pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Heard of Colourbox?  (Read 27295 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2010, 01:29 »
0
Yes Colourbox seems to be quite well used in Scandinavian media. From the Photographer Terms and Condition i read that:

The Images must be "royalty-free photos". Colourbox and Colourbox' licensees are therefore free to use, reproduce,
publish, exhibit, perform, publicly display and transmit the Images, to crop, modify, alter and manipulate
the Images and to create derivate works of the Images. Accordingly there are no restrictions on the use of the
Images unless explicitly agreed to in writing with Colourbox.
The Photographer shall upload the Images directly to Colourbox'

As per definition, no-one can have exclusive rights of a Royalty-free image (the photographer can sell the image as many times as he or she wants). I could not find the giving away right condition as stated by Klautz but maybe i missed it.

Reading the material currently online i dont think any rights are signed away, what do you guys think?
Cheers

so it is EL sale? and you get euro0.20 / US$0.26 think I'll pass on that one


« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2010, 14:27 »
0
I imagine calculating photographers' commissions from unlimited monthly downloads is extremely complex. Therefore toss the contributors a few cents when you feel like it and they'll beg for more. A big NO THANKS to this turkey.

« Reply #27 on: August 11, 2010, 08:10 »
0
i think i have accepted as their 'supplier', but the photos had been in pending for many weeks.

and it seems there is no option to get paid by paypal?

« Reply #28 on: August 15, 2010, 11:30 »
0
anyone? it seems a 'dead' site.. images are 'in process' for long time and hard to understand what to do next..


i think i have accepted as their 'supplier', but the photos had been in pending for many weeks.

and it seems there is no option to get paid by paypal?

« Reply #29 on: August 16, 2010, 21:23 »
0
A complete and utter waste of time.  They review images every blue moon and one they are up no one sees them!

« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2010, 23:31 »
0
They are slow to review thats for sure.
For my part, I see that they accept a lot of images I get rejected else where and reject images the I have on 123rf, SS, Veer, Fotolia Etc. :) Its a bit strange.
I sell ok at Colourbox, when taken into account that I only have 350 images online there. I am not even on 50% acceptence rate where as I normally are around 80% elsewhere.

I will hang in there for a few more month and see how it develops.

//dotweb
http://www.shutterstock.com/g/dotweb [nofollow]

RacePhoto

« Reply #31 on: August 17, 2010, 00:17 »
0
Why the hxxx every Nerdz on the planet are planning to open a new stock agency ? Somebody explain plz  :)

Because there's enough suckers around that upload to these sites in the hope they'll make 10 dollars over the course of the year that it takes until the site goes bust.




Thank you. I was getting tired of being Mr. Negative and pointing out that you don't get on any bus that comes along, just because "it may be going somewhere".  ;D

Same as people who keep supporting low earning, loser sites, because, maybe some day they might make some sales.

A donkey will never win the Kentucky Derby!

« Reply #32 on: August 17, 2010, 00:43 »
0
so anyone think getting good sales in this website, and it seems there is no option to get paid through internet except a using a german bank account?

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #33 on: August 17, 2010, 01:17 »
0
Thank you. I was getting tired of being Mr. Negative and pointing out that you don't get on any bus that comes along, just because "it may be going somewhere".  ;D

Same as people who keep supporting low earning, loser sites, because, maybe some day they might make some sales.

I plead guilty for doing this in my early days of microstock. But after uploading an entire portfolio to a couple of losers, one is forced to understand: some sites are not even worth checking for sales once a year.

« Reply #34 on: August 17, 2010, 02:16 »
0
Thank you. I was getting tired of being Mr. Negative and pointing out that you don't get on any bus that comes along, just because "it may be going somewhere".  ;D

Same as people who keep supporting low earning, loser sites, because, maybe some day they might make some sales.

I plead guilty for doing this in my early days of microstock. But after uploading an entire portfolio to a couple of losers, one is forced to understand: some sites are not even worth checking for sales once a year.
How come that you are calling this cite a loser?
It is doing very well. Have a strong representation in the media in all the scandinavia countries, so what makes them a loser site??
And since we are in microstock forum, why make so much noice about low earnings - the whole business is about low earnings!!
Get real, 90% of all contributers ear less than 100 dollar pr month on microstock.
 
//dotweb

« Reply #35 on: August 17, 2010, 04:14 »
0
How come that you are calling this cite a loser?
What are your experiences there? How much they earn for you as a percentage of (for instance) your SS portfolio?
Update: We are temporarily closed for new suppliers.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 04:22 by FD-regular »

« Reply #36 on: August 17, 2010, 06:09 »
+1
How come that you are calling this cite a loser?
What are your experiences there? How much they earn for you as a percentage of (for instance) your SS portfolio?
Update: We are temporarily closed for new suppliers.
As I mentined earlier - I do not have experience with Colourbox, since I have only been online there for 3 month. So far I have around 110 sales pr month with around 300 images online.
Not something to write home about, but its a start.
I could not from this short experience make negative/positive statements or call it a loser site.
Its a new place, so give them time to develop their business - so far their service to me has been ok, they pick up the phone when you call to then. There is nothing that should indicate that the site is a "loser" site.
I do not have any interest in "defending" colourbox, but I do find statements that has been use now, rather bad, specially for new people here. Please use some qualified information when judging the sites.

I will give the site atleast 6 month more before I would be able to say weather its good or bad   :-X

//dotweb

« Reply #37 on: August 17, 2010, 06:17 »
0
I have only been online there for 3 month. So far I have around 110 sales pr month with around 300 images online.
Not something to write home about, but its a start.

So, how much money did you earn from those 110 sales?

« Reply #38 on: August 17, 2010, 07:09 »
0
So far I have made 100 Euro on the total sales.
Based on prox. 300 images. I have a few month in the beginning where I onle had 70 images online, so I do not count them in.

//dotweb

« Reply #39 on: August 17, 2010, 07:10 »
0
Its a new place
Their domain is 8 years old. Perhaps they were a conventional stock agency before? Anyways, thanks for the info and keep reporting. Make sure to post your referral link (if they have any) when the time is there.

« Reply #40 on: August 17, 2010, 07:12 »
0
so there are people who got sales in colourbox?

I guess most people are ''allergic" to new microstock website that will disappear too fast and wasted their efforts.

Even it is ''microstock", it doesn't mean it is low earning job.

But how can one contributor get paid by colourbox if there is no paypal option?

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #41 on: August 17, 2010, 07:47 »
0
Thank you. I was getting tired of being Mr. Negative and pointing out that you don't get on any bus that comes along, just because "it may be going somewhere".  ;D

Same as people who keep supporting low earning, loser sites, because, maybe some day they might make some sales.

I plead guilty for doing this in my early days of microstock. But after uploading an entire portfolio to a couple of losers, one is forced to understand: some sites are not even worth checking for sales once a year.
How come that you are calling this cite a loser?
It is doing very well. Have a strong representation in the media in all the scandinavia countries, so what makes them a loser site??
And since we are in microstock forum, why make so much noice about low earnings - the whole business is about low earnings!!
Get real, 90% of all contributers ear less than 100 dollar pr month on microstock.
 
//dotweb

Sorry, I was not talking about this site (ColourBox) - I never tried it and cannot tell:  it may well be a good site as you say.

I was thinking about those I have a direct and less than optimal experience with:
- (un)lucky oliver which I joined just a few weeks before closure (timing is everything!)
- FP which earned me $1.00 in 2 years with thousands of pics;
- CC which earned me $0.00 (that is, zero, null, niente, nihil ....) with thousands of pics - absolute record.
May I call 'em losers (at least for me)? Nothing against these sites, I'm just being realistic. I will not delete my port once uploaded and still hope they can have success but I'm not losing my time anymore uploading.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 08:25 by microstockphoto.co.uk »


RacePhoto

« Reply #42 on: August 17, 2010, 15:43 »
0
Original post was   on: March 17, 2009, 02:59 since then people have found it down, non-responsive, vague about commissions and payment methods. Maybe I'm jumping to a conclusion but after a year and a half and it's been around for eight years, I'd say there are some strong indications that it's not going to be a player any time soon.  :D That's a loser in terms of wasting time and effort in my opinion.

I may be wrong. Check back in another year for the next "wait and see, there may be hope" message from someone else who thinks that every new agency might some day make it, when the fact is, no new agency in four years has made it past promises and hopes.

It's really basic sales and marketing to take your product to where the customers are, not to spend time and effort trying to sell someplace that isn't suitable and lacks in buyers. A small microstock site, that doesn't market and has a small customer base, is battling uphill against the established agencies of the world. It's not impossible, it is high unlikely to ever be a success. Highly unlikely that artists will make enough sales to make the site viable and profitable. That's ANY new site or small agency in some small market area.


Thank you. I was getting tired of being Mr. Negative and pointing out that you don't get on any bus that comes along, just because "it may be going somewhere".  ;D

Same as people who keep supporting low earning, loser sites, because, maybe some day they might make some sales.

I plead guilty for doing this in my early days of microstock. But after uploading an entire portfolio to a couple of losers, one is forced to understand: some sites are not even worth checking for sales once a year.
How come that you are calling this cite a loser?
It is doing very well. Have a strong representation in the media in all the scandinavia countries, so what makes them a loser site??
And since we are in microstock forum, why make so much noice about low earnings - the whole business is about low earnings!!
Get real, 90% of all contributers ear less than 100 dollar pr month on microstock.
 
//dotweb

« Reply #43 on: August 20, 2010, 01:30 »
0
Hi the payment option is too choose your country, Bank account, IBAN, and SWIFT.. does it mean it can direct wire transfer to bank account in any countries?

It pays 0.20 EURO for a photo, 0.35EURO for a illustration vector, and more for a video..

I am not sure will you get paid more when buyers paid other plan..

so far i had 1 sale for a vector.

« Reply #44 on: August 20, 2010, 02:40 »
0
Original post was   on: March 17, 2009, 02:59 since then people have found it down, non-responsive, vague about commissions and payment methods. Maybe I'm jumping to a conclusion but after a year and a half and it's been around for eight years, I'd say there are some strong indications that it's not going to be a player any time soon.  :D That's a loser in terms of wasting time and effort in my opinion.

I may be wrong. Check back in another year for the next "wait and see, there may be hope" message from someone else who thinks that every new agency might some day make it, when the fact is, no new agency in four years has made it past promises and hopes.

It's really basic sales and marketing to take your product to where the customers are, not to spend time and effort trying to sell someplace that isn't suitable and lacks in buyers. A small microstock site, that doesn't market and has a small customer base, is battling uphill against the established agencies of the world. It's not impossible, it is high unlikely to ever be a success. Highly unlikely that artists will make enough sales to make the site viable and profitable. That's ANY new site or small agency in some small market area.
You might be right in general but I have had success with the smaller sites like Rodeo and yaymicro.  They do make a significant amount of money for me in the long tern for near zero effort.  Uploading a portfolio doesn't take time or effort for me, I just do it in the background while I am editing images.  People with a small portfolio that don't make regular payouts on the big sites should concentrate on the big 4 but those that are doing well might be better off putting their portfolio on lots of sites.  The big contributors do it and I think they have good business sense.  I will look in to Colourbox when they are asking for contributors again.

« Reply #45 on: August 20, 2010, 05:33 »
0
I have no idea how they would make sure the customers stick to the rules, but I likes this part of their terms from the FAQ:

"License: The price for free download of all images is EURO 149 per month. As long as you have a license, you can download as many images as you like. If you stop the license, you can use the downloaded material for 12 months.

Prepaid Card: You can also buy a prepaid card with 100 credits for EURO 249,- (100 credits = 10 stock images). A prepaid card is valid for 1 (one) year. Afterwards the User Rights exceeds after 5 years.

Single Image: If your need for images is low you can buy single images for EURO 49,- a piece. The User Rights exceeds after 5 years."

This has been suggested in several other threads in this forum; that the rights to use the pictures should have a time limit. I wonder how well it works in real life.

I see a lot of colourbox-images in magazines in Norway. It looks like most of the major printing houses have contracts with colourbox and Istock, and that istock is only for the pictures they can't find in colourbox. High quality illustrations e.g.

« Reply #46 on: August 20, 2010, 05:53 »
0
photos 0.20 euro, vector 0.35 euro, and i think you may get pay 50% less in some case that the buyers will get 50% discount, so the minimum may get is 0.10 euro and 0.175 euro.. and it is free download for educational or some kind of usage.

I am not sure whether seller will get 50% for a 49 euro download..

anyone know is it possible to get paid by oversea contributors?

thank you.


I have no idea how they would make sure the customers stick to the rules, but I likes this part of their terms from the FAQ:

"License: The price for free download of all images is EURO 149 per month. As long as you have a license, you can download as many images as you like. If you stop the license, you can use the downloaded material for 12 months.

Prepaid Card: You can also buy a prepaid card with 100 credits for EURO 249,- (100 credits = 10 stock images). A prepaid card is valid for 1 (one) year. Afterwards the User Rights exceeds after 5 years.

Single Image: If your need for images is low you can buy single images for EURO 49,- a piece. The User Rights exceeds after 5 years."

This has been suggested in several other threads in this forum; that the rights to use the pictures should have a time limit. I wonder how well it works in real life.

I see a lot of colourbox-images in magazines in Norway. It looks like most of the major printing houses have contracts with colourbox and Istock, and that istock is only for the pictures they can't find in colourbox. High quality illustrations e.g.

« Reply #47 on: November 19, 2010, 07:31 »
0
From Colourbox' Photographers Terms and Conditions:

Quote
Colourbox shall pay to the Photographer a royalty of e0,20 per download of stock photos, e0,35 per download of illustrations and e0,70 per download of videos. For downloads made by non-profit organisations the Photographer receives 50 % less per download as non-profit organisations are given a 50 % discount on all Colourbox Images. For downloads made by schools and students the Photographer does not receive a royalty as the Images are used for educational purposes and not commercially. The royalty is paid out to the Photographer at the end of each month.

The way I read it (for photos):
Photographer receives 0,20 for all regular downloads (subs and Pay per download, which costs 47 per image).
Photographer receives 0,10 if the client is a non-profit organisation
Photographer receives 0,00 if the client is a student or image use is educational and not commercial

Beware!

Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #48 on: November 24, 2010, 04:42 »
0
We are not distributing through them. Their entire collection of Danish Images are "non-modelreleased" and they still sell them for commercial use. I find that very strange. Unlimited subscription.... I find that very strange too.

Fotonaut

« Reply #49 on: February 14, 2011, 11:44 »
0
This just in:
(For orders sake, Im not not contributing to Colourbox, as I did not like their business model. And I shure never will.)

Dear supplier,

In the process of adding more computer power to the import mechanism a mistake has happened. The disk carrying all of the already uploaded images were lost, and the data is thus gone. We're terrible sorry about this, and the responsible person are facing the consequences of such an error.

This means that if your images are not present in your supplier section on the site, they have to be uploaded again. This is terribly annoying, and I understand the frustration this might have caused.

Should we look at the positive side, the following has now happened as well:

- A lot more computerpower has been added, making the import A LOT faster.
- When material is gone from the ftp directory it means it's imported. No more wondering whether the material is gone or not.

And furthermore:

There's now a slightly different structure in the upload directories. Going forward the following directories are for stock material

  stock/images
  stock/vector
  stock/video

And the following structure is for editorial material:

  editorial/images
  editorial/vector
  editorial/video

We're launching editorial images support very soon, and can thus start accepting your material via ftp as well. If in doubt about editorial, just upload to stock/images, stock/videos and stock/vector as you did to stock, vector and video before.

With sincere apologies,
Mads Martin
--
Mads Martin Jrgensen - COO
Colourbox, Hammergyden 75 Stige, DK-5270 Odense N, Denmark
Phone: +45 70 20 33 15 - Mobile: +45 53 53 97 91
http://www.colourbox.com


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
15173 Views
Last post March 05, 2018, 07:09
by raloo
12 Replies
4883 Views
Last post January 19, 2013, 22:39
by damo87
47 Replies
15699 Views
Last post July 25, 2018, 04:04
by Brasilnut
22 Replies
6715 Views
Last post January 31, 2014, 09:15
by JPSDK
4 Replies
2285 Views
Last post July 21, 2014, 11:17
by Maximilian

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results