Author Topic: Dreamstime are driving me crazy!!! (Read 44105 times)

thaimacky · « **Reply #50 on:** July 15, 2010, 01:18 »

i also just had another of those stupid rejections coz of "Your submission should not duplicate content already in your portfolio...". i don't understand dreamstime at all

links taken from SS coz both the pics got accepted there as on all the other sites (apart from IS who rejected the 2nd one coz of copyright issues - "flat currency on left side" - muahahaha, but that's another issue we unfortunately have to face there

)

accepted:

not accepted coz of above reason:

thaimacky · « **Reply #51 on:** July 15, 2010, 06:23 »

...the funny (better sad) thing is that you can take a look to the latest pictures accepted on dreamstime and still find series of 5 and more pictures which are really almost identical... hmmmm $:-\$

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #52 on:** July 15, 2010, 07:08 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 18, 2010, 11:27

I really don't see what the big deal with the 6 six month lock.

Because it's your content. You should be free to control its use as you wish. That's why people don't like it.

gostwyck · « **Reply #53 on:** July 15, 2010, 08:16 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 15, 2010, 07:08

Because it's your content. You should be free to control its use as you wish. That's why people don't like it.

But isn't it the case that many 'macro' agencies have lock-in clauses for 3-5 years? It costs an agency money to both accept content and usually also to remove it too. Images can spend months in a customer's lightbox and then they get angry if it subsequently becomes unavailable.

If I ever started an agency I would insist on at least a six-month lock in too. A content provider who can't even commit to a six-month business relationship is exactly the sort of content provider that I wouldn't want to be wasting my time with.

rene · « **Reply #54 on:** July 15, 2010, 08:50 »

Quote from: gostwyck on July 15, 2010, 08:16

Quote from: sjlocke on July 15, 2010, 07:08
Because it's your content. You should be free to control its use as you wish. That's why people don't like it.
If I ever started an agency I would insist on at least a six-month lock in too. A content provider who can't even commit to a six-month business relationship is exactly the sort of content provider that I wouldn't want to be wasting my time with.

But in this case you cannot change rules during this period.
When I started with DT there were no subscriptions, they paid 50% commissions. Then they changed rules but not 6 months lock in - this is taking contributors hostage.

gostwyck · « **Reply #55 on:** July 15, 2010, 08:58 »

Quote from: rene on July 15, 2010, 08:50

But in this case you cannot change rules during this period.
When I started with DT there were no subscriptions, they paid 50% commissions. Then they changed rules but not 6 months lock in - this is taking contributors hostage.

Agreed. I'm sure if you'd insisted on closing your account with DT due to a major unilateral change in the T&C then you'd have been well within your rights. The truth is of course that 99% of contributors to DT also upload to SS so any objection to subscriptions, at least in their case, seems inconsistent.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #56 on:** July 15, 2010, 09:34 »

Quote from: gostwyck on July 15, 2010, 08:16

But isn't it the case that many 'macro' agencies have lock-in clauses for 3-5 years? It costs an agency money to both accept content and usually also to remove it too. Images can spend months in a customer's lightbox and then they get angry if it subsequently becomes unavailable.

If I ever started an agency I would insist on at least a six-month lock in too. A content provider who can't even commit to a six-month business relationship is exactly the sort of content provider that I wouldn't want to be wasting my time with.

Well sure - I think that's one of the things not liked about macros either

. I don't think buyers should expect content to hang around for six months for them though.

Red Dove · « **Reply #57 on:** July 18, 2010, 15:02 »

Astonishingly crap review times lately - they make IS look like a rocket ship in comparison.

The similars rejection thing I can understand, to some extent, but I don't think their reviewers get it - definitely a lack of consistency there.

And the community makes me cringe. I cannot,will not read any more threads like "I have a difficult decision to make (about exclusivity)" from people with 50 files and 7 dl in a year. Or along the lines of "Dreamstime is the bestest most perfect site in the Universe and I go to sleep at night knowing I am part of a loving, sharing wonderful community of fellow artists. Sigh." ......makes them sound like besotted teenagers. Retchworthy.

But I earn real folding money out of them so, hey ho.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #58 on:** July 18, 2010, 15:36 »

Quote from: gostwyck on July 15, 2010, 08:16

If I ever started an agency

Please don't even say that! New agencies popping out of everywhere is the worst nightmare

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #59 on:** July 20, 2010, 18:58 »

Quote from: brookefuller on June 15, 2010, 08:43

Truth be told -- my Dreamstime portfolio is selling very well, and money talks to me more then rejections. I made more on Dreamstime last month then I did on iStock.

wow... that blows my mind. my sales at DT suck. IS and SS still fight it out with me... IS larger images(money) and SS subs by the pound.. in the end... it's still a battle that IS usually wins with top dollar, but SS has been known to beat them once in awhile. Right now, not counting Thinkstock (who does).. DT is my lowest sales.

=tom

hoi ha · « **Reply #60 on:** July 20, 2010, 19:38 »

Quote from: thaimacky on July 15, 2010, 01:18

i also just had another of those stupid rejections coz of "Your submission should not duplicate content already in your portfolio...". i don't understand dreamstime at all

You can add me to this bewildering trend - I have long been one of DT's biggest fans and supporters but they have gone really nuts with this - I just had an image rejected for this reason that was completely different as well - subject matter similar ot be sure, but execution so completely different it make it a different image ... I am wondering what is going on there? I think they have some very confused and quite frankly not very good reviewers.

lefty · « **Reply #61 on:** July 21, 2010, 04:17 »

Quote from: Eireann on June 18, 2010, 09:05

Knygle,
strange...
Dreamstime used to be your favourite agency. But then, one day, you decided to go exclusive with IS. Suddenly Dreamstime became a horrible place to be. 'The' most horrible agency.
Quite a sharp turn around I would say.
Was it because of the 6 months lock in?
But you were a long time contributor. Weren't you aware of it already?

People are blinded by personal conflicts, but the reality is that Dreamstime is a reliable, solid agency.
I like them and I sure hope they stay this way for a long time to come.

I think like that too Eireann. allso Dreamstime new review is sometime mystery too expecially when new reviews
use mostly subjective reasons. but no big deal for me. My sales are good for the oldest stuff and no sales for new stuff, so no reason to worry for new uploads because I don't give new stuff anymore.

Shutterstock is opposite. New stuff get download instant. So I like balance with Shutterstock for today and Dreamstime for 2 years older pictues in port

thaimacky · « **Reply #62 on:** August 04, 2010, 07:20 »

wow, i just found a portfoglio on dreamstime with 7000+ pictures. it's amazing: it seems like it's more than full with duplicates. also the latest uploads have tons of similar shots. this makes my rejection (i posted on top of this page) even look much more ridiculous. they're really not similar and only 2 shots!!!

i guess i should not post the link to that portfoglio here (don't know about the forum rules) but i am really asking myself how this submitter can get all the shots accepted again and again

donding · « **Reply #63 on:** August 04, 2010, 12:49 »

Quote from: thaimacky on August 04, 2010, 07:20

wow, i just found a portfoglio on dreamstime with 7000+ pictures. it's amazing: it seems like it's more than full with duplicates. also the latest uploads have tons of similar shots. this makes my rejection (i posted on top of this page) even look much more ridiculous. they're really not similar and only 2 shots!!!

i guess i should not post the link to that portfoglio here (don't know about the forum rules) but i am really asking myself how this submitter can get all the shots accepted again and again

It depends on when they uploaded them. This similar policy is something fairly new. I dare say the port you speak off got started early in microstock especially if it has that many pictures in it. In other words you'll find a lot of similar shots from early on already on there.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #64 on:** August 04, 2010, 12:59 »

Quote from: donding on August 04, 2010, 12:49

Quote from: thaimacky on August 04, 2010, 07:20
wow, i just found a portfoglio on dreamstime with 7000+ pictures. it's amazing: it seems like it's more than full with duplicates. also the latest uploads have tons of similar shots. this makes my rejection (i posted on top of this page) even look much more ridiculous. they're really not similar and only 2 shots!!!

i guess i should not post the link to that portfoglio here (don't know about the forum rules) but i am really asking myself how this submitter can get all the shots accepted again and again

It depends on when they uploaded them. This similar policy is something fairly new. I dare say the port you speak off got started early in microstock especially if it has that many pictures in it. In other words you'll find a lot of similar shots from early on already on there.

And ... the larger your portfolio the more weight your voice carries in the complaints department.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #65 on:** August 05, 2010, 16:07 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on August 04, 2010, 12:59

And ... the larger your portfolio the more weight your voice carries in the complaints department.

so true, sir. there is no shortage of hypocrisy in microstock. the rules seem to change with the direction of the blowing wind. however, it is what it is. that's how they play the game. we can play, or take our ball and go home.

another item I found very humorous from DT... they called me on a few old pix that have never sold. told me, they would do well in the free section, be used alot and give attention to my port... ha ha ha ha...
my thinking is, if the pictures suck that bad that someone won't pay 35 cents for the things... I don't think 'free' will make a heck of a difference. ha ha ha ha. if it isn't worth 35, it ain't worth zip.

=tom

sharpshot · « **Reply #66 on:** September 23, 2010, 02:16 »

Looks like I will have to try uploading to DT again. I am just going to have to ignore the rejection ratio and hope it doesn't have a detrimental effect. If my sales fall, I will stop uploading again.

Anita Potter · « **Reply #67 on:** September 23, 2010, 12:14 »

I've decided to stop uploading there and to FT until after the first of the year. After I quit uploading my sales went up on both sites. Which is weird to me. I'm a little under $25 away from my first payout at DT (took payout from FT last week) which is why I quit uploading to begin with. Needed to reasess if the sites are worth it in relation to how many files get downloaded and how long it'll take me to reach my first payout with them both. Since I recently got EL's on both sites I'll probably start re-uploading there in January.

lisafx · « **Reply #68 on:** September 23, 2010, 13:55 »

Anita, if you have images to upload to FT and DT, I suggest you do it now. The reason your sales probably went up is because Sept - mid December is a very busy time of year. By not uploading right now you are missing out on a lot of potential sales.

gostwyck · « **Reply #69 on:** September 23, 2010, 14:13 »

Last month I uploaded several hundred new images, increasing my port by about 10%. Naturally I hoped that this would help sales and I anticipated a significant boost with it being September too. Wrong __ I'm staggered to find that revenue is projected to be 25% down compared to August. What on earth is going on at DT and how come they are down (at least for me) this month when every other agency is enjoying a substantial seasonal boost? Bizarre.

Anita Potter · « **Reply #70 on:** September 23, 2010, 15:18 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 23, 2010, 13:55

Anita, if you have images to upload to FT and DT, I suggest you do it now. The reason your sales probably went up is because Sept - mid December is a very busy time of year. By not uploading right now you are missing out on a lot of potential sales.

I probably should but from the last times I've uploaded the new ones just aren't selling. You're probably right though. Might just spend the time this afternoon doing that. Though I'm going to have to figure out where I left off at. I only stopped about 2 weeks ago.

sharpshot · « **Reply #71 on:** September 23, 2010, 15:37 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 23, 2010, 14:13

Last month I uploaded several hundred new images, increasing my port by about 10%. Naturally I hoped that this would help sales and I anticipated a significant boost with it being September too. Wrong __ I'm staggered to find that revenue is projected to be 25% down compared to August. What on earth is going on at DT and how come they are down (at least for me) this month when every other agency is enjoying a substantial seasonal boost? Bizarre.

I am sure buyers like choice, DT have taken a lot of that away by rejecting most of the images in series, even only selecting a landscape version and not the portrait version. If I was a buyer, I would be looking at peoples portfolios elsewhere to get a better choice.

gostwyck · « **Reply #72 on:** September 23, 2010, 15:49 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 23, 2010, 15:37

I am sure buyers like choice, DT have taken a lot of that away by rejecting most of the images in series, even only selecting a landscape version and not the portrait version. If I was a buyer, I would be looking at peoples portfolios elsewhere to get a better choice.

True enough but in this case they accepted nearly 95%. Of course the ones they rejected (presumeably using a dice or something to decide) were some of the most popular elsewhere. Heigh-ho.

Xalanx · « **Reply #73 on:** September 23, 2010, 18:01 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 23, 2010, 15:49

Of course the ones they rejected (presumeably using a dice or something to decide) were some of the most popular elsewhere.

Yes, they have an unfathomable skill at that.

Kone · « **Reply #74 on:** September 23, 2010, 19:18 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 23, 2010, 14:13

Last month I uploaded several hundred new images, increasing my port by about 10%. Naturally I hoped that this would help sales and I anticipated a significant boost with it being September too. Wrong __ I'm staggered to find that revenue is projected to be 25% down compared to August. What on earth is going on at DT and how come they are down (at least for me) this month when every other agency is enjoying a substantial seasonal boost? Bizarre.

Welcome to the club!
I am having a terrible year with DT. My income went down to 30% of what I had before. DT is nightmare for me. They must have done something last year. Now I am not even 100% sure that I will make payment every month.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Dreamstime are driving me crazy!!! (Read 44105 times)

thaimacky

thaimacky

Sean Locke Photography

gostwyck

rene

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

Red Dove

microstockphoto.co.uk

a.k.a.-tom

hoi ha

lefty

thaimacky

donding

WarrenPrice

a.k.a.-tom

sharpshot

Anita Potter

lisafx

gostwyck

Anita Potter

sharpshot

gostwyck

Xalanx

Kone

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors