pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Custom is born  (Read 16531 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #175 on: September 29, 2017, 01:51 »
0
And voila, just another assignment offer in my mailbox. Same (final) customer, same fee ($50 for 5 photos), but location...is in India. I'm located in Europe. No expense budget. This is pathetic and so disappointing.

Coupled with a lousy launch of new stats feature on iStock today, thinking of quitting this business at all.
No more for me wonder if its because I declined one I don't think i'm missing out on gaining great riches.


« Reply #176 on: September 29, 2017, 02:13 »
0
Are we sure the client keeps exclusive use forever? With ss having the copyright could we see ss ending up with a collection of wholly owned content in a few years?

Eta sorry just worked my way through the thread and this has already been covered.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 02:17 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #177 on: September 29, 2017, 02:28 »
+2
We're back to the days of the robber barons. Prepare to line up for your cheese ration.

This is nonsense. First of all, even during the so called "robber baron" era, people flocked by millions to America, sacrificing everything they had at home, only to work for those "robber barons". Obviously their life under the "robber baron's" boot was better than what they left home.

Secondly, the assignment I got pays $680 for something that can be done in a day or 8 hours. This means $85/hour. This is not bad at all. In a year, this means $173k. I wonder how many members of this forum make this kind if money in a year?
Obviously the client will not get anything comparable to your Elton John shots, but maybe they don't need anything so fancy.

Having said that, I have rejected their offer for reasons beyond the ideological divide!

Robber barons? C'mon!
Well if you sacrificed everything to get to america you really didn't have much choice but to work like a slave for crumbs. You didn't have any money to get back home and ended up working hand to mouth along with all those other millions sold a BS dream. Thank god they managed to unionize eventually

« Reply #178 on: September 29, 2017, 02:39 »
0
We're back to the days of the robber barons. Prepare to line up for your cheese ration.

This is nonsense. First of all, even during the so called "robber baron" era, people flocked by millions to America, sacrificing everything they had at home, only to work for those "robber barons". Obviously their life under the "robber baron's" boot was better than what they left home.

Secondly, the assignment I got pays $680 for something that can be done in a day or 8 hours. This means $85/hour. This is not bad at all. In a year, this means $173k. I wonder how many members of this forum make this kind if money in a year?
Obviously the client will not get anything comparable to your Elton John shots, but maybe they don't need anything so fancy.

Having said that, I have rejected their offer for reasons beyond the ideological divide!

Robber barons? C'mon!
Well if you sacrificed everything to get to america you really didn't have much choice but to work like a slave for crumbs. You didn't have any money to get back home and ended up working hand to mouth along with all those other millions sold a BS dream. Thank god they managed to unionize eventually
Yes and any comparison with their lives and underpaid photographers is ridiclous

« Reply #179 on: September 29, 2017, 06:22 »
0
you can' compare an ad with elton john who probably will be the most important ad for a company, streamed on tv etc, with a little job who probably want just produce some sideline contents.
700 dollar are good money for such kind of job.
you know how much pay some big mag for a n editorial? less than1000 if u are not testino...
many people don't understand one thing: 20 years ago there were 50000 working photographer in the world capable and available...today...10000000000 ready available eager to accept any money to enter the business, talented much more skilled than 99% of pro working 20 years ago. competition is fierce. everywhere there are photographer...instagram have million people with talent in any sector from food to outdoor who can produce absolutely good content for any enterprise.
700 dollar not good? for one day? you are living on the moon i think.

« Reply #180 on: September 29, 2017, 06:27 »
0
I am not getting any emails !!

« Reply #181 on: September 29, 2017, 06:37 »
0
We're back to the days of the robber barons. Prepare to line up for your cheese ration.

This is nonsense. First of all, even during the so called "robber baron" era, people flocked by millions to America, sacrificing everything they had at home, only to work for those "robber barons". Obviously their life under the "robber baron's" boot was better than what they left home.

Secondly, the assignment I got pays $680 for something that can be done in a day or 8 hours. This means $85/hour. This is not bad at all. In a year, this means $173k. I wonder how many members of this forum make this kind if money in a year?
Obviously the client will not get anything comparable to your Elton John shots, but maybe they don't need anything so fancy.

Having said that, I have rejected their offer for reasons beyond the ideological divide!

Robber barons? C'mon!
Well if you sacrificed everything to get to america you really didn't have much choice but to work like a slave for crumbs. You didn't have any money to get back home and ended up working hand to mouth along with all those other millions sold a BS dream. Thank god they managed to unionize eventually

Maybe.

But people kept on flocking. If what they found was worse, the flow would have stopped long time ago. It didn't.

I recommend you to watch this when you have a few minutes: https://youtu.be/dmzZ8lCLhlk

Remember that people tend to "vote with their feet": they always migrate to a better place and better life.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 06:43 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #182 on: September 29, 2017, 12:27 »
0
Dear compatriots,

Correct me if I'm wrong but I interpret this in the way that I ought to submit a number of photos they require (or videos for that matter) and with the rest I may do whatever I want. Submit to shutterstock "classic" or other agencies? Yay or Nay?

Here is what I read in the contract that needs to be signed:

"You may also make Submissions that we do not accept and for which we do not compensate you, on our sole prerogative (Unselected Submissions). You will own, all right, title and interest in and to the Unselected Submissions, however Unselected Submissions containing an identifiable brand in the image that were shot and submitted specifically for a Shutterstock Brief, may not re-sold or licensed or used for any commercial purpose whatsoever, nor may you represent that the Unselected Submissions were taken for a Shutterstock client or for a Shutterstock Brief, both of which are covered by Section 7, Confidentiality. "

Thank you for your clarification.

Cheers,

« Reply #183 on: September 29, 2017, 12:47 »
0
Nay, if they have a brand on them you can't sell them, you can't even talk about them in relation to the brief.  If they don't have a brand on them it may become contentious, but I would think, in most cases, you would be OK to sell them elsewhere. It is difficult to envisage all posible scenarios with these things, so it might be wise to take it case by case.

« Reply #184 on: September 29, 2017, 14:00 »
+1
I just want to wait it out in that case as I am not willing to shoot something and not own any rights for any image on that set. Doing a couple of photos for couple of hundred bucks is ok as long as I can make hundred more images but something tells me that is not the case.

Other than that I just can not comprehend how one could possibly finance a shoot with pocket money?

If offered around 400-500 for business location that one has to travel to and shoot 4-5 models can get by getting 300-400 dollars I may be doing something totally wrong or very right.

Travel expenses
Equipment amortization
Time spent organizing models and location
Shooting time
Model costs (20-50bucks /h)
...
and of course the retouching, uploading, tagging process is free in this case but otherwise still accounts for a large part of the expenses.

And this is why I just dont know how I could possibly charge something 500 bucks that cost me close to 1000 not counting my effort / time / experience etc.



« Reply #185 on: September 29, 2017, 14:07 »
+1
I just want to wait it out in that case as I am not willing to shoot something and not own any rights for any image on that set. Doing a couple of photos for couple of hundred bucks is ok as long as I can make hundred more images but something tells me that is not the case.

Other than that I just can not comprehend how one could possibly finance a shoot with pocket money?

If offered around 400-500 for business location that one has to travel to and shoot 4-5 models can get by getting 300-400 dollars I may be doing something totally wrong or very right.

Travel expenses
Equipment amortization
Time spent organizing models and location
Shooting time
Model costs (20-50bucks /h)
...
and of course the retouching, uploading, tagging process is free in this case but otherwise still accounts for a large part of the expenses.

And this is why I just dont know how I could possibly charge something 500 bucks that cost me close to 1000 not counting my effort / time / experience etc.

Just say no, if the math is not in your favor.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #186 on: September 29, 2017, 14:14 »
0
Quote
And this is why I just dont know how I could possibly charge something 500 bucks that cost me close to 1000 not counting my effort / time / experience etc.

I agree, as Yuri once said: "At some point the professional gets tired of selling 12 course testing menues at 0300AM at burger prices"

Don't want to divert the discussion, but would you say this lack of sustainability also extends to Microstock in general?

I do a lot of bike touring to capture my shots and I wrote recently about one such two-day trip. I recorded all my expenses over two days ($276) where I shortlisted 96 or so images. I question whether I'll be able to offset even those small expenses over a one-year period at Micros. The answer is: probably not. 

Here's a link to the article:

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2017/09/25/is-microstock-a-sustainable-business-model/
« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 14:54 by Brasilnut »

« Reply #187 on: October 10, 2017, 11:27 »
+1
So did anybody get another invitation(s) since the two from Germany and India, coming so quickly after the service's inception? In my case it's dead quiet which only underpins the suspicion that the first two invites were just a bug/scam.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #188 on: October 10, 2017, 11:27 »
+1
Quote
So did anybody get another invitation(s) since the two from Germany and India, coming so quickly after the service's inception? In my case it's dead quiet which only underpins the suspicion that the first two invites were just a bug/scam.

None.

« Reply #189 on: October 10, 2017, 11:57 »
0
Quote
So did anybody get another invitation(s) since the two from Germany and India, coming so quickly after the service's inception? In my case it's dead quiet which only underpins the suspicion that the first two invites were just a bug/scam.

None.
None for me....I only ever had one....

« Reply #190 on: October 10, 2017, 13:36 »
+3
Even if i'd find the money offered/work needed to be done ratio acceptable, or even good, it still wouldn't look like an acceptable deal.
If I can come up with photos even remotely usable for anything, i wouldn't sell the COPYRIGHTS for 15 USD/image..

« Reply #191 on: October 11, 2017, 23:52 »
+4
So did anybody get another invitation(s) since the two from Germany and India, coming so quickly after the service's inception? In my case it's dead quiet which only underpins the suspicion that the first two invites were just a bug/scam.

Not me, but it is understandable after that I replied to their emails, explaining that I do not accept their policy about the ownership of the copyright of *my* images


« Reply #192 on: October 12, 2017, 06:00 »
+9
Shutterstock Custom: it's best not to get involved.

« Reply #193 on: October 12, 2017, 09:32 »
+1
Shutterstock Custom: it's best not to get involved.

That's the way I feel about it too.

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #194 on: October 12, 2017, 11:12 »
+8
I find it very insulting. It's almost like they are saying "let's see how low we can go with these photographers"...

« Reply #195 on: October 12, 2017, 20:15 »
+5
Got my first request for some Seattle shots - pay $50 for 4 images, with talent - no expenses.
I'm in Southern California - why would I get a request for something almost 1200 miles away?
This is a joke.

« Reply #196 on: October 13, 2017, 00:49 »
+6
I agree its best not to get involved at all. couple of weeks back I got a request from a smaller boutique RM agency of a fly-fisherman using a technique called spey-casting the client offered 350 sterling!  big difference.

Sounds to me as if SS wants commissioned shots for micro prices.

« Reply #197 on: October 13, 2017, 05:32 »
+5
I agree its best not to get involved at all. couple of weeks back I got a request from a smaller boutique RM agency of a fly-fisherman using a technique called spey-casting the client offered 350 sterling!  big difference.

Sounds to me as if SS wants commissioned shots for micro prices.

I would love to know how much SS charges for these shoots - no doubt they are getting the lions share of the deal
Everything has become cloak and dagger woth micros- frankly the lack of transparency makes me distrust every single one of them

« Reply #198 on: October 13, 2017, 06:11 »
0
I agree its best not to get involved at all. couple of weeks back I got a request from a smaller boutique RM agency of a fly-fisherman using a technique called spey-casting the client offered 350 sterling!  big difference.

Sounds to me as if SS wants commissioned shots for micro prices.

I would love to know how much SS charges for these shoots - no doubt they are getting the lions share of the deal
Everything has become cloak and dagger woth micros- frankly the lack of transparency makes me distrust every single one of them

Couldnt agree more!

« Reply #199 on: October 13, 2017, 06:23 »
0
I agree its best not to get involved at all. couple of weeks back I got a request from a smaller boutique RM agency of a fly-fisherman using a technique called spey-casting the client offered 350 sterling!  big difference.

Sounds to me as if SS wants commissioned shots for micro prices.

I would love to know how much SS charges for these shoots - no doubt they are getting the lions share of the deal
Everything has become cloak and dagger woth micros- frankly the lack of transparency makes me distrust every single one of them
Its a low bar but SS are probably the least worse...being a Public company they at least have to file some information and as far as I know they don't have numerous sites as "partners". I think if you sell in Microstock you either have to grin and bear it or spend your life trying to work out whats happening with your images once they are "released".


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2377 Views
Last post December 05, 2007, 07:26
by SStevenson
44 Replies
9804 Views
Last post April 29, 2008, 01:57
by Bateleur
4 Replies
2622 Views
Last post June 17, 2011, 11:13
by Niakris
2 Replies
1164 Views
Last post June 15, 2012, 08:01
by hjalmeida
4 Replies
1688 Views
Last post June 22, 2016, 12:53
by Jo Ann Snover

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors