|
|
Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log in
| Author |
Message |
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 32270
Location: Stock,food,portrait books www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:19 pm
|  |
| hospitalera wrote: | | editorial wrote: | Guys, let's face it, you can't honestly expect to negotiate favourable terms when a MS model is running right alongside.
Fine-art prints need to be priced with exclusivity in mind and that piece should NEVER be available in any other format or from any other site for that matter.
Every single person on here has the potential to develop brand equity but to do so you must follow certain rules.
MS breaks all those rules. It dilutes you as brand, you have little or no control over where or how your product is used so therefore your brand value is lowered.
As I said already, it is very difficult to come up on pricing with a product that is low to begin with. Even if it's an extremely fine image that belongs in the Smithsonian, put it on an MS portfolio and its perceived value changes immediately.
So value is just as much about perception as it is intrinsic.
I apologize in advance if I sound like I'm preaching but that's our business outside of here. Or at least it was until I started goofing off :) |
Well said! SY |
yep.heres a little side note. At what point does any image become fineart? before you submit it and just another good Picture or after it's sold a thousand times and de valued? strange dilemma.Unfortunately I had some that I thought were nice But, never considered printing them. or anyone else for that matter. Some just slip through. The image in question on that mans site was an afterthought. The original was shot specifically for stock. It did pretty well and still does, but the minute I converted it to BW, it went through the roof.BTW, The owner of that site and I are thinking of doing some business together now. So, good can come out of this either way.and it will involve quite a few of you that do art Images. And this is the way it should be done.If I can't convince the sites, I'll convince the people selling them. |
|
editorial
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 509
Location: Dublin
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:39 pm
| |
Well I've a suggestion to make on the back of that comment, why don't we start a fine-art thread and get a rating system going here. We did something similar to this on SS many moons ago if you recall and it was a runaway success so maybe it might be a worthwile exercise trying it again.
Let's see your fine-art images and see if others agree?
Here's one of my favourites:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-1916697-sea-maiden.html
 |
|
kenhurst
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 52
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:39 pm
| |
| editorial wrote: | Guys, let's face it, you can't honestly expect to negotiate favourable terms when a MS model is running right alongside.
Fine-art prints need to be priced with exclusivity in mind and that piece should NEVER be available in any other format or from any other site for that matter.
Every single person on here has the potential to develop brand equity but to do so you must follow certain rules.
MS breaks all those rules. It dilutes you as brand, you have little or no control over where or how your product is used so therefore your brand value is lowered.
As I said already, it is very difficult to come up on pricing with a product that is low to begin with. Even if it's an extremely fine image that belongs in the Smithsonian, put it on an MS portfolio and its perceived value changes immediately.
So value is just as much about perception as it is intrinsic.
I apologize in advance if I sound like I'm preaching but that's our business outside of here. Or at least it was until I started goofing off :) |
Yeah, I agree, this ain't ShutterFineArt.com or iFineArtphoto.com, it's micro-stock and it just has to be good enough - high quality yes, but it doesn't have to be "fine art" - and yes it is about web sites, flyers, church bulletins, small businesses that can't afford to pay RM prices for a photo for a weekly sales flyer, and a hundred other uses. This is what has fueled a new market that really didn't exist before. Shoot photos for their intended use and leave the "fine art" stuff at home if you don't want to give it away. I don't put any photo on micro-stock that has an emotional connection for me. I sure didn't get into microstock for the "art".
Now I've got to quit goofing off too and get back to work. |
|
alfgar
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 407
Location: Panama City,Panama
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:52 pm
| |
I'm sorry this is happening to you Laurin, as I'm sure any of us would hate it. That said, in the two months I've been around here, I've quickly changed my mentality around MS in general, and I think that's part of why I'm getting along rather fine as well as won't have that sort of disappointment: I post exclusively "stock material" and keep what I consider to be more artsy for other channels.
There is a bit of a fine line sometimes in between the two, and I'm sure I might get a few bitter moment some day, but ultimately, by deciding this year to do what I should have done 3 years ago (and refused to do back then on the basis: "I'm not going to sell for a buck what I'm already selling for $100"), I accepted I came here to sell a "product", with a specific "shelf-life" and a few other such business-y attributes that mean I am no longer getting attached to the "product" per se: I post the product make money until it dies out or gets stolen or whatever other semi-natural end-of-life event hits it and move on to the next item.
