|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - disorderly
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 58
101
« on: January 26, 2016, 17:01 »
I was the recipient of a somewhat similar communication a few weeks ago. Not a complaint about quality, but about quantity and subject matter. I do a lot of work with models, and generate quite a few images from each shoot. The other agencies have been okay with my volume of work; even Dreamstime doesn't object any more. But Envato was clear they didn't want them. They even threatened to cut off my upload privileges, which I thought was excessive for a first communication on the subject. In any event, they won't get any more people photos from me. Their site, their rules. And to be fair, it's mostly my non-model shots that sell there.
One amusing postscript: after getting told off, they sent me a survey asking me to evaluate the quality of their support and my level of satisfaction. I told them the truth.
102
« on: December 28, 2015, 14:40 »
Additionally, does the event where you shot the photo place any restrictions on commercial use of images? Is the client willing to hold you harmless in writing if any of the three groups (athletes, sponsors, event) decide to sue? That's the danger in selling your image for commercial use. The client may want to take the risk, but I wouldn't do it.
103
« on: December 14, 2015, 20:02 »
Has anyone found a suitable replacement for MAC that adds keywords to files? The Photos app on MAC does it but it's not as good as stockuploader 
I rely on Graphic Converter for keyboarding, building HTML catalogues and other tasks. Inexpensive yet well maintained by its developer.
104
« on: December 03, 2015, 10:14 »
None of my business of course. I just wondered. Illegal here in the UK, and lots of other places.
Legal for medicinal use in some places in the States I believe?
Legal in about half the US states for medicinal purposes, and legal for recreational use in four states and the District of Columbia. Some things change.
105
« on: December 02, 2015, 14:21 »
I'm not convinced it's a bad thing, so long as their review process can keep up with demand. I joined SS before they put the qualification exam in place. It would have likely taken me many rounds to get to 7/10 acceptance, or I might have given up. Instead I learned as I submitted, improving the quality of my work and its relevance as well. So if it offers the same opportunity for others, why not?
There's nothing that says that most of the mediocre work will get accepted, in contrast to what I'm told is going on at iStock. My guess is that standards won't drop; new contributors will have much of their work rejected, and some will keep at it until their submissions improve. Those who don't will at least have the opportunity to see how they do.
It doesn't indicate desperation to me.
106
« on: November 25, 2015, 14:15 »
Keep in mind that Shutterstock has multiple servers providing content. There will be times when one server is updated but the others haven't seen the changes, so you will get inconsistent results until they sync. That might have been what happened here.
As an example, after I submit a new batch I go to the Approval Status page to retrieve the image numbers for my records. Sometimes the batch won't show up until I reload a few times, and other times the batch will show but clicking on it shows no images or only a subset. Annoying but not a big deal once you know what's going on.
107
« on: October 17, 2015, 13:41 »
I'm seeing exactly the opposite. I'm on track for a BME at 123RF, which is outperforming SS by a considerable margin. I don't have much on Fotolia; I removed most of my content the last time they reduced royalties and moved the goalposts out of reach. I've uploaded a few since Adobe took them on but haven't seen more than small signs of life there since the acquisition.
108
« on: September 18, 2015, 21:15 »
I don't believe it for a second. I've seen way too much variation in my sales to think there's anything but market forces affecting my sales. Interestingly enough, I had a much larger number of subscription sales today, easily 5x my daily average.
Stuff happens, that's all. Conspiracies are rarely borne out.
109
« on: September 17, 2015, 18:52 »
Well, their site, their choice. I don't see anything wrong with that image. Maybe they're being forced to be PC.
Maybe models threaten to sue when those images are used for escort services, porn sites, or other things they don't like.
That's a violation of Getty's own release (pornography or defamation), which is the one I use with all the agencies. I've had it happen twice in ten years and was able to have the images taken down immediately with a DMCA request. So no, whatever the reason for iStock's change in policy, I'm confident that you haven't identified it.
110
« on: September 17, 2015, 11:06 »
Nothing iStock does surprises me. I don't have anything that would qualify for this particular cull, but I wonder what led them to this action. Complaints from a potential buyer?
111
« on: September 10, 2015, 14:27 »
Short answer: no. Every stock agency I'm with requires a submitter to have the copyright to the work they submit. If you didn't take a photo or create a vector, you're not the rights holder. There are a few exceptions like Work for Hire contracts and Dreamstime's Sell the Rights option, but in every other case I'm aware of, you can't license an image and then claim ownership. Keep in mind that customers license images; they don't buy them and can not assert any claim of ownership as a result.
I'm probably oversimplifying, and I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty confident of my ground.
112
« on: September 04, 2015, 08:52 »
My total earnings at SS are 4x DT. For the last two years, they're more than 6x.
113
« on: August 31, 2015, 08:55 »
Any clue what files they are looking for? Isolated would be my guess
Nope, at least not at present. Their plan was to do their own high quality isolations, so every image on a white background had to wait for that laborious manual process. Then the queue for isolations got so big they said they might never get to them. Images without isolation can get approved or rejected quickly; isolations aren't worth submitting until something changes.
114
« on: August 30, 2015, 16:32 »
One data point I know, but I'm having a BME at DT. More than double July, and more than double last August. Year over year I'm up 40%. No idea if September will continue the trend, but at least for me there's life in DT yet.
That's good to hear and congratulations on a ridiculously large portfolio there!
Have the recent sales been off long-time popular images or newer uploads?
Mostly newer uploads, and often multiple images from the same shoot. DT's relaxing of its similars rejection policy has changed the nature of my sales there, and for the better. To be specific, 84% of this month's sales have been from images I uploaded in 2013 or later. 37% were 2015 uploads, 27% were from 2014 and 20% were from 2013.
115
« on: August 30, 2015, 12:46 »
One data point I know, but I'm having a BME at DT. More than double July, and more than double last August. Year over year I'm up 40%. No idea if September will continue the trend, but at least for me there's life in DT yet.
116
« on: August 26, 2015, 08:18 »
I started submitting to Canva just about a year ago. My experience has been good and, if not bad, certainly quirky. Their submitter side needs a lot of work; it doesn't provide a lot of information on what has been accepted or what sells. For example, you can see each sale as it gets recorded, but there's nothing to help identify what's selling well. And their policies are opaque and/or evolving, so you can waste a lot of time uploading work that will never get approved.
But the good is pretty good. For me, sales are regular and frequent. Canva outearns BigStock and is competitive with CanStock, and is way ahead of a bunch of more established agencies. I'd say they're worth exploring.
117
« on: August 06, 2015, 17:59 »
Amazingly, DT is actually outperforming SS and everyone else this month. It's early days of course, but the first five days of August at DT have already beat all of July. It may be a fluke, or it may be signs of a real change.
118
« on: August 05, 2015, 15:50 »
I have data since 2007 and see a definite pattern to my sales. I get one peak in February based on daily averages; things drop a little in March and continue to slide through June. They pick up in July and continue to rise until they peak again in October. After that I see a decline until they hit bottom in January. Your results won't be identical; they depend at least a little on seasonal content. But I expect improvements as people get done with summer vacations.
119
« on: August 05, 2015, 15:45 »
One of my sales today on Shutterstock was a photo I shot ten years ago. It's 6 megapixels, which I guess was enough for the customer who bought it. Not everybody needs more pixels. My camera generates 36 MP; I reduce it to 19 before I submit. Makes processing and file upload easier, and I doubt it's costing me much in the way of sales.
120
« on: July 26, 2015, 15:05 »
Presumably someone who already submits to SS, or has been approved to do so.
So there are contributors who can't contribute ? 
No. An approved contributor is someone who has passed the entrance test. You submit ten images; if seven of the ten are approved, you're in and can now submit work for sale. Put another way, if you have work for sale on Shutterstock, you are by definition an approved contributor. If you haven't been approved, you can still submit photos for this evaluation.
121
« on: July 23, 2015, 18:15 »
I don't have anything negative to say about Scott, but I doubt this will make much of a difference. My experience with Fotolia was almost exclusively negative, and I don't think one hire will make a supplier-hostile organization any less so.
Acquisitions have a funny way of providing less synergy than we expect; it may be that Adobe's position on creatives' desktops will give Fotolia a chance to grow their business, or it won't. Adobe's own acquisitions have sometimes done well, and sometimes they've suffered neglect at the hands of their new owners.
I hope the move is a good one for Scott, but unless the people behind some incredibly poor decisions are pushed out of the way, I doubt the new Adobe-owned Fotolia will make me want to submit any new work.
122
« on: July 13, 2015, 12:25 »
Anyone else getting error when trying to see their photos, like www.canva.com/brandname ?
Yes. Although I just got a sale, so maybe customers are still able to get to my photos.
123
« on: July 12, 2015, 09:07 »
I think that deletion from Yay is justifyed by protecting sales on other sites
Do you have any basis at all for believing that it makes any difference? I get more sales in a day from Shutterstock than a year of Yay. If hardly anyone is buying from the latter, how can it be affecting sales elsewhere in any noticeable way? Seems a mass deletion would be a lot of work for no benefit. Unless you have even anecdotal data, you're just indulging in magical thinking.
124
« on: July 11, 2015, 10:29 »
absolutely monstrously bigoted views .... (mostly sexist) ... endless thread derailments ... very unpleasant
if you're so oversensitive maybe the problem is you.
life is unfair.
And maybe not. There's a lot of rudeness online, which I attribute to the authors not having to face those who read their words. Most people would be more considerate or at least more polite in face to face conversation than they are online. Telling people not to be sensitive does nothing to improve the quality or the tone of our discourse.
125
« on: July 11, 2015, 10:25 »
I don't see the point in dumping sites.
Nor do I. The only places where I've reduced my presence are agencies that abused our professional relationship, specifically iStock and Fotolia. I have a second tier of agencies that only get new content when they make a sale, which doesn't happen very often. Veer, Zoonar, Restock, SignElements, Yay, and a few others belong in that category. They may be a waste of time, but it's not much time, and it would waste even more time to remove my work with no benefit I can see.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
