Author Topic: Peer-to-peer direct stock selling platform (WireStock) (Read 155934 times)

Pauws99 · « **Reply #100 on:** October 31, 2017, 02:37 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 31, 2017, 02:23

Justin, how many times have the sites allowed a thief to sell our images for a long time until one of us spots it? I bet that a lot of them are in, or have been in, your search engine. It can take a long time to get the images removed when they are reported as well. Hopefully a site that's not run by people that are only interested in increasing profits for their shareholders would be able to put in place something that makes it harder for image thieves, not easier. I think it might be a good idea to wait and see what this platform is all about before making assumptions.

I agree with the last sentence until something appears the debate is really getting circular...the concerns have been raised. Although why do you think the site is being set up if its not to generate profits for its owners? The same commercial considerations apply....sadly its uneconomic to chase down all but the most flagrant breaches. Every business you can think of on the Internet is riddled with some kind of piratical behaviour. If the technology solves it then great.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #101 on:** October 31, 2017, 03:27 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 26, 2017, 07:50

Quote
watch a few big corporations take over everything and keep finding ways to make more money from us. Was that really the way the internet was supposed to function?
No, it wasn't intended to be a business opportunity, it was intended to be a method of sharing information for the common good.

Quite. I read about it in the 1980s when I was thinking of going online (before Windows made it easy). There was a lot written about "Netiqette" (a word I haven't seen in a couple of decades), and how to avoid clogging up the limited Web bandwidth. One point (made rather naively, perhaps) was that even though it would theoretically be easy to make money online it would be bad netiquette to do so and would bring down derision and contempt on your head if you attempted it.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #102 on:** October 31, 2017, 03:37 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 31, 2017, 03:27

Quote from: ShadySue on October 26, 2017, 07:50
Quote
watch a few big corporations take over everything and keep finding ways to make more money from us. Was that really the way the internet was supposed to function?
No, it wasn't intended to be a business opportunity, it was intended to be a method of sharing information for the common good.

Quite. I read about it in the 1980s when I was thinking of going online (before Windows made it easy). There was a lot written about "Netiqette" (a word I haven't seen in a couple of decades), and how to avoid clogging up the limited Web bandwidth. One point (made rather naively, perhaps) was that even though it would theoretically be easy to make money online it would be bad netiquette to do so and would bring down derision and contempt on your head if you attempted it.

Trying to think of one thing done for the common good that someone hasn't made money from ;-)

PicturEngine-JustinB · « **Reply #103 on:** October 31, 2017, 04:02 »

My goal is to find the copyright owner and point the buyer to them.

I am a photographer and have been funding PicturEngine for years on my own, and no we are not making a profit. Hopefully, one day we will. We only started accepting money last November, anyone before then was and on a free trial. I have not received a paycheck or compensation since before I shut my agencies down in 2014, and pushing all of my photographers onto the PicturEngine platform to receive 100% of the sale. I built PicturEngine for all of us because it is the right thing to do, and I believe I have the team to do it. The only shareholders in PicturEngine are friends, family, and dedicated developers. Our passion and mission is to help photographers from the grassroots up. Together, we will succeed.

Now with that out of the way. We are deduping (removing exact duplicates) as fast as we can, always looking for fraudsters in violation of copyright. If you recall, several years ago we were seeing images listed on PicturEngine as both RM and RF from stock photo sites, we worked with photographers and agencies to clean these up. Agencies do not have the data to reach across the industry of a billion images to do what we are doing, much less work together to find an amicable solution to the problem. I decided it was best to work with agencies not against them. Verifying identity is critical. We are always looking for mismatches in identity in our search results and when in doubt we don't show the image in our search results (or remove it as soon as we can.) Our system is not perfect, but I believe PicturEngine is the best shot we've got in the industry for sustainability. It would be so much easier if all agencies required the copyright owner to use a real name and not a pseudonym.

I was not trying to be critical of any new players in the industry, just sincerely wanted to know the answers to my questions. If they have a better way, GREAT! We can work together to find the answers and solve the problems as they come.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #104 on:** October 31, 2017, 04:08 »

Quote from: PicturEngine-JustinB on October 31, 2017, 04:02

My goal is to find the copyright owner and point the buyer to them.

I am a photographer and have been funding PicturEngine for years on my own, and no we are not making a profit. Hopefully, one day we will. We only started accepting money last November, anyone before then was and on a free trial. I have not received a paycheck or compensation since before I shut my agencies down in 2014, and pushing all of my photographers onto the PicturEngine platform to receive 100% of the sale. I built PicturEngine for all of us because it is the right thing to do, and I believe I have the team to do it. The only shareholders in PicturEngine are friends, family, and dedicated developers. Our passion and mission is to help photographers from the grassroots up. Together, we will succeed.

Now with that out of the way. We are deduping (removing exact duplicates) as fast as we can, always looking for fraudsters in violation of copyright. If you recall, several years ago we were seeing images listed on PicturEngine as both RM and RF from stock photo sites, we worked with photographers and agencies to clean these up. Agencies do not have the data to reach across the industry of a billion images to do what we are doing, much less work together to find an amicable solution to the problem. I decided it was best to work with agencies not against them. Verifying identity is critical. We are always looking for mismatches in identity in our search results and when in doubt we don't show the image in our search results (or remove it as soon as we can.) Our system is not perfect, but I believe PicturEngine is the best shot we've got in the industry for sustainability. It would be so much easier if all agencies required the copyright owner to use a real name and not a pseudonym.

I was not trying to be critical of any new players in the industry, just sincerely wanted to know the answers to my questions. If they have a better way, GREAT! We can work together to find the answers and solve the problems as they come.

btw I'm not saying theres anything wrong with making a profit...that's what drives innovation.

ShadySue · « **Reply #105 on:** October 31, 2017, 04:37 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 31, 2017, 03:37

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 31, 2017, 03:27
Quote from: ShadySue on October 26, 2017, 07:50
Quote
watch a few big corporations take over everything and keep finding ways to make more money from us. Was that really the way the internet was supposed to function?
No, it wasn't intended to be a business opportunity, it was intended to be a method of sharing information for the common good.

Quite. I read about it in the 1980s when I was thinking of going online (before Windows made it easy). There was a lot written about "Netiqette" (a word I haven't seen in a couple of decades), and how to avoid clogging up the limited Web bandwidth. One point (made rather naively, perhaps) was that even though it would theoretically be easy to make money online it would be bad netiquette to do so and would bring down derision and contempt on your head if you attempted it.
Trying to think of one thing done for the common good that someone hasn't made money from ;-)

Our local campaign to stop a coal-fired power station. It cost us money, but was worth it.
Oh, I'm wrong of course. The web host made money, as did local printers.

Anyone else?

Pauws99 · « **Reply #106 on:** October 31, 2017, 04:56 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 31, 2017, 04:37

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 31, 2017, 03:37
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 31, 2017, 03:27
Quote from: ShadySue on October 26, 2017, 07:50
Quote
watch a few big corporations take over everything and keep finding ways to make more money from us. Was that really the way the internet was supposed to function?
No, it wasn't intended to be a business opportunity, it was intended to be a method of sharing information for the common good.

Quite. I read about it in the 1980s when I was thinking of going online (before Windows made it easy). There was a lot written about "Netiqette" (a word I haven't seen in a couple of decades), and how to avoid clogging up the limited Web bandwidth. One point (made rather naively, perhaps) was that even though it would theoretically be easy to make money online it would be bad netiquette to do so and would bring down derision and contempt on your head if you attempted it.
Trying to think of one thing done for the common good that someone hasn't made money from ;-)
Our local campaign to stop a coal-fired power station. It cost us money, but was worth it.
Oh, I'm wrong of course. The web host made money, as did local printers.

Anyone else?

I believe Starbucks make great profits from anti-capitalist protesters;-). But yep I never really thought about those kind of activities. But any inventions are always turned to a profit...or better ways of killing people.

sharpshot · « **Reply #107 on:** October 31, 2017, 05:04 »

I think the idea isn't to stop making money, its to spread the money around people that are actually using the platform. Now, most of the money from the sites goes to investors that don't have to have anything to do with contributing images or buying image licenses.

sharpshot · « **Reply #108 on:** October 31, 2017, 05:11 »

Quote from: PicturEngine-JustinB on October 31, 2017, 04:02

My goal is to find the copyright owner and point the buyer to them.

I am a photographer and have been funding PicturEngine for years on my own, and no we are not making a profit. Hopefully, one day we will. We only started accepting money last November, anyone before then was and on a free trial. I have not received a paycheck or compensation since before I shut my agencies down in 2014, and pushing all of my photographers onto the PicturEngine platform to receive 100% of the sale. I built PicturEngine for all of us because it is the right thing to do, and I believe I have the team to do it. The only shareholders in PicturEngine are friends, family, and dedicated developers. Our passion and mission is to help photographers from the grassroots up. Together, we will succeed.

Now with that out of the way. We are deduping (removing exact duplicates) as fast as we can, always looking for fraudsters in violation of copyright. If you recall, several years ago we were seeing images listed on PicturEngine as both RM and RF from stock photo sites, we worked with photographers and agencies to clean these up. Agencies do not have the data to reach across the industry of a billion images to do what we are doing, much less work together to find an amicable solution to the problem. I decided it was best to work with agencies not against them. Verifying identity is critical. We are always looking for mismatches in identity in our search results and when in doubt we don't show the image in our search results (or remove it as soon as we can.) Our system is not perfect, but I believe PicturEngine is the best shot we've got in the industry for sustainability. It would be so much easier if all agencies required the copyright owner to use a real name and not a pseudonym.

I was not trying to be critical of any new players in the industry, just sincerely wanted to know the answers to my questions. If they have a better way, GREAT! We can work together to find the answers and solve the problems as they come.

I might take you more seriously if your site wasn't pushing Getty, DepositPhotos and similar sites that are treating their contributors so badly. Your words say one thing but so far your actions seem to go in the opposite direction. I know we could all pay you to promote our images but then what''s to stop you selling out like many others before you? I admire the way you keep pushing Picturengine but it still doesn't do it for me. I'm still looking for something completely different that can't go the same way most of the sites have gone, being for the benefit of a few large investors.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #109 on:** October 31, 2017, 05:20 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 31, 2017, 05:04

I think the idea isn't to stop making money, its to spread the money around people that are actually using the platform. Now, most of the money from the sites goes to investors that don't have to have anything to do with contributing images or buying image licenses.

Is this new venture solely at the expense of the creators or do they have financial backing? Most of the money in existing sites goes to contributors marketing, operational expenses, and Tax. The model being proposed seems to assume that operational costs and marketing costs can be slashed. My reservation is that you can't do that with Marketing and expect to impact the market...unless maybe the onus on marketing is on the contributors which is a hidden cost and shifts even more risk to contributors.

namussi · « **Reply #110 on:** October 31, 2017, 05:28 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 31, 2017, 02:23

JHopefully a site that's not run by people that are only interested in increasing profits for their

Obviously we need government-run stock agencies.

sharpshot · « **Reply #111 on:** October 31, 2017, 06:01 »

Quote from: namussi on October 31, 2017, 05:28

Quote from: sharpshot on October 31, 2017, 02:23
JHopefully a site that's not run by people that are only interested in increasing profits for their

Obviously we need government-run stock agencies.

So you think everything has to either be owned by a few wealthy people that usually have nothing to do with the business or the government? There's lots of better options. Have you seen what Stocksy are doing for example
"Our co-op approach
We are an artist-owned cooperative founded on the principles of equality, respect, and fair distribution of profits. Our contributing artists receive 50% of a Standard License Purchase and 75% of an Extended License Purchase – and every single co-op member receives a share of the company." https://www.stocksy.com/service/about/

niktol · « **Reply #112 on:** October 31, 2017, 07:08 »

Quote from: namussi on October 31, 2017, 05:28

Quote from: sharpshot on October 31, 2017, 02:23
JHopefully a site that's not run by people that are only interested in increasing profits for their

Obviously we need government-run stock agencies.

Ha. C'mon, I'm drinking coffee here

niktol · « **Reply #113 on:** October 31, 2017, 07:21 »

I don't think looking at the agencies as some kind of evil is particularly productive. We all want the same thing, that is more money for ourselves. If there was a hypothetical forum where agencies could share their stories and concerns, I'm sure the common anti-contributor theme would be, "we work around the clock moving tons of their sub-par unprofessionally done garbage, and all they do is complaining and bad-mouthing. Where could we find contributors that do a superb job, don't complain, appreciate our hard work and don't cost us as much as they cost us now?"

If there is a good technological way to screw them, there may be a good technological way to screw us.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #114 on:** October 31, 2017, 07:25 »

Quote from: niktol on October 31, 2017, 07:21

I don't think looking at the agencies as some kind of evil is particularly productive. We all want the same thing, that is more money for ourselves. If there was a hypothetical forum where agencies could share their stories and concerns, I'm sure the common anti-contributor theme would be, "we work around the clock moving tons of their sub-par unprofessionally done garbage, and all they do is complaining and bad-mouthing. Where could we find contributors that do a superb job, don't complain, appreciate our hard work and don't cost us as much as they cost us now?"

If there is a good technological way to screw them, there may be a good technological way to screw us.

Yes its a business unless they are doing something immoral I don't think the idea they are somehow evil has much of a place.

niktol · « **Reply #115 on:** October 31, 2017, 07:52 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 31, 2017, 07:25

Yes its a business unless they are doing something immoral I don't think the idea they are somehow evil has much of a place.

I dunno... Moral is such a poorly defined word, particularly when large groups of people are involved. People who are breaking boiled eggs on the larger end seem immoral to people who do it on the smaller end. If they are not doing anything illegal, I'm fine with it. The rules of the game.

namussi · « **Reply #116 on:** October 31, 2017, 07:58 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 31, 2017, 06:01

So you think everything has to either be owned by a few wealthy people that usually have nothing to do with the business or the government? https://www.stocksy.com/service/about/
[/quote]

That isn't how much of the world's businesses are actually owned. Pension funds own enormous chunks of business on behalf of ordinary people.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #117 on:** October 31, 2017, 08:08 »

Quote from: niktol on October 31, 2017, 07:52

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 31, 2017, 07:25
Yes its a business unless they are doing something immoral I don't think the idea they are somehow evil has much of a place.

