pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Can't get out of DT quick enough  (Read 13816 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: June 04, 2009, 11:38 »
0
I forgot if you can edit the keywords after acceptance in DT. In case you can, just delete all keywords,descriptions and titles or change them to something nonsensical and just become exclusive with IS. If the pictures can not be found on DT they are effectively not for sale anymore.

They are aware of this tactic and will lock you out of editing if they detect it happening __ they also get very angry about it too.


Dook

« Reply #26 on: June 04, 2009, 16:11 »
0
DT is the only agency you can not close your account, neither.
By the way, does anybody know which agencies will let you come back after closing your account, in the case you change your mind?

DanP68

« Reply #27 on: June 04, 2009, 16:38 »
0
No reason they won't all take you back, unless you give them the 1 finger salute on your way out the door.  Maintain a professional relationship.  You may want to do business with them again.

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #28 on: June 04, 2009, 16:46 »
0
Thats a weird argument. What if when the buyer bookmarks the image one day before the 90 days are over? But I understand that it can be quite annoying for a buyer. Yesterday I had to relicense a few images from a design for a client, and it would have been very bad, if the images would not have been there anymore. Non the less I have no understanding for the 6 month policy of Dreamstime. It's just making life more difficult for the contributors.  It works at other agencies without this policy, why not with DT??
Anyway I rather accept this policy than not submitting to DT at all. Otherwise DT is quite a good agency.

good point there. I am a big fan of DT too. but 6 months is a bit much.
methinks if the reason is to go exclusive for someone else, all sites should be understanding enough to let you remove or at least deactivate all images immediately. would they (the site themsevles) not wish for  the same treatment if say I wanted to go exclusive with DT?
 

« Reply #29 on: June 04, 2009, 16:49 »
0
I am keeping all my accounts empty but active - just in case.

« Reply #30 on: June 04, 2009, 16:55 »
0
Sure it's a hassle for buyers if images go way.   Sure DT invested some time reviewing the images.   So maybe DT should focus more on keeping contributors happy, instead of p!ssing them off with stuff like this 6 month thing.


« Reply #31 on: June 04, 2009, 17:18 »
0
I don't think 6 months is that long, in fact.  There is investment from the site in our images as well.  And should I start considering becoming exclusive somewhere, I would stop to upload to other sites until I make a decision.

« Reply #32 on: June 04, 2009, 18:05 »
0
I doubt the reviewing of an image costs more than 50 cents.  They make it back on the first subscription sale.  Sure there are other expenses, like advertising, but I don't think we're talking about a river of fleeing contributors.  Yet.   

« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 18:15 by stockastic »

« Reply #33 on: June 04, 2009, 18:27 »
0
I doubt the reviewing of an image costs more than 50 cents.  They make it back on the first subscription sale.  Sure there are other expenses, like advertising, but I don't think we're talking about a river of fleeing contributors.  Yet.   


Because you think they only have the reviewer to pay? What about the administrators, the developpers, the marketing people, the marketing cost, the server cost, the bandwidth, etc.

Their argument is logic. And why . would they help you leave to be exclusive with a competitor? We're not in kindergarden where everyone is friend, it's business and I don't see why DT would be happy to see a contributor go sell his photos exclusively with another agency.

If you read the contract before you sign it, you know that they will keep the pictures online for 6 months. You then have a choice: contribute or not. If you change your mind after that, you have only yourself to blame.

There is a good side for contributors to locking the images: preventing someone to erase everything on a "coup de tte", to react only on temper. When something pisses you off (like the IRS thing at SS), you can take the time to calm down and think about your options before making a hasty decision that you could regret after that. I'm considering going exclusive with iStock at the moment but will have to wait until november. It gives me 6 months to make a decision and thought about it on all sides. I will stop uploading to DT now but will keep all my portfolios open and continue to make a couple of hundred dollars a month while thinking carefully about my decision. In the fall, I'll decide if I go exclusive or if I continue with all the agencies I'm on atm. If I continue as is, it won't be a problem uploading all the stock photos I'll make in the next 6 months (I can upload 300 pictures a day on DT anyway).

Unfortunately for you, you made a hasty decision in removing all your portfolios on all sites and it will be a costly one. Too bad.

« Reply #34 on: June 04, 2009, 18:42 »
0
I've been on the fence about going exclusive with IS since they're consistently accounting for around 60% of my monthy gross sales for the past few months.  However, up until now I've still been actively uploading on DT, so I know that I couldn't go exclusive with IS until the beginning of December.  It's a fact that I'm well aware of and so I have to plan 6 months in advance if I want to go IS exclusive if I keep uploading to DT.

« Reply #35 on: June 04, 2009, 19:01 »
0
I do have a right to ask questions if you see it as complaing then that is your problem. a complaint would be me saying why in the past 2 weeks has DT taken back sales due to credit card fraud?
Another thing unique to DT....see! that's what's called complaing


Credit card fraud isn't unique to DT. I had fraud happen to me at iStock as well.
Are you sure it was Istock?
In 3 years it never happens to me at Istock. In their forum one admin said that they don't do it for credit card fraud. It's only IS lose and not contributor's.
In my experience only DT and Fotolia make us paying for their errors.

