DT Accepting RAW files for sale

eendicott · #1 (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 01:58 PM

DT is starting to accept Vectors and files in RAW format. What do you think about the RAW option? Good or bad?

kris · #2 (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 03:22 PM

Not too sure about posting my raw files. Surely in this day and age it is the only proof you have of copyright. It seems a bit like giving away copies of your negs.

I may be wrong on this BUT.......

Gracey · #3 (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 05:10 PM

I sure as heck would NOT send in a raw file - no way (not to a microstock anyways).

Batman2000 · #4 (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 10:45 PM

NO way, ever, never... It would be like handing out the master files, templates or molds for our work. And for two bucks... NO

ajn · #5 (**permalink**) 08-05-2006, 04:29 AM

I'm out too...

The vector's option is a good thing though. Have to dig deeper into that.

ljupco · #6 (**permalink**) 08-05-2006, 02:24 PM

Very bad idea. I'll never upload my RAWs to a microstock except if I sell the rights along with the image.

One thing that surprises me that many people are wiling to do this for just a few dollars more (see the topic on DS). They do not relize that after few years with some future software the same image could be interprated very differently from now and probably with a better quality, thus letting the people who dowloaded their RAWs make many different variatios of the same image just for few bucks. I think they might not even recognize that they took the image temselves.

Regards rom Macedonia. Ljupco

GWB · #7 (**permalink**) 08-05-2006, 03:58 PM

Exactly, I won't be uploading any either. Since RAW files are "source" files, no use in spreading them around at these prices. There's no way of knowing what the end user will do with them, as well, which is another consern. And besides, I'm on SAT broadband and it has a "fair usage" policy. Just 2 gigs a month is all I am allowed. The larger RAW files would run that number up and I would risk a 90 day suspension.

G~

eendicott · #8 (**permalink**) 08-06-2006, 05:19 AM

I've been wrong before, but my understanding is the RAW version of the file will only be available under the extended print licenses. Tano cleared this up in the thread. In other words, those downloading a RF 50 cent license will not be eligible for the RAW file. Those paying $300 ($150 commission for non-exclusives) will be eligible to download a RAW. To me, this doesn't seem out of line with the print industry (at least here in the U.S.).

I know it isn't a popular option, but I'm seeing very little difference from the traditional RM market in that they required original slides. The difference I am seeing is the RAW file may not have copyright information.

Gracey · #9 (**permalink**) 08-06-2006, 06:31 AM

Quote:

In other words, those downloading a RF 50 cent license will not be eligible for the RAW file. Those paying $300 ($150 commission for non-exclusives) will be eligible to download a RAW.

If you give up your raw file you are essentially giving away your copyright, with no way to prove the imge is yours later.

If I'm going to give up my copyright, it won't be for $300 - try adding another zero to that - I don't make millions doing photography (a long way from that) but i'd still think twice before giving up a raw file, even for that :shock:

Holy cow, what will they think up next?

Bobby Deal · #10 (**permalink**) 08-10-2006, 01:19 AM

Why on earth Serban thinks anyone would upload a RAW file is beyond me. All possible legal ramifications aside my RAW files average 17mb per image. There is no way I would waste the time and bandwidht to upload files of that size to a micro site.