I have recently opened an Esty store.
This store is a little different from the other selling sites listed. Those sites are where you can purchase copies of my photos or artwork.
Etsy is for other items.
I have been an avid auction attendee since the early 1990's. Selling on Etsy gives me the chance to make a little money from that hobby.
Etsy does allow sellers to offer digital files, so I might include some digital downloads there. (Images are one option but there are other options.)
This also gives me something to write about besides photography.
The photography news lately has been very limited, mainly covering new lenses and cameras. I currently don't have access to these items to review them myself and I have little interest in blogging based on reviews posted by someone else.
I did post links to those reviews at one time, but that became too time consuming when I started my day job.
I will continue to write on photography related subjects but will also include posts on other subjects, including Etsy updates.
For those looking for a place to sell photographic prints, Etsy is an option. Selling prints on the site does require you to print the images yourself. This does give you some control over the quality of the images sold. It also forces you to deal with the printing and shipping the prints.
Etsy does charge listing fees as well as charging a commission on sales.
The listing fee is only 20 cents per item and the listing lasts for four months.
Etsy also offers sellers a credit card reader. This allows sellers to allow buyers to buy directly from the seller while using their credit card. This is a viable option for anyone interested in direct sells to the public. (Like an art fair.)
All you need is a cell phone, an Etsy account and the credit card reader.
There is a per transaction fee when using the reader. (Roughly 3%.)
Showing posts with label selling art and photos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label selling art and photos. Show all posts
Monday, April 27, 2015
Friday, December 19, 2014
Flickr Revises Wall Art Offerings
Hat Tip: Pop Photo
Flickr has officially caved to the howls of outrage and has removed the Creative Commons material from the images available for purchase through its wall art program.
Personally, I didn't think the criticism for including the Creative Commons images was well founded, and don't think Flickr needed to pull them from the program. They only included those images officially marked by those that uploaded them to the sight as free to use for commercial purposes. They were using them for commercial purposes.
I find it hard to understand criticizing Flickr/Yahoo for selling images when the owner of the image marked them as being eligible for commercial use without the user paying any royalties.
It's not like Flickr was staking a claim to the image. They weren't preventing anyone else from downloading and using the images (including putting them on a sight where someone could purchase prints.) They weren't preventing the owner from removing the image or changing the licensing agreement so the images couldn't be used commercially.
No.
They were using the images in a manner in which they were explicitly allowed to do by the terms agreed to by the image owner.
The outrage seems solely based on thr fact that Flickr/Yahoo would make money by doing so.
Guess what?
That's what companies do.
They make money.
Flickr has officially caved to the howls of outrage and has removed the Creative Commons material from the images available for purchase through its wall art program.
Personally, I didn't think the criticism for including the Creative Commons images was well founded, and don't think Flickr needed to pull them from the program. They only included those images officially marked by those that uploaded them to the sight as free to use for commercial purposes. They were using them for commercial purposes.
I find it hard to understand criticizing Flickr/Yahoo for selling images when the owner of the image marked them as being eligible for commercial use without the user paying any royalties.
It's not like Flickr was staking a claim to the image. They weren't preventing anyone else from downloading and using the images (including putting them on a sight where someone could purchase prints.) They weren't preventing the owner from removing the image or changing the licensing agreement so the images couldn't be used commercially.
No.
They were using the images in a manner in which they were explicitly allowed to do by the terms agreed to by the image owner.
The outrage seems solely based on thr fact that Flickr/Yahoo would make money by doing so.
Guess what?
That's what companies do.
They make money.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Facebook Shop Open!
My Facebook fan page now has an integrated shop thanks to Fine Art America.
The site makes it extremely easy to set up. You just have to go to the "Behind the Scenes" screen and scroll down to the marketing options. Click on the Facebook applications button. Then activate the shopping cart link option under the Facebook for Fan Pages.
The only complaint? It only covers prints. No phone cases and no licensing options.
The site makes it extremely easy to set up. You just have to go to the "Behind the Scenes" screen and scroll down to the marketing options. Click on the Facebook applications button. Then activate the shopping cart link option under the Facebook for Fan Pages.
The only complaint? It only covers prints. No phone cases and no licensing options.
Friday, November 7, 2014
My Facebook Fan Page
I have just created a Facebook fan page.
It's still a work in progress, so keep that in mind.
I'll be posting to that site whenever I add something to one of the sites where my photography and artwork is available for sale. Red Bubble suggests using a fan page when updating.
Why create a Facebook fan page despite already having a personal profile?
Well, for starters that's "personal profile". According to Red Bubble, using a personal profile for commerce can result in the profile being deleted by Facebook. It apparently violates their terms of service. (Don't ask me why. Ask Zuckerberg.)
There is also a limit on the number of "friends" one can have. (I'm no where near the 5,000 limit). There is no limit on "fans" Again, don't ask me why.
It also allows for separation of personal and business activity. This can be important when attempting to create a professional appearance. I'm not worries about that right now, but might be in the future. It also helps with branding as you can use a Company name for the fan page. I used "The Great Fire Dragon", same as this blog site.
It also opens up some options not available when using just a profile page. Red Bubble offers image options when linking to a fan page that aren't available on a personal profile page.
It's still a work in progress, so keep that in mind.
I'll be posting to that site whenever I add something to one of the sites where my photography and artwork is available for sale. Red Bubble suggests using a fan page when updating.
Why create a Facebook fan page despite already having a personal profile?
Well, for starters that's "personal profile". According to Red Bubble, using a personal profile for commerce can result in the profile being deleted by Facebook. It apparently violates their terms of service. (Don't ask me why. Ask Zuckerberg.)
There is also a limit on the number of "friends" one can have. (I'm no where near the 5,000 limit). There is no limit on "fans" Again, don't ask me why.
It also allows for separation of personal and business activity. This can be important when attempting to create a professional appearance. I'm not worries about that right now, but might be in the future. It also helps with branding as you can use a Company name for the fan page. I used "The Great Fire Dragon", same as this blog site.
It also opens up some options not available when using just a profile page. Red Bubble offers image options when linking to a fan page that aren't available on a personal profile page.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Red Bubble Tips - Mug Design
Red Bubble recently announced the addition of mugs to the range of items offered for sale.
There has been a little confusion on how to design for mugs. Part of this stems from the site changing how images are applied to a certain extent.
Currently, the site uses one image for mugs (tall and standard) and a different image for travel mugs. Travel mugs aren't currently available on the site, but should be sometime in the near future.
The image for coffee mugs needs to be 2700 x 1624 for full coverage on tall mugs. The same image can be used for standard sized coffee mugs, but the vertical portion of the image that will show on a standard mug is just over 1120 pixels.
For best result you'll want to limit important portions of the image to the central 1000 pixels or use a repeating pattern.
Here's a template to use when designing mugs:
It's 2700 x 1624. Use the entire template (dark and light gray) for tall mugs. (These aren't available yet, but it's a good idea to design with them in mind.) The light gray area shows the area that will be printed on standard mugs. It's roughly 1126 pixels tall.
The green line represents the point immediately across from the handle. If you want to center an image across from the handle, use this line.
The red lines are where you want to place images to center them on the sides. Yes, the red lines are closer to the edges than to the middle. The area missing on the edges is where the handle is located.
Travel Mugs
Image dimensions for travel mugs (when implemented): 2376 x 2024. Travel mugs don't have a handle, so you don't need to make allowance for the handle.
For travel mugs:
For a single element (like a logo) center it on the green line. For two elements, center on the red. You can use the entire vertical area without worrying about losing part of the design.
There has been a little confusion on how to design for mugs. Part of this stems from the site changing how images are applied to a certain extent.
Currently, the site uses one image for mugs (tall and standard) and a different image for travel mugs. Travel mugs aren't currently available on the site, but should be sometime in the near future.
The image for coffee mugs needs to be 2700 x 1624 for full coverage on tall mugs. The same image can be used for standard sized coffee mugs, but the vertical portion of the image that will show on a standard mug is just over 1120 pixels.
For best result you'll want to limit important portions of the image to the central 1000 pixels or use a repeating pattern.
Here's a template to use when designing mugs:
It's 2700 x 1624. Use the entire template (dark and light gray) for tall mugs. (These aren't available yet, but it's a good idea to design with them in mind.) The light gray area shows the area that will be printed on standard mugs. It's roughly 1126 pixels tall.
The green line represents the point immediately across from the handle. If you want to center an image across from the handle, use this line.
The red lines are where you want to place images to center them on the sides. Yes, the red lines are closer to the edges than to the middle. The area missing on the edges is where the handle is located.
Travel Mugs
Image dimensions for travel mugs (when implemented): 2376 x 2024. Travel mugs don't have a handle, so you don't need to make allowance for the handle.
For travel mugs:
For a single element (like a logo) center it on the green line. For two elements, center on the red. You can use the entire vertical area without worrying about losing part of the design.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Red Bubble Tips - Image Files
Red Bubble currently accepts two formats for image files: jpg and png.
So which format should be used when uploading images?
JPG Images
Jpg images are good for complex images or images with a large number of different colors. Or both. This is format you should use when uploading photographs or artwork with complex images. Jpg images can be compressed when saved. This lowers the image quality. Images should be saved with no compression if possible.
(Digital cameras can automatically apply compression when saving images.. Make sure to use the lowest compression setting on your camera when taking pictures.)
PNG Images
Png files tend to be larger than jpg images when dealing with complex images, like photographs. (Less complex images like line-art tend to be smaller when saved in png format.)
Unlike the jpg format, png allows you to save transparency information. This transparency information is necessary if you want to print something other than a rectangular or square image. Use this format if you want an image to blend seamlessly into the background.
Png images should be used on apparel and stickers, but can be used on other items as well. (They often work better on mugs or cases than jpg images.)
Png files do support multiple transparency values by using an alpha channel. This allows certain portions of the image to be fully transparent, others partially transparent and the rest opaque.
Multiple Images
Red Bubble does offer the option to use different images depending on what items is being purchased. For example, you can use one image for the majority of items but use a modified image for mugs. (I've done this. The default file is just the image. The image file for mugs includes text. The result is the image on one side of the mig and text on the other. All other items just have the image.)
When you upload an image (or edit an existing one) you will wind up on a page that shows product previews. The top of the page has a "REPLACE ALL IMAGES" button. Use this to upload a new file for all items.
Clicking on the preview image or "EDIT" button for an item will open the setting options for that item.
On the right hand side of the options there will be a "REPLACE IMAGE" button. Click this to upload an image to be used with that item.
There are times when an image needs to be modified based on what items it is used on. Red Bubble provides the option to do this.
Image Size
Red Bubble does have a maximum file size: 300MB or 13500 x 13500 pixels. The last is important when dealing with Duvet Covers. Images for King sized duvets need to be 13500 x 11462 for full coverage. This is almost maximum size.
Other products require smaller images. If an image exceeds the size needed it will be scaled down when the product is produced. This allows a single large image to be used for most items. The individual items may need to be edited so that the image is positioned properly.
Color Space
A color space is a specific organization of colors. This organization allows for reproducible results when the image is rendered, either on screen or when printed.
Images uploaded to Red Bubble should be saved using the sRGB color space. (The "s" is for standard.) This allows for the most predictable results when the image is used.
Some image editing software offer the option to automatically assign a color space to image created or edited by that software. Doing so ensures that the image uploaded always have the correct color profile.
In plain language, the color space or color profile tells the device what the colors used in the image should look like when the image is reproduced. It is then up to that device (monitor or printer) to correctly reproduce the color. Using the sRGB color space will give Red Bubble the best change to render the colors in your images correctly.
So which format should be used when uploading images?
JPG Images
Jpg images are good for complex images or images with a large number of different colors. Or both. This is format you should use when uploading photographs or artwork with complex images. Jpg images can be compressed when saved. This lowers the image quality. Images should be saved with no compression if possible.
(Digital cameras can automatically apply compression when saving images.. Make sure to use the lowest compression setting on your camera when taking pictures.)
PNG Images
Png files tend to be larger than jpg images when dealing with complex images, like photographs. (Less complex images like line-art tend to be smaller when saved in png format.)
Unlike the jpg format, png allows you to save transparency information. This transparency information is necessary if you want to print something other than a rectangular or square image. Use this format if you want an image to blend seamlessly into the background.
Png images should be used on apparel and stickers, but can be used on other items as well. (They often work better on mugs or cases than jpg images.)
Png files do support multiple transparency values by using an alpha channel. This allows certain portions of the image to be fully transparent, others partially transparent and the rest opaque.
Multiple Images
Red Bubble does offer the option to use different images depending on what items is being purchased. For example, you can use one image for the majority of items but use a modified image for mugs. (I've done this. The default file is just the image. The image file for mugs includes text. The result is the image on one side of the mig and text on the other. All other items just have the image.)
When you upload an image (or edit an existing one) you will wind up on a page that shows product previews. The top of the page has a "REPLACE ALL IMAGES" button. Use this to upload a new file for all items.
Clicking on the preview image or "EDIT" button for an item will open the setting options for that item.
On the right hand side of the options there will be a "REPLACE IMAGE" button. Click this to upload an image to be used with that item.
There are times when an image needs to be modified based on what items it is used on. Red Bubble provides the option to do this.
Image Size
Red Bubble does have a maximum file size: 300MB or 13500 x 13500 pixels. The last is important when dealing with Duvet Covers. Images for King sized duvets need to be 13500 x 11462 for full coverage. This is almost maximum size.
Other products require smaller images. If an image exceeds the size needed it will be scaled down when the product is produced. This allows a single large image to be used for most items. The individual items may need to be edited so that the image is positioned properly.
Color Space
A color space is a specific organization of colors. This organization allows for reproducible results when the image is rendered, either on screen or when printed.
Images uploaded to Red Bubble should be saved using the sRGB color space. (The "s" is for standard.) This allows for the most predictable results when the image is used.
Some image editing software offer the option to automatically assign a color space to image created or edited by that software. Doing so ensures that the image uploaded always have the correct color profile.
In plain language, the color space or color profile tells the device what the colors used in the image should look like when the image is reproduced. It is then up to that device (monitor or printer) to correctly reproduce the color. Using the sRGB color space will give Red Bubble the best change to render the colors in your images correctly.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Uploaded New Work to Red Bubble
I mentioned earlier today that I was going to start concentrating on uploading images to the various selling sites I have accounts on whenever I have a little down time during my job search.(I'll probably open new accounts as well.)
I have just uploaded a new image to Red Bubble: The Giant Robot Attack.
It's available on iPad and iPhone cases, Galaxy cases, Tote Bags, Throw Pillows and as a card, print or poster.
I have just uploaded a new image to Red Bubble: The Giant Robot Attack.
It's available on iPad and iPhone cases, Galaxy cases, Tote Bags, Throw Pillows and as a card, print or poster.
Monday, June 23, 2014
Fine Art America Update
It's been a very slow news day (again).
Weekends and Mondays tend to be slow news days and those are the days I tend to go through the photos I've taken that week. It's also when I catch up on uploading images.
I thought I'd share my latest upload to Fine Art America.
It's a shot I took while visiting a bicycle trail near my home. (It's not quite within walking distance.)
The trail used to branch off into the area where the bench is located. It's no longer maintained by the parks department.
I used a lomo filter on the image. The original had blown-out highlights in the background and the lomo filter helped tone those down.
Weekends and Mondays tend to be slow news days and those are the days I tend to go through the photos I've taken that week. It's also when I catch up on uploading images.
I thought I'd share my latest upload to Fine Art America.
It's a shot I took while visiting a bicycle trail near my home. (It's not quite within walking distance.)
The trail used to branch off into the area where the bench is located. It's no longer maintained by the parks department.
I used a lomo filter on the image. The original had blown-out highlights in the background and the lomo filter helped tone those down.
Monday, May 12, 2014
DeviantArt Page
I have started a DeviantArt page.
Some of the images uploaded will be the same as those uploaded to Fine Art America/Pixels.
I am also uploading images there that aren't part of my Fine Art America portfolio. Many of these will be available under a Creative Commons license and will be free to download and use. (Images not free to use will be marked with a DeviantArt watermark)
Why offer free images?
For starters, I like taking pictures. Sometimes the subject matter is very pedestrian. It's hard to sell these images. A picture of a dandelion may be well done, but it's still a dandelion. It's a subject matter just about anyone with a camera can take a successful picture of.
Some pictures just don't meet my standards when it comes to charging for them. Slightly out of focus image or images with noise or noticeable grain when viewed close to full size may still be useful as stock or artist reference material. (I do offer the option to buy prints of the images uploaded to DeviantArt. A slightly out-of-focus image or one with a little noise may be worth using at less than full resolution.)
Freebies also happen to be good publicity.
Extra traffic to this blog or sites I actually sell images can't hurt.
Some of the images uploaded will be the same as those uploaded to Fine Art America/Pixels.
I am also uploading images there that aren't part of my Fine Art America portfolio. Many of these will be available under a Creative Commons license and will be free to download and use. (Images not free to use will be marked with a DeviantArt watermark)
Why offer free images?
For starters, I like taking pictures. Sometimes the subject matter is very pedestrian. It's hard to sell these images. A picture of a dandelion may be well done, but it's still a dandelion. It's a subject matter just about anyone with a camera can take a successful picture of.
Some pictures just don't meet my standards when it comes to charging for them. Slightly out of focus image or images with noise or noticeable grain when viewed close to full size may still be useful as stock or artist reference material. (I do offer the option to buy prints of the images uploaded to DeviantArt. A slightly out-of-focus image or one with a little noise may be worth using at less than full resolution.)
Freebies also happen to be good publicity.
Extra traffic to this blog or sites I actually sell images can't hurt.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
The Fallout has Started Over the Getty's Decision to Give Images Away for Free
Recent Getty Images announced it would enable free image embedding for it's stock images.
I predicted the move would not go over well with the photographers that actually owned the images Getty was giving away for free.
The fallout seems to have started. Pixels.com has just announced that it will now offer licensing for the images uploaded by photographers. (Pixels.com is a sister site for Fine Art America. Content loaded to Fine Art America is automatically mirrored on Pixels.)
The call for offering image licensing greatly increased after Getty's move to give images away for free.
The move is a result of the site being responsive to the needs and desires of the photographers that use the site, and that is reflected in the implementation. The photographer uploading the image sets the licensing fee. Pixels then adds a 30% markup.
The end result is a 77/23 split with the majority going to the photographer.
(A licensing fee of $100 yields a $30 markup. The end price is $130. $100, or 76.9% of that goes to the photographer.)
That split is a great deal for photographers, and vastly better than what photographers can get at Getty.
Pixels/Fine Art America seems motivated by meeting the needs of its contributors. Getty's motivation seems to be making as much money as possible and that leads to decisions that benefits the company at the expense of its contributors.
Fine Art America/Pixels.com does limit the number of images that can be offered at the same time for those using a free account. Paying members can offer unlimited images. (The yearly fee is fairly low so this isn't that much of a drawback.)
This decision does effect me personally as I have a Fine Art America/Pixels account. Now I need to decide which images I want to offer and the price to ask, a task I am happy to undertake.
Getty has forgotten those ultimately responsible for its success, and other sites are going to take advantage of that. Pixels is just the first to publicly announce a move meant to cater to contributors unhappy with Getty.
I predicted the move would not go over well with the photographers that actually owned the images Getty was giving away for free.
The fallout seems to have started. Pixels.com has just announced that it will now offer licensing for the images uploaded by photographers. (Pixels.com is a sister site for Fine Art America. Content loaded to Fine Art America is automatically mirrored on Pixels.)
The call for offering image licensing greatly increased after Getty's move to give images away for free.
The move is a result of the site being responsive to the needs and desires of the photographers that use the site, and that is reflected in the implementation. The photographer uploading the image sets the licensing fee. Pixels then adds a 30% markup.
The end result is a 77/23 split with the majority going to the photographer.
(A licensing fee of $100 yields a $30 markup. The end price is $130. $100, or 76.9% of that goes to the photographer.)
That split is a great deal for photographers, and vastly better than what photographers can get at Getty.
Pixels/Fine Art America seems motivated by meeting the needs of its contributors. Getty's motivation seems to be making as much money as possible and that leads to decisions that benefits the company at the expense of its contributors.
Fine Art America/Pixels.com does limit the number of images that can be offered at the same time for those using a free account. Paying members can offer unlimited images. (The yearly fee is fairly low so this isn't that much of a drawback.)
This decision does effect me personally as I have a Fine Art America/Pixels account. Now I need to decide which images I want to offer and the price to ask, a task I am happy to undertake.
Getty has forgotten those ultimately responsible for its success, and other sites are going to take advantage of that. Pixels is just the first to publicly announce a move meant to cater to contributors unhappy with Getty.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Getty Announces End to Partnership with Flickr
Hat Tip: PetaPixel
(Also thenextweb)
Getty has terminated its 6-year long partnership with Flickr.
Under that partnership, visitors to Flickr could request a license to use images loaded to Flickr. The licensing was done through Getty. Getty would also actively browse Flickr images to add to its library. When Getty encountered a Flickr image it wanted to add to its library, it would contact the owner and ask permission to license it.
Both of those are now ending.
Flickr users now have to go through the same contributor process as every other photographer.
The images licensed from Flickr will now be part of Getty's "Moment" collection. This means people that already have images with Getty will just have the location on Getty's website change.
The Moment collection includes something called "Moment Mobile". These are images taken and submitted using a mobile device. Currently only iOS devices qualify for mobile submission. Android devices will be added later.
My take on this?
Getty is abandoning a revenue source with this move. Currently, anybody that finds a Flickr image they want to license can do so by requesting a license online through Flickr. The request goes to Getty and Getty handles the license request.
Ending that process forces anyone wanting to license a Flickr image to contact the photographer directly. Many professional photographers are capable of handling licensing themselves. Those that don't want to handle the licensing themselves can go through a site that doesn't screen submissions first. Forcing the licensee to contact the photographer cuts Getty out of the equation.
A company abandoning a revenue stream is a questionable decision, no matter how small the stream.
Couple the move to allow submission via mobile devices with embedded images for social media sites seems to indicate Getty becoming obsesses with Social Media. Social Media sites had around $16 Billion in revenue in 2013, and Getty apparently wants a piece of that.
The largest share of that revenue was generated by facebook. Facebook accounts for roughly a third of that $16 Billion. (Maybe more, since that $5 Billion was in 2012, not 2013.) Zynga and Groupon are the other "Social Media" companies that had over a billion in revenue that year. (I accused Getty of having Google envy yesterday, I might have to revise that to facebook envy.)
The problem?
Getty is not a Social Media company, and its current business model is largely incompatible with being one.
Professionals that use Social Media use it as a promotional outlet. It is a cheap way to provide information about themselves and their products or services. This includes photographers looking to sell photos or looking for clients. Photographers may upload images to sites like facebook as part of this promotional effort.
These same photographers may then link to sites where there images can be purchased. This would include sites like Getty where they can be licensed for use in magazines, newspapers or on web sites.
Getty as a source of Social Media content has an interest in offering that content as cheap as possible. Free being best.
The lower the price they charge for the content, the less desirable they become as an outlet for those seeking to license their images.
In order to make this Social Media targeted move to work, Getty needs to spend as little as possible on the images it offers. This explains, in part, the termination of its partnering with Flickr. Under the Flickr TOS, the photographer retained the rights to the images uploaded to that site. Getty can not just use those images.
Don't be surprised if Getty's agreement with Flickr is replaces with a similar one with facebook.
Facebook's TOS states that uploading images the facebook provides the company with a transferable royalty free license. Getty could re-market those images without having to pay the photographer that uploaded them. (A product you can get for free and make money off of, what could possibly go wrong?)
This move to becoming a Social Media content provider does not bode well for the photographers doing business with Getty. Getty now has a conflict of interest when it comes to marketing their images.
(Also thenextweb)
Getty has terminated its 6-year long partnership with Flickr.
Under that partnership, visitors to Flickr could request a license to use images loaded to Flickr. The licensing was done through Getty. Getty would also actively browse Flickr images to add to its library. When Getty encountered a Flickr image it wanted to add to its library, it would contact the owner and ask permission to license it.
Both of those are now ending.
Flickr users now have to go through the same contributor process as every other photographer.
The images licensed from Flickr will now be part of Getty's "Moment" collection. This means people that already have images with Getty will just have the location on Getty's website change.
The Moment collection includes something called "Moment Mobile". These are images taken and submitted using a mobile device. Currently only iOS devices qualify for mobile submission. Android devices will be added later.
My take on this?
Getty is abandoning a revenue source with this move. Currently, anybody that finds a Flickr image they want to license can do so by requesting a license online through Flickr. The request goes to Getty and Getty handles the license request.
Ending that process forces anyone wanting to license a Flickr image to contact the photographer directly. Many professional photographers are capable of handling licensing themselves. Those that don't want to handle the licensing themselves can go through a site that doesn't screen submissions first. Forcing the licensee to contact the photographer cuts Getty out of the equation.
A company abandoning a revenue stream is a questionable decision, no matter how small the stream.
Couple the move to allow submission via mobile devices with embedded images for social media sites seems to indicate Getty becoming obsesses with Social Media. Social Media sites had around $16 Billion in revenue in 2013, and Getty apparently wants a piece of that.
The largest share of that revenue was generated by facebook. Facebook accounts for roughly a third of that $16 Billion. (Maybe more, since that $5 Billion was in 2012, not 2013.) Zynga and Groupon are the other "Social Media" companies that had over a billion in revenue that year. (I accused Getty of having Google envy yesterday, I might have to revise that to facebook envy.)
The problem?
Getty is not a Social Media company, and its current business model is largely incompatible with being one.
Professionals that use Social Media use it as a promotional outlet. It is a cheap way to provide information about themselves and their products or services. This includes photographers looking to sell photos or looking for clients. Photographers may upload images to sites like facebook as part of this promotional effort.
These same photographers may then link to sites where there images can be purchased. This would include sites like Getty where they can be licensed for use in magazines, newspapers or on web sites.
Getty as a source of Social Media content has an interest in offering that content as cheap as possible. Free being best.
The lower the price they charge for the content, the less desirable they become as an outlet for those seeking to license their images.
In order to make this Social Media targeted move to work, Getty needs to spend as little as possible on the images it offers. This explains, in part, the termination of its partnering with Flickr. Under the Flickr TOS, the photographer retained the rights to the images uploaded to that site. Getty can not just use those images.
Don't be surprised if Getty's agreement with Flickr is replaces with a similar one with facebook.
Facebook's TOS states that uploading images the facebook provides the company with a transferable royalty free license. Getty could re-market those images without having to pay the photographer that uploaded them. (A product you can get for free and make money off of, what could possibly go wrong?)
This move to becoming a Social Media content provider does not bode well for the photographers doing business with Getty. Getty now has a conflict of interest when it comes to marketing their images.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
What's the Over-Under on How Long IStock Photo/Getty Stay in Business?
HatTip: PetaPixel vis SLR Lounge
Coming off last year's debacle when Getty was found to have violated violated copyright law, you might have expected the company to tread carefully when it comes to bad publicity.
Nope.
Thousands of photographers just received emails from the company informing them that their future payments were going to be limited.
Getty contends that the payment system erroneously overpaid these contributors in September/October 2013. The individuals overpaid will have royalty payments confiscated until that overpayment is recovered.
I predict a great deal of umbrage on part of the affected contributors. There is little transparency on the company's part when it comes to royalty payments. Contributors have no way of determining whether the payments received are accurate. They had no way of knowing they were receiving an overpayment. They probably feel they should not be the party bearing the burden here, since Getty/iStock Photo was the only one in this relationship with the ability to avoid the error.
Getty faces having a large number of contributors defect from their stock site, and the contributors with the largest incentive to leave are the ones hit hardest by the overpayment problems. These are most likely the most successful contributors.
Having the most successful contributors leave the stock site does not bode well for the company's future.
(Note to Getty: Having your most successful contributors flee your stock site is going to hurt your bottom line far more than simply writing off these overpayments.)
BTW, this wouldn't be the first mass defection from the company. There was one last year following a deal Getty mad with Google.
It gets worse when you factor in the Morel episode. Getty has already proven itself to be a bad actor. Some contributors might suspect that this is nothing more than a way for the company to recoup the copyright infringement award in that case.
Don't be surprised if Getty gets sued over this move as well.
The affected contributors have an argument that Getty assumed the risk of overpayment due to the way they structured the relationship between contributor and company. Getty was the only one in the relationship in position to ensure correct payment amounts. They may have lost any ability to recover overpayment as a result of that arrangement.
Then there is the suspicion that this is being done to cover the Morel award. At the very least, a lawsuit would force Getty to open it's books in order to prove that it overpaid. The people running Getty have already proven themselves to have little regard for the law as a result of the Morel case. Why would the people that had no qualms violating one photographer's legal rights have any qualms violating the contractual rights of their contributors?
Getty may very well have inadvertently overpaid some of its contributors, but it should be up to the company to prove that before asking those contributors to repay.
A letter stating that future earnings will be confiscated and the amount being confiscated just doesn't cut it.
Coming off last year's debacle when Getty was found to have violated violated copyright law, you might have expected the company to tread carefully when it comes to bad publicity.
Nope.
Thousands of photographers just received emails from the company informing them that their future payments were going to be limited.
Getty contends that the payment system erroneously overpaid these contributors in September/October 2013. The individuals overpaid will have royalty payments confiscated until that overpayment is recovered.
I predict a great deal of umbrage on part of the affected contributors. There is little transparency on the company's part when it comes to royalty payments. Contributors have no way of determining whether the payments received are accurate. They had no way of knowing they were receiving an overpayment. They probably feel they should not be the party bearing the burden here, since Getty/iStock Photo was the only one in this relationship with the ability to avoid the error.
Getty faces having a large number of contributors defect from their stock site, and the contributors with the largest incentive to leave are the ones hit hardest by the overpayment problems. These are most likely the most successful contributors.
Having the most successful contributors leave the stock site does not bode well for the company's future.
(Note to Getty: Having your most successful contributors flee your stock site is going to hurt your bottom line far more than simply writing off these overpayments.)
BTW, this wouldn't be the first mass defection from the company. There was one last year following a deal Getty mad with Google.
It gets worse when you factor in the Morel episode. Getty has already proven itself to be a bad actor. Some contributors might suspect that this is nothing more than a way for the company to recoup the copyright infringement award in that case.
Don't be surprised if Getty gets sued over this move as well.
The affected contributors have an argument that Getty assumed the risk of overpayment due to the way they structured the relationship between contributor and company. Getty was the only one in the relationship in position to ensure correct payment amounts. They may have lost any ability to recover overpayment as a result of that arrangement.
Then there is the suspicion that this is being done to cover the Morel award. At the very least, a lawsuit would force Getty to open it's books in order to prove that it overpaid. The people running Getty have already proven themselves to have little regard for the law as a result of the Morel case. Why would the people that had no qualms violating one photographer's legal rights have any qualms violating the contractual rights of their contributors?
Getty may very well have inadvertently overpaid some of its contributors, but it should be up to the company to prove that before asking those contributors to repay.
A letter stating that future earnings will be confiscated and the amount being confiscated just doesn't cut it.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Another Way to Sell Your Photography or Artwork
Shutterbug recently posted an online article on Photography eBooks.
It's a fairly lengthy article and includes Question/Answers from several professional photographers that have published eBooks. It also includes links to the photographers' works as well as links relevant for those looking to publish their own eBook.
Photography eBooks represent another option when it comes to making money off of photography. (The information is applicable to non-photography eBooks as well.)
I haven't tried this yet, but here are some of my thoughts on the subject.
First, you'll need a fairly large number of quality photographs to make this work. With a calendar you can get by with 12 or 13 good photos. A book is going to require far more than that. The exact number will depend on the number of pages involved as well as the number of photos on each page. A good eBook could require several hundred quality photos.
That is a great deal of time and effort.
Remember, there is no reason why the individual photos can't be offered for sale while you are accumulating enough for a book. Offering the photos for sale (or displaying them on a website) can help create interest in the book once it's finished.
Secondly, books covering a limited subject are probably easier to market.
My suggestion is concentrating on local subjects. There is less effort needed. Think about the subjects that the local tourist board would advertise when trying to generate interest. The local tourist board might be interested in working with a photographer working on photographing local subjects. They might even be interested in offering the eBook for sale on their website.
Non-tourist subject will work as well and may offer logical outlets for the sale of the book. For example, geology enthusiasts might be interested in a mineral photography eBook and there are websites dedicated to the subject.
Think about the potential outlets for the book before starting it.
If you want advice from people that have actually published eBooks, read the Shutterbug article.
It's a fairly lengthy article and includes Question/Answers from several professional photographers that have published eBooks. It also includes links to the photographers' works as well as links relevant for those looking to publish their own eBook.
Photography eBooks represent another option when it comes to making money off of photography. (The information is applicable to non-photography eBooks as well.)
I haven't tried this yet, but here are some of my thoughts on the subject.
First, you'll need a fairly large number of quality photographs to make this work. With a calendar you can get by with 12 or 13 good photos. A book is going to require far more than that. The exact number will depend on the number of pages involved as well as the number of photos on each page. A good eBook could require several hundred quality photos.
That is a great deal of time and effort.
Remember, there is no reason why the individual photos can't be offered for sale while you are accumulating enough for a book. Offering the photos for sale (or displaying them on a website) can help create interest in the book once it's finished.
Secondly, books covering a limited subject are probably easier to market.
My suggestion is concentrating on local subjects. There is less effort needed. Think about the subjects that the local tourist board would advertise when trying to generate interest. The local tourist board might be interested in working with a photographer working on photographing local subjects. They might even be interested in offering the eBook for sale on their website.
Non-tourist subject will work as well and may offer logical outlets for the sale of the book. For example, geology enthusiasts might be interested in a mineral photography eBook and there are websites dedicated to the subject.
Think about the potential outlets for the book before starting it.
If you want advice from people that have actually published eBooks, read the Shutterbug article.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Holiday Gift Ideas: Claendars
Here's another gift idea for those people on your list that are hard to shop for. Try a calendar. Calendars combine utilitarian design with an inexpensive source of wall art.
A calendar is a little less "special" than other gift ideas, making them more appropriate as a second gift or as a gift for a teacher, coworker or those Christmas parties where everyone is supposed to bring a gift without knowing who the ultimate recipient will be. Options range from small pocket calendars, to desk calendars and large wall calendars.
Pocket and desk calendars work well as stocking stuffers for those mature enough to enjoy something other than candy in their stocking.
Calendars are readily available from multiple sources. (Discount stores often offer very inexpensive, if limited, options.)
Custom options are available for those willing to support a starving artist. CafePress, Zazzle and RedBubble all offer calendars from individual artists.
I do have a RedBubble account and currently have one calendar in my portfolio featuring my water related photography. My only complaint is that calendar offerings aren't listed as a separate option when viewing an artist's RedBubble portfolio. They are instead displayed under images with the word "calendar" across the image. Not a good way to draw attention to a product.
For a truly customized calendar, try uploading your own artwork or photographs. All it takes is creating a free account at one of the above sites (CafePress, Zazzle or RedBubble).
There are other sites that will print calendars using uploaded images. The three sites listed offer the additional option of selling those calendars to other people. If you want to use your own images Shutterfly, Snapfish and Walgreens offer calendar options. (That's just after a brief Internet search.)
A calendar is a little less "special" than other gift ideas, making them more appropriate as a second gift or as a gift for a teacher, coworker or those Christmas parties where everyone is supposed to bring a gift without knowing who the ultimate recipient will be. Options range from small pocket calendars, to desk calendars and large wall calendars.
Pocket and desk calendars work well as stocking stuffers for those mature enough to enjoy something other than candy in their stocking.
Calendars are readily available from multiple sources. (Discount stores often offer very inexpensive, if limited, options.)
Custom options are available for those willing to support a starving artist. CafePress, Zazzle and RedBubble all offer calendars from individual artists.
I do have a RedBubble account and currently have one calendar in my portfolio featuring my water related photography. My only complaint is that calendar offerings aren't listed as a separate option when viewing an artist's RedBubble portfolio. They are instead displayed under images with the word "calendar" across the image. Not a good way to draw attention to a product.
For a truly customized calendar, try uploading your own artwork or photographs. All it takes is creating a free account at one of the above sites (CafePress, Zazzle or RedBubble).
There are other sites that will print calendars using uploaded images. The three sites listed offer the additional option of selling those calendars to other people. If you want to use your own images Shutterfly, Snapfish and Walgreens offer calendar options. (That's just after a brief Internet search.)
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Christmas Gift Idea: Customized Kindle Covers
Hat tip to Engadget via PopPhoto.
Amazon now offers the option to personalize Kindel Accessories purchased from their website. Kindel cases and skins can now be purchased decorated with images uploaded by the purchaser as well as images from Amazon's gallery.
The latter option includes images of the Peanuts gang.
There are image sources for those non-photographers/non-artists that want to customize using something other than the somewhat limited images offered by Amazon. Free sources are listed first. (The images on this site should be free of any copyright limitations, but it doesn't hurt to double check before using an image from one of these sites.)
The Amazon orders are actually filled by CafePress. You could go directly to that website for more image options. I don't currently have a CafePress account, so I don't have anything to gain (yet) by linking to this site.
CafePress accounts are free to open. Try one if you are an artist or photographer looking to make a little money.
Amazon now offers the option to personalize Kindel Accessories purchased from their website. Kindel cases and skins can now be purchased decorated with images uploaded by the purchaser as well as images from Amazon's gallery.
The latter option includes images of the Peanuts gang.
There are image sources for those non-photographers/non-artists that want to customize using something other than the somewhat limited images offered by Amazon. Free sources are listed first. (The images on this site should be free of any copyright limitations, but it doesn't hurt to double check before using an image from one of these sites.)
The Amazon orders are actually filled by CafePress. You could go directly to that website for more image options. I don't currently have a CafePress account, so I don't have anything to gain (yet) by linking to this site.
CafePress accounts are free to open. Try one if you are an artist or photographer looking to make a little money.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Determining How Your Photographs Will Look on a Phone Case
I recently wrote a post suggesting phone cases as Christmas gifts. My Fine Art America account allows me to offer my photographs for use on phone cases. One of the problems I have had is determining how those photos would actually look when used.
I recently created an account on RedBubble. It offers a wider range of products than Fine Art America. (I am planning on creating accounts on Zazzle and CafePress as well). RedBubble offers a template for use with iPhone and iPad cases.
This template does give a better idea as to how the final product will look, but it still isn't perfect. I decided to create a template that works better when trying to determine how an image will look on an iPhone case (based on the RedBubble template).
The white area is actually transparent. This allows the underlying image to show through in that area. The gray is set to 50% transparency. This area corresponds to the sides of the case. This portion of the image will be printed on the case, but not visible when only the front can be seen.
The black area represents an area not printed when using RedBubble. It's there so that the image can still be used if the case design changes.
Here's how the template looks over an actual image:
The template was placed over the image for best results then cropped to the template size. This looks like it should work well for a phone case. The main subject is completely on the front of the case and fairly well located.
I recently created an account on RedBubble. It offers a wider range of products than Fine Art America. (I am planning on creating accounts on Zazzle and CafePress as well). RedBubble offers a template for use with iPhone and iPad cases.
This template does give a better idea as to how the final product will look, but it still isn't perfect. I decided to create a template that works better when trying to determine how an image will look on an iPhone case (based on the RedBubble template).
The white area is actually transparent. This allows the underlying image to show through in that area. The gray is set to 50% transparency. This area corresponds to the sides of the case. This portion of the image will be printed on the case, but not visible when only the front can be seen.
The black area represents an area not printed when using RedBubble. It's there so that the image can still be used if the case design changes.
Here's how the template looks over an actual image:
The template was placed over the image for best results then cropped to the template size. This looks like it should work well for a phone case. The main subject is completely on the front of the case and fairly well located.
Friday, November 1, 2013
Holiday Gift Ideas: Phone Cases
The Christmas season is fast approaching. Time to start thinking about those people on your list that are hard to shop for.
For those needing an idea, try a personalized phone case. Mobile phones are common now days and phone cases are a fairly inexpensive way to personalize a phone. (They run around $35.) You will need to know enough about the person you are buying for to buy something they will like. You will also need to know the make and model of the phone they use.
One good thing about phone cases, they can always be rotated if you have more than one case you like. It's a good gift even if the person already has one. (Keep in mind the saying "too much of a good thing," though.)
My Fine Art America account includes the options to sell phone cases on Pixels.com. The product options are right on the front page, including iPhone and Galaxy phone cases.
For all iPhone cases, go here. (Other cases are listed under Products.)
My cases are here. Some of these images are horizontally oriented. I try to limit offerings to those that work well on phone cases, but it is hard to determine how well horizontally oriented images translate when put on a phone case. Images can be re-sized and moved to improve appearance. Keep this in mind with horizontally oriented images. The image can easily be moved left or right to reposition the subject.
If you see an image that would look better moved slightly, pixels gives you the option to do so. Here's a shot I took of a rabbit in my backyard.
I had to move the rabbit slightly to the right on this. The front of its face disappeared over the edge initially.
For those needing an idea, try a personalized phone case. Mobile phones are common now days and phone cases are a fairly inexpensive way to personalize a phone. (They run around $35.) You will need to know enough about the person you are buying for to buy something they will like. You will also need to know the make and model of the phone they use.
One good thing about phone cases, they can always be rotated if you have more than one case you like. It's a good gift even if the person already has one. (Keep in mind the saying "too much of a good thing," though.)
My Fine Art America account includes the options to sell phone cases on Pixels.com. The product options are right on the front page, including iPhone and Galaxy phone cases.
For all iPhone cases, go here. (Other cases are listed under Products.)
My cases are here. Some of these images are horizontally oriented. I try to limit offerings to those that work well on phone cases, but it is hard to determine how well horizontally oriented images translate when put on a phone case. Images can be re-sized and moved to improve appearance. Keep this in mind with horizontally oriented images. The image can easily be moved left or right to reposition the subject.
If you see an image that would look better moved slightly, pixels gives you the option to do so. Here's a shot I took of a rabbit in my backyard.
Friday, October 4, 2013
MostPhotos Stock account
I now have an account at MostPhotos.
I currently only have a couple of pictures I took of a 1938 Plymouth loaded on the site. Interestingly, if you do a search for "1938 Plymouth" it only brings up one result. Mine.
Don't know how many people are going to search for that term, but I currently have a monopoly on it.
I have more photos to upload. I just have to decide which ones are appropriate to offer as stock and edit them so they look as good as possible. I''ll probably try applying to other stock sites later. MostPhotos does not have a review process for photos offered for sale, unlike other stock sites.
I currently only have a couple of pictures I took of a 1938 Plymouth loaded on the site. Interestingly, if you do a search for "1938 Plymouth" it only brings up one result. Mine.
Don't know how many people are going to search for that term, but I currently have a monopoly on it.
I have more photos to upload. I just have to decide which ones are appropriate to offer as stock and edit them so they look as good as possible. I''ll probably try applying to other stock sites later. MostPhotos does not have a review process for photos offered for sale, unlike other stock sites.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Decided to Bite the Bullet
I decided to upgrade my Fine Art America Account from a free account to premium. Free accounts can only have 25 images available for sale at a time. A premium account has no limit on the number of images available. It also allows me to add a widget to this site that displays all the images available as prints. Clicking on it brings up a shopping cart. (I've added it at the bottom. I wanted it where it wouldn't be too intrusive.)
The price ($30/year) for a premium account seems to be very reasonable for what is offered at that price. Any artist or photographer looking to make money online should certainly check out the site. Artists can offer to sell the original of a piece artwork through the site as well as prints.
The price ($30/year) for a premium account seems to be very reasonable for what is offered at that price. Any artist or photographer looking to make money online should certainly check out the site. Artists can offer to sell the original of a piece artwork through the site as well as prints.
David
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Samples of My Photos and Artwork
Prints of my photos and artwork can be purchased at Fine Art America.
A couple of samples.
I also offer a high resolution version of my logo photo.
A couple of samples.
I also offer a high resolution version of my logo photo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)