Next <
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id n142mr11220255qke.26.1513399317318;
Fri, 15 Dec 2017 20:41:57 -0800 (PST)
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete">
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 23:41:26 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <p0rg46$1tqe$>
X-Received-Bytes: 4342
X-Received-Body-CRC: 676643339
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Print Article
Forward Article
On 12/13/2017 10:13 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> "RichA"<> wrote
> |
> |
>      I wonder what rights the subscription
> gives to people. There must be a difference
> between $80 for a photo and $3 for a photo for
> a month. But how does it work? If I print booklets
> using this month's image at $3 I can still sell
> those booklets next month. But what if I use
> the image on a website? Do I have to subscribe
> to that image every month?
>    Their terms seem murky. From what I can gather
> it seems to be something like an installment plan:
>     You get use of the images for cheap and can use
> a given number within a given month, but lose all
> rights if you end the subscription. Still, unless I'm
> missing something that looks pretty good, at least
> for paper printing. Maybe not so good for Web
> designers. A company that prints booklets could use,
> say, 5 images this month and then switch next month,
> never having to actually buy the images.
>    Personally I usually find what I need for things like
> website work at wikimedia.
>    People need to realize that while they may love
> Adobe software, the company is out to make money
> and they've never displayed anything like warm
> fuzzy love of artists. They price gouge for their products
> because they have a near monopoly. Adobe have
> distributed Acrobat Reader *very* aggressively in
> an attempt to own the standard for office docs, so
> that they can sell full Acrobat for a ridiculously high
> price. They've done similar with Flash: Trying their best
> to get it on every computer so that they could own
> webpage standards. Flash has been the biggest security
> risk online for years, but that doesn't stop them.
>   When Flash began to lose popularity (and with it
> the overpriced software they sold to Web developers to
> work in flash) they came out with Adobe AIR. Like
> Microsoft's Silverlight, it was another brash move to
> popularize webpages in the form of compiled software
> that they owned the tools for. (That's what Flash is.)
>    And of course there's Photoshop. Charging 6 times the
> price of Paint Shop Pro for nearly the same thing, and
> now that they've got commercial artists hooked they've
> forced them into rental.
>     Adobe is also an active member
> of the business Software Alliance (BSA). The BSA is
> a sort of swat team that raids companies looking for
> illegal licenses. Like the IRS, they offer rewards for tips
> from disgruntled employees. There was a famous story
> about BSA tactics in connection with Microsoft:
>    Member companies use the BSA to avoid getting their
> own hands dirty in the media.
>     Adobe is probably not the worst tech company. There
> are plenty of dubious operations to choose from:
> Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google, Amazon... None
> of them seem to have a vision that goes beyond
> money and megalomania. Adobe is no worse. But
> love of their software is no reason to assume they're
> nice people or good business partners.

If each software publisher had to have a separate enforcement group, 
software costs would be much higher.
Think of the BSA as the BMI of the software world