« Reply #36 on: June 04, 2009, 20:32 »
0
Yes, there are other agencies, this is not exclusive to Dreamstime.  BigStock hit us for a $3 refund for credit card fraud.

Here is the reason they gave me:
--quote--
There is not a way for us to identify the reason for an image sale being invalidated. It could be any of these reasons: * BigStock Personnel downloaded it as a test for some reason
* Fraud
* A file download problem occurred
* User did a mistake and didn't want to download the image
* Reseller mistaken download
* Resellers user downloaded a mistake

----
Joseph
Customer Support
[email protected]
1-800-631-9809

--end quote--

So, you see, it isn't just DT.

Gebbie

DanP68

« Reply #37 on: June 04, 2009, 21:47 »
0
Sure it's a hassle for buyers if images go way.   Sure DT invested some time reviewing the images.   So maybe DT should focus more on keeping contributors happy, instead of p!ssing them off with stuff like this 6 month thing.

Arguing over this is worthless, and tired.  They have set rules, which they make perfectly clear to anyone who wants to upload there.  If you don't agree to those rules, you shouldn't be uploading there.  Why people think they can enter a contract and then get out of it as soon as they realize they don't like the contract is beyond me.

« Reply #38 on: June 05, 2009, 00:49 »
0
I forgot if you can edit the keywords after acceptance in DT. In case you can, just delete all keywords,descriptions and titles or change them to something nonsensical and just become exclusive with IS. If the pictures can not be found on DT they are effectively not for sale anymore.
This won't work (unless they've changed something recently) as they disable your ability to edit the images when you delete a certain percentage of your portfolio in a short space of time.

« Reply #39 on: June 05, 2009, 01:01 »
0
I forgot if you can edit the keywords after acceptance in DT. In case you can, just delete all keywords,descriptions and titles or change them to something nonsensical and just become exclusive with IS. If the pictures can not be found on DT they are effectively not for sale anymore.
This won't work (unless they've changed something recently) as they disable your ability to edit the images when you delete a certain percentage of your portfolio in a short space of time.

Hi Jo Anne yes found that I disabled about 210 images and then got locked out from doing anymore... I guess I have to wait a month to do more

Daid

« Reply #40 on: June 05, 2009, 01:04 »
0
I doubt the reviewing of an image costs more than 50 cents.  They make it back on the first subscription sale.  Sure there are other expenses, like advertising, but I don't think we're talking about a river of fleeing contributors.  Yet.   


Because you think they only have the reviewer to pay? What about the administrators, the developpers, the marketing people, the marketing cost, the server cost, the bandwidth, etc.

Their argument is logic. And why . would they help you leave to be exclusive with a competitor? We're not in kindergarden where everyone is friend, it's business and I don't see why DT would be happy to see a contributor go sell his photos exclusively with another agency.

If you read the contract before you sign it, you know that they will keep the pictures online for 6 months. You then have a choice: contribute or not. If you change your mind after that, you have only yourself to blame.

There is a good side for contributors to locking the images: preventing someone to erase everything on a "coup de tte", to react only on temper. When something pisses you off (like the IRS thing at SS), you can take the time to calm down and think about your options before making a hasty decision that you could regret after that. I'm considering going exclusive with iStock at the moment but will have to wait until november. It gives me 6 months to make a decision and thought about it on all sides. I will stop uploading to DT now but will keep all my portfolios open and continue to make a couple of hundred dollars a month while thinking carefully about my decision. In the fall, I'll decide if I go exclusive or if I continue with all the agencies I'm on atm. If I continue as is, it won't be a problem uploading all the stock photos I'll make in the next 6 months (I can upload 300 pictures a day on DT anyway).

Unfortunately for you, you made a hasty decision in removing all your portfolios on all sites and it will be a costly one. Too bad.

Not too bad I still have my top 3 earners active 4 if you include DT

David

« Reply #41 on: June 05, 2009, 10:15 »
0
Don't forget that 'exclusivity' at IS was basically introduced to protect IS's position against the emerging competition, notably SS, CanStockPhoto and DT.

DT later devised their 6-month policy (originally they tried to make it one-year!) as a countermeasure to protect themselves against IS's exclusivity deal.


This is a very good explanation.
I will only add that unless motivational factors, incentives and sometimes requirements are brought into a market with a single player, no competition can exist. 5 years ago a monopoly could've been easily created.  What a monopoly means to photographers, you know much better than me.

An agency that advertises its relationship with the photographers as one of its best assets, will not enforce harsh requirements, unless that was vital. The reality shows that others have enjoyed this too, not only the contributors. It's just happened that we took the responsibility to pick up the iron from the fire, as we were the first one.

« Reply #42 on: June 05, 2009, 11:07 »
0

This is a very good explanation.
I will only add that unless motivational factors, incentives and sometimes requirements are brought into a market with a single player, no competition can exist. 5 years ago a monopoly could've been easily created.  What a monopoly means to photographers, you know much better than me.

An agency that advertises its relationship with the photographers as one of its best assets, will not enforce harsh requirements, unless that was vital. The reality shows that others have enjoyed this too, not only the contributors. It's just happened that we took the responsibility to pick up the iron from the fire, as we were the first one.


Am I the only one who doesn't understand this post? Exactly what is the justification for the 6 month requirement?


« Reply #43 on: June 05, 2009, 12:47 »
0
stockastic, does this help?

The justification of the decision that was previously decided in the decision to require a 6 month hold on said images is a good and wise decision for all parties involved in said decision.  ;D

Personally, I think 6 months is a little long but not entirely unreasonable. I think for DT exclusive images, 6 months is totally fair since DT has a greater investment in those images with the higher commisions. For non exclusive images, it does seem a little too long.

« Reply #44 on: June 06, 2009, 10:30 »
0
Or you could view this from the flip side, if your images are still on DT for six months at least you will be getting sales at DT, which isn't a total loss! ??

lisafx

« Reply #45 on: June 06, 2009, 11:06 »
0



Am I the only one who doesn't understand this post? Exactly what is the justification for the 6 month requirement?



Did you read Gostwyck's explanation? 

In a nutshell, Dreamstime instituted the 6 month hold partly as a counter measure to istock's exclusivity plan and partly as a response to some contributors arbitrarily deciding to pull their portfolios and then changing their minds and reuploading them (which apparently had happened on a number of occasions). 

It is a way for Dreamstime to protect its investment in images already online and to protect themselves and their buyers from whole portfolios vanishing overnight.

I don't get what is so hard to understand here??

Personally, although I didn't much like the 6 month hold in the beginning, I have come to appreciate it.  There were times that I seriously considered istock exclusivity and having that 6 months forced me to bide my time and make a thoughtful, considered decision rather than an impulsive one.   

And without fail every time I was close to choosing istock exclusivity, IS always managed to do something within that time to make me glad I was independent.  If I haven't said so before, I owe DT a big Thank You because their 6 month hold has saved me from making a hasty decision more than once :) 

« Reply #46 on: June 06, 2009, 11:17 »
0
Personally, although I didn't much like the 6 month hold in the beginning, I have come to appreciate it.  There were times that I seriously considered istock exclusivity and having that 6 months forced me to bide my time and make a thoughtful, considered decision rather than an impulsive one.   

And without fail every time I was close to choosing istock exclusivity, IS always managed to do something within that time to make me glad I was independent.  If I haven't said so before, I owe DT a big Thank You because their 6 month hold has saved me from making a hasty decision more than once :) 

Exactly the same here. I could have made a very expensive mistake if it hadn't been for the 6-month lock-in. I did get as far as not uploading to DT for 4 months once in preparation for exclusivity __ but then I came to my senses!

alias

« Reply #47 on: June 06, 2009, 11:26 »
0
No reason they won't all take you back, unless you give them the 1 finger salute on your way out the door.  Maintain a professional relationship.  You may want to do business with them again.

:) There should be a special check box labelled: 'sorry I gave you that one fingered salute pretty please, grovel, grovel grovel'

Don't fall out with anyone. Not worth it.

« Reply #48 on: June 06, 2009, 11:54 »
0
Don't fall out with anyone. Not worth it.

Be nice to all people on your way up, since you will meet them all again on your way down.  ;D

I can't feel any sympathy with the OP since he agreed to terms uploading at DT, now wants to change them at his convenience. He knew it, right? Some people even uploaded to Pixmac when it was clear the lock-in period was one year (2 years first until I objected) and you have to send them a registered snail mail to close your account. Anybody ever heard again of Pixmac or Vivozoom or Albumo with their 400 days lock-in period?

My first year on microstock, half 2005-half 2006, IS made me much more than DT. Then Getty bought it and IS went the dramaqueen tour. Recently, IS got much better with a higher RPI than DT. SS got better too since they changed their feed-the-beast search engine. StockXpert got swallowed by Getty, and Fotolia is basically unreliable.

You'll never know what's going to happen next. Agents come and go. Featurepics turned into a subscription site basically, LO went down the drains. Cutcaster will be like Lookstat. At the end of the day, Dreamstime is still the most reliable site for me, but if they get sold too, who knows? Six months is not that long...

« Reply #49 on: June 06, 2009, 20:48 »
0
I can't feel any sympathy with the OP since he agreed to terms uploading at DT, now wants to change them at his convenience. He knew it, right?
I can't feel any sympathy with DT. They change rules. When I've signed up there were no subscriptions. Then one day I woke up and the subscription wrere there. No option out, no possibility to cancel account before 6 months. So what about initial contract? Now DT will decrese our earnings. Who breaks rules ?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2823 Views
Last post February 20, 2007, 20:26
by Kngkyle
1 Replies
1602 Views
Last post January 15, 2013, 01:52
by roboz
7 Replies
2044 Views
Last post April 14, 2013, 07:59
by Simply
4 Replies
2786 Views
Last post September 28, 2015, 19:50
by anathaya
2 Replies
1641 Views
Last post May 22, 2017, 09:47
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle