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 - Gel-O Shooter
126
« on: March 18, 2014, 10:40 »
Thanks, dirkr. I finally got an answer from them saying 2-3 weeks. I guess they only answer sitemail and ignore the emails to the one on the invoice ( [email protected]).
127
« on: March 18, 2014, 10:12 »
I finally made 50 "credits" and converted them to paypal on March 5. The receipt on "my credits" page is still showing "pending" for the status. Was there something else I needed to do to get this transferred to paypal? I've sent them 2 emails (the first was 12 days ago), and they have yet to answer me.
128
« on: March 16, 2014, 10:46 »
Deactivated most of my files and will terminate my account when I reach $50.00.
129
« on: March 12, 2014, 10:19 »
If DP has been knowingly selling subs to be resold as credit sales....wouldn't that be a violation of our contract? I think a class-action lawsuit against these jerks might be a good lesson for all the agencies who seem to think THEY own OUR files and can do whatever they please with them.
130
« on: March 09, 2014, 21:47 »
Congrats, DP. I just deactivated most of my portfolio AND you just joined my "crapstock" folder. Basically, you only get SS rejects from now on. If you discontinue your questionable business practices (shotstop, etc), I may reconsider, but it may take "some time" before that happens.
131
« on: March 09, 2014, 11:01 »
Great article, Sean. This sentence sums it up for all the freebie hunters out there and should be put on every blogger's forum on the web.
"Basically, youve given up control to part of your blog to a company whos goal is to make as much money for themselves while sharing the least with the people that enable it to make that money." Sean Locke
Make it clear to them that it's not just the image creators that Getty is abusing, it's potentially ALL content creators. Why any blog writer would associate with Getty after seeing what they'll do to their own artists is beyond me.
132
« on: March 06, 2014, 16:42 »
So are the independent files in the main collection at IS included in this? (Do I need to start disabling files today or do I have a few months/weeks before they start giving mine away for free?)
133
« on: January 27, 2014, 18:13 »
When they call you to come back in a couple of months because he would rather be at the beach than working for free on weekends.....be sure and tell them that your rate has increased to $300.
134
« on: January 24, 2014, 11:59 »
Anyone else seeing this when they try to view their downloads for January? I know I have some because they are showing up on the earnings page (after the annoying captcha).
135
« on: January 20, 2014, 21:31 »
Christmas card? You got a Christmas card???
136
« on: January 19, 2014, 15:53 »
11. When you have so few sales that you don't bother to check your balances for 5 years and forget both your logins and passwords. (In my defense I only uploaded about 50)
137
« on: January 02, 2014, 09:33 »
"Was that for your test, or is that a new rejection reason? I thought the test on SS is 10 images. And what was on the images you submitted if you dont mind me asking?"
No, not a test. I've been submitting since 2004. We are in Florida for the winter, so my submissions were state park/nature scenes, and what I thought were some pretty good shots of oranges/citrus fruit on the tree. I was disappointed with the rejections of the fruit as I thought they were much better than the ones I did last winter and those have been good sellers all year.
No, I'm not going to post my rejects. My SS rejections are nearly 100% accepted on DT, 123, and DP, etc. I highly value my anonymity here and my ability to speak freely without repercussions from the agencies.
138
« on: January 01, 2014, 19:28 »
"We expect to see a greater variety of style and demonstration of skill for your submissions." That's a new one. 18/18 rejected. It's becoming increasingly obvious that submission to SS is a total waste of time as I am in no way near the same "style" and "skill" as Ansel Adams or Annie Liebovitz . But then again, if I were I would certainly "expect to see" greater compensation for my "skill" than 38 cents.
139
« on: November 29, 2013, 11:30 »
I got one of those $2.64 ELs yesterday too. I wish I had told them where to stick their "partner sales" before they screwed me over instead of afterward. Maybe if everybody on the forum with a DP account will contact them to disable this "feature" they will get the message. But I doubt it.
140
« on: November 18, 2013, 16:37 »
I wonder if the backlog of uploads (once they get it fixed) will make the inspectors more or less picky. My guess would be: mass reject button=backlog magically gone.
141
« on: September 26, 2013, 19:56 »
Dear IS, I don't really care how many tweets you twitter, or new logos you roll out, or even how many matches you "freshen" up. The fact remains that you have the stingiest royalty structure in the business and you will never get any more uploads from me until that changes. Sincerely, An X-Contributor
142
« on: July 31, 2013, 16:51 »
Thanks for posting. I thought it was just me. Of the last 50 I have submitted, SS accepted exactly 5. Same old lighting/composition thing. I'm not a newbie either....for the past 5 years my acceptance rate has always been at least 50-90% on everything I sent them. Seems like someone or someones high on the totem pole may have recently decided that 25 million is enough for now?
143
« on: July 09, 2013, 15:01 »
Truthfully....at this point I'm not nearly as worried about the WHEN I get my PP money as I am IF I get my PP money at all. Just remember who we're talking about folks...if there is a way they can keep that money for themselves without a class action lawsuit then does anybody really believe they won't?
144
« on: July 07, 2013, 17:33 »
They keep 85% of my sales, then try to hang on to my measly 15% as long as they possibly can? From now until they decide to pay independents a decent commission (like that will ever happen), they get nothing but my SS rejects. No quality control and 15% .....they are now my new recycle bin.
145
« on: June 24, 2013, 11:28 »
Don't those sites also install viruses on your computer when you download from them? I wouldn't risk it even if they had a program to make my computer cough quarters out of its USB ports. Gold nuggets....well, maybe.
146
« on: June 18, 2013, 11:53 »
I got a $23.75 this morning. And it was a ho-hum photo of a flower. Go figure.
147
« on: June 11, 2013, 17:28 »
"Food only has the one expression". Unless it was that Maine lobster I got a shot of right before I dropped it in the pot. I swear it looked appropriately terrified. Sorry, Vegans.
148
« on: May 31, 2013, 16:06 »
I love your cat. She would get treats instead of peanuts for being my model.
149
« on: May 31, 2013, 14:05 »
Thanks, st. With all the negatives now about microstock, it's encouraging to know that it can still be done.
150
« on: May 30, 2013, 12:17 »
I searched "landscapes". Weird crops of the main subject? Empty flat plain fields? Dark drab foggy landscapes? Am I missing something here??? There are tons of landscapes on SS that look way better to me than some of this stuff!
It reminds me of my kids' teenage "designer" phase, when they would pay $50 for a plain t-shirt as long as it had a certain label on it. Maybe I need a class in "photo appreciation" or something.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|