Good comments. And yes, in the Bridge preferences you have the option to hide Adobe Stock Photos as well as other items that show up under “Favorites” such as Version Cue, Home, Documents, Collections and Pictures. So it’s pretty easy to make Adobe Stock Photos go away from your personal setup for Bridge.

If you don’t like Adobe Stock Photos, you can set it up so you’ll never see it.

It just occurred to me how similar the $1/image vs. monthly subscription models are to iTunes vs. Napster in music.

Rick

Don’t change teams yet.

BTW I did like the KFC analogy.

glenn.

The term “royalty-free” actually means “broad license” as in a lot of rights granted without additional compensation. It does -NOT- mean that those rights are in any way “unprotected”. It only means that rather than set a specific rate for specific usage, broad rights are granted. There are indeed retrictions to what you can and can’t do.

FernandçIvaldi seems to think that Apple’s iTunes is ok. . .but Adobe’s RF Stock Photos is bad. Let’s look at that for a moment. . .neither Apple nor Adobe actually deal with the artists. The record companies deal with the recording artists and the stock photo houses deal with the photographers.

Apple’s iTunes is a music delivery platform, Adobe’s Stock Photos is a stock photo delivery platform. Apple takes the money and completes the transaction and keeps a %, Adobe takes the money and completes the transaction and keeps a %.

While Apple has engineered technology to restrict distribution only to what is agreed upon on the purchase of a license to a song (remember, you ain’t buying the song, only the right to play the song on the specified computers), Adobe is not introducing any technology to prevent uses of the RF stock images to do other things–no need to as the rights granted are so broad.

Apple doesn’t produce the music, they only deal with the record compaines. Adobe doesn’t produce the RF stock photos, they only deal with the RF stock companies.

Ok, maybe I’m REAL DENSE here FernandçIvaldi, but what exactly is the difference between Apple’s iTunes and Adobe Stock Photos?

Some of the mainstream press is already referring to Stock Photos as Adobe’s iTunes for photography. Adobe is not setting the price nor terms and conditions of the RF purchase–those are dictated by the stock photo houses.

Adobe Stock Photos is the delivery technology, the messenger, if you will. . .

So, you want to kill the messenger? I’m far more concerned with the message. . .and the message is loud and clear, the way designers and art directors are buying photography is changing. If photographers have half a clue, they better adapt their buisness model to factor in RF or they be hurtin’.

Yep. . .you’re getting it–in large measure, most of what has happened in our industry was allowed to happen by virtue of the fact that photographers are easy targets for stock agencies, photographer’s reps, publishers, prepress & printing, etc.

On one hand, as artists we have incredible power if we understood better how to use it. APA, ASMP, EP & PPA (here in the states) AoP and EP in Ireland, APA in Japan, the AIPA in New Zealand, ACMP in Australia – the list goes on all over the world – need to work together to address common problems in the industry. If we do that, we have power and influence and can bring about positive change.

Unfortunately, our industry has _NOT_ had much success and history working together. We all seem to agree that RF is bad. . .that Work for Hire is bad, that “rights grabs” by publishers is bad. We stumble, often over very petty politics, when we all try to work together.

Due to NDA restrictions, there’s stuff I know that I can’t comment on. But yes, in the days, weeks, months and perhaps years ahead, I think you’ll see that “Adobe’s intentions toward photographers are for the most part, altruistic.”

As I said, photographers make up only a subset of all Adobe customers, yet Adobe is making substantial efforts on behalf of photography and photographers. Working on PLUS for licensing language, working with the IPTC on metadata, working with other software developers and camera companies on DNG, working with photographers on the Photographers Directory, working on educating both ourselves and our clients on copyrights, color management, publishing workflows, etc.

The amount of effort Adobe is putting out on behalf of the photo industry is incredable. More than any corporation I can point to in the photo industry. . .can you think of another company doing more? Kodak? They used to, not so much any more. . .Nikon & Canon, Fuji?

What Adobe has done and is doing for the photo industry is often lost when photographers lose sight of the real battles being fought.

Yeah FernandçIvaldi, you run right out and switch to GIMP dooode. . .

or Microsoft’s Digital Image Pro or Corel’s Photo Paint. You and a few others using inferior products ain’t gonna have any measurable impact. As it is, photographers are already a minority of customers for Adobe. . .making it a smaller number won’t be particularly useful in the long run.

Adobe made a mistake. Photographers might be only one percent of their licence BUT we hav’e much more influence than that. I’m dealing with major institutions and corporations in France. And will advice them to require RF licence for Adobe products, I’ll also direct them to Unix based freeware. Like it or not. Ther’s nothing I have to discuss here. And nothing you can do either. I’ll continue to suggest photographers all over the world to do the same.

Adobe cares about photographers like KFC cares about chicken.

Fernand◊Ivaldi

I kinda feel, and hope you’re right, when you say that Adobe’s intentions toward photographers are for the most part, altruistic.
I think that like a mortar shell, the trajectory of the stock business (model, concept, or whatever you wanna call it) was set once launched; and most of us were never really able to see that simple fact- or figure out where it was headed.
As a result of our “lack of visibility” we have become enablers. We’ve enabled our “agents” to become not just our competitors but also our rulers. We dance with a hand in our pants to THEIR tunes -happy to receive whatever they allow us to keep.
Pretty fu&#in’ pitiful if you ask me- but that’s our reality.
So what are we gonna do about it?
What can we do about it?
After all the failed and failing experiments with
alternative stock venues trying to compete with the 400 and 800lb gorillas maybe ADOBE could actually offer a viable option to our sorry asses and ENABLE US . If we were willing, as Jeff points out, to collectively and/or organizationally AGGREE on standards and practices, who could be better than
A DNG obe to help us implement them.
How?
How about if Adobe launched “Adobe photographers choice” rights (properly) managed photography. Where conscientious clients will be able to say they’re hugging photographers as well as trees in this new digital age.

glenn.

Being afraid of something before it’s even tried is anti-creative. No, Google is not particularly useful for finding a photographer. Why do you presume that Adobe’s Photographer’s Directory will opperate like Google?

I would agree that if the directory is nothing better than Google, it’s a waste of time. . .but Adobe has a pretty good engineering track record ya know.

I think the success or failure of the Photographers Directory will depend largely on how much effort individual photographers take upon themselves in registering and putting their best work/portfolio in their entry.

The engineering and the usability is one thing and Adobe can work on that. How well photographers take advantage is something outside of Adobe’s control.

Me? I plan to do a good job of putting my hat in the ring. . .if in a year Adobe’s Directory isn’t working, then let’s all work together to figure out why and work with them to make it better.

But to dismiss it out of hand before you’ve even seen it is, well. . .not particularly useful, huh?

Ed, I agree. . .the photo biz is in the middle of a radical evolution with new tech changing the way we work and new business models change the value of our work in the marketplace.

But change is a fact of life. “Progress” is not always a good thing. . .it’s just a thing. A thing you have to deal with.

When I got into the photo biz in the early 80’s, the then “greybeards” lamented about the “good old days” of the 60’s and 70’s–were there REALLY any good days in the 70’s?.

Now we have a new breed of tech savvy kids who have grown up on digital and have no concept of the “way it used to be”.

Such is life. . .but to piss & moan about Adobe offering RF Stock from within their applications is to place the blame in the wrong location.

Look in the mirror people. . .

I have no idea. . .what’s Apple’s split on iTunes?

In many respects, Adobe Stock Photos share more in common with Apple’s iTunes than traditional stock RM or RF sales. It’s a delivery system, not a business model–which many photographers seem to fail to grasp. Adobe doesn’t license the work to sell, they deal with providers who license the work from photographers willing to work under an RF model.

Again, if you want to vent, go out and find an RF shooter and wag your finger at them. . .they are the ones that are having a negative impact on the traditional assignment and RM stock industry. Of course, if you are an RF photographer, I image you would be pretty excited. . .

I didn’t wrote Adobe have to be forced to sell RF soft. I only wrote than photographers must suggest Adobe costumers to require it. With no doubts Adobe will change their mind, in order to fulfil their costumers demands.

BTW, what’s the Adobe split cut on the gross RF picture sales?

Fernand≈Ivaldi

Except you forgot one tiny factor, in the case of RF photography, you have a copyright holder who willingly decided (nobody put a gun to his head)to license his work under RF terms. In the case of Adobe, they choose NOT to engage in that type of license. Your comparison is faulty on the face.

I don’t do RF. Most of the photographers I know don’t do RF. But the fact that some photographers choose to engage in RF licensing is their choice.

To be blunt, Adobe, or Corbis or Getty or any of the others that offer RF photography are not the problem. . .it’s a major point that so many photographers fail to grasp. It’s the photographers who have chosen to engage in RF that is the problem. If you want to vent, vent at them.

It has become more difficult for Photographers to make a living doing what they love.
Taking photos has unfortunately become the process that most of us who went into the profession, tried to avoid in the first place. That is, sitting in front of a computer for a good part of their day, like so many other offiice workers in cubicles.
The technology is slowly chipping away at the creative and financial success of many photographers who now find themselves throwing in the towel. It is very hard to compete with the RF image business when the choice is Cheap – Fast – and Unlimited in content.
For those of you in the big markets that have major companies and agencies willing to pay top dollar for image rights, and hire Photographers. Well, no problem.
But for the majority of us the marketplace is falling apart – and so now,
Weddings and Events have become part of the offering.

Of course, you are now competing with everyone invited who cam push a button.

Ed

If RF pictures are convenient for the vast majority of Adobe software users, and as you told Adobe sells RF to fulfil their needs, I suggest to all graphic designers, art directors, and buyers for multiple licences to request that Adobe sells his software under RF licence.

Basically a $1000.00 single user licence of PS CS will become an unlimited user licence of $150.00 on whitch ADOBE will get 6 % due to the sub agent distribution split.

In this case Adobe forget that his costumers are photographer’s costumers, and we will advice them to require RF licences for Adobe product.

I wonder if this mail will ever hit this page… But for know I promote this idea as much as I am able along all the photographer’s mailing lists in the world.

Cheers.

Fernand§Ivaldi

However, I think that there is a much bigger issue impacting photography rates than RF photos.

The cost and time it takes for a person to become an accomplished photographer are both dropping quickly. 2 million D-SLR’s were sold last year. Budding photographers have forums with very knowledgable people to learn from and instant feedback on their photography efforts, and unlimited picture taking capability. They can also see the work of others very easily. This creates more instantly available competition from a growing number of people. As a result much photography work is dropping in value.

People also want immediate gratification and instant access to large searchable libraries of stock photography will help graphic designers to find exactly what they need so that they can finish their jobs faster.

I think one subtle point that should be welcomed is that Adobe is opening a massive distribution channel. As any photographer knows… it’s 80% marketing and Adobe is probably the best known name in photo imaging.

Adobe, I believe, is enabling end users who wouldn’t ever use a stock agency the opportunity to buy photographs for the first time.

Then along came royalty-free and then assignment AND stock photographers had a common foe.

I have a long-standing dislike of RF, but my dislike won’t make it go away.

And yes, I do think that by and large, photographers are their own worst enemies, unfortunately.

In the 80’s, I was a commercial director and join the Directors Guild of America (DGA). It was amazing how the directors could come together-both rich and famous as well as struggling and unknown- and get together to organize their industry. While not technically a trade group or a union–it’s considered a guild, or a hybrid, in the history of the DGA, there’s never been a strike. Why? Well, if you don’t have a director, you don’t have a film or TV show or a commercial. They never had to go that far.

I honestly believe that if the photographers and I mean 75% or more of all working photographers-advertising, editorial, stock, PJ’s, fine art, event and portrait and wedding photographers got together, there would be the real possibility of instituting standards and bringing about positive change in the industry.

But alas, I doubt that will happen in my lifetime. So, we have photographers undercutting other photographers, we have RF, Work For Hire, buyouts, etc.

None of which Adobe has had anything to do with except to offer to try to help the photo industry.

BTW, I was never around for the slaughter. . .if that’s what you were referring to. . .I was just around for tagging and tail docking. Lots of squealing for no reason-perhaps they were squealing about their future?