be stopped by photographers. When RF came on the scene the RM shooters said the same thing. Don't add to the problem you will destroy the market. Well the market exploded and more money was made by stock than ever before."

I think that photographers can definitely change the direction that microstock is taking i.e. 30c EL and 20/25c per download.  This might be a hokey comparision but it is like someone who contributes to a political campaign either their time, money or vote.  If you think you can't change things, then nothing will change.  If you believe you can mobilize people and make change, you will and people will have to take notice.  Someone in another post wrote, I believe that we are all pebbles but together we are a mountain.  I couldn't agree more. MOBILIZE AND MAKE CHANGE.  As a photographer, you have ALL the power you need.  You decide what you want to shoot, where you want to upload, who you want to work with and how much you want to get paid for your work.  You should be in control.  I think that is CRAZY to accept the really low payouts but I could be wrong.  Maybe the excitement of seeing a couple of downloads of your images on a site that pays you 25c is worth more than the actual work it went into producing.  Even if you are selling 500 bucks worth a month you are still devaluing your hard work and making it tougher on others and thus leading to a race to the bottom for everyone. 

I think micro has been good for the industry.  i think it is the licensing agencies who keep undercutting themselves to attract buyers at your expense are not good for it.  Not to bring it back to Cutcaster, but that is why we are trying to place the control back in the sellers hands at Cutcaster. 

I think you can fix it by mobilizing and realizing that you and your friends have a ton of power to make changes.  You make the decisions at the end of the day and can define the change.  Buyers will go to where there are relevant, fresh and authentic photos. These guys have large budgets.  They are getting a free lunch at some of these other places at your expense and time. 

I know I am just one opinion and still learning.  Iam not right and you are not wrong but I think we can both agree that there is a ton of change to come. I hope I can help change it for the better with you and others. Lets figure out a way to mobilize people together.

chumley

« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2008, 13:49 »
0
.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2008, 17:57 by chumley »

« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2008, 14:08 »
0
One way this could change is if we could find some very deep pockets that want to take a couple of years to take this market over.

Yeah, they were called Getty.

Quote
I think one option for agencies to really compete is to go back to the days of paying 40% or 50% to their shooters so the people that treat this as their career can still compete and the weekend warrior can make a few more bucks for their family vacation.

I make 40% at iStock, btw...

chumley

« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2008, 14:27 »
0
.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2008, 17:57 by chumley »

« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2008, 14:44 »
0
You didn't mention how the next "someone with deep pockets" in going to help us all raise prices and keep market share while fending off the subscription sites and not having their wallet as first priority.  That's what I was interested in.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4653 Views
Last post September 16, 2006, 16:45
by CJPhoto
9 Replies
5776 Views
Last post October 16, 2008, 15:29
by vonkara
8 Replies
6064 Views
Last post February 25, 2010, 14:03
by donding
3 Replies
3535 Views
Last post October 25, 2010, 22:39
by bittersweet
24 Replies
7447 Views
Last post May 30, 2013, 12:48
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors