|
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 - BaldricksTrousers
Pages: 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61 62 63 ... 206
1426
« on: March 26, 2014, 16:49 »
Im 71...How old are you? I can't remember anything.
Too young to have been in on the fun, obviously; and too old not to regret having been too well-behaved all my life!
1427
« on: March 26, 2014, 16:46 »
When you're twenty-something, 10 years of copyright protection probably seems like a very long time. When you're sixty-something it seems like a narrow window of opportunity.
Yes, I really see little difference between 10 years and one year. But I think you would need to be an utter idiot at 20 to sign something giving away your family's future once you reach 30. I really can't see how someone with a serious record of sales could be so stupid.
I vaguely remember the Cuban missile crisis and the assassination of Kennedy. The Falklands war is a recent event.
He may have meant 10 or 20 years after death?
That's not what he said. Why try to rewrite his views? If he meant something different he can always say so for himself.
1428
« on: March 26, 2014, 16:38 »
When you're twenty-something, 10 years of copyright protection probably seems like a very long time. When you're sixty-something it seems like a narrow window of opportunity.
Yes, I really see little difference between 10 years and one year. But I think you would need to be an utter idiot at 20 to sign something giving away your family's future once you reach 30. I really can't see how someone with a serious record of sales could be so stupid. I vaguely remember the Cuban missile crisis and the assassination of Kennedy. The Falklands war is a recent event.
1429
« on: March 26, 2014, 15:27 »
it shouldn't be a perpetual/in perpetuity source of income for an entire family line. 10 years, maybe 20, great. Whatever we have now is more than enough, it should be less.
OK - I'll try to moderate myself on ths. I just can't believe someone with a Stocksy portfolio and eight years on iStock couldn't give a * about photographers' rights. In two years time, perhaps I'll just put his files up on FAA as my own work (subject to him handing me a license for that, of course). But, perhaps, BrianM, you could explain why you should be allowed to sell my work 10 years after I make it, and why I shouldn't be allowed to sell yours 10 days after you make it..... assuming you would have any objection to that.
1430
« on: March 26, 2014, 12:39 »
Copidosoma - I think the appearance of those scans the government has online is due to inept attempts to copy a print and does not reflect the skill level Adams had. I certainly wouldn't judge him by those but I would like to see some of his original prints.
1431
« on: March 26, 2014, 12:37 »
Well, I'm well and truly confused, the govt says it has put the work it paid for by him in the public domain and the trust says that all his work is copyright. I suspect the government version is correct and it is just all the work that was OWNED by Adams that it has copyright to . It all depends on the wording of the contract he had to photograph those parks.
Fortunately, it doesn't matter to me since I have no intention of trying to get rich by selling copies of somebody else's work.
1432
« on: March 26, 2014, 08:11 »
Just this instant a 14 credit sale for yesterday has popped into my account. So far, it is my only sale from yesterday.
But I don't think the earnings total has changed (for my own reference it's currently 62.59). I don't know if the cash was credited before the sale appeared or not.
1434
« on: March 26, 2014, 07:48 »
I've only got two links, they both go to people without any uploads - but that's not particularly surprising.
1436
« on: March 26, 2014, 07:07 »
I hope these problems with phantom links and groups of people including some with no names doesn't mean that sales are not being recorded properly. Right now, DT is performing way below Canstock for me. It doesn't seem normal (and my images still seem to be well placed in the search).
1437
« on: March 26, 2014, 06:06 »
Well, that's a surprise. But it only applies to 226 of his works that were commissioned by the US Parks authority in 1941. For those wishing to nick large scans of them and flog them here are the links http://www.archives.gov/research/ansel-adams/The US Government has kindly got them ready scanned for you, so you can just right click. The scan quality seems to be incredibly poor, but, hey, who cares? Joe public will still be able to own a genuine Ansel Adams print!
1438
« on: March 26, 2014, 02:57 »
I've got such a sudden, extreme drought that I'm wondering if there is a problem reporting sales there. I've only got three subs showing for the last four days which must be my worst result since late 2004.
1439
« on: March 25, 2014, 14:27 »
I'm just surprised to see the words "sales" and "cutcaster" in the same thread.
1440
« on: March 25, 2014, 13:53 »
With all of the rampant copyright violations on FAA why would any one sell digital files though their licensing program?
It would be like throwing raw meat to a pack of wild dogs!
I'm not so sure about that - I suspect FAA would be the last place they would think of getting "inspiration" from - and they could only get screen-shot sizes, anyway. Stock photos out in the wild are far more likely to get picked up, but mostly they probably prefer something famous with a proven record in print sales.
1441
« on: March 25, 2014, 13:43 »
As far as I can tell you don't disagree with any of that you just don't think it matters (and shouldn't be pointed out for those that do care), fair enough we can agree to disagree there.
Now who's putting things in other people's mouths? I'm grateful to you for highlighting the information about the license. That's a useful service and what this site is for. It's just the bizarre way you go on from there interpret it as being a cut in commissions, that I disagree with. I think you're the first person who's ever accused me of trying to stifle discussion. I recall actually standing up for either you or Shudderstock when the person concerned was under attack and arguing that we needed diverse views here - and we do. I'm not so sure we need motivated campaigns against particular agencies, but then you are far from being the only one - or the only side - to have pursued that.
1442
« on: March 25, 2014, 10:34 »
you're suggesting that's unacceptable becuase you think "it matters how much the agency is taking in compared with how much we are making".
You are putting words in my mouth, I don't think it's necessarily unacceptable at all but I do think it should be known. Each of us has to make up our own minds about what is acceptable.
Well, it does seem as if you are going to great lengths to try to conjure up a way of making it sound unacceptable. Anyway, I'm going out, so I'll leave you to it.
1443
« on: March 25, 2014, 10:27 »
That's one way of looking at it. I think it does matter how much the agency is taking in compared to how much we are making. Unpopular view?
Isn't that one of the major problems with the depositphotos deal, paying sub royalties while charging much much more to buyers? http://www.microstockgroup.com/depositphotos/the-german-shotshop-reseller-of-depositphotos/msg372250/?topicseen#new
Once again you are comparing apples and oranges, it seems to be a full-time hobby for you! Overall percentages are meaningless because people are on different rates. I get 17% at iStock, but the average is probably around 20%. Are you happy with iSTock paying 20%? Apparently SS pays 28%, according to Balex, but you're suggesting that's unacceptable becuase you think "it matters how much the agency is taking in compared with how much we are making". So why are you happy with 20% but not with 28% (or maybe now 27.9999% now), and why do you make such a fuss about commission percentage changes of 0.00001% while iStock has been playing fast and loose with percentages for years. What about the (admittely semi-defunct) RC system?
1444
« on: March 25, 2014, 10:12 »
My royalty rate wouldn't be lowered. My royalty rate is 38c. How can 38c be a reduction from 38c?
Yes, I do realise you want to try to pretend that they pay us a percentage of the contracts, but in fact they don't and the percentage calculations people have done have been based on the total annual payout to all contributors as a percentage of the total annual take. I'm pretty sure that this scheme won't change that overall calculation by a thousandth of a decimal point.
It's a reasonable assumption that this is aimed at companies where people have been downloading once and then sharing that image across seats. So if this makes them download the image two or three times, that's all to the good. If two people download from the same account illegally, and now they download the same number of times from a more expensive account then nothing changes for me.
Contrary to your spurious mathematical construction, this is either neutral or beneficial for contributors. It might be even more beneficial for SS, too, that's possible, but we've know way of knowing, have we?
PS: I thought you knew the terms. Isn't this just multi-seat access to a subscription, with no changes to usage rights? Suggesting it is comparable to the Google Drive deal at iStock is simply ridiculous.
1445
« on: March 25, 2014, 09:52 »
Yes, that's how the obsession begins. Congratulations.
1446
« on: March 25, 2014, 09:46 »
Tickstock, I get 38c per dl. If this plan increases the number of DLs from a company, because they are having more people downloading our images, then I get more money. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
Your argument is that what we care about is how much the customers pay per dl, not how much money we earn. I'm actually more interested in real money in my pocket than in theoretical prices paid by people I don't know.
So here we've got you suggesting that SS is paying a commission rate of more than 100% and it should keep doing that otherwise it's bad for suppliers, and on another thread we have Balex telling us that SS sells files for 16c each and that we all know it pays us a commission rate of 28% (so I suppose the 38c commissions I see are really 4.5c and I'm just deluded).
It all goes to show what a fabulously strange world it is when we deliberately use statistics to eliminate reality.
Personally, I've got my own theory, which is that 25x38c = $9.50 and that 35x38c = $13.30.
Unlike you, I have the idea that getting paid $13.30 is better than getting paid $9.50.
I'm even willing to back up my theory. If you send me $1,330 then I will send you back $950 immediately, and we can both feel good about having avoided getting ripped off.
1447
« on: March 25, 2014, 00:23 »
Also several "artists" re-selling celebrity portraits. Look up just Audrey Hepburn - you'll find over 100 listings and many of them are identical copies. And I mean COPIES.
Everytime, one of these pictures gets sold, the listing "artist" receives from others dozens of congratulations and encouraging comments, such as - great work, amazing photography, nice image, awesome capture, even - Really like this one, good composition and processing, can see why it sold.
I pointed this infraction twice to FAA through direct emails and on their forums. Only once I received a reply to my email stating that it is not allowed to post any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. BUT - it is each artist's responsibility to make sure they have the permission and rights for uploading work to the site.
In the meantime, new copies of existing portraits are being added and sold.
Really? I did exactly the same about the same actress - I even gave them the name of the photographer and the studio and a link to a place stating whose copyright they were and that they were not for resale or commercial use. It seems clear that they have no intention at all of protecting any of their amateur artists against action for violation of copyright, they reckon they've got a get-out for themselves with their position that it's up to the artists to get necessary permissions. They can argue that they haven't done anything wrong, it's the artist who has violated the uploading agreement. Whether a court would swallow a defence of willful ignorance I have no idea, but as far as FAA is concerned, it isn't at risk and turning a blind eye to flagrant violations is the best policy. A lot of the Rembrandts are from the Bridgeman Art Library, which has a licensing deal with the museums that own the works, so there's nothing wrong with that. I suppose that's a help for FAA because they could point to them as an example of the fact that some people do have proper rights to selling other people's work/property.
1448
« on: March 24, 2014, 17:41 »
Yes, that's fair enough. There are ranges of values that things sell for, but so far if you are in microstock you have to work within the parameters of the established agencies.
I guess that is the frustrating part for me. Last year, 15% of my sales resulted in about 60% of my earnings. Those sales averaged around a $10 RPD. The other 85% of my sales averaged around a $1 RPD. It's pretty clear where I need to move my sales to, but actually doing it is the real challenge.
Yes, most of us have too much time and effort invested and are too reliant on what we are getting to be ready to jump ship. It makes sense to build completely different income streams, from photos or anything else that you find works for you. The old "80% of earnings from 20% of goods" rule has always more or less fitted microstock.
1449
« on: March 24, 2014, 14:41 »
It's very simple, really. If you are a world-class photographer with unique vision and fabulous subject matter then you would be an idiot to sell it as microstock. If you are a proficient technician who can produce excellent quality images like everybody else's then the value of your work reflects its ordinariness. You can't change the value with wishful thinking or because the quality is up there alongside the best of all the other similar sort of images.
Except for all that middle ground of not wanting to change the value of it, but moving the slider so you get closer to max value instead of the minimum.
Yes, that's fair enough. There are ranges of values that things sell for, but so far if you are in microstock you have to work within the parameters of the established agencies. iStock prices stuff all over the place, presumably on the basis that some people will only pay the lowest rates and others are not especially price sensitive within a certain range. They also want cheap material as a lure. As a result they have cut my prices to well below what they should be - the price cuts cost me about 40% of my income there. For subs, I think iSTock matches SS prices doesn't it? Maybe with minor variations. I guess the agencies try to keep the prices as high as they can without losing customers, in order to maximise their own profits. **** By increasing acceptance standards SS has actually increased our royalties, since it tends to prevent newbies entering the market and taking our sales. PS: A lot of the "2014 quality" images in that search are actually images that were uploaded in or before 2005.
1450
« on: March 24, 2014, 14:07 »
It's very simple, really. If you are a world-class photographer with unique vision and fabulous subject matter then you would be an idiot to sell it as microstock. If you are a proficient technician who can produce excellent quality images like everybody else's then the value of your work reflects its ordinariness. You can't change the value with wishful thinking or because the quality is up there alongside the best of all the other similar sort of images.
Pages: 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61 62 63 ... 206
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
