When You Buy Content...

[AmateurTrash]

Is it better if the license lets you give away a percentage as promo content?

Or

If it's only licensed for domains you own so it's less saturated ect..

[Olivier]

Regular licenses do not allow the use of promo content.
Some content providers will let you do that, with a special license (that you pay more for of course).

So always ask, if it's possible to buy the extra license for promo content!

[Extreme John]

Yeah no content provider in their right mind will give you a license to distribute, that would be a bad call on thier part.

[Zappu]

We have this stadarized. Just click while the checkout the Affiliate check box for this extended licence, but of course you have to pay more for it

[Ramster]

Give content away? When you buy content it's for you only. Unless you're a sponsor handing out free content and that would require a special license from the provider.

[Cleo]

Being as I'm a promoter and not a paysite owner I'm only interested in content to be used on my own domains.

[hershie]

Some feel hosted galleries is a grey area, since for an affiliate program, they remain on their own domain even though they are giving these to affiliates to promote with.

[Breaker]

Originally posted by hershie
Some feel hosted galleries is a grey area, since for an affiliate program, they remain on their own domain even though they are giving these to affiliates to promote with.

I think you never give any content to the affiliates with hosted galleries it's just an alternative way for the affiliates to send you traffic. Instead of sending it to the front door they send it to a teaser before that.

[hershie]

Originally posted by Breaker
I think you never give any content to the affiliates with hosted galleries it's just an alternative way for the affiliates to send you traffic. Instead of sending it to the front door they send it to a teaser before that.

I don't agree even though that case can be made. That is why I said it was a grey area and can be argued either way. To me, its an end around the license's intention. If you have lots of affiliates, the content quickly gets put out there thousands of times for the price of one license. Doesn't seem right to me and thats why I specifically exclude this in my license.

[Breaker]

What if you had a paysite tour page built like a free gallery with 10 free pics for visitors to view in full. And all affiliates would send their gallery traffic there directly. Would that also be forbidden? |rasta|

[Julene]

I remember the old days where there was no hosted galleries or free content !

[nydahl]

we don't allow this but I know some guys have no problem with giving away for affiliate.We charge some additioanl fees for affiliate usage.

[Linkster]

Originally posted by hershie
I don't agree even though that case can be made. That is why I said it was a grey area and can be argued either way. To me, its an end around the license's intention. If you have lots of affiliates, the content quickly gets put out there thousands of times for the price of one license. Doesn't seem right to me and thats why I specifically exclude this in my license.

What would the difference be between me (as an affiliate) providing a link to a sponsors gallery used as a teaser lead to the paysite, and me as a TGP owner, providing a link to a gallery using your content.
If you specifically disallow someone using your content for galleries, I could never submit a gallery to a TGP, as then it would be available to all of the thousands of surfers that see the content for free on a tgp.
The whole purpose of a hosted gallery is that the content is served from one server(and domain) although thousands link to it - same as a LL or TGP that links to a gallery makers site where he is using your pics?

[digifan]

I have to disagree, sorry. There is a great new site, www.imageauction.com where you can purchase exclusive and semi exclusive sets with full reseller rights and model IDs form content providers who are just testing the waters as sellers to Mike Legge, the well known glamour photographer from Hollywood.

Feel free to visit the site and sign up - I know some hate this part but this is a cool auction site - and see yourself.
It is a great idea. The guy who runs the site is a genius IMHO and not a newbie in the biz.
This article, entitled "The Geodesic Marketspace", describes in detail the business model upon which ImageAuction was founded. I encourage you to read it and hope you find it informative and thought provoking. The article can be found at http://ynotnews.ynotmasters.com/issu...403/page2.html

[hershie]

Originally posted by Linkster
What would the difference be between me (as an affiliate) providing a link to a sponsors gallery used as a teaser lead to the paysite, and me as a TGP owner, providing a link to a gallery using your content.
If you specifically disallow someone using your content for galleries, I could never submit a gallery to a TGP, as then it would be available to all of the thousands of surfers that see the content for free on a tgp.
The whole purpose of a hosted gallery is that the content is served from one server(and domain) although thousands link to it - same as a LL or TGP that links to a gallery makers site where he is using your pics?

I don't see the logic of making that analogy you have above between an affiliate and a TGP owner. There is no issue with any affiliate submitting galleries to TGP's for all to see from sets they have licensed. However, that is a far cry from thousands of affiliates all having access to that same one licensed set that was licensed only once and submitting the gallery made with it. I believe content has a certain shelf-life because it looks dated or is over-saturated. By allowing galleries to be given out to affiliates to use with their link code in the ads contributes significantly to its saturation IMO since not even more then a handfull of those same affiliates would be buying those sets and is an end around of the intention of licensing a set to someone that is being justified by saying it is only hosted on one domain so isn't in violation of the License.

[Linkster]

"However, that is a far cry from thousands of affiliates all having access to that same one licensed set that was licensed only once and submitting the gallery made with it"

Thats the whole point I was trying to make - most sponsors dont give out the content to affiliates to be submitted - they only allow you to link to a gallery they have made that sits on the sponsors server - at least the sponsor type galleries I was referring to
I totally agree that if the sponsor allows you to download the content, it then becomes a different story.

[hershie]

Originally posted by Linkster
"However, that is a far cry from thousands of affiliates all having access to that same one licensed set that was licensed only once and submitting the gallery made with it"

Thats the whole point I was trying to make - most sponsors dont give out the content to affiliates to be submitted - they only allow you to link to a gallery they have made that sits on the sponsors server - at least the sponsor type galleries I was referring to
I totally agree that if the sponsor allows you to download the content, it then becomes a different story.

Point taken but I just see it as a semantical argument whether the content was indeed downloaded or just linked to by the affiliate if the same gallery is being submitted over and over again by thousands of affilates because they had access to that gallery made with a set that was licensed only once. That said, I guess in theory that gallery would not get listed by TGP's at one point when it has been submitted often enough, whether it is by lots of affiliates that had access to it or one webmaster submitting it several times.

[Breaker]

Compare these two senarios then they're the same i think.

1) Affiliates push 100.000 hits per day to a hosted gallery with a normal picture set license.
2) Paysite owner purchase traffic from tgps same amount 100.000 hits per day to his gallery with the same set and license.

To me it's the same. The pictures set being "over-saturnated" in same amount either way.

[hershie]

Originally posted by Breaker
Compare these two senarios then they're the same i think.

1) Affiliates push 100.000 hits per day to a hosted gallery with a normal picture set license.
2) Paysite owner purchase traffic from tgps same amount 100.000 hits per day to his gallery with the same set and license.

To me it's the same. The pictures set being "over-saturnated" in same amount either way.

In your instance above, yes, I agree. But that is a limited scenerio lacking a few realistic variables as I see it. 500 independent business people (affiliates) will surely find many more opportunities and sites...to display and re-submit the gallery then one site owner buying gallery spots.

If you agree that content has a limited shelf-life, and that content providers are entitled to a return on their investment, then I hope you will give me some latitude in saying that I think we should be entitled to a special license fee or surcharge to allow for our product to be used in the way hosted galleries are.

[Linkster]

Originally posted by hershie
Point taken but I just see it as a semantical argument whether the content was indeed downloaded or just linked to by the affiliate if the same gallery is being submitted over and over again by thousands of affilates because they had access to that gallery made with a set that was licensed only once.

I think you are missing the point here - hosted galleries DONT get submitted - no TGP in their right mind would list a submitted hosted gallery
The hosted galleries are used for links in a TGP by the tgp owner not by the gallery submitters - the content never gets downloaded