MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Poor vector sales - Same IS bla, bla, bla...  (Read 17459 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2012, 15:44 »
0
I love the vintage look of her thumbnails on SS.  A little too heavy of an emphasis on text for IS, imo.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2012, 15:45 »
0
I love the vintage look of her thumbnails on SS.  A little too heavy of an emphasis on text for IS, imo.
But as said above, it's iStock's loss. It's clearly what buyers want.

« Reply #27 on: February 02, 2012, 16:07 »
0
I think there's a difference between "buyers want platypuses" and "buyers want vector versions of copyrighted fonts" (I'm not an expert on that, but I would think that would be what IS would say).

« Reply #28 on: February 02, 2012, 16:15 »
0
Quote
I'm not an expert on that, but I would think that would be what IS would say).
IS was quite happy to propose the use of fonts when the Logo programme was supposedly underway though.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 16:16 by john_woodcock »

« Reply #29 on: February 02, 2012, 16:25 »
0
And everything remains the same blah, blah, blah... Bortonia speaking now.

OK guys, seriously, enough is enough.

We're happy to allow sales threads by file type, but ONLY if they remain on topic. But when it comes to the vector sales threads, it seems like were continually having to reign in the discussions. Its getting out of hand.

This thread is to discuss your January sales. It is not here for you to pounce on others' advice, whine about longstanding inspection policies, or complain about Best Match.

Please consider this the final warning: If this thread goes off topic again, we're going to have to shut it down. This means youll have to rely on the Main Discussion sales thread from here on in.

To bring this thread back on track, I would like to say that I'm one of those who is scared to post amongst all the negativity in these threads in case it seems like bragging. But here goes. In terms of numbers my earnings were up almost 10% over last January, with downloads down by under 15%. I'm OK with the drop in downloads because the sales increase was a big one for me.

I don't upload as much as I'd like, but I have made a conscious effort to try new styles and to look into subjects that are missing here on iStock. The more variety I can get in terms of subject matter and style, the more likely I think I am to hit on something that will sell. Maybe this won't work for everyone but for me, it was worth a shot and it looks like it's paid off. Plus I like being able to claim niches, and there are an awful lot of them begging to be filled.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #30 on: February 02, 2012, 16:30 »
0
Quote
I'm not an expert on that, but I would think that would be what IS would say).

IS was quite happy to propose the use of fonts when the Logo programme was supposedly underway though.

They were very nervous of fonts. I thought there was actually a sticky about fonts, but here's an example thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=134561&page=1

helix7

« Reply #31 on: February 02, 2012, 16:32 »
0
I think there's a difference between "buyers want platypuses" and "buyers want vector versions of copyrighted fonts" (I'm not an expert on that, but I would think that would be what IS would say).

istock rejects hand-lettering also. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with font copyrights.

helix7

« Reply #32 on: February 02, 2012, 16:36 »
0

« Reply #33 on: February 02, 2012, 16:46 »
0
While I agree it's frustrating, I think IS is right in refusing vectors with lots of fonts in it. You're selling something copyrighted you did not create yourself. I think it's the most professional approach to simply refuse them, no matter how good it might sell.

Btw, AKaiser indeed has some great quality vectors. I just don't understand why she deleted her iStock portfolio since she also has some great images without fonts. Great artist !
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 16:48 by sodafish »

« Reply #34 on: February 02, 2012, 16:58 »
0
I think there's a difference between "buyers want platypuses" and "buyers want vector versions of copyrighted fonts" (I'm not an expert on that, but I would think that would be what IS would say).

istock rejects hand-lettering also. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with font copyrights.

That's only because they don't want to take the time to check if it is a copyrighted font.

« Reply #35 on: February 02, 2012, 17:29 »
0
I think there's a difference between "buyers want platypuses" and "buyers want vector versions of copyrighted fonts"
But put 'em in a "photo" and they're fine. Same with calendars.

Nobody's trying to upload entire fonts. As John said, they figured out a way to accept them in logos.

« Reply #36 on: February 02, 2012, 17:40 »
0
That's only because they don't want to take the time to check if it is a copyrighted font.

I think the silliness of it is what they accept on the raster side (photos of text or 3D font images), but if you submit a sketch that shows the text was hand lettered on the vector side, you get a rejection. Their policy doesn't seem to make a lot of sense or be very consistent.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 17:42 by cthoman »

« Reply #37 on: February 02, 2012, 19:38 »
0
I think there's a difference between "buyers want platypuses" and "buyers want vector versions of copyrighted fonts"

But put 'em in a "photo" and they're fine. Same with calendars.

Nobody's trying to upload entire fonts. As John said, they figured out a way to accept them in logos.

Exactly. Exactly. Those claiming copyright infringement of typeface licenses by Anja might look at the image again. http://www.shutterstock.com/cat-23-Illustrations-Clip-Art.html#id=65754793

The only typefaces used in the image are for sample text, with the exception of the the hand lettered word 'Menu'. The elements for sale are not 'fonts'. Are the IS defenders claiming that the tens of thousands of designers who bought this image did so to use the words 'Sample Text' or 'Place Your Own Message' in their designs? The idea is ridicuolous

« Reply #38 on: February 02, 2012, 22:02 »
0
I was commenting more on the files that are made up of 100% text, like "and"s and "the"s.

Trust me, I'm the last one to understand the IS rules.

« Reply #39 on: February 02, 2012, 22:19 »
0
I think there's a difference between "buyers want platypuses" and "buyers want vector versions of copyrighted fonts"

But put 'em in a "photo" and they're fine. Same with calendars.

Nobody's trying to upload entire fonts. As John said, they figured out a way to accept them in logos.

Exactly. Exactly. Those claiming copyright infringement of typeface licenses by Anja might look at the image again. http://www.shutterstock.com/cat-23-Illustrations-Clip-Art.html#id=65754793

The only typefaces used in the image are for sample text, with the exception of the the hand lettered word 'Menu'. The elements for sale are not 'fonts'. Are the IS defenders claiming that the tens of thousands of designers who bought this image did so to use the words 'Sample Text' or 'Place Your Own Message' in their designs? The idea is ridicuolous


I don't think it's ridiculous. I think the idea is that you are benefitting from another artists work, even if you aren't including the entire font. Think about the other thread where artists were including heavily photoshopped versions of artwork on posters ( iron man, etc.). As they were layered, and not 'clean', they weren't much use to designers... But the seller was benefitting as the poster looked better because of it. Everyone agreed it wasn't cool to do, and even illegal, which btw including fonts in a design for resale is also.

Put another way, why not just include generic free fonts? Because different fonts add to the design, and you are benefitting. I don't think it's so clear-cut.

« Reply #40 on: February 02, 2012, 23:39 »
0
I think there's a difference between "buyers want platypuses" and "buyers want vector versions of copyrighted fonts"

But put 'em in a "photo" and they're fine. Same with calendars.

Nobody's trying to upload entire fonts. As John said, they figured out a way to accept them in logos.

Exactly. Exactly. Those claiming copyright infringement of typeface licenses by Anja might look at the image again. http://www.shutterstock.com/cat-23-Illustrations-Clip-Art.html#id=65754793

The only typefaces used in the image are for sample text, with the exception of the the hand lettered word 'Menu'. The elements for sale are not 'fonts'. Are the IS defenders claiming that the tens of thousands of designers who bought this image did so to use the words 'Sample Text' or 'Place Your Own Message' in their designs? The idea is ridicuolous


I don't think it's ridiculous. I think the idea is that you are benefitting from another artists work, even if you aren't including the entire font. Think about the other thread where artists were including heavily photoshopped versions of artwork on posters ( iron man, etc.). As they were layered, and not 'clean', they weren't much use to designers... But the seller was benefitting as the poster looked better because of it. Everyone agreed it wasn't cool to do, and even illegal, which btw including fonts in a design for resale is also.

Put another way, why not just include generic free fonts? Because different fonts add to the design, and you are benefitting. I don't think it's so clear-cut.


Font copyrights are a very complex issue - over the name as well as the designs. When Monotype, ITC, Bitstream and others first started selling fonts for computers I seem to remember all sorts of issues over people calling a font "Swiss" instead of Helvetica and whether that infringed - even if the whole typeface was redrawn and not identical. Putting a few letters in vector form in a vector file is not the same thing as delivering a useable typeface (with all the spacing information, kerning, tracking, etc.).

And as far as benefiting from another artist's work, we do this all the time with almost every photograph we sell, but only some of the objects - clothing, hats, fabric, furniture, houses, bridges, landscape gardens, etc. - are protected. I didn't have I.M. Pei design my house, so I can sign a property release for it and photograph it to sell for Royalty Free stock. But if I owned property designed by a famous artist I couldn't. I can include a straw hat or picnic basket I didn't design or make in my photos but not a Le Corbusier chair. The examples go on an on - iStock made a dividing line over which items could be included and which not for photographs and it could easily do the same for sample text if it wanted to.

If I hand draw some vector letterforms for sample text that are clearly similar to typefaces that others have created, I don't think that is a problem for sample text any more than using my house in my photographs is a problem. The designer is going to use an actual font they own to do their own text, not the vectors for samples. No one is giving away fonts they don't own the rights to.

« Reply #41 on: February 02, 2012, 23:58 »
0

Font copyrights are a very complex issue - over the name as well as the designs. When Monotype, ITC, Bitstream and others first started selling fonts for computers I seem to remember all sorts of issues over people calling a font "Swiss" instead of Helvetica and whether that infringed - even if the whole typeface was redrawn and not identical. Putting a few letters in vector form in a vector file is not the same thing as delivering a useable typeface (with all the spacing information, kerning, tracking, etc.).

And as far as benefiting from another artist's work, we do this all the time with almost every photograph we sell, but only some of the objects - clothing, hats, fabric, furniture, houses, bridges, landscape gardens, etc. - are protected. I didn't have I.M. Pei design my house, so I can sign a property release for it and photograph it to sell for Royalty Free stock. But if I owned property designed by a famous artist I couldn't. I can include a straw hat or picnic basket I didn't design or make in my photos but not a Le Corbusier chair. The examples go on an on - iStock made a dividing line over which items could be included and which not for photographs and it could easily do the same for sample text if it wanted to.

If I hand draw some vector letterforms for sample text that are clearly similar to typefaces that others have created, I don't think that is a problem for sample text any more than using my house in my photographs is a problem. The designer is going to use an actual font they own to do their own text, not the vectors for samples. No one is giving away fonts they don't own the rights to.
Exactly! It is indeed copyright infringement to distribute fonts in their extractable format - otf, truetype, etc - but no microstock site allows that anyway. If using a font as vector in a design for resale were illegal then every graphic designer in the world would be in jail, as would every book publisher. Using fonts in images for resale is what fonts are for. Else only the font foundries and people who give their works away for free could use the fonts.

And as for "free generic fonts" I don't know of any. All fonts I know of are copyrighted, including Arial (which was based on Helvetica), Times New Roman, MS Comic Sans, etc. Requiring graphics designers to create new fonts, which are not similar to the fonts of others, is indeed like telling photographers that they have to build a house if they want to use a house in a photo, and by the way don't make it similar to any other houses.

« Reply #42 on: February 03, 2012, 02:00 »
0
I could be mistaken but I think it is AKaiser and this file:

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat-23-Illustrations-Clip-Art.html#id=65754793


Wow stunning stuff in that portfolio.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #43 on: February 03, 2012, 06:49 »
0
And as far as benefiting from another artist's work, we do this all the time with almost every photograph we sell, but only some of the objects - clothing, hats, fabric, furniture, houses, bridges, landscape gardens, etc. - are protected.

It's not really about respecting other people's copyright anyway, it's about how likely they are to be sued.
Remember I posted last year that when they started Editorial, I submitted an isolation of a papier mache head of Ganesha - hand made in a factory but with the maker's (or maybe the factory?) initials on the back. It was rejected for Editorial with the suggestion that I should submit it to the main collection. I questioned this, but was told main collection or nothing. I guess they think it's unlikely an Indonesian artisan would sue.
Anyway, I don't want the image in the main collection, so 'nothing' it was. One day I'll get the famous round tuit and reshoot it for Alamy.

« Reply #44 on: February 03, 2012, 07:01 »
0
...Anja deleted her port on IS soon after the September 2010 announcement was made. She didn't agree with the commission cuts for independents, stood by her word and left...
Another reason she gave for leaving IS was that they were rejecting most of her images. Incredible really. She has become without doubt the most successful microstock illustrator, by a great margin, probably better than the top ten IS exclusive illustrators put together, and IS was rejecting most of her images because there were not suitable for microstock.

If that's the case, that is truly impressive... it would mean she's making millions a year. I didn't think Shutterstock showed stats... how do you know how many sales she's had?

helix7

« Reply #45 on: February 03, 2012, 07:40 »
0
...It is indeed copyright infringement to distribute fonts in their extractable format - otf, truetype, etc - but no microstock site allows that anyway. If using a font as vector in a design for resale were illegal then every graphic designer in the world would be in jail, as would every book publisher. Using fonts in images for resale is what fonts are for. Else only the font foundries and people who give their works away for free could use the fonts...

That's my understanding. There's nothing wrong with using fonts in stock images since type has to be converted to outlines to be accepted. istock is one of just 2 companies I work with that take issue with text in images. The other 18 have no problem with it.

istock doesn't want that stuff, and that's fine. Legalities aside, they have the right to reject whatever they want. With the way my sales are at istock these days, it doesn't bother me much. I'll just continue to do work with text and sell it elsewhere. It's worthwhile because it sells well, even if it never sees the light of day at istock.

« Reply #46 on: February 03, 2012, 07:46 »
0
.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 07:56 by john_woodcock »

helix7

« Reply #47 on: February 03, 2012, 07:47 »
0
Another reason she gave for leaving IS was that they were rejecting most of her images. Incredible really. She has become without doubt the most successful microstock illustrator, by a great margin, probably better than the top ten IS exclusive illustrators put together, and IS was rejecting most of her images because there were not suitable for microstock.

If that's the case, that is truly impressive... it would mean she's making millions a year. I didn't think Shutterstock showed stats... how do you know how many sales she's had?

I don't think that's the case. She's doing well for sure. Maybe low-to-mid-six-figures at SS. But probably not in the millions overall. And relative to other illustrators, I think there are some who are still more successful. Jamie at istock comes to mind. Back when the istock stats website made it easier to estimate someone's income (especially illustrators who have fewer credit variations per image) Jamie was probably in the same income range, if not higher. Even if his income is down now, he's probably still around on pace with Anja. Tom (sodafish) is up there as well.

I honestly don't think there are any illustrators in the million-dollar earnings category. Probably many more than we know about in the six-figure range, but it's doubtful any are doing better than that.

« Reply #48 on: February 03, 2012, 07:51 »
0
.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 07:54 by john_woodcock »

Microbius

« Reply #49 on: February 03, 2012, 07:53 »
0
Beat me to it helix!
Also have to bear in mind that her port is pretty small so she may have the best selling individual files of recent months, but there could be others with a lot more illustrations each selling somewhat worse but adding up to greater income overall.
Also those IStock exclusives earn a lot per download compared to an SS sale....


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
42 Replies
16739 Views
Last post January 12, 2009, 17:51
by yingyang0
Dreamstime- Poor Sales

Started by tab62 « 1 2  All » Off Topic

34 Replies
25748 Views
Last post June 13, 2013, 02:06
by nicku
Fotolia - Poor Sales

Started by tab62 « 1 2 3  All » Adobe Stock

59 Replies
17636 Views
Last post September 11, 2013, 03:33
by OM
24 Replies
8144 Views
Last post December 07, 2013, 18:40
by Ed
76 Replies
21683 Views
Last post November 24, 2014, 17:49
by Rinderart

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors