pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Photodune's 25% commission for independent photographers???  (Read 7802 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: November 08, 2011, 10:49 »
0
...(if I am not vigilant enough to keep my images from being moved to "free" section automatically). ...

OT, you do know that you can set your unsold images to be removed automatically instead of being tossed into the free section right?

No need to be vigilant.

I can find no way to set unsold images to be removed automatically instead of being tossed into the free section. How do you do that?


« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2011, 11:00 »
0
So, it's okay to sell a 24 mp d3x photo for $7 max and earn $1.75 for it or earn $6 if the customer wants to place it on a t-shirt and sell it up to 250,000 times?

« Reply #27 on: November 08, 2011, 11:09 »
0
I can find no way to set unsold images to be removed automatically instead of being tossed into the free section. How do you do that?
There is a choice somewhere but I forgot (sorry). DT added that default choice after some (or many) people here complained. You can also delete your free pictures at any time. I would be careful with that since what else would you do with non-sellers, assuming they don't sell at other sites. It can drive traffic to you.

« Reply #28 on: November 08, 2011, 12:25 »
0
Face it. Profit at all costs is destroying our environment, ecology, financial markets etc. This type of business Model has to be abandoned. While I understand those individuals who do NOT stop to upload to established Companies like istock because they have to make a living, I do NOT understand how anybody can support such unfair conditions from a newcomer Agency.

Exactly. Our actions are taken with the intent of going forward but ultimately (sooner or later) we end up going backwards. If we just said wait a moment, I'm not going to jump in because the ultimate consequence is detrimental, we would end up getting more in the end. And that's what everyone wants.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 15:22 by Microstock Posts »

lisafx

« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2011, 12:29 »
0
I think microstock might not be sustainable for me in the future, so I might as well try and make as much as I can now.

I have lost all enthusiasm to keep producing new images for microstock.  That's what happens when commissions are so low.  I'm sure the sites would do much better if they paid us more, it gives us a reason to work harder with microstock.  Until that dawns on them, we are fighting a losing battle.

^^That pretty much sums up my position too.  I've been in this for almost 7 years.  Despite efforts by contributors, royalties and conditions have deteriorated badly the last couple of years.   Microstock as a way for FT photographers to make a living is starting to look unsustainable indeed.  

For the last year, since Istock's RC drop, I have decided to maximize the income and exposure for my existing portfolio.  I don't want to leave money on the table now, because I am not sure it will be there at all in a few years' time.  

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #30 on: November 08, 2011, 12:34 »
0
There is a choice somewhere but I forgot (sorry).


http://www.dreamstime.com/oldfiles.php

I bookmarked the direct link but can't find a link on the site right now, if it's there it is very well hidden

« Reply #31 on: November 08, 2011, 12:56 »
0
(1) First of all, you don't mention the ridiculously low price of extended licenses on PD, the deal-breaker for most.
There's an opt out, so that's not really a problem.  I get lots of EL's with SS but the other sites don't sell many.  I would much prefer PhotoDune raised the prices but the opt out is OK for now.

« Reply #32 on: November 08, 2011, 14:29 »
0
I never give my files for free on dreamstime, why did you give your file, you have the option for deleting them if they don't sell for 4 years!! Never give your photos!!!

« Reply #33 on: November 08, 2011, 15:21 »
0
Just because others do worse, it isn`t a justification for Photodune. And yes, we ARE upset about the others too.
If all contributors would have refused to upload under those conditions, they would have been forced to change their terms. Therefore I make everyone of the early uploaders to PD responsible for the mess we have here and partially responsible for other Agencies which may reduce our cut. I really lost some respect for some individuals known here I highly valued before.

Face it. Profit at all costs is destroying our environment, ecology, financial markets etc. This type of business Model has to be abandoned. While I understand those individuals who do NOT stop to upload to established Companies like istock because they have to make a living, I do NOT understand how anybody can support such unfair conditions from a newcomer Agency.

Exactly. Well said. It never fails to amaze me how some contributors upload their portfolios to every new agency apparently irrespective of what the agency is offering or by how much they are undercutting other agencies that sell in volume.

« Reply #34 on: November 08, 2011, 17:38 »
0
Just because others do worse, it isn`t a justification for Photodune. And yes, we ARE upset about the others too.
If all contributors would have refused to upload under those conditions, they would have been forced to change their terms. Therefore I make everyone of the early uploaders to PD responsible for the mess we have here and partially responsible for other Agencies which may reduce our cut. I really lost some respect for some individuals known here I highly valued before.

Face it. Profit at all costs is destroying our environment, ecology, financial markets etc. This type of business Model has to be abandoned. While I understand those individuals who do NOT stop to upload to established Companies like istock because they have to make a living, I do NOT understand how anybody can support such unfair conditions from a newcomer Agency.

Exactly. Well said. It never fails to amaze me how some contributors upload their portfolios to every new agency apparently irrespective of what the agency is offering or by how much they are undercutting other agencies that sell in volume.

Not that it is any of my business as an IS exclusive, but I think it is what is called "shooting yourself in the foot" .

« Reply #35 on: November 09, 2011, 02:24 »
0
PhotoDune is low earning agency... Full STOP.

No uploads there and again... Full Stop.

;-)

RT


« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2011, 05:23 »
0
Just because others do worse, it isn`t a justification for Photodune. And yes, we ARE upset about the others too.
If all contributors would have refused to upload under those conditions, they would have been forced to change their terms. Therefore I make everyone of the early uploaders to PD responsible for the mess we have here and partially responsible for other Agencies which may reduce our cut. I really lost some respect for some individuals known here I highly valued before.

Face it. Profit at all costs is destroying our environment, ecology, financial markets etc. This type of business Model has to be abandoned. While I understand those individuals who do NOT stop to upload to established Companies like istock because they have to make a living, I do NOT understand how anybody can support such unfair conditions from a newcomer Agency.

Exactly. Well said. It never fails to amaze me how some contributors upload their portfolios to every new agency apparently irrespective of what the agency is offering or by how much they are undercutting other agencies that sell in volume.

Not that it is any of my business as an IS exclusive, but I think it is what is called "shooting yourself in the foot" .

I agree with gostwyck and I often wonder how the same people that moan about low commissions on the top sites who have decent marketing campaigns and a firm customer base, are then prepared to accept a low commission on a new site with no customers and who do absolutely diddly squat in the way of trying to sell their images.

I think it's what's called - 'desperately shooting everyone else in the foot'.

« Reply #37 on: November 09, 2011, 17:15 »
0
I think microstock might not be sustainable for me in the future, so I might as well try and make as much as I can now.

I have lost all enthusiasm to keep producing new images for microstock.  That's what happens when commissions are so low.  I'm sure the sites would do much better if they paid us more, it gives us a reason to work harder with microstock.  Until that dawns on them, we are fighting a losing battle.

^^That pretty much sums up my position too.  I've been in this for almost 7 years.  Despite efforts by contributors, royalties and conditions have deteriorated badly the last couple of years.   Microstock as a way for FT photographers to make a living is starting to look unsustainable indeed.  

For the last year, since Istock's RC drop, I have decided to maximize the income and exposure for my existing portfolio.  I don't want to leave money on the table now, because I am not sure it will be there at all in a few years' time.  




That sounds really childish, like: oh the bad boy had slapped me , now im offended and im going to let everybody slap me .
With such statements you are discouraging reasonable acting contributors.

lisafx

« Reply #38 on: November 09, 2011, 18:42 »
0

That sounds really childish, like: oh the bad boy had slapped me , now im offended and im going to let everybody slap me .
With such statements you are discouraging reasonable acting contributors.

Really?  Well then I guess we disagree on the definition of "childish", because I would have said it was epitomized by name-calling and making personal attacks because you disagree with (and grossly mischaracterize) someone's opinion.  

Tomato, Tomahto.   ::)
« Last Edit: November 09, 2011, 18:52 by lisafx »

« Reply #39 on: November 09, 2011, 20:53 »
0
That sounds really childish, like: oh the bad boy had slapped me , now im offended and im going to let everybody slap me .
With such statements you are discouraging reasonable acting contributors.

No. Your statement is 'childish'. You haven't offered any alternative arguement or suggestion. I'm always appreciative of the opinion of a BD Istock contributor, even if I might not agree with it at the time, because by definition they have extraordinary talent and experience and therefore are clearly worth listening to. Most certainly their opinion trumps that of some pop-up troll who appears from nowhere.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
33 Replies
7643 Views
Last post January 21, 2009, 10:28
by disorderly
21 Replies
4670 Views
Last post September 10, 2010, 17:38
by KB
2 Replies
1767 Views
Last post September 10, 2010, 03:28
by RT
PhotoDune by Envato

Started by helix7 « 1 2  All » Envato

36 Replies
15443 Views
Last post July 27, 2011, 08:07
by CD123
38 Replies
7202 Views
Last post September 02, 2011, 11:44
by cathyslife

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors