pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Thinkstock image on CNN  (Read 6189 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 17, 2010, 16:35 »
0
This is so depressing, have a look and note the credit in the upper right hand  corner of the photo:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/17/general.anesthesia/index.html?hpt=C1

Looks like Getty's advertising blitz is working (sigh).


lisafx

« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2010, 16:44 »
0
God, the actual story is horrifying.  Almost makes where they got the picture irrelevant.  SHUDDER!

« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2010, 16:46 »
0
Lisa, there's a series on TLC about that subject.

Notice they don't even credit the photographer for the photo, only Thinkstock.

« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2010, 17:28 »
0
For this are not guilty CNN and Thinkstock, we are guilty!!!


P.S.

Is there an option to opt-out subscriptions on SS...?
I want to leave only OD and EL... ;)
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 17:38 by borg »

« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2010, 17:33 »
0
They probably took Shutterstock system. They also don't require of buyers to credit photographers.

« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2010, 17:39 »
0
The image is from the "Pixland" collection, which was previously on Jupiter - was that one of the wholly owned collections? 

lisafx

« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2010, 17:49 »
0
For this are not guilty CNN and Thinkstock, we are guilty!!!

We who?  I don't have any images on Thinkstock.

My average $/DL is over a dollar.   I'm not interested in a site that pays no more than .25/DL

« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2010, 19:36 »
0
For this are not guilty CNN and Thinkstock, we are guilty!!!

We who?  I don't have any images on Thinkstock.

My average $/DL is over a dollar.   I'm not interested in a site that pays no more than .25/DL

I understand you Lisa, you have right in the domain of Microstock...
Isn't point in 0,25$ or 0,33$ or 0,35 etc. That belongs to our principles...
But the problem is that we allow things such as subscription and their licenses for our images...
Whether it is SS, Thinkstock or any other agencies, problem is not the difference in earnings for a few cents even bucks, the problem is in complete approach to Microstock licensing ...

What macrostockers will tell to us!?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 19:43 by borg »

« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2010, 23:10 »
0
I'm not interested in a site that pays no more than .25/DL


 :P

« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2010, 07:03 »
0
One of the negative sides of stock photography is being anonymous. I'm photojournalist working for various newspapers and agencies and there it is all about your name, the name you build. And it is the same with fashion, wedding, art photography. You are almost some kind of celebrity there. It is awful how stock photographers are treated.

« Reply #10 on: May 18, 2010, 07:24 »
0
One of the negative sides of stock photography is being anonymous. I'm photojournalist working for various newspapers and agencies and there it is all about your name, the name you build. And it is the same with fashion, wedding, art photography. You are almost some kind of celebrity there. It is awful how stock photographers are treated.

Who wants to be a celebrity? Doctors who save lives every day don't get to be celebrities. Thousands of people do amazing things that nobody hears about and are far more important than what the vast majority of "hot-shot" egotists will ever achieve.  What's so special about running around after wannabes and people who have an over-inflated opinion of themselves?

Some of us prefer to be able to shoot what we want, when we want and have nobody telling us how to go about our business.

lisafx

« Reply #11 on: May 18, 2010, 13:07 »
0
I'm not interested in a site that pays no more than .25/DL


 :P


I definitely get your point and feel your pain FD.  Hate getting those low-ball sales  :'(

But notice I said "no MORE than .25".  DT does have some sales that are below .25, (as does Istock), but most sales are considerably more.  My sales average there is a respectable 1.70.  

At TS there are no higher priced sales to adjust the average upwards.  Just .25 across the board for anything you sell.  :P
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 13:37 by lisafx »

« Reply #12 on: May 18, 2010, 13:21 »
0
One of the negative sides of stock photography is being anonymous. I'm photojournalist working for various newspapers and agencies and there it is all about your name, the name you build. And it is the same with fashion, wedding, art photography. You are almost some kind of celebrity there. It is awful how stock photographers are treated.

Who wants to be a celebrity? Doctors who save lives every day don't get to be celebrities. Thousands of people do amazing things that nobody hears about and are far more important than what the vast majority of "hot-shot" egotists will ever achieve.  What's so special about running around after wannabes and people who have an over-inflated opinion of themselves?

Some of us prefer to be able to shoot what we want, when we want and have nobody telling us how to go about our business.
Building your name(brand) means getting more traffic on your portfolio, more sales, more job. I was not talking about that celebrity life.

lisafx

« Reply #13 on: May 18, 2010, 13:34 »
0

Building your name(brand) means getting more traffic on your portfolio, more sales, more job. I was not talking about that celebrity life.

I agree^^.   However I do think that some microstockers have been quite successful at building a brand.  Yuri Arcurs, Lise Gagne, Sean Locke, Andres Rodrigues, Iophoto, Monkeybusiness etc. spring to mind.  

(ETA:  Apologies for misspelling any names in the above list^^)
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 13:38 by lisafx »

ap

« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2010, 13:50 »
0

Building your name(brand) means getting more traffic on your portfolio, more sales, more job. I was not talking about that celebrity life.

I agree^^.   However I do think that some microstockers have been quite successful at building a brand.  Yuri Arcurs, Lise Gagne, Sean Locke, Andres Rodrigues, Iophoto, Monkeybusiness etc. spring to mind.  

(ETA:  Apologies for misspelling any names in the above list^^)

...and now, lisafx.  :)

Uncle Pete

  • Evidence please...

« Reply #15 on: May 18, 2010, 14:16 »
0
The image is from the "Pixland" collection, which was previously on Jupiter - was that one of the wholly owned collections? 


Yes, it's not a person it's a collection. If you search for the keywords you can find this image all over on partner sites at various prices.  "Doctor with respirator pixland"

For sale on fotosearch for only $49, which place would you choose as a buyer?  http://www.fotosearch.com/PLD144/px044041/

So all the complaints about contributors and getting 25c or a persons name brand are moot in this case. It's a wholly owned stock collection, which is what most of ThinkStock is made up of. All the orphan agencies and collections that Getty has purchased over the years. All in one, all the old photos, under one roof. :D

« Reply #16 on: May 18, 2010, 14:37 »
0
I'm not interested in a site that pays no more than .25/DL


 :P
That's awesome


« Reply #17 on: May 18, 2010, 14:59 »
0

Building your name(brand) means getting more traffic on your portfolio, more sales, more job. I was not talking about that celebrity life.

I agree^^.   However I do think that some microstockers have been quite successful at building a brand.  Yuri Arcurs, Lise Gagne, Sean Locke, Andres Rodrigues, Iophoto, Monkeybusiness etc. spring to mind.  

(ETA:  Apologies for misspelling any names in the above list^^)

Gosh, don't put me in that "brand" group! ;)

lisafx

« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2010, 18:30 »
0

...and now, lisafx.  :)

LOL - I wish!  If anyone knows who I am it is more likely because of my big mouth on the forums than for my sales numbers ;D

lisafx

« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2010, 18:32 »
0

Gosh, don't put me in that "brand" group! ;)

Ooops! 

Did I say "brand"?  I meant "brandy".  Have a snifter on me ;)

« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2010, 22:03 »
0
I'm not interested in a site that pays no more than .25/DL


 :P


I've one of my best sellers at IS that shows more than 10 sales for less than 20 US cents per XS download.

I don't want to get the whole discussion heated up again why or why not anybody should sell on Thinkstock but we all started with 25 cents at Shutterstock. Every single one of us - except you Sean ( I guess). No need to jump in on that one  ;)

And lets' not forget that most of the Shutterstockers are selling their stuff elsewhere as well. So we are not just restricting ourselves to the income of Shutterstock - because why? Because it's not enough income.

Yet we accept 25 cents/download in the beginning up to the 38 cents/download. It's not like that we leave Shutterstock because they pay us a measly 25-38 cents/download (doesn't it sound paradox that the same image could pay anywhere from 25 cents to hundreds of dollars on Alamy?).

 It's the amount of individual sales that make it worthwhile. Thinkstock performs well enough for me so I have the quantity I need to compensate for the loss of an entire microstock agency.

So far it's been panning out for me and probably this isn't the way to go for everyone but just blaming it on the 25 cents per download? Not so sure...

« Reply #21 on: May 19, 2010, 00:43 »
0
The biggest insult of the .25 at thinkstock is that they bought out Jupiter where they were getting .30/dl and then gave us the option to switch it over to .25  and many of us said we didn't think that was the direction we wanted to encourage the sites to go and told them where to... well, you get the idea.

getting .19 or .20 for an XS is painful, but at least it isn't a full size.  and many of my images at SS are downsized too.

--=Tom

« Reply #22 on: May 19, 2010, 05:31 »
0
Is it expensive to sell cheaply!?

lisafx

« Reply #23 on: May 19, 2010, 10:26 »
0
The biggest insult of the .25 at thinkstock is that they bought out Jupiter where they were getting .30/dl and then gave us the option to switch it over to .25  and many of us said we didn't think that was the direction we wanted to encourage the sites to go and told them where to...

Yep!  ^^

« Reply #24 on: December 15, 2010, 21:05 »
0
Just to update this (I know it's been awhile) I just noticed that a TON of CNN articles are using ThinkStock.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/social.media/11/24/facebook.profile.shots.netiquette/index.html

This one has about 4 or 5 different TS photos.  While bad for the low payout is it good they used so many (and hopefully paid for the use) in ONE story?  With as many as they run, that is a good partner for TS to have (even if we wish it was IS, DT, FT or anyone else?)

PhotoDuneMicrostock Insider

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
1697 Views
Last post February 09, 2010, 21:55
by Randy McKown
19 Replies
2707 Views
Last post January 24, 2012, 16:22
by Uncle Pete
21 Replies
2941 Views
Last post February 18, 2012, 12:37
by cathyslife
6 Replies
1348 Views
Last post May 07, 2012, 20:17
by pancaketom
6 Replies
994 Views
Last post February 14, 2013, 23:55
by elvinstar

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors