|
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 - louoates
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 31
126
« on: July 18, 2011, 15:19 »
11 of my last 20 are credit sales. And nice big ones too as lots of my images have been downloaded 20+ and they're at or near top yield rates.
127
« on: July 16, 2011, 08:37 »
I think if someone could devise a truly universal keyword template every stock shooter could host, and share, their images with the search engine and the related download and e-commerce software.
128
« on: July 12, 2011, 11:38 »
Etsy -- Very strange site. Click on art/photography/landscape if you want to see some really ugly stuff. Try the highest price sort for a laugh. The lowest price sort seems to be a loss-leader front for selling higher price prints without having the advertised .20 cent product available.
129
« on: June 22, 2011, 13:16 »
Try it. I uploaded a pile of dirt that sells.
LOL what does that mean? sprained ankle is a dirty pic? eheh
Judge for yourself. If you look very carefully can see the nudes cavorting just under the watermark.
130
« on: June 22, 2011, 12:56 »
Try it. I uploaded a pile of dirt that sells.
131
« on: June 22, 2011, 11:23 »
Probably the easiest way to make money in this business would be to create a Photoshop action called "remove watermark" -- if you could find a way to prevent the action from being stolen.
132
« on: June 17, 2011, 09:28 »
Does the term in-breeding occur to anyone?
133
« on: June 15, 2011, 15:58 »
I have no idea why the delay in the roll-out on this feature. That camera icon looks suspiciously like one of mine.
134
« on: June 15, 2011, 15:42 »
I don't have the camera icon either via Mac Firefox 4.0.1. I can't wait to try it.
135
« on: June 11, 2011, 10:45 »
Wow, I'm impressed! A new low in information. Let me be the first to write this one off.
136
« on: June 07, 2011, 21:32 »
I would suppose that with a trusteeship or power of attorney anyone could act for your wishes whatever they are regarding the handling of your images providing it doesn't violate the terms of the agreement with the specific micro stock company.
I'm surprised sites don't have a FAQ and a stated policy covering these matters.
137
« on: June 07, 2011, 18:31 »
IS is increasingly a smaller percentage of my photography income so their latest commission shaving just further erodes my opinion of them.
138
« on: June 05, 2011, 09:51 »
I think that any time spent culling my port is just adding to my costs of the my images that remain with no benefit. I agree that the agencies should do the disposal at their own expense.
139
« on: June 02, 2011, 11:02 »
I haven't been tracking sales closely the last 2 years mainly because I rarely upload more than a few per month. Just too much work for the returns.
So when I looked at the last few months I was surprised to see SS trending so strong compared to IS. A few years ago IS was FOUR TIMES the sales dollars for me than SS. Now SS is an equal or higher earner than IS. DT is also gaining considerably on IS, often equaling IS. Probably because of DT's pricing structuring escalating with the number of downloads.
140
« on: May 30, 2011, 17:31 »
I had to click twice on that link. The first time I scanned the page quickly for the photograph that was being talked about. Not seeing it, I immediately jumped back to this thread to read on. I thought that photo was a pop up ad for some crummy teen clothing line!
141
« on: May 30, 2011, 17:23 »
My wife and I are traveling to Zurich, Rome, Venice, and Milan later this month. I will be leaving my Canon 1ds Mark III at home, not because of theft danger but because I agree with one of the above postings that to vacation with someone else is not to photograph with any serious intent. Way too intense and time-consuming. I'll be toting my 12 megapixel IS point and shoot in a nice secure front pocket alongside my wallet. I won't even try to compete in the stock field but I may see a shot opportunity that may fit in with some composite image I'm working on. My wife has a few minutes patience at such times and I won't delay the tour group with whom we'll be gawking.
142
« on: May 30, 2011, 17:06 »
Today I got an email saying that site "has a keen interested in the quality of your (my) work"...etc., etc.
And wanted me to upload "free".
Then there was these curious sentences:
To entice you into our collective, were prepared to guarantee higher
placement in our site search results for better product visibility and
higher sales volumes. Besides, we undertake image uploading for sale.
I wonder if that means they'll pay me to upload? I guess they've done that in the past. If not I suppose they will just give me better treatment than their old faithful contributors.
I pass.
143
« on: May 24, 2011, 10:39 »
It seems like someone is discovering a useful way to make a buck in microstock. I'd say its a good idea. With all the dealing and re dealing of images goin' on you can image all the slop (short-changing) happening. I'm sure the "right to audit" clauses were added to contracts as a "looks-good-to-the-contribs-but-will-never-be-used" feature. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if there are huge under-reporting issues especially in the associates realm.
144
« on: May 11, 2011, 12:19 »
Very dead there for me. I sent a request today to delete my account, joining Yay and others in my reject pile.
145
« on: May 10, 2011, 09:44 »
Sorry for the double post.
A retailer will certainly clean it's shelves of unsold goods periodically. In that case it usually has a drastic sale, transfers the items to a discount/outlet location, or dump the items to a separate business that specializes in such things for pennies on the dollar. It's smart business and must be done. In Getty's case however they do not own the items, simply "renting" them rent-free in exchange for future earnings. That Getty is now claiming that they have the right (by new agreements) to dispose of those images as they see fit with no compensation and no consent of the owners seems to be pushing the ethics envelope. Why there's no Yes/No option is beyond me.
The "cross section" consultation they speak about is an age-old way of diffusing responsibility for onerous action. It's obvious that they constructed the marketing plan then found a way to absolve themselves from the stink.
I think that they will carry this off without a lot of loss of contributors. Very wily on their part. They understand the dynamics of the business. The supply is immense, the outlets not so many. And they still have the name pizazz. Too bad.
146
« on: May 10, 2011, 09:27 »
I don't think so. The photog still has the choice and it's only for images that have not sold in a couple of years.
This might meet the slimmest and most technical definition of choice, but that's about it.
If they said that the photographer could deactivate the photos that didn't sell after 3 years as an alternative to moving to RF and Thinkstock, that might be an OK choice, but Getty refuses to offer that claiming it's too burdensome administratively. IMO that's bollocks.
If they offered an opt out for images going to Thinkstock, it might be OK, but they won't do that either.
They set limits on the number of photos that can be exempted from the RM to RF transition and the photographer has to document why.
This is a naked, greedy powerplay by a company that treats photographers very badly. I certainly hope some of Getty's big earners tell them to stuff it, but I doubt that's going to happen.
I believe you have the option of removing the image rather than having it go to RF. And I don't think it goes to Thinkstock but rather the traditional RF or some yet to be conceived higher end subscription model. The argument is if an image hasn't sold as an RM image in a couple of years should it go to RF in an attempt to sell?
147
« on: May 09, 2011, 21:27 »
I'd be ticked if I had images with Getty. But it doesn't surprise me at all that a dominant player is acting to maximize its inventory with where it thinks the market is going. Most contributors will play along. I'm sure Getty has weighed the loss of the truly-ticked-off against future market gains. I can see the whole image movement going farther into the realm of commodities.
148
« on: May 07, 2011, 15:48 »
Whatever the reasons they are low earners, what's the point? They'll either get it right or they'll be gone. Either way I wouldn't upload to or waste any time on any of them.
149
« on: May 07, 2011, 15:43 »
I found quite a few of my images on someone's Facebook page. I commented on each that I loved those too, mainly because I took those photos myself. What irked me was how other folks were gushing their appreciation with the images and the Facebook page person never said that he didn't actually take the photograph or say that he was merely posting photographs of others that he liked. I emailed him that if he wanted to post the pictures he should properly attribute them. I'm not too concerned because none of them had any stock value.
150
« on: May 05, 2011, 16:51 »
You're in for a serious brain cramp by trying to make any conclusions based upon any one person or group of blog visitors. The market is simply too large in terms of customers and photographers and hard information from the sites is impossible to obtain.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 31
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
