Author Topic: Earn money from your (rejected) pictures (Read 19055 times)

RT · « **Reply #25 on:** January 26, 2009, 07:54 »

Quote from: bobek on January 26, 2009, 05:13

Facts:
Unique visitors: 2,300 a day
A year ago: 900 a day

Here are some Facts for you:

-I could include the words 'free porn' in the metadata of my website and get probably more unique visitors a day than you've highlighted, so therefore the statistic means absolutely nothing.

-Anybody in the business of buying images in any sort of quantity will be very aware of Microstock by now.

-Anybody looking to purchase images by searching via Google will be presented with vast numbers of microstock sites long before they come across yours.

-One decent stock photograph uploaded to iStock photo plus the other top sites will produce more revenue than any money you'll ever receive via referrals.

-Reading through any microstock site forums for the posts of anybody who's ever participated in any 'free image' scheme and the result will be that it does not produce any significant extra revenue.

-People will willingly take something if it's free for no reason other than the fact it is free.

-Unless I'm mistaken you are not a registered charity and therefore the sole reason you've created this site is to generate revenue for yourself and not to help others.

-I have more 'core data' to prove that your site won't work than you have yet provided to the contrary.

anton9 · « **Reply #26 on:** January 26, 2009, 08:04 »

Your second to last point is exactly what I thought

tan510jomast · « **Reply #27 on:** January 26, 2009, 08:26 »

not sure if it's any better than submitting your images to the newer agencies or agencies that do not produce any sales. but at least, with the agencies, if it finds a buyer, at least they pay for your image. 25 cents is still 25 cents. rather than give it away.

bobek · « **Reply #28 on:** January 26, 2009, 08:57 »

Quote from: RT on January 26, 2009, 07:54

-I could include the words 'free porn' in the metadata of my website and get probably more unique visitors a day than you've highlighted, so therefore the statistic means absolutely nothing.

- I'm not going to comment this one as it is complete rubbish

Quote from: RT on January 26, 2009, 07:54

-Anybody in the business of buying images in any sort of quantity will be very aware of Microstock by now.

- Not true, otherwise we wouldn't be referring new people

Quote from: RT on January 26, 2009, 07:54

-Anybody looking to purchase images by searching via Google will be presented with vast numbers of microstock sites long before they come across yours.

- try this search - http://www.google.com/search?q=red+hearts and look at fourth image (I'm searching from the UK) - red hearts, so close to valentines, quite a traffic volume

Quote from: RT on January 26, 2009, 07:54

-One decent stock photograph uploaded to iStock photo plus the other top sites will produce more revenue than any money you'll ever receive via referrals.

- that's why the title says 'REJECTED'

Quote from: RT on January 26, 2009, 07:54

-Reading through any microstock site forums for the posts of anybody who's ever participated in any 'free image' scheme and the result will be that it does not produce any significant extra revenue.

- their free image section leads only to your portfolio. If people look for 'Labrador' there are 11 other pictures of Labrador below your image with your Fotolia number

Quote from: RT on January 26, 2009, 07:54

-Unless I'm mistaken you are not a registered charity and therefore the sole reason you've created this site is to generate revenue for yourself and not to help others.

Of course I'm probably making the most revenue because I have there over 800 photos but for example that girl has much better earning per member than I do. And if somebody submits 1000 pictures they will probably make more than I am.

Quote from: RT on January 26, 2009, 07:54

-I have more 'core data' to prove that your site won't work than you have yet provided to the contrary.

- my answers above

loop · « **Reply #29 on:** January 26, 2009, 10:44 »

Quote from: bobek on January 26, 2009, 05:13

Quote from: RT on January 26, 2009, 04:26

If you spent as much time trying to improve your skills rather than trying to make money off the backs of other peoples talent (or lack of in this case) you might find it pays better.

Apart from Dreamstime which give you a payment for just referring people I can't see anybody making any money from this, ( I notice you've kept the Dreamstime referral just for yourself) your site is aimed at freeloaders and the sort of people that trawl the internet searching for sites like yours are not the sort of people that will buy an image, no matter how cheap it is, but they are the type that 'cclapper' has highlighted and will no doubt increase the number of images that are being ripped off each day, especially if they're willing to download an image that is so cr*p that none of the hundreds of microstock sites would even accept it.

As 'flemishdreams' mentioned above why anybody would want to be associated with a site like yours is beyond me.

I only hope that when your site fails which it will, you will be out of pocket.

And please drop the smokescreen of trying to help others make money, this is pure and simply just another tacky referral site.

In my first post I asked people not to trash it until they see the results. All your arguments are based only on what you think, no core data to proof them.

I don't understand why do you want this website to fail so desperately (do you see it as a competition for your pictures?)

I'm sorry to disappoint you with this graph which is showing how the website is ' failing '

Facts:
Unique visitors: 2,300 a day
A year ago: 900 a day

All I do is that I give you an opportunity to get something from your pictures if the agencies rejected them. Not interested? Fine by me.

Somebody else will surely enjoy this option.

The more traffic, the worst. This is just about giving away images and rigths, risking model-realase conflicts and lawsuits, and contributin to a culture of "prhotos for commercial use should be free".

bobek · « **Reply #30 on:** January 26, 2009, 11:32 »

Quote from: loop on January 26, 2009, 10:44

The more traffic, the worst. This is just about giving away images and rigths, risking model-realase conflicts and lawsuits, and contributin to a culture of "prhotos for commercial use should be free".

I'm sure that the same fear had stock agencies with microstock at the beginning. Pictures from $1? Madness.

The way I see it:
- pictures for not very important projects - free
- pictures for projects where a good picture is important but exclusivity isn't - microstock
- pictures where quality must be excellent and exclusivity desired - traditional stock image libraries

And of course, these categories will be overlapping a bit.

hali · « **Reply #31 on:** January 26, 2009, 13:30 »

bobek, we are not saying it's ok to sell our images for peanuts, and that giving it away free like you are pushing here is silly. we already know how popular or unpopular subs and cheapies are. we take it , some happily, others grumbling under our breaths. we know where the top microsites esp SS is heading (ie. down , as in bread crumbs for the dogs under the table). but why encourage it ? we know it's going down to zero, but let's not push it to zero that quickly.
does it make sense?

Peter · « **Reply #32 on:** January 26, 2009, 14:01 »

giving something that you put your time in process of creating it, for free, is like flushing down the toilet...

i dont support any "free images" site.

shank_ali · « **Reply #33 on:** January 26, 2009, 15:16 »

I review and continue to learn from my rejections.I have a nice option at istockphoto if i feel an inspector has dropped a bollack in regards of rejecting a good image...Scout.Scout viewed two last week.One remained rejected.One image added to my portfolio.That will continue and i make enough money from my accepted images at istockphoto to start thinking about making money from rejects.

hali · « **Reply #34 on:** January 26, 2009, 15:19 »

Quote from: shank_ali on January 26, 2009, 15:16

I review and continue to learn from my rejections.I have a nice option at istockphoto if i feel an inspector has dropped a bollack in regards of rejecting a good image...Scout.Scout viewed two last week.One remained rejected.One image added to my portfolio.That will continue and i make enough money from my accepted images at istockphoto to start thinking about making money from rejects.

Shank, does Scout actually respond to you to say whether it's been re-rejected or approved? Just curious as to whether this is a sensible recourse to a rejection.

bobek · « **Reply #35 on:** January 26, 2009, 15:38 »

Quote from: hali on January 26, 2009, 13:30

bobek, we are not saying it's ok to sell our images for peanuts, and that giving it away free like you are pushing here is silly. we already know how popular or unpopular subs and cheapies are. we take it , some happily, others grumbling under our breaths. we know where the top microsites esp SS is heading (ie. down , as in bread crumbs for the dogs under the table). but why encourage it ? we know it's going down to zero, but let's not push it to zero that quickly.
does it make sense?

I understand that but the website is not here to compete with microstock but to support more sales there by referring new members.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #36 on:** January 26, 2009, 16:29 »

... and lowering their expectations of value.

shank_ali · « **Reply #37 on:** January 26, 2009, 17:35 »

Quote from: hali on January 26, 2009, 15:19

Quote from: shank_ali on January 26, 2009, 15:16
I review and continue to learn from my rejections.I have a nice option at istockphoto if i feel an inspector has dropped a bollack in regards of rejecting a good image...Scout.Scout viewed two last week.One remained rejected.One image added to my portfolio.That will continue and i make enough money from my accepted images at istockphoto to start thinking about making money from rejects.

Shank, does Scout actually respond to you to say whether it's been re-rejected or approved? Just curious as to whether this is a sensible recourse to a rejection.

Hali,the inspection process is human and as such mistakes are made.When you know an image is pretty dam perfect,no camera shake as it's been shot on a tripod,with a remote switch or timer.No adverse photo enhancements in adobe to introduce artifacts.No sharpening and other photos from the same shoot with the same lighting conditions being accepted you send the rejection to Scout with an explaination to why you disagree with the inspectors decision.
I have found the 'poor lighting' rejection to be a pain in the arse these past 6 months..and as such my exposure compension now stays at +1/2 and stays there even when shooting outside in good light.
Scout is a very good part of the overall inspection process at istockphoto but should be used wisely and not abused with over use.I have perhaps sent 7/8 images for scout to view in the 15 months i have been a contributor.

Phil · « **Reply #38 on:** January 26, 2009, 18:19 »

Quote from: bobek on January 26, 2009, 15:38

Quote from: hali on January 26, 2009, 13:30
bobek, we are not saying it's ok to sell our images for peanuts, and that giving it away free like you are pushing here is silly. we already know how popular or unpopular subs and cheapies are. we take it , some happily, others grumbling under our breaths. we know where the top microsites esp SS is heading (ie. down , as in bread crumbs for the dogs under the table). but why encourage it ? we know it's going down to zero, but let's not push it to zero that quickly.
does it make sense?

I understand that but the website is not here to compete with microstock but to support more sales there by referring new members.

by offering pics at any price point whether that is by a stock agency, flickr, or another site you compete with every other stock agency regardless of their price point. whilst you may be supporting a micro agency, there is absolutely no doubt you are also competing with it.

madelaide · « **Reply #39 on:** January 26, 2009, 18:41 »

Guys, why don't we give bobek a break? Those who want to join his idea, go on. I think there was already a lot of discussion about this... $:-\$

Regards,
Adelaide

alias · « **Reply #40 on:** January 26, 2009, 19:15 »

Sooner or later someone will upload a bunch of pictures which they do not own. Happens at Flickr all the time. Also at the microstocks.

Flickr have got Yahoo's legal people to smooth it out for them (+ considerable good will in the photographer community). The microstocks presumably know between themselves that it will happen from time to time.

alias · « **Reply #41 on:** January 26, 2009, 19:25 »

Quote from: hali on January 26, 2009, 15:19

does Scout actually respond to you to say whether it's been re-rejected or approved?

Yes.

I've done it twice I think in about 3 years. Both times I was sure that the rejection was a mistake and that the image had good potential. Both images now sell. The messages from Scout were very friendly and encouraging. It takes a while.

I think I waited a few days after the rejections before deciding to send them for evaluation. Gave me a chance to give it some consideration and have another look.

eric.zx · « **Reply #42 on:** January 26, 2009, 20:21 »

The site is definitely missing any sort of a legal structure. Thus, it makes the end-user unaccountable for their actions, meaning the model release goes out of the window. The downloader may use the image in any way possible, which may not be acceptable to the model. At least the free sections like on FT or DT apply the same rules to free images as to the ones you have to pay for.

I'm not trying to rip on you bobek. I think you may have good intentions, while earning a few bucks on the side, and I don't see anything wrong with that personally. "See a need, fill a need" sort of thing. And I've seen some good photographers featured on your site. I'm personally not a huge fan of providing my photos for free, although I'd consider it in some cases to help boost my sales or charitable reasons. But I'm not sure how my rejected images that do not particularly meet the standards that buyers are currently looking for would benefit me, unless I provide a good image for free as means of advertising. Maybe you should try to distance yourself from providing "rejected" images and focus on providing advertising to the photographers that would like to be featured on your site.

And you definitely have to include some sort of binding agreement between downloaders and your site, like making them sign up for an account and agreeing to terms of use. It may not be as important for photos not featuring people, but otherwise it could be a nasty lawsuit waiting to happen.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Earn money from your (rejected) pictures (Read 19055 times)

RT

anton9

tan510jomast

bobek

loop

bobek

hali

Peter

shank_ali

hali

bobek

Sean Locke Photography

shank_ali

Phil

madelaide

alias

alias

eric.zx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors