MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Flickr?!?  (Read 8595 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 14, 2008, 11:39 »
0
I've only been on DT for a month, StockXpert a few weeks and Flickr for a few weeks.  I have a very small portfolio on each.

I've had 2 sub downloads on DT, nothing on StockXpert and 9 $20-$50 sales from people contacting me on Flickr.

Granted, Flickr makes it easier to contact members and all 9 were customizations that were requested.

Bizarre...


« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2008, 12:42 »
0
Well Flickr is not use to sell stock pics that's why....
just about sharing pics and if you are lucky  someone can ask u to use one for free :)

« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2008, 13:06 »
0
Well Flickr is not use to sell stock pics that's why....
just about sharing pics and if you are lucky  someone can ask u to use one for free :)

I've received requests for free use of stuff for wallpapers and such, but as I said I am surprised at getting requests to use the stuff for commercial projects and getting paid...  Not complaining mind you... :)

« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2008, 13:13 »
0
very nice, got contacted few times but no $$ :(
do u put your stock pictures on Flickr ?

ironarrow

« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2008, 14:00 »
0
Maybe you had a few sales but think how many times they were used for free?!..

probably millions of times as flickr has about 10 times more traffic than istockphoto..

wonder what would it be like, if they ever transform the site into a photo selling website and start charging commissions..  :)

vonkara

« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2008, 14:21 »
0
LOL Flickr is not a stock agency. Never put your stock images on Flickr!!! Why somebody will buy your images If they are free on Flickr.

« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2008, 14:39 »
0
very nice, got contacted few times but no $$ :(
do u put your stock pictures on Flickr ?

Yeah, I upload a 400x400 max sized sample to my account.

« Reply #7 on: August 14, 2008, 14:43 »
0
Maybe you had a few sales but think how many times they were used for free?!..

probably millions of times as flickr has about 10 times more traffic than istockphoto..

wonder what would it be like, if they ever transform the site into a photo selling website and start charging commissions..  :)

Interested to see what Getty goes with their partnership...

And if someone wants to capture a max 400x400 screenshot to use for free, I'm not complaining.  If someone really wanted to steal your stuff from any of the stock sites, they will.  It's not that hard to remove those overlays that SS, StockXpert, DT, etc.. put on images.

It's like locking your car or house...  Kind of useless, if a thief wants in, they're gonna get in.  The purpose of the lock is just to keep honest people honest.

« Reply #8 on: August 14, 2008, 14:51 »
0
But I have seen several times that people have been caught making a shabby job of removing watermarks and they have been made to pay.  It is hard to prove a theft if there was no watermark.


« Reply #10 on: August 14, 2008, 16:55 »
0
No requests ever received, but a travel agency did snatch a bunch even even when copyrights were firmly stated and the images were watermarked. When I contacted them, they said they though everything was "free". I had my attorney send a cease & desist. No more flickring for me. Closed my account last year.

vonkara

« Reply #11 on: August 14, 2008, 17:16 »
0
I just can't believe that a stock photographer can put his stock images on Flickr... downsized or anything else

lisafx

« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2008, 17:25 »
0
I just can't believe that a stock photographer can put his stock images on Flickr... downsized or anything else

Agree.  This makes no sense to me either. 

Reminds me of the old saying :  Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free...

« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2008, 18:58 »
0
LOL Flickr is not a stock agency. Never put your stock images on Flickr!!! Why somebody will buy your images If they are free on Flickr.

I agree!

« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2008, 07:17 »
0
I just can't believe that a stock photographer can put his stock images on Flickr... downsized or anything else

I am not a photographer.  And in the same amount of time I have made more money from Flickr than I have from any other agency.  So scoff if you want, but since you and most others are all about money over everything else...  I think I'm following your basic example.  ;D

vonkara

« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2008, 08:41 »
0
LOL... But then continue uploading to the real stock agencies, because I'm amazed that anybody could have made some money with Flickr. If you have made money there, you will surely get something pretty quickly to micros ;)
« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 08:45 by Vonkara »

hd

« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2008, 09:15 »
0
I'm a stock photographer who puts some of her images on flickr.

I downsize, save as a low-quality jpg, with a watermark. Large views and downloading are disabled. There's a ton of other things I disabled too. Basically what I can do, I do.

After reading some horror stories I considered pulling everything off my account, but I reconsidered when I realized in some cases, stock agencies give users equally (if not more) easily stolen images.

I also realized some those horror stories featured people who uploaded large, unwatermarked, easily downloadable copies of their images. They basically made it so easy. Many still do.

If it's on the web, it will be used without your permission.

Has anyone seen www.mygazines.com? Imagine how those publishers must feel. It's also stealing from photographers/illustrators featured in those magazines (some of them are actually us - there's some micro on those pages). Or every misused track of music out there. It's the nature of the beast. We can't kill it...we can only try to manage risk/damage.


« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2008, 12:10 »
0
I opened my Flickr account because it was highly recommended on several VERY popular microstock blogs as a method of driving people to your photos on the stock sites.

The more people upload to microstock sites, the more YOUR exposure on those sites erodes unless you keep up by constantly uploading enough content every single day to maintain the percentage of your portfolio size ratio to the total images on each site.

The days of just uploading a bunch of images to each site and collecting massive checks is coming to an end (if it hasn't ended already).  Too many new people are signing up every single day and adding their images to the total which dilutes the exposure your images get.

If clients can't see your images, they won't buy them.  And the sites don't care (for the most part) about YOUR images, only that clients are continuously buying ANY images, no matter who's they are.  So YOU have to do something to make buyers more aware of your images.  You have to do whatever it takes to get them in front of the eyes of clients.

If you want to be successful then you need to do your own marketing.  You need to do everything you can to drive buyers to YOUR images.  Whether that's creating your own web site, starting a blog, buying advertising, joining sites like Flickr or other social networking sites, etc...

I want to do well and make some money in microstock, but I'm not anywhere near the caliber of artist or photographer that most of you on this site are.  I've seen your work and most of you are simply amazing.  So I'm not gonna be able to compete on quality until I've had a chance to learn all that you have learned.  So, I have to do what I know how to do which is market my work.

I got started over a year ago doing footage.  Motion graphics animations.  I went from nothing when I got started to making a few hundred dollars a month now and climbing.  Part of my growing income is due to getting better at doing animation, but a bigger part is that when I was out of work for a few months I got aggressive on marketing my footage.  On eBay, on YouTube, on Vimeo, on my own web site, every where I could find to do marketing for free and it has paid off.  Anything I could do to either drive traffic to my footage on the sites I sell it or sell it direct.

I've uploaded a VERY small number of images to stock photo sites.  And I've been on those sites a very short time.  And in that time I have had very little in the way of sales or views on those sites.  I joined Flickr after I had already started uploading to the stock sites.  So my stuff has been there less time than on the stock sites.  Yet, I've had a LOT more interest in my stuff.  Including people who have paid me for some of those images. 

Scoff if you want, but I count that as a Win.  Anything that gets me some spending money and doesn't violate the law or my principles is a good thing in my opinion (I'm less concerned about violating the law than my principles).

So, Vonkara...  Tomorrow night when I'm sitting in a nice restaurant with my family eating a steak I've been craving for a week now and then spending a nice evening at the movies with them paid for by the money I got from Flickr this week, I will think of you and I promise to feel bad for at least 3 or 4 seconds about having put my stuff up on Flickr if that will make you happy.

« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2008, 12:26 »
0
....The days of just uploading a bunch of images to each site and collecting massive checks is coming to an end (if it hasn't ended already).  Too many new people are signing up every single day and adding their images to the total which dilutes the exposure your images get.

I disagree.  alamy has 13 million images now but people are still earning decent money there.  The microstock sites have much smaller collections.  People who copy what is already there probably wont do well but those that can produce something different should still make money.  Buyers like new images and a lot of the older ones stop selling after a year or two, so the market might never become saturated.

There are lots of new contributors uploading images but there are lots of new buyers as well.  A lot of the new contributors only upload a few images because they don't have much time or don't have the skills to produce images that sell.

« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2008, 13:04 »
0
If you have HIGH quality images and you have been on an established site for some time, the current search algorithms will continue to favor you and your images.  When that is messed with (ISP or SS I think) then you see a decline as your stuff is shuffled into the masses.

On DT the day after I joined, my brother-in-law joined and his member number was almost 1000 higher than mine.  Granted, a lot of those could be buyers and not sellers, but that is still a significant number.

And with some sites recording many thousands of new images a day, increasing the overall size of the pool, your own portfolio starts to look smaller and smaller.

You can test this yourself by tracking your best image.  Using the keywords you've supplied, put in a keyword or combination that gives you the highest success in finding that image.  Track where it is.  Do it again in a week, in a couple weeks, in a month, etc.. and see if it falls.

In any case, because of the search bias towards images (and/or contributors) that have already sold on most sites it is extremely difficult for a new contributor today to "break in" and start making lots of money.  The best way to get your images noticed is to market them in some fashion yourself.  Drive traffic to them in whatever way you can or are willing.

vonkara

« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2008, 13:32 »
0
So, Vonkara...  Tomorrow night when I'm sitting in a nice restaurant with my family eating a steak I've been craving for a week now and then spending a nice evening at the movies with them paid for by the money I got from Flickr this week, I will think of you and I promise to feel bad for at least 3 or 4 seconds about having put my stuff up on Flickr if that will make you happy.
I was well intentioned by the way, just encouraging you to continue with the micros! It's not my intention to waste your family dinner

« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2008, 13:42 »
0
Quote
People who copy what is already there probably wont do well but those that can produce something different should still make money.  Buyers like new images and a lot of the older ones stop selling after a year or two, so the market might never become saturated.

Totally agree! It is quite surprising to see how many holes there are to be filled in the existing collections. I've found quite a few in the few short months I've been uploading.

« Reply #22 on: August 15, 2008, 17:25 »
0
...In any case, because of the search bias towards images (and/or contributors) that have already sold on most sites it is extremely difficult for a new contributor today to "break in" and start making lots of money.  The best way to get your images noticed is to market them in some fashion yourself.  Drive traffic to them in whatever way you can or are willing.


It is hard for new contributors but not impossible.  Look at best selling contributors on istock and some of them haven't been there very long. 

http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=91126

For example, I found this persons portfolio today.  They joined June last year and have uploaded 309 photos and have had 35,643 downloads.

http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=2051513

« Reply #23 on: August 18, 2008, 16:16 »
0
I was on Flickr for a year plus before some kind Flickr user suggested I submit some of my better stuff to microstock.....

Over the last 18 months I've sold over $2000 worth of prints, digital files, and limited licenses etc. to people who have contacted me because they saw my work on Flickr and sent me an email.

Just last month I sold two images to a regional calendar company for $150 each because of Flickr.

So, I'm an example that shows that Flickr can lead to quite a bit of extra cash - and for comparison, during the last year I've made about $2000 off of microstock .... so Flickr is producing almost half of my photo revenue.

Neither is gonna replace the income of my day job, but it is enough to buy a couple of lenses and a trip for my wife and myself.

Have I had some of my photos ripped off?  Probably so, but then again I've had a lot of contacts come out of the blue because of Flickr.

« Reply #24 on: August 19, 2008, 04:29 »
0

And if someone wants to capture a max 400x400 screenshot to use for free, I'm not complaining.  If someone really wanted to steal your stuff from any of the stock sites, they will.  It's not that hard to remove those overlays that SS, StockXpert, DT, etc.. put on images.

It's like locking your car or house...  Kind of useless, if a thief wants in, they're gonna get in.  The purpose of the lock is just to keep honest people honest.


So you never lock your car or house?

Good luck, mate.

« Reply #25 on: August 19, 2008, 09:04 »
0
So you never lock your car or house?

Good luck, mate.

Of course I do, for piece of mind.  But if you think locking your car or house will keep out a determined thief, then you are crazy.

And if you think that a Microstock Agency putting a watermark over your image is going to keep a determined thief from using it, you're even more daft.

« Reply #26 on: August 19, 2008, 10:12 »
0
...In any case, because of the search bias towards images (and/or contributors) that have already sold on most sites it is extremely difficult for a new contributor today to "break in" and start making lots of money.  The best way to get your images noticed is to market them in some fashion yourself.  Drive traffic to them in whatever way you can or are willing.


It is hard for new contributors but not impossible.  Look at best selling contributors on istock and some of them haven't been there very long. 

http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=91126

For example, I found this persons portfolio today.  They joined June last year and have uploaded 309 photos and have had 35,643 downloads.

http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=2051513


Looks like they were lucky and have been part of a promotion of some sort, image of blue sky and clouds with 11000 views in a year, thats about 30 views a day??  :o


« Reply #27 on: August 19, 2008, 11:56 »
0

Of course I do, for piece of mind.  But if you think locking your car or house will keep out a determined thief, then you are crazy.

And if you think that a Microstock Agency putting a watermark over your image is going to keep a determined thief from using it, you're even more daft.


Of course a determined thief can get anything, even if it's locked up in Fort Knox. Nothing will stop a determined thief - certainly not a water mark on an image on the web. But ...

a)  It will mean the thief has to do a bit more work

b)  You will have something in the way of proof that a theft has taken place.

If you reported a burglary to the police and then told them you there was no sign of forced entry because left your house unlocked "... a determined thief could get in anyway ..." , what do you think their reaction would be?



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3635 Views
Last post November 02, 2006, 07:52
by FunkMaster5
19 Replies
4844 Views
Last post February 24, 2007, 15:30
by Photosgraphis
6 Replies
3260 Views
Last post June 28, 2008, 12:50
by fotoKmyst
6 Replies
4395 Views
Last post July 25, 2008, 12:48
by anjo J
17 Replies
7461 Views
Last post January 01, 2009, 00:36
by madelaide

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results