MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Danybot

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Pond5 / Re: Is it worth it to upload photographs to Pond5?
« on: October 02, 2018, 21:31 »
It's been slow but picking up a bit recently, and shows promise.  I've had some big sales, with one about $15 and one over $70, and that's net.

2
Dreamstime.com / Re: Big Four question for Leaf
« on: September 22, 2018, 11:23 »
Actually, that's not very convenient.   You have to scroll way down to find a popular site like Shutterstock with 50,000 posts, tucked in among others with just a few hundred.   The forums with most posts should still be at the top.

3
Shutterstock.com / Re: Understanding Editorial /commercial
« on: July 05, 2018, 17:29 »
It depends on the inspector.  Sometimes they are quite inconsistent.

4
If the description is less than 10 words, they give you a snide comment "Oops, your description only has 5 words!"

Don't they know a picture is worth 1000 words?  Occasionally, a photo will need some clarification, but most of the time a good stock photo's content will be obvious from looking at it.  Shutterstock, which sells far better than Dreamstime, doesn't even ask for a separate title and description except for editorial photos.

5
Same here. 

6
Shutterstock.com / File transfer error when uploading
« on: May 17, 2018, 18:42 »
Recently in each batch uploaded, I have been getting one or two files with a "file transfer error," where I am asked to resubmit.  I never had this until about two weeks ago.   Is this happening to others, or is there some problem with my browser or connection?

7
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Does Login to Istock or ESP Work
« on: April 25, 2018, 23:03 »
Clearing cookies doesn't help.  Had to switch from Chrome to IE. 

8
Dreamstime.com / Re: Images with no downloads
« on: March 06, 2018, 21:42 »
It's hard to make any predictions with DT, as sales volumes generally have been weak for the past few years.   I just had a rare EL sale, and it was an image that hadn't sold at all for two years before that.

9
Dreamstime.com / Re: DT Views - Newbie Question
« on: October 28, 2017, 20:51 »
Another thing to keep in mind is that each site is somewhat different.  I find that DT is not as good for selling generic RF stock photos, but does tolerably well for editorial and travel shots.

It is number 4 for me, out of 6 I contribute to.   It is also the easiest to upload to, so I don't mind giving them everything I have.   They also have the easiest acceptance policy, so I have about 2800 there, compared to about 2000 at SS. 

10
Adobe Stock / Subtle hint to move to Adobe Stock?
« on: August 28, 2017, 19:19 »
They haven't put a captcha on the Adobe site.  It was getting to be enough of a nuisance that I stopped using the Fotolia version.

11
Yesterday I received four rejection messages in a row saying that my files were rejected for an "Exposure Issue."  I thought this was odd, as the files looked fine to me (and had been accepted at other agencies).  However, today I looked in my queue of files "waiting for moderation", and they are still  there.


12
Shutterstock.com / United States W8-BEN tax form
« on: April 14, 2017, 17:08 »
I'm a Canadian contributor who received a notice that my form had expired.  The new form is much more complicated than the old one (actually, just much longer -- most of it doesn't apply).   I found this page to be a very useful guide on what to fill out:

http://ontariotaxmen.ca/w8-ben-e.htm

If you don't fill out this horrible form, US tax will be deducted from your revenue even though you live in a tax treaty country that exempts you from US tax.

13
iStockPhoto.com / Very detailed royalty report
« on: February 23, 2017, 22:41 »
ESP allowed me to download a detailed report of all my sales ( a text file that becomes a spreadsheet), including lots of info that was never available on the old iStock, such as the location of the purchaser.  However, one thing I couldn't find is anything that puts the report together with the actual photos.  It does have the title and number, so if I try hard enough I can figure out what's selling.  However, I have over 2000 photos there, and it would be nice to put this report together with the thumbnails.   I haven't installed Deep Meta. Does it help you do that?

14
iStockPhoto.com / Any way to find previous submissions?
« on: February 02, 2017, 19:18 »
I was able to submit a few photos, and the new interface is a bit nicer than the old one.   If there is a separate editorial category designation available, I could not see it.

There is a search box that's supposed to let you search by status.  However, I was not able to get it to show either the photos I just uploaded through ESP, or the ones I uploaded last week through the old iStock.

15
Adobe Stock / Re: 23 cent sales in January
« on: January 05, 2017, 18:19 »
The prices I'm getting today are back to normal.  Updating the tax form did fix the problem. 

I also had a green check mark beside mine.  That is just there from its original approval.  It doesn't mean that it hasn't expired.

16
Adobe Stock / Re: 23 cent sales in January
« on: January 04, 2017, 22:23 »
Mat,  thanks for the quick response.  I checked my tax form, and it did indeed expire on December 31.  I see that they are only valid for three years.

I have now submitted an updated form.  I will wait eagerly for tomorrow's sales to see if that fixes the problem.   :)

17
Adobe Stock / 23 cent sales in January
« on: January 04, 2017, 18:59 »
In 2016, Fotolia was paying relatively decently, with no sales under 33 cents.  All of a sudden, this week I have had several photos with sales at 23 and 24 cents. 

Does anybody know what's going on?

18
Dreamstime.com / Dreamstime still the best for editorial
« on: August 22, 2016, 12:17 »
I've seen all the Dreamstime bashing here.  I suspect that it depends on what types of photos people produce.   Many stock photographers focus on generic model released scenes of the type that is good for commercial advertising. 

I find that for travel and editorial shots Dreamstime is pretty good.   Dreamstime was one of the first to accept editorial shots, and in my opinion is still the best.  They are easy to upload, and unlike other sites don't force you to jump through hoops to caption editorial shots.  They are also much more liberal in accepting just about any editorial shot, including interiors, for which many other sites insist that releases are needed even for editorial use.


19
Dreamstime.com / Re: We have to confirm payout requests now
« on: August 12, 2016, 12:24 »
Thanks for pointing that out.   The confirmation e-mail they sent me went to my spam mail box.  I was wondering why my balance remained over $100 even after I had asked for a payout in the usual way.

20
Dreamstime.com / Re: Database problems?
« on: September 15, 2015, 20:46 »
I discovered that the problem of no updating of the statistics is an issue in Firefox.  Looking at the same page in Chrome, I do see statistics for September, but sales are awful, worst half month ever.  (123rf, which is usually my worst, has triple the revenue with a much smaller portfolio).  DT has occasionally fluctuated before, but has never fallen off a cliff quite as badly as this.

21
Dreamstime.com / Database problems?
« on: September 09, 2015, 21:23 »
I went for about 10 days without any sales shown, and finally got two.  I'm hoping it's all just a database error that will be corrected.

 My statistics page at http://www.dreamstime.com/stats.php still shows zero sales and zero accepted in September, when in fact I have had several new files accepted.

22
Dreamstime.com / Re: It's a MIRACLE!
« on: July 02, 2015, 19:18 »
4 (four) days ago I submitted 20 images to DT.
They just got reviewed (and accepted) today!

Normally I wait about 2 1/2 weeks, but this, I can't explain.
My world is spinning!

Now, if I could just earn half as much as I do from SS, I'd be ecstatic!

I have always found it odd that they take so long to review, as they have the highest acceptance rate of any of the big four.  They are not very particular, and almost everything gets accepted, so you would think it should not take them so long to review.  Unfortunately, their sales (never great) just keep going down and down.   

I regularly get annoying "four years without sales" e-mails from them.  Why do they bother?  It's more their fault than mine, as some of the ones that have had no sales on Dreamstime have had numerous sales on other sites.

I like them so I have continued to upload, but now I am having second thoughts about whether it is worth the trouble.

23
123RF / Re: Just removed all photos from 123rf
« on: June 11, 2015, 12:10 »
Why didn't you leave them there to earn the odd $. It would be a lot of work loading them back up if the site improved?

I have also stopped uploading.  Even though uploading is easy, the revenue is too low to make it worth the trouble.  I haven't removed all of my photos, but I have deleted some selectively.  123RF pays me 25 cents per sub download, which is the lowest around.  I get 38 cents on Shutterstock.  To the extent that I have some photos that are reasonably unique, I am competing against myself, as presumably some buyers use more than one site.  It makes sense to delete them from the site where I get paid the least.

24
  In most countries, the owner of the house has no right to prevent somebody from taking a photo of his house from the public street. ...

... for personal use, or to sell as editorial, just the same as shooting a person for editorial.
Commercial use is different for people, and in some countries, e.g. the UK, for property:
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2013/02/12/is-it-legal-to-take-pictures-of-buildings-photography-law-questions-answered-by-experts


If there is no copyright, it generally does not make a difference whether you use it commercially or not.  In the UK, it appears that there is a voluntary advertising standards council that has a policy of discouraging advertisers from using such photos.  That is a concession to the overly sensitive, but it is unlikely to be a legal requirement.  Stock photos are always de-identified, with house numbers etc. removed.  Most houses are not very unique, and for many of the photos being removed by Istock, their owners would not be able to swear that it is their own house as opposed to a similar one a thousand miles away. 

In any event, it is up to the user to know what they are using the photo for and whether that use is legal where they are using it.  I sell hundreds of photos of "personal residences" on microstock sites every year.  Presumably, if there was a major legal risk in using them, people would have gotten wind of it, and stopped buying long before now.   

Removing a photo just because it is of a "personal residence," which Istock is doing, is a downright silly reason.  However, as somebody else pointed out, it is probably a good thing, as buyers who want these will have to migrate to other stock sites, and virtually all of them pay a higher commission to the photographer than Istock.

25
21 deactivated - most of them are non-recognizable cookie-cutter suburban homes. And, by the way, I never received any emails from Istock notifying me that this is going to happen - this is complete news to me.

That is exactly why this makes no sense.  There is no intellectual property involved, unless there is unique architecture or landscape design, and the designer wants to assert her copyright.  In most countries, the owner of the house has no right to prevent somebody from taking a photo of his house from the public street.  If it bothers him, he should put up a tall fence.  Istock's demand for "property" releases for generic houses is legally meaningless, but that is part and parcel of a badly managed company.

Pages: [1] 2 3

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors