Photoguy Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 http://arcurs.com/2013/07/microstock-sees-its-first-major-setback-in-6-years-and-here-is-why/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladikirn Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 The Prodigal Son, Might he be welcome back to the sanity and the togs community! Welcome, Jacob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 A fascinating read and lots of food for thought. I like the idea of his 'looks selector' and the PNG download option is doubtless something that would be of interest to certain buyers. Offering custom file adaptation (add copy space to order, etc.) He's not afraid to change things - and fast. He's thinking of what the customer wants - and giving it to them - all at keen price points (while no longer being prepared to accept the paltry returns per image download that microstock offers). Interesting comments too on distribution partners and mobile/press photography, I doubt very much whether this means the end of microstock, (a little slim-lining maybe) more likely a kick up the backside for any agency spending too much time sitting on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 Forgive my innocence (and ignorance), but is iStock no longer a micro agency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WPL Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 Yep and they recently cut most of their prices in half. I think the dip in shutterstocks stock value had very little to do with Yuri, he forgets to mention that shutterstocks shares have only been available for a short period of time and had frankly outpaced the sales of the company, and since he wrote his blog the share price is now higher than ever. I suspect the real reason is his portfolio of images sell a lot less than they used to since there is now so much quality work of the same type on micros, partly due to him publicly showing other photographers which of his images sell so well and how to copy his business model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 Yep and they recently cut most of their prices in half. I think the dip in shutterstocks stock value had very little to do with Yuri, he forgets to mention that shutterstocks shares have only been available for a short period of time and had frankly outpaced the sales of the company, and since he wrote his blog the share price is now higher than ever. I suspect the real reason is his portfolio of images sell a lot less than they used to since there is now so much quality work of the same type on micros, partly due to him publicly showing other photographers which of his images sell so well and how to copy his business model. Did Yuri make comment on Sean Locke's treatment by iStock/Getty? He may have, but I for one missed it . . . It all reads like an ad for Yuri inc to me, with a smidgeon of "look how important I am". Some of us remember him displaying missionary zeal and enthusiasm for those he now rubbishes. Excuse me if I take it all with a very large dose of cynicism. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionel Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 iStock is still a micro agency in spite of Yuri's spin/puffery (and a very unhappy one at that). The reduction in prices (if you're buying with "credits") is about 50% for small and medium sizes, escalating to much more than that for larger images. If you compare credit pricing with "pay as you go", the reduction is somewhere in the region of 66% for the "Main Collection". No announcements about pricing in the other collections... Regards Lionel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 - and definitely not sure mobile photos on Scoopshot is the way ahead.... I hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionel Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 The technology keeps getting better and better, and the trend toward electronic delivery seems inexorable. Many news outlets do not need the 12MP+ images most of us regard as a baseline - they just need something that's "good enough". I think Scoopshot, CrowdMedia and the like will find a willing army of aspiring photojournalists to deliver images that are "good enough". Very bad news for photojournalists in that field as we know them today... What is most striking to me is the T's and C's of these outfits, which essentially obligate the photographer to offer their copyrights for sale at a prescribed price; I guess someone thinks there's value there, and will be watching, ready to grab strategic copyrights as they arrive..... And Scoopshot is set up to function as a market in which copyright holders can trade copyrights.... https://www.scoopshot.com/v2/about/terms makes fascinating reading; the devil is always in the details.... Regards Lionel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 The technology keeps getting better and better, and the trend toward electronic delivery seems inexorable. Many news outlets do not need the 12MP+ images most of us regard as a baseline - they just need something that's "good enough". I think Scoopshot, CrowdMedia and the like will find a willing army of aspiring photojournalists to deliver images that are "good enough". Very bad news for photojournalists in that field as we know them today... What is most striking to me is the T's and C's of these outfits, which essentially obligate the photographer to offer their copyrights for sale at a prescribed price; I guess someone thinks there's value there, and will be watching, ready to grab strategic copyrights as they arrive..... And Scoopshot is set up to function as a market in which copyright holders can trade copyrights.... https://www.scoopshot.com/v2/about/terms makes fascinating reading; the devil is always in the details.... Regards Lionel - and news photos now have a flat price of $2.5, according to their terms. Often the mobile photos are not good enough (article from Union Of Danish Press Photographers - use Google translate, if you want to read the article) http://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/news/fotografi/14998/tv2-bestilte-christiania-fotos-via-scoopshot I doubt that unedited mobile phone images (they don't want them edited) - in most cases will will make it if at least some quality standards are taken serious. Most of the successful images could easily have been taken with other camera types. I also think they leave the often completely unexperienced photographer in the dark as to how to sell their photos without releases. PS Typical Google Translate - if you read the article it says that they would only pay 250 million for the images - the original Danish article says only 250 kr (Danish kroner - just over £ 29). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KWheal Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 He complains about the falling prices within microstock and as a result leaving them, but didn't he support low pricing (although a little higher than they pay now) in direct competition with higher payers so I think its a little rich complaining now. If the microstock agencies had not succeeded then perhaps we wouldnot be where we are now Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 The Prodigal Son, Might he be welcome back to the sanity and the togs community! Welcome, Jacob. He is not a prodigal son. He started as a microstocker and still is one. That self-promoting puff is full of lies. He is by no means 'exclusive to Getty'. He still has his own agency PeopleImages, which doesn't indicate on the site that they are Getty Partners, and where his images sell for much less than most of them do on iStock (where he his photofactory has at least two accounts) He has 45,702 RF images on SuperStock: http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_4197 He has 24,210 images on Thinkstock, iStock's low-subs 'partner', whereas as an alleged 'exclusive', he could have all his image removed from there if he wished. He has 35017 images on Dreamstime, and indeed was featured in their August Trends newsletter: http://www.dreamstime.com/newsletter-trends. He has 59,261 images on pixmac whose tagline on a Google search is, "Download cheap microstock photos for you advertisement!" (sic). Rumour has it he still has images on several other small micros, but I can't be bothered checking them all out. Bottom line is that, as always, he has swung a special deal with Getty, which allows him to sell their new photos there at a premium price (their existing photos have a different deal, but are still being sold as 'only on iStock'), but he can also sell cheaper on his own site, and whatever other sites he likes, other than Shutterstock or Fotolia, where he seems to have closed his account, at least on his usual name. So, save the cheering for someone who deserves it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 He complains about the falling prices within microstock and as a result leaving them, but didn't he support low pricing (although a little higher than they pay now) in direct competition with higher payers so I think its a little rich complaining now. If the microstock agencies had not succeeded then perhaps we wouldnot be where we are now Kevin He started in micro as a total beginner, so would never have got into the macros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionel Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 The technology keeps getting better and better, and the trend toward electronic delivery seems inexorable. Many news outlets do not need the 12MP+ images most of us regard as a baseline - they just need something that's "good enough". I think Scoopshot, CrowdMedia and the like will find a willing army of aspiring photojournalists to deliver images that are "good enough". Very bad news for photojournalists in that field as we know them today... What is most striking to me is the T's and C's of these outfits, which essentially obligate the photographer to offer their copyrights for sale at a prescribed price; I guess someone thinks there's value there, and will be watching, ready to grab strategic copyrights as they arrive..... And Scoopshot is set up to function as a market in which copyright holders can trade copyrights.... https://www.scoopshot.com/v2/about/terms makes fascinating reading; the devil is always in the details.... Regards Lionel - and news photos now have a flat price of $2.5, according to their terms. Often the mobile photos are not good enough (article from Union Of Danish Press Photographers - use Google translate, if you want to read the article) http://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/news/fotografi/14998/tv2-bestilte-christiania-fotos-via-scoopshot I doubt that unedited mobile phone images (they don't want them edited) - in most cases will will make it if at least some quality standards are taken serious. Most of the successful images could easily have been taken with other camera types. I also think they leave the often completely unexperienced photographer in the dark as to how to sell their photos without releases. PS Typical Google Translate - if you read the article it says that they would only pay 250 million for the images - the original Danish article says only 250 kr (Danish kroner - just over £ 29). I'm curious about the bit I made bold. Is this a failure of the phone technology, or inexperience on the part of the photographer? I can't read Danish, and I'm wary of Google's translation especially given your comment on it... Regards Lionel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 Often the mobile photos are not good enough I'm curious about the bit I made bold. Is this a failure of the phone technology, or inexperience on the part of the photographer? I can't read Danish, and I'm wary of Google's translation especially given your comment on it... Regards Lionel The cameras and lenses in the mobile phones cannot, of course, compete with a decent camera and lens. What it said in the article in this connection was briefly that the Danish TV station had to dump the six images they bought as the quality was not acceptable. That quality costs. The article also deals with some moral issues which I am not going to raise here. Unfortunately I think you may be right that some media won't pay the price in the future and content themselves with mobile photos. Regards, Niels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 The Prodigal Son, Might he be welcome back to the sanity and the togs community! Welcome, Jacob. He is not a prodigal son. He started as a microstocker and still is one. That self-promoting puff is full of lies. He is by no means 'exclusive to Getty'. He still has his own agency PeopleImages, which doesn't indicate on the site that they are Getty Partners, and where his images sell for much less than most of them do on iStock (where he his photofactory has at least two accounts) He has 45,702 RF images on SuperStock: http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_4197 He has 24,210 images on Thinkstock, iStock's low-subs 'partner', whereas as an alleged 'exclusive', he could have all his image removed from there if he wished. He has 35017 images on Dreamstime, and indeed was featured in their August Trends newsletter: http://www.dreamstime.com/newsletter-trends. He has 59,261 images on pixmac whose tagline on a Google search is, "Download cheap microstock photos for you advertisement!" (sic). Rumour has it he still has images on several other small micros, but I can't be bothered checking them all out. Bottom line is that, as always, he has swung a special deal with Getty, which allows him to sell their new photos there at a premium price (their existing photos have a different deal, but are still being sold as 'only on iStock'), but he can also sell cheaper on his own site, and whatever other sites he likes, other than Shutterstock or Fotolia, where he seems to have closed his account, at least on his usual name. So, save the cheering for someone who deserves it. - and a simple search shows he has 100,856 images on Alamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 The Prodigal Son, Might he be welcome back to the sanity and the togs community! Welcome, Jacob. He is not a prodigal son. He started as a microstocker and still is one. That self-promoting puff is full of lies. He is by no means 'exclusive to Getty'. He still has his own agency PeopleImages, which doesn't indicate on the site that they are Getty Partners, and where his images sell for much less than most of them do on iStock (where he his photofactory has at least two accounts) He has 45,702 RF images on SuperStock: http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_4197 He has 24,210 images on Thinkstock, iStock's low-subs 'partner', whereas as an alleged 'exclusive', he could have all his image removed from there if he wished. He has 35017 images on Dreamstime, and indeed was featured in their August Trends newsletter: http://www.dreamstime.com/newsletter-trends. He has 59,261 images on pixmac whose tagline on a Google search is, "Download cheap microstock photos for you advertisement!" (sic). Rumour has it he still has images on several other small micros, but I can't be bothered checking them all out. Bottom line is that, as always, he has swung a special deal with Getty, which allows him to sell their new photos there at a premium price (their existing photos have a different deal, but are still being sold as 'only on iStock'), but he can also sell cheaper on his own site, and whatever other sites he likes, other than Shutterstock or Fotolia, where he seems to have closed his account, at least on his usual name. So, save the cheering for someone who deserves it. - and a simple search shows he has 100,856 images on Alamy. He has indeed . . . took a deep breath and had a quick look at a couple of random pages . . . ummmm . . . what's the rule re: unreleased photos of indentifiable people offered as RF on Alamy? dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionel Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 Often the mobile photos are not good enough I'm curious about the bit I made bold. Is this a failure of the phone technology, or inexperience on the part of the photographer? I can't read Danish, and I'm wary of Google's translation especially given your comment on it... Regards Lionel The cameras and lenses in the mobile phones cannot, of course, compete with a decent camera and lens. What it said in the article in this connection was briefly that the Danish TV station had to dump the six images they bought as the quality was not acceptable. That quality costs. The article also deals with some moral issues which I am not going to raise here. Unfortunately I think you may be right that some media won't pay the price in the future and content themselves with mobile photos. Regards, Niels Thanks - I guess the TV station was relieved the images were cheap, and I hope they retain their standards... Regards Lionel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 The Prodigal Son, Might he be welcome back to the sanity and the togs community! Welcome, Jacob. He is not a prodigal son. He started as a microstocker and still is one. That self-promoting puff is full of lies. He is by no means 'exclusive to Getty'. He still has his own agency PeopleImages, which doesn't indicate on the site that they are Getty Partners, and where his images sell for much less than most of them do on iStock (where he his photofactory has at least two accounts) He has 45,702 RF images on SuperStock: http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_4197 He has 24,210 images on Thinkstock, iStock's low-subs 'partner', whereas as an alleged 'exclusive', he could have all his image removed from there if he wished. He has 35017 images on Dreamstime, and indeed was featured in their August Trends newsletter: http://www.dreamstime.com/newsletter-trends. He has 59,261 images on pixmac whose tagline on a Google search is, "Download cheap microstock photos for you advertisement!" (sic). Rumour has it he still has images on several other small micros, but I can't be bothered checking them all out. Bottom line is that, as always, he has swung a special deal with Getty, which allows him to sell their new photos there at a premium price (their existing photos have a different deal, but are still being sold as 'only on iStock'), but he can also sell cheaper on his own site, and whatever other sites he likes, other than Shutterstock or Fotolia, where he seems to have closed his account, at least on his usual name. So, save the cheering for someone who deserves it. - and a simple search shows he has 100,856 images on Alamy. He has indeed . . . took a deep breath and had a quick look at a couple of random pages . . . ummmm . . . what's the rule re: unreleased photos of indentifiable people offered as RF on Alamy? dd Very strange. I searched Yuri Arcurs and got seven images only, all credited to someone else. Searched on his real name, nothing. Tried Yuri_Arcurs, nothing. Tried "Yuri Arcurs" Alamy on Google, and got a video, but the presumed link to his portfolio didn't work. So my powers of detection have let me down, but I was interested in what DD wrote, because Yuri shoots virtually exclusively in a studio or in very set up outdoor settings, and real editorial photos are certainly not his 'known' genre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 I searched Yuri Arcurs and got seven images only You need to do an 'advanced search': 1000,000+ pix... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidC Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 If Dusty Dingo says it is 100,000 plus in Alamy then you better believe him - the price calculator would certainly upset some customers if they realized that the same image was available elsewhere for a low price - doesn't really do Alamy much good does it ? However, that said his material is excellent of its genre and he seems to be thinking ahead...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 Thank you, I found it and he does indeed have over 100k pics here, all of his signature smiley, happy, good-looking people genre. I clicked on a random 8-10 images on each of four pages and they were all model released. However, that leaves a lot not checked; but if there are any marked as no MR, probably he'd tell us 'one of his staff screwed up' and forgot to tick the MR box. There are many people selling the same micro RF images here on Alamy - Alamy allows that so long as they don't sell RF elsewhere as RM here. However, not many blatantly sell images RF here while loudly announcing that they are exclusive elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Thank you, I found it and he does indeed have over 100k pics here, all of his signature smiley, happy, good-looking people genre. I clicked on a random 8-10 images on each of four pages and they were all model released. However, that leaves a lot not checked; but if there are any marked as no MR, probably he'd tell us 'one of his staff screwed up' and forgot to tick the MR box. try D2EHHB or D2EH9F. At least he (his staff?) had the decency to acknowledge they were both digitally altered. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Oh, that's a departure in genre. No doubt his intern "didn't fully absorb" Alamy's T&C. or it was 'one of his distrbutors'. That's his style. When he made his big announcement about being iS/getty exclusive and was asked why he still had many thousands of photos on Dreamstime, he answered, "I don't know, actually, I'll need to reference my staff tomorrow" and didn't report back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Honestly, I'm not trying to be depressing, but look at the images on the home page of my local National Public Radio show, WNYC: http://www.wnyc.org They are the lowest quality in both tech and seeing, total junk and obviously taken on cell phones and gathered free from crowdsourcing. This is NOT where editorial photography is going . . . it's where most of it is today. Ed (not smiling like in my foto) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.