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 - leaf
Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 ... 390
1126
« on: February 18, 2013, 17:51 »
Thanks for the honest update Dan. Microstock is certainly a crowded marketplace .. even those with millions in backing have a very hard time breaking any ground. It's going to be very interesting to see how stocksy fares.
1127
« on: February 18, 2013, 17:01 »
"Does your home insurance cover your camera equipment if they are used for business purposes? most insurance plans don't."
Yes, I had them write (cannot remember the legal term) an additional part to the policy. I will look thru my policy and scan it for you Leaf...
Tom
No, that's fine. I'll double check my home insurance to see if I can get something added instead of a separate insurance. I believe last time I tried I wasn't able to but it is worth checking agian.
1128
« on: February 18, 2013, 15:34 »
thru my home insurance- not too much per year to cover all things in the event of being stolen or fire. About $200 to cover about 25K in equipment. No deductible on the camera stuff. But I don't have insurance if I drop it. I feel the odds are higher of someone breaking into my house and stealing my equipment are higher than me dropping my stuff.
Does your home insurance cover your camera equipment if they are used for business purposes? most insurance plans don't.
1129
« on: February 18, 2013, 14:31 »
$531 - $600 sounds reasonable for equipment and $1 million in liability. Does that include Errors and Omission coverage? Do they charge extra for property rental owner (additional insured) certificates?
$531 is reasonable for how much equipment? It isn't reasonable for $5000 in equipment for example. The cost of insurance is rather dependent on the amount being insured.
1130
« on: February 18, 2013, 10:28 »
I pay $600 or so, and that includes the liability and all that.
I pay another $475 for liability... sigh. Sounds like you have a good deal. How much is insured and what is your deductible (if you are willing to say)?
1131
« on: February 18, 2013, 09:34 »
Currently I have insurance on my equipment, but every year when the premium is due I reconsider whether it is really worthwhile. Currently I'm paying $1,526 on $40,000 of equipment (3.8%) with a $1,200 deductable. The insurance is a dummy insurance so it covers everything, even if I were to drop it on a concrete floor. The problem is, for most small accidents the damage isn't going to be over $1,200. My 70-200 f/2.8 dropped out of my backpack on concrete once and I sent it to repair and the cost was $500 or so... so insurance didn't help.
I feel the only time I'd really find the insurance useful is if my entire gear bag was stolen while shooting or someone came into my house and took all my gear. In those cases insurance would be very nice but I've also heard that if you can afford to replace something, insurance probably isn't worth it. It would certainly hurt but I could probably afford to replace most of my equipment if I had to.
Thoughts? Do you have equipment insurance? How much are you paying?
1132
« on: February 18, 2013, 04:37 »
I know on another site Captcha is a pain. But here - THREE QUESTIONS TO ANSWER - just to post a comment? The world has gone mad..... 
Well, in fairness, there is no captcha to log in and once you are logged in you can stay logged in for basically forever. The three questions are there only when you register and help keep spam bots out... something I think a lot of people appreciate.
1133
« on: February 16, 2013, 18:33 »
I had to change my answer. I now save files at Q12. not because I can see a difference but because there is no reason not to.
1134
« on: February 16, 2013, 16:17 »
I'm pumped about stocksy (amongst other reasons) because it is a co-op. To me, that is huge and very exciting. People have talked on here many many times about starting a co-op, now someone has finally had the ambition to do something about it.. and really, it was the perfect person / group of people to do so.
1135
« on: February 15, 2013, 08:54 »
They rejected what has turned out to be my best seller. Maye resubmit (what do you think?).
it all depends on what said image looks like and why they rejected it.
1136
« on: February 15, 2013, 04:51 »
It's looking great.
1137
« on: February 14, 2013, 17:03 »
A few posts were removed talking negatively about members on another forum. It is not Ok to trash talk photographers on another forum, just as it is not ok to trash talk members on this board.... even if they don't like microstock
1138
« on: February 14, 2013, 16:47 »
welcome here.
1139
« on: February 14, 2013, 05:56 »
They don't really give any tips or anything, more of just watching Jaimie and David in action. I always liked Jaime Oliver's style and the photography is real and unstaged. A fun little vid.
1140
« on: February 13, 2013, 17:59 »
there is something that I do not understand...  There are 204 people who are working full time in this industry (about 29%), but only 7% said that microstock are the primary source of income...
I don't understand it either  I'll have to see if I can figure out how that 'happened' when I look closer at the numbers next week.
1141
« on: February 13, 2013, 15:34 »
Wow, old post. 
The oldest file in my latest batch to be accepted was submitted two weeks prior.
i know is an old topic... but I believe that it is not necessary to open a new topic for this issue.
I agree, it isn't always necessary to start a new thread all the time when the subject is identical. Fun to see some old faces in the posts from 2007. Including Mr. Strathdee who has since past away http://www.microstockgroup.com/off-topic/stephen-strathdee-aka-sharply_done-rip/
1142
« on: February 13, 2013, 14:43 »
I changed the language file to make 'Products' into extended license, then priced it as I saw fit. That puts the extended licenses on a separate tab. The problem with this solution is the digital file has to be created manually when they purchase. I think in the latest version of the software they had an extended license solution but I haven't looked at it yet. my site: http://www.realstockphotos.com
1143
« on: February 13, 2013, 14:38 »
Leaf, to be sure I'm understand the meaning of the exclusive number (currently 222.1), it is still in a score of 100 = $500 a month?
This means that the score 222.1 = 500 x 2.221 = $1,110.50 reported average income for an exclusive Istocker?
If so then the reported combined non-exclusive total (all the poll results with a number total excluding the exclusive Istock number) is 259.4 which = 500 x 2.594 = $1,297 reported average income for an independent?
correct. It is a very broad average though. The top limit of $2500 probably limits a lot of people, both on Shutterstock and for iStock exclusives (perhaps Fotolia as well for some). Right now it looks like independents are earning a bit more, but in terms of how accurate the poll results are, they are essentially identical. The poll is just meant to give a rough guide as to how the agencies stack up against each other. The yearly microstock survey will give a better idea of how exclusive/non-exclusive compare.
1144
« on: February 13, 2013, 14:33 »
Ok, enough of that. Two members were banned, you can guess who.
1145
« on: February 13, 2013, 09:16 »
You could still add up the individual poll result for each contributor and get a rating for the overall income. Would still help put things in perspective about indie total vs exclusive ratings.
Or just total up the Agency figures showing up on the left (including iStock indy) and put a category at the top 'Agencies combined' with it's earning rating - treat the total like a separate Agency. Simples :-)
Yeah, that seems like a good solution.
1146
« on: February 13, 2013, 09:16 »
Maybe include Decembers GI sales in the poll for January since we recieve it Jan? I know thats a bit skewed but it makes sense to include GI sales since it can be significant portion of income even if it is quite irregular.
yeah that's what I do. Any money I get in January (no matter when the sale actually happened or which partner program it came from) I consider January income. You can always get to the poll with the link at the top. Polls > Submit Vote @Sean.. well now that you're 'free' you may find the polls a little more useful than you used to.
1147
« on: February 13, 2013, 07:30 »
I dont see an option to submit istock exclusive poll results on the poll page. 
If you only fill in data for iStock the poll will assume you are exclusive.
1148
« on: February 13, 2013, 07:29 »
As far as I can work out the smaller number is for non exclusives, the higher for exclusives.
So the equivalent to the big number would be adding up all the sites you contribute to as an indie.
exactly
1149
« on: February 13, 2013, 04:03 »
Average earnings for exclusives vs. avg earnings for non-exclusives won't be posted next week. Just the raw data from the questions will be posted next week. In terms of earnings that will be everyone's average earnings, the median, lowest and highest.
It looks like exclusive earnings are now being posted in the poll, thanks for that update. Now that it's being shown maybe you should make the highest level $5000+.
Yeah, they are being shown there. It is a bit deceiving as now, at first glance, it looks like an exclusive makes 2-3x more than any non-exlcusive. You have to remember to add up all the non-exclusive amounts (shutterstock+istock+dreamstime+fotolia+...) to see how much the non-exclusive total is. It works out to be just a tad higher than the exclusive number... but pretty close to the same.
1150
« on: February 13, 2013, 03:38 »
I think it's quite curious that people are using this situation as proof for their 'pro macrostock' campaign and 'booo microstock'. What I find interesting is that it was the traditional stock company Getty who gave away all the images to Google to be given away for free and the traditional stock company again, who terminated a photographers contract with very little reasoning.
Personally, I think the whole argument of trad. stock vs microstock is ridiculous. There is only 'stock'. But if there has been any questionable actions as of late, they seem to be put in place by the trad. stock companies.
Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 ... 390
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|