I still see watermark. I also downloaded "comp image" and it has watermark.

They don't have watermarks until you do a mouse-over. It's very easy to just do a screen grab of the previews without the watermarks.

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on March 04, 2017, 13:29

This e-mail only went out to top sellers. The real announcement for everyone will come later.

Are you sure? I received the email, but had just one sale this year so far!
Hope I am not a top seller, or the situation is tragic.

Also, they say "We have updated our Contributor Agreement to enable all our artists to take advantage of this new program."

Today it went out to everyone. Did you get it February 28th? The program was always for all contributors, it's just that top sellers get some information in advance.

I realize you're talking about living well off of little money in many posts, but in general, when it comes to talking about income here it makes little sense to compare figures after tax since everyone lives in different countries.

When numbers are thrown around, it's what we get from the stock sites into our payment provider accounts. I don't care what you paid your mom's friend to model or what the tax rates in your particular country are. I care about how big the payouts are.

He makes $1 for every time you quote, double quote, and triple quote. So I guess he's a billionaire.

and if you toss in the Microstock business no wonder photography went to hell...

Yes, because the booming microstock industry was the main reason for millions of DSLRs and compact cameras sold throughout the years.

Oh my, I can't stand that guy's voice/accent.

Anyway, surprised? The number of cameras sold is much higher, it's just that they are now placed in smartphones.

The biggest issue is how long video takes to render and just how big the files are....started using after effects to get 4k done. But its a time consuming affair

That is not an issue. It's a good thing that keeps 1 million photographers from competing. At least for now...

If he doesn't want to make the content himself, well then he can put on his big boy pants and earn the money to pay me what my time and effort is worth.

What if there are one million Billys?

I think I must say it again... Since you don't understand. You are selling digital products with unlimited stock. An infinite number of purchases is possible.

If you reach a market that is 10,000 times bigger with a price that is 1/10th you earn more. Then your time and effort is worth more.

Surely that's quite simple to understand.

Of course there are prices that are too low. All I can see is that $79 is too high to maximize revenue for common subjects. $8 might be too low and I think the ideal price today sits around $15-25 or so in order to maximize revenue, IF you sell where the YouTubers go.

Other buyers are happy to pay $100 per clip and I am happy to sell to them to on P5.

If seller 'A' sells for a fair market price or more, then they literally hold value in their work. If seller 'B' can only make an equal amount by selling well below market price, undercutting seller 'A' in the process, then seller 'B' is demonstrating that they do not value their own work. Sure, I'm pointing that out, but you are the one doing it. The normal market price for HD video at this time, set by the leaders of the industry, not me or you, is $50+. $8 is substantially lower than market value. And since no one put a gun to your head, that you choose to sell for that price, you are valuing your work low all by yourself. Plain but apparently no-so-simple for some of you.

Since this is all about undercutting, your comparison of stock video to iTunes is irrelevant, because the normalized market price of a digital download is now $0.99, so you, me or the Beatles selling tracks at $0.99 is not undercutting. The two markets are not logically comparable. As sad as that may be, it's how it is. Why would you want to push the video market that way anyways?

Why is it that the only option for adaptation in some of your minds, is dropping price?

And then, the irony of using John Lennon as an example, is pretty solid. That man embodied ethics, philosophy, principles, having some respect for yourself and those around you, the greater good, I mean like, you know, essentially a perfect example of what I've been suggesting more of us should emulate.

You don't seem to understand what markets there are, or know that you are in fact selling digital goods that never run out, not physical stock.

Do you know about YouTube? Do you know how creators work there? Do you know that many upload 1, maybe 3 videos EVERY single day.

"Fair price" is just a made up number like anything else. It depends on how many buyers you can expect to have for a clip. 20 years ago you could not expect many buyers for a clip, just maybe a single production. Today you can expect hundreds or thousands of smaller buyers for a single clip. THE MARKET HAS CHANGED.

If I get $5,000 selling my work for $10, instead of $1,000 selling it for $500. Is that not more fair to me since I'm selling digital goods and after upload there is no additional work?

It's perfectly fine if you don't want to sell to the YouTube market, which is in fact the biggest market there is, and growing each day. But others want to capitalize on this opportunity, and will do so.

True!  but the overwhelming majority are in countries like Russia, ukraine Rumania and Poland.

Also very strange that the tiny little country of Russia with billions of well-paying jobs has a lot of people searching for ways to make a living online...

If you look one year in the future and see yourself doing more and more video I really suggest starting with the real software right away.

My recommendation for ultimate control would be After Effects for single clips. There is a learning curve but sooner or later you will have to learn the advanced stuff if you see yourself uploading quality footage.

If you strive for perfection (or will in the future) stabilization, masks (exposure correction of a sky for example) and control over blurring (trademarks, people) is essential.

Could result in some extra $$$, yes.

But I really don't like how they use the term "copyright-free" in their marketing: http://enterprise.videoblocks.com

It's like they don't understand the fundamental basics of the assets they're licensing... That's a bit scary. I know they most likely do, and it's just an enticing marketing term, but that doesn't make it right.