|
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
14751
« on: November 20, 2010, 19:30 »
Interesting about the noise issues on the 7D. A couple of people suggested I might like to get a 7D as its focussing and motordrive are allegedly better than my 5D2 (wildlife and I want to try some sport, not necessarily for stock). I was just getting together a list of old kit I might sell, including my 40D, to try to buy one as a backup camera (which the 40D is at the moment, though it gets very little use!). Only this morning I came upon this thread about noise on the 7D in the iStock forums: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=264181&page=1
14752
« on: November 20, 2010, 18:56 »
14753
« on: November 20, 2010, 14:56 »
I referred someone to Istock recently, who was accepted as a contributor a few days ago.
But I haven't heard anything from Istock, nor have I got the $25 fee.
Is the referral program still working?
Not for introducing contributors: there are plenty of these already. That has not been working since I joined four years ago. There is a $10 fee for introducing a new buyer, not via your Moo card, if exclusive.
14754
« on: November 20, 2010, 09:14 »
I think that even though exact citations are needed, iStock would be scared off by this. They don't take risks.
There have been loads of deactivations reported recently, and I'd imagine many more to come.
14755
« on: November 20, 2010, 07:41 »
If you are exclusive with iStock, then you could not do that anyway with an image previously submitted to iStock.
Yes, you can. If it was accepted and hadn't sold any, we can deactivate the file ourselves and send it RM, or if deactivated by iStock, we can also send RM. However, if a file is rejected on submission, we need to ask CR for permission, which IME has always been granted. Bizarre, but true.
14756
« on: November 20, 2010, 06:40 »
Thanks. The sad thing is the image had been online for some time already before it was deactivated and was getting good downloads. Again, the only way to go is forward from here 
Oh, I hate it when that happens: you can't even send it RM/editorial if it's already sold RF. Added: in theory you can, if the RM is simply that the buyer is buying rights to use the image, without any guarantee that the image hasn't been used before. Many buyers do buy RM on this basis, but I don't know which, if any, agencies would accept an image, previously sold as RF. Maybe someone can enlighten us?
14757
« on: November 20, 2010, 04:14 »
It's actually 70 years in Europe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Duration_Directive
Whatever the case they must have thought there was a risk.
Can you clone the item out?
70 years after the death of the artist. iStock always errs on the side of caution. Once when I Scouted an image which had been rejected as copyright though well out of the 70 years pma, the image was accepted but with the cryptic note from Scout that the 70 years rule wasn't the only one they considered, but with no further information.
14758
« on: November 19, 2010, 20:01 »
I've seen other people report the same sort of issues. It really seems they either (as mentioned above) don't want to upset big customers or they don't want the expense of litigation.
The definition of what is or isn't a logo seems to be pretty hazy in iStockland.
14760
« on: November 19, 2010, 04:57 »
I hope that this doesn't catch on as IS is by far the cheapest place for buyers to get my images and they will soon only be paying me 17 or 18%.
It's been running for about a year at least, but I can't say how much it's influencing buyer habits. It can surely only be relevant to people who are only buying a few images, not a credit package or subscription.
14761
« on: November 18, 2010, 17:09 »
My support ticket did get closed - very politely and empathetically but still closed.
So I had a read of the artist supply agreement to see what it said about payment timing. The exclusive agreement (which I think is the same in this respect as the general one) says:
In response to a written request, iStockphoto will endeavor to make payment of fees in respect of purchased downloads of Accepted Exclusive Content on a monthly basis on or about the 15th day of the month following the purchase of Accepted Exclusive Content, except when sales reporting from a distribution partner is delayed, in which case payments will be made in the month following the date such sale is reported, provided such fees aggregate a minimum of US$100, failing which fees owing will be retained until they exceed such minimum.
Seems pretty loosey-goosey in that it doesn't even include the word "reasonable" with endeavor and says nothing about what happens if they blow the deadline.
All iStock's 'commitments' to its contributers are very loosely worded with words like 'reasonable' which have no legal definition. Yet our obligations to them are cast iron, (if not always crystal-clear).
14762
« on: November 17, 2010, 11:22 »
Is there a thread open on IS now that will let the Admins communicate to us what is being done and what the likely time frame for getting this fixed will be? Just kidding I know the answer....but seriously why haven't there been any announcements on this yet.
