MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "Dreamstime Ups Collection of Free Images"  (Read 15633 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 30, 2009, 07:41 »
0
From Reuters (link):
Quote
Several Thousands Of Free Stock Photos Added In First 24 Hours Of Enhancement
NASHVILLE, Tenn.--(Business Wire)--
Serban Enache, CEO of Dreamstime, one of the world`s leading digital image stock
photography agencies, announced the company`s initiative to up the number of
images made available ABSOLUTELY FREE.

In January 2007, Dreamstime made available an assortment of images under its
FREE umbrella. The FREEselection-an original and revolutionary sector that has
attracted bargain hunters from around the globe-is a successfully proven concept
that has secured Dreamstime`s footprint in the industry as one-stop-photo-shop
giant.

Dreamstime has nearly doubled the number of images available ABSOLUTELY FREE
(increasing its FREE library of images by 10% in the first three hours of the
FREE upgrade as effected on October 27th).

It's all about more market share for companies. No word about benefits for contributors. I didn't know that giving away images from contributors was a revolutionary sector.  :-\
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 07:46 by FD-amateur »


« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2009, 09:02 »
0
Well this confirms what the "database cleanup" is actually about.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2009, 09:14 »
0
My post on this subject in the DT Forum was deleted followed by a "private" comment from Achilles.


« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2009, 10:56 »
0
The 'database cleanup' line is mostly BS.  I'm a software developer and I work with databases.

First, a database doesn't require cleanup, it's just data on a hard drive.  Actual cleanup might be required if the amount of old data was so large, in relation to the currently active data, that it was slowing down operations. That's clearly not the case here.

Second, note that they're not actually removing these images from their database, just marking them 'free'.  Nothing is being 'cleaned up'.  

It's just a gimmick to get more free images to attract new buyers.

Oh and Warren, don't mess with the DT forum.  Anything remotely negative will be deleted and the guy will do weird stuff, like leave snarky replies attached as comments to your photos.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 11:01 by stockastic »

« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2009, 11:10 »
0
Well this confirms what the "database cleanup" is actually about.
According to a very recent post from Achilles in the DT forum, the donators will get a boost in the search rank. Ahum...  ;) Your choice, of course.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 11:19 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2009, 11:17 »
0
It's just a gimmick to get more free images to attract new buyers.
Not even that. Freebee hunters almost never become buyers. Whoever wants a usable well licensed shot will go to the paying images since the choice is much wider there and the time searching through sub-par images isn't worth the time/money of the possible gain of 2-3$. For an independent contributor, the larger market share of site A vs. site B doesn't matter, since it's a zero sum operation for his pocket.

Let's see. DT has a long history of a having a good attitude towards its contributors, so it's just a storm in a glass of water.  ;)
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 11:28 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2009, 11:19 »
0
Interesting...

« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2009, 11:39 »
0
Let's see. DT has a long history of a having a good attitude towards its contributors, so it's just a storm in a glass of water.  ;)

It is that, but it's also a part of microstock's relentless march towards free images.  The subtle pressure to make your images free, or to sign on to other gimmicky discount plans, won't let up.

« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2009, 11:59 »
0
It is that, but it's also a part of microstock's relentless march towards free images.  The subtle pressure to make your images free, or to sign on to other gimmicky discount plans, won't let up.

It's like turkeys voting for Xmas. There are lots of perfectly useable images in the free section as evidenced by the hundreds of downloads that many of them have had. Just because an image hasn't sold for a few years doesn't prove that the image is useless, it may simply be that there was a marginally better option that the buyers preferred. An image without sales can rapidly descend down the search order to the point where it is unlikely to be seen again.

With the thousands of new images being approved each week, with many of them in large virtually-identical series, then it is likely that many more images in future will suffer the fate of being ignored by the buyers. If  a significant proportion of those end up on the free sections then it could very seriously damage sales.

I much prefer IS's solution to this issue of the Dollar Bin. At least the contributor (and the agency) gets some money out of the deal.

« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2009, 12:04 »
0
It is that, but it's also a part of microstock's relentless march towards free images.  The subtle pressure to make your images free, or to sign on to other gimmicky discount plans, won't let up.
If that might become the norm, the agents are very vulnerable since they rely on the contributors. One idea: what if contributors bundle their free images on one site and share the ads revenue themselves?

« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2009, 12:22 »
0
<..
..>
Second, note that they're not actually removing these images from their database, just marking them 'free'.  Nothing is being 'cleaned up'.  

It's just a gimmick to get more free images to attract new buyers.
<..
..>

Another Perspective!

Dreamstime may have a different view on this, every forum you visit you will see post after post about removing 'the dross' and leaving the customers a tightly edited set of images, the main reason that images are not selected for deleation is one of cost, who is going to pay?

I agree the way they are doing this is not right as they have not offered an 'opt-in' with 'opt-out' as default, many of the images will be from non-active contributors, those who may have changed e-mail addresses and will never know that their images are being offered 'free of charge' without permission, after they agreed to a 'sales contract' and have not accepted an updated one.

The site has had these images without sales for a while and they have been a 'cost to the business', if they result in any sales for other contributors who's sales have supported the non-selling images, and attract some revenue for Dreamstime this may be seen as a little compensation.

David  ;D 

« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2009, 12:33 »
0
I'm coming to the conclusion that I should contribute to only a couple of microstocks and dump the rest, because I can't trust them and can't spend time monitoring all the changes they announce.   They're rewriting contributor "agreements" every other week, whenever they come up with a new marketing gimmick or sign up a new partner site.   My images are on God knows how many of these snaky "partner" sites already.  I assume the partners don't actually get the image files, just the right to display thumbnails and resell them - but who knows.    My images might even be offered free, if I overlook an email announcing the new rules.   


« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2009, 12:35 »
0
I don't like free sections but I can't see them being much of a threat.  I don't know how many image buyers will spend time going through all the dross in a free section, it obviously isn't a high percentage or the sites wouldn't be doing this.  If free sections become a problem, I am sure the sites would get rid of them.

If the sites really are marching us towards free images, can someone please explain the business plan?  I think they make more money selling our images than they would giving them away.  There have been free sites around since before microstock existed and some of the sites have always had a free section but they still have good sales and it doesn't seem to of hindered growth at all.  I don't see why that should change now.

« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2009, 12:41 »
0
If the sites really are marching us towards free images, can someone please explain the business plan?  I think they make more money selling our images than they would giving them away.

So why are they so eager to tout about it?

« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2009, 12:49 »
0
sharpshot, you're thinking these guys are visionary businessmen, intent on building a sustainable model for the long haul?  And not just more dot-com entrepreneurs?   

Twenty-five cents is already pretty close to free.

« Reply #15 on: October 30, 2009, 12:54 »
0
Let's see. DT has a long history of a having a good attitude towards its contributors, so it's just a storm in a glass of water.  ;)

It is that, but it's also a part of microstock's relentless march towards free images.  The subtle pressure to make your images free, or to sign on to other gimmicky discount plans, won't let up.

That's wrong. Free images just are possible in the way and "quality" they exist now, for instance, at stockechange. Free images will always have the quality of the begginings of microsctok. Certanily, you'll always will be able to find some gem (snapshots, scenery or monuments made by amateurs), but what you willl mostly get is poor stuff, brother in-laws acting as models, cats, pets, nothing worth. Who is going to spend 2,000, or 200 or even 50 dollars in a session to, then, give away the images?

Cheepo suscriptions plans, free images... all this doesn't cntribute to brigthen the prestige of micro agencies. At the end, they can find that serious paying customers flee and are repaced for freebie-hunters.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 12:55 by loop »

« Reply #16 on: October 30, 2009, 12:58 »
0
Message posted at 10/29/2009, 10:07:44 AM by Sid - member is an admin     
   There's a new option in the selection page where you can set your default to disable instead of donating the image to the free section. Whatever you choose as default will carry on to your future unattended images.


