Shareholders will press for more profits and contributors will be squeezed. It won't be in Jon's hands any more and...

These sorts of things are aways fascinating but isn't it more complicated than that. Doesn't it depend what the initial price is set at and what the stock ends up trading at relative to earnings. And don't stockholders typically become troublesome only when the P:E ratio is all out of kilter and they know that the stock is trading too high ... not meeting expectations.

Also - you don't know how much of the stock they might make available. They may not give up much. And it is a relatively small company anyhow. You can't pre judge these things.

I wonder what they want to use the investment for. Expansion maybe.

Not at all surprised.

Do you mean in a now or possibly never kind of a way? Or do you mean .... In the current climate ? Or both ?

Quote from: bhr on April 30, 2012, 13:43

Quote from: ShadySue on April 30, 2012, 12:02

I've contacted several insurers who deal with this sort of thing, and the prices are all far above what I could afford

How much is too much ? I use ImagingInsurance which is a UK company. My policy includes �2 million public liability.

I have minimal equipment cover (only about �4000 home + UK + EU & 60 days worldwide). The policy costs appx �200 PA excluding UK insurance tax.

I find them easy to deal with and helpful.

I think that's one of the companies I contacted before, who wouldn't do the liability insurance without the equipment cover, as I'm happy with my equipment insurer. I'll check back.

Liability on its own is obviously going to be relatively much more expensive vs eqipment cover and liability packaged. So I think it would be odd and probably pointess to buy equipment cover and liability separately and would likely cost you much more.

But I am surprised that you cannot get liabity added on to your existing cover for a nominal fee. Actually I am surprised that your existing cover does not automatically include liability. I thought that all policies which are suitable for paid work (ie do not specifically exclude using the cameras for any sort of paid work) include liability as part of the package.

Who are you with currently ?

I'm not sure I know someplace else that is over 90 years copyright otherwise. Do you?

I know of at least two gotchas / exceptions. One of which relates to the posthumous publication of previously unpublished works in the UK.

Phew - I just passed another milestone - my book is now on the Apple iStock as an iBook. I've no idea how to give a link to it

These should work. Here you go:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/getting-started-in-stock/id509372459 - USA

http://itunes.apple.com/fr/book/getting-started-in-stock/id509372459 - France

http://itunes.apple.com/gb/book/getting-started-in-stock/id509372459 - GB

See how the only thing which changes each time is the country code - e.g. us,fr,gb. Actually you probably only need the US version of the link on your web page (or any other) since iTunes should redirect people to their national store if they click on the buy link.

Best of luck.

I thought he put it really well about the music industry labels - how they ended up not adapting to change and technology and then "doing something which was unspeakable" when "the sued their fans and customers".

I don't have a problem with someone who is a proven artist/contributor having more freedom.

I agree.

++ I also happen to think it's fun and interesting for a collection to contain a distribution of potentially W-T-F images for people to find and discuss - to get people talking about how pictures work in different contexts and why. Pictures which get discussed are good IMO.  Personally I am very interested in and (I think) best understand a sort of photography which seems to many people like boring pictures. I'm much less interested in much 'good' photography. Some of the photographers' books I bought in the 80s are now quite valuable. Retrospectively people don't see them as boring but at the time they seemed difficult to understand and were even derided. But sometimes it takes a while for people to see what the photographer is saying. And I can think of various ad campaigns which have been built around that.

When eg the big fashion magazines were publishing SX70 spreads back in the 80s it didn't mean that everyone should throw away their Hasselblads. Sometimes a stylistically deliberately lofi look is going to be fashionable. Years ago iStock published an article about how much they liked the whole Lomography look. This is no different. It's a stylistic thing.

There are two slightly different things happening with cellphone images at the moment. On the one hand they are about the good enough camera which is always with you. That means that it goes places other camera probably don't. So it gets used to record things in a manner which either is or mimics a sort of objective snappy style.

On the other hand the retro stylistic apps like Instagram and Hipstamtic have reminded lots of people how much they like that sort of pretend retro look. That's partly about using filters and textures to make a fun image - and partly about using those stylistic devices to make up for the technical limitations of the original image. Whilst that look remains vogue there is going to be a demand for images which mimic it. Same as there has always been a demand for images which mimic the sort of images which ordinary people take.

Quote from: bhr on April 02, 2012, 13:18

Payoneer cancelled my card and account without notifying me because I had not used it often enough and despite the fact that it had not reached its expiry date. I only found out when I tried to log in at their site. They wanted $9.99 to issue a replacement card  - for the privilege of using their already expensive service. Talk about squeezing the customer at both ends.

My credit and debit cards do not expire if I do not use them often enough. Sometimes we sign up for services on the basis that we may need to start using them more often at some point in the future.

Hey,

We did not cancel the account, we disabled the account due to an extended period of inactivity.

Hey,

When I came to want to use it it didn't work even though it had not expired - and you wanted me to pay to get it re-activated. IIRC I ended up receiving boiler-plate (possibly even automated) email responses.

If you still have your old card you can reactivate the account without paying the charge. Additionally, if your card expired we will issue a new card at no cost.

Hey,

I appreciate you engaging via this forum and would consider using the service again. Unfortunately I think that my account no longer exists.

Out of interest - do accounts still get cancelled for lack of activity even whilst the cards are inside of the expiry date ?

What I find interesting about this PR is where they've chosen to release it __ to the financial world rather than to the image buying world.

Hundreds of websites and blogs have  the same press release according to Google. Though when you go to the pages often the press release is not there. Why ? Probably because the content from Market Watch or some other aggregator  has been syndicated on a feed or ticker which has appeared on those websites at some point recently and as been indexed. Many of those sites are design blogs etc - in some cases the feeds will syndicate pertinent content. The PR has worked.

I don't believe you can draw any other conclusions. Market Watch themselves may have picked up the PR from a feed. Like everyone else they depend on free content. This is how information propagates now.

ETA: jumped right in and posted without noticing that the poster above had sketched out a similar scenario. Sorry.

 

The unfair part is that we have to pay tax on this again in our own countries whether it has already been taxed in USA or not. Particularly unfair on the people that don't live in a treaty country.

In some jurisdictions tax already paid will be offset against any further liabilities. So if tax has already been paid then the business will be not always be additionally taxed on that part of the income. Even where no double taxation treaty exists.

But I am surprised that this needs to apply to subscription sales at all - that the royalty is deemed to be a part of the subscription package - ie part of the transaction between the agency and their client. From the photographers' perspectives their client / buyer is surely, effectively, the 'agency'. The 'agency' is surely effectively buying the right to use the picture as part of a subscription which they then sell in the US.

ETA: My point (or question I suppose) being that from an accounting perspective is it clear that selling a subscription amounts to acting as an 'agent' ?

Why not phone them ? The number is on their site via their help tab - then 'contact us' - then 'call us'. You will need to create a time limited PIN. They aren't looking to screw you - they have to go through these irritating procedures because of all the KYC and anti money laundering legislation which now exists (grrrr).

My account is 'personal' - the money I receive there belongs to me and not my business (from the moment I receive it). An analogy would be ... it's similar to an employer paying you into your personal bank account. Despite a working relationship the bank account is still clearly personal.

If, on the other hand, your Paypal account belongs to your activity either as a 'sole trader' or as a company - then your Paypal account literally belongs to that activity. In which case, for example, the year end balance will be detailed on your company tax return ETA: i meant company accounts - not the tax return. If you are not sure then ask your accountant. She will tell you whether your Paypal account belongs to you or whatever trading entity you are working under.

Quote from: bhr on November 20, 2011, 17:25

Quote from: corareed on November 20, 2011, 17:23

I think you might feel a bit less nonchalant if it was your work being ripped off....oh yeah, and it's my job to actually be proactive in these matters.  

My work is on that site which is partly why it annoys me you promoting it.

Yeah let's just keep shutting our mouth while other people enjoys stealing copyright. GREAT PLAN. And sorry but it's not CEO it's SEO. Second, a few backlinks won't improve that much their SEO, plus, who can beat the major agencies SEO?

Seriously ... you're picking me up on a half asleep brain burp typo ?

Ok .. fixed.

Sorry BHR but I find your comment a bit alienating. If you would close your eye not to advertise theft, you would do that for murder too? Rape?... My neighbor was killed by Mr. Badass, but I won't tell anyone so that Mr. Badass don't get the satisfaction of getting free advertisement for his crime...

Seriously ... you're equating hotlinking (to a bunch of files which are already online) with murder and rape ? Well clearly you don't mean to .. and clearly you do not see them as the same.

Listen - piracy irritates me as much as irritates anyone else who gets pirated. I feel the same about software, music and movie piracy. Only crap-heads do it. And the fact is that the site which Cutcaster was spreading links to is a lame old pile of **** - which nobody who is a potential customer would be wasting their time hanging out at. And it's for the agencies to deal with this kind of nonsense anyhow.

PS - Word became the #1 word processor partly because it was extensively pirated. At some level piracy also promotes trade. But the way to tackle piracy is to make content more readily available at a price which the market will support. Which is what the micro-stock model has been quite successful at initially. Better automated image tracking will be the next step IMO - to every sale, a unique code.