I think if we love a picture to the point we would get bitter seeing it "stolen" or misused in such ways, we, as owners, need to make the decision not to upload it to micro-stock but instead go to macro-stock, art galleries or any other channel that will give us the return we consider worthy of such content.
Ultimately, by putting a high-resolution version of your file online, you have to admit you just lost all control over its distribution. Copyright laws and licensing agreements are only words and the rare case of a multi-million dollar infringement lawsuit is just an exception to the rule that says: "a smart thief gets away with anything, including murder". Nothing says there aren't tens of local printshop/galleries spread over China and Europe printing out half of your pictures for sales in the streets, you know? And you'd never hear a word about it. What can you do? Nothing? It's like the hydra: catch one, ten other pop up. If your content is "too good" for microstock (which, a lot of yours might indeed be), you're almost inviting the problem but "upping" the standards and selling art at the price of microstock.
I have this friend who was a great musician. Not good enough to be noticed by one of the big labels, but good enough to get with an independent. Turns out his CDs would sell more on the black market of Eastern Europe than he would sell himself with his distributors. Disgusted, he gave up all hopes and now simply does alternative stuff on the side for his pleasure and sells his CDs to friends and through word of mouth, while working a day job as we all do.
Music, photos, soon footage... all commodities, and in a world of commodities, the source provider is rarely the one making the most money: the middlemen and resellers are those making the money.
Laurin, I'm sorry, it sucks, and I totally empathize, but... this is the world we live in and focusing your anger on this will only make *you* suffer... :-S |
|
partyof7
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 239
Location: Florida
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:16 pm
| |
I recently found one of my pictures on the cover of a CD case for a computer program for sale in a chain retail store. While I enjoyed seeing my picture in print, I know they didn't purchase an EL because I've never had an EL for that particular photo. But, I also don't know which MS site they got it from, so I'm not sure what to do. I've also found an image in print in a magazine, also one that has never had an EL. My portfolio is so very small...and it is frustrating not to get what little I am due. |
|
marieappert
Joined: 18 Nov 2007
Posts: 150
Location: Newport Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:35 pm
| |
rinder99, You have phenomenal work I hope you keep submitting it to the world even if it means you give more than you get in return. But it sounds like you are smarter than that.
This is history in the making. This new digital world. Information is free and immediate. We visual artist do have to decide how we are going to be treated. We really need to put a price tag on our time and talent.
No one looks out for your best interest. You have to stand up for yourself.
P.S. The Frog Kitten Rocks!!! Where can I buy that Hallmark Card?
: ) |
|
sharond
Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 846
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:44 pm
| |
I don't like it, but I also try not to think about it. There's too few of us who would protest for it to do any good and as someone previously mentioned there's plenty of folks standing in line to take my place. I had photos at a "traditional" site when I first started in stock and a print sold for $79. I ended up with $19. Not even what I would have gotten for an EL. I pulled all my photos and put them here. |
|
riffmax
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 3048
Location: Florida, USA
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:45 pm
| |
| partyof7 wrote: | | I recently found one of my pictures on the cover of a CD case for a computer program for sale in a chain retail store. While I enjoyed seeing my picture in print, I know they didn't purchase an EL because I've never had an EL for that particular photo. But, I also don't know which MS site they got it from, so I'm not sure what to do. I've also found an image in print in a magazine, also one that has never had an EL. My portfolio is so very small...and it is frustrating not to get what little I am due. |
I have a book cover with no EL, as do many of us here - Animal Planet's Pet Care Library loves shutterstock - I always figured it was because the image was not being sold - the book was. If it was a book of images (in other words, being sold for the images themselves), then I would expect an EL. I have another shot on the interior of a different book of that series - again, no EL. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 32270
Location: Stock,food,portrait books www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:56 pm
| |
| alfgar wrote: | I'm sorry this is happening to you Laurin, as I'm sure any of us would hate it. That said, in the two months I've been around here, I've quickly changed my mentality around MS in general, and I think that's part of why I'm getting along rather fine as well as won't have that sort of disappointment: I post exclusively "stock material" and keep what I consider to be more artsy for other channels.
There is a bit of a fine line sometimes in between the two, and I'm sure I might get a few bitter moment some day, but ultimately, by deciding this year to do what I should have done 3 years ago (and refused to do back then on the basis: "I'm not going to sell for a buck what I'm already selling for $100"), I accepted I came here to sell a "product", with a specific "shelf-life" and a few other such business-y attributes that mean I am no longer getting attached to the "product" per se: I post the product make money until it dies out or gets stolen or whatever other semi-natural end-of-life event hits it and move on to the next item.
I think if we love a picture to the point we would get bitter seeing it "stolen" or misused in such ways, we, as owners, need to make the decision not to upload it to micro-stock but instead go to macro-stock, art galleries or any other channel that will give us the return we consider worthy of such content.
Ultimately, by putting a high-resolution version of your file online, you have to admit you just lost all control over its distribution. Copyright laws and licensing agreements are only words and the rare case of a multi-million dollar infringement lawsuit is just an exception to the rule that says: "a smart thief gets away with anything, including murder". Nothing says there aren't tens of local printshop/galleries spread over China and Europe printing out half of your pictures for sales in the streets, you know? And you'd never hear a word about it. What can you do? Nothing? It's like the hydra: catch one, ten other pop up. If your content is "too good" for microstock (which, a lot of yours might indeed be), you're almost inviting the problem but "upping" the standards and selling art at the price of microstock.
I have this friend who was a great musician. Not good enough to be noticed by one of the big labels, but good enough to get with an independent. Turns out his CDs would sell more on the black market of Eastern Europe than he would sell himself with his distributors. Disgusted, he gave up all hopes and now simply does alternative stuff on the side for his pleasure and sells his CDs to friends and through word of mouth, while working a day job as we all do.
Music, photos, soon footage... all commodities, and in a world of commodities, the source provider is rarely the one making the most money: the middlemen and resellers are those making the money.
Laurin, I'm sorry, it sucks, and I totally empathize, but... this is the world we live in and focusing your anger on this will only make *you* suffer... :-S |
it's all good now My friend. turned a negative into a positive.Thanks for your words.And to all the others for the support.If Im proud of it, I'll send it in and have gotten many other rewards by doing so.This little incident just got me going, thats all and Im sure it will get me going again. I completely understand the other stuff.It's not my first time at the party. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 32270
Location: Stock,food,portrait books www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:57 pm
| |
| sharond wrote: | | I don't like it, but I also try not to think about it. There's too few of us who would protest for it to do any good and as someone previously mentioned there's plenty of folks standing in line to take my place. I had photos at a "traditional" site when I first started in stock and a print sold for $79. I ended up with $19. Not even what I would have gotten for an EL. I pulled all my photos and put them here. |
I hear that! |
|
gualberto
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 4305
Location: Panama
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:02 pm
| |
| editorial wrote: | Well I've a suggestion to make on the back of that comment, why don't we start a fine-art thread and get a rating system going here. We did something similar to this on SS many moons ago if you recall and it was a runaway success so maybe it might be a worthwile exercise trying it again.
Let's see your fine-art images and see if others agree?
Here's one of my favourites:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-1916697-sea-maiden.html
|
Hey Ed, that´s what I call a fine as.. I mean, art photo. Very Nice. ;) |
|
objowl
Joined: 07 Jul 2008
Posts: 75
Location: Radcliffe, UK
|
|
gregor
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 917
Location: Netherlands
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:51 pm
| |
A beta picture search engine? Wow... where? Is it public? I want that! |
|
objowl
Joined: 07 Jul 2008
Posts: 75
Location: Radcliffe, UK
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:00 pm
| |
| gregor wrote: | | A beta picture search engine? Wow... where? Is it public? I want that! |
It isn't successful all the time, or in my case most of the time, but as you can see it has a future.
http://tineye.com/faq
Objowl. |
|
hospitalera
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 3012
Location: Prague (Czech Republic) http://hospitalera.com
|
|
| |
|
Shutterstock Forum for Contributors
|
