Fine Art America

[DHill]

... The big challenge on FAA, I find, is getting your work noticed -- i.e. attracting visitors who actually might buy a print. I've yet to figure that one out. ...

Me neither. I've tried the 'if you vote for mine I'll vote for yours' games and apart from now not being last in searches (as I was when I first uploaded images), it hasn't done me any good in the three months or so I've been there - not a very productive use of time. But maybe I just haven't been there for long enough or uploaded the right kind of photos (mostly I've just uploaded straight stock, but I'd probably be better off giving photos a more arty treatment; HDR seems to do well there).

 

The other thing to consider is that there's no upside. I've had a four figure sale and a good number of mid-three figure sales on Alamy, but that's just not possible on FAA.

 

I'd say that if you're going to try it, then get in quick - FAA is growing at a tremendous rate - close to 1% per week, going by the number of 'artists' on it as stated on this page: http://fineartamerica.com/artworktags.html

[Jools Elliott]

I've just started seeing my work appearing on FAA. I have a Getty contract and it seems that they are marketing work through them so I'll be interested to see if:

 

1) There are any returns, and

 

2) If image abuse starts increasing as there is no watermark on the FAA site and those images are at a very nice size for people.

[John Mitchell]

I've just started seeing my work appearing on FAA. I have a Getty contract and it seems that they are marketing work through them so I'll be interested to see if:

 

1) There are any returns, and

 

2) If image abuse starts increasing as there is no watermark on the FAA site and those images are at a very nice size for people.

 

I'm not with Getty. However, from what I've heard from another photographer, Getty ends up paying their contributors a pittance for sales made through FAA. Better keep an eye on them.

[Sheila Smart]

I've just started seeing my work appearing on FAA. I have a Getty contract and it seems that they are marketing work through them so I'll be interested to see if:

 

1) There are any returns, and

 

2) If image abuse starts increasing as there is no watermark on the FAA site and those images are at a very nice size for people.

Jools

 

Have you elected to have an FAA watermark?  All of mine are watermarked at bottom right which, of course, can be removed or cropped which would land the infringer in a heap of trouble should they be pursued in court.   Getty was not at all transparent in placing contributors work on FAA (plus other print on demand sites) and nor did they justify why they undercut FAA/Getty contributors in  pricing.  

 

Sheila

[SFL]

2) If image abuse starts increasing as there is no watermark on the FAA site and those images are at a very nice size for people.

 

I have just started to upload on the FAA, so no experience with them but I am curious.  

• Do the FAA allow people to download the images?  Don't they only sell prints? (unless someone is willing to spend a lot of time and effort to stitch all the zoomed sections?)
• Also don't the zoom function allow only a small section to be viewed?

 

Sung

[John Mitchell]

 

2) If image abuse starts increasing as there is no watermark on the FAA site and those images are at a very nice size for people.

 

I have just started to upload on the FAA, so no experience with them but I am curious.  

• Do the FAA allow people to download the images?  Don't they only sell prints? (unless someone is willing to spend a lot of time and effort to stitch all the zoomed sections?)
• Also don't the zoom function allow only a small section to be viewed?

 

Sung

 

They only sell prints as far as I know -- i.e. no downloads. And, yes, that is the way the zoom function seems to work on FAA.

[Betty LaRue]

I sell quite well on FAA.  I sell birds, animals, horses in particular, a few scenics and florals. The most being birds and horses, although one scenic has sold multiple times, and a certain animal image multiple times.  I do make my images "artsy" these days.  I use textures a lot.  I run some of my images through Topaz or Nik Color Efex Pro 5.  I have an image on the wall behind my desk right now that is of a tree that I ran through Topaz, it is B&W.  People at the frame shop raved over it.

Will I get rich?  Heck no.  It does make a nice little supplemental income since I am getting a check every month the past 6 months or so.  

Do I sharpen?  Seldom.  Sometimes a bit of selective sharpening of a bird's eye if it is a straight photo.  Since I am not uploading straight photos these days, the programs I use to get the artistic effect seems to fix any problems of needed sharpening.

[Lynn Palmer]

1. FAA does not allow downloads.

2. There is a watermark option available.

3. It is impossible to stitch together a complete image from the green zoom box enlargements. There are gaps between boxes that cannot be zoomed.

[SFL]

1. FAA does not allow downloads.

2. There is a watermark option available.

3. It is impossible to stitch together a complete image from the green zoom box enlargements. There are gaps between boxes that cannot be zoomed.

 

Hi Lynn

 

That's how I understood, but when you zoom sections of a picture, it allows adjacent sections to be zoomed.  I don't think there are any gaps (although I didn't try an entire picture).  Problem would be to get rid of the watermark on every single zoomed image if someone tries to stitch them.

 

Sung

 

Sung

[Lynn Palmer]

Hi Sung,

 

They aren't wide but there are definitely gaps. Occasionally there is a subject or detail I want to inspect in an image and annoyingly it will fall within the gap.

 

The topic of image security comes up from time to time in the FAA forum and this security feature has been discussed. A bigger concern for me is the size of the Google search image that is available online and can be downloaded.

 

Lynn

[SFL]

Hi Sung,

 

They aren't wide but there are definitely gaps. Occasionally there is a subject or detail I want to inspect in an image and annoyingly it will fall within the gap.

 

The topic of image security comes up from time to time in the FAA forum and this security feature has been discussed. A bigger concern for me is the size of the Google search image that is available online and can be downloaded.

 

Lynn

 

Hi Lynn

 

What size of images can people download through Google search?  Is it the size of the picture where you can use 100% preview?  Or bigger (I hope not).

 

Sung

[DHill]

I've just noticed something crazy, which will answer your question, Sung: search for 'Cheshire countryside prints' in Google Images, click on the first one, and you'll come to this page:

 

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=1mF&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbnid=HPVzcKA5y9sFZM:&imgrefurl=http://fineartamerica.com/featured/cheshire-countryside-david-hill.html&docid=V9f0hgVh1g5xPM&itg=1&imgurl=http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/cheshire-countryside-david-hill.jpg&w=900&h=597&ei=bEWvUdegI6zBiQel4ICIBg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:0,s:0,i:81&iact=rc&dur=1566&page=1&tbnh=176&tbnw=247&start=0&ndsp=35&tx=202&ty=37&biw=1471&bih=1276

 

There's a nice 900 pixel image, with the FAA logo in the corner where it's easy to crop off. Easy to save to your computer, and easy to embed into your own website. What's more, there's no IPTC or EXIF info in it at all - not copyright, not anything.

 

Big ouch!!

 

FAA obviously has very good SEO, but at a price ...

[Jamie Adams Nashville TN]

I just stumbled on to the FAA site, reading through the " terms", I never saw what the % is?

Thanks,

Jamie

[John Mitchell]

I just stumbled on to the FAA site, reading through the " terms", I never saw what the % is?

Thanks,

Jamie

 

That's because on FAA you set your own prices -- i.e. the dollar markup on what FAA charges for printing, framing, etc. There is no %.

[SFL]

I've just noticed something crazy, which will answer your question, Sung: search for 'Cheshire countryside prints' in Google Images, click on the first one, and you'll come to this page:

 

There's a nice 900 pixel image, with the FAA logo in the corner where it's easy to crop off. Easy to save to your computer, and easy to embed into your own website. What's more, there's no IPTC or EXIF info in it at all - not copyright, not anything.

 

Big ouch!!

 

FAA obviously has very good SEO, but at a price ...

 

Thanks for the info, DHill.  Yes, it is worrying especially with no IPTC or EXIF.  Why??

[Sheila Smart]

Could it be that the photographer did not fill out the IPTC or EXIF before uploading to FAA?  I don't think that FAA (unlike Facebook!) strips out any metadata of images.  

 

Sheila

[ann]

I had some images (angels, sunset...) on the site, but felt so uncomfortable about lack of reasonable watermark that I removed them after a few weeks.

[John Mitchell]

Unreleased is OK for individually sold large prints, AFAIK.

But what about quantity of greeting cards?

Legally, is the image selling the "product"?

Does FAA take a position?

 

Good question. But aren't greeting cards for personal use rather than commercial use and so wouldn't need releases? I would think that no product is being sold other than the cards themselves -- i.e. not anything pictured on the cards. Hope I'm making myself perfectly unclear.

[John Mitchell]

I had some images (angels, sunset...) on the site, but felt so uncomfortable about lack of reasonable watermark that I removed them after a few weeks.

 

Last year I tracked down a store in the U.S. that had "borrowed" one of my FAA images for their website. I sent them an invoice, and they actually paid it.

[DHill]

Could it be that the photographer did not fill out the IPTC or EXIF before uploading to FAA?  I don't think that FAA (unlike Facebook!) strips out any metadata of images.  

 

Sheila

Sheila - the photographer in the case I mentioned was me. My camera puts my copyright in the EXIF on every photo, and IPTC copyright info is added on import to Lightroom. 

 

I've just checked the jpg I uploaded to FAA, and all the copyright info is intact there.

[Jools Elliott]

 

I've just started seeing my work appearing on FAA. I have a Getty contract and it seems that they are marketing work through them so I'll be interested to see if:

 

1) There are any returns, and

 

2) If image abuse starts increasing as there is no watermark on the FAA site and those images are at a very nice size for people.

Jools

 

Have you elected to have an FAA watermark?  All of mine are watermarked at bottom right which, of course, can be removed or cropped which would land the infringer in a heap of trouble should they be pursued in court.   Getty was not at all transparent in placing contributors work on FAA (plus other print on demand sites) and nor did they justify why they undercut FAA/Getty contributors in  pricing.  

 

Sheila

 

I can't elect that Sheila as it is Getty putting them on there not me. It's annoying as it's an avenue I was considering. Wondering whether to consider it with some work I have outside of Getty.

[Lynn Palmer]

It's my understanding that Google strips the EXIF and IPTC information from an image when it posts the 900 pixel image. 

 

I consider FAA watermark policies one of their weaknesses.  Because it's so large, I think the image given to Google should have an X running through it with the FAA logo AND the artist's name.  I say this because even if the FAA logo is included on the image, it's impossible to find the image if the link to the artist's page is broken.

[Sheila Smart]

 

 

I've just started seeing my work appearing on FAA. I have a Getty contract and it seems that they are marketing work through them so I'll be interested to see if:

 

1) There are any returns, and

 

2) If image abuse starts increasing as there is no watermark on the FAA site and those images are at a very nice size for people.

Jools

 

Have you elected to have an FAA watermark?  All of mine are watermarked at bottom right which, of course, can be removed or cropped which would land the infringer in a heap of trouble should they be pursued in court.   Getty was not at all transparent in placing contributors work on FAA (plus other print on demand sites) and nor did they justify why they undercut FAA/Getty contributors in  pricing.  

 

Sheila

 

>I can't elect that Sheila as it is Getty putting them on there not me. It's annoying as it's an avenue I was considering. Wondering whether to consider it with some work I have outside of Getty.

 

I would take it up with Getty regarding the watermark.  You can always place your own work which you have with Getty on FAA (which Getty does allow contributors to do as its outside their exclusivity) and compete with their prices!  You will get very little return from Getty in any event so its worth the time uploading to FAA and undercutting them which makes a nice change!  

 

Sheila

[Lynn Palmer]

It's true, not all art is equal and FAA does not prequalify those who post images or run QC on uploads.  They do however check the images prior to printing and if it doesn't meet minimum quality standards it won't be printed.  None of you should worry about failing this QC check.

 

I've been on the site for a year and do sell.  I'm not a big seller but I watch and listen.  Photographers that are hugely successful on FAA tend to have been on the site for at least 2-3 years, have sizeable portfolios (1000's of images), put a great deal of effort into proper keywording and descriptions, and may have a successful online presence outside of FAA.  Many also participate in the groups and contests, anything to attract views and comments.  You may find the comments distasteful but the FAA search engine takes them into consideration.  Making sales is the most important factor but like it or not views, comments and votes also affect your standing. 

 

Stock photographers have no issues with posting technically perfect images but a great stock image may not be something anyone would want on their walls, no matter their socio-economic status. There are a lot of sales occurring every day on FAA for large, very expensive pieces.  I guarantee the buyers dropping that kind of money are not low income.  From time to time you'll see a single buyer, probably an interior designer, picking up numerous images in a short period of time from various artists.  The art has a general theme, for example all landscapes, all pictures of a particular city, food-based art, etc.  You can't tell for sure but it looks like art for hotels, restaurants and offices.  One buyer bought art for a series of hair salons.

[G.Avila]

From time to time you'll see a single buyer, probably an interior designer, picking up numerous images in a short period of time from various artists.  The art has a general theme, for example all landscapes, all pictures of a particular city, food-based art, etc.  You can't tell for sure but it looks like art for hotels, restaurants and offices.  One buyer bought art for a series of hair salons.

 

A couple of weeks ago someone from Texas bought a fairly large quantity of framed prints all related to the oil industry, including one of mine. All prints had similar frames and sizes.