Author Topic: Does DT Treat All Submitters Alike? You Decide... (Read 21840 times)

StockManiac · « **on:** April 11, 2007, 18:47 »

DT claims that they treat all submitters alike, and that everyone must follow the daily upload limits (which are currently set at 40/day).

But don't believe the hype.

1. The current upload limit of 40 images/day started on 03/13/07 (see here http://www.dreamstime.com/archives.php).

2. Before 03/13/07, submitters were allowed to submit 100 images/day.

3. One of their newest members, Iofoto, now has 3,750 images online. I will show that getting this many images up in such a short time period would be an impossibility for most submitters.

4. Iofoto's first image submitted is # 2037002. It was uploaded sometime between 03/04 and 03/05/2007.

5. From 03/04 (when Iofoto submitted his 1st image) thru 03/13/07 (when the new upload rules came into effect), there are 10 days. Submitters were allowed to submit 100 images/day during that time frame. So someone could have submitted a total of 1,000 images (10 days * 100 images/day) during that time.

6. From 03/14 thru 04/11/07 (today), there are another 29 days. Submitters were only allowed to submit 40 images/day during this time frame. So someone could have submitted another 1,160 images (29 days * 40 images/day) during that time.

7. If we add the two time frames together, the most that a normal submitter could have submitted during that time would be 2,160 images (1,000 + 1,160). Yet Iofoto managed to get 3,750 images approved during that same time frame!

8. Of course, this does not take the following into consideration:

a. The current queue wait is around 10-12 days. So images that were submitted during the last 10-12 days would still be in the queue waiting for inspection. So we would need to subtract at least 400 images from the total (10 days * 40 images/day). This leaves 1,760 images (2,160 - 400).

b. Nobody has a 100% acceptance ratio. According to another thread on this board (http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=1177.0), the highest acceptance ratio from people on this board is around 90%. Most acceptance ratios are much lower. So at least 10% of the images would be rejected, or 176 rejected images. This leaves 1,584 images (1,760 - 176).

But mysteriously, Iofoto seemed to get 3,750 images online. Over double the amount that most others would be able to do.

So it seems that the rules only apply to some submitters and not to all.

Pixart · « **Reply #1 on:** April 11, 2007, 19:58 »

Any agency would be CRAZY not to make special allowances for a portfolio like Iofotos. Such a portfolio could attract new buyers - who will purchase credit packages, and hopefully spread the wealth.

I don't understand everyone's obsession with this topic - but I do understand that everyone must be left in a holding pattern for approvals while the reviewers inspect Iofoto's photos..... and from the looks of things they still have over 1000 more to come....

sharply_done · « **Reply #2 on:** April 11, 2007, 20:05 »

Geez, let it go already.

An internationally-recognized leader in stock photography is permitted to upload his work at a faster rate than you or I. Wow, who'd have seen that one coming? It is a prudent business decision - nothing more, nothing less.

As far as DT claiming to treat everyone equally, I believe that achilles stated yesterday that they give people preferential treatment at their own discretion:

...
We always try to be as transparent as possible. This is not an obligation, it is our decision. We did help Ron Chapple and assist his team in uploading the files.
...
Now, whether we make things easier for a photographer or not, is simply our decision. If the community receives certain benefits, we can agree to help a certain user. If that happens we'll NOT hide this, what would be the reason for that? Uploading on our site is a privilege not a right, no offense. Do any of you have an issue with any feature on the site or have specific questions? Drop us an email and we will be happy to assist you.

If you have issues with DT, why not take it up with them as was suggested? If you can't be bothered to do that, then don't submit there.

The sooner you are able to get over this, the better off you will be.

Good luck!

sharply_done · « **Reply #3 on:** April 11, 2007, 20:08 »

Quote from: Pixart on April 11, 2007, 19:58

...
Such a portfolio could attract new buyers - who will purchase credit packages, and hopefully spread the wealth.
...
but I do understand that everyone must be left in a holding pattern for approvals while the reviewers inspect Iofoto's photos..... and from the looks of things they still have over 1000 more to come....

Very good points, Pixart. This, to me, goes a long way in explaining the longer delays lately. I'll be happy when things get back to normal in that department.

litifeta · « **Reply #4 on:** April 11, 2007, 21:00 »

Nobody disputes that the site as a "business" has a right to attract stars and give them privileges. What we dispute is:

(a) If this guy is such a star, and his portfolio is valuable enough, why place the photos in the queue with everyone else. If it is such a prudent business decision, wouldn't you expect them to at least go the extra mile and set up a special project, so it did not affect its current business obligations.
(b) DT says it is an agent. They are your agent. Normally an agent goes looking for work for you while you focus on your craft. That is what we are paying them to do. They are not paying us, they are taking commission from us. They work for us. They have an obligation to treat us fairly. I am a business analyst for one of the largest businesses in the world. We would never dream of treating our customer base with indifference just to nab a huge contract from a competitor.
(c) Before I got all heated, I simply made some comments about their performance. EVERYTIME I have done this in the past my submissions have been instantly reviewed ahead of the mob and ALL rejected. The last lot of rejections were for my top sellers on Shutterstock. They are trying to control the forums by treating anyone who dares question them like dirt.
(d) Archilles seems to misunderstand his responsibilities in operating a business in the West. Things might be like that in Romania, but in the West we have a right to question him, and he has an responsibility to respond. We are stakeholders in Dreamstime and as the lead stakeholder it is his responsibility to ensure our concerns are dealt with professionally. AND NO, we do not believe a little spin. AND NO, we will not have the issues sidetracked and our concerns treated with disdain while the agenda is quickly shifted to "short term issue regarding Easter".
(e) StockManiac fairly and openly questioned a few issues which had nothing to do with Easter. A DT executive blasted her way onto a private forum and trivialised his concerns and ridiculed him with ridiculous statements suggesting that he was insisting the reviewers should not be allowed to sleep or have a Christian Holiday off.

StockManiac · « **Reply #5 on:** April 11, 2007, 21:11 »

Quote from: sharply_done on April 11, 2007, 20:05

As far as DT claiming to treat everyone equally, I believe that achilles stated yesterday that they give people preferential treatment at their own discretion

Incorrect.

Achilles stated just the opposite (that Iofoto is abiding by the rules just like everyone else):

"From what I remember they submitted images before the max amount limit was decreased. If not and the average is higher, it could be a glitch somewhere, but I have checked and they can only submit the max. amount at this time, just as any other users."

I find it interesting that when the facts are presented:

First, they are ignored and ridiculted. Silly statements such as "reviewers have to sleep" are stated.

Second, when they can no longer be ignored, they are vehemently denied. They try and throw out their version of the "facts" to confuse everyone.

Finally, when all else fails and they are caught with nowhere else to go, they say "what's the big deal?".

Well, the big deal is that they are lying. And if they lie about this, then they'll lie about anything.

This is just another nail in their coffin as far as I'm concerned.

First, they wanted to lock everyone in to a one-year contract. When that failed, they required a 6 month lockin.

Second, they created a new kind of "editorial" section, which allows modified images and requires logos be removed and model releases for people. A slap in the face to journalists everywhere.

Third, they have added subscription sales and they won't let people opt out or get out of their original 6 month contract. Full-size images and raw images now give a 0.25 royalty.

Finally, they seem to be very sneaky about their implementations of new releases on their site. You might have noticed that the way they implement things is to first add the new release in a way that makes it seem great to artists. Once artists have accepted it, they then implement the new version within a year and slam the artists that they say they so love.

For example, take subscriptions. The first time they implemented subscriptions, the royalty was 0.50/image. The artists thought that it was much better than SS' royalty. Now, less than a year later, DT has changing the royalty to 0.25/image. A 50% pay cut. Not only that, but they also apply to RAW images.

A second example is their implementation of Extended Licenses. At first, they had a royalty of between $50 and $150. Once again, something to appease the artist. But now, DT has cut that royalty to just $25. A pay cut of between 50% and 600%! And it was implemented as a temporary cut at first during the Christmas season.

A third example is their implementation of Free images. At first, the only had a Free Image of the Day. Artists lined up to try to offer a free image because it would bring them some free marketing. But now DT has opened up a whole Free Image Section which now has hundreds if not thousands of images for free that compete against images for sale. An infinite paycut!

If you can't see the writing on the wall, then you must have drank too much of the DT Kool-Aid and nothing will help you at this point.

litifeta · « **Reply #6 on:** April 11, 2007, 21:18 »

and another thing that really gets on my neves:

There is this clear message that we are a sponge on their business.

I for one, and I know many others, continue to promote their site to designers all over my town. I even met with all of the Government designers and introduced them to the site and did a power point demo since most of them buy stock photos from CDs at local book shops.

Did I want a commission? NO! Did any of these buyers actually buy my photos? NO!

madelaide · « **Reply #7 on:** April 11, 2007, 21:47 »

I agree with Pixart and Sharply_done. I don't mind that a very good contributor receives this type of special treatment. I wouldn't agree if images were not reviewed, or mediocre images were accepted. If one new member has a solid portfolio and a name in the market, I guess it's normal that he receives this special treatment.

Litifeta, I understand many of your points, though not agree with all of them. I also dislike many decisions taken in DT (like the 25c subscription), but your "East vs West" comment is so silly, in my opinion. IS is a Western company and I don't see them having such a better behaviour (forum threads are often locked if critics arise, exclusives' special treatment, "sneaky" implementations...).

Regards,
Adelaide

leaf · « **Reply #8 on:** April 12, 2007, 01:38 »

Well first I would like to thank everyone for being civil here. Even though I don't agree with litifeta and Stockmaniac - you have put your opinions forward in a fair way I think.

