Author Topic: To the new agencies: why don't YOU download our pictures? (Read 8342 times)

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **on:** December 30, 2009, 09:22 »

As much as I'd like to upload my entire portfolio to new / small agencies (especially to those paying a large % to photographers), I am tired of spending weeks or months and using all my bandwidth for very little results.

So, why don't you download our pictures from a web link?

We could upload our pictures as a .zip file to a free service like rapidshare, file-upload.net etc and then the microstock agencies could grab our pictures from there.

Even better - we could upload to a common FTP server shared between many small agencies.

We (the photographers) upload once. You (the new agencies) get our pictures. It's a win-win situation: maybe a little more action required on the agency side, but otherwise I won't bother to upload to a new site with unproven sales.

Stu49 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 30, 2009, 09:33 »

Why not use iSyndica !? It does what u ask and very cheaply

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #2 on:** December 30, 2009, 09:45 »

yes, it's a great tool but at $9.99 per 400 credits, it's not so cheap!

400 photos is what I can upload in one night for free with my ADSL connection

using iSyndica it's almost $300 per month: at that price I could choose a different ADSL plan with an higher upload rate and still spend less

I am not talking about the big 6 agencies which is worth spending time and money to upload: I am talking about the very small new agencies which would take 10 years to regain what I'd spend to upload using iSyndica or PhotoShelter or similar

Stu49 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 30, 2009, 09:49 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on December 30, 2009, 09:45

yes, it's a great tool but at $9.99 per 400 credits, it's not so cheap!

400 photos is what I can upload in one night for free with my ADSL connection

using iSyndica it's almost $300 per month: at that price I could choose a different ADSL plan with an higher upload rate and spend less

but u only have to do it once with iSyndica ! surely the time saving alone must make it viable for u ??

I was thinking of the free version, it will take u longer to get them all out to the new agencies, but then what's the rush !?

alias · « **Reply #4 on:** December 30, 2009, 09:54 »

Part of the point of the microstock crowd sourced business model in general is that it shifts so much of the work (costs) from the agencies to the content producers. The uploading, keywording, captioning, quality control.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #5 on:** December 30, 2009, 09:59 »

@Stu:

the free version doesn't allow FTP upload: so it would take twice the time to upload, and more effort in choosing files through a browser interface than just queueing files in an FTP client, not sure it's worth

agree there' no rush, since probably uploaded pictures won't sell anyway

@alias:

that's true unfortunately (for us photographers), however the low earners could try to offer us some incentives! otherwise we will stick to the larger sites only

I'm not even sure it would cost more for them to download our pictures from a server: they still have to use resources on their servers even if we upload to them directly

PixelBitch · « **Reply #6 on:** December 30, 2009, 10:14 »

iSyndica credits are 1 cent each...monthly charge of 4.99 includes 200 credits and monthly charge of 9.99 has 400 credits...you can purchase additional credits in blocks of 500 I believe...which makes it quite economical

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on December 30, 2009, 09:45

yes, it's a great tool but at $9.99 per 400 credits, it's not so cheap!

400 photos is what I can upload in one night for free with my ADSL connection

using iSyndica it's almost $300 per month: at that price I could choose a different ADSL plan with an higher upload rate and still spend less

I am not talking about the big 6 agencies which is worth spending time and money to upload: I am talking about the very small new agencies which would take 10 years to regain what I'd spend to upload using iSyndica or PhotoShelter or similar

FD · « **Reply #7 on:** December 30, 2009, 10:30 »

Quote from: Stu on December 30, 2009, 09:33

Why not use iSyndica !? It does what u ask and very cheaply ?

Because I don't pay for all those sharks that want to make money off microstockers. It would be OK with a RPD of 5-20$, but not with a RPD of 0.7-1.24$. Filezilla is good enough (for me) since it runs in automatic mode, and my bandwidth is paid anyways.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** December 30, 2009, 10:38 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on December 30, 2009, 09:22

As much as I'd like to upload my entire portfolio to new / small agencies (especially to those paying a large % to photographers), I am tired of spending weeks or months and using all my bandwidth for very little results.

So, why don't you download our pictures from a web link?

We could upload our pictures as a .zip file to a free service like rapidshare, file-upload.net etc and then the microstock agencies could grab our pictures from there.

Even better - we could upload to a common FTP server shared between many small agencies.

We (the photographers) upload once. You (the new agencies) get our pictures. It's a win-win situation: maybe a little more action required on the agency side, but otherwise I won't bother to upload to a new site with unproven sales.

I love it. Not for me, as an exclusive right now, but I've been thinking we (in general) need to flip this around. Here's what I'm imagining... Load up all your files with an industry standard XML file in a secure location. You define payout level you're interested in, percentage, minimum price per, etc. somehow. New site pops up, they apply to distribute your work. Why should we be so desperate to apply to everyplace that arises. It should be a privilege to make money off of our content. If you approve of their methods and marketing, they gain access to your supply. If not, asta la vista. This puts the demand on the "agent" or "store" to get their butt in gear and be serious about it, without risk to the content suppliers.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #9 on:** December 30, 2009, 10:42 »

@sjlocke:

your idea is a further step forward from what I asked but I like it! Great

RacePhoto · « **Reply #10 on:** December 31, 2009, 18:12 »

So true and it eases the burden of all the sites having all the same photos, through a long torturous individual upload process, by making it a universal constant.

Somehow, I'm happy with four sites and ignoring all the new price cutting vultures that want photos for nothing, so they can get rich of of my efforts while I supply them and cut my own value by having the same photos on all the sites.

We might as well have one big clearing house with all the photos and the buyer can decide which cut-throat agency they want to pay the least for our work?

Example, I put up a photo on the clearing house, and then all the agencies fight over the best sub plan or lowest price, and the buyer can decide which one makes the sale. Kind of like finding a book on Amazon. You can find the same book from thousands of sellers, only the price makes a difference. With the clearing house, we could all cut our profits down to even less, and support the people who offer the least return for our work. Yeah, great idea!

Now if there was a way for all the new agencies to get their 5 million standard, all the sites have the same photos, type photos, why not. They aren't going to make it, we aren't going to get paid and this just cuts out the middle man and long hours uploading, for nothing.

Quote from: sjlocke on December 30, 2009, 10:38

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on December 30, 2009, 09:22
As much as I'd like to upload my entire portfolio to new / small agencies (especially to those paying a large % to photographers), I am tired of spending weeks or months and using all my bandwidth for very little results.

So, why don't you download our pictures from a web link?

We could upload our pictures as a .zip file to a free service like rapidshare, file-upload.net etc and then the microstock agencies could grab our pictures from there.

Even better - we could upload to a common FTP server shared between many small agencies.

We (the photographers) upload once. You (the new agencies) get our pictures. It's a win-win situation: maybe a little more action required on the agency side, but otherwise I won't bother to upload to a new site with unproven sales.

I love it. Not for me, as an exclusive right now, but I've been thinking we (in general) need to flip this around. Here's what I'm imagining... Load up all your files with an industry standard XML file in a secure location. You define payout level you're interested in, percentage, minimum price per, etc. somehow. New site pops up, they apply to distribute your work. Why should we be so desperate to apply to everyplace that arises. It should be a privilege to make money off of our content. If you approve of their methods and marketing, they gain access to your supply. If not, asta la vista. This puts the demand on the "agent" or "store" to get their butt in gear and be serious about it, without risk to the content suppliers.

Agnesh · « **Reply #11 on:** January 21, 2010, 11:58 »

And from the size of agencies - don't think it's a good idea from the legal size. i mean, every agency have it's own rules on image upploadings, on site usage, privacy policy and so on. Its rather alike, but still different. How can they be sure you apgree with their rules if they simply take your images from the third-side place?
How can they be sure you are the author of the works - and how can they proove they have the right to sell this images in case some promlems occures?
When a person upploads images throug FTP or web-interface, he or she is logged in, and the agency have base of linkings, a list of IP and so on to proove - this logged in user upploaded this pictures. And if they simply take images - you may say "I didn't allow you to use my images, I don't agree with your rules" and so on.
Maybe for big agencies with law department working for them it's not a problem, and the small ones wouldn't agree for it, I suppose.