MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Visco Images announces instant cash for submissions  (Read 11658 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: November 29, 2010, 17:30 »
0
I sent them a test batch and they rejected everything. I think this recent campaign is an effort to lure some of the big names in microstock into their fold, but I don't think it will work.


« Reply #26 on: November 29, 2010, 18:55 »
0
I sent them a test batch and they rejected everything. I think this recent campaign is an effort to lure some of the big names in microstock into their fold, but I don't think it will work.

what have you sent?.. I have really average portraits, little concept and they are getting in.. don't get why they are acting like that with you..

« Reply #27 on: November 29, 2010, 19:06 »
0
I sent them a test batch and they rejected everything. I think this recent campaign is an effort to lure some of the big names in microstock into their fold, but I don't think it will work.

what have you sent?.. I have really average portraits, little concept and they are getting in.. don't get why they are acting like that with you..

It's my usual non-people average stuff. I get 60 - 70 % approval on stockfresh so they should have taken some at least. The other thing is they require you to put a category and a dominant color for each image as part of the submission process. That's not worth the effort for me. You can't just upload and forget about it.

« Reply #28 on: November 29, 2010, 19:27 »
0
I sent them a test batch and they rejected everything. I think this recent campaign is an effort to lure some of the big names in microstock into their fold, but I don't think it will work.

what have you sent?.. I have really average portraits, little concept and they are getting in.. don't get why they are acting like that with you..

It's my usual non-people average stuff. I get 60 - 70 % approval on stockfresh so they should have taken some at least. The other thing is they require you to put a category and a dominant color for each image as part of the submission process. That's not worth the effort for me. You can't just upload and forget about it.

Yes it hard work.. (how about I am waiting for 6 months at stockfresh :P)

« Reply #29 on: November 29, 2010, 23:31 »
0
anyone getting paid yet ?  ???

« Reply #30 on: November 30, 2010, 00:05 »
0
anyone getting paid yet ?  ???

yes a few bucks so far but still waiting that they fix IPTC (isn't working at least for me)

« Reply #31 on: November 30, 2010, 00:14 »
0
anyone getting paid yet ?  ???

yes a few bucks so far but still waiting that they fix IPTC (isn't working at least for me)

That's because they use Adobe's XMP for metadata, same as Istock.

« Reply #32 on: November 30, 2010, 00:19 »
0
anyone getting paid yet ?  ???

yes a few bucks so far but still waiting that they fix IPTC (isn't working at least for me)

That's because they use Adobe's XMP for metadata, same as Istock.

Only keywords get imported..

« Reply #33 on: November 30, 2010, 00:46 »
0
anyone getting paid yet ?  ???

yes a few bucks so far but still waiting that they fix IPTC (isn't working at least for me)

That's because they use Adobe's XMP for metadata, same as Istock.

You have to convert IPTC to XMP or copy the IPTC metadata to XMP, I use the free program XnView for that.

Only keywords get imported..

« Reply #34 on: November 30, 2010, 01:18 »
0
anyone getting paid yet ?  ???

yes a few bucks so far but still waiting that they fix IPTC (isn't working at least for me)

That's because they use Adobe's XMP for metadata, same as Istock.


You have to convert IPTC to XMP or copy the IPTC metadata to XMP, I use the free program XnView for that.

Only keywords get imported..

thanks for sharing!
« Last Edit: November 30, 2010, 01:26 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #35 on: November 30, 2010, 01:38 »
0
curious.. still just importing keywords.. on the XMP I have the following:

<?xpacket begin="" id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"?>
<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="XMP Core 4.1.1">
   <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
         <dc:title>Man listening to music</dc:title>
         <dc:description>attractive young man listening to music on the couch</dc:description>
         <dc:subject>
            <rdf:Bag>
               <rdf:li>music, sofa, music, person, adult, home, man, male, young, smile, house, people, caucasian, room, portrait, couch, leisure, happy, headphones, listening, lifestyle, living, modern, interior, sitting, relax, casual, one, guy, listen, technology, indoors, handsome, human, fun, relaxation, resting, happiness, life, cheerful, looking, fresh, sound, single, enjoyment, twenties, 20-25, shirt, blue, men, people, audio, mp3, activity</rdf:li>
            </rdf:Bag>
         </dc:subject>
      </rdf:Description>
   </rdf:RDF>
</x:xmpmeta>
                                   

Do I have anything wrong?? thanks

RacePhoto

« Reply #36 on: December 01, 2010, 03:41 »
0
Where do they get the money to pay us?  I'm not interested in sites like this anymore, I want sales.  I have been paid to upload a few times and my portfolio just sites there for a year with hardly any sales.

I did a quick search and wasn't impressed.  They shouldn't be selling this one as RF, it's a trademark.
http://www.viscoimages.com/photo/17658_underground_sign_against_the_blue_sky_london/


they have also Eiffel tower by night, but they will change that for sure :)


The claim that the lighting is protected has never been challenged in court, so it's just a nice assumed legality until then. Maybe some day?

If that's gibberish, no one has ever defended their right to use the night shots of the Eiffel Tower.

There are many others like this and some agency CYA policies which are not law but chicken S4!^ that they toss out at us.

As for uploading for money, It's About Time that people stopped wasting their time and sending off everything they own to some relatively anonymous place, for some crummy payment, only to have the images languish or worse yet, get sold to another partner or some distribution site, or stolen by one of the free sites so they can make CDs with your images and pay you nothing. About time that people woke up and discovered there isn't some pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if they can catch the Microstock Magic Leprechaun hiding behind the latest "me too" new site, with all the same images from all the same people, trying to sell to all the same customers. Usually by subscription or price cutting. The first place where the price is cut is from the artists commissions.

No more dilution and price war. YEA!

« Reply #37 on: December 01, 2010, 08:23 »
0
That's because they use Adobe's XMP for metadata, same as Istock.
And like Veer. The Adobe superset of the core IPTC scheme is proprietary, yet all these sites adhere to it. Their loss.

« Reply #38 on: December 03, 2010, 12:27 »
0
7 photos rejected and 120 online but I'm still on Level One...

So I'm unable to submit more than 20 photos/ day.

A ticket was sent to support but no answer !!!

 

« Reply #39 on: December 03, 2010, 12:49 »
0
Where do they get the money to pay us?  I'm not interested in sites like this anymore, I want sales.  I have been paid to upload a few times and my portfolio just sites there for a year with hardly any sales.

I did a quick search and wasn't impressed.  They shouldn't be selling this one as RF, it's a trademark.
http://www.viscoimages.com/photo/17658_underground_sign_against_the_blue_sky_london/


they have also Eiffel tower by night, but they will change that for sure :)


The claim that the lighting is protected has never been challenged in court, so it's just a nice assumed legality until then.


No. It has been challenged in court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_claims

« Reply #40 on: December 03, 2010, 15:43 »
0
7 photos rejected and 120 online but I'm still on Level One...

So I'm unable to submit more than 20 photos/ day.

A ticket was sent to support but no answer !!!

 

send another :)

« Reply #41 on: December 03, 2010, 15:56 »
0
It's OK, it 's fixed !

RacePhoto

« Reply #42 on: December 11, 2010, 00:14 »
0
Where do they get the money to pay us?  I'm not interested in sites like this anymore, I want sales.  I have been paid to upload a few times and my portfolio just sites there for a year with hardly any sales.

I did a quick search and wasn't impressed.  They shouldn't be selling this one as RF, it's a trademark.
http://www.viscoimages.com/photo/17658_underground_sign_against_the_blue_sky_london/


they have also Eiffel tower by night, but they will change that for sure :)


The claim that the lighting is protected has never been challenged in court, so it's just a nice assumed legality until then.


No. It has been challenged in court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_claims


Never taken to court. No one has been charged. Just  an opinion of the court without a trial. At least that's the take I've seen. One Wiki quoting another website, quoting another site that interviewed the people behind the light show, isn't a trial, it's a legal opinion that was issued.

And as usual, I reserve the right to be wrong, but with case law, you need a case.

Problem is, if they take it to court and lose, then everyone can take all the pictures we want and they lose their protection. Interesting situation. So cease and desist letters and posturing, threatening, usually stops the use. In this case it stops the agencies, before they think about selling a picture, so it has been effective.

This is the same issue with "property releases" which the agencies have created and may create a precedent for future challenges, where there was nothing to challenge before. If it's not illegal to use a picture of an old building, and agencies require it, it could become law. That would screw up everything that was fine, before the microstock sites created the need for an unnecessary release.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2010, 00:19 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #43 on: December 11, 2010, 04:04 »
0
Hi all,
I started uploading on Visco on November 30th, they quite fast reviewed my first batch of 18 and only 19 of the 20 in the batch of December 1st, approving 25 out of 37. Then they stopped reviewing, leaving the last image of the 2nd batch and 160 more pending ???. I asked my referrer and she is in the same situation, stuck with one image in a batch unreviewed, and all following batches.

In the while one of my referred is uploading exclusive model released images at 5 $ each, was at tier 2 a couple of days ago and has already collected more payouts, and has no troubles in getting reviewed  :)

Is anyone else stuck like me an my referrer? Are they keeping in the queue the images of the lowest tier until December 22nd so they will not have to pay for those images?

Roberto

« Reply #44 on: December 11, 2010, 07:04 »
0
I stopped uploading after a few initial files and deleted most of my approved files. The site does not seem to be run professionally to me. Even Depositphotos had their act together way better than this outfit.

« Reply #45 on: December 11, 2010, 09:53 »
0
They just reviewed over 100 images all together, rejecting over 60 with different reasons. I'd prefferd to know the reasons before, so I could choose save the time of uploading and giving titles to many later.

Yes, DB was much more serious


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3503 Views
Last post May 26, 2006, 19:35
by madelaide
1 Replies
2251 Views
Last post January 28, 2009, 15:09
by madelaide
11 Replies
4744 Views
Last post October 16, 2009, 06:37
by Rival
10 Replies
4624 Views
Last post March 21, 2011, 09:26
by ThomasAmby
3 Replies
1621 Views
Last post June 19, 2016, 17:24
by KONJINA

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results