We have a brand new look! Take a tour with us and explore the latest updates on Adobe Support Community.
I just found one of my images on a website that sells Wall Murals/Acrylics and Canvases. They say they have a contract with Adobe to do so. So am I correct when I think this is wrong? The photographer/artist gets .75, and the print company makes money by printing our images and selling them?
The company is here.
I would think that the company does not pay 75 cents to display your image in their catalogue. They probably make no payment and have an arrangement to show Adobe's catalogue to potential purchasers. I would think that, if someone orders a product with your image, that a royalty payment is made (terms secret) and you in turn get the money. This seems an excellent way to bring your images to a larger market. I emphasise I only speculate about the contract in use, but we will never find the actual terms.
Thanks for the reply. I noticed one image getting sold (I got .75$¢ per use), so I did a reverse image search and found it.
so my questions is the ethic side of it. I get a minimal fee, while the print shop reaps the rewards.
It's not a big deal, but wanted to get others opinions.
That doesn't mean that the print shop paid for it. Just because it is paid for it may not be on the web. I still consider it likely they didn't pay at all - unless someone got a mural.
It can be frustrating discovering you get under a dollar for an image that is part, for example, of a million dollar ad campaign, or is used to decorate a huge building. But those are the rules.
PS The rules for making murals etc. mean that an ordinary consumer needs a single Extended license - THEN they can make unlimited money from murals, tee shirts, prints etc. If this is not acceptable to you (and I can see why it wouldn't be) then microstock might not be for you.