pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Why is DT being stupid?  (Read 28782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 03, 2009, 08:34 »
0
I am trying to prepare myself for exclusivity and I want to disable all my files, but they won't do that in bulk for me?  I have over 1200 files on that site and thats ridiculous.  They have a horrible interface when it comes to removing old files and no matter how much I argue with them, they don't do anything about it.  It makes no sense.

It makes me hate dealing with them after a very good experience during my uploading time there



« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2009, 09:36 »
0
Your story is causing me to re-evaluate my use of Dreamstime.  I might want to be exclusiive, somewhere else, someday

I'm pretty sure DT has a way of taking all your files offline real quick if you do something they don't like, or if they have a legal issue with someone's images.   DT has a weird corporate personality - look at the way they obsessively censor their forum. 

« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2009, 09:39 »
0
You should seriously consider.  I've been removing files and after an hour and a half, I've only got 100 off

« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2009, 09:40 »
0
They do that because people were going in and writing insults and rude words on their images to force them to delete the images before the agreed time limit. I really don't blame them for taking this action.

And now they have locked my images so I can't edit them in any way? What a f**king sh*t corporation

« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2009, 09:54 »
0
Hence the necessity to do your homework and consider some planning prior to jumping in. Personally I find the traits of a lot of the micros maddening, but it is what it is.

« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2009, 12:30 »
0
Well I've made my bed, I will now just sleep in it


« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2009, 08:57 »
0
Do you also think it's stupid not to have a bulk deactivation option so photographers disable files in revenge because they just received their first refusals? Without any concern given to other photographers who had to wait more because the pending line got bigger or that the agency reviewed their files for free?

Yes.  How is changing your mind about where you want to upload "revenge" ?  That is a cost of business you incur, that suppliers may decide they don't want to supply any more.  Making it difficult is just childish on your part.  Sorry.

Microbius

« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2009, 09:44 »
0
Do you  think it's stupid to lock the editing rights of a user who tried to put dirty words there and even emailed us about it?

Do you also think it's stupid not to have a bulk deactivation option so photographers disable files in revenge because they just received their first refusals? Without any concern given to other photographers who had to wait more because the pending line got bigger or that the agency reviewed their files for free?

Sorry yes, I also think this is stupid. If it takes longer to deactivate a file then to write dirty words and wait for admin to remove it there's something up with your processes.
The photographer owns the copyright to their images, they can deactivate them for whatever reason they like, or at least they should be able to if everyone is acting reasonably.

« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2009, 10:17 »
0
After that time of 6 months or whatever, they also don't delete your portfolio if you ask them?

I agree businesses have to protect the investment they did (storage, reviewers), so I am ok with a minimum locked time.  I also agree that writing dirty words to make the site remove your portfolio is very unprofessional, to say the least.

But if the locked time is gone and the photographer wants to leave, it is only fair the site removes his portfolio when requested.  It's a simple end of a partnership contract.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2009, 10:18 »
0
Do you  think it's stupid to lock the editing rights of a user who tried to put dirty words there and even emailed us about it?

Do you also think it's stupid not to have a bulk deactivation option so photographers disable files in revenge because they just received their first refusals? Without any concern given to other photographers who had to wait more because the pending line got bigger or that the agency reviewed their files for free?

Seems to me you just need to review your policies.  Other sites get along just fine without holding images for 6 months.  They also have lower payout limits.  DT should be able to make up for any losses from doing away with the 6 month hold with what they make on cash flow lag from the high payout limit.  Or even better just lower the payout limit.

Lotsa options for DT but us poor contributors are just supposed to put up high payout limits and the 6 month hold nonsense.

BTW if I check out before I reach the $100 limit does DT keep it or do you cut me a check for my earnings?

fred

Microbius

« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2009, 10:29 »
0
$100 is pretty standard for the bigger sites.

« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2009, 10:30 »
0
Do you  think it's stupid to lock the editing rights of a user who tried to put dirty words there and even emailed us about it?

I actually did something similar with Albumo as a last resort.  Two months worth of emails asking them to remove my portfolio went unanswered, so I took drastic measures.  I put links to my portfolio at Dreamstime in the descriptions of my 200 most viewed images (a bit ironic, huh?).   Sure, it was childish and I don't recommend that folks do this to get their portfolios removed, but after two months of ignored requests what other alternatives did I have?

It's best for the agencies to simply remove a portfolio upon request and let the artists move along in the first place, so we don't have to resort to such stupid tactics when our requests go ignored.

lisafx

« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2009, 10:48 »
0
I think drawing comparisons between Dreamstime (one of the most successful agencies in microstock) and Albumo (a fly by night run out of somebody's garage) is unfair. 

Why is Dreamstime obligated to make it easy for people to remove their portfolios?  Their 6 month hold on images is clearly stated in the TOS you are supposed to read when you sign up.   

Yes, the larger the portfolio the more of a PITA of having to remove images one by one, but it is also a larger loss to Dreamstime's inventory and more likely they will have customers who lightboxed images and come back to find them unavailable.   

Also, making it too easy to remove whole portfolios leaves them at the whims of capricious contributors.   Apparently there was a problem of members removing portfolios, then changing their minds and wanting all images reinspected and reinstated.   This uses up a lot of administrative resources on a site.  Not sure why that so difficult to understand? 

To the assertion that this is a cost of doing business, lets bear in mind that  Dreamstime keeps only 50% of the money from (non-exclusive) sales, unlike another site which keeps 80%.  Personally I would rather get that extra 30% and take on the burden of removing my files myself if I want to. 

Lastly, if someone has to put in the effort to remove all their images they will have time to be certain that is what they want. 

alias

« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2009, 11:00 »
0
Dreamstime's 6 month lock in is a good reason for people to be very cautious about uploading there. People should be free to come and go and to manage their portfolios as they choose.

The reason for staying should be because a place feels right. It never did for me. The 6 month lock in was part of what made me decide I did not like them. It was a feeling like being trapped.

On the other hand (even if you hate them) it is worth not falling out with them because one day you might want to go back.

« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2009, 11:02 »
0
I think its silly to say that one contributor pulling their images won't make a difference to an agency but then say that making it harder for them to do so is in the best interests of the agency.

Oh well, whatever, I knew the policy, so I guess its my fault for uploading to them in the first place

« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2009, 11:05 »
0
Why is Dreamstime obligated to make it easy for people to remove their portfolios?  Their 6 month hold on images is clearly stated in the TOS you are supposed to read when you sign up.   


Because it is the artists' work.  The bank doesn't make it hard for you to remove money from your account at an ATM.  Just because they have it, doesn't mean they should get to keep it.

Quote
Yes, the larger the portfolio the more of a PITA of having to remove images one by one, but it is also a larger loss to Dreamstime's inventory and more likely they will have customers who lightboxed images and come back to find them unavailable.   

I imagine the amount of customers who may lightbox something and then come back in a week to find it missing is near nothing.

Quote
Also, making it too easy to remove whole portfolios leaves them at the whims of capricious contributors.   Apparently there was a problem of members removing portfolios, then changing their minds and wanting all images reinspected and reinstated.   This uses up a lot of administrative resources on a site.  Not sure why that so difficult to understand? 

Different issue.  If the decision is made to remove, and then mind changed, again, then there is the need to asses charges for time spent.

alias

« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2009, 11:11 »
0
It's strange that they keep your images even a few years after they were disabled.

« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2009, 12:52 »
0
Why is Dreamstime obligated to make it easy for people to remove their portfolios?  Their 6 month hold on images is clearly stated in the TOS you are supposed to read when you sign up.   


Because it is the artists' work.  The bank doesn't make it hard for you to remove money from your account at an ATM.  Just because they have it, doesn't mean they should get to keep it.

How easy it is to withdraw money from a bank depends on what kind of account you have chosen. If you choose the accounts with the best interests, you normally have to tie up your money for a year or more. So it is a choise you make when you upload a picture; do you want to earn 50% and thereby not be able to remove the picture for the next 6 months, or do you want to choose other accounts where you get less interest, but it is easier to back out.

« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2009, 12:58 »
0
I think DT should help the contributors who decide to leave. Goodwill and grace will go a long way beyond the gain and loss of a few dollars. Maybe they will come back one day and recommend their friends to join if the experience is good enough.

« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2009, 13:03 »
0
All of the site have their own quirks. DT has always been the 6 month lock in. Another site has a 3 month lock in. A third site will only pay 20% regardless of your status as a contributor. One site I just found out about requires that you upload your initial 10 review images to their Flickr style site where they can be downloaded for free until they are approved.

You have to read the TOS and figure out what you want. If you want to be exclusive with IS then your easiest option is to suffer through the 20% only income for the first 6 months to a year until you qualify for exclusive. If you sign up with anyone else in the hopes of making more before you hit exclusive you will run into issues.

Every site TOS states that if you leave before the payout amount is reached then you forfeit that money.

alias

« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2009, 13:14 »
0
So it is a choise you make when you upload a picture; do you want to earn 50% and thereby not be able to remove the picture for the next 6 months

It is not 6 months. AFAIK you can never actually remove a picture from DT. They stay at the site despite being deactivated.

« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2009, 14:11 »
0
Its hard to knock dreamstime as most would probably agree its one of the top 4 micros. I try to look 6 month hold kind of like the gun law in the USA, you can buy the gun but there is a waiting period to actually get your hands on it. Keeps people from doing drastic things on a whim they might regret later. besides, its actually more like 4.5 months because of the option to delete a certain percentage of your port at any time.

« Reply #23 on: April 06, 2009, 14:21 »
0
It is not 6 months. AFAIK you can never actually remove a picture from DT. They stay at the site despite being deactivated.

Well that's exactly the same case at Istock; it only allows deactivation too.
What happens is they keep it backed up in the database in case you might change your mind later, but it's not for sale any more.

« Reply #24 on: April 06, 2009, 14:24 »
0
One site I just found out about requires that you upload your initial 10 review images to their Flickr style site where they can be downloaded for free until they are approved.

Ridiculous. What site is that?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
11194 Views
Last post February 21, 2011, 03:45
by hose
Stupid policy!

Started by fritz « 1 2  All » Dreamstime.com

25 Replies
13384 Views
Last post March 31, 2011, 01:28
by Xalanx
13 Replies
4070 Views
Last post April 29, 2012, 12:57
by cascoly
27 Replies
11552 Views
Last post January 06, 2013, 01:02
by RacePhoto
10 Replies
2875 Views
Last post November 18, 2019, 13:26
by charged

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle