I completely agree with Leigh's point here. I also disable the thumbs up/ down pop-ins because I think they make my site look less professional.
I'd have to agree.
One additional point: any ranking scheme can be gamed. Presumably the better-ranked stock photos will sell better, so there will be a financial incentive to game the ranking system--which in turn means that more people are likely to try it.
Smugmug works
I have just receivd the following email:-
"I am a freelance graphic designer and am currently working with a design agency that does a lot of work for Somerset County Council. The council has its own image library but if I am completely honest, it isn't great. I was just wondering if you can give me a rough idea of the costs to use your photos? There are some great shots there!"
This is just the sort of enquiry I hoped my site would generate from the Mendip Hills section. Its an indication that my approach is begining to work, that is, by appealing to a specialised market and having the professional looking presentation that is possible with Smugmug
So whilst I'm interested in selling stock photos "a la Smugmug" I beleive that each of us has to make our own way in this very overcrowed marketplace.
I am very disappointed to read that a stock system will be rated/filtered by the current SM popularity rank system. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I have many of my photos on two other sites, sites that support comments, views and favorites. Those photos have nearly two-hundred thousand views – I know very well which of my photos are popular and sellable. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I came to SM to have a professional medium to sell my photos, not to have them rated with those silly thumbs up or down pop-ins. I think they degrade this site a lot and I would not be here if I could not disable them.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Therefore, in my opinion nothing as important as selling photos from galleries or automated stock selection should be based in any way on SM's ranking system.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I am still building out my SM site here and look forward to a well designed stock selling option. I think there have been some very good suggestions to date.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> ~~ Leigh <o:p></o:p>
Leigh, I agree with you 100%.
SmugMug looks like it is definitely taking the path of an amateurish, RF micro-stock site instead of the professional tool that I had hoped for when I joined. I won't be selling micro-stock through it though, so I guess it doesn't affect me. My best photos are those that have sold multiple times all over the world, not ones randomly ranked by random internet people! Thumbs down!
Any comments ? Rights Managed vs Royalty Free
I still think it is TWO THUMBS UP for this initiative. But I still would like to know more about the Rights Managed vs Royalty Free matter. Any thoughts ?
Any specialist on the "Rights Managed vs Royalty Free" matter ? (This is very important when thinking about the new service SmugMug wants to offer for us to seel Stock photos...)
If the answer is yes, then I have a very practical question to ask:
I put 50 of my pictures on the album http://www.celsodiniz.com/gallery/2879270 and I want to know if I can SIMPLY PUT ALL THESE PICTURES FOR SALE AS RIGHTS MANAGED ???
You will see that I for sure would never be allowed to sell those pictures as Royalty Free as they are because they show logos, brands, recognizable faces, businesses, properties, plastic arts, objects made by other artists, interior and exterior of commercial buildings, places like Disneyland, Louvre, London Eye, Sydney Opera House, Artists performing shows and such... and I don't have any releases for them.Can I simply sell them as Rights Managed ?
You'll see on this link (http://www.stockindustry.org/resources/specialReleases.html) that "Some of the properties and objects are alleged to be covered by trademark, others by contract (i.e. the terms by which a photographer was granted access to the property). PACA does not have a position as to whether the use (either commercially or editorially) is in violation of any applicable laws" which leads me to understand not everything is OK to shoot and sell under RM...
There is another site of Stock Photography that does not offer RM, but allows users to flag photos as Editorial so they can be sold only for "news" purposes. They say that if I have an image that's newsworthy, and it contains people, and it doesn't have a release, then I can sell it as Editorial. They say that Commercial stock images are used in advertisements, promotions, and anything that would endorse a product or service, but Editorial stock is a newsworthy account of events. So, an editorial image will only be able to used by newspapers, magazines, TV, and other news organizations that aren't endorsing a product or service. Some examples of newsworthy editorial images are: a parade, a speech by a public figure, a sports event, a crowd outside a high profile trial, a political demonstration, a celebrity sighting - basically anything one would see in the newspaper that isn't endorsing a product or service. But this approach does not make me feel confortable to upload for them to sell all the 50 pictures I put on the album above.
This link also says a lot about this matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_photography
But it does not address practical questions such as what can and what can not be sold under RM when you consider for instance the 50 photos I put on the link above.
Prices and copyrights with stock images
Sounds like a good idea to have a stock agency here for those who want it.
Having worked with photo agencies for years I encourage smugmug to post some information for photographers concering copyright laws and photo usage for rights of the photographer and client. It's too easy for photographers to be taken advantage of when they do not know all the variables in the contracts. I actually and always write out my own contract spelling out exactly what use the client may or may not have with my images.
There have been numreous sad stories where the photographer did not understand about the different usage rights such as "one time usage" and "indefinite usage" of their photos or the "rights grab" where corporations pay a one time fee and use the image in several medias or even have sold it to a third party. Editorialphotographers.com has some very good information on copyrights and photo usage as does http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices
Here is one example from NPPA:
* One time usage granted
* duration of usage
* limitations on media in which used (if not covered under "rights," e.g., print rights only, no electronic usage)
* limitations on number of insertions (if appropriate)
* limitations on geographical use (ie. North American, English speaking editions, etc)
Internet usage constitutes own media and second copyright usage
* Owner of Original Photograph (only if different from below)
* FEE FOR RIGHTS GRANTED (List the fee here)
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS by Photographer
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.
What about selling non-stock photos?
I was just reading about "You Witness News", a new service by Yahoo teaming with Reuters to collect potentially very hot media images from the general public. The photographers don't seem to get paid, though, or at least not yet.
Then i found Scoopt. Again, anybody can submit stuff. They call it "citizen
journalism" these days. also they do pay the photographer. anyway, this seems for amateurs using cell phone cameras mostly. You can tell from reading through their web site the type of people they are targeting here. Not pros for sure.
Then of course i was wondering if Smugmug was also gonna do something like this. So i searched on dgrin and found this thread where the topic seems to belong, although you mention only stock photos here so far.
So any plans to promote more non-stock and timely things, like news shots, celebrities, etc. And maybe in a more professional way than some of these above? I could imagine magazines scanning Smugmug for their next shot, say. Or you could also make it like YouWitness above, and maybe open it up to all account types. I like the former idea more, though.
Lots of ways this can go here. Including such photos in the normal stock photos process you are working on now might even be enough technically, but then just that you'd need to get the right people to view the images as potential buyers or licensors. So I guess a big part of this is also connections to the media outlets, which requires some business savvy.
Anyway, just thought i'd throw these ideas out there, to see what people think of them wrt Smumug, and so maybe you'd also incorporate anything useful here into your plans for the stock photo stuff as well.
I completely agree with Leigh's point here. I also disable the thumbs up/ down pop-ins because I think they make my site look less professional.
SM is slowly heading toward a template for professional photographers. To that end, all the silly "family style" features need to be controlled. In the end, SM needs to make forward looking desisions about what they want to become. If the decision is both a Pro site and a family site, then the pro site side needs to be clearly thought through, not just a little feature add on at a time.
Seperate BUY PRINTS from DOWNLOAD links
While it would seem obvious, it is certainly necessary to create another nav route to download images, seperate from BUY PRINT. At present, even though I would like to sell my images as downloads through SM, I choose to DISABLE the BUY button because I sell my prints through another site, and it is too confusing to the viewer to select SM's BUY link for a download and my BUY link for a print. It would be so much better if the SM link were labeled "Download This Picture".
all the silly "family style" features need to be controlled.
Personally, I don't care how the buyer gets to my photo - and thumbs are a great way for photos to get seen (get lots of thumbs, they show on /popular. Millions of eyeballs a day look at /popular.
While it would seem obvious, it is certainly necessary to create another nav route to download images, seperate from BUY PRINT. At present, even though I would like to sell my images as downloads through SM, I choose to DISABLE the BUY button because I sell my prints through another site, and it is too confusing to the viewer to select SM's BUY link for a download and my BUY link for a print. It would be so much better if the SM link were labeled "Download This Picture".
Hmmm... I'm not sure, but I think you might be able to do that now by using the Pro Customization tools. I've used 'em a bit on my site, nothing major... but it seems like it would indeed be possible.
Hmmm... I'm not sure, but I think you might be able to do that now by using the Pro Customization tools. I've used 'em a bit on my site, nothing major... but it seems like it would indeed be possible.
If it is, I have no idea how to go about doing it.
I second the vote for a "lightbox" image selection feature. I'd love to give my customers a way to select images for consideration without putting them directly in the shopping cart.
I do headshots, and right now, it's very difficult for my clients to go through their sessions and narrow down to the final shots they want to use. Since my final deliverable is a digital file which is included in their session price, enabling the shopping cart would be confusing to them. A lightbox could be a holding area for images that are stock, for printing, or just for selection, as in my case.
Actually, now that I think of it, it would be a great way for fellow smuggers to keep track of images that they've come across on others' sites without having to bookmark them or download them or such -- they could keep lightboxes of "favorites."
Plus, it ties into the idea mentioned earlier of virtual photos appearing in multiple galleries, with separate permissions or qualities attached, like shortcuts or aliases....
Hmm... what do you think, O mighty, benevolent and generous smugmug gods?
Resources you must read before selling photos
From Sherrlyn.smugmug.com
New member
As a new member of Smugmug (I'm still getting my site up) and also a professional member of editorial photographers I HIGHLY recommend that anyone who is considering or is already selling photographs look at some of the "free" contract examples, forms and resources available for photographers on this site. It is a basic support for working professionals. I have worked in the professional world with agencies and editors for 14 years and today more than ever there is a lot of wanting something for nothing.
It is important to know how to say no and how to negotiate. If your work is worth publishing then it is worth it for you to charge a going rate. You need to know the questions to ask before settling on a price. Editorial photographers even has calculation guides as to what the average rate is for how the photograph is going to be used. As soon as a photographer gives something for almost free that photographer has set a precedence of their quality. Editorial photographers is basically a support for all of us.
It is important that photographers recognize the value of their work, consider their overhead costs of equipment, digital downloading time and their copyright. Here is the site if you are interested and want to pass it on if you already know all this. http://www.editorialphoto.com/
Excellent idea...
Can't wait to see this service up and running. I have some general questions that I'm sure the powers that be are already mulling over!
1. Will we be able set the price of our pics or will prices be set by smugmug as is the case with most online stock libraries?
2. What will the license model be; RF or Licensed, or both?
3. Would images need to go through some kind of quality control? Personally, I think this is a good idea to ensure customers come back for more of the same.
I would like to see both types of license model adopted and hope smugmug doesn't decide to go down the micro payment RF route which is currently devaluing RF stock. I think Alamy has a great business model which would suit Smugmugs' plans well.
Can't wait to see this service up and running. I have some general questions that I'm sure the powers that be are already mulling over!
1. Will we be able set the price of our pics or will prices be set by smugmug as is the case with most online stock libraries?
2. What will the license model be; RF or Licensed, or both?
3. Would images need to go through some kind of quality control? Personally, I think this is a good idea to ensure customers come back for more of the same.
I would like to see both types of license model adopted and hope smugmug doesn't decide to go down the micro payment RF route which is currently devaluing RF stock. I think Alamy has a great business model which would suit Smugmugs' plans well.
Actually all of these questions have been answered in this very thread - it's a great discussion,lots of cool input by your peer pros, I encourage reading it.
Yes, you set the price.
RF for now, possible options later.
There will be quality control.
RM app thats free & open-source
I agree with the other posters, this is a welcome development! I'm looking forward to watching this one play out.
I understand that it's going to be developed on the fly to meet our needs. Here is my 2¢ on what is important to develop earlier rather than later: Rights Management. I'm no software engineer, but I think the PLUS Pack Calculator is an excellent option to consider.
From their literature, SAA describes the PLUS Pack Calculator as "a universal standard for a streamlined form of Rights Managed licensing for stock and commissioned images... High volume stock distributors can integrate the Calculator into their existing ecommerce systems..."
It's the kind of easy to use, easy to understand RM system I would hope SmugMug Stock woud integrate into the shopping cart.
RF for now, possible options later.
There will be quality control.
Nice statements - thanks Andy for confirming the RF, but the quality control is probably the biggest relief for most people having been concerned about the idea of just letting the big mob decide via thumbs.
As for organizing, searching, and browsing, we're still working on all of that stuff, but I believe you'll be able to:
- browse by category
- browse by keywords
- browse by most popular
- browse by geography
- search by words (sorted by popularity or most recent)
- search by words + geography (ditto, likely, on sorting)
I'd like to add browsing/searching by date, as well, but the jury is still out there.
This means that properly categorizing your photos into categories and keywords is even more important. It's also even more important that you gain exposure in the community so that your photos, as a result, gain exposure. The very very best way to do this is to comment on other people's photos at SmugMug because they, and the people viewing those photos, then go browse yours and comment on them, raising your popularity.
Also, you'll have your own "stock catalog" on your site with which you can browse/search and you can send your clients directly there, and your photos will also belong to the "SmugMug stock catalog" which we'll be actively driving traffic and awareness to.
Clear as mud?
Don
Before SM starts the stock photos sale, I think SM should set all SM photos a default choice that all photos in SM can NOT do Right-click download (unless he/she agree to have everyone to do the free download - using a pop-up window to confirm). The stock photos compete with thousand of free snap shoots (for free right-click download) side-by-side within the same site just not make a business sense. Check other Microstock websites - so many comments said: their free photos get thousands of download while it did not bring much sale on their regular stock photos.
Before SM starts the stock photos sale, I think SM should set all SM photos a default choice that all photos in SM can NOT do Right-click download (unless he/she agree to have everyone to do the free download - using a pop-up window to confirm). The stock photos compete with thousand of free snap shoots (for free right-click download) side-by-side within the same site just not make a business sense.
Nice idea, but in practice right-click protection is "protection" only against really naive visitors; anyone who really wants a picture can simply turn off JavaScript in their browser once the picture is loaded. Someone who is out to collect pictures online is likely to know, or soon learn, that. Watermarking, especially watermarking that is hard to retouch out, is likely a much better protection.
Marjolein Katsma
Look through my eyes on Cultural Surfaces! - customizing... currently in a state between limbo and chaos
Nice idea, but in practice right-click protection is "protection" only against really naive visitors; anyone who really wants a picture can simply turn off JavaScript in their browser once the picture is loaded. Someone who is out to collect pictures online is likely to know, or soon learn, that. Watermarking, especially watermarking that is hard to retouch out, is likely a much better protection.
I'd agree that right-click protection is only for naive visitors (it's fairly easy to circumvent), but it isn't quite as simple as turning off JavaScript so I don't want other readers to be misled by that. You won't get a warning message if you turn off JavaScript and you will think you downloaded the image, but all you will get is a blank GIF image.
I'd agree that right-click protection is only for naive visitors (it's fairly easy to circumvent), but it isn't quite as simple as turning off JavaScript so I don't want other readers to be misled by that. You won't get a warning message if you turn off JavaScript and you will think you downloaded the image, but all you will get is a blank GIF image.
If that is the case then the right-click protection is doing more than just trapping right click (not a bad idea!). But I can't find any gallery that has it turned on right now to test...
Edit I found one - you're right. And that's much better, too! There's more to a right click than "stealing images". So now the question is: how do I protect my photos with a transparent GIF overlay while not blocking right clicking? That's what I'd like to do - but I definitely don't like to mess with a visitor's normal use of their browser.
Marjolein Katsma
Look through my eyes on Cultural Surfaces! - customizing... currently in a state between limbo and chaos
If that is the case than the right-click protection is doing more than just trapping right click (not a bad idea!). But I can't find any gallery that has it turned on right now to test...
Yes, it is more sophisticated than that. It has placed a transparent GIF image over the top of the real image. Right click will only ever get the blank GIF image even without JavaScript enabled. There are certainly other ways to get to the image because the browser has to be able to get to it in order to display the web page in the first place so that means the image has to be obtainable by someone who knows what they are doing. Right-click protection is only a deterrent to the non-tech-savvy, not real protection.
For someone worried about theft, the best real protection is a semi-transparent watermark on a meaningful part of the photo and limiting the resolution available on the web to only web-sized versions.
As for Smugmug forcing various settings on photos offered for stock photo sale, I think that's up to the seller. Isn't it up to them how they want to offer and protect their photos? Since the best protection comes from watermarks and various sellers have different opinions about how watermarks effect their sales, shouldn't the seller get to decide?
For someone worried about theft, the best real protection is a semi-transparent watermark on a meaningful part of the photo and limiting the resolution available on the web to only web-sized versions.
I couldn't agree more - but unfortunately SmugMug makes watermarking only available to Pro users, while images are stolen left and right from non-pro users who post photos online without having access to such protection. A 800x600 or 800x800 image is quite usable for quite a lot of purposes. (For instance, recently a whole series of photographs were stolen from TrekEarth and used on CD covers.)
I would urge SmugMug to make watermarking available to at least Power users, or for a small extra fee as an extra option; preferably to all users.
I see a lot of grumbling from professional photographers about people putting their images in microstock sites and selling them for $1 each or even less. That eats into their living, for sure. And into SM's earnings. But then that applies to images downloaded for $0 (stolen) as well, and even more so. As I see it, it would be in SmugMug's own interest to offer watermarking not only to Pro users, and also a nice gesture to their Pro users.
Personally, I'm not ready to opt for a Pro account until SmugMug can offer payment via direct electronic transfer or into a Paypal account; but paying a Pro subscription fee just to get watermarking protection is a bit over the top.
Marjolein Katsma
Look through my eyes on Cultural Surfaces! - customizing... currently in a state between limbo and chaos
I couldn't agree more - but unfortunately SmugMug makes watermarking only available to Pro users, while images are stolen left and right from non-pro users who post photos online without having access to such protection. A 800x600 or 800x800 image is quite usable for quite a lot of purposes. (For instance, recently a whole series of photographs were stolen from TrekEarth and used on CD covers.)
I would urge SmugMug to make watermarking available to at least Power users, or for a small extra fee as an extra option, preferably to all.
I see a lot of grumbling from professional photographers about people putting their images in microstock sites and selling them for $1 each or even less. That eats into their living, for sure. And into SM's earnings. But then that applies to images downloaded for $0 (stolen) as well, and even more so. As I see it, it would be in SmugMug's own interest to offer watermarking not only to Pro users, and also a nice gesture to their Pro users.
Personally, I'm not ready to opt for a Pro account until SmugMug can offer payment via direct electronic transfer or into a Paypal account; but paying a Pro subscription fee just to get watermarking protection is a bit over the top.
Is the stock photo offering going to be available to standard or power users? I assumed it was only going to be available to pro users since it's a money making endeavor that involves all the things in the pro account (price setting, license terms, payment info, tax info). If it's for pro users, then everyone who can use the feature will have watermarking features.
I'm not arguing against opening up watermarking to a wider audience, just that I assumed everyone selling through the new stock photo offering would have watermarking.
As for whether watermarking should be open to other account levels, that's a business decision for Smugmug since it is currently one of the differentation item for pro accounts.
Is the stock photo offering going to be available to standard or power users? I assumed it was only going to be available to pro users since it's a money making endeavor that involves all the things in the pro account (price setting, license terms, payment info, tax info). If it's for pro users, then everyone who can use the feature will have watermarking features.
As I understand it the stock photo offering would be for Pro users only. But that's independent from what I'm saying about the need for watermarking protection.
As for whether watermarking should be open to other account levels, that's a business decision for Smugmug since it is currently one of the differentation item for pro accounts.
There's a lot more that differentiates a Pro account from a Power account - The major difference being that Pro users can actually earn money from their account.
What I'm arguing is that Pro users, and SmugMug themselves, would benefit from offering watermarking to other account types as well: it protects Pro users from seeing revenue "disappear" by visitors downloading "free" photos instead of paying for them, and that indirectly protects SM from losing revenue from sales as well. I'm not saying that standard or power users should be able to sell their photos for profit - that's what pro accounts are for. But those users should not have their photos stolen, and visitors should not have a "free" alternative when looking for an image to use.
Put differently: Not offering a watermarking option to non-pro users could harm the business of SM's pro users.
Marjolein Katsma
Look through my eyes on Cultural Surfaces! - customizing... currently in a state between limbo and chaos
Comments
I'd have to agree.
One additional point: any ranking scheme can be gamed. Presumably the better-ranked stock photos will sell better, so there will be a financial incentive to game the ranking system--which in turn means that more people are likely to try it.
I have just receivd the following email:-
"I am a freelance graphic designer and am currently working with a design agency that does a lot of work for Somerset County Council. The council has its own image library but if I am completely honest, it isn't great. I was just wondering if you can give me a rough idea of the costs to use your photos? There are some great shots there!"
This is just the sort of enquiry I hoped my site would generate from the Mendip Hills section. Its an indication that my approach is begining to work, that is, by appealing to a specialised market and having the professional looking presentation that is possible with Smugmug
So whilst I'm interested in selling stock photos "a la Smugmug" I beleive that each of us has to make our own way in this very overcrowed marketplace.
Caroline
www.carolineshipsey.co.uk - Follow me on G+
[/URL]
Leigh, I agree with you 100%.
SmugMug looks like it is definitely taking the path of an amateurish, RF micro-stock site instead of the professional tool that I had hoped for when I joined. I won't be selling micro-stock through it though, so I guess it doesn't affect me. My best photos are those that have sold multiple times all over the world, not ones randomly ranked by random internet people! Thumbs down!
Terry
I still think it is TWO THUMBS UP for this initiative. But I still would like to know more about the Rights Managed vs Royalty Free matter. Any thoughts ?
Sounds like a good idea to have a stock agency here for those who want it.
Having worked with photo agencies for years I encourage smugmug to post some information for photographers concering copyright laws and photo usage for rights of the photographer and client. It's too easy for photographers to be taken advantage of when they do not know all the variables in the contracts. I actually and always write out my own contract spelling out exactly what use the client may or may not have with my images.
There have been numreous sad stories where the photographer did not understand about the different usage rights such as "one time usage" and "indefinite usage" of their photos or the "rights grab" where corporations pay a one time fee and use the image in several medias or even have sold it to a third party.
Editorialphotographers.com has some very good information on copyrights and photo usage as does http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices
Here is one example from NPPA:
* One time usage granted
* duration of usage
* limitations on media in which used (if not covered under "rights," e.g., print rights only, no electronic usage)
* limitations on number of insertions (if appropriate)
* limitations on geographical use (ie. North American, English speaking editions, etc)
Internet usage constitutes own media and second copyright usage
* Owner of Original Photograph (only if different from below)
* FEE FOR RIGHTS GRANTED (List the fee here)
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS by Photographer
http://www.BorkgrenPhoto.net
http://www.gallery.borkgren.com (smugmug)
I was just reading about "You Witness News", a new service by Yahoo teaming with Reuters to collect potentially very hot media images from the general public. The photographers don't seem to get paid, though, or at least not yet.
http://news.yahoo.com/page/youwitnessnews
http://www.reuters.com/youwitness
Then i found one at CNN, where i think the photographers do get paid, but i'm not sure.
http://www.cnn.com/exchange/
Then i found Scoopt. Again, anybody can submit stuff. They call it "citizen
journalism" these days. also they do pay the photographer. anyway, this seems for amateurs using cell phone cameras mostly. You can tell from reading through their web site the type of people they are targeting here. Not pros for sure.
http://scoopt.com/
But then i found that scoopt is working with flickr to get images that way, too.
http://www.scoopt.com/news/article.aspx?a=135
http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons
Then of course i was wondering if Smugmug was also gonna do something like this. So i searched on dgrin and found this thread where the topic seems to belong, although you mention only stock photos here so far.
So any plans to promote more non-stock and timely things, like news shots, celebrities, etc. And maybe in a more professional way than some of these above? I could imagine magazines scanning Smugmug for their next shot, say. Or you could also make it like YouWitness above, and maybe open it up to all account types. I like the former idea more, though.
Lots of ways this can go here. Including such photos in the normal stock photos process you are working on now might even be enough technically, but then just that you'd need to get the right people to view the images as potential buyers or licensors. So I guess a big part of this is also connections to the media outlets, which requires some business savvy.
Anyway, just thought i'd throw these ideas out there, to see what people think of them wrt Smumug, and so maybe you'd also incorporate anything useful here into your plans for the stock photo stuff as well.
SM is slowly heading toward a template for professional photographers. To that end, all the silly "family style" features need to be controlled. In the end, SM needs to make forward looking desisions about what they want to become. If the decision is both a Pro site and a family site, then the pro site side needs to be clearly thought through, not just a little feature add on at a time.
While it would seem obvious, it is certainly necessary to create another nav route to download images, seperate from BUY PRINT. At present, even though I would like to sell my images as downloads through SM, I choose to DISABLE the BUY button because I sell my prints through another site, and it is too confusing to the viewer to select SM's BUY link for a download and my BUY link for a print. It would be so much better if the SM link were labeled "Download This Picture".
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Hmmm... I'm not sure, but I think you might be able to do that now by using the Pro Customization tools. I've used 'em a bit on my site, nothing major... but it seems like it would indeed be possible.
If it is, I have no idea how to go about doing it.
I second the vote for a "lightbox" image selection feature. I'd love to give my customers a way to select images for consideration without putting them directly in the shopping cart.
I do headshots, and right now, it's very difficult for my clients to go through their sessions and narrow down to the final shots they want to use. Since my final deliverable is a digital file which is included in their session price, enabling the shopping cart would be confusing to them. A lightbox could be a holding area for images that are stock, for printing, or just for selection, as in my case.
Actually, now that I think of it, it would be a great way for fellow smuggers to keep track of images that they've come across on others' sites without having to bookmark them or download them or such -- they could keep lightboxes of "favorites."
Plus, it ties into the idea mentioned earlier of virtual photos appearing in multiple galleries, with separate permissions or qualities attached, like shortcuts or aliases....
Hmm... what do you think, O mighty, benevolent and generous smugmug gods?
From Sherrlyn.smugmug.com
New member
As a new member of Smugmug (I'm still getting my site up) and also a professional member of editorial photographers I HIGHLY recommend that anyone who is considering or is already selling photographs look at some of the "free" contract examples, forms and resources available for photographers on this site. It is a basic support for working professionals. I have worked in the professional world with agencies and editors for 14 years and today more than ever there is a lot of wanting something for nothing.
It is important to know how to say no and how to negotiate. If your work is worth publishing then it is worth it for you to charge a going rate. You need to know the questions to ask before settling on a price. Editorial photographers even has calculation guides as to what the average rate is for how the photograph is going to be used. As soon as a photographer gives something for almost free that photographer has set a precedence of their quality. Editorial photographers is basically a support for all of us.
It is important that photographers recognize the value of their work, consider their overhead costs of equipment, digital downloading time and their copyright. Here is the site if you are interested and want to pass it on if you already know all this.
http://www.editorialphoto.com/
http://www.BorkgrenPhoto.net
http://www.gallery.borkgren.com (smugmug)
Can't wait to see this service up and running. I have some general questions that I'm sure the powers that be are already mulling over!
1. Will we be able set the price of our pics or will prices be set by smugmug as is the case with most online stock libraries?
2. What will the license model be; RF or Licensed, or both?
3. Would images need to go through some kind of quality control? Personally, I think this is a good idea to ensure customers come back for more of the same.
I would like to see both types of license model adopted and hope smugmug doesn't decide to go down the micro payment RF route which is currently devaluing RF stock. I think Alamy has a great business model which would suit Smugmugs' plans well.
Yes, you set the price.
RF for now, possible options later.
There will be quality control.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I agree with the other posters, this is a welcome development! I'm looking forward to watching this one play out.
I understand that it's going to be developed on the fly to meet our needs. Here is my 2¢ on what is important to develop earlier rather than later: Rights Management. I'm no software engineer, but I think the PLUS Pack Calculator is an excellent option to consider.
From their literature, SAA describes the PLUS Pack Calculator as "a universal standard for a streamlined form of Rights Managed licensing for stock and commissioned images... High volume stock distributors can integrate the Calculator into their existing ecommerce systems..."
It's the kind of easy to use, easy to understand RM system I would hope SmugMug Stock woud integrate into the shopping cart.
I am definitely interested in this! I look forward to your updates
Erin
www.bandfotos.com
Sebastian
SmugMug Support Hero
www.theanimalhaven.com :thumb
Visit us at: www.northeastfoto.com a forum for northeastern USA Photogs to meet. :wink
Canon 30D, some lenses and stuff... I think im tired or something, i have a hard time concentrating.. hey look, a birdie!:clap
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Flickr-user-Lara-Jade-has-images-stolen
Im sure this will have been and will continue top be discussed thoroughly but thought this link of interest as it does highlight the problem - so better forewarned and forearmed than not
...pics..
Lara Jade is one of my "Friends" on myspace and I remeber when she was going through this... its a sad, sad world..
www.theanimalhaven.com :thumb
Visit us at: www.northeastfoto.com a forum for northeastern USA Photogs to meet. :wink
Canon 30D, some lenses and stuff... I think im tired or something, i have a hard time concentrating.. hey look, a birdie!:clap
Before SM starts the stock photos sale, I think SM should set all SM photos a default choice that all photos in SM can NOT do Right-click download (unless he/she agree to have everyone to do the free download - using a pop-up window to confirm). The stock photos compete with thousand of free snap shoots (for free right-click download) side-by-side within the same site just not make a business sense. Check other Microstock websites - so many comments said: their free photos get thousands of download while it did not bring much sale on their regular stock photos.
Thanks,
Gary<!-- / message -->
Look through my eyes on Cultural Surfaces! - customizing... currently in a state between limbo and chaos
I'd agree that right-click protection is only for naive visitors (it's fairly easy to circumvent), but it isn't quite as simple as turning off JavaScript so I don't want other readers to be misled by that. You won't get a warning message if you turn off JavaScript and you will think you downloaded the image, but all you will get is a blank GIF image.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Edit I found one - you're right. And that's much better, too! There's more to a right click than "stealing images". So now the question is: how do I protect my photos with a transparent GIF overlay while not blocking right clicking? That's what I'd like to do - but I definitely don't like to mess with a visitor's normal use of their browser.
Look through my eyes on Cultural Surfaces! - customizing... currently in a state between limbo and chaos
Yes, it is more sophisticated than that. It has placed a transparent GIF image over the top of the real image. Right click will only ever get the blank GIF image even without JavaScript enabled. There are certainly other ways to get to the image because the browser has to be able to get to it in order to display the web page in the first place so that means the image has to be obtainable by someone who knows what they are doing. Right-click protection is only a deterrent to the non-tech-savvy, not real protection.
For someone worried about theft, the best real protection is a semi-transparent watermark on a meaningful part of the photo and limiting the resolution available on the web to only web-sized versions.
As for Smugmug forcing various settings on photos offered for stock photo sale, I think that's up to the seller. Isn't it up to them how they want to offer and protect their photos? Since the best protection comes from watermarks and various sellers have different opinions about how watermarks effect their sales, shouldn't the seller get to decide?
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I would urge SmugMug to make watermarking available to at least Power users, or for a small extra fee as an extra option; preferably to all users.
I see a lot of grumbling from professional photographers about people putting their images in microstock sites and selling them for $1 each or even less. That eats into their living, for sure. And into SM's earnings. But then that applies to images downloaded for $0 (stolen) as well, and even more so. As I see it, it would be in SmugMug's own interest to offer watermarking not only to Pro users, and also a nice gesture to their Pro users.
Personally, I'm not ready to opt for a Pro account until SmugMug can offer payment via direct electronic transfer or into a Paypal account; but paying a Pro subscription fee just to get watermarking protection is a bit over the top.
Look through my eyes on Cultural Surfaces! - customizing... currently in a state between limbo and chaos
Is the stock photo offering going to be available to standard or power users? I assumed it was only going to be available to pro users since it's a money making endeavor that involves all the things in the pro account (price setting, license terms, payment info, tax info). If it's for pro users, then everyone who can use the feature will have watermarking features.
I'm not arguing against opening up watermarking to a wider audience, just that I assumed everyone selling through the new stock photo offering would have watermarking.
As for whether watermarking should be open to other account levels, that's a business decision for Smugmug since it is currently one of the differentation item for pro accounts.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
There's a lot more that differentiates a Pro account from a Power account - The major difference being that Pro users can actually earn money from their account.
What I'm arguing is that Pro users, and SmugMug themselves, would benefit from offering watermarking to other account types as well: it protects Pro users from seeing revenue "disappear" by visitors downloading "free" photos instead of paying for them, and that indirectly protects SM from losing revenue from sales as well. I'm not saying that standard or power users should be able to sell their photos for profit - that's what pro accounts are for. But those users should not have their photos stolen, and visitors should not have a "free" alternative when looking for an image to use.
Put differently: Not offering a watermarking option to non-pro users could harm the business of SM's pro users.
Look through my eyes on Cultural Surfaces! - customizing... currently in a state between limbo and chaos
http://www.epuk.org/The-Curve/604/photographers-websites
...pics..