I dunno... Moral is such a poorly defined word, particularly when large groups of people are involved. People who are breaking boiled eggs on the larger end seem immoral to people who do it on the smaller end. If they are not doing anything illegal, I'm fine with it. The rules of the game.

Yes it is subjective so if you think that are acting immorally then don't work with them while I might quibble with their rates I don't think its immoral.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #118 on:** October 31, 2017, 09:38 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 31, 2017, 06:01

Quote from: namussi on October 31, 2017, 05:28
Quote from: sharpshot on October 31, 2017, 02:23
JHopefully a site that's not run by people that are only interested in increasing profits for their

Obviously we need government-run stock agencies.
So you think everything has to either be owned by a few wealthy people that usually have nothing to do with the business or the government? There's lots of better options. Have you seen what Stocksy are doing for example
"Our co-op approach
We are an artist-owned cooperative founded on the principles of equality, respect, and fair distribution of profits. Our contributing artists receive 50% of a Standard License Purchase and 75% of an Extended License Purchase – and every single co-op member receives a share of the company." https://www.stocksy.com/service/about/

I see, so every member of the co-op is a stockholder. Aren't those the people you say ruin it? Of course in the real world, stockholders enable growth, expansion, advertising, and loan money at their own risk, hoping there will be more profits. If the stockholders of agencies make the same grow and more profitable, then aren't we more profitable because our sales will also grow?

Stocksy co-op, where do I sign up?

Oh that's right, it's a private club.

I'd say the answer is start your own co-op which I'd be glad to see and join. Now about expenses, hosting, promotions, IT, accounting and management?

sharpshot · « **Reply #119 on:** October 31, 2017, 11:36 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on October 31, 2017, 09:38

Quote from: sharpshot on October 31, 2017, 06:01
Quote from: namussi on October 31, 2017, 05:28
Quote from: sharpshot on October 31, 2017, 02:23
JHopefully a site that's not run by people that are only interested in increasing profits for their

Obviously we need government-run stock agencies.
So you think everything has to either be owned by a few wealthy people that usually have nothing to do with the business or the government? There's lots of better options. Have you seen what Stocksy are doing for example
"Our co-op approach
We are an artist-owned cooperative founded on the principles of equality, respect, and fair distribution of profits. Our contributing artists receive 50% of a Standard License Purchase and 75% of an Extended License Purchase – and every single co-op member receives a share of the company." https://www.stocksy.com/service/about/

I see, so every member of the co-op is a stockholder. Aren't those the people you say ruin it? Of course in the real world, stockholders enable growth, expansion, advertising, and loan money at their own risk, hoping there will be more profits. If the stockholders of agencies make the same grow and more profitable, then aren't we more profitable because our sales will also grow?

Stocksy co-op, where do I sign up? Oh that's right, it's a private club.

I'd say the answer is start your own co-op which I'd be glad to see and join. Now about expenses, hosting, promotions, IT, accounting and management?

I think there's a huge difference between stockholders that are involved with the site, supplying or buying from it and those that have nothing to do with it, only wanting their investment to grow every year. Has Shutterstock improved for us since their IPO? Has Getty improved for us since being taken over by a hedge fund? Do you really think they aren't much more focused on keeping their investors happy than their contributors?

Pauws99 · « **Reply #120 on:** October 31, 2017, 13:07 »

I'm not so sure I measure any agency on what they can do for me not on their financial funding structures. But isn't whats being offered simply a platform not sure I'd have a stake in it.

sharpshot · « **Reply #122 on:** October 31, 2017, 15:58 »

I just don't think it helps promoting sites that are making this unsustainable while having no images from sites like Alamy. If you change that, I might be more interested.

sharpshot · « **Reply #123 on:** October 31, 2017, 15:59 »

StanRohrer · « **Reply #124 on:** November 01, 2017, 07:54 »

An opinion on the investment, use, and user traction of blockchain type technology. So who is actually going to pay for stock photos using it? Perhaps a few large comp[anies or something. I doubt the small companies, individual newsletter buyers. I doubt the churches. I doubt most any mid-size organization in the near future. I think the buying power per unit is too unstable to be of value. https://gizmodo.com/survey-most-americans-remain-blissfully-unaware-of-the-1820027828

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Peer-to-peer direct stock selling platform (WireStock) (Read 155934 times)

Pauws99

BaldricksTrousers

Pauws99

PicturEngine-JustinB

Pauws99

ShadySue

Pauws99

sharpshot

sharpshot

Pauws99

namussi

sharpshot

niktol

niktol

Pauws99

niktol

namussi

Pauws99

YadaYadaYada

sharpshot

Pauws99

PicturEngine-JustinB

sharpshot

sharpshot

StanRohrer

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors