Author Topic: Poor vector sales - Same IS bla, bla, bla... (Read 17684 times)

Chico · « **on:** February 01, 2012, 20:50 »

People complaining about low vector sales and some IS moderator appears with the same old bla, bla, bla....

Yes, sales are TERRIBLE LOW. Vectors doesn't sell like old times.

"hi all - allow me to make just a few comments about this thread: B*tching doesn't work. If you'd like to share your numbers, by all means, it helps everyone with some figures. Without reference, nobody knows what "down $1,000" means exactly - compared to what? $20,000 or $1,100? Percentages work much better. Huge difference in meaning, right?

What is "Worse than December?" was December your BME? Are we expected to remember what you said in December? we have no clue.

If you are just looking to complain about sales, this isn't the best place for it. It's not constructive and you must realize that not everyone posts their numbers. I think the people who have done well or stayed steady might shy away because they don't want to stick it in your faces. I would love to see you building each other up in some way than defeating yourselves by your frustrations.

I'm a small buyer, but I buy more vectors than photos and I feel bad that some of you are experiencing poor sales or aren't receiving the growth you had hoped. I truly value your contributions. I encourage you all to look at your portfolio and branch out from styles and colors that used to sell well.

I wish you all the best. Hang in there! Maybe in the future, you can all make new posts in the vector forums with new ideas, requests for assistance, etc. so the community can get back and everyone can win."

FreeTransform · « **Reply #1 on:** February 01, 2012, 22:03 »

I just read that and hoo-boy, how offensive. Wow. I had to go get a glass of water and sit on my hands to refrain from posting.

FreeTransform · « **Reply #2 on:** February 01, 2012, 22:12 »

Funny, I am reading this book, "Brightsided," in which the author decries this forced sunny outlook, and even blames it, in part, for the financial meltdown. There were people who were wringing their hands and trying to alert their superiors that something was wrong, but they were drummed out of their companies for being "negative."

Guess I'll go try out some new styles and colors…

helix7 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 01, 2012, 22:16 »

Quote from: FreeTransform on February 01, 2012, 22:12

...Guess I'll go try out some new styles and colors…

You should, Cheryl. Don't you know that your falling earnings are your fault, not istock's?

Gotta love how they're passing the blame on to the contributors now. It's unfortunate, but not surprising.

LesHoward · « **Reply #4 on:** February 01, 2012, 23:41 »

Quote from: Chico on February 01, 2012, 20:50

If you are just looking to complain about sales, this isn't the best place for it.

But the monthly stats thread is the only place it's allowed

markrhiggins · « **Reply #5 on:** February 01, 2012, 23:50 »

monthly stats is full of exclusives. With best match shifts it is not all bad for them. The future however??? It would be nice to see industry figures rather than skewed stats.

Chico · « **Reply #6 on:** February 02, 2012, 06:47 »

Quote from: helix7 on February 01, 2012, 22:16

Quote from: FreeTransform on February 01, 2012, 22:12
...Guess I'll go try out some new styles and colors…

You should, Cheryl. Don't you know that your falling earnings are your fault, not istock's?

Gotta love how they're passing the blame on to the contributors now. It's unfortunate, but not surprising.

"I encourage you all to look at your portfolio and branch out from styles and colors that used to sell well."

My favorite quote. It's all our fault.

Microbius · « **Reply #7 on:** February 02, 2012, 07:10 »

Hilarious, pretty ballsy post to some of IStock's best selling artists from the admin who's best selling vector has sold 10 times in last 3+ years. Sheesh

dhanford · « **Reply #8 on:** February 02, 2012, 07:32 »

Quote from: Chico on February 01, 2012, 20:50

People complaining about low vector sales and some IS moderator appears with the same old bla, bla, bla....

Yes, sales are TERRIBLE LOW. Vectors doesn't sell like old times.

"hi all - allow me to make just a few comments about this thread: B*tching doesn't work. If you'd like to share your numbers, by all means, it helps everyone with some figures. Without reference, nobody knows what "down $1,000" means exactly - compared to what? $20,000 or $1,100? Percentages work much better. Huge difference in meaning, right?

What is "Worse than December?" was December your BME? Are we expected to remember what you said in December? we have no clue.

If you are just looking to complain about sales, this isn't the best place for it. It's not constructive and you must realize that not everyone posts their numbers. I think the people who have done well or stayed steady might shy away because they don't want to stick it in your faces. I would love to see you building each other up in some way than defeating yourselves by your frustrations.

I'm a small buyer, but I buy more vectors than photos and I feel bad that some of you are experiencing poor sales or aren't receiving the growth you had hoped. I truly value your contributions. I encourage you all to look at your portfolio and branch out from styles and colors that used to sell well.

I wish you all the best. Hang in there! Maybe in the future, you can all make new posts in the vector forums with new ideas, requests for assistance, etc. so the community can get back and everyone can win."

"It rubs the lotion on it's skin, or else it gets the hose again." - 'Silence of the Lambs.' = Moderator doing what is necessary to keep their job.

helix7 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 02, 2012, 07:56 »

Quote from: Chico on February 02, 2012, 06:47

"I encourage you all to look at your portfolio and branch out from styles and colors that used to sell well."

My favorite quote. It's all our fault.

Especially poignant in the context of a guy like Tom (sodafish) reporting sales down 68%. The arrogance of that moderator to suggest that all of us, including Tom, need to do some self-assessment and change our work style to get back lost sales, as if a guy like Tom doesn't understand how to create in-demand images.

Chico · « **Reply #10 on:** February 02, 2012, 08:00 »

Countdown to some moderator shutdown topic. I'm surprised that is still alive.

Roxxstock · « **Reply #11 on:** February 02, 2012, 08:19 »

The moderators name is, and I quote, "Pink Cotton Candy"

Probably all we need to know really.

I think she normally is responsible for organising the Pimping Picture of the week, either that or something equally banal.

Chico · « **Reply #12 on:** February 02, 2012, 08:31 »

Quote from: Roxxstock on February 02, 2012, 08:19

The moderators name is, and I quote, "Pink Cotton Candy"

Probably all we need to know really.

I think she normally is responsible for organising the Pimping Picture of the week, either that or something equally banal.

I personally do not blame her. She's a good person and is serving his sad role as IS moderator. She misplaced some sentences, is true.

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** February 02, 2012, 08:43 »

Quote from: Microbius on February 02, 2012, 07:10

Hilarious, pretty ballsy post to some of IStock's best selling artists from the admin who's best selling vector has sold 10 times in last 3+ years. Sheesh

Not that I'm defending her post (but hey, I've made some daft posts in my time), but as a PoI: her best selling vector has sold ">70 times" over four years.

@FreeTransform: From her blog: "I chose to accept this Moderator position because I am a people cheerleader" - so that is, indeed where you are coming from. You get what she says on the tin.

Roxxstock · « **Reply #14 on:** February 02, 2012, 09:14 »

When all is said and done, you (really) have to admire the sarcasm of the Brits!

Exclusive member that has more than 110,000 vector downloads.

Microbius · « **Reply #15 on:** February 02, 2012, 09:22 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 02, 2012, 08:43

Quote from: Microbius on February 02, 2012, 07:10
Hilarious, pretty ballsy post to some of IStock's best selling artists from the admin who's best selling vector has sold 10 times in last 3+ years. Sheesh
Not that I'm defending her post (but hey, I've made some daft posts in my time), but as a PoI: her best selling vector has sold ">70 times" over four years.

Apologies, saw the >10 on the portfolio page and didn't click through, yes 70 times over 4 years

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** February 02, 2012, 09:29 »

Quote from: Microbius on February 02, 2012, 09:22

Quote from: ShadySue on February 02, 2012, 08:43
Quote from: Microbius on February 02, 2012, 07:10
Hilarious, pretty ballsy post to some of IStock's best selling artists from the admin who's best selling vector has sold 10 times in last 3+ years. Sheesh
Not that I'm defending her post (but hey, I've made some daft posts in my time), but as a PoI: her best selling vector has sold ">70 times" over four years.

Apologies, saw the >10 on the portfolio page and didn't click through, yes 70 times over 4 years

Better than person on here who jumps on people who say their sales are falling and tells them their ports are cr*p, but refuses to show his.

john_woodcock · « **Reply #17 on:** February 02, 2012, 09:36 »

Quote

When all is said and done, you (really) have to admire the sarcasm of the Brits!

Oh, no sarcasm intended.

Microbius · « **Reply #18 on:** February 02, 2012, 11:39 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 02, 2012, 09:29

Quote from: Microbius on February 02, 2012, 09:22
Quote from: ShadySue on February 02, 2012, 08:43
Quote from: Microbius on February 02, 2012, 07:10
Hilarious, pretty ballsy post to some of IStock's best selling artists from the admin who's best selling vector has sold 10 times in last 3+ years. Sheesh
Not that I'm defending her post (but hey, I've made some daft posts in my time), but as a PoI: her best selling vector has sold ">70 times" over four years.

Apologies, saw the >10 on the portfolio page and didn't click through, yes 70 times over 4 years
Better than person on here who jumps on people who say their sales are falling and tells them their ports are cr*p, but refuses to show his.

Agreed, but still pretty out of order to people who pay her wages with their hard work.

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** February 02, 2012, 11:44 »

Quote from: Microbius on February 02, 2012, 11:39

Quote from: ShadySue on February 02, 2012, 09:29
Quote from: Microbius on February 02, 2012, 09:22
Quote from: ShadySue on February 02, 2012, 08:43
Quote from: Microbius on February 02, 2012, 07:10
Hilarious, pretty ballsy post to some of IStock's best selling artists from the admin who's best selling vector has sold 10 times in last 3+ years. Sheesh
Not that I'm defending her post (but hey, I've made some daft posts in my time), but as a PoI: her best selling vector has sold ">70 times" over four years.

Apologies, saw the >10 on the portfolio page and didn't click through, yes 70 times over 4 years
Better than person on here who jumps on people who say their sales are falling and tells them their ports are cr*p, but refuses to show his.
Agreed, but still pretty out of order to people who pay her wages with their hard work.

That consideration has never bothered Lobo, so maybe the attitude is infectious.
To be fair, I don't think she meant it as a rebuke, just as a suggestion; but ICBW.

cthoman · « **Reply #20 on:** February 02, 2012, 11:55 »

Stop grumbling and get back to work. There will be no revolution today.

FreeTransform · « **Reply #21 on:** February 02, 2012, 12:00 »

May I ask, who is Mikemc talking about in that thread? The top-selling vector artist. And where is that file, with the text?

Zephyr · « **Reply #22 on:** February 02, 2012, 12:19 »

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

Eireann · « **Reply #23 on:** February 02, 2012, 13:28 »

Hi FreeTransform,
I haven't asked Mike either, but I'm pretty sure RetroRocket is right.
The illustrator's name is Anja Kaiser, and that indeed is the file.
Just to clarify - one thing thing Mike is probably not aware of yet.
A few days back the 'Menu' illustration became the best selling file on SS. Period.
It is topping up not only all other vectors, but everything else as well.
Impressive acchievement I would say.
Congratulations to Anja, wonderful work

PS
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.
I don't think she regrets her decision much these days. She's a top artist on all the sites, except of course IStock, where her work cannot be found.
They, IStock, lost a lot more than she did.

michaeldb · « **Reply #24 on:** February 02, 2012, 15:26 »

Quote from: Eireann on February 02, 2012, 13:28

...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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #25 on:** February 02, 2012, 15:44 »

I love the vintage look of her thumbnails on SS. A little too heavy of an emphasis on text for IS, imo.

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** February 02, 2012, 15:45 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 02, 2012, 15:44

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #27 on:** February 02, 2012, 16:07 »

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).

john_woodcock · « **Reply #28 on:** February 02, 2012, 16:15 »

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.

Chico · « **Reply #29 on:** February 02, 2012, 16:25 »

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 we’re continually having to reign in the discussions. It’s 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 you’ll 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 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 02, 2012, 16:30 »

Quote from: john_woodcock on February 02, 2012, 16:15

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 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 02, 2012, 16:07

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 »

Quote from: retrorocket on February 02, 2012, 12:19

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

Correct.

sodafish · « **Reply #33 on:** February 02, 2012, 16:46 »

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 !

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #34 on:** February 02, 2012, 16:58 »

Quote from: helix7 on February 02, 2012, 16:32

Quote from: sjlocke on February 02, 2012, 16:07
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.

FreeTransform · « **Reply #35 on:** February 02, 2012, 17:29 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 02, 2012, 16:07

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.

cthoman · « **Reply #36 on:** February 02, 2012, 17:40 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 02, 2012, 16:58

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.

michaeldb · « **Reply #37 on:** February 02, 2012, 19:38 »

Quote from: FreeTransform on February 02, 2012, 17:29

Quote from: sjlocke on February 02, 2012, 16:07
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

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #38 on:** February 02, 2012, 22:02 »

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.

scottdunlap · « **Reply #39 on:** February 02, 2012, 22:19 »

Quote from: michaeldb on February 02, 2012, 19:38

Quote from: FreeTransform on February 02, 2012, 17:29
Quote from: sjlocke on February 02, 2012, 16:07
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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #40 on:** February 02, 2012, 23:39 »

Quote from: scottdunlap on February 02, 2012, 22:19

Quote from: michaeldb on February 02, 2012, 19:38
Quote from: FreeTransform on February 02, 2012, 17:29
Quote from: sjlocke on February 02, 2012, 16:07
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.

michaeldb · « **Reply #41 on:** February 02, 2012, 23:58 »

Quote from: jsnover on February 02, 2012, 23:39

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.

dcdp · « **Reply #42 on:** February 03, 2012, 02:00 »

Quote from: retrorocket on February 02, 2012, 12:19

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 · « **Reply #43 on:** February 03, 2012, 06:49 »

Quote from: jsnover on February 02, 2012, 23:39

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.

scottdunlap · « **Reply #44 on:** February 03, 2012, 07:01 »

Quote from: michaeldb on February 02, 2012, 15:26

Quote from: Eireann on February 02, 2012, 13:28
...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 »

Quote from: michaeldb on February 02, 2012, 23:58

...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.

john_woodcock · « **Reply #46 on:** February 03, 2012, 07:46 »

helix7 · « **Reply #47 on:** February 03, 2012, 07:47 »

Quote from: scottdunlap on February 03, 2012, 07:01

Quote from: michaeldb on February 02, 2012, 15:26
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.

john_woodcock · « **Reply #48 on:** February 03, 2012, 07:51 »

Microbius · « **Reply #49 on:** February 03, 2012, 07:53 »

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....

john_woodcock · « **Reply #50 on:** February 03, 2012, 07:53 »

Quote

probably better than the top ten IS exclusive illustrators put together

I think probably is the crucial word here.

Could equally be replaced possibly/maybe/I'm guessing wildly but.... etc etc

Very nice work though, whatever she earns.

scottdunlap · « **Reply #51 on:** February 03, 2012, 09:50 »

Quote from: john_woodcock on February 03, 2012, 07:53

Quote
probably better than the top ten IS exclusive illustrators put together

I think probably is the crucial word here.

Could equally be replaced possibly/maybe/I'm guessing wildly but.... etc etc

Very nice work though, whatever she earns.

Yes, she does have a great portfolio. And I didn't mean to sidetrack the conversation about how much she makes, I was just curious how one could get even a vague handle on sales at SS, I didn't think it was possible. The person posting about beating the top 10 exclusives seemed pretty confident about it, but now it sounds like they pulled it out of... thin air.

Chris3fer · « **Reply #52 on:** February 03, 2012, 14:29 »

My vector sales get worse and worse every month. I was mainly staying exclusive with istock for their "copyright protection". I found one place that stole my image and said they drew it. Istock said they see nothing in violation. The last time I found one of my illustrations being made into a toy in China, they told me to go find a lawyer they won't do anything about it. So.... The "copyright protection" they pretend to give exclusives doesn't exist, so I am searching for more options. So sad.

PinnacleAnimates · « **Reply #53 on:** February 04, 2012, 03:16 »

Quote from: Chris3fer on February 03, 2012, 14:29

My vector sales get worse and worse every month. I was mainly staying exclusive with istock for their "copyright protection". I found one place that stole my image and said they drew it. Istock said they see nothing in violation. The last time I found one of my illustrations being made into a toy in China, they told me to go find a lawyer they won't do anything about it. So.... The "copyright protection" they pretend to give exclusives doesn't exist, so I am searching for more options. So sad.

this is pretty sad that they are not doing anything for the violation... I found it little wierd when they said The last time I found one of my illustrations being made into a toy in China, they told me to go find a lawyer they won't do anything about it.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Poor vector sales - Same IS bla, bla, bla... (Read 17684 times)

helix7

Microbius

helix7

Microbius

Microbius

helix7

helix7

helix7

helix7

Microbius

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors