|
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 - Lizard
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 33
101
« on: September 25, 2020, 13:08 »
One of the things that makes FAA convenient is that you get your personal pixels.ccom site which is basically FAA store clone which you can use as a store implemented in your personal website or by app on page, or via link to your pixels store where only your work is shown.
EXCEPT for the little fact that when someone does a search on 'your' pixel site, the results come from the entire FAA collection, so any users you may attract are soon lured away
No it doesn't. That happens only on your FAA profile page. On your personal pixels.com site only your work shows up and nothing else.
I was 100% sure in this but I just checked again. Only your work shows up and its a huge +
It's happened in the past. Then a bunch of users complained on the forum there, and eventually it was fixed. I think this happened more than once.
I've been selling there for years, usually a few a month.
Really strange, Im there from 2013. and somehow it never happened to me, and Im on my account almost on daily basis so I would probably have noticed. That not happening is one of the main reasons i use FAA at first place because than the personal store would lose its purpose.
102
« on: September 24, 2020, 21:49 »
One of the things that makes FAA convenient is that you get your personal pixels.ccom site which is basically FAA store clone which you can use as a store implemented in your personal website or by app on page, or via link to your pixels store where only your work is shown.
EXCEPT for the little fact that when someone does a search on 'your' pixel site, the results come from the entire FAA collection, so any users you may attract are soon lured away
No it doesn't. That happens only on your FAA profile page. On your personal pixels.com site only your work shows up and nothing else.
I was 100% sure in this but I just checked again. Only your work shows up and its a huge +
correct - when someone comes to your page only your work is shown but , as i sad, do a SEARCH from the top of your page and the user sees work from everyone
Again...as I said...no it doesn't  . There is no way that someone using top search on MY pixels.com page get any art that is not mine and that I haven't uploaded there. I dont know if it happens with free option or when your subscription expires, but at this point there is no way that it happens. You are probably talking about pixel.com main page profiles and not about personal pages which act as private stores. On any personal page you can just search trough that persons art, and any search on that private store cannot take you away besides two little links to FAA and pixels.com at the bottom of the footer. You can even assign a custom domain yourname.com to it if you want. Here is an example of a nice little pixels.com shop i just googled so feel free to test the search and you an see for yourself that you can browse just trough his artwork and nothing else. https://guido-borelli.pixels.com/
103
« on: September 24, 2020, 15:13 »
One of the things that makes FAA convenient is that you get your personal pixels.ccom site which is basically FAA store clone which you can use as a store implemented in your personal website or by app on page, or via link to your pixels store where only your work is shown.
EXCEPT for the little fact that when someone does a search on 'your' pixel site, the results come from the entire FAA collection, so any users you may attract are soon lured away
No it doesn't. That happens only on your FAA profile page. On your personal pixels.com site only your work shows up and nothing else. I was 100% sure in this but I just checked again. Only your work shows up and its a huge +
104
« on: September 22, 2020, 14:14 »
OK...MSG account closed, Im done. be well.BTW. I don't get 10 cents. got a raise today from SS.
Im sorry things got a bit hot and that you decided to leave and I can just wish you the best.
105
« on: September 22, 2020, 13:43 »
I sell Framed Prints.....For a Lot of Money. I want the best I can get.
So do I...and Im not complaining either. If it works for your customers?....Great. I Custom mount and frame My Prints also.
It obviously does because they keep coming back. FAA offers nice selection of 100+ pretty quality frames that buyers can select on the spot without need that I loose my time discussing that with them. I tested many, many Printers. I rated FAA a 4. I use "NASH EDITIONS" Graham Nash from Crosby,Stills and Nash His company is #1. My clients and where I show. demands the Best I can get...Ya just want a fairly good Print. go to Costco.
As I focus on large prints where FAA can deliver 108" and as I see Nash Editions can do up to 60" that's a huge point for FAA which in my case nullifies slight difference in colors which most of the buyers wont even notice even if you point that out to them. I need color matched Archival work and I need Proofing.I also do the signed archival matts and build My frames
I need a place with good quality products, low expenses in terms of material, printing, packing and shipping costs where I can showcase and sell my prints to buyers who are happy with my art to the level that they keep coming back and recommend my work to their friends. FAA does exactly that. I've been Printing My work over 50 Years......
Good for you, I'm doing it for 20 and Im not planning to stop. And BTW.....I just got a Large raise at SS.
Why? Don't know......Don't Care.
And what . does this mean. Microstock is Only one Outlet man. and Im doing stock a Lot longer than SS has been around and Longer than the Internet.
I agree, don't know....don't care. But if I have to guess, probably they don't want to get rid of the only living photographer who witnessed and is in possession of original negatives of the Big Bang or the moment Eve decided to take the apple from that snake.
"Same as on microstock sites and you still decided to sell there."
This Place is getting real Boring.
When you call out and insult other artist that they have to be embarrassed to sell among "idiots" on FAA and you should at least expect a remark on your SS work. I mean the man, the myth, the legend putting his work for sale at 10cents among amateur snapshots of smiley faces finger drawn in minced meat, something doesn't hold water. I mean I would expect such move from myself who don't care about color matched Archival work and and who doesn't need Proofing or buildin my own frames...but from you, never. The only thing boring here is when one reads your post about being there from stone age for the 3765234576889787. time as an argument in serious conversation.
106
« on: September 21, 2020, 18:26 »
Im sorry But after 25 years Plus selling Online I would never....."EVER" recommend FAA to sell anything Original I created. The Place is filled with IE...Idiots who see a Lennon Photo taken Before they were Born...Run it through a stupid filter and sell it as their "ART" Im sorry. That is not their art. I tried with my work when they started then bailed Out right away.
Sites Like this are nothing but an embarrassment. One of many guys.
Build your own site and do the promotion work. Thats what it takes.
WWW.Rinderart.com I sell a whole Lot of stuff to be used in TV shows ETC.....and I have contracts ready to be signed. Will Smiths daughter was My last Customer. She Paid $400.00 for the use of a Image.
Suggest Most of you get you heads out of Penny stock. It's over.Sorry.And been Over quite awhile if this is your Profession.
maybe, Just maybe there better at this now. Build a site and Promote it.Still the best way. but, It's a job.
https://www.microstockgroup.com/product-resale-forum/my-fine-art-america-account-is-closed/
Maybe FAA is better now. don't know.....Don't care.
Sure, there are idiots everywhere but there are also a lot of great artists there who don't have anything to be embarrassed from. Same as on microstock sites and you still decided to sell there. One of the things that makes FAA convenient is that you get your personal pixels.ccom site which is basically FAA store clone which you can use as a store implemented in your personal website or by app on page, or via link to your pixels store where only your work is shown. Extremely useful especially for reducing shipping costs because they have like 10 or so print facilities around the world and they ship from buyers nearest location. Not even to mention that everything is automated so you don't have to do anything. Some say that their base print price is high, but comparing to small place where I live I save a lot even on that + shipping costs + time not invested on printing packing and + occasional sales from FAA main page trough search engine. So It works well for me.
107
« on: September 21, 2020, 18:10 »
Just a tip for those who plan to sell based just on their search engine:
Lets say you are selling landscapes. If Im not mistaken their pages show 35 pages of results and about 70 or so images per page so only 2450 images altogether are shown in the search.
So, there are cca 2,5M images results for landscape of which 2 497 550 don't even show in the search.
Same goes even for long-tail keywords if the words are popular.
Basically if you want to sell there on constant basis you have to build your marketing system and actively promote your work or have a specialized niche with low competition. Sure, occasional sales are happening but most people who do really well there say that they spend way more time on promoting than on creating art.
108
« on: September 17, 2020, 17:22 »
Is anyone having a problem uploading to Fine Arts America? Also I am seeing missing letters all over the portfolio page. Thanks.
I wasnt uploading there for a while but If you are using their batch uploader, that thing is pretty much always buggy so I stick with single image upload.
109
« on: August 18, 2020, 17:25 »
I wonder If they could pull out paying 5 or even 1 cent per download in the future. Actually I even hope they will try. To charge hosting to contributors is also an idea worth considering. There is space for huge discounts plans for those who sell a lot.
110
« on: August 06, 2020, 19:27 »
Congrats
My grandma also won a 1 million customer award once so I know how it feels. She got a little cooking book and 30% discount coupon, and they sent her the photo with the interview for their newsletter. It's still in credenza.
111
« on: July 23, 2020, 15:31 »
What is the final goal of the protest?
How realistic are all these energy and time consuming actions?
What is the final SS goal of fighting the protest with irrelevant trolls? How realistic are all these energy and time consuming actions?
112
« on: July 20, 2020, 06:28 »
All content should have a Covid-19 filter on it...meaning, life as usual but with the new reality we all see every day...people wearing masks, social distancing, etc.
https://www.crowdcast.io/mhayward2909
I wish you all the best of luck!
Mat Hayward
Isn't that faking reality then ?
113
« on: July 05, 2020, 11:43 »
If this is really happening ( my portfolio is deactivated so I dont have that experience) ther real problem can be something else.
What if someone has strategy that he sells rejected images at SS, at some other agency as exclusive content. That can get him in legal trouble and SS would be clearly responsible for that.
114
« on: July 03, 2020, 19:02 »
So far I am better off with the new price structure of SS, in spite of many 10 to 17 cent sales.
Why should I boycot SS or even close my account? Why not accepting the 10 cent sales? I do, and I dont care what will happen next year, because nobody can forsee the future.
If you are single I seriously recommend @stockphotofan1 on Twitter. You can live happily ever after taking snapshots of lampposts, pigeons and crosswalks on the way to the store.
115
« on: July 01, 2020, 19:10 »
Everyone is in the same boat. Nobody can do without the money, but Shutterstock is pulling the whole industry down. It's imperative, especially for video, that we get our files onto Pond5 and off SS.
Pond5 is a major player in video licensing. If you go exclusive, they get your files back onto Adobe and onto Vimeo stock. You get 60% of revenue. If you do the maths, you realise that you don't lose much from an Adobe perspective. It's earnings comparable.
Quite simply no its not. P5 does not sell as much full stop.
Most of us ALREADY have our all files on P5 and have done for many years. non exclusive we get 40% not 60% but that in no way makes up for the low sales.
You don't have to believe me, look at the monthly survey graph on this very site - P5 is one of those tiny lines right down the bottom amongst such giants as DT and 123RF in terms of earnings.
The P5 forum isnt exactly full of people praising how well sales have taken off and how well exclusive is doing for them either.
If a site by volume sells only about 10% per month vs another site than a 60 to 40% difference in commission is negligible and makes almost zero difference to the final totals.
The maths for me (and looking at the graphs, others) is very simply. Pulling videos off SS and AS to go P5 only will lose us many hundreds of dollars per month in lost revenue. Thats the brutal reality here.
So you're telling me it's much better to keep supporting SS and kill the whole industry because other agencies will have to follow, make a few hundred bucks the next couple of months until it gets
Im not convinced you reside in the real world. You havent explained how if, having guaranteed $0.00 income from Shutterstock you're supposed to buy anything with that? Are there landlords im unaware of that accept principle in lieu of rent money? Do supermarkets have an option to pay with good will instead of money?
If you pull a portfolio you are guaranteeing an in come of 0. Nothing. No money. No payout. Nothing goes into the bank.
If you're also deluded enough to think SS will care (or even notice) an absolutely miniscule number of contributors pulling an utterly insignificant amount of media off the site then by all means go ahead. The problem is you think you matter or are somehow important to them. You're not. None of us are. You can do all you want but it isnt going to change their policy which has been costed, planned and modelled.
So its your choice whether you want to accept a guarantee of no money and buy food with it or settle for a not-ideal but some money instead.
But to think anything will change due to actions is utterly deluded.
You can not be more wrong. First, if mankind destroy all rain forests, nature will not destroy mankind. Mankind is going to destroy mankind. Same goes for SS. Contributors wont destroy SS. SS is gonna destroy itself. Some contributors leaving is just a scene by the road you see on the side window speeding on the road to destruction. You dont see happy contributors giving their best on that road for sure.
116
« on: June 27, 2020, 22:56 »
I'm surprised this "start a new agency" nonsense is still on. As others pointed out many times, it's a totally hopeless undertaking. Unless you're backed by investors willing to poor a few million $ into your business, you don't stand a chance. It's not even worth talking about. It's just hot air. If you have time to kill and some money to burn, i'm sure you can find more profitable niches. This one is dead.
Well I see that you started to build your portfolio pretty much a year ago or so. When I started with this i uploaded two photos one evening just to see the process. In the morning I had like 15 sales. 11 on one photo and 4 on second one. By the end of the month I was over 200$ or so. Anyway... Looking from that perspective you jumped into a niche that was long time dead and you started burning your time for pennies. And still people answered you when you joined the forum and they didn't tell you stuff like forget it , you cant make it now and it has been pointed many times that you shouldn't even start, out best earners are old images that are holding positions for years, new stuff dont sell etc. If you dont have something positive to help avoid throwing negativism which was as you say pointed many times. He knows that and he doesn't need to hear that. Every huge success story was almost impossible in the beginning and there is for sure a scenario where he can succeed. No one ever succeeded without believing. The chances are not great but they exist for sure.
117
« on: June 26, 2020, 21:59 »
Which would mean that the direction to go would in general be joining portfolios and negotiating terms and accepting more and more people to join on the way. The bigger we get the better the deal at the end and more people would want to join if for nothing to get better terms.
And then in one moment in future maybe we would have a collection that would work as an agency on its own.
118
« on: June 26, 2020, 06:53 »
You really have to look at the broader picture:
There is a huge number of contributors on Shutterstock from poor / developing countries. Salaries there are miserable. For example, hundreds of thousands people in the Balkans have monthly salaries of just 160 to 220 $ per month after taxes (full time work, often including Saturdays).
All those people will never deactivate their portfolios, no matter how low the earnings become.
Where exactly in the balkans? Cause only my internet phone and cable TV bill here is like 3/4 of that price. You can not rent a parking spot in the center for less than 250$ a month. With less than 800-1000$ a month you can live in garage on bread and butter and under 1200 you are living as seriously poor saving on basic needs like food. Yes there are people living from 200$ but so there are also in US for example, living under the bridge or something. BTW I deactivated my portfolio among first same day they made changes so your points dont stand and you can not generalize people. I see a guy from states with crappy portfolio of 25000, defending SS all around the place and Russians with huge and amazing portfolio deactivating them.
119
« on: June 25, 2020, 16:03 »
With those replays he is just showing that he is definitely loosing it and that the pressure we put is definitely worth it.
120
« on: June 24, 2020, 21:37 »
121
« on: June 24, 2020, 21:31 »
Someone at Stock Submitter Coalition captured the tweet below before it was deleted. It's a chilling reminder of what we are. We are the slaves, and we should keep working no matter what the pay is. I'm no Communist, but this is the very reason why Karl Marx published Das Kapital back in 1867. We are back in the same situation as industrial workers of the 19th Century together with Uber drivers and other participants of the growing gig economy.
Please stop comparing contributors to slaves. We are free, slaves are not. And they do not get any pay at all.
Slaves are given food and place to sleep, so they are paid. Slaves can go from point a (place to sleep) to point b (place to work), so they are free. We just have an illusion of freedom.
tell that to any REAL slave!!!! while, in the ancient world, slavery was different (eg, in Rome, slaves could earn money and eventually buy their freedom) - 'modern' colonial/capitalist slavery is a crime against humanity and here in the US we're still dealing with the evils of slavery over 150 yrs after the 13th amendment abolished slavery
Same thing just the boss has a bigger land today so some get false sense of freedom. If you kid was sick at that time you might been lucky and the lord would pay a doctor at list for his future profit, or at least say NO in your face. Today you get an automated reply from a robot. Same thing going on just a bit more sophisticated.
122
« on: June 21, 2020, 19:06 »
Not surprising, but you can't post a link to the Inside Imaging article on Instagram either (I tried this morning).
The general "problem" message didn't explain, but I was able to post the same text and a link to the Coalition press release without a problem.
I'd suggest posting links to the Coalition press release with text explaining Facebook's totally inexplicable & unjustified ban.
The explanation we received from the Facebook employee who doesn't work in that department, but was trying to explain that Facebook wasn't "evil" as the public & media think it is  goes something like this
Mentioning "boycott" was the trigger and it was probably an automated process that took the link down - except that the word boycott isn't anywhere in the article
Once the article has been flagged (and removed from everywhere that linked to it), only the person who originally posted the link can "protest" the ban and request a review. So I have no idea who the original poster was, and regardless of how much information I might have about how wrong and unjustified the "ban" is, I can't do anything to formally appeal to Facebook.
Seems to me that in addition to doing diddly squat to deal with serious problems they have on their site with hate speech and misinformation, Facebook has set up a "star chamber" to allow large companies to silence critics.
And I'm sure the more money you spend on Facebook ads, the more your opinion counts.
They really are tossers.
The link states content is flagged abusive. I know for fact FB will disable content if enough people flag it so thats also what might have happened. What do you think about playing their game then ? 1) We have the numbers, so we are in advantage in flagging and it works both ways so their content is not flag proof. 2) Then we write a nice little article which doesn't violate anything and use FB paid marketing to promote it aiming at their buyers. Targeting those who liked SS we are targeting nice amount of their buyers but also contributors reach is not worthless. And its extremely cheap and effective way to hit where it hurts. If each would donate just 1 dollar we would have few grands. If they flag it we just run the add from next page. There are cca 5000 people in that group with FB accounts.
123
« on: June 19, 2020, 10:54 »
If we would just use SS to sell our work we would be able to determine the prices of our work and yet the prices are determined by SS so they are clearly in charge here setting standards and defining rules.
Some agencies let you fix your selling price (I don't remember which ones) so you should choose one of these instead of suing SS.
The nature of your answer shows that you dont understand the concept Im talking about. The one that is potentially suing here doesn't even contribute to stock agency and doesnt even want to. He is selling his work alone, he is on minimal wage and he cannot compete in his industry cause his competition is ready to work under minimal wage and microstock platforms with royalties so low allows them that and he can prove it with numbers.
124
« on: June 19, 2020, 10:49 »
To sue you would have to show damages. SS gave you fair warning they were dropping payment to you the seller . Yes they drooped payment to almost zero. No one forced you to stay and get almost no money. I see no damages. I do see a company that is bad...but no damages.
What about people working for SS being payed under minimal hour wage and SS selling their work in your market?
Do you see the damage now ?
If you are talking about us the contributors, we are not working for SS, we are working for us and using SS service to sell our work. Minimal hour wage has nothing to do here.
I say it does.
If we would just use SS to sell our work we would be able to determine the prices of our work and yet the prices are determined by SS so they are clearly in charge here setting standards and defining rules.
One can then more accurately say that SS is running a platform in which instead of employees they are using freelancers for their main product production which they pay in royalties in a way that freelancers are potentially earning less than minimal hourly wage which makes clear damage for regular image creating employees and other companies in the industry.
If someone in NY wants employ people in the same niche and compete with SS he stand against unfair competition in which SS (or similar paying agencies) product providers potentially work for less than minimal wage.
If that someone can prove that, he clearly has a legal case. And that one has all parameters to calculate that beside how many images can an average contributor produce, process, keyword, upload and categorize in an hour so I guess an union can be used to legally determine that standard.
Also you say you sell your work at SS. Even so, you can not legally offer your work under minimal wage. Again someone just has to prove you are not able to earn minimal wage at your work time and you are undercutting real worker illegally. Not only SS. You directly.
That is the law in almost every country that has minimal wage.
In the US, you have no case. There are plenty of prior decisions about mis-classifying as independent contractors workers who in essence are employees
That is not us. Shutterstock does not control when or how we do our work, or even if we do any work in a given week or month.
I can't speak for law elsewhere, but there is no case to bring in the US, so you don't even get to damages issues
Im not questioning the status of a contributor here. I say that SS control the price and its theoretically possible to prove that that in certain amount of time an average photographer can not produce enough photos to earn minimal hourly wage in the industry with such low royalties. So SS is offering a platform that is used to offer products that regular photographer employee on minimal wage can not compete with.
125
« on: June 19, 2020, 09:38 »
To sue you would have to show damages. SS gave you fair warning they were dropping payment to you the seller . Yes they drooped payment to almost zero. No one forced you to stay and get almost no money. I see no damages. I do see a company that is bad...but no damages.
What about people working for SS being payed under minimal hour wage and SS selling their work in your market?
Do you see the damage now ?
If you are talking about us the contributors, we are not working for SS, we are working for us and using SS service to sell our work. Minimal hour wage has nothing to do here.
I say it does. If we would just use SS to sell our work we would be able to determine the prices of our work and yet the prices are determined by SS so they are clearly in charge here setting standards and defining rules. One can then more accurately say that SS is running a platform in which instead of employees they are using freelancers for their main product production which they pay in royalties in a way that freelancers are potentially earning less than minimal hourly wage which makes clear damage for regular image creating employees and other companies in the industry. If someone in NY wants employ people in the same niche and compete with SS he stand against unfair competition in which SS (or similar paying agencies) product providers potentially work for less than minimal wage. If that someone can prove that, he clearly has a legal case. And that one has all parameters to calculate that beside how many images can an average contributor produce, process, keyword, upload and categorize in an hour so I guess an union can be used to legally determine that standard. Also you say you sell your work at SS. Even so, you can not legally offer your work under minimal wage. Again someone just has to prove you are not able to earn minimal wage at your work time and you are undercutting real worker illegally. Not only SS. You directly. That is the law in almost every country that has minimal wage.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
