This new venture of Fotolia’s might now put them in the ring with larger agencies, thus becoming competitors with this new offerring. But to say that they are “further undersutting” anyone and suggesting that they have been taking business from Getty and others is completely unfounded.

The an example photo on ImageSource is priced at $119 for the smallest size ( or $14.97 if you buy the whole CD).

The Fotolia version is priced at 16.60 Euro.

And then Getty would price the exact same all at 49 bucks, even though ImageSource didn’t allow them to price it.

Same image, different price so you can get a nice rebate on your holiday shopping depending on where you shop. I guess ImageSource will have to explain to their contributors what they were thinking and doing.

I think you can take away that midstock could become a bigger trend in 08 and that bodes well i hope for us and others.

I don’t really mind how they sell/price their photos on other sites or their own site. They can use my site as a “testing ground” for how to price their content and find more potential buyers.

i’ll be interested to see how this works for fotolia and i think they are one of the better stock photography sites out there even though they are a competitor.

You can certainly get free images (see the site above) that are ‘nice’ and that many people would love to have on their web site or report. Is the quality as good as National Geographic? Most of the time, no.

Photographers who spend the money for better equipment and spend more time getting everything right will probably want more money. Like any artist, they’ve got to decide the price point they want — do you want to sell more at a lower price or fewer at a higher price. Both can be a good way to make a living… But lets put it this way — I can afford a Warhol and I can’t afford a Picasso.

Huh? Have you ever looked at images posted on microsites? They have strict reviews in place and they block all sorts of junk. Images have to be hi rez, free of noise and artifacts, have good composition and lighting, a most importantly, have strong marketable value. A so called “lower-quality photography” is exactly the opposite of what you’d fine on any of the major microstock sites.

On top of that, these sites started offering non-micro pricing looooong ago, so where is the news? You could buy extended license for almost any image for $15 or $20 from at least 5 major sites for over a year now. TechCrunch, where is the research before posting something?

I know of only one site which can be called a micro site that incorporates traditional pricing, and that’s http://www.shutterpoint.com - photographers can choose whether they want to sell an image as micro/full license, or as full license (and full price) only. All other sites force contributors to offer images for microprices.

The price discrimination has also existed in photo industry for many years. Many sites resell collections found on other sites, either via distribtuon partnerships or by acquiring images from the same contributors. Prices for the same photo can span from a dollar to several hundred across various sites. Again, I fail to see the news.

Beggars belief…

There are amateurs or hobbyists as well as professionals at micros. I’m not sure “lower-quality” as a blanket statement is accurate. Images of questionable quality exist in micro and traditional stock. The lines are obviously starting to become blurred between the two.

All the article is about Fotolia, but the company information at the end is Istock … do you have share there ?

You have no proof of price discrimination. You’ve basically reprinted a press release looking for someone to comment. Here’s my comment: If you want to act like a journalist at least try and uncover some facts. Otherwise get in the PR business.

Your further evidence assumption is also garbage because you know nothing about the photography industry. The only further evidence is that TechPunch is pushing an agenda when it comes to copyright and photography. You will never have to worry about that because no one would ever steal this dog crap.

Mike

Some lower quality, yes, but a very large portion of photography on the micro sites are much better than images you’d find on Getty, in both quality and conceptual categories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination

But basically, price discrimination is when the same product is sold at different prices to different people who have different willingnesses to pay.

For example, if you forgot to have both breakfast and lunch, then you may be willing to pay $10 for a hot dog. But someone else who had both may be only willing to pay $2. If it only cost the hot dog maker $1 to make each hot dog, it could try to price discriminate by selling you the hot dog for $10 and the other person for only $2. Of course, the seller would have to know that you’re hungry enough to pay more, whereas the other person isn’t.

In this case, Fotolia can price discriminate by assuming that its visitors (accustomed to buying inexpensive photos) won’t be willing to pay top dollar for high-quality photos. But they are willing to pay a little more than usual for the same photos that customers elsewhere (of Getty or Corbis) are willing to pay much more for.