Personally i don't have a problem with Dreamstime helping a well known stock artist get his portfolio online. If I were them I would do the same, and if I were that artist I would ask for the same.

I do agree that it seems like the one artist got their portfolio online quicker than would be regularly possible. Weather dreamstime lifted the cue for them, or let them send in a CD and just reviewed them as they were able is unknown to me - either way I don't really care. I don't feel achilles addressed this directly - but somewhat indirectly, so things can be understood a number of ways. For me, I don't really mind not getting an explaination, it doesn't matter how they got images up so fast. For those who it does bother however, I would suggest writing directly to achilles and seeing what he says.

CJPhoto · « **Reply #9 on:** April 12, 2007, 01:43 »

Quote from: madelaide on April 11, 2007, 21:47

I agree with Pixart and Sharply_done. I don't mind that a very good contributor receives this type of special treatment. I wouldn't agree if images were not reviewed, or mediocre images were accepted. If one new member has a solid portfolio and a name in the market, I guess it's normal that he receives this special treatment.

I think the issue is that they said they didn't give special treatment. If they said they had, I wouldn't be too concerned but they have said they treat all contributors the same. They obviously have not which means that they have lied to us.

I would be slightly concerned as we started a while ago and helped buildd the site up. Now that it is successful, some bigwig jumps in and they give him special treatment. I would also be concerned as they have given special treatment to the detriment of other contributors (ie. the long time loyal!).

My opinion - they have lied. Does it really matter. I have come to expect it in this industry. Everything they have done recently is to increase traffic.

rjmiz · « **Reply #10 on:** April 12, 2007, 02:52 »

Who really gives a Sh*t what DT does.

It is their business after all.

CJPhoto · « **Reply #11 on:** April 12, 2007, 05:17 »

Quote from: rjmiz on April 12, 2007, 02:52

Who really gives a care what DT does.

It is their business after all.

"Care" and "do any thing about" are different things. I try to spend time on things I can do anything about.

As you say it is thier business and as such, they should have just said "we have brought this great phtographer on board which will do great things for the site" (ie. positive spin).

roman · « **Reply #12 on:** April 12, 2007, 05:25 »

Quote from: litifeta on April 11, 2007, 21:18

and another thing that really gets on my neves:

There is this clear message that we are a sponge on their business.

I for one, and I know many others, continue to promote their site to designers all over my town. I even met with all of the Government designers and introduced them to the site and did a power point demo since most of them buy stock photos from CDs at local book shops.

Did I want a commission? NO! Did any of these buyers actually buy my photos? NO!

You have so many things that get on your nerves than why bother submitting with them? I have seen your other thread where you have made clearly racist remarks (something about dishonest Gypsies). If you feel strongly that DT marginalizes your Western Business values, why do you so desperately want to contrbute to their business? They are not the best moneymaking site for me; nor do I agree with all their review decisions; however, they do run a good company that makes money for a lot of people (including people on this forum).

StockManiac · « **Reply #13 on:** April 12, 2007, 06:29 »

Many of you realize now that DT lied, but are stating that you don't care. After all, doesn't someone like this deserve this?

Well, in my opinion, NO. There are plenty of people who have built up their portfolios by following the rules implemented by the site. Why should one or two people be treated special?

And if you do think they deserve this, then where do you draw the line?

Would you think it was OK if DT gave them a higher royalty without requiring them to go exclusive? How about a 75% royalty? Or higher?

Would you think it was OK if DT modified the Best Match sort order to include their images on the first page?

Would you think it was OK if DT didn't require them to have subscription sales?

Would you think it was OK if DT didn't require them to lock in their images for 6 months?

So if they deserve something extra, the question becomes how much extra? Where do you draw the line?

And how is that fair to the other members on the site that don't get these special treatments?

On top of that, my guess is that a number of rules were broken in this case. Not only was the 40 image/day rule broken, but so were other rules.

First, I'll bet that the images were reviewed faster. While the rest of us wait 10-12 days or more for our images to get reviewed, their images probably only took a few days.

Second, I'll bet that his images got a higher acceptance ratio than most of us would have gotten with the same images. While most of us receive silly rejections, their images slid through the queue a little easier.

Third, their images might have been keyworded for free. Iofoto's images are on both DT and LO, and they seem to have different keywords on both sites. For example, compare the keywords on this image between the two sites:

http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/1227139/spike_the_english_bulldog_wearing_lei_and

http://www.dreamstime.com/bulldogwearingpartyhat.-image2044530

It seems unlikely that someone would re-keyword thousands of images for each site.

Finally, we are all paying DT (via the royalty that they receive) to be our agent. While it is their website, the sales of our images make it possible for them to have a website and a nice salary. They care be treating us with disdain. After all, we helped build up their company. They care cast aside those that helped them get to the top.

red_moon_rise · « **Reply #14 on:** April 12, 2007, 08:51 »

After starting April in a really nice groove on DT, DLs have all but come to a grinding halt just as the Ueber-portfolios of these macrostock-proven contributors are force-fed into the system. Coincidence? Paranoia?

PenelopeB · « **Reply #15 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:11 »

I've noticed the grinding halt in downloads too.

DT and iS are usually neck in neck for me in sales volume dollars, now iS is a good $30. ahead of DT for the same period.

hhmmmm

snem · « **Reply #16 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:30 »

-31% in download/day in April for me at DT... but I remember there is a clausole in the agreement with DT that gives them the right to close our accounts without any explication... I remember well?

sharply_done · « **Reply #17 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:45 »

I'm on the flip side of the coin: my earnings at DT are up by 32% this month.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #18 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:51 »

Quote from: StockManiac on April 12, 2007, 06:29

Many of you realize now that DT lied, but are stating that you don't care. After all, doesn't someone like this deserve this?

Well, in my opinion, NO. There are plenty of people who have built up their portfolios by following the rules implemented by the site. Why should one or two people be treated special?

And if you do think they deserve this, then where do you draw the line?

Would you think it was OK if DT gave them a higher royalty without requiring them to go exclusive? How about a 75% royalty? Or higher?

Would you think it was OK if DT modified the Best Match sort order to include their images on the first page?

Would you think it was OK if DT didn't require them to have subscription sales?

Would you think it was OK if DT didn't require them to lock in their images for 6 months?

So if they deserve something extra, the question becomes how much extra? Where do you draw the line?

And how is that fair to the other members on the site that don't get these special treatments?

On top of that, my guess is that a number of rules were broken in this case. Not only was the 40 image/day rule broken, but so were other rules.

First, I'll bet that the images were reviewed faster. While the rest of us wait 10-12 days or more for our images to get reviewed, their images probably only took a few days.

Second, I'll bet that his images got a higher acceptance ratio than most of us would have gotten with the same images. While most of us receive silly rejections, their images slid through the queue a little easier.

Third, their images might have been keyworded for free. Iofoto's images are on both DT and LO, and they seem to have different keywords on both sites. For example, compare the keywords on this image between the two sites:

http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/1227139/spike_the_english_bulldog_wearing_lei_and

http://www.dreamstime.com/bulldogwearingpartyhat.-image2044530

It seems unlikely that someone would re-keyword thousands of images for each site.

Finally, we are all paying DT (via the royalty that they receive) to be our agent. While it is their website, the sales of our images make it possible for them to have a website and a nice salary. They care be treating us with disdain. After all, we helped build up their company. They care cast aside those that helped them get to the top.

Yeah its ok I would say, its their company.
So if they decide to have favourites its ok, it might be a bad descision, because others might leave the company, but its their company, they are not criminal by having favourites. Iophoto has amazing images, I totally can understand if DT chooses to help him a little bit. I do not mind at all, that is business.
Wether they are lying or not I am not sure, you can read it out of Achilles post if you desperately want to, however, he said "..they only can submit the max amount AT THIS TIME.." He did not say how it was in the beginning.
If you think they broke any agreement which you made by signing up on DT, why then don't you sue them? If they are such a bad company why do you not leave them?
I am happy with them, they try to make bsuiness with my images and I get money I otherwise would not get. If you do not feel that way.. why do you make business with them?

StockManiac · « **Reply #19 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:57 »

Quote from: red_moon_rise on April 12, 2007, 08:51

After starting April in a really nice groove on DT, DLs have all but come to a grinding halt just as the Ueber-portfolios of these macrostock-proven contributors are force-fed into the system. Coincidence? Paranoia?

That is an interesting observation. And there might be something to it.

DT also recently changed their Best Match algorithm to take recent images into account.

So the "Ueber-portfolios" (I love that name) are being inserted into the first pages of the Best Match sort order. So buyers will be finding these new images first.

For example, if you search on "fire truck", you will notice that the first five images are from one of those "Ueber-portfolios".

So these new images are bumping all of our images down into never-never land.

red_moon_rise · « **Reply #20 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:57 »

Quote from: sharply_done on April 12, 2007, 09:45

I'm on the flip side of the coin: my earnings at DT are up by 32% this month.

In the first week of April my DLs were up too

, just lately - nothing

.
I do believe that in the long run it is probably good for all contributors to attract other high quality contributors - IF they increase overall sales volume and buyers. In the meantime however, I see the buyers flock to the portfolios of the "expert pros" especially since they presumably have a very good variety. Of course if I have a picture that is not covered by the "expert pro": mo traffic=mo happy.

Pixart · « **Reply #21 on:** April 12, 2007, 10:09 »

Quote from: litifeta on April 11, 2007, 21:00

DT says it is an agent. They are your agent. Normally an agent goes looking for work for you while you focus on your craft. That is what we are paying them to do. They are not paying us, they are taking commission from us. They work for us. They have an obligation to treat us fairly.

Agents for talent, sports, art, etc... are also negotiators. I would love to believe that we are all treated equally. Realistically, however, I do not have a favoured nations clause in my agreement (i.e. if one of my peers gets something, I do too).

I would also assume that all agents in whatever business look after the "Agency" first. If the agency fails how does that help us?

Compare it to sports. A NHL team can sign a multi-million $ superstar while they have several players earning minium league wage (albeit a GOOD one). The superstar will hopefully take them to The Cup extending the revenue weeks for the season. They sell more tickets throughout the season. They sell more t-shirts. They sell more popcorn. The other teams in the league sell more tickets when the superstar plays there.

Is this guy a superstar? I don't know - I personally respect the portfolio. It's at Lucky Oliver, I'm not sure where else. It's a considerable number of photos. Shouldn't the agency Dreamstime do everything it can to get the superstar in its own stadium? Bring the ticket buyers who will come looking for a bulldog on a green background and purchase a penguin and a vintage car while they are there?

red_moon_rise · « **Reply #22 on:** April 12, 2007, 10:25 »

Quote from: Pixart on April 12, 2007, 10:09

... buyers who will come looking for a bulldog on a green background and purchase a penguin and a vintage car while they are there?

Only to a small degree at DT.

At SS collateral downloads are a major part of the strategy as can be seen that most of the time pictures of simmilar topics are DLed at the same time - the benefit of the subscription model.
On DT, a buyer looking for the bulldog either finds it or not. IF NOT they either change their design idea or go elsewhere. I do not think they pick up the penguin on a regular DL if they do not need it.

Opla · « **Reply #24 on:** April 12, 2007, 11:21 »

I did'nt even know there was an upload limt until this thread, at least it is good for something.

sharply_done · « **Reply #25 on:** April 12, 2007, 11:29 »

I must say that I, too am curious to see the portfolios of both litifeta and StockManiac - especially when the former photographer complained of a 100% rejection.

I'm always surprised when members here don't list their portfolios. I look at this place as a resource to learn and grow. To me, looking at the work of others is an important part of that process.

tritooth · « **Reply #26 on:** April 12, 2007, 11:36 »

I did not ever know there was a UL limit on Dreamstime until today. I am a new contributor. I will in the future limit my uploads in accordance to the limits.

CJPhoto · « **Reply #27 on:** April 12, 2007, 11:43 »

So, it was a glitch that enabled more than 100 to be uploaded. Now we have that settled (as I beleive this was the main issue) we can move on.

My sales are on track this month (after a BEM last month) and $ per DL is slightly up at above $1 per DL.

madelaide · « **Reply #28 on:** April 12, 2007, 16:42 »

Quote from: StockManiac on April 12, 2007, 06:29

So if they deserve something extra, the question becomes how much extra? Where do you draw the line?

Each of us probably has a different tolerance for each aspect you brought up. Many people are fine with the 25c subscription earnings, I'm not (this is the reason I never joined SS). Aren't exclusive's queue in IS shorter than regular members'? And at least one site uses a policy of giving faster approvals to members with a higher approval rate. Some are ok with those things, some are not.

I agree however that if DT is giving someone a special treatment, they should say so. It's their prerrogative to give these priviledges, I guess. I believe any site would give such priviledges if they think it's beneficial.

I also never bothered about upload limits. Even at IS they are far above my capacity of generating images....

Regards,
Adelaide

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #29 on:** April 12, 2007, 17:00 »

Quote from: sharply_done on April 12, 2007, 09:45

I'm on the flip side of the coin: my earnings at DT are up by 32% this month.

Likewise. My DT sales are up as well. I'm not going to be retiring any time soon on my DT sales, however, they are up.
I am a bit concerned now after reading all of this thread and the response from DT. Why? Many of my recent sales are "older" pictures posted upwards of 5/6 months ago. Pix that had never sold before. I hope that this trend does not cease due to some program that now 'dis-favors' older pictures. Seems to me, if it sold today, age doesn't seem to matter, it must still be relevant to someone. On the other hand, I understand there has to be some kind of 'shelf-life' on these things.

Long upload times? Low approvals? What are you going to do? It's the nature of the business.
Uber-folios, one-man shows.... what are you going to do? Nature of the business.
Keeping integrity? Lie thru your teeth? ... What are you going to do? It's the nature of every business.
You could go on for days picking apart every facet of a business and how it deals with it's customers, contributors and employees..
We pick and choose what and who we think we want to deal with. If later we feel the deal went sour... we have two options. Bear with it or bail out. Yeah, you might have to wait 6 months to bail out, but you knew that going in. That's the chance you took.
It didn't take me long to learn that. The number of people on this planet that actually do succeed in 'fighting city hall', fighting 'the man'... are very, very, very few and far between. Same here in this situation. Their lawyers are more powerful and more plentiful than yours.
Micros I have a problem with, really, any business I have a problem with... I'm not going to waste a lot of my time hacking it out with them. I ask once, I ask twice. If I still feel I'm getting jerked around, blank 'em. I leave. I'm biding my bailout time with a few micros right now. In their case not due to any disputes,but simply because they don't sell my pix. When the limits up, the delete button gets active for an evening and the email goes out to withdraw my name from the site.
It ain't no biggie. There are plenty of places to sell your work and microstock is not the be all end all of outlets for your photos. I'm making far more outside of the micros than I do in them.

I can understand the anger, disappointment. whatever, that some have flamed on about in these related threads. And I can agree with much of what was said.... and, disagree with much that was said.
The photogs made some strong and valid points. The 'company' likewise made some valid points.

But in the end... it's their company and they can do whatever they want.

By day I train low & middle managers for a multi-national, multi-billion dollar company. There is something in their employment agreement each employee reads and signs. It is also in the business agreements they make with their vendors and customers alike. It's something like this...

" .................... reserves the right to change these policies at will and without the need to provide any written or verbal notification in advance nor to advise any participants prior to those changes. "

If anyone wants to work for them, buy from them or provide for them, they agree to that condition.

That's the way it is. If DT wants to change on the fly, that's their right. Like it or not. Right or wrong. Ethical or not.

When we sign up with any micro, we click on that box saying we agree to their terms. That includes the ones that they decide to change later at their will.

As for me, I am not totally happy with what I've read on either side. Photogs and DT have both put some doubts in my mind. Time will tell.

None-the-less, I won't be leaving DT any time soon. If my work sells there, swell for me and swell for them. If my work should stop selling there.... hasta la vista, baby.

If the day should come that I've had enough, that's the day I stop uploading and start the 6 month countdown. No biggie.

Dudes and dudettes of discontent.... Do you actually believe Coke would care if you called them up and said, "I'll never drink Coke again"? You'd be like spit in the ocean... of no concern. The only way you could beat Coke or, for that matter Dreamstime, is if EVERYONE pulled their photos... and that .......just ain't gonna happen. Spend your life on really valued things.

You're wasting your valuable life time. If you're ticked, let 'em know by pulling your own plug. Just keep in mind, they aren't going to miss you. On the other hand, .......you won't miss them either and your life will be a lot less aggravating.

Peace

-tom

leaf · « **Reply #30 on:** April 12, 2007, 17:45 »

Quote from: tritooth on April 12, 2007, 11:36

I did not ever know there was a UL limit on Dreamstime until today. I am a new contributor. I will in the future limit my uploads in accordance to the limits.

I don't think you have a choice. Once you reach the limit, you are unable to upload anymore... so you don't need to watch yourself - it will happen whether you like it or not

and welcome here.

leaf · « **Reply #31 on:** April 12, 2007, 17:58 »

thanks for clearing that up achilles - and taking the time to post.

Void · « **Reply #32 on:** April 12, 2007, 21:12 »

Tom,
Well put.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #33 on:** April 12, 2007, 23:19 »

Thanks, Void. Hope all know I do not think myself "holier than thou". God knows I've had my rants in life and even here on MSG. There's been plenty of times I came back 5 minutes after posting and deleted everything that I said.
I became a member on this site because I liked the family-like atmosphere that Leaf had going. It would be a shame to flush it all down the poop-chute over one micro-outfit and a couple policies they had that irked some of us. DT isn't the first to tick off the photogs and they won't be the last. We all know, next week it'll be one of the others. And this DT thing will fade into the archives. It's the nature of this business.
We need to remember that the day before yesterday, everyone in this thread was getting along, exchanging ideas, passing on tips and enjoying ourselves shooting the bull. It's crazy that suddenly we're hurling insults and calling names.
I've learned a lot hanging out here, and I'd like to learn more. I've learned from parties on both sides of the above debate. Hopefully, by the day after tomorrow, some verbal handshakes will have been exchanged and we can get back to the business of helping each other make some money and have some fun.
And above all, I know I don't need to preach to anyone here. We're all adults. We just need to remember why we all joined this forum in the first place. I think that was because we all liked it.
Peace.. (yeah, I'm an old hippie)

-tom

red_moon_rise · « **Reply #34 on:** April 18, 2007, 10:33 »

just to resurrect a thread that was hoped to be forgotton

FYI

Iophotos highest seller (50 DL already)

http://www.dreamstime.com/smilingfamilyonbeach.-thumb2038224

Size 5607x3740 pixels (21.0 MP)
Model: Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

You decide if this falls into the 5% upscale limit. If DT does not mind up-sizing anymore, my apologies for bringing up that matter.

sharply_done · « **Reply #35 on:** April 18, 2007, 12:04 »

Quote from: red_moon_rise on April 18, 2007, 10:33

You decide if this falls into the 5% upscale limit.

Nothing much to decide: that's a 12+% size increase. Kinda strange why someone would upsize an already "big enough" image...

red_moon_rise · « **Reply #36 on:** April 18, 2007, 12:15 »

Quote from: sharply_done on April 18, 2007, 12:04

Quote from: red_moon_rise on April 18, 2007, 10:33
You decide if this falls into the 5% upscale limit.

Kinda strange why someone would upsize an already "big enough" image...

OVERKILL

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #37 on:** April 18, 2007, 13:41 »

I guess that is not the only one who has upsized images. Iophoto is in focus right now, especially here because of this thread. Reviewer cannot see everything all the time and if the quality is ok then who cares?
Apparently this image is of good quality and I have no doubt about that.

StockManiac · « **Reply #38 on:** April 18, 2007, 14:12 »

Quote from: Achilles on April 12, 2007, 10:52

Stockphotomaniac, people have emailed me saying you are a competitor in fact. That's another conspiracy theory indeed

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Quote from: Achilles on April 12, 2007, 10:52

I don't think that staying anonymous is really constructive...

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. It has obviously been extremely constructive. Members have enlightened each other as to what is happening at DT and there has been lots of good discussion.

Quote from: Achilles on April 12, 2007, 10:52

...so I would appreciate if you can give us a link to your portfolio.

Once again, I don't think that my portfolio has anything to do with this conversation.

Quote from: Achilles on April 12, 2007, 10:52

Are all contributors treated the same on our site? I have to say no, certainly they are not.

Thanks for confirming my initial suspicions.

Quote from: Achilles on April 12, 2007, 10:52

In regards to the math you provided, I have checked and the things I have assumed yesterday are correct, Ron uploaded more than the maximum amount due to a technical glitch.

Once again, thanks for confirming my suspicions. I actually thought that you might try the old "it was a glitch" tactic. That was a very convenient glitch for you! I'm glad that I was able to help you find it. You can keep the consultant's fee that I would usually charge

Since you didn't react to some of my other suspicions (for some reason), let me ask you some questions:

- Did DT keyword the images for Iofoto? Iofoto is on at least three microstock sites. On each site, his images seem to titled, described, and keyword uniquely. I find it hard to believe that he would re-keyword thousands upon thousands of images for each site.

For example, the following image is on at least three sites, but yet has very different titles, descriptions, and keywords:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-2534953-english-bulldog-with-curious-expression-wearing-lei-and-party-hat-and-sitting-on-green-background.html

http://www.dreamstime.com/bulldogwearingpartyhat.-image2044530

http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/1227139/spike_the_english_bulldog_wearing_lei_and

- Is Iofoto locked in to the standard 6 month contract, 70% contract just like everyone else (http://www.dreamstime.com/terms)?

- Is Iofoto exempt from the up-sizing rule? You made the following statement on the DT forums regarding resizing an image (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_522):

"All files submitted on Dreamstime have to use raw resolution, the maximum your digital camera can output."

Many of Iofoto's images that were taken with a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II are 20 megapixels or larger. Yet that camera is only capable of 17 megapixels!

If this is another software glitch, then you can just thank us for being such good beta testers.

- Finally, if someone buys DT for $100 million (give or take a few million), will you split the profits with all of the photographers that helped build the site over the years?

StockManiac · « **Reply #39 on:** April 18, 2007, 14:20 »

Quote from: Freezingpictures on April 18, 2007, 13:41

I guess that is not the only one who has upsized images. Iophoto is in focus right now, especially here because of this thread. Reviewer cannot see everything all the time and if the quality is ok then who cares?

Why care?

First, because it is against the stated rules of DT and every other microsite. Many sites would ban an artist for this sort of action, but being that he is new to the business I think that he should just get a warning.

Second, there was actually a very long thread at the Yahoo microstock forum about this very issue a short while ago. Artists went so far as to call each other liars and cheaters for thinking about submitting images that were upsized more than the rules allowed.

Third, microstock sites continually reject an image for being "overly-edited". They state that we should leave the editing up to the designer.

Fourth, you introduce artifacts when you upsize an image, so the buyer will not be receiving the quality image that they might expect.

I'm sure that there might be other reasons, but that is what I could come up with in a few short minutes.

red_moon_rise · « **Reply #40 on:** April 18, 2007, 14:21 »

Perhaps the spirit of the upsizing rule is to prevent a submitter from reaching a larger level than the picture can support. If your picture is already in the highest category - larger size will only encourage buyers to get the larger resolution for no extra charge.
Yeah a 2 page spread with room to crop - awsome (just pretending to be a buyer).

madelaide · « **Reply #41 on:** April 18, 2007, 16:40 »

Quote from: red_moon_rise on April 18, 2007, 10:33

If DT does not mind up-sizing anymore, my apologies for bringing up that matter.

Are there rules about that? As long as the image looks good at full size, I don't see any problem with upsizing. I have two upsized images in IS (50% upsize) and one in StockXpert and BigStock (100% from a 640x480pix image!).

I used to upsize my 3.9MPix images to comply with TotallyPhotos minimum 4MPix. Of course it was so insignificant that it was never noticed.

I've seen however horrible upsized images, though. There are also some cameras (Fuji, I think, has several models) that have an internal upsizing algorithm and the result is always an image with very soft edges as if slightly unfocused.

Regards,
Adelaide

leaf · « **Reply #42 on:** April 19, 2007, 01:16 »

i know there are rules on istock about upsizing. I have uploaded an image which was a combination of a few images to create a new image. The new image was larger than my camera could produce. It was rejected on this reason - which was wrong since it was a comp, but still goes to show that they have a standard reject reason 'image is large than the native format - pleas try again'

roman · « **Reply #43 on:** April 19, 2007, 19:45 »

I do some upsizing. When I crop an image, I want to preserve original resolution, so I define the crop area in the same proportion as the original and then just use the bicubic smoother option. To be honest with you, it was never a problem... A sharp, hi-res image upsized with bicubic smoother option is difficult to spot. Alamy seems to think this too.

ManicBlu · « **Reply #44 on:** May 15, 2007, 03:30 »

You're wasting your valuable life time. If you're ticked, let 'em know by pulling your own plug. Just keep in mind, they aren't going to miss you. On the other hand, .......you won't miss them either and your life will be a lot less aggravating.

I agree and that's what I'm in the process of doing right now.

leaf · « **Reply #45 on:** May 15, 2007, 05:20 »

and i thought this thread was going to die a peaceful death

hospitalera · « **Reply #46 on:** May 15, 2007, 06:36 »

Quote from: StockManiac on April 18, 2007, 14:12

Once again, thanks for confirming my suspicions. I actually thought that you might try the old "it was a glitch" tactic. That was a very convenient glitch for you! I'm glad that I was able to help you find it. You can keep the consultant's fee that I would usually charge

Sorry to jump here in but I can actually confirm the glitch, I uploaded more then my limit several times. I thought DT had given up on the upload limit and didn't question it! If you click on my DT link you can see that I am only an average contributor not one of the biggies

Hope that helps to clear things up a little bit. SY

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #47 on:** June 08, 2007, 01:55 »

i agree that if i have a stock agency - and if i had a "newbie" as iophoto is - i would make exception - iofoto's portfolio is great - on every single photo we can see that "they know what they're doin' " ...

and also, i have to say that i had a few times uploaded more photos than it was limit at the momentum (it was a little breaking limits - but 120 > 100 - so it is breaking of rule) - and no one made any problem to me.
i do not what would happen' now, because i stopped uploading photos for a few months. - a few days ago i uploaded a few small bactch of photos (some 20-30 files) - so i do not know.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #48 on:** June 11, 2007, 18:04 »

Quote from: leaf on May 15, 2007, 05:20

and i thought this thread was going to die a peaceful death

LOL.... wishful thinking, Leaf.... LOL

However, I do wonder what's going on over there sometimes. Unlike uber-stockhouses, I only upload a few to a dozen pix at a time. I don't mind waiting my turn to be reviewed and I know that I am not bringing DT the profits that many others do, uber or otherwise. None-the-less, after waiting a few days for review..... and then, having the pix 'under review' for a couple days, I am curious as to how I get booted back into the line up again and having to wait hours/days again to get back into the 'review' mode? hey, fair is fair, if I'm actually 'in review' , how'd I get back in the holding pattern?
What's that all about?

-tom

Read_My_Rights · « **Reply #49 on:** June 11, 2007, 20:03 »

Perhaps the first reviewer was blinded by the beauty of your submitted pictures and could not find the keyboard to approve the pictures. After a certain period of inactivity in the review cue they reverted back into the general line.

Ha Ha HA Ha . . . (PS. I am not making fun of you or your pictures. If only you could see the tear on my face regarding the performance of DT).

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #50 on:** June 11, 2007, 22:12 »

Quote from: Read_My_Rights on June 11, 2007, 20:03

Perhaps the first reviewer was blinded by the beauty of your submitted pictures and could not find the keyboard to approve the pictures. After a certain period of inactivity in the review cue they reverted back into the general line.

Ha Ha HA Ha . . . (PS. I am not making fun of you or your pictures. If only you could see the tear on my face regarding the performance of DT).

LOL.....Yeah, that's what happened I'm sure, RMR!! LOL

I don't know why I even asked, there probably isn't a logical explanation anyway. Sometimes I think these outfits ( and not only DT) are on auto-pilot. Who can figure? Right now, LO is taking forever to review me, on the other hand, StockXpert last night was reviewing them as fast as I could keyword them. When I finished the second pic the first was already reviewed, and so went the batch. SS has been consistently reviewing me in less than 24 hours. Lately, DT has been taking longer than IS, where I am still limited to 15 every, whatever it is.
All part of playing in the game I suppose. LOL

-tom

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Does DT Treat All Submitters Alike? You Decide... (Read 21840 times)

red_moon_rise

red_moon_rise

red_moon_rise

red_moon_rise

red_moon_rise

red_moon_rise

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors