Author Topic: Contributor's Collective (Read 11262 times)

ComfortEagle2095 · « **Reply #75 on:** April 23, 2011, 12:36 »

Same here -- small fish with hopefully something different to offer. Glad to be part of the experiment, thankful for the opportunity to be involved.

donding · « **Reply #76 on:** April 23, 2011, 15:28 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 23, 2011, 10:40

Quote from: djpadavona on April 15, 2011, 18:41
you would fill your server space with contributors who haven't shown the ability to sell images?

All my photos sell, and quite a few of them sell well, and steadily, thanks. Good luck with your 'collective'. You might also want to set up CollectiveGroup.com.

So do mine and of course I was turned down, but that's just the way it is.....I really don't care, but I gotta add that without variety, things won't do very good...what's the saying??? What is one mans garbage is another mans treasure....some people like to buy a different type of stock...not the studio but candid, not isolated but natural. I don't see a whole lot of variety. I can also understand him being selective, but being a little to selective limits the variety. Sorry if I offended any one but that's the way I feel about it...

jeancliclac · « **Reply #77 on:** April 23, 2011, 15:43 »

The idea of a collective is a great idea. The project of doing something together is exciting.
However don't do it for the money (I was told warmpicture has only sold one picture at the day of today.....). And if you like the idea make sure the project is really collective and that you will not been thrown out based on one man decision after having uploaded 1000 pictures as I was with warmpicture. Even I as was not been happy all the time with big microstock sites I was never treated badly with any, and have earned well with them. The idea of collective make sense if it is a collective an not another micro behaving worse as macro with lower earnings...

Jean

cclapper · « **Reply #78 on:** April 23, 2011, 16:56 »

Quote from: jeancliclac on April 23, 2011, 15:43

The idea of a collective is a great idea. The project of doing something together is exciting.
However don't do it for the money (I was told warmpicture has only sold one picture at the day of today.....). And if you like the idea make sure the project is really collective and that you will not been thrown out based on one man decision after having uploaded 1000 pictures as I was with warmpicture. Even I as was not been happy all the time with big microstock sites I was never treated badly with any, and have earned well with them. The idea of collective make sense if it is a collective an not another micro behaving worse as macro with lower earnings...

Jean

There are 2 sides to every story and I think it only fair for you to mention that you uploaded some photos without releases (from what I understand), after you were told to self-moderate. I don't think that's being fair to others who are following the rules, either.

Everyone here can go to ktools and purchase the software for about $200 and start their own collective. In fact, Jean, if I remember correctly, you were talking about starting one before Dan did, and it seems to me you immediately put a caveat on the people who could upload. I remember, because I was excluded right off the bat. With 800+ images approved and a Gold level on istock. So let's not be a pot calling the kettle black.

Here's the link to the thread you started:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/selling-direct/virtual-agency-with-multiple-contributors/

You were looking for folks with 3000-4000 images. If that isn't being elitist, I don't know what is. But it was okay when you were doing it, right?

djpadavona · « **Reply #79 on:** April 23, 2011, 17:34 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 23, 2011, 10:40

All my photos sell, and quite a few of them sell well, and steadily, thanks. Good luck with your 'collective'. You might also want to set up CollectiveGroup.com.

Do they? You want to be involved in a project, and you don't even show us your portfolio. Give us a link and let us take a look. We're not signing a photographer who doesn't share his portfolio.

djpadavona · « **Reply #80 on:** April 23, 2011, 17:58 »

Let me clear something up. I never stated smaller contributors could not be part of our project. What I stated was we have a small amount of initial storage to work with given our cash reserves, so we are filling that storage with the best possible photographers possible to attract customers. You may disagree with that strategy if you prefer, but that is what we are doing.

Once we are receiving regular sales, I will be able to afford to upgrade our storage capacity so we can accept more contributors. I'm sorry people don't understand this. Please be patient.

There is one thing which will never change - we will only accept strong stock, or quality images which fill a niche for us. This is how we will differentiate ourselves from libraries with several million images.

So a contributor who joins us with 500 images will probably be asked to upload their top 100 (top 20%). That top 20% will be the contributor's most successful images. If that is not acceptable to a contributor, then he or she will have to contribute to another project.

That is how our current contributors are uploading. People with 7000-10000 images are uploading their best 1500-3000 images only.

My guess is a lot of the people complaining in this thread will not be able to check their ego at the door when asked to upload that best 20%. I have found that the most successful, huge portfolios are constructed by artists who don't have a chip on their shoulder, and realize that some of their work really doesn't cut it and they have to work to get better. This as opposed to someone who has been in stock for 4-5 years, makes less than 100 total sales per year at DT, and still claims "all my stuff sells."

djpadavona · « **Reply #81 on:** April 23, 2011, 18:09 »

Quote from: borg on April 23, 2011, 10:00

So again, a new site for large fish who probably can negotiate for percentage of earnings with large agencies ...
Deja Vu and nothing new!

That's a pretty hefty claim considering you have no evidence to back up your assertion.

I complained plenty about Getty's September decision. I recall many of the contributors who are currently part of our project being very active in the threads protesting what was happening. Actually I left IS exclusivity because of it, and one of our current members also abandoned IS exclusivity as a very high level diamond because of the royalty changes.

It's also unfortunate that you lump anyone who is successful in microstock into an elitist category. It couldn't have anything to do with talent and hard work, could it? Just label them as elitist, then you don't have to admit that they work harder than you do.

stockastic · « **Reply #82 on:** April 23, 2011, 18:13 »

Quote from: djpadavona on April 23, 2011, 17:34

You want to be involved in a project, and you don't even show us your portfolio.

Huh? I didn't even bother, because you'd already said:

Quote from: djpadavona on April 23, 2011, 17:34

The only contributors we can accept at this point are very high level contributors with highly downloaded portfolios.
...
If we had more space I'd take images from smaller contributors....

I didn't really intend to knock your business concept. I thought it was a bit funny to state that you didn't have room for small portfolios, just big ones - maybe that isn't exactly what you were trying to say. I also said that what you're setting up isn't a microstock, and this is a microstock forum.

Good luck with your endeavor. I think your collective is probably not the place for me.

jeancliclac · « **Reply #83 on:** April 23, 2011, 22:00 »

There may be 2 sides to every story but I have to correct you cclapper as what you say is not correct:
1) I have never opposed to the fact that there were few pictures (mainly with my family by the way) without release, I also said those were on the way, but as my folio was deleted within 48 hours and I did not get a chance. At this time there were by the way also other pictures from other contributors without release.
2) I was never told to self-moderate; the folio was deleted over-night without a single discussion or warning (and on top of this on request of another contributor). This method is brutal and not corresponding to what I believe a "collective" should be, and especially not in a construction phase where with massive upload this can happen. I'm very surprised that all you contributors find this way of behaving another photograph "normal". There was at least two things to consider before doing this: (a) ask the contributor to be more selective (b) deleting the pictures with issue instead of the whole folio!
3) This is right, I have been starting to organize a collective and asked for large folios to join. Did I ever complained about your CEO taking large folio only? The answer is no, I never did
Please read the threads again and don't put in my mouth words that other have been saying. I try to be factual please do so too.

Jean

Quote from: cclapper on April 23, 2011, 16:56

There are 2 sides to every story and I think it only fair for you to mention that you uploaded some photos without releases (from what I understand), after you were told to self-moderate. I don't think that's being fair to others who are following the rules, either.

Everyone here can go to ktools and purchase the software for about $200 and start their own collective. In fact, Jean, if I remember correctly, you were talking about starting one before Dan did, and it seems to me you immediately put a caveat on the people who could upload. I remember, because I was excluded right off the bat. With 800+ images approved and a Gold level on istock. So let's not be a pot calling the kettle black.

Here's the link to the thread you started:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/selling-direct/virtual-agency-with-multiple-contributors/

You were looking for folks with 3000-4000 images. If that isn't being elitist, I don't know what is. But it was okay when you were doing it, right?

cthoman · « **Reply #84 on:** April 24, 2011, 01:02 »

It's a shame that this thread degraded into this. I feel bad for Jean because nobody likes to feel like they weren't given a fair chance. I also feel for Dan because all he was trying to create was something better. I hope he is successful, so more people can take part in it. As Cathy said, Ktools or other programs are available to everyone. I have a store myself. Personally, I'd love to see a lively independent community here. I encourage people to go and try things out for themselves.

cclapper · « **Reply #85 on:** April 24, 2011, 07:12 »

Quote from: jeancliclac on April 23, 2011, 22:00

There may be 2 sides to every story but I have to correct you cclapper as what you say is not correct:
1) I have never opposed to the fact that there were few pictures (mainly with my family by the way) without release, I also said those were on the way, but as my folio was deleted within 48 hours and I did not get a chance. At this time there were by the way also other pictures from other contributors without release.
2) I was never told to self-moderate; the folio was deleted over-night without a single discussion or warning (and on top of this on request of another contributor). This method is brutal and not corresponding to what I believe a "collective" should be, and especially not in a construction phase where with massive upload this can happen. I'm very surprised that all you contributors find this way of behaving another photograph "normal". There was at least two things to consider before doing this: (a) ask the contributor to be more selective (b) deleting the pictures with issue instead of the whole folio!
3) This is right, I have been starting to organize a collective and asked for large folios to join. Did I ever complained about your CEO taking large folio only? The answer is no, I never did
Please read the threads again and don't put in my mouth words that other have been saying. I try to be factual please do so too.

Jean

Regarding you discriminating on the basis of 3000-4000 images, my point was that you chose to exclude people right off the bat and you had every right to do so. It was your idea and you were the one setting it up. This collective was Dan's idea, he paid money and time to get it set up. If he thought you weren't doing what he thought was right, it is within his right to do whatever he wanted. Just like the big boys.

I agree that the Photostore software is a little lacking when it comes to the model release issue, but I found a way around...I also add "model released" to the description window.

I don't agree with ANY of the decisions istock has made about their site, but it's their site. I feel about them just like you do about Dan. I totally get why you are complaining and feel that Dan messed you up. With 3000-4000 images, I would think you would WANT to be starting your own collective or at least working on your own site.

sjlocke · « **Reply #86 on:** April 24, 2011, 07:23 »

Quote from: cthoman on April 24, 2011, 01:02

It's a shame that this thread degraded into this. I feel bad for Jean because nobody likes to feel like they weren't given a fair chance. I also feel for Dan because all he was trying to create was something better. I hope he is successful, so more people can take part in it. As Cathy said, Ktools or other programs are available to everyone. I have a store myself. Personally, I'd love to see a lively independent community here. I encourage people to go and try things out for themselves.

The reason is because in past discussions, the idea of a "collective" came up that everyone felt they were going to be able to participate in, regardless of history, or portfolio size or whatever. So to be rejected from a project in a thread of such a title is probably a bit disappointing/insulting/etc.