MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: pixmac - a new low $0.028 sale  (Read 11340 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 07, 2009, 07:09 »
0
Well I was opposed to Istocks original subs plan based on a percentage with no minimum amount because I couldnt accept a $0.05 (or lower) payment for an image... didnt realise I was already submitting to a similar system.

I started a couple of months ago with pixmac, then there was the issue with the competition on heroturko but I think to myself mistakes happen (shouldnt with a professional business, but I accept that they do)

Anyway I just went had a look and I see that I have 7.32 credits with them.

So I look at the break down

0000110389     2009-06-05 10:17:34  Image sell 0.047 cr.  Image: 0012475965   0.1 MPix     2010-06-05 10:17:34
0000097613    2009-05-22 04:43:10    Image sell    1.99 cr.    Image: 0013088495    0.5 MPix    2010-05-22 04:43:10
0000091809    2009-05-18 08:30:04    Image sell    0.089 cr.    Image: 0012398535    0.5 MPix    2010-05-18 08:30:04
0000088035    2009-05-13 00:47:33    Image sell    0.028 cr.    Image: 0012434443    0.1 MPix    2010-05-13 00:47:33
0000080227    2009-05-05 07:18:49    Image sell    0.198 cr.    Image: 0012398579    2 MPix    2010-05-01 07:18:49
0000044499    2009-03-24 16:37:07    Image sell    4.97 cr.    Image: 0012445189    30 MPix    2010-03-20 16:37:07

actually took me a bit to realise what I was seeing, I receive $0.047, $0.089 and a whole $0.028 cents for a sale. (so a little over 1700 $0.028 sales and you reach payout). They offer subs packages at $0.06 a credit and the artist gets 50%, oh well serves my right for looking into things properly.

but then it gets even more interesting...

I open up the images sold, and one of them shows downloads = 2, but its only listed once in my sales listing??? (ironically it is the image with the 2 cent sale) 

and then I search images, find one of mine and open it. User clearviewstock downloads =2 (doesnt include subs??) my 2 "bestsellers" aren't any of those that have sold?? 1 of them is actually an image they rejected (for poor lighting they are the only site inc ss, is etc to reject it, but I'm long over rejections).  So I go to manage my images and delete all the rejected images and now I am clearviewstock downloads =1

I think it is time that my portfolio was deleted





 


« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2009, 08:01 »
0
6 sales! Congratulations, microstock rocks ;D

« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2009, 08:02 »
0
opened about 20 images, found another with 2 downloads that isnt even on my earnings list at all.  Wonder how many downloads I've really had when I open 800+ images :(

« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2009, 09:11 »
0
http://www.pixmac.com/picture/000012030693/0012030693

This image has 2 downloads. Only one of them shows on my sold images list.

« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2009, 11:21 »
0
I think it is time that my portfolio was deleted

You can't. The lock in period is one year and last time I checked, you had to cancel your account by registered snail mail to Prague. People that upload to a site with 0.06$ on the front page only have to blame themselves.

« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2009, 11:35 »
0
It wasn't on the front page when I uploaded!

« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2009, 11:39 »
0
Ok enough with the "blame the victim" stuff.  The fact that someone agreed to a bad deal doesn't mean it's a good deal, or a fair deal.  This site is obviously a royal ripoff and the only good thing is, they probably don't have the resources or the attention span to go after you if violate the one-year lockin.  Assuming of course it's even possible to delete your files.

On this forum I see posts attempting to justify every shabby thing these agencies do, by saying it was all covered in the original agreement, caveat emptor, etc. In a narrow legalistic sense that may be true but I'll bet these same people aren't as happy when they themselves get ripped off by a rental car company, or an insurer that wiggles out of a claim, based on some "fine print". And I'm sure Phil wishes he'd never clicked "Ok" on this one.  

Phil, thanks for posting and I'll put this pathetic microstock on my list of ones to avoid.

« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 11:44 by stockastic »

« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2009, 11:49 »
0
This site is obviously a royal ripoff and the only good thing is, they probably don't have the resources or the attention span to go after you if violate the one-year lockin.

How can you avoid it? It's your problem to remove the images, not theirs. All anybody uploaded there is locked in for a year (initially they said 2 years) at least and you will have to send a snail mail to remove the images. Better send it registered or they probably will deny that they received it. Of course it's a rip off, and I told you so when they started. Nobody there is a victim, you could read all when you started uploading.

« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2009, 11:56 »
0
I don't know if it's possible at this site, but if you don't want your photos to be sold there for these miserable prices and you can't delete them, maybe you could (if possible) alter all the keywords, reducing them to a minimun of improbable keywords, so your photos won't be found.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 12:47 by loop »

« Reply #9 on: June 07, 2009, 11:58 »
0
I uploaded 500 there.  They didn't have an advert for $0.06 on the front page at that time.  There is no way to delete so what can we do?  I received $100 from them, so I am not suffering yet but it could be nasty if there are lots of downloads there.

Hopefully this is just a very short term marketing campaign to get some buyers to the site.  They are not going to make any money selling at those prices.  They wont get anyone uploading either, so they need to go back to sensible pricing quickly.  Sites don't get much of a chance and they will ruin their reputation doing this.

« Reply #10 on: June 07, 2009, 12:39 »
0
I have a dinky web site of my own, with a database behind it, and I pay the hosting company about 8 dollars a month.  I could write the code to sell images off of it  After that, I pay for more storage, and it could be anywhere. Amazon S3 charges about 15 cents per gigabyte per month.   Maybe pixmac is just one of a group of web sites run by the same guy, all sharing server and storage. Who knows.  

Any time these sites cut commissions (or I should say, every time) they're going to issue a PR statement about how they're just raising money for - as Fotolia just put it - "marketing, technology and human resource growth".   Hey let's face it, they're raising money to raise money.  








« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 12:44 by stockastic »

« Reply #11 on: June 07, 2009, 16:59 »
0
It wasn't on the front page when I uploaded!

Me neither, it wasn't there in february when I signed up. although I did say and admit that I should have looked into it some more, a number of people on this site thought they were looking ok. Aanyway I accept that I was the fool and got done on a dodgy deal, yep I'm too trusting...

Regardless sales that they make should be paid to the contributor, that is just plain old stealing. (I found a couple more unreported sales).
« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 17:42 by Phil »

« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2009, 17:09 »
0
it gets better... Terms and conditions

The royalty for images uploaded before April 1st 2009 downloaded with the non-exclusive license is 50% for the contributor, and 60%, for images downloaded with the exclusive license.

The royalty for images uploaded after April 1st 2009 downloaded with the non-exclusive license is between 30% and 44% for the contributor, and between 45% and 60% for images downloaded with the exclusive license - in both cases depending on volume of sales.

and further down

Pixmac reserves the right to change this agreement anytime and without any further notice.

so they've chnaged the royalties without telling anyone, on a sliding commission which doesn't seem to be listed anywhere on there site and faq infocenter for photographers still says 50% commission

so images uploaded after 1st april = 30% of $0.06 and the terms and conditions can change daily if they want, there are at least 4 or 5 differences since I agreed, so much for zager's we pay the best blah blah blah blah
« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 19:01 by Phil »

« Reply #13 on: June 07, 2009, 17:29 »
0
Pixmac reserves the right to change this agreement anytime and without any further notice.

Unfortunately I think this is a common writing:

from IS: "The Rate Schedule is subject to change in the sole discretion of iStockphoto in the ordinary course of its business without notice by posting such changes on the Site."

from DT: "We reserve the right to change this agreement at any time without further notice."

from FT: "Fotolia shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to amend the terms and conditions of this Agreement, in whole or in part, at any time, and any such changes shall be effective immediately upon member notification and publication of such changes on the Website."
« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 17:32 by madelaide »

« Reply #14 on: June 07, 2009, 17:38 »
0
I think the main reason why I trusted pixmac was because my images were already on their site, through fotolia.  I wonder what FT think about the pixmac subs prices?

« Reply #15 on: June 07, 2009, 17:45 »
0
Pixmac reserves the right to change this agreement anytime and without any further notice.

Unfortunately I think this is a common writing:

from IS: "The Rate Schedule is subject to change in the sole discretion of iStockphoto in the ordinary course of its business without notice by posting such changes on the Site."

from DT: "We reserve the right to change this agreement at any time without further notice."

from FT: "Fotolia shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to amend the terms and conditions of this Agreement, in whole or in part, at any time, and any such changes shall be effective immediately upon member notification and publication of such changes on the Website."

but even though they have the capacity they dont change important stuff without letting us know, its about trust and respect.  If things like this happen you have check the terms and conditions before each upload in case it has changed to make sure you still agree and you are not now uploading to 10% commission etc
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 03:35 by Phil »

« Reply #16 on: June 07, 2009, 17:50 »
0
I think I see an opportunity for a software product.

I'll create an application for image buyers.  Give it an image (it can be small)  and the keywords you used to find it, and it will search all the microstock sites for the same image, finding the lowest price.   


« Reply #17 on: June 07, 2009, 19:47 »
0
I believe the issue on unreported sales was talked about before...

When they pulled the information from Fotolia, the views and downloads were recorded with the images. So, sales you "see" could be from FT.  Check your sales on that image through Fotolia, and you may see them there.

Pixmac was just one of the reasons we deleted our port at Fotolia.

Gebbie

« Reply #18 on: June 07, 2009, 20:13 »
0
I believe the issue on unreported sales was talked about before...

When they pulled the information from Fotolia, the views and downloads were recorded with the images. So, sales you "see" could be from FT.  Check your sales on that image through Fotolia, and you may see them there.

Pixmac was just one of the reasons we deleted our port at Fotolia.

Gebbie

the first image in question with 2 reported downloads and only 1 showing isnt on fotolia, so its not that, but thanks anyway

« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2009, 00:14 »
0
I don't know if it's possible at this site, but if you don't want your photos to be sold there for these miserable prices and you can't delete them, maybe you could (if possible) alter all the keywords, reducing them to a minimun of improbable keywords, so your photos won't be found.

thanks, I think that is what I am going to have to do :(

« Reply #20 on: June 09, 2009, 04:12 »
0
all titles, descriptions and keywords removed and resubmitted for inspection :) (the last batch that I uploaded have just been approved without them) and in the meantime clicking on any of my images just comes up with a 404 image deleted error.  What a fun way to spend a day, not :(

oh well, I learn to be more careful before I bother with any other new sites

« Reply #21 on: June 09, 2009, 04:38 »
0
I'll create an application for image buyers.  Give it an image (it can be small)  and the keywords you used to find it, and it will search all the microstock sites for the same image, finding the lowest price.

Hey, you stole my secret idea! ::)

« Reply #22 on: June 09, 2009, 06:42 »
0
I emailed them about these low prices but haven't received a response.  I hope zager can come here and explain their strategy.  We wont make money with these low prices but they wont either, so what are they up to?

« Reply #23 on: June 09, 2009, 07:06 »
0
I think I see an opportunity for a software product.

I'll create an application for image buyers.  Give it an image (it can be small)  and the keywords you used to find it, and it will search all the microstock sites for the same image, finding the lowest price.   



Go ahead with that! It would be a great improvement, because it would "help" many contributors to fight the temptaion of putting their files in cheapo sites as well, knowing that doing that the would probably loss better sales at decent sites.

« Reply #24 on: June 09, 2009, 09:07 »
0
Go ahead with that! It would be a great improvement, because it would "help" many contributors to fight the temptaion of putting their files in cheapo sites as well, knowing that doing that the would probably loss better sales at decent sites.

That would be a deadly application for the all you can eat for 0.01$ sites and I wondered how long it would take before somebody had that idea. Lookstat used the same technology for matching images on different sites and Tineye had it already for a while. Everybody then will probably end up with photos.com. Only exclusives are "safe".

It's just a matter of time till Google gets hold of the technology and makes it its base for Google images.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2009, 09:10 by FlemishDreams »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
31 Replies
15801 Views
Last post March 20, 2009, 01:58
by null
1 Replies
2265 Views
Last post June 05, 2009, 04:41
by zager
3 Replies
3547 Views
Last post February 02, 2009, 15:59
by m@m
7 Replies
7965 Views
Last post June 08, 2009, 08:46
by Jack Schiffer
25 Replies
5356 Views
Last post April 20, 2009, 12:52
by cdwheatley

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results