|
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 - ShadySue
Pages: 1 ... 49 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57 58 59 ... 624
1326
« on: December 04, 2018, 09:59 »
They're crazy! Then I will just delete my account with them.
Too bad about the work, have uploaded in the years about 10000 pictures.
...
Well well, then I don't sell any more there either.
Greedy Alamy - byebye
Where will you be sellling which is less greedy?
Wish AS would start editorial, they're fair and they'd probably have volume also.
They're fair? What's their commission rate? Is it more than 40%?
1327
« on: December 04, 2018, 09:54 »
They're crazy! Then I will just delete my account with them.
Too bad about the work, have uploaded in the years about 10000 pictures.
...
Well well, then I don't sell any more there either.
Greedy Alamy - byebye
Where will you be sellling which is less greedy?
1328
« on: December 04, 2018, 09:42 »
Late to the party. See other thread.
1329
« on: December 04, 2018, 09:10 »
To be fair, they didn't actually herald it as 'good', 'great' or 'exciting' news. Still,   
1330
« on: December 02, 2018, 21:06 »
Good looking stats well done, and congratulations you've just encouraged 1000 more newbies to go for it
Yebbut 995 of them will very soon give up.
1331
« on: December 01, 2018, 15:33 »
You don't get all that in the Sales Report.
You need to press the blue "Download" button at the top of the sales report page and you'll see all those details. It saves to your disk as a CSV file. It's always been available that way as soon as the sale is listed in the report, which happens instantly (or close to it) when a sale is invoiced by Alamy or paid for by a customer.
Wow, so we're both right.  We can't actually "see it on our Sales Report", but we can get the info as soon as the sale is listed (which I didn't know, so Tx.)
1332
« on: December 01, 2018, 15:21 »
First one was same size, don't know about the second, cause it's not in sales history yet. Also, usage for first image is identical in both reports.
You can see all license details in the sales report.You don't have to wait for it to appear in the sales history.
I don't see all the details in my Sales Report. Only the info like what's in the OP's screenshot. The Sales History is the only place to see all the sales details, like: Country: United Kingdom Usage: Editorial Media: Newspaper - national Print run: up to 500,000 Placement: Inside and online Image Size: 1/4 page Start: 01 October 2018 End: 02 October 2018 One use in a single editorial article used within print and /or web versions, with re-use of the article in other titles or web versions within the same newspaper group. Digital use includes archive rights for the lifetime of the article. Any placement in paper and online You don't get all that in the Sales Report.
1333
« on: December 01, 2018, 13:13 »
Why worry? Your files are on other sites so if someone wants them, they'll need to buy them there.
At one time iS would likely have rejected any font you didn't design yourself, and more recently, they'd have rejected what you described as being "too simplistic". At the low selling rate there nowadays, they can't pay for detailed inspection so probably just tell inspectors just to reject quotations - they can't afford inspector time for research.
Finally, back in the day, I had a file rejected for having the name of the town visible. It was really small, but I had to remove it (prior to them accepting editorial). I questioned it on the forum and was told to my astonishment that the town name might be copyrighted. I couldn't imagine such a scenario, and anyway the town has had that name since at least the 11th century. But blanket rejections on town names.
Just move on.
Sad but true, the town name wouldn't be copyrighted as such, but the council holds copyright over every single street sign in the city, including a sign with the town name on it (at least that's how it works in the UK, not sure about the US)
My rejection wasn't actually a street sign, or town sign, though.
1334
« on: December 01, 2018, 12:41 »
Why worry? Your files are on other sites so if someone wants them, they'll need to buy them there.
At one time iS would likely have rejected any font you didn't design yourself, and more recently, they'd have rejected what you described as being "too simplistic". At the low selling rate there nowadays, they can't pay for detailed inspection so probably just tell inspectors just to reject quotations - they can't afford inspector time for research.
Finally, back in the day, I had a file rejected for having the name of the town visible. It was really small, but I had to remove it (prior to them accepting editorial). I questioned it on the forum and was told to my astonishment that the town name might be copyrighted. I couldn't imagine such a scenario, and anyway the town has had that name since at least the 11th century. But blanket rejections on town names.
Just move on.
1335
« on: December 01, 2018, 04:00 »
the fonts are definitely not copy protected in the US. neither are short phrases.
"Works Not Protected by Copyright"
- Names, titles, and short phrases
- Typeface, fonts, and lettering
US Copyright Office
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf
thanks for your comment
Sent from my SM-J200G using Tapatalk
It's totally irrelevant, though. If an agency decides not to accept photos of grass, that's their decision.
1336
« on: November 30, 2018, 14:29 »
Get ready for a refund!
But not necessarily. I've had this a very few times, and both sales have stuck. There can be several scenarios to explain the two sales.
Ha, I just got home and found I also have two identical sales, both small UKNS values. Note that although the reported dates are the same, even with RM, the reported dates aren't always 'as reported', so it could be repeated uses of the same file in the same publication, on the same or on different dates. However, it's a mystery (to me) why an RF file would need to be bought twice, unless they wanted a bigger size, but then you'd expect they'd buy the bigger file, which should be a higher price, and get the smaller one refunded. Unless, although RF-available files, the sales were actually RM. You'd see that in the details.
1337
« on: November 30, 2018, 13:34 »
Get ready for a refund!
But not necessarily. I've had this a very few times, and both sales have stuck. There can be several scenarios to explain the two sales.
1338
« on: November 29, 2018, 17:05 »
I'm intrigued. Although mindstorm maybe missed the fact this topic was created under iStock.
Here are few of the iStock downloads I had in Oct -- https://www.dropbox.com/s/zudexmhbr6i3voi/iStock%20downloads%20for%20MindStorm.png?dl=0
Yeah, that's for October, after the sales have been notified. That's not real time reporting, which is what the OP asked. You can also get this info via DeepMeta or TodayIs20, after the sales figures have been released.
1339
« on: November 29, 2018, 14:30 »
MicroStockr Pro (note missing 'e') will give you that info across all your agencies.
How can it give iS sub sales values before the sub has expired?
1340
« on: November 29, 2018, 14:29 »
The reason you can't is because rather than getting a flat rate for subscription sales, you get your percentage of your share of the total subscription amount, which obviously can't be worked out until the subscription has expired, usually the following month. Be careful what you wish for, when the subscription payment was a flat rate, my subs $$ were much lower than they are now. Obviously I'd rather there were no subs, PA or Connect, but ...
1341
« on: November 29, 2018, 11:56 »
I create some quotes lettering illustration and upload them on several agency and they are accepted on every stock agency. but istock rejected my vector for copyright and trademark issue. how it is possible when I am using perfect font. and quotes are before 1920. they are famous ancient philosophical quotes before 1920. so how there is any copyrigh or trademark problem. if someone have some knowledge about that please describe it. thanks.
Sent from my SM-J200G using Tapatalk
1. Just because one/some agency/ies accept content doesn't mean other/s will. Each has their own rules. It's their ball, their game, they can do what they like. Each has their own 'fence around the Law'. 2. Why not ask in iStock's own forum? There's a chance (not a certainty) that you might get an official answer.
1342
« on: November 28, 2018, 10:56 »
It was even worse when your name was a searchable entity, as mine is: I got lots of false hits until they changed that policy.
1343
« on: November 28, 2018, 06:57 »
Better keywording is always a good aim, but the way their system works (and for many months now, caption is trumping keywords), a properly captioned/keyworded photo of Joe Bloggs and Jane Doe will show up in searches for Joe Doe, Jane Bloggs, Doe Bloggs, and Jane Joe (etc), so you can't overthink it. Any random word in the keywords or caption can be joined with any other, UNLESS the searcher uses quotation marks, which is extremely rare (for a reason I don't understand).
Today's example: I had a search for Eva Green (don't ask, I haven't a clue). Turns out I have a photo of a garden designed by Eva Zandman (caption only) located at Marston Green (keywords only).  (admittedly, that was a fussy searcher, who checked 3180 files. Mine isn't on the first page. [By which I learned she's some sort of celeb.])
1344
« on: November 28, 2018, 05:57 »
I'm sure you know this, Chris, as you've been threatening to go iS-exclusive for a couple of years now; but for anyone reading this thread who doesn't know, they should be aware that if an indie becomes exclusive, their existing port stays as Essentials, i.e. sells at one credit (of which, presumably, you get your exclusive rate), though new files will go in as Exclusive, viz 3 credits.
That could be significant for anyone with an exisiting large port there.
Also I saw you said earlier that you know a lot of exclusives and they're all happy. Well, that may be true, or it may be like the other made-up people you know, but a LOT of exclusives have left exclusivity, some have left iS/Getty altogether, and many more have their existing port there, but no longer submit.
Very few on the iS or Fb exclusive forums are happy; even those who report good sales say it's taking a lot longer (years) to break even on shoots.
I accept that there are probably plenty of people who don't post good results on the forums, for fear of copycats.
1345
« on: November 27, 2018, 17:26 »
Grrr , I have found a couple of mine in wich he/her have changed only the color, but the worst is that are my top sellers on SS.
I am sorry to hear that, but at least my post was not in vain.
I have also found more stolen vectors in this port (with google reverse image search), but could not find the contacts of original artists.
Please report those from adobe stock also (even if you are not a contributor there).
It might be worthwhile to PM Mat Hayward here on msg.
I don't know how Adobe handles this, but some sites are reluctant to take action unless an actual infringed author makes the complaint rather than someone pointing out this sort of anomaly.
AFAIK on all sites you have to be the infringed author to complain (otherwise they do nothing). In this case I reported mine, Dog-maDe-sign will report his (hopefully) and when I have a bit more time, I will try to find contacts to others again.
Fair enough; but from what I've read here, Mat seems to be a decent bloke, and can get things done quickly.
1346
« on: November 27, 2018, 14:41 »
Grrr , I have found a couple of mine in wich he/her have changed only the color, but the worst is that are my top sellers on SS.
I am sorry to hear that, but at least my post was not in vain.
I have also found more stolen vectors in this port (with google reverse image search), but could not find the contacts of original artists.
Please report those from adobe stock also (even if you are not a contributor there).
It might be worthwhile to PM Mat Hayward here on msg. I don't know how Adobe handles this, but some sites are reluctant to take action unless an actual infringed author makes the complaint rather than someone pointing out this sort of anomaly.
1347
« on: November 27, 2018, 09:55 »
This is what CR have to say about their Creative section...
"The Creative tab has images in it which are handpicked by our team. This is depending on the creative touch in the image and have value to our commercial customers".
So I thought ah, maybe it's just commerically-available images which show a difference between creative and relevant. But no, I just searched Belfast Murals, and there is currently a small difference. I don't notice any 'creative touch' particularly at the top of the creative search vs the relevant search. Though of course 'creative touch' is subjective. London has more of a difference, but I wouldn't say 'creative touch' is more obvious in the high creative rank, New York and Madrid have no difference at the top of the search.
1348
« on: November 27, 2018, 09:29 »
I also have done lots of searches, and I've seen photos at the top of searches, with hundreds or more results, which have no keywords at all (old Live News images which were never keyworded), above my images which have the keywords 'supered'. So either these people have super high Alamy Ranks or captions can still trump supertags.
It certainly changes a lot, and I'm perplexed about why my ranking is so low in my main interest when I can see lots of false results on the first page of many searches (would a person really 'super' a tag which is evidently wrong, not an 'easy mistake'?). Yet in other searches of similar size, my files show up surprisingly high. So Alamy Rank must play a considerable part, and in some types of search my rank must be higher than others who feature in the search, but in my favoured subject, my rank must be low.
Also and for at least a few months, some searches have a difference between the Creative search sort and the Relevant sort (much cleaner search in Relevant, as you'd hope), but other searches have the same order for both and I don't know why that is. But then looking at my own placement in Creative sorts, I have no idea what 'Creative' means. It certainly doesn't (always?) mean 'sales rank high' as is often suggested.
1349
« on: November 27, 2018, 08:53 »
If you want to see all your views though, or which searches had lots of other zooms but not yours (to help you do tighter keywording maybe), or you want to see all entries for any other sorting, you'll see some results missing at the end (unless it's just me). If you're only using Measures to study your own zooms then it won't be an issue.
Better keywording is always a good aim, but the way their system works (and for many months now, caption is trumping keywords), a properly captioned/keyworded photo of Joe Bloggs and Jane Doe will show up in searches for Joe Doe, Jane Bloggs, Doe Bloggs, and Jane Joe (etc), so you can't overthink it. Any random word in the keywords or caption can be joined with any other, UNLESS the searcher uses quotation marks, which is extremely rare (for a reason I don't understand).
1350
« on: November 27, 2018, 07:44 »
My default seems to be Your Zooms (that's where it is whenever I got into my measures. I guess I must have set it up that way, but I don't remember!
Or are you talking about All of Alamy?
If I want to see my zooms, it makes more sense for me to choose 'Your images' rather than AoA. IMO - YMMV.
I think the default is whatever you last chose, probably stored in a cookie. I do mean "Your Images", not AofA. Can't see your own zooms in AofA.
It is a definite bug, as it's repeatable in other browsers so can't just be happening to me. Keep an eye out, or check previous day's measures and you'll likely see the same thing at some point.
But if I'm sorting by Your Zooms, all my zooms are at the top of the page. And I usually only look each day for 'yesterday' or Friday to Sunday on a Monday, so my zooms aren't likely to fall off the first 20. If I look for a month, the zooms cover several pages, but there are lots of pages after that with search terms where none of my images were zoomed, so I think I still see all my zooms (how would I know if not?) I think I must be missing something of what you're saying, sorry.
Pages: 1 ... 49 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57 58 59 ... 624
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
