|
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 - Freedom
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 [47] 48
1151
« on: August 06, 2008, 15:41 »
Yep, around 400 images, almost dead, one DL in July. I opt out of subs.
1152
« on: August 06, 2008, 11:58 »
While I appreciate Steve's effort to communite, Bobby is right. Why do we need to pretend that subscription works in the contributor's favor?
1153
« on: August 05, 2008, 13:27 »
What is in the package for contributors?
1154
« on: August 05, 2008, 12:44 »
As some of you have pointed out above, the problem is the suscription model which was initiated by SS.
If we all opt out (I do!), the subscription model will not work. I like StockXpert but I also like to see some respect for the photographers. The trend of the industry has been that the agencies bestow our work as their charitable gift to the buyers.
1155
« on: July 10, 2008, 08:57 »
I don't see the point to badmouth Flickr users. Some are great photographers, better than us; some are not. But they didn't upload the photos to be in competition with us. They upload to share with the community and have fun. They didn't ask to join Getty or iStock.
What strikes me the most is how iStock's boss looks at iStock. Ok he was not very fair. But when you calm down, and think about it. What was he trying to say? As some people have already pointed out in iStock forum, when the inspection process focuses so much on the technical perfection, Getty is more interested in contents. While some of us can isolate a Christmas gift box with prefect pen tool and revel on it, the big ad drive had rather used (or stolen) a giggling little girl's image from a point-and-shoot. Why? Because it told the story of the moment - authenticity.
Is it something to think about?
1156
« on: July 09, 2008, 18:33 »
I am not surprised at what he said. The pasture is only greener on the other side. It certainly does not encourage me to go exclusive with IS. Look what Getty have to say about Istock contributors
"Getty also runs a site called iStockPhoto, where amateurs contribute photos that the company markets at lower rates. The photos on Flickr are of sufficent quality to demand higher prices, Mr. Klein said."
Also we make non-authentic photographs
We believe that Flickr will be an important addition to the mix that we have, said Jonathan Klein, co-founder and chief executive of Getty Images. Mr. Klein said Flickr photographers will increase the depth of Gettys catalog on certain subjects and certain regions of the world. And they will be bringing an element that professional photography often lacks, he said. Because the imagery is not shot for commercial services, there is more authenticity, Mr. Klein said. Advertisers are looking for authenticity
Ok then can I start sending all my snapshots again!?!
These two taken from the Istock forum here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=72812&page=3
1157
« on: July 02, 2008, 13:30 »
Just want to add, if a company applies artistic double standard and discriminatory practice towards a certain segment of its contributors, eventually it may hurt its credibility. Don't forget, many contributors are buyers or in the position to influence the buying decisions.
1158
« on: May 27, 2008, 23:23 »
Is it a joke or what?
Someone at StockXpert has been rejecting batches of photos for no reason at all "Rejected - [Thank you but we are not interested in this subject matter or situation]".
No similar photos in the batches. The batches contains model shots, landscapes, conceptual shots, wildlife, pets, etc., many of them have been accepted by other agencies and selling.
Is there a way to ask for a review of the decision? Does anyone have Steve's email?
I am sure it's not just me.
1159
« on: April 24, 2008, 15:03 »
To the credit of IS inspectors, they are more daring to accept more artistic and edgy photos while 123 reviewers tend to be more conservative to spot the trends and visions beyond the technicalities.
1160
« on: April 24, 2008, 13:00 »
I appreciate what you said. You are correct to point out that when some perceived "newbies" ask some simple questions in their attempt to figure out something, more "seasoned" photographers tend to, instead of addressing the issues, act in somewhat condescending or judgemental manners. It does look like a put-down and is not helpful. As I said before, I do have my own portfolio's previous performance for comparison. I also have the performance in other agencies for longer period for comparison. Perhaps my IS port lacks some images which sell betterin this particular season, or perhaps it is a small portfolio, please do not invalidate my experience and any other "newbies" because your experience is different. I didn't say what my normal average DLs were. I just said that I had almost no DLs in a five-day period, which was unusual for me. If you have better or worse DL rates, that's great, and that all I need to know.
However, that does not invalidate my comparison of my DLs of this month with those in the previous months.
If your level of comparisoon is that you got a download or "multiple" downloads on a day, then its too small.
When your numbers are small, it's too easy to see "trends" that aren't there, even when comparing month to month. If someone with a large number of sales per day sees them go up or down by 1 or 2, it's essentially a wash - they say things are the same. If someone with only 1 or 2 sales a day gets 2 or 4 sales (or 0 or 2), they see "sales doubled" or "sales tanked".
This isn't trying to put anyone down for having small portfolios or small numbers of sales, it's just that you can't really tell much about overall trends until the numbers get larger.
1161
« on: April 24, 2008, 10:50 »
That is very true. My portfolio cannot compare with what you have in yours because I am not even a year old with IS. However, that does not invalidate my comparison of my DLs of this month with those in the previous months. If your level of comparisoon is that you got a download or "multiple" downloads on a day, then its too small.
1162
« on: April 24, 2008, 00:32 »
I am not sure if my portfolio should be defined as "very small" but it managed to get daily and often multiple DLs in the past few months, except in the last few days after the annoucement of sub sales. Of course, it could be just me. How small is considered very small? Ok, ok, it was just me then. 
Probably I don't have good images for this season. What have you been selling?
Usually IS is my top performer, but this month, DT is doing better.
It also may have a lot to do with the size of your portfolio. Usually when someone says they've gone from "multiple downloads" to one or none, they have a very small batch of images to which they are referring.
A very small portfolio, unless it is tightly packed with very good sellers, is going to feel every slight shift more acutely than others who have spread out their earnings over many more images.
1163
« on: April 24, 2008, 00:28 »
Yesterday, I get 0.415 for 1 credit, today I got 0.50 for 1 credit. It looks like that the new price increase is taking effect.
Does anyone else notice that?
1164
« on: April 23, 2008, 14:28 »
I uploaded a few of RAW files as a result of the requests. But at least in one occasion, the buyer didn't purchase the additional format.
I will not upload RAW again because I realize that DT actually does not allow us to delete files, you can only disable the files. I had emailed the support regarding the deletion of certain files and never hear anything back from them.
1165
« on: April 23, 2008, 14:25 »
Ok, ok, it was just me then. Probably I don't have good images for this season. What have you been selling? Usually IS is my top performer, but this month, DT is doing better.
1166
« on: April 23, 2008, 12:08 »
It's quite possible. I usually get multiple DLs everyday but in the past 5 days, I only got 1 large DL.
Glad to hear that you are doing well. Thanks for the reply.
1167
« on: April 23, 2008, 11:27 »
Don't know if it is just me, but I don't have the regular amount of DLs since IS announced the subscriptions. Have the designers stopped downloading until the sub sales start?
1168
« on: April 23, 2008, 10:02 »
In the past year, it has never occurred to me that Fotolia management feels the needs to be reasonable and respectful to the majority of contributors. I don't waste much of my time there.
1169
« on: April 20, 2008, 11:46 »
Steve_oh said the best!
1170
« on: April 19, 2008, 20:26 »
My previous example was to illustrate that the copyright holder may not be the creator/photographer of the work. My point is exactly as Adelaide said, subscription sales make this kind of abuse a lot easier. The copyright right or proprietary right owners may not be the photographer. One simple example is where a studio owner hire photographers to shoot the photos, the studio owner is the copyright and proprietary owner, while the photographers are the employee and not the copyright holders, because they took the photos in the course of their employment.
I am not saying that guy was the legitimate owner. However, since DT has not taken down the photos, I wonder if there is a reason behind their inaction.
DT has not taken any action because they are off enjoying a lovely weekend. It says so right in the related post from an infringed user on their forum.
How does work for hire even apply here? The images were ripped from various users that can be verified as legitimate artists across different sites.
1171
« on: April 19, 2008, 17:34 »
The copyright right or proprietary right owners may not be the photographer. One simple example is where a studio owner hire photographers to shoot the photos, the studio owner is the copyright and proprietary owner, while the photographers are the employee and not the copyright holders, because they took the photos in the course of their employment. I am not saying that guy was the legitimate owner. However, since DT has not taken down the photos, I wonder if there is a reason behind their inaction. It all depends on the Terms of the individual site. In 99.5 % percent of cases, number one, as a contributor you must agree that it is your own original work being submmitted. Then as far as buyers (or subscription holders), there are usually resale and distribution clauses. For instance, you could not buy a group of 50 images, put them on a CD or in a zip file, and resell. Although I do believe this probably happens on EBay.
1172
« on: April 19, 2008, 11:17 »
Recently there are multiple discussions about stolen images at various sites.
If the guy bought the images from subscription sales, if the subscription user agreement in one of the sites allows the buyer to use the images anyway they like, does it make him a legitimate reseller of the "stolen images"?
1173
« on: April 13, 2008, 11:39 »
FT has more images than what I have with most other agencies, but the performance is very disappointing and rejections arbitrary to say the least. They tend to accept model and commercial shots and reject shots which are actually doing well with other sites for "types of photograph". As someone else said in the above, if they only reject our worst images, that would be totally acceptable. It also means that our sales should improve as we increase our portfolio. But this is not my experience. May I ask, how many images have you uploaded and aproved after V2?
1174
« on: April 12, 2008, 20:29 »
My sales have never returned to the level before V2.
Perhaps the unreasonable rejections have something to do with their confidence (or the lack of ) in finding buyers for us.
1175
« on: March 09, 2008, 03:03 »
Regardless of the merits of the OP's complaint, she has the right to discuss any of her concerns because this is a public forum. She is entitled to her freedom of speech as much as the reviewer's to defend the rejection. This discussion should not be moderated or silenced by anyone other than the owner of this website or the Big Brother (even the Big Brother has to be under the oversight of the congress, courts and people). I do not have any personal problems with LO. My position is a matter of principle. However, it does not look good if LO employees can't stay cool about criticism in an independent forum. Just want to add another perspective when I happen to see a post by the Content Development Director at IS, talking when he started as a newbie inspector: "After having been spanked pretty badly (it still hurts late at night at times), I got into a conversation with Bruce and here is the magic phrase that he served me back then: ''When in doubt in deciding on a borderline file, look for a major reason to approve not a minor one to reject.'' http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=413 Perhaps it's something to think about. By the way, I am not IS exclusive and still hate some of their rejections.
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 [47] 48
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
