If they were truly contributor friendly they would let me take my $13 and close my account. I don't regard establishing the first streaming service in Microstock as being remotely contributor friendly.

Yep, I'm fairly sure Yay's business plan is predicated on never enabling anyone to make payout - ever. That way they keep 100% of not so much and we get nothing.

What reason did your insurance company find to refuse you cover..?

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on December 18, 2014, 20:14

Quote from: tickstock on December 18, 2014, 19:59

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on December 18, 2014, 19:48

Quote from: tickstock on December 18, 2014, 19:45

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on December 18, 2014, 19:43
OFFSET is 30% royalty

Ok so that is worse for contributors than Getty RM.

But at least prices are fixed at OFFSET. I removed everything from Getty because many sales to high value clients were comparable to Microstock.

I guess that's because of the difference between RM and RF.   I know on Alamy I've had some RM sales that recurred whereas if they were sold as RF I would only have had one sale.

I don't follow. Why would they only make one sale as RF..??

Edit: Multiple sales to the same client, of course. Doh..!

Quote from: tickstock on December 18, 2014, 19:59

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on December 18, 2014, 19:48

Quote from: tickstock on December 18, 2014, 19:45

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on December 18, 2014, 19:43
OFFSET is 30% royalty

Ok so that is worse for contributors than Getty RM.

But at least prices are fixed at OFFSET. I removed everything from Getty because many sales to high value clients were comparable to Microstock.

I guess that's because of the difference between RM and RF.   I know on Alamy I've had some RM sales that recurred whereas if they were sold as RF I would only have had one sale.

I don't follow. Why would they only make one sale as RF..??

Quote from: tickstock on December 18, 2014, 19:45

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on December 18, 2014, 19:43
OFFSET is 30% royalty

Ok so that is worse for contributors than Getty RM.

But at least prices are fixed at OFFSET. I removed everything from Getty because many sales to high value clients were comparable to Microstock.

Quote from: tickstock on December 18, 2014, 19:35

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on December 18, 2014, 19:16
There's a lot of truth in that. I suspect Stocksy is taking a lot of business from Getty. But as Getty pays an unfair royalty rate I have no sympathy...

I doubt Stocksy is taking too much business, they are pretty small relatively.  If they can put upward pressure on royalty rates that would be great but at the same time Shutterstock's Offset pays a lower royalty rate (Getty RM is 30-40% depending on the type of file and where it's sold while Offset is about 30%).  Last I saw SS said it pays about the same at Offset as the overall rate which, depending on which exec or which day is 27-30%, does anyone know what the royalty rate is at Offset or is it variable depending on the contributor?

OFFSET is 30% royalty

There's a lot of truth in that. I suspect Stocksy is taking a lot of business from Getty. But as Getty pays an unfair royalty rate I have no sympathy...

More agencies will emerge to challenge Stocksy and OFFSET providing higher-end RF imagery at Macro(ish) prices. More and more high end shooters will abandon the Micros as royalties become increasingly unsustainable - clients will follow them.

Please let this come to fruition....

Quote from: Cesar on December 11, 2014, 21:51
fotolia is not worth 80 mil,.... overpriced deal
[/quot

deleted

I wonder what happens to DPC now. Will DPC be part of the deal - or could it go as a separate enterprise...?

it's better to upload without blur and noise.

Quote from: Mantis on November 25, 2014, 14:37
DPC = BIG FAIL!!!

For whom..?

I really look forward to these Stock Performer interviews. Thanks for doing them.

Does anyone have any feedback on this App..? I'm currently using Microstockr - but the range of agencies on this app (including Stocksy) is a real appeal.

Quote from: sketchyt on November 07, 2014, 01:17
I'm there with you! I  put my application in on July 13th so next week will hit the 4 month mark for me.

If I don't get in, I'm not going through this again the next time around. I just made the featured photographer list on Aurora and my images regularly sell on Offset. I have a very large portfolio of images I shot this summer waiting to go somewhere. I just haven't decided where I want to put them........

Could you tell us a little more about your experience with OFFSET? I was accepted a while ago but haven't had time to produce any work for them - coupled to the fact that I don't know anyone who has been accepted and is doing well there. Any information would be gratefully received.

Income at Getty gets worse and worse every month. Once upon a time a Getty statement was like Christmas every month. These days I barely bother to look at my Getty statement, it's that bad.

Yes, I got an acceptance email for some images that had been sent maybe 6 weeks previously - and which had already been accepted and were online. Something is out of kilter over at DP.

Quote from: Maximilian on October 08, 2014, 19:09
second day and already 120% than regular ($). wow

Sshhhhh, or you'll trigger a Recoupment.

Thanks, Scott. Always appreciate your input here.

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 06, 2014, 17:15

Quote from: ShadySue on October 06, 2014, 16:09

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on October 06, 2014, 15:53

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 06, 2014, 15:49

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on October 06, 2014, 14:59
Forgive me my ignorance. Why would a Pharma company - or any other company for that matter - elect to pay $400 for an image that is available to them as part of a sub package for pennies?

There are a variety of reasons. Which is why many ad agencies use Getty, for example, but not iStock. They want to be able to negotiate terms of usage.

I understand entirely why an organisation would pay top dollar for a RM image. I don't understand why said organisation would license an RF image on a Microstock agency for $400 when the same image is available for pennies.

And to any Tom, Dick or Harry who chooses it.

From my understanding, it's a legal issue. But I'm not an art buyer, so I don't know all the ins and outs. Also, ad agencies want access to unwatermarked images for comps, and I believe they pay more for that access at Shutterstock. They also get them from Getty but not iStock. Keep in mind a $400 image is a huge bargain for big corporations. And before someone says why don't ad agencies just buy a subscription for unwatermarked images, I'll answer in advance that they don't pay for images themselves; their clients pay once the image is approved.

I'm sorry - but this doesn't go any way to explaining why a buyer would volunteer to pay $400 for an image that is available for pennies. I say this as someone who sells many, many licenses way in excess of $400 - just not on SS.

Quote from: pancaketom on October 06, 2014, 16:11
So if these high $ uses on SS are for sensitive use (even when they are mostly not actually sensitive uses) it sounds like what I need to do is deactivate all the images with kids and models that I am not willing to sell for sensitive uses and activate that for my port. Certainly a small percentage of high $ sales would make a big difference in the total $ earned.

Shame SS is unwilling or unable to allow opt out by image or model release.

$400 licenses are like unicorns in my portfolio - and I have my port opted in for sensitive use. I wonder what the percentage of these licenses are sold at SS. Certainly, for me - they are simply bait. Nothing but pots at the end of the rainbow...

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 06, 2014, 15:49

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on October 06, 2014, 14:59
Forgive me my ignorance. Why would a Pharma company - or any other company for that matter - elect to pay $400 for an image that is available to them as part of a sub package for pennies?

There are a variety of reasons. Which is why many ad agencies use Getty, for example, but not iStock. They want to be able to negotiate terms of usage.

I understand entirely why an organisation would pay top dollar for a RM image. I don't understand why said organisation would license an RF image on a Microstock agency for $400 when the same image is available for pennies. 

Ha ha ha ha

Forgive me my ignorance. Why would a Pharma company - or any other company for that matter - elect to pay $400 for an image that is available to them as part of a sub package for pennies?