I read through the thread on the DT forum and the above was posted. I'm a little unclear as to where EXACTLY I can find this option so that I can change it to disable, not donate. Can someone please explain exactly where it is? I've looked in the management area. When he says "selection page" I went to my online files and don't see anything there. I looked on My Profile page...I couldn't find where Achilles said specifically how we go about setting to disable instead of donate.

Does anyone know and can you please share?

« Reply #17 on: October 30, 2009, 13:01 »
0
I can't find it either, after 5 minutes of searching.

« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2009, 13:12 »
0
I created a new thread on the DT forum, asking where that specifically is located. I'll post any response.

lisafx

« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2009, 13:16 »
0
I created a new thread on the DT forum, asking where that specifically is located. I'll post any response.

Thanks a lot Cathy.  I would like to know where that is too.

« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2009, 13:25 »
0
Yeah, I read that as well in the forum and was wondering where it was. Maybe, it was added to the page of your "flagged for free" files?

« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2009, 14:29 »
0
sharpshot, you're thinking these guys are visionary businessmen, intent on building a sustainable model for the long haul?  And not just more dot-com entrepreneurs?   

Twenty-five cents is already pretty close to free.
I think they have done well so far and I don't think they are suddenly going to try to ruin a business that is worth millions.  A lot of us don't like free images but several sites have said it is a way to bring in new buyers and I doubt they would do something that would lower the overall amount buyers spend.  The sites that have free images are doing well and there is no sign that buyers are using the free images instead of buying, I don't see why that should change now.

ShadySue

« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2009, 14:34 »
0
I much prefer IS's solution to this issue of the Dollar Bin. At least the contributor (and the agency) gets some money out of the deal.
Is anyone actually making much from iStock's DB? Since the price hike there, my images have mostly been moribund, and it's what I'm hearing from others, but hardly a representative sample.

« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2009, 15:01 »
0
The sites that have free images are doing well and there is no sign that buyers are using the free images instead of buying, I don't see why that should change now.

As mentioned above, DT is a successful site. If they think a free area is good for business, that's ok by me. I STILL don't want them taking my images without my permission and giving them away. That's just wrong.

It was either in this thread or the thread that got locked on the DT forum where a poster kept saying how we should all support this free image section because after all, they inspect our photos for free, blah, blah, blah. It bothered me that the poster thinks that DT is inspecting FOR FREE and out of the goodness of their heart and we should in turn be willing to give up stuff for free. They don't inspect our images for free...they get paid a huge percent of the sale for that! Inspecting is a cost of doing business for them...they don't do it for free! I couldn't believe somebody actually said that!

« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2009, 15:02 »
0
One thing that is apparent is that these agencies keep a close step with each other.  Once one makes a move it is not long before the others follow.  Cleaning up databases is now all the rage, freebies, premium subscriptions.  We just need them to start making BOLD moves now that the industry is moving from kindergarten to grade school.

« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2009, 15:07 »
0
If the sites really are marching us towards free images, can someone please explain the business plan?  I think they make more money selling our images than they would giving them away.

Giving your images away for free to pull in new customers is cheap low cost marketing for the websites.

Next step there are a few others services that serve 'free image' that have an advertisment below, so if a Blogger who is writing a recipe for a cake, they can insert a free image with an ad for a white goods company linked.

The sacary thing about some of these start-ups like PicApp is the images are sourced from Getty and Corbis 'wholly owned' content, cutting the artist out of any ad revenue.

We could see a service like Google Ads, where each click earns you $0.01 paid for by advertisers, where you images are used to get the viewers attention.

David  :o

« Reply #26 on: October 30, 2009, 15:09 »
0
I created a new thread on the DT forum, asking where that specifically is located. I'll post any response.

It looks like your message has mysteriously 'disappeared'. Did you ever get any sort of response?

« Reply #27 on: October 30, 2009, 15:13 »
0
I guess next we will see free images inserted into the an ad created for free and there will be the free image with the ad plus logo, also for free .......

« Reply #28 on: October 30, 2009, 15:14 »
0
Ha! That's funny.

I just got a response on sitemail from Achilles.

The page you're asking about is available only to members who have images that qualify (4 years old, no downloads).

I can't see such page because I only started uploading there in 03/06 so none of my images are over 4 years old. He did neglect to answer the question for everyone else, though, who DO have images over four years. I suppose if you have images over 4 years old that are going to be donated, you will be able to easily find the page?

Seems like it's a sore point with them right now, as it should be.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #29 on: October 30, 2009, 15:21 »
0
The sites that have free images are doing well and there is no sign that buyers are using the free images instead of buying, I don't see why that should change now.

As mentioned above, DT is a successful site. If they think a free area is good for business, that's ok by me. I STILL don't want them taking my images without my permission and giving them away. That's just wrong.

It was either in this thread or the thread that got locked on the DT forum where a poster kept saying how we should all support this free image section because after all, they inspect our photos for free, blah, blah, blah. It bothered me that the poster thinks that DT is inspecting FOR FREE and out of the goodness of their heart and we should in turn be willing to give up stuff for free. They don't inspect our images for free...they get paid a huge percent of the sale for that! Inspecting is a cost of doing business for them...they don't do it for free! I couldn't believe somebody actually said that!

This opinion is what I expressed in DT.  It was deleted and followed by an "offline" exchange of comments between Achilles and myself.  When I posted "online" about this thread and the subject press release, he went ballistic. 

No matter how DT tries to SPIN this, the simple solution is to offer a choice.  Let ME and every contributor decide what WE are willing to give away.

BTW:  he kept denying that there was any preconceived plan linked to that press release.   HUH???


WarrenPrice

« Reply #30 on: October 30, 2009, 15:26 »
0
Another thought ... I keep hearing how DT is the only forum that would allow such debate.  That too is misleading.  What they don't want seen gets deleted.  My post was deleted, CClapper had one deleted.

I wonder how many others are deleted???  So much for open disccusion.   If they don't want it seen ... IT AIN'T!!!


« Reply #31 on: October 30, 2009, 15:39 »
0
WarrenPrice, in all fairness, IS does the same thing. Approach touchy subjects and the threads get locked or disappear.

I am hoping that they are reconsidering their position on this whole thing. I really don't get what the big deal is from DT's point of view is. Most people aren't disputing the free section. They can have it, they just need to make it voluntary and NOT mandatory. I personally don't believe it works, but if others think it does and they want to participate, I'm ok with that.

Did they think they were going to be able to just take our images and give them away for free? what?

Frankly, I am so tired of all the bullying from credit card companies, employers, banks, etc. etc. (and now the microstock companies are going to try to intimidate their contributors?) but that is another rant for another forum.

edit: this is funny. I typed double-u tee eff with a question mark (the letters, not the whole words) and it automatically changed that to "what?" LOL.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 15:42 by cclapper »

« Reply #32 on: October 30, 2009, 15:41 »
0
I guess next we will see free images inserted into the an ad created for free and there will be the free image with the ad plus logo, also for free .......
Nothing is free someone is paying, the free images that the websites are giving away were paid for by anyone that has made a sale or payout, all the rejected and the images with no sales have an associated cost, from the inspection, administration, bandwidth, storage, overheads and search delivery, the revenue to pay for these costs is generated from the sales of other artists images.

Lets look at what we have now "Google", millions create websites, blogs etc:, Google crawls these sites pages often by invitation and create an image of the website, they harvest the keywords and index these for all people to find, all this they do for 'free', it is free to submit and search, so off we go to Google where we see the advertisments that the companies pay Google for, none of this revenue generated on Google's main page is passed down to the content providers as they get traffic, the providers who's content the searchers come looking for, what a super 'free' business, so why not images that are paid for each impression to the artist.

The Dreamstime free images are following the Google business model, use free content to pull in and hook traffic, and you have to "register" to download a free image which will mean only serious people will bother to download, and maybe 0.001% of the visitors will make a purchase if not now then later, and for marketing they have the email addresses.


David  ;)

« Reply #33 on: October 30, 2009, 15:47 »
0
I much prefer IS's solution to this issue of the Dollar Bin. At least the contributor (and the agency) gets some money out of the deal.
Is anyone actually making much from iStock's DB? Since the price hike there, my images have mostly been moribund, and it's what I'm hearing from others, but hardly a representative sample.

Not doingn much, ok, but not doieng nothing, or not doing less than nothing because some regular customer steps on a free photo that by chance meet his needs, and  gets it instead for free of buying some other one.

« Reply #34 on: October 30, 2009, 16:02 »
0
I think it will play out like agriculture did. 

Once a world-wide market was created - where products could be shipped and sold anywhere - the small farmer faced a perfect "buyer's market".  Products became completely commoditized and prices dropped below the cost of production.  Collective bargaining was no longer possible because producers couldn't communicate or coordinate their actions on a global scale.  The real money is made by the big distributors, who can buy a product at rock-bottom price from a poor farmer in Indonesia and sell it for top dollar in Maine. Only big corporate farming operations have any leverage with the distributors.

« Reply #35 on: October 30, 2009, 16:25 »
0
I was sad to read in the DT forum that free image donators will have a better placement in searches.

I have no data to back me up, but I think that most of the "free images" clientelle are not people who would pay for photos. 

« Reply #36 on: October 30, 2009, 16:48 »
0
I think it will play out like agriculture did. 

Once a world-wide market was created - where products could be shipped and sold anywhere - the small farmer faced a perfect "buyer's market".  Products became completely commoditized and prices dropped below the cost of production.  Collective bargaining was no longer possible because producers couldn't communicate or coordinate their actions on a global scale.  The real money is made by the big distributors, who can buy a product at rock-bottom price from a poor farmer in Indonesia and sell it for top dollar in Maine. Only big corporate farming operations have any leverage with the distributors.

Interesting analogy.   Are freebies to microstock = Monsanto to agriculture?  Even if you say no to genetically modified grain/seeds(freebies) you are surrounded by it and with the help of the wind the GM infiltrates the organic farmer's crops (ppd's) while only really only benefiting Monsanto (agencies).

Also, a North American grain farmer these days needs at least a half million $ in equipment which is similar to a photographer needing a $20K of equipment and a studio these days to remain competitive.  Difficult for young people to enter these two professions, the only thing keeping farmers in business these days is the investment that their parents put into the business and passing land and equipment down through the bloodline.

« Reply #37 on: October 30, 2009, 16:50 »
0
I was sad to read in the DT forum that free image donators will have a better placement in searches.

I have no data to back me up, but I think that most of the "free images" clientelle are not people who would pay for photos.  

Can someone tell me - are the images moved to free and removed from the regular search?  Is that photo "benefiting" in searches, or is the photographer?

I have enjoyed the use of "free images", but I don't think I will ever donate one.  But then again I buy images also, I'm guessing most freebie hunters have never made a purchase.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 16:52 by Pixart »

« Reply #38 on: October 30, 2009, 18:17 »
0
As I understand, free photos belong to a different group and do not mix with the selling ones.  It was said that being a donator would help in search results - in the main collection, otherwise it would be no advantage.

traveler1116

« Reply #39 on: October 30, 2009, 21:04 »
0
Terrible.

« Reply #40 on: October 30, 2009, 21:15 »
0
It was said that being a donator would help in search results - in the main collection...

Ok, I get it now.  They're offering higher search ranking in exchange for images.  Hey why not just accept cash?




« Reply #41 on: October 30, 2009, 22:10 »
0
I red a thread about Roberts Mizerek:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/photoshop-tutorials/the-miz-his-memory-lives-on-through-his-tutorials/msg0/?topicseen#new
His great portfolio is still at Dreamstime. Without any FREE images. I'm curious if DT will respect his wills.

« Reply #42 on: October 31, 2009, 12:55 »
0
It was said that being a donator would help in search results - in the main collection...

Ok, I get it now.  They're offering higher search ranking in exchange for images.  Hey why not just accept cash?





actually, not too bad a deal -- let your rejects and non-sellers go in the free pile while your good stuff gets higher search visibility

i agree, of course, that the default should be NOT free, with any donations being voluntary

steve

« Reply #43 on: October 31, 2009, 13:10 »
0
actually, not too bad a deal

Unless you're a buyer, and ideally would like to see images ranked in some relation to relevance and quality, and not based on contributors paying the agency to push their images...  that used to be how records got played on the radio. It was called "payola".

I really doubt that the promised boost in search ratings would be delivered.  I'm sure no specifics are being offered as to the amount or duration of the boost.



WarrenPrice

« Reply #44 on: October 31, 2009, 13:23 »
0
actually, not too bad a deal

Unless you're a buyer, and ideally would like to see images ranked in some relation to relevance and quality, and not based on contributors paying the agency to push their images...  that used to be how records got played on the radio. It was called "payola".

I really doubt that the promised boost in search ratings would be delivered.  I'm sure no specifics are being offered as to the amount or duration of the boost.


A promised "reduction" certainly can.   :'( 
I seem to have become the recipient of such. 
Oh well ... who can I PO next?   ::)

« Reply #45 on: October 31, 2009, 13:34 »
0
I may be wrong, but it looks like my acceptance ratio has suffered for not offering my old photos for free. Anyone else notice something similar?

« Reply #46 on: October 31, 2009, 16:27 »
0
They said in their forum that they were thinking about giving a boost in the search to those donating free images, I am sure they haven't done it yet and hopefully they will change their minds.

I doubt they have increased rejections for those not donating free images, my rejections there vary a lot, I stopped uploading a few weeks ago but my last uploads were all approved.

« Reply #47 on: October 31, 2009, 17:12 »
0
It was said that being a donator would help in search results - in the main collection...

Ok, I get it now.  They're offering higher search ranking in exchange for images.  Hey why not just accept cash?


actually, not too bad a deal -- let your rejects and non-sellers go in the free pile while your good stuff gets higher search visibility

i agree, of course, that the default should be NOT free, with any donations being voluntary

If they give higher search ranking in exchange for donations, there's nothing voluntary about it. Anyone who "chooses" not to donate will have their search ranking suffer compared to someone who does.

I'm not directly affected by this any more (although I did go to check that my old DT images were still disabled and hadn't somehow been made freebies behind my back) but the problem with viewing this as "not too bad a deal" for independents is that you rarely have the same sales patterns across all sites.

I would often find an image that took off on one site (and we can speculate about the timings of various search engine changes, a fortunate early sale one place but not another...) didn't do well on another. You'd be insane to let one site give away for free something that was selling OK elsewhere.

And if the image is so awful that it isn't selling anywhere, how will someone downloading an awful image free help you sell your portfolio of current and stellar images?

It seems to me that if you rank the search results usefully to buyers they aren't in any way hampered by the fact that there are some so-so images on page 4,395 of the results - which they'll likely never get to.

And if for whatever reason they don't like any of the high ranking images and find their way to a low-seller towards the end, perhaps it's what they're looking for and it's purchsed. This whole notion of buyers having to wade through mountains of dreck to get to the good stuff - if it is a real issue - isn't solved by moving files to the free section, "voluntarily" or otherwise. It's solved by improving your search engine.

« Reply #48 on: October 31, 2009, 21:10 »
0
I'm not directly affected by this any more (although I did go to check that my old DT images were still disabled and hadn't somehow been made freebies behind my back)

Strange. You have deleted-disabled your images over one year ago and they are still there? Theses images should be DELETED now.

Achilles from Dreamstime said:
"5.  disabling images not deleting them
Contributors may try to delete their whole portfolio after receiving the first refusal they disagree with. Hundreds or thousands of files can go down the drain in a few minutes. Many times contributors re-enable them after they calm down (see your case).
Another case is of photographers trying their luck with other partnership (i.e. exclusivity somewhere else). We're obviously not happy to see it, but respect it. The contributors may return sooner or later and many do. If they return after a few months, they can easily re-enable their portfolio. If it's later they need to start from scratch.
Final decision is up to contributors, we don't touch those files, they are offline. They are permanently deleted after a few months."


« Reply #49 on: October 31, 2009, 22:40 »
0
I'm not directly affected by this any more (although I did go to check that my old DT images were still disabled and hadn't somehow been made freebies behind my back)

Strange. You have deleted-disabled your images over one year ago and they are still there? Theses images should be DELETED now.

Achilles from Dreamstime said:
... we don't touch those files, they are offline. They are permanently deleted after a few months."[/i]

I don't know if I could renable the images - but the button is there if I wanted to push it. I just wanted to be sure I wasn't going to inadvertently end up in violation of my exclusivity arrangement over free RF licenses flogged without my consent at DT.

Perhaps they should clean up the old accounts if they want to clean up something :)

« Reply #50 on: October 31, 2009, 23:28 »
0
I didn't mean that I'm getting more rejections, but that my overall acceptance ratio in the statistics has gone down from 77% to 76.3% even though I'm at 100% for October.

« Reply #51 on: November 01, 2009, 09:47 »
0
I just went over to the free section of DT and by my count, they have 14,360 free images for sale. I don't get the big push to add more.

edit: let me rephrase...I do get the push to add more...drawing in more buyers at no extra expense to the company is a great marketing concept. What I meant to say is that seems like a pretty big database of free images to me...if free images draw in buyers, wouldn't that be enough?
« Last Edit: November 01, 2009, 09:50 by cclapper »

« Reply #52 on: November 01, 2009, 11:17 »
0
SXC has 393,797 images, so the DT free collection is still tiny in comparison.  Perhaps that is why they are looking for more, after istock started linking to SXC?

« Reply #53 on: November 02, 2009, 02:52 »
0
I hate it when agencies try to convince you that it's a good thing to add shots to the free section. I got the DT email that I had 20 shots from 3 years ago that had never sold .. I disabled them all. I don't care if they didn't sell on DT. They sell on other sites. They sure wouldn't sell anymore if I gave them away for free. Piss on the Free Pics trend. It's even more stupid than the subscription trend.
What's worse is when you hear people say .... oh I don't mind because I just do this for a fun hobby anyway. I don't care how much money I make ... If you want to join a business model designed to make money then do it to make money. If you want to just play around go join flickr.  ;D

« Reply #54 on: November 02, 2009, 04:17 »
0
I'm coming to the conclusion that I should contribute to only a couple of microstocks and dump the rest, because I can't trust them and can't spend time monitoring all the changes they announce.   They're rewriting contributor "agreements" every other week, whenever they come up with a new marketing gimmick or sign up a new partner site.   My images are on God knows how many of these snaky "partner" sites already.  I assume the partners don't actually get the image files, just the right to display thumbnails and resell them - but who knows.    My images might even be offered free, if I overlook an email announcing the new rules.   



Yes my views also.... the latest developments there could contribute as to why my Downloads have grinded to a halt there with DT now being my bottom earner, considering the six months tie-in of Images and now this suspect I willl not be in a hurry to uploade further and will concentrate on IS SS and Fotolia which are performing excellently for me

« Reply #55 on: November 02, 2009, 08:27 »
0
Quote
I'm coming to the conclusion that I should contribute to only a couple of microstocks and dump the rest, because I can't trust them and can't spend time monitoring all the changes they announce.   They're rewriting contributor "agreements" every other week, whenever they come up with a new marketing gimmick or sign up a new partner site.   My images are on God knows how many of these snaky "partner" sites already.  I assume the partners don't actually get the image files, just the right to display thumbnails and resell them - but who knows.    My images might even be offered free, if I overlook an email announcing the new rules.

I am rapidly coming to the same conclusion. I'm not sure I could make the distinction, though, between which companies are NOT rewriting contributor agreements every week.

« Reply #56 on: November 02, 2009, 09:21 »
0
Quote
I just do this for a fun hobby anyway. I don't care how much money I make ... If you want to join a business model designed to make money then do it to make money. If you want to just play around go join flickr.

I can't really agree with you there. I DO mind when DT tried to sneak their way into thousands of free images, but this is still a fun hobby for me. I enjoy my full-time job tremendously and have no plans to microstock for a living. The small amount of time and money that I invest in microstock pays off nicely for me and I have no desire to add expenses by trying to compete with the large-scale image mills out there.

With that being said, I would like to feel that the images that I contribute are a part of what continues to draw buyers to the sites. I feel that there is room at the microstock inn for people of all levels of participation.

If 76% (I think that is the number that I read somewhere) of contributors never reach a payout, that only helps the rest of us by providing more income to the agencies so that they don't lower our commissions even more!

« Reply #57 on: November 02, 2009, 10:07 »
0
If 76% (I think that is the number that I read somewhere) of contributors never reach a payout, that only helps the rest of us by providing more income to the agencies so that they don't lower our commissions even more!

That's one of those myths forever to be quoted. It's not true.

There are about 30K people on multimedia's Isock Contributor list and more than 50% of them already have more than 90 sales, which should be comfortably enough for a payout. Of the others some will clearly make payout at some point even if they haven't already. The real figure is probably more like 30% and even then their cumulative sales are so small as to make little difference to the profitability of an agency. Of the 15K people yet to make payout (say fewer than 90 sales) then the average will be 45 sales x 15K = 675K sales in total. That's the equivalent of about 1 week's sales at IS's current rate out of a history of 6-odd years. By the time the agency has paid the admin costs of reviewing, etc they probably lose money on 'contributors who never make payout'.

« Reply #58 on: November 15, 2009, 21:46 »
0
I was still wondering if anyone else noticed a drop in their OVERALL acceptance ratio at DT after disabling their old, non-selling images.

« Reply #59 on: November 28, 2009, 05:54 »
0
^ Sorry cannot help you there as I have stopped uploading because of the increase in free Images and a couple of other reasons, just to much for me considering the six month tie in of Images

Can say that my Sales are way down which I guess is not surprising with no new uploads. Old non sellers have been disabled

« Reply #60 on: November 28, 2009, 06:11 »
0
btw I say I have deleted old non selling Images, this was some time back after a couple of emails more or less saying that if I did nothing they (specified images) would go to the free section. Seem to remember I deleted a few oldies and since then have not received any further such emails

Just wondered is there any way of checking to see if any of my Images have been transferred to the free section unknowingly due to any possible mail issues? thanks 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
4746 Views
Last post May 21, 2009, 16:30
by leaf
0 Replies
1681 Views
Last post August 08, 2012, 16:47
by joshsprague
25 Replies
4539 Views
Last post August 14, 2012, 09:48
by ShadySue
11 Replies
1622 Views
Last post July 20, 2013, 15:32
by Redneck
1 Replies
1220 Views
Last post May 28, 2014, 09:06
by DF_Studios

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results