Fine Art America is the world's most powerful sales and marketing tool for photographers and visual artists.
Simply open an account, upload your images, set your prices for all our available products, and you're instantly in business! FAA provides you with an e-commerce website, fulfills your orders for you, and sends you your profits each month.
If I buy an image from iStock, with the extended rights to produce and sell prints, would that not also count for POD? What is the difference between printing myself and selling at a store, or a buyer getting a print from FAA?
I am not asking for my own sake, but trying to understand why all the arguing about stock images being sold on FAA.
I don't understand why anyone would buy a stock image, printed from FAA, when they can go to iStock themselves and pay next to nothing, for the right to download the image and get it printed themselves, at Costco.
As far as PD work is concerned, it is my understanding that it is free to use, for non-commercial purposes. In my reading, I am finding that "non-commercial", means not being used to promote a product or idea. "Non Commercial", from what I am reading, does not apply to printing for profit.
Since seeing these arguments on FAA, regarding stock and PD images, I have been to a few sites that archive and offer these images free to download. A lot of them will say, that the image is Public Domain and free to use for anything, unless otherwise noted by the artist/photographer.
For example, NASA puts no restrictions on use of it's images, except that the word "NASA" is not used to promote a product and/or idea. It puts no restrictions on download or sale of prints, to the public. NASA actually mentions that they have no problem with images being sold as prints. (I will have to find that and post it)
On other sites I have noticed similar wording to NASA, with no mention that an artist has to edit to "make their own", before being able to sell the image as a print. I do see people on FAA, doing this, but it is not necessary. The image on it's own, can legally be sold, as long as it is in the Public Domain (and not being used to promote a product or idea)
I am starting to get the feeling that some of the people arguing against PD images being sold on FAA, are not just more upset because their work gets lost in the myriad of stock and PD images, taking up a good deal of the search engine. Legally there is nothing FAA could do about it and why would they stop it, especially if people are crazy enough to pay FAA prices, when with a little Googling and research, they could download the image for free and get it printed at Costco for a fraction of the price.
just my 2 cents.
EDIT - All these PD galleries on FAA are doing, is capitalizing on the laziness of some people and/or the fact that some people just do not have the time to track down images themselves. (Or have enough money, to just pay for the convenience of having it shipped to them)
Selling PD images and/or stock images from an FAA gallery (profile), is not illegal, unethical and/or dishonest, as I have seen others allude to in prior threads. Where it crosses the line, is if the owner of the FAA gallery/profile, is somehow claiming the work to be their own. Either in title or description. If this is not being done and the images is simply being listed for sale, in my opinion, no harm has been done.
One idea would be to limit galleries/profiles selling PD and/or stock images, to not use their personal name as "Title" of the FAA gallery.
It seems from some of the arguments I have read, that some people think FAA is a site to promote "Fine Artists". This may have been true, at the beginning ( I don't know), but it is definitely not the case now. If FAA was about promoting "Artists", then the stock/PD galleries, would not be allowed. At some point in every business, it becomes more about the bottom line and making money. I have read interviews with Sean and he has BIG aspirations for FAA (dollar wise). He is not going to get there, by simply promoting "Artists".
In my opinion FAA is the Amazon of the "Art World". Yes they do allow artists an "inexpensive" way of promoting their work to the public, but there is more to FAA than that. It is an online shopping mall for art and convenient printing.
If someone wanted to develop a site, purely to promote artists, it would have to be done as a community project, with no concern of profits for the site.
I read somewhere that Sean wants to take FAA from its current $5m per year, to over $15m. This is not going to happen by only promoting local artists and their work.
"Extended Rights" is not a generic term that means the same thing everywhere. It is very much dependent upon the site that is selling those rights. It is incumbent upon the buyer to know what those right encompass and what can be done with the purchased image. I only mentioned this in the other thread as a point of clarification. I didn't want someone else reading the thread to think extended rights *anywhere* means they can do *anything* with the image. I was not heckling or accusing Angelina of violating any license agreement.
BTW, this is the reason I stopped selling my images on microstock sites except for a very few on Shutterstock. There are many microstock sites that allow POD of an image purchased with extended rights (whether altered or not), and some even through their "partners" with a regular (not extended) license. I figured if people are buying prints of my photos, I would like to be the one making the profit, not the person who bought my image from a microstock site. Something you might want to look into if you are selling your work in microstock.
@ Paul, true, and it also depends on what type of products you are purchasing the rights to use. Angelina knew what I meant.
@ Tiny, I don't understand all the arguing, either - other than a full moon, but this thread sure isn't going to turn into one.
I agree there are a lot of galleries on FAA, and the fact is - people still adore the old works of art and I can't say I blame them - and if no reproduction artist is commissioned, then a print of the original suffices beautifully. I doubt Sean would want to limit anyone, be they a single artist or a gallery, and from a business sense, why should he? There's no incentive - quite the opposite from his point of view, in my humble opinion that is.
Anyway, I don't want to venture into what FAA is doing as I'm happy doing what I'm doing and don't let the collections and big ppl get me down. Life is too short to make things more difficult than it is.
As for iStock photo - people do buy from those places and get a print for themselves. I don't know why more artists don't permit extended use on their artwork. I don't see the sense in buying a stock photograph and posting it on FAA as is unless you are the photographer, but again, that's my opinion - and it's free.