Posting this thread was eye-opening, to say the least. The feature requests for rights management & other things made us say, "Hmmm.... There's a lot more to this than meets the eye."
Watching Adobe, Photoshelter and the others back out after awhile was eye-opening too.
Listening to a guy from Flickr talk about how hard the Getty relationship has been was humbling.
And realizing that we we had lots of work to do yet to make our existing offering better kept us off the case.
But it seems to me that at least I was missing the obvious: giving our search interface a simple makeover so it's easy to find your images for sale, whether printed or digital, is the juiciest of low-hanging fruit.
We have millions upon millions using our search function to look for images and many are looking to buy. Why make it hard?
Chris, your position is totally understandable.
I'd say the next big thing in this direction (if at all) would be assembling a panel of experts and introduce some sort of "image certification", thus ensuring the image quality. However, this vital step requires tons of logistics and certain R&D resources, so again, it may not be feasible.
Here's where I stand: ... giving our search interface a simple makeover so it's easy to find your images for sale, whether printed or digital, is the juiciest of low-hanging fruit...
Posting this thread was eye-opening, to say the least. The feature requests for rights management & other things made us say, "Hmmm.... There's a lot more to this than meets the eye."
Watching Adobe, Photoshelter and the others back out after awhile was eye-opening too.
Listening to a guy from Flickr talk about how hard the Getty relationship has been was humbling.
And realizing that we we had lots of work to do yet to make our existing offering better kept us off the case.
But it seems to me that at least I was missing the obvious: giving our search interface a simple makeover so it's easy to find your images for sale, whether printed or digital, is the juiciest of low-hanging fruit.
We have millions upon millions using our search function to look for images and many are looking to buy. Why make it hard?
Could you offer a couple simple search options to help buyers search only a subset of Smugmug images where they are more likely to find the things they want to buy (that would skip all the family photos):
[X] Only search images for sale by our pros
[X] Only search images for sale as digital downloads
Posting this thread was eye-opening, to say the least. The feature requests for rights management & other things made us say, "Hmmm.... There's a lot more to this than meets the eye."
Watching Adobe, Photoshelter and the others back out after awhile was eye-opening too.
Listening to a guy from Flickr talk about how hard the Getty relationship has been was humbling.
And realizing that we we had lots of work to do yet to make our existing offering better kept us off the case.
But it seems to me that at least I was missing the obvious: giving our search interface a simple makeover so it's easy to find your images for sale, whether printed or digital, is the juiciest of low-hanging fruit.
We have millions upon millions using our search function to look for images and many are looking to buy. Why make it hard?
Selling stock Photos
Having watched the demise of Photoshelter this week, I am in agreement on the "Keep it simple" mode. The magazines I sell photos to routinely, do not have the time nor inclination to do much more than type in a search subject if that. They would much rather us keep in touch on their latest photo needs and send them photos that illustrate their article's needs. Recently, one photo editor stated, "I do not have time to search your stock web sites, period."
I don't think we need to turn this into rocket science. I recently sold a photo to a magazine who did a random SM search and found the photo they had been looking for. I keep some stock photo galleries on my website for that reason. I think it's a matter of isolating photos identifying which have model releases available when applicable, that may get the ball rolling. A certain bit of education also, to those who do not now sell stock photos would also be in order. I think each gallery owner could set their own download pricing, but not everyone understands how to price for which market, which could make things aggravating for those searching for images.
I do not want to sell my photos for $1 apiece (or less) and won't. Some say they would rather build up an extra $100 that way than get nothing at all. That just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth and screams that we don't value our own expertise/talent. As long as we're willing to sell photos that way, companies like Photoshelter don't stand a chance.
A stock photo area within SM (however that ends up looking) would allow us to organize and send out stock images in high resolution format. I'm imagining a set of galleries that we can sort through and organize our work in just like we do now.
Just my 2 cents worth....I'd sure like to see us get this up and running! With the amount of exposure SM has, I think it would be a win-win.
Having watched the demise of Photoshelter this week, I am in agreement on the "Keep it simple" mode.
A certain bit of education also, to those who do not now sell stock photos would also be in order. I think each gallery owner could set their own download pricing, but not everyone understands how to price for which market, which could make things aggravating for those searching for images.
A stock photo area within SM (however that ends up looking) would allow us to organize and send out stock images in high resolution format. I'm imagining a set of galleries that we can sort through and organize our work in just like we do now.
.
I like te idea of having a type of gallery when you create a new gallery - that is designated as a 'stock' gallery - i.e. "create new gallery' option or a 'create new STOCK gallery' option
Education by SM: I think this is a good idea - I for one have no idea what is right or wrong re: pricing, licensing etc'
Education by SM: I think this is a good idea - I for one have no idea what is right or wrong re: pricing, licensing etc'
I don't think we can tell you - but Simon, the community here is a wonderful resource and a well written post/question in the pro forum here will get you plenty of input from active stock pros, your peers, and then you can make up your own mind
I don't think we can tell you - but Simon, the community here is a wonderful resource and a well written post/question in the pro forum here will get you plenty of input from active stock pros, your peers, and then you can make up your own mind
sure and thanks Andy.
I just wish I had more time to get round to everything i need to get round to - my real job takes precedence:cry
Some good ideas in this post. FYI, there are a lot of people from PSC that are signing up SmugMug and would be very interested in a Stock Gallery setup.
Having watched the demise of Photoshelter this week, I am in agreement on the "Keep it simple" mode. The magazines I sell photos to routinely, do not have the time nor inclination to do much more than type in a search subject if that. They would much rather us keep in touch on their latest photo needs and send them photos that illustrate their article's needs. Recently, one photo editor stated, "I do not have time to search your stock web sites, period."
I don't think we need to turn this into rocket science. I recently sold a photo to a magazine who did a random SM search and found the photo they had been looking for. I keep some stock photo galleries on my website for that reason. I think it's a matter of isolating photos identifying which have model releases available when applicable, that may get the ball rolling. A certain bit of education also, to those who do not now sell stock photos would also be in order. I think each gallery owner could set their own download pricing, but not everyone understands how to price for which market, which could make things aggravating for those searching for images.
I do not want to sell my photos for $1 apiece (or less) and won't. Some say they would rather build up an extra $100 that way than get nothing at all. That just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth and screams that we don't value our own expertise/talent. As long as we're willing to sell photos that way, companies like Photoshelter don't stand a chance.
A stock photo area within SM (however that ends up looking) would allow us to organize and send out stock images in high resolution format. I'm imagining a set of galleries that we can sort through and organize our work in just like we do now.
Just my 2 cents worth....I'd sure like to see us get this up and running! With the amount of exposure SM has, I think it would be a win-win.
Having watched the demise of Photoshelter this week, I am in agreement on the "Keep it simple" mode. The magazines I sell photos to routinely, do not have the time nor inclination to do much more than type in a search subject if that. They would much rather us keep in touch on their latest photo needs and send them photos that illustrate their article's needs. Recently, one photo editor stated, "I do not have time to search your stock web sites, period."
I don't think we need to turn this into rocket science. I recently sold a photo to a magazine who did a random SM search and found the photo they had been looking for. I keep some stock photo galleries on my website for that reason. I think it's a matter of isolating photos identifying which have model releases available when applicable, that may get the ball rolling. A certain bit of education also, to those who do not now sell stock photos would also be in order. I think each gallery owner could set their own download pricing, but not everyone understands how to price for which market, which could make things aggravating for those searching for images.
I do not want to sell my photos for $1 apiece (or less) and won't. Some say they would rather build up an extra $100 that way than get nothing at all. That just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth and screams that we don't value our own expertise/talent. As long as we're willing to sell photos that way, companies like Photoshelter don't stand a chance.
A stock photo area within SM (however that ends up looking) would allow us to organize and send out stock images in high resolution format. I'm imagining a set of galleries that we can sort through and organize our work in just like we do now.
Just my 2 cents worth....I'd sure like to see us get this up and running! With the amount of exposure SM has, I think it would be a win-win.
Hear-hear! This makes a lot of sense. And I'm liking the 'stock gallery' idea too.
Is it possible, I wonder, to integrate the Plus Coalition's licensing model, thereby taking all those issues away from SM? I'm in the dark about what that would take, but I'm assuming it means being able to handle embedded meta data and side car files (SmugVault?) and integrating with the shopping cart. The gallery owner attaches the licensing criteria (using the Plus Coalition's on-line application) and sets a price. The SM shopping cart handles the acceptance of the embedded license and treats the sale very much like a standard download. ???
Hear-hear! This makes a lot of sense. And I'm liking the 'stock gallery' idea too.
Is it possible, I wonder, to integrate the Plus Coalition's licensing model, thereby taking all those issues away from SM? I'm in the dark about what that would take, but I'm assuming it means being able to handle embedded meta data and side car files (SmugVault?) and integrating with the shopping cart. The gallery owner attaches the licensing criteria (using the Plus Coalition's on-line application) and sets a price. The SM shopping cart handles the acceptance of the embedded license and treats the sale very much like a standard download. ???
I would have to think this is do-able. I think all we'd need is the ability to sell (license, actually) the Original via digital download. That would keep our IPTC info with the embedded license intact and allow us to utilize the Smugmug shopping cart.
It would still take a lot of work on our part. The client would contact us with the licensing needs, we'd prepare a quote, once agreement is reached we'd upload a file with the proper license embedded and set the price, then give the client the link to the file. No impulse shopping allowed.
But as it stands right now, in order to give a client the original we have to allow them to "Save" it from a protected gallery, and collect the funds on our own. I'd be happy to pay the SM commission in order to make it a little more seamless and be able to utilize the shopping cart.
And I'm thinking...wouldn't it be nice if SmugMug partnered up with FotoQuote?
Long term, if we could figure out how to get Plus Packs and FotoQuote automated to work together on our sites, then it could be totally hands off. I'm dreaming, aren't I? I need better computer skills.
Okay, my mistake - I just noticed in another thread that we can sell digital downloads of Originals. Was it always this way? I thought it was only 1MP and 4MP files when digital downloads first came out. Did this change somewhere along the line and I missed it? Can anyone confirm that our IPTC info is retained (since you can't purchase your own digital download to verify)?
If so, that solves the immediate problem right there.
Okay, it doesn't entirely solve the problem because we'd need to be able to get rid of the standard RF commercial license wording for the download when we embed an RM license.
I would have to think this is do-able. I think all we'd need is the ability to sell (license, actually) the Original via digital download. That would keep our IPTC info with the embedded license intact and allow us to utilize the Smugmug shopping cart.
It would still take a lot of work on our part. The client would contact us with the licensing needs, we'd prepare a quote, once agreement is reached we'd upload a file with the proper license embedded and set the price, then give the client the link to the file. No impulse shopping allowed.
But as it stands right now, in order to give a client the original we have to allow them to "Save" it from a protected gallery, and collect the funds on our own. I'd be happy to pay the SM commission in order to make it a little more seamless and be able to utilize the shopping cart.
And I'm thinking...wouldn't it be nice if SmugMug partnered up with FotoQuote?
Long term, if we could figure out how to get Plus Packs and FotoQuote automated to work together on our sites, then it could be totally hands off. I'm dreaming, aren't I? I need better computer skills.
Hmmm. I'm thinking maybe the gallery holder could pick and choose Plus Packs (license criteria) for each offered photo. These get listed by the shopping cart just like print sizes and novelties do now. It could even just be another tab in the cart called "Stock Licenses."
The buyer sees a pic, clicks to purchase it, chooses the appropriate Plus Pack from the "Stock Licenses" tab and buys right then and there.
And if I were to go totally wild, I'd even suggest the cart could pick up the applicable licensing criteria right from the photo's meta data. That way licensing criteria can be dynamic.
Sounds simple, but I have an idea the Devil may well be in the details.
I just heard about it recently too. But it sounds very interesting. A way to standardise licensing Here's another thread we have going on it: Plus Coalition Thread
And if I were to go totally wild, I'd even suggest the cart could pick up the applicable licensing criteria right from the photo's meta data. That way licensing criteria can be dynamic.
Sounds simple, but I have an idea the Devil may well be in the details.
That is how I would love to see it work, but just thinking out loud I see two big hurdles right now;
1. It would require each individual creating a pricing matrix based upon all the different variables, very similar to how FotoQuote works. That matrix would need to interact with the Plus Pack module in order to automate the price calculation. There are 18 different Plus Packs (print, display advertising, periodical interior, periodical front cover, etc.) each with its own set of variables. Even the 8 Rights Ready packs still require duration and region, both of which should impact pricing.
2. Right now the PLUS License Embedder/Viewer is separate from the Generator, and I don't think SmugMug can amend or append our IPTC data. And I'm not sure that SmugMug would want responsibility for amending our IPTC data. That places them in a very different role. And each time an image is RM licensed it will require a different new license that will need to be generated and embedded. For that part to work SmugMug would need to generate a license based upon the purchaser's input and embed the license in the IPTC for that sale only. The IPTC data would need to change for every sale. You can't embed the data first, then try to generate sales because the data is predicated on the licensing terms, which will vary for every purchaser.
I think even if Smugmug could figure out how to get it to all work together they'd have to charge us a substantial fee for the automation. And I've got to think that if Smugmug were to have the responsibility of generating and embedding the license rather than the individual photographer, it really opens them up to liability issues. When an agency acts on your behalf and does the licensing, they take responsibility when something goes wrong. I've got to think that somewhere along the line someone will decide that SmugMug is acting as an agent of the photographer if they have the ability and right to embed a license on the photographer's behalf.
That is how I would love to see it work, but just thinking out loud I see two big hurdles right now...
Interesting. But somewhat too complex I think. I'm suggesting the photog do all the work. As simple or as complex as they would like to make it. And as I understand it, once the rights are defined for a photo (by the photog) they are embedded into the file. The file is then uploaded to a special "stock licensing" gallery that, like SmugVault, handles the IPTC and/or sidecar files.
Then, if the shopping cart can just read that meta data for the photo at hand and adjust accordingly, it all becomes automatic -- I think?
I don't mind doing the footwork for my pix. That way I know it's done the way I like it and I take responsibility. I just want a nice place to have the transactions carried out and I'm willing to give SM a slice to handle that, just like print orders.
The value add is that it all takes place along side my print-order and proofing facility. One (dependable) point of contact.
This all sounds like too much work for the customer. It needs to be easy to buy the files.
In my opinion it might work if SM had designated stock galleries that could be searched from the global search form by choosing a 'stock images' tab or equivalent.
I think a global set of usage rights and prices would be best. I don't think having a price structure or usage rights that each person sets is workable. A buyer wants to know that an image used for the web is a certain size and cost N amount. An image for print is a certain size and costs N amount etc. When they buy images for the web they all have a fixed set of usage rights and prices. The same for other uses.
If the prices and rights are all over the map then this will not work in my opinion.
I have purchased many stock images for advertising purposes and would not want to spend time finding just the right image only to find out it is priced out of my budget or the rights were not what I needed. It has to be consistent.
As far as image quality standards that needs to be seriously considered. I think SM would need to employ some people with credentials to proof the images. This expense could be paid for by a fee from each image sold.
This could all be implemented quite easily with the existing infrastructure with the exception of the proofing. Having a gallery where the images were waiting in Que to be proofed and then released seems easy as well.
I don't mind doing the footwork for my pix. That way I know it's done the way I like it and I take responsibility. I just want a nice place to have the transactions carried out and I'm willing to give SM a slice to handle that, just like print orders.
I think I misunderstood you originally. I am in complete agreement with this.
More on Stock Sales model
Thanks for the kind comments!
At the risk of getting too complex, I'm thinking this strategy (adding special "Stock" galleries as laid out earlier in the thread) stays within SM's original sharing model. The look and feel can remain the same. It just adds a more pronounced Pro 'feel' and a lot of business functionality with what I am assuming are not-too-painful system changes.
Other than (optional) Quality Control functions, SM carries on in much the same fashion.
The client interface could be a specialised SM "Search Gallery." The client does various searches from within a Search Gallery, which reaches out to the individual SMPro members' Stock Galleries and returns thumbs of applicable selections. Viewing and purchases are then carried out in the normal way (using, perhaps, the Plus Coalition licensing idea posted earlier) from within the Search Gallery.
If a buyer wants to join as a 'SM Qualified Stock Buyer' their search selections remain in their own set of Search Galleries for later use. (The option of SM providing business accounts comes in here.)
And if SM sees fit to vet stock entries for QC, a semi-intelligent approval queue can be placed between the newly posted pix and the Smugger's stock gallery. (When a member uploads a new pic to their Stock Gallery it remains unavailable to the search engine until it's been released by the QC process.)
Pricing can also be standardised in this model, if preferred. (In fact I'm thinking the standardised pricing idea has a lot going for it. Say 8 licensing tiers each with a standard price? A bit of a hybrid rights model, maybe?)
But, on the other hand, price criteria could also be part a search feature. This way individual members could price as they see fit (what the market will bear) but there would be less chance of the searcher being disappointed.
But, on the other hand, price criteria could also be part a search feature. This way individual members could price as they see fit (what the market will bear) but there would be less chance of the searcher being disappointed.
This is the only part where I see problems.
If it is left solely to the photographer to set prices you are going to set up a system where the content is not consistent with the pricing.
In my opinion there needs to be a global pricing structure, whether that is 8 tiers or whatever ( I suggest 4).
As I said before, it needs to be easy to buy the photos. Look at iStocks model for example. You search, find image, agree to the rights and buy. Very quick and easy.
When a buyer makes a selection from the 'Stock' gallery they should be taken to a page that has the legal description of the rights and be required to agree, once they do that they would be taken to shopping cart.
Cheers,
Monte
0
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
Could you offer a couple simple search options to help buyers search only a subset of Smugmug images where they are more likely to find the things they want to buy (that would skip all the family photos):
[X] Only search images for sale by our pros
[X] Only search images for sale as digital downloads
Exactly. Of course we can't do anything like this without searching through patent cases, which we're doing now.
Oh my gosh, memories of Peter Wolf and his stupid patent just went running through my mind...
He's just one of many. At least he had a business that was relevant to the patent.
Law firms own various patents and the way the law works, they can file against you and it's up to you to figure out if the patent applies to you and how you'll defend yourself. It doesn't matter if the patent holder's business has anything to do with what the subject of the patent is. Of course, they file in the Eastern District of Texas where juries are very sympathetic to patent holders. The estimates are usually around $4 million to defend and you will still probably lose.
I know their lawyer. A nice guy to have beers with, but I wouldn't want to mess with him lol.
As Getty himself says, intellectual property is the oil of the 21st century. His grandfather got rich, not by inventing oil production, but by putting those who couldn't afford to compete with him out of the oil business and taking their customers.
It's not always about being right. It's about having a bigger shield than they have hammers, and about having the will and money to wield that shield until they get tired of whacking at you.
If it is left solely to the photographer to set prices you are going to set up a system where the content is not consistent with the pricing.
In my opinion there needs to be a global pricing structure, whether that is 8 tiers or whatever ( I suggest 4).
As I said before, it needs to be easy to buy the photos. Look at iStocks model for example. You search, find image, agree to the rights and buy. Very quick and easy.
When a buyer makes a selection from the 'Stock' gallery they should be taken to a page that has the legal description of the rights and be required to agree, once they do that they would be taken to shopping cart.
That would work for an RF model, but isn't realistic for those of us who sell RM only.
Could Smugmug please add UTF-8 support in the searches please? Need this in keywords and description for Japanese. I know you guys said you had a problem with this in the regular site keywords (However I still really don't see the problem, I'm a programmer in Japan and have created many sites in many cross encodings that do UTF-8 plus all the rest). AND it's what everybody is doing now. Thanks.
Many of you sell digital downloads and wonder how to get more exposure for your work.
We're not ready to go public with this news, but we knew you'd love advanced notice about a stock photo service we're working on (we hope this forum is a secret corner of the world).
We're going to provide an option for you to enable specific galleries for stock sales. When you do, any photo in those galleries that is for sale via digital download will be added to SmugMug's stock catalog.
We're planning to construct a page for finding stock photos that will be in some ways like our popular photos page. The stock photo page, however, will have a custom search engine just for stock.
We'd love to get your feedback so we can make sure we get this right at launch. And we hope you'll enable some great shots for digital downloads now so there is good content on day one. You can't enable galleries for stock sales yet, but that should be a quick job if you've already enabled photos for digital sales.
Timing: we believe we're a short number of weeks away but it's software...if we run into snags there could be delays.
Comments
Chris, your position is totally understandable.
I'd say the next big thing in this direction (if at all) would be assembling a panel of experts and introduce some sort of "image certification", thus ensuring the image quality. However, this vital step requires tons of logistics and certain R&D resources, so again, it may not be feasible.
Could you offer a couple simple search options to help buyers search only a subset of Smugmug images where they are more likely to find the things they want to buy (that would skip all the family photos):
[X] Only search images for sale by our pros
[X] Only search images for sale as digital downloads
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
www.photobycate.com
http://photobycate.wordpress.com/
Having watched the demise of Photoshelter this week, I am in agreement on the "Keep it simple" mode. The magazines I sell photos to routinely, do not have the time nor inclination to do much more than type in a search subject if that. They would much rather us keep in touch on their latest photo needs and send them photos that illustrate their article's needs. Recently, one photo editor stated, "I do not have time to search your stock web sites, period."
I don't think we need to turn this into rocket science. I recently sold a photo to a magazine who did a random SM search and found the photo they had been looking for. I keep some stock photo galleries on my website for that reason. I think it's a matter of isolating photos identifying which have model releases available when applicable, that may get the ball rolling. A certain bit of education also, to those who do not now sell stock photos would also be in order. I think each gallery owner could set their own download pricing, but not everyone understands how to price for which market, which could make things aggravating for those searching for images.
I do not want to sell my photos for $1 apiece (or less) and won't. Some say they would rather build up an extra $100 that way than get nothing at all. That just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth and screams that we don't value our own expertise/talent. As long as we're willing to sell photos that way, companies like Photoshelter don't stand a chance.
A stock photo area within SM (however that ends up looking) would allow us to organize and send out stock images in high resolution format. I'm imagining a set of galleries that we can sort through and organize our work in just like we do now.
Just my 2 cents worth....I'd sure like to see us get this up and running! With the amount of exposure SM has, I think it would be a win-win.
Justus Photography
www.lindasherrill.com
Yeah we're feeling the same way.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I like te idea of having a type of gallery when you create a new gallery - that is designated as a 'stock' gallery - i.e. "create new gallery' option or a 'create new STOCK gallery' option
Education by SM: I think this is a good idea - I for one have no idea what is right or wrong re: pricing, licensing etc'
...pics..
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
sure and thanks Andy.
I just wish I had more time to get round to everything i need to get round to - my real job takes precedence:cry
...pics..
www.photobycate.com
http://photobycate.wordpress.com/
Is it possible, I wonder, to integrate the Plus Coalition's licensing model, thereby taking all those issues away from SM? I'm in the dark about what that would take, but I'm assuming it means being able to handle embedded meta data and side car files (SmugVault?) and integrating with the shopping cart. The gallery owner attaches the licensing criteria (using the Plus Coalition's on-line application) and sets a price. The SM shopping cart handles the acceptance of the embedded license and treats the sale very much like a standard download. ???
Glad to see this thread is back in the groove!
Andy,
What are your thoughts?
www.photobycate.com
http://photobycate.wordpress.com/
It would still take a lot of work on our part. The client would contact us with the licensing needs, we'd prepare a quote, once agreement is reached we'd upload a file with the proper license embedded and set the price, then give the client the link to the file. No impulse shopping allowed.
But as it stands right now, in order to give a client the original we have to allow them to "Save" it from a protected gallery, and collect the funds on our own. I'd be happy to pay the SM commission in order to make it a little more seamless and be able to utilize the shopping cart.
And I'm thinking...wouldn't it be nice if SmugMug partnered up with FotoQuote?
Long term, if we could figure out how to get Plus Packs and FotoQuote automated to work together on our sites, then it could be totally hands off.
My Photos
My Blog
On Google+
On DrivingLine
If so, that solves the immediate problem right there.
My Photos
My Blog
On Google+
On DrivingLine
My Photos
My Blog
On Google+
On DrivingLine
The buyer sees a pic, clicks to purchase it, chooses the appropriate Plus Pack from the "Stock Licenses" tab and buys right then and there.
And if I were to go totally wild, I'd even suggest the cart could pick up the applicable licensing criteria right from the photo's meta data. That way licensing criteria can be dynamic.
Sounds simple, but I have an idea the Devil may well be in the details.
I just heard about it recently too. But it sounds very interesting. A way to standardise licensing Here's another thread we have going on it: Plus Coalition Thread
That is how I would love to see it work, but just thinking out loud I see two big hurdles right now;
1. It would require each individual creating a pricing matrix based upon all the different variables, very similar to how FotoQuote works. That matrix would need to interact with the Plus Pack module in order to automate the price calculation. There are 18 different Plus Packs (print, display advertising, periodical interior, periodical front cover, etc.) each with its own set of variables.
2. Right now the PLUS License Embedder/Viewer is separate from the Generator, and I don't think SmugMug can amend or append our IPTC data. And I'm not sure that SmugMug would want responsibility for amending our IPTC data. That places them in a very different role. And each time an image is RM licensed it will require a different new license that will need to be generated and embedded. For that part to work SmugMug would need to generate a license based upon the purchaser's input and embed the license in the IPTC for that sale only. The IPTC data would need to change for every sale. You can't embed the data first, then try to generate sales because the data is predicated on the licensing terms, which will vary for every purchaser.
I think even if Smugmug could figure out how to get it to all work together they'd have to charge us a substantial fee for the automation. And I've got to think that if Smugmug were to have the responsibility of generating and embedding the license rather than the individual photographer, it really opens them up to liability issues. When an agency acts on your behalf and does the licensing, they take responsibility when something goes wrong. I've got to think that somewhere along the line someone will decide that SmugMug is acting as an agent of the photographer if they have the ability and right to embed a license on the photographer's behalf.
But like I said, just thinking out loud.
My Photos
My Blog
On Google+
On DrivingLine
Then, if the shopping cart can just read that meta data for the photo at hand and adjust accordingly, it all becomes automatic -- I think?
I don't mind doing the footwork for my pix. That way I know it's done the way I like it and I take responsibility. I just want a nice place to have the transactions carried out and I'm willing to give SM a slice to handle that, just like print orders.
The value add is that it all takes place along side my print-order and proofing facility. One (dependable) point of contact.
In my opinion it might work if SM had designated stock galleries that could be searched from the global search form by choosing a 'stock images' tab or equivalent.
I think a global set of usage rights and prices would be best. I don't think having a price structure or usage rights that each person sets is workable. A buyer wants to know that an image used for the web is a certain size and cost N amount. An image for print is a certain size and costs N amount etc. When they buy images for the web they all have a fixed set of usage rights and prices. The same for other uses.
If the prices and rights are all over the map then this will not work in my opinion.
I have purchased many stock images for advertising purposes and would not want to spend time finding just the right image only to find out it is priced out of my budget or the rights were not what I needed. It has to be consistent.
As far as image quality standards that needs to be seriously considered. I think SM would need to employ some people with credentials to proof the images. This expense could be paid for by a fee from each image sold.
This could all be implemented quite easily with the existing infrastructure with the exception of the proofing. Having a gallery where the images were waiting in Que to be proofed and then released seems easy as well.
My 2 cents
Monte
I think I misunderstood you originally. I am in complete agreement with this.
My Photos
My Blog
On Google+
On DrivingLine
www.photobycate.com
http://photobycate.wordpress.com/
Thanks for the kind comments!
At the risk of getting too complex, I'm thinking this strategy (adding special "Stock" galleries as laid out earlier in the thread) stays within SM's original sharing model. The look and feel can remain the same. It just adds a more pronounced Pro 'feel' and a lot of business functionality with what I am assuming are not-too-painful system changes.
Other than (optional) Quality Control functions, SM carries on in much the same fashion.
The client interface could be a specialised SM "Search Gallery." The client does various searches from within a Search Gallery, which reaches out to the individual SMPro members' Stock Galleries and returns thumbs of applicable selections. Viewing and purchases are then carried out in the normal way (using, perhaps, the Plus Coalition licensing idea posted earlier) from within the Search Gallery.
If a buyer wants to join as a 'SM Qualified Stock Buyer' their search selections remain in their own set of Search Galleries for later use. (The option of SM providing business accounts comes in here.)
And if SM sees fit to vet stock entries for QC, a semi-intelligent approval queue can be placed between the newly posted pix and the Smugger's stock gallery. (When a member uploads a new pic to their Stock Gallery it remains unavailable to the search engine until it's been released by the QC process.)
Pricing can also be standardised in this model, if preferred. (In fact I'm thinking the standardised pricing idea has a lot going for it. Say 8 licensing tiers each with a standard price? A bit of a hybrid rights model, maybe?)
But, on the other hand, price criteria could also be part a search feature. This way individual members could price as they see fit (what the market will bear) but there would be less chance of the searcher being disappointed.
This is the only part where I see problems.
If it is left solely to the photographer to set prices you are going to set up a system where the content is not consistent with the pricing.
In my opinion there needs to be a global pricing structure, whether that is 8 tiers or whatever ( I suggest 4).
As I said before, it needs to be easy to buy the photos. Look at iStocks model for example. You search, find image, agree to the rights and buy. Very quick and easy.
When a buyer makes a selection from the 'Stock' gallery they should be taken to a page that has the legal description of the rights and be required to agree, once they do that they would be taken to shopping cart.
Monte
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Law firms own various patents and the way the law works, they can file against you and it's up to you to figure out if the patent applies to you and how you'll defend yourself. It doesn't matter if the patent holder's business has anything to do with what the subject of the patent is. Of course, they file in the Eastern District of Texas where juries are very sympathetic to patent holders. The estimates are usually around $4 million to defend and you will still probably lose.
I dunno what Getty's patent portfolio is.
I know their lawyer. A nice guy to have beers with, but I wouldn't want to mess with him lol.
As Getty himself says, intellectual property is the oil of the 21st century. His grandfather got rich, not by inventing oil production, but by putting those who couldn't afford to compete with him out of the oil business and taking their customers.
It's not always about being right. It's about having a bigger shield than they have hammers, and about having the will and money to wield that shield until they get tired of whacking at you.
Member SportsShooter.com
My Galleries
That would work for an RF model, but isn't realistic for those of us who sell RM only.
My Photos
My Blog
On Google+
On DrivingLine
Steve
Tour Leader - DPRK
Uri Tours
SmugMug - photos.japanphotos.jp
Leighton
Nautical & Travel Photographer
http://leightonPHOTO.com