Sounds like a great idea, I'm considering upgrading to Pro to give it a try. I have a few questions though.
First, I know that some stock agencies (particularly the higher end ones) require upsized and upres-ed images, say, 48mb in size or more, in tiff format. How will smugmug handle stock needs like this given the current upload restriction?
Second, I know that IPTC information is not included in S, M, or L sized files (I think this needs to change) and as I am not Pro user, I don't know if IPTC is included as part of a Digital Download. In my opinion, for copyright and licensing (and I'd guess model release) purposes, IPTC would have to be included in stock sales (but again, im not sure how this is done at alamy and getty). Would IPTC be kept in all sizes available for sale?
I think most of the comments have already been made, but I would like to emphasize:
- There does need to be some relevant standards for image size, post processing, and image resolution. With this in mind, something would need to be done to resolve some of the issues with larger images uploading to Smugmug. For higher level work most firms desire something other than jpgs and they want high resolution images.
- It needs to be very clear what form of licensing this is. If its just Royalty Free image licensing, I'm not really interested. I would hope that there are other options and that the licensing requirements would be clearly stated. There needs to be a clear Control Panel option to opt out of this entirely and to select which forms we choose to participate in.
- I'm not sure how you plan on pricing, but there is a clear difference based on the intent of the user, the type of license, and the term of the license (single use, one year). If its an image used in a large circulation publication, the pricing is a lot different than for someone looking for an image for web display. I for one, would say that there is a lot more to pricing than currently available in the Pro pricing section.
- No mention, that I saw, about any issues of exclusivity. Some seek to have exclusive image use for a defined period to prevent problems with the same image being used in competing ads.
- Image quality. Even though the intent is to restrict to your Pro users, the reality is that if 85% if the content is not up to commercial standards, its life cycle as a stock repository will be short. No one will wade through a lot of poor quality images to find the few gems. I believe that some sort of initial review of image quality by qualified reviewers should be required before inclusion in a stock pool is permitted.
Bottom line, I don't think its a bad idea for SM to follow, but I think you are trying to move from concept to implementation too quickly and as a result may lack the foundation for this to be sucessful longer term.
I'm so excited to hear you guys are pursuing this and you can count me in for participation. I'm currently selling my own "stock" using your digital download system and it's allowed me to have a good presence online. Any extra channels to sell my work would be great -and awesome that it sounds like it would involve little work on my end beyond designating pictures I'm already selling and promoting to be included in the Smugmug library.
One thing you may want to consider -- maybe in the second stage of development -- is that almost every stock agency offers a "lightbox." I realize this is just a fancy word for "shopping cart" - but the archetype is already there... people are used to using lightboxes and the presence of a lightbox-type system would show viewers that this is a legitimate stock system. It's all about perception, but I think this kind of subtle thing can make a difference.
The more channels to market and promote my work the better. I can't see any downside to this.
Thanks for thinking of all of us pros. Smugmug really is the best thing since sliced bread. I did a talk with our local camera club and showed them how I'm selling my work. They all went "oooh" and "awww" and I hope I have converted some people to at least storing their work on Smugmug. One thing I did hear from people in the audience (about 50 photographers) was that they thought Smugmug was like Flikr - just generic point and shoot pictures of people's grandchildren adn birthday parties. It will be great to see Smugmug taking a lead in marketing itself to pros -- and showing pros what a great service you offer. The consumer services are great too - don't get me wrong - but I think a lot of photographers out there have the perception that it's only for point-and-shooters.
Anyway, thanks again!
P.S.
I've posted a thread somewhere else... but just to put bee in your ear... it would be great for us pros to have changed wording when it comes to our META data. I understand Smugmg needing to promote itself - but the words within the META data doesn't include Smugmug's name so the advertising is lost. When people click on a link to my site (or see it in Google) it makes it appear that i offer "photo sharing" when, in fact, it's smugmug that offers "photo sharing," I offer "galleries where you can purchase photos and prints - or galleries where I'm sharing my work" - even messaging like "This site is powered by Smugmug - the best service for professional photographers to share, sell and store their work" would be more efficient language, be less confusing to users who find us on Google, and promote Smugmug at the same time.
This is something that would vastly improve my business (and I'm sure other pro photographers as well).
Anyway, thanks again. I'm looking forward to reading this thread.
I'm so excited to hear you guys are pursuing this and you can count me in for participation. I'm currently selling my own "stock" using your digital download system and it's allowed me to have a good presence online. Any extra channels to sell my work would be great -and awesome that it sounds like it would involve little work on my end beyond designating pictures I'm already selling and promoting to be included in the Smugmug library.
One thing you may want to consider -- maybe in the second stage of development -- is that almost every stock agency offers a "lightbox." I realize this is just a fancy word for "shopping cart" - but the archetype is already there... people are used to using lightboxes and the presence of a lightbox-type system would show viewers that this is a legitimate stock system. It's all about perception, but I think this kind of subtle thing can make a difference.
The more channels to market and promote my work the better. I can't see any downside to this.
Thanks for thinking of all of us pros. Smugmug really is the best thing since sliced bread. I did a talk with our local camera club and showed them how I'm selling my work. They all went "oooh" and "awww" and I hope I have converted some people to at least storing their work on Smugmug. One thing I did hear from people in the audience (about 50 photographers) was that they thought Smugmug was like Flikr - just generic point and shoot pictures of people's grandchildren adn birthday parties. It will be great to see Smugmug taking a lead in marketing itself to pros -- and showing pros what a great service you offer. The consumer services are great too - don't get me wrong - but I think a lot of photographers out there have the perception that it's only for point-and-shooters.
Anyway, thanks again!
P.S.
I've posted a thread somewhere else... but just to put bee in your ear... it would be great for us pros to have changed wording when it comes to our META data. I understand Smugmg needing to promote itself - but the words within the META data doesn't include Smugmug's name so the advertising is lost. When people click on a link to my site (or see it in Google) it makes it appear that i offer "photo sharing" when, in fact, it's smugmug that offers "photo sharing," I offer "galleries where you can purchase photos and prints - or galleries where I'm sharing my work" - even messaging like "This site is powered by Smugmug - the best service for professional photographers to share, sell and store their work" would be more efficient language, be less confusing to users who find us on Google, and promote Smugmug at the same time.
This is something that would vastly improve my business (and I'm sure other pro photographers as well).
Anyway, thanks again. I'm looking forward to reading this thread.
Whoops... forgot to add that I'd vote for a system where we can set our own prices -- *or* opt to go with generic smugmug pricing. An either/or system would allow people who would prefer to have smugmug choose their pricing versus people who would like to sell some images for higher prices.
I concur witht he other posts listed - I absolutely love the idea .. I must say some of the other stock sites have this worked out pretty well with competitions, stock requests etc .. so I hope some of those features are going to be in the SM one - which of course will rock harder than 'the competition' .
Stock Photography Pricing
Stock Image price should be uniform on the first two levels of the low res files size. Larger size file, give the photographer options to set their own price.
The other approach is to give the buyer the option to search by price. This would go a long way to help buyer to the determine quality. Quality and search are prequiste to a successful beginning.
Sounds like this will be a great idea, my only worry is money! There are so many stock photograhy web sites that market to photographers and only sell there images for 25cents and all the begginers in the world download the images and it hurts photographers who are good and really trying to make a living. (not that i'm a proffessional yet) but these stock web sites i'm talking about really ruin and bring down the price we can sell are image for.
Some men see things as they are an say "Why?"
I dream things that never were and say
"Why Not?"
Good if ...
That sounds like a great idea indeed and I'm glad smugmug is going that way.
Will that be an innovation ? Depends on when it's released because as far as i know Flickr is working on something similar.
Making it pro only sounds like a good idea. I think that part of the value that is added by stock photo services is precisely that they filter what is available and don't make it a big dumpster of anything and everything (what i'm afraid the fliskr stock photo service will soon become).
As a buyer I would like to go to a place where I know that I will find a constant quality in the pictures I get.
I bet that the success of such a service wll depend on the quality and consistency of what is available. A content too heterogenous will probably get the buyers annoyed pretty quickly.
I really hope it will work but I think it requires strict rules as what 'stock' really is.
Need to flag individual photos for sale instead of the whole gallery
Hello,
I'd like to talk about an issue that should be addressed before the stock feature starts.
We must remember that even though one may come from London with loads of pictures from the London Eye they can not be sold due to copyright restrictions, same for the Eiffel Tower at night, and many others. So today when I come back from a trip I always have to split the pictures into two albums, one for sale and one not for sale. Or I could keep all of them on one album not for sale and duplicate some of them on another album for sale, but that's also not a good idea for many reasons.
My request here is for SmugMug to allow us to flag individual pictures for sale, so we can organize our albums without duplication, keep the best ones to be seen and make some of them available for sales, downloads, stock, etc.
I'd like to talk about an issue that should be addressed before the stock feature starts.
We must remember that even though one may come from London with loads of pictures from the London Eye they can not be sold due to copyright restrictions, same for the Eiffel Tower at night,
Celso.
Hello Celso
With ref to images of the London Eye, could you please clarify the position regarding sale of pics ?
As a Brit my understanding of the law in the UK is that if said pic was taken from a public place then there can be no restriction and it is not necessary to provide a property release - If I'm wrong please correct me.
Re the Eiffel Tower I believe I have heard this said but am not sure whether it is enforceable ??
Hello Celso
With ref to images of the London Eye, could you please clarify the position regarding sale of pics ?
As a Brit my understanding of the law in the UK is that if said pic was taken from a public place then there can be no restriction and it is not necessary to provide a property release - If I'm wrong please correct me.
Re the Eiffel Tower I believe I have heard this said but am not sure whether it is enforceable ??
Just found this:- The British Airways London Eye Millennium Wheel
The London Eye is a structure in London that is part ride, part vehicle, conceived by British Airways engineers. It cannot be used for royalty-free stock if it is the main subject of the photo.
Allowed: Cityscapes including the London Eye ARE permitted.
Note: If the London Eye is NOT the primary subject of the photo, it is permitted for use in royalty-free stock imagery.
and this Eiffel Tower and Evening Light Show
ALLOWED: A commercial photo of the Eiffel tower by day is permitted.
TRADEMARK: Photograph of the Eiffel Tower's evening light show is protected by the creator of the show and CANNOT be published commercially, including royalty-free stock.
<!-- The content area is pushed 99% across -->
<!-- Start of Body Content --> <!-- This is fixed content or liquid content depending on Table setting --> <table style="width: 600px; height: 57px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="gTextSmall" align="left">
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td> </td></tr></tbody></table>
Just found this:- The British Airways London Eye Millennium Wheel
The London Eye is a structure in London that is part ride, part vehicle, conceived by British Airways engineers. It cannot be used for royalty-free stock if it is the main subject of the photo.
Allowed: Cityscapes including the London Eye ARE permitted.
Note: If the London Eye is NOT the primary subject of the photo, it is permitted for use in royalty-free stock imagery.
and this Eiffel Tower and Evening Light Show
ALLOWED: A commercial photo of the Eiffel tower by day is permitted.
TRADEMARK: Photograph of the Eiffel Tower's evening light show is protected by the creator of the show and CANNOT be published commercially, including royalty-free stock.
<!-- The content area is pushed 99% across -->
<!-- Start of Body Content --> <!-- This is fixed content or liquid content depending on Table setting --> <table style="width: 600px; height: 57px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="gTextSmall" align="left">
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td> </td></tr></tbody></table>
Sounds like this will be a great idea, my only worry is money! There are so many stock photograhy web sites that market to photographers and only sell there images for 25cents and all the begginers in the world download the images and it hurts photographers who are good and really trying to make a living. (not that i'm a proffessional yet) but these stock web sites i'm talking about really ruin and bring down the price we can sell are image for.
Actually Paul, economic theory somewhat argues against this - I'm simplyfying a little here: but at the price (not sure its 25c but for the sake of argument lets assume it is) you are likely selling more of your images than if it were $25. Keep in mind that any additional image sold costs you very little (ie. your maginal costs are very very small) and hence any amount you receive for that unit sold is profit. On top of that comes the price segmentation (resolutions) which will help extract more profit.
What you say about restricting supply increasing price is correct BUT that would prevent others (including yourself) from entering the market and that in itself is not ideal for a host of obvious and no so obvious reasons.
Joel Spolsky has an excellent blog entry about this here (based on software but the same general rules apply).
I think it would be really helpful to have 'Smugmug Stock' pricing, and basic price list that all stock photos 'default' to. This will make it easy for my every day stock photos, and bring some level of consistancy across hundreds (thousands?) of photogs. Otherwise, Smugmug becomes the 'flea market' of stock photo sites, with prices all over the board...previous discussions covered quality.
Hello Celso
With ref to images of the London Eye, could you please clarify the position regarding sale of pics ?
As a Brit my understanding of the law in the UK is that if said pic was taken from a public place then there can be no restriction and it is not necessary to provide a property release - If I'm wrong please correct me.
Re the Eiffel Tower I believe I have heard this said but am not sure whether it is enforceable ??
Just found this:- The British Airways London Eye Millennium Wheel
The London Eye is a structure in London that is part ride, part vehicle, conceived by British Airways engineers. It cannot be used for royalty-free stock if it is the main subject of the photo.
Allowed: Cityscapes including the London Eye ARE permitted.
Note: If the London Eye is NOT the primary subject of the photo, it is permitted for use in royalty-free stock imagery.
How can they enforce this in the face of brit law whcih is as I thought was as above ie. you can use a pic of ANYTHING if taken from public land (from the air might be different), tis would mean surely that I could make trthe same rules about my house and so could everyone in te UK, just wondering???
How can they enforce this in the face of brit law whcih is as I thought was as above ie. you can use a pic of ANYTHING if taken from public land (from the air might be different), tis would mean surely that I could make trthe same rules about my house and so could everyone in te UK, just wondering???
Hi Simon
I don't think they can enforce it, I didn't have time to look into it any further - I don't have any pics of the Eye anyway:D, but I'm pretty sure it is just wishful thinking on their part. Whilst doing some other searches this am that were unrelated to this topic I came across dozens of pics of the Eye for sale RF. EPUK is a good organisation to be a member of if you are a true pro and has lots of good advice about all matters of usage etc. I'm a lapsed member but still get the news letter, you might find it helpful.
If they can enforce it or not I don't know for sure but you must consider why iStock and other stock sites revise each picture you submit not only for quality assurance but also to avoid Copyright problems. For example they also ask a Signed Release for pictures with identifiable faces, etc.
And they have refused some of my pictures from the Golden Eye, and the Hearst Castle in California. Then they point you to a link where they explain what they can and what they can not accept because they don't want trouble with the Copyright laws...
So I am assuming that if iStock and other well known Stock sites don't want to mess with such Copyright rules that means such rules are enforceable and honestly I prefer not to have a problem with it. Maybe some other users for not knowing such rules may put pictures for sale that they shouldn't and I don't know how much trouble that can bring to the users himself and also to SmugMug...
If SmugMug is willing to offer a Royalty Free Stock service then SmugMug itself must put some rules on top of what pictures the users can sell or not. It is worth a good investigation on SmugMug side maybe by talking to the other Stock services to know from their previous experience... There must be lawyers specialized on such matters as well.
This market has rules like any other business... It is better to play safe...
Just my 2 cents...
Tks ! Celso.
Hi Simon
I don't think they can enforce it, I didn't have time to look into it any further - I don't have any pics of the Eye anyway:D, but I'm pretty sure it is just wishful thinking on their part. Whilst doing some other searches this am that were unrelated to this topic I came across dozens of pics of the Eye for sale RF. EPUK is a good organisation to be a member of if you are a true pro and has lots of good advice about all matters of usage etc. I'm a lapsed member but still get the news letter, you might find it helpful.
Hi Simon
I don't think they can enforce it, I didn't have time to look into it any further - I don't have any pics of the Eye anyway:D, but I'm pretty sure it is just wishful thinking on their part. Whilst doing some other searches this am that were unrelated to this topic I came across dozens of pics of the Eye for sale RF. EPUK is a good organisation to be a member of if you are a true pro and has lots of good advice about all matters of usage etc. I'm a lapsed member but still get the news letter, you might find it helpful.
If SmugMug is willing to offer a Royalty Free Stock service then SmugMug itself must put some rules on top of what pictures the users can sell or not. It is worth a good investigation on SmugMug side maybe by talking to the other Stock services to know from their previous experience... There must be lawyers specialized on such matters as well.
This market has rules like any other business... It is better to play safe...
Just my 2 cents...
Tks ! Celso.
Hi Celso,
There is of course a difference between selling royalty free and rights managed stock, and without focusing on a specific subject I think we both agree this is a complex area which needs to be clearly defined. The law varies from country to country as do business practices, but I feel sure that we can depend on Smugmug to operate this aspect of their business in a thoroughly ethical and professional manner as they do all others.
Whilst I am "interested" in this proposal from Smugmug, I am realistic enough to know that I am unlikely to gain sales from it. I am however concerned about the public perception of any company I have dealings with - I lke to be able to recommend and endorse their products - and Smugmug ticks all the boxes so far and I hope will continue to do so.
Hi Simon
I don't think they can enforce it, I didn't have time to look into it any further - I don't have any pics of the Eye anyway:D, but I'm pretty sure it is just wishful thinking on their part. Whilst doing some other searches this am that were unrelated to this topic I came across dozens of pics of the Eye for sale RF. EPUK is a good organisation to be a member of if you are a true pro and has lots of good advice about all matters of usage etc. I'm a lapsed member but still get the news letter, you might find it helpful.
Cheers
Caroline
Thanks for the EPUK link I already do get their emailnews but am not a member as Im no longer a true pro now Im just and old pro:lol
I used to do weddings and industrial but that was before I had children and had to start to earn real money, I was doing OK on my own but not enough to support house, wife and 2 kids :-(
Until recently I have just been getting back into it initially to see whether I could still do it and for fun but now what with this stock thing comindg along and having been asked to do one or two jobs ( architectural/portraits etc) I am thinkng of getting up to speed again , but I am SO out of dtae ( and older!)
Anyway - I digress - (another sign of age creeping up ;-))
As you say I thinkit's wishful thinking on their part and dopubt it would be enforcable.
I get the same thing locally when I was stopped taking 'arty' pics of a local mall because I had a 'professional' camera ( I wish it weas a professional camera! professional means 'makes money ' doesn't it - imagine that - a camera that did the money making for you- you could send it out to work on its own ) so I stepped onto the highway ( a couple of feet away and explaind the law to them. I was nice but set them straight on a few things - grrrr - apparently I might have been a terrorist - anyway discussiuons have been down that road already -)
final pont is that in the UK at least I don't believe that would be enforcable, it can only be done where pic was taken on private land ( mind you you'd be surprised what's 'private' nowadays)
Hi Celso,
There is of course a difference between selling royalty free and rights managed stock, and without focusing on a specific subject I think we both agree this is a complex area which needs to be clearly defined. The law varies from country to country as do business practices, but I feel sure that we can depend on Smugmug to operate this aspect of their business in a thoroughly ethical and professional manner as they do all others.
I presume the sensible thing would be to get a lawyer to have look at it and suggest the most practical (i.e. hassle free) route
As for the copyright issue there, surely the key would be to make photos as those such as the London Eye, marked as Rights Managed rather than Royalty Free.
The problem with Royalty Free is that anyone can use that image for pretty much any purpose. A person or group against British Airways or the London eye, may purchase that image and use it in negative light against that company.
However, by selling Rights Managed, this theoretically takes control of the situation. A rights Managed photo would not be delivered to the customer until after the customer contacts the photographer and provides information regarding the use of the photo, quantities etc. In other words, they may say they are publishing a travel guide for London and use the photo of the London Eye in positive retrospective. You have this written declaration, and if the customer goes against their word, you are protected in court.
Of cause, if they say they want to use the photo to defame the company, and you still sell it to them, then you'll have to face the music.
I'm no lawyer, but this is how I understand the rule. Megastock agencies seem to sell their photos in this way.
As for RF and RM photos, I would only be interested in this service if it has the opportunity for both. Anyone can sell their photos as RF these days (as long as they have model or property release forms, or absolutely no faces or logos) and probably make a damn lot more money than at SM. However, selling images with street scenes, logos etc under a RM policy is far more interesting and possibly lucrative.
A stock photo search engine is intriguing and pleasing.
I have concerns.
By allowing individual photographers to continue to set their own pricing for images participating in the stock database, you're going to create competition amongst us based on price cutting, not on quality. If you enforced a fixed price for participation in the program, then the only way we could differentiate our work and increase sales would by by creating better work. I'm pretty sure you want to encourage better work, not lower prices. It's a dog-eat-dog world especially in microstock. Cheap images benefit only the buyer and only short term. Better images benefit everyone all the time.
As far as ensuring quality images, it should be pretty clear when buyers start using thumbs up/down during their lightbox sessions which images are better than others. However, a non-corruptible review process will be necessary to eliminate the risk of gaming the rating system. As sure as you can build a filter to show images rated 8 or higher, someone will be figuring out how to get all their images rated 8 or higher dishonestly. Maybe you have an answer to this problem.
Allowing an "exclusive" purchase option for an image for a time period (measured in months, e.g. three, six, twelve) is good. This would provide some of the benefits of RM imagery without adding too much complexity. And it would allow us to make rather more money.
I expect that I will be making my "stock" galleries completely seperate and hidden from my art sales galleries. I don't need confusion among print buyers vs. commercial art buyers. Since SmugMug doesn't allow one image to appear in multiple galleries [grumble] I will naturally have to upload the same image more than one time. I need to keep a very clean and slick site; and I'm hoping you don't raise too many more barriers.
While this idea excites me somewhat, please keep in mind that one of the reasons that I've disabled print sales on my SmugMug site is that the shopping cart is just too damn confusing, especially with regards to dealing with odd aspect ratio prints. I had been hoping for fixes to these problems before major upgrades to other areas of the site.
Hello, I just wanted to say that I agree with you on most of what you said...
I agree there should be a generic pricing policy accross all users.
Also agree thumbs up/down are good. But that is not enough... and in my opinion a minimum quality for a picture to be available on Stock should be enforced by revision of each submitted photo, just like the other stock sites do. Which would also prevent users and smugmug from having problems with copyright issues or recognizable faces without a model release and such things.
Yes, it would for sure be great if SmugMug allowed us to have the same picture on multiple galleries.
I also received feedback from people that can't figure out how to buy downloads, prints and other stuff using the current approach which seems to be really complicated...
A stock photo search engine is intriguing and pleasing.
I have concerns.
By allowing individual photographers to continue to set their own pricing for images participating in the stock database, you're going to create competition amongst us based on price cutting, not on quality. If you enforced a fixed price for participation in the program, then the only way we could differentiate our work and increase sales would by by creating better work. I'm pretty sure you want to encourage better work, not lower prices. It's a dog-eat-dog world especially in microstock. Cheap images benefit only the buyer and only short term. Better images benefit everyone all the time.
As far as ensuring quality images, it should be pretty clear when buyers start using thumbs up/down during their lightbox sessions which images are better than others. However, a non-corruptible review process will be necessary to eliminate the risk of gaming the rating system. As sure as you can build a filter to show images rated 8 or higher, someone will be figuring out how to get all their images rated 8 or higher dishonestly. Maybe you have an answer to this problem.
Allowing an "exclusive" purchase option for an image for a time period (measured in months, e.g. three, six, twelve) is good. This would provide some of the benefits of RM imagery without adding too much complexity. And it would allow us to make rather more money.
I expect that I will be making my "stock" galleries completely seperate and hidden from my art sales galleries. I don't need confusion among print buyers vs. commercial art buyers. Since SmugMug doesn't allow one image to appear in multiple galleries [grumble] I will naturally have to upload the same image more than one time. I need to keep a very clean and slick site; and I'm hoping you don't raise too many more barriers.
While this idea excites me somewhat, please keep in mind that one of the reasons that I've disabled print sales on my SmugMug site is that the shopping cart is just too damn confusing, especially with regards to dealing with odd aspect ratio prints. I had been hoping for fixes to these problems before major upgrades to other areas of the site.
thumbs up/thumbs down
Love the idea... like so many others, I would appreciate a foot in the door to stock photography, and if the other share goes to Smugmug I'm a happy camper.
But on the issue of thumbs up/thumbs down sorting. Imagine you are a prospective buyer, somebody who does not share the habits and ideas of the Smugmug family as it applies to the thumbs system of voting.
Hey, we want you to buy! Welcome! But when that person puts his prospective choices into their Lightbox, they then have to make a decision... the one they choose gets a thumbs up, the rest get a thumbs down. The ones not even considered get no vote.
The problem I see, is that the photos that get the buyers' attention will be more likely to get a thumbs down than the photos that were passed over initially... do you see what I mean? In the end, my simple photos with a neutral score which have been passed over by every prospective buyer will end up with a higher score than all of the photos that were considered, but in the end not purchased.
I'm wondering if there is a way to score a photo in some way to show how often it has been put into the Lightbox? Or some other, third rating that allows the image to avoid the situation I outline above... granted, having my photo rated higher will allow my photos to temporarily 'rise in the ranks' and such... but it would be terribly unfair to those nearly chosen...
I'm excited about the possibilities of the plan in general, though!
Martin Parr makes some very intersting comments about the ups and downs of magnum in this talk, especially about stock at the beginning of it, and about how to and how not to do stock, near the end
Joe NietersRegistered UsersPosts: 3Beginner grinner
edited May 15, 2007
A few thoughts about the new Stock feature...
The news of the ability to use our existing investment in Smugmug to participate in the stock image marketplace is very welcome. This is something that I have been working toward, and the idea of having to work outside of Smugmug, when it already has so much of what I want and need, was not encouraging. I very much look forward to participating in the Smugmug stock system.
I do have a few thoughts though....
Standards and definitions
After reading the many responses in this thread, it seems clear that we are not all using the same definitions for many terms that are understood as standard terms in the photography industry.
Smugmug staff should quickly adopt and defer to a standard reference that we can all refer to when we have questions or doubt about the meaning of an industry related term.
My suggestion would be to adopt the standards set forth in the PLUS Glossary. The PLUS system is quickly becoming the acknowledged standard for people that need to use any media licensing function whether vendor or client and has extremely broad support by the industry in which stock media vendors participate.
Setting minimum or base pricing by Smugmug
I want to be able to license my images to my client base and to the markets in which I participate. I must be able to price my images to meet the market or my images will not sell. I also believe in competition and am not afraid to compete as needed. I might produce a heavily produced shot that is very unique but valuable only to a small percentage of the market and any client licensing the image may want exclusive use of the image to ensure that the competition does not use it or to ensure that the image's brand relation not be diluted. For this type of image I will want to charge a high fee.
I might also produce a series of images that are iconic in nature, for instance a photograph of a door that could represent the action of 'entering', or a image of an arrow that could be used on a website to indicate direction. This type of image would be very common but hopefully more attractive than other options. Clients are not going to want to pay the higher fee for exclusive use. They may only be willing to pay one dollar (or perhaps less). For these simple images I would hope to make up the revenue in volume by licensing the image at a low fee.
Because Smugmug is a community of otherwise independent photographers, Smugmug becomes a market by default with photographer competing within the Smugmug market as well as the larger Internet world. Unless Smugmug is willing to arbitrate the license fee on my behalf and to my benefit, any arbitrary setting of fees begins to enter the world of price fixing.
I want to be able to set my prices as I see fit and compete within my niche market. Smugmug should not set any base price or fee other than to set a uniform transaction cost as a percentage of the sale just as they do now.
Licensing – Rights Managed and Royalty Free
There is much confusion over the term 'Royalty Free', within the industry and without. In my mind, all licensing is rights managed to some degree. I own the copyright of the images I produce. Copyright law enforces the principle that I am in charge of my copyrights and that permission to use my copyright images must be explicit (with few exceptions). Therefore, I must manage the rights to my images, even if I transfer all rights to the general public without cost. I must at least state that I am doing so, otherwise, any use of the images may be violating my copyrights.
The discussion should not be RM vs RF, but instead should be about the tools and options that will be available to allow us, the copyright holders, to set or state our terms.
Licensing – Photographer defined
Not all clients are the same and they don't all want/need the same licensing. We should be able to grant anything from completely unlimited to highly restricted use. We should be able to set our own licensing terms. Further, we need to be able to do this on at least a gallery by gallery basis. As a professional photographer, I know that my clients each have different needs, wants and budgets and I need to be able to provide them with what they need without limiting my ability to make a living from my photography.
Any attempt by Smugmug to set the licensing or usage terms will near completely prohibit me from using the Smugmug stock feature, just as do the current overly broad license terms set forth for digital downloads.
Photographer Pricing
I recommend that for the new STOCK feature, Smugmug develop the pricing such that it incorporates the PLUS Media Matrix. My vision is that photographers would be able to set values for each of the media matrix options and from these cumulative values, calculate a fee for the image. Using the PLUS system provides for any licensing a photographer may choose. Again, I need to be able to set my fees as I see fit without an arbitrary limit of any kind, high or low.
Competition and Ratings
There has been much discussion around the ratings of photographs and how that would/could be used to help clients filter the images. I fail to see how the Smugmug rating system would be beneficial to the client. In order for any rating system to benefit the potential client, it must confer a quantifiable, objective and specific value. For many commercial clients, a highly popular image would be the last one they would choose for their new campaign. Even if it is assumed that the rating is a measure of image quality, what quality are we talking about? Is the image technically flawless or aesthetically perfect? How would we know this or agree on such a rating? Simply, we cannot.
Additionally, any rating system would require a method for appeal and an arbitration process.
If the Smugmug rating system is to be used as part of the search criteria, then it must be optional.
Applying too great a weight to the rating system would be a significant and likely fatal flaw.
Comments
First, I know that some stock agencies (particularly the higher end ones) require upsized and upres-ed images, say, 48mb in size or more, in tiff format. How will smugmug handle stock needs like this given the current upload restriction?
Second, I know that IPTC information is not included in S, M, or L sized files (I think this needs to change) and as I am not Pro user, I don't know if IPTC is included as part of a Digital Download. In my opinion, for copyright and licensing (and I'd guess model release) purposes, IPTC would have to be included in stock sales (but again, im not sure how this is done at alamy and getty). Would IPTC be kept in all sizes available for sale?
-Russ
- There does need to be some relevant standards for image size, post processing, and image resolution. With this in mind, something would need to be done to resolve some of the issues with larger images uploading to Smugmug. For higher level work most firms desire something other than jpgs and they want high resolution images.
- It needs to be very clear what form of licensing this is. If its just Royalty Free image licensing, I'm not really interested. I would hope that there are other options and that the licensing requirements would be clearly stated. There needs to be a clear Control Panel option to opt out of this entirely and to select which forms we choose to participate in.
- I'm not sure how you plan on pricing, but there is a clear difference based on the intent of the user, the type of license, and the term of the license (single use, one year). If its an image used in a large circulation publication, the pricing is a lot different than for someone looking for an image for web display. I for one, would say that there is a lot more to pricing than currently available in the Pro pricing section.
- No mention, that I saw, about any issues of exclusivity. Some seek to have exclusive image use for a defined period to prevent problems with the same image being used in competing ads.
- Image quality. Even though the intent is to restrict to your Pro users, the reality is that if 85% if the content is not up to commercial standards, its life cycle as a stock repository will be short. No one will wade through a lot of poor quality images to find the few gems. I believe that some sort of initial review of image quality by qualified reviewers should be required before inclusion in a stock pool is permitted.
Bottom line, I don't think its a bad idea for SM to follow, but I think you are trying to move from concept to implementation too quickly and as a result may lack the foundation for this to be sucessful longer term.
Hello,
I'm so excited to hear you guys are pursuing this and you can count me in for participation. I'm currently selling my own "stock" using your digital download system and it's allowed me to have a good presence online. Any extra channels to sell my work would be great -and awesome that it sounds like it would involve little work on my end beyond designating pictures I'm already selling and promoting to be included in the Smugmug library.
One thing you may want to consider -- maybe in the second stage of development -- is that almost every stock agency offers a "lightbox." I realize this is just a fancy word for "shopping cart" - but the archetype is already there... people are used to using lightboxes and the presence of a lightbox-type system would show viewers that this is a legitimate stock system. It's all about perception, but I think this kind of subtle thing can make a difference.
The more channels to market and promote my work the better. I can't see any downside to this.
Thanks for thinking of all of us pros. Smugmug really is the best thing since sliced bread. I did a talk with our local camera club and showed them how I'm selling my work. They all went "oooh" and "awww" and I hope I have converted some people to at least storing their work on Smugmug. One thing I did hear from people in the audience (about 50 photographers) was that they thought Smugmug was like Flikr - just generic point and shoot pictures of people's grandchildren adn birthday parties. It will be great to see Smugmug taking a lead in marketing itself to pros -- and showing pros what a great service you offer. The consumer services are great too - don't get me wrong - but I think a lot of photographers out there have the perception that it's only for point-and-shooters.
Anyway, thanks again!
P.S.
I've posted a thread somewhere else... but just to put bee in your ear... it would be great for us pros to have changed wording when it comes to our META data. I understand Smugmg needing to promote itself - but the words within the META data doesn't include Smugmug's name so the advertising is lost. When people click on a link to my site (or see it in Google) it makes it appear that i offer "photo sharing" when, in fact, it's smugmug that offers "photo sharing," I offer "galleries where you can purchase photos and prints - or galleries where I'm sharing my work" - even messaging like "This site is powered by Smugmug - the best service for professional photographers to share, sell and store their work" would be more efficient language, be less confusing to users who find us on Google, and promote Smugmug at the same time.
This is something that would vastly improve my business (and I'm sure other pro photographers as well).
Anyway, thanks again. I'm looking forward to reading this thread.
Christina Craft
www.naturestocklibrary.com
Christina Craft - FunkyTown Photography
portrait and wedding photographer Victoria BC
C-2529 Vancouver St, Victoria · 360-775-2539
Whoops... forgot to add that I'd vote for a system where we can set our own prices -- *or* opt to go with generic smugmug pricing. An either/or system would allow people who would prefer to have smugmug choose their pricing versus people who would like to sell some images for higher prices.
Cheers!
Christina Craft - FunkyTown Photography
portrait and wedding photographer Victoria BC
C-2529 Vancouver St, Victoria · 360-775-2539
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=39261
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
My website | NANPA Member
Count me in.
Stock Image price should be uniform on the first two levels of the low res files size. Larger size file, give the photographer options to set their own price.
The other approach is to give the buyer the option to search by price. This would go a long way to help buyer to the determine quality. Quality and search are prequiste to a successful beginning.
I dream things that never were and say
"Why Not?"
That sounds like a great idea indeed and I'm glad smugmug is going that way.
Will that be an innovation ? Depends on when it's released because as far as i know Flickr is working on something similar.
Making it pro only sounds like a good idea. I think that part of the value that is added by stock photo services is precisely that they filter what is available and don't make it a big dumpster of anything and everything (what i'm afraid the fliskr stock photo service will soon become).
As a buyer I would like to go to a place where I know that I will find a constant quality in the pictures I get.
I bet that the success of such a service wll depend on the quality and consistency of what is available. A content too heterogenous will probably get the buyers annoyed pretty quickly.
I really hope it will work but I think it requires strict rules as what 'stock' really is.
Photography and Design Studio
Pictures galleries at photo.mindworkscreation.com
Hello,
I'd like to talk about an issue that should be addressed before the stock feature starts.
We must remember that even though one may come from London with loads of pictures from the London Eye they can not be sold due to copyright restrictions, same for the Eiffel Tower at night, and many others. So today when I come back from a trip I always have to split the pictures into two albums, one for sale and one not for sale. Or I could keep all of them on one album not for sale and duplicate some of them on another album for sale, but that's also not a good idea for many reasons.
My request here is for SmugMug to allow us to flag individual pictures for sale, so we can organize our albums without duplication, keep the best ones to be seen and make some of them available for sales, downloads, stock, etc.
Other users, any comments ?
Thanks !
Celso.
Hello Celso
With ref to images of the London Eye, could you please clarify the position regarding sale of pics ?
As a Brit my understanding of the law in the UK is that if said pic was taken from a public place then there can be no restriction and it is not necessary to provide a property release - If I'm wrong please correct me.
Re the Eiffel Tower I believe I have heard this said but am not sure whether it is enforceable ??
Caroline
www.carolineshipsey.co.uk - Follow me on G+
[/URL]
The British Airways London Eye Millennium Wheel
The London Eye is a structure in London that is part ride, part vehicle, conceived by British Airways engineers. It cannot be used for royalty-free stock if it is the main subject of the photo.
Allowed: Cityscapes including the London Eye ARE permitted.
Note: If the London Eye is NOT the primary subject of the photo, it is permitted for use in royalty-free stock imagery.
and this
Eiffel Tower and Evening Light Show
ALLOWED: A commercial photo of the Eiffel tower by day is permitted.
TRADEMARK: Photograph of the Eiffel Tower's evening light show is protected by the creator of the show and CANNOT be published commercially, including royalty-free stock.
found here : http://www.imagecatalog.com/copyright_and_trademark.php
<!-- Start of Body Content --> <!-- This is fixed content or liquid content depending on Table setting --> <table style="width: 600px; height: 57px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="gTextSmall" align="left">
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
www.carolineshipsey.co.uk - Follow me on G+
[/URL]
Actually Paul, economic theory somewhat argues against this - I'm simplyfying a little here: but at the price (not sure its 25c but for the sake of argument lets assume it is) you are likely selling more of your images than if it were $25. Keep in mind that any additional image sold costs you very little (ie. your maginal costs are very very small) and hence any amount you receive for that unit sold is profit. On top of that comes the price segmentation (resolutions) which will help extract more profit.
What you say about restricting supply increasing price is correct BUT that would prevent others (including yourself) from entering the market and that in itself is not ideal for a host of obvious and no so obvious reasons.
Joel Spolsky has an excellent blog entry about this here (based on software but the same general rules apply).
exactly the point I was trying to make earlier:D
...pics..
This is what I had understood also
How can they enforce this in the face of brit law whcih is as I thought was as above ie. you can use a pic of ANYTHING if taken from public land (from the air might be different), tis would mean surely that I could make trthe same rules about my house and so could everyone in te UK, just wondering???
...pics..
Hi Simon
I don't think they can enforce it, I didn't have time to look into it any further - I don't have any pics of the Eye anyway:D, but I'm pretty sure it is just wishful thinking on their part. Whilst doing some other searches this am that were unrelated to this topic I came across dozens of pics of the Eye for sale RF. EPUK is a good organisation to be a member of if you are a true pro and has lots of good advice about all matters of usage etc. I'm a lapsed member but still get the news letter, you might find it helpful.
Cheers
Caroline
www.carolineshipsey.co.uk - Follow me on G+
[/URL]
If they can enforce it or not I don't know for sure but you must consider why iStock and other stock sites revise each picture you submit not only for quality assurance but also to avoid Copyright problems. For example they also ask a Signed Release for pictures with identifiable faces, etc.
And they have refused some of my pictures from the Golden Eye, and the Hearst Castle in California. Then they point you to a link where they explain what they can and what they can not accept because they don't want trouble with the Copyright laws...
So I am assuming that if iStock and other well known Stock sites don't want to mess with such Copyright rules that means such rules are enforceable and honestly I prefer not to have a problem with it. Maybe some other users for not knowing such rules may put pictures for sale that they shouldn't and I don't know how much trouble that can bring to the users himself and also to SmugMug...
If SmugMug is willing to offer a Royalty Free Stock service then SmugMug itself must put some rules on top of what pictures the users can sell or not. It is worth a good investigation on SmugMug side maybe by talking to the other Stock services to know from their previous experience... There must be lawyers specialized on such matters as well.
This market has rules like any other business... It is better to play safe...
Just my 2 cents...
Tks ! Celso.
Hi Celso,
There is of course a difference between selling royalty free and rights managed stock, and without focusing on a specific subject I think we both agree this is a complex area which needs to be clearly defined. The law varies from country to country as do business practices, but I feel sure that we can depend on Smugmug to operate this aspect of their business in a thoroughly ethical and professional manner as they do all others.
Whilst I am "interested" in this proposal from Smugmug, I am realistic enough to know that I am unlikely to gain sales from it. I am however concerned about the public perception of any company I have dealings with - I lke to be able to recommend and endorse their products - and Smugmug ticks all the boxes so far and I hope will continue to do so.
Cheers
Caroline
www.carolineshipsey.co.uk - Follow me on G+
[/URL]
Thanks for the EPUK link I already do get their emailnews but am not a member as Im no longer a true pro now Im just and old pro:lol
I used to do weddings and industrial but that was before I had children and had to start to earn real money, I was doing OK on my own but not enough to support house, wife and 2 kids :-(
Until recently I have just been getting back into it initially to see whether I could still do it and for fun but now what with this stock thing comindg along and having been asked to do one or two jobs ( architectural/portraits etc) I am thinkng of getting up to speed again , but I am SO out of dtae ( and older!)
Anyway - I digress - (another sign of age creeping up ;-))
As you say I thinkit's wishful thinking on their part and dopubt it would be enforcable.
I get the same thing locally when I was stopped taking 'arty' pics of a local mall because I had a 'professional' camera ( I wish it weas a professional camera! professional means 'makes money ' doesn't it - imagine that - a camera that did the money making for you- you could send it out to work on its own
final pont is that in the UK at least I don't believe that would be enforcable, it can only be done where pic was taken on private land ( mind you you'd be surprised what's 'private' nowadays)
sorry for the ramble
...pics..
...pics..
I presume the sensible thing would be to get a lawyer to have look at it and suggest the most practical (i.e. hassle free) route
I however , do intend to go out an d shoot stock and to sift my creaking archives if this comes together. Might as well give it a go
...pics..
The problem with Royalty Free is that anyone can use that image for pretty much any purpose. A person or group against British Airways or the London eye, may purchase that image and use it in negative light against that company.
However, by selling Rights Managed, this theoretically takes control of the situation. A rights Managed photo would not be delivered to the customer until after the customer contacts the photographer and provides information regarding the use of the photo, quantities etc. In other words, they may say they are publishing a travel guide for London and use the photo of the London Eye in positive retrospective. You have this written declaration, and if the customer goes against their word, you are protected in court.
Of cause, if they say they want to use the photo to defame the company, and you still sell it to them, then you'll have to face the music.
I'm no lawyer, but this is how I understand the rule. Megastock agencies seem to sell their photos in this way.
As for RF and RM photos, I would only be interested in this service if it has the opportunity for both. Anyone can sell their photos as RF these days (as long as they have model or property release forms, or absolutely no faces or logos) and probably make a damn lot more money than at SM. However, selling images with street scenes, logos etc under a RM policy is far more interesting and possibly lucrative.
I have concerns.
By allowing individual photographers to continue to set their own pricing for images participating in the stock database, you're going to create competition amongst us based on price cutting, not on quality. If you enforced a fixed price for participation in the program, then the only way we could differentiate our work and increase sales would by by creating better work. I'm pretty sure you want to encourage better work, not lower prices. It's a dog-eat-dog world especially in microstock. Cheap images benefit only the buyer and only short term. Better images benefit everyone all the time.
As far as ensuring quality images, it should be pretty clear when buyers start using thumbs up/down during their lightbox sessions which images are better than others. However, a non-corruptible review process will be necessary to eliminate the risk of gaming the rating system. As sure as you can build a filter to show images rated 8 or higher, someone will be figuring out how to get all their images rated 8 or higher dishonestly. Maybe you have an answer to this problem.
Allowing an "exclusive" purchase option for an image for a time period (measured in months, e.g. three, six, twelve) is good. This would provide some of the benefits of RM imagery without adding too much complexity. And it would allow us to make rather more money.
I expect that I will be making my "stock" galleries completely seperate and hidden from my art sales galleries. I don't need confusion among print buyers vs. commercial art buyers. Since SmugMug doesn't allow one image to appear in multiple galleries [grumble] I will naturally have to upload the same image more than one time. I need to keep a very clean and slick site; and I'm hoping you don't raise too many more barriers.
While this idea excites me somewhat, please keep in mind that one of the reasons that I've disabled print sales on my SmugMug site is that the shopping cart is just too damn confusing, especially with regards to dealing with odd aspect ratio prints. I had been hoping for fixes to these problems before major upgrades to other areas of the site.
http://photi.ca/
-s
- I agree there should be a generic pricing policy accross all users.
- Also agree thumbs up/down are good. But that is not enough... and in my opinion a minimum quality for a picture to be available on Stock should be enforced by revision of each submitted photo, just like the other stock sites do. Which would also prevent users and smugmug from having problems with copyright issues or recognizable faces without a model release and such things.
- Yes, it would for sure be great if SmugMug allowed us to have the same picture on multiple galleries.
- I also received feedback from people that can't figure out how to buy downloads, prints and other stuff using the current approach which seems to be really complicated...
Tks !Celso.
Love the idea... like so many others, I would appreciate a foot in the door to stock photography, and if the other share goes to Smugmug I'm a happy camper.
But on the issue of thumbs up/thumbs down sorting. Imagine you are a prospective buyer, somebody who does not share the habits and ideas of the Smugmug family as it applies to the thumbs system of voting.
Hey, we want you to buy! Welcome! But when that person puts his prospective choices into their Lightbox, they then have to make a decision... the one they choose gets a thumbs up, the rest get a thumbs down. The ones not even considered get no vote.
The problem I see, is that the photos that get the buyers' attention will be more likely to get a thumbs down than the photos that were passed over initially... do you see what I mean? In the end, my simple photos with a neutral score which have been passed over by every prospective buyer will end up with a higher score than all of the photos that were considered, but in the end not purchased.
I'm wondering if there is a way to score a photo in some way to show how often it has been put into the Lightbox? Or some other, third rating that allows the image to avoid the situation I outline above... granted, having my photo rated higher will allow my photos to temporarily 'rise in the ranks' and such... but it would be terribly unfair to those nearly chosen...
I'm excited about the possibilities of the plan in general, though!
http://www.boring.ch/waapn/incoming/...artin_parr.mp3
Martin Parr makes some very intersting comments about the ups and downs of magnum in this talk, especially about stock at the beginning of it, and about how to and how not to do stock, near the end
...pics..
The news of the ability to use our existing investment in Smugmug to participate in the stock image marketplace is very welcome. This is something that I have been working toward, and the idea of having to work outside of Smugmug, when it already has so much of what I want and need, was not encouraging. I very much look forward to participating in the Smugmug stock system.
I do have a few thoughts though....
Standards and definitions
After reading the many responses in this thread, it seems clear that we are not all using the same definitions for many terms that are understood as standard terms in the photography industry.
Smugmug staff should quickly adopt and defer to a standard reference that we can all refer to when we have questions or doubt about the meaning of an industry related term.
My suggestion would be to adopt the standards set forth in the PLUS Glossary. The PLUS system is quickly becoming the acknowledged standard for people that need to use any media licensing function whether vendor or client and has extremely broad support by the industry in which stock media vendors participate.
Setting minimum or base pricing by Smugmug
I want to be able to license my images to my client base and to the markets in which I participate. I must be able to price my images to meet the market or my images will not sell. I also believe in competition and am not afraid to compete as needed. I might produce a heavily produced shot that is very unique but valuable only to a small percentage of the market and any client licensing the image may want exclusive use of the image to ensure that the competition does not use it or to ensure that the image's brand relation not be diluted. For this type of image I will want to charge a high fee.
I might also produce a series of images that are iconic in nature, for instance a photograph of a door that could represent the action of 'entering', or a image of an arrow that could be used on a website to indicate direction. This type of image would be very common but hopefully more attractive than other options. Clients are not going to want to pay the higher fee for exclusive use. They may only be willing to pay one dollar (or perhaps less). For these simple images I would hope to make up the revenue in volume by licensing the image at a low fee.
Because Smugmug is a community of otherwise independent photographers, Smugmug becomes a market by default with photographer competing within the Smugmug market as well as the larger Internet world. Unless Smugmug is willing to arbitrate the license fee on my behalf and to my benefit, any arbitrary setting of fees begins to enter the world of price fixing.
I want to be able to set my prices as I see fit and compete within my niche market. Smugmug should not set any base price or fee other than to set a uniform transaction cost as a percentage of the sale just as they do now.
Licensing – Rights Managed and Royalty Free
There is much confusion over the term 'Royalty Free', within the industry and without. In my mind, all licensing is rights managed to some degree. I own the copyright of the images I produce. Copyright law enforces the principle that I am in charge of my copyrights and that permission to use my copyright images must be explicit (with few exceptions). Therefore, I must manage the rights to my images, even if I transfer all rights to the general public without cost. I must at least state that I am doing so, otherwise, any use of the images may be violating my copyrights.
The discussion should not be RM vs RF, but instead should be about the tools and options that will be available to allow us, the copyright holders, to set or state our terms.
Licensing – Photographer defined
Not all clients are the same and they don't all want/need the same licensing. We should be able to grant anything from completely unlimited to highly restricted use. We should be able to set our own licensing terms. Further, we need to be able to do this on at least a gallery by gallery basis. As a professional photographer, I know that my clients each have different needs, wants and budgets and I need to be able to provide them with what they need without limiting my ability to make a living from my photography.
Any attempt by Smugmug to set the licensing or usage terms will near completely prohibit me from using the Smugmug stock feature, just as do the current overly broad license terms set forth for digital downloads.
Photographer Pricing
I recommend that for the new STOCK feature, Smugmug develop the pricing such that it incorporates the PLUS Media Matrix. My vision is that photographers would be able to set values for each of the media matrix options and from these cumulative values, calculate a fee for the image. Using the PLUS system provides for any licensing a photographer may choose. Again, I need to be able to set my fees as I see fit without an arbitrary limit of any kind, high or low.
Competition and Ratings
There has been much discussion around the ratings of photographs and how that would/could be used to help clients filter the images. I fail to see how the Smugmug rating system would be beneficial to the client. In order for any rating system to benefit the potential client, it must confer a quantifiable, objective and specific value. For many commercial clients, a highly popular image would be the last one they would choose for their new campaign. Even if it is assumed that the rating is a measure of image quality, what quality are we talking about? Is the image technically flawless or aesthetically perfect? How would we know this or agree on such a rating? Simply, we cannot.
Additionally, any rating system would require a method for appeal and an arbitration process.
If the Smugmug rating system is to be used as part of the search criteria, then it must be optional.
Applying too great a weight to the rating system would be a significant and likely fatal flaw.