There is an open thread here, and I suggest you open a support ticket. I think that they need to be a little more formal about bugs that withhold royalties from contributors (you'll see I've said that in the thread 
I don't know if they will close my support ticket (as they did the others), pointing at the forum thread with a promise as a "resolution". If they do, I'm going to open another one.
That was an earlier reply, which I and others got. I wrote again, saying that the matter was not resolved, and the first answer was unacceptable and got this reply on the 12th: "I do apologize and yes at the time (and still) that is the only information we have been given. I will pass your comments along to my Manager and check with "Joyzee" as well who posted the last admin update to see if there is a date now as to when these missing funds will be added. Once we have that the forums will be updated as well." Four more days and counting ...
14763
« on: November 17, 2010, 10:59 »
Adding to the list of iStock epic fails, for the last two hours a search only returns images from the 'Agency collection', expect few sale today folks 
I wasn't finding that, but the issue has been discussed in this thread. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=266911&page=1Again, no rush to fix it.
14764
« on: November 17, 2010, 09:51 »
Someone help me to increase list? Is it not sufficient to Mr Thompson resign?
None of this stuff is sufficient to cost Thompson his job. What will, however, possibly cost him is if he doesn't hit the earnings projections that he's been tasked with reaching.
Which, frankly, could actually be the worst-case scenario for contributors. Especially exclusives. If Thompson is replaced, the new guy will probably take a look at where they can cut some more costs to get back on track with the profit goals, and those big 30-40% royalty rates for exclusives might begin to look even more "unsustainable."
Yup. Looked at it in that light, things like the EL fiasco (2 months interest on the underpayments, no sign that it's going to be resolved today; totally inadequate responses on the forums and from CR) could be helping him to reach his target.
14765
« on: November 16, 2010, 16:57 »
Istanbul editorial 'way in' lypse fiasco.
14766
« on: November 16, 2010, 13:21 »
I have said it before - I don't think Lobo is acting on his own accord. I think he's following orders from above. He's a good guy in a bad situation, and I suspect his irritability is a result of being torn in two directions.
Would not be AT ALL surprised if he follows Rob out the door some time in the next year or so.
Actually, I agree, on both counts.
14767
« on: November 16, 2010, 11:51 »
He is in fact one of the nicest guys at IS.
By the way, the last one. Where are the other IS people?!?!?
Lobo isn't actually a contributor (unless he has another alias), so has nothing to lose with the current/proposed changes.
Most (not all) of the other admins are also contributors, so I guess are as p*ssed off about the latest shenanigans/disasters as the rest of us. Some are also buyers, and similarly are no doubt as hacked-off in that capacity as other buyers. There are a couple of admins posting in the Vetta/Agency forums, but other posts are very few and far between.
PinkCottonCandy has been made a moderator to replace the much-missed Rob (Sylvanworks) who resigned as Moderator, being too gentlemanly to voice his reasons abroad, but I'm sure the timing wasn't unrelated. However, so far PCC seems to have been posting in a personal capacity, so maybe she's 'in training', or maybe has a certain 'start date' or something. That's pure speculation on my part.
14768
« on: November 16, 2010, 11:50 »
I took a payout on Sun. am and it left $.17 in my account. Today, I still have $.17 in my account. Either sales are not being reported correctly or my wooyaying-nauseating comment in another thread here has offended the mighty gods and they decided to punish me with no sales, because 2 days with NO downloads has not happened to me since I first started uploading a few years ago! I checked my most downloaded images and they are still showing in the best match as they did before.
November sales (one of amazing last four mouths) are total crap, at least for me.
Yes, my November sales on Istock are pretty bad too. But in Cathy's case, with NO sales on a weekday (Monday) that sounds more like some sort of site glitch. Not that Istock ever has those...
@Cathy, how are your sales today? I got one just after midnight iStock time and nothing since. I was wondering if there was some sort of reporting glitch, but one of my CN just said he had a good day yesterday and a good start to today. My 'test' files are around where they've been for a while in best match and DM is still reporting hundreds of views.
14769
« on: November 16, 2010, 11:32 »
Lobo isn't actually a contributer (unless he has another alias), so has nothing to lose with the current/proposed changes.
How bizarre, next you'll be telling us the head of accounts can't count or that 'Scout' is blind  Thank god the person in charge of the website knows what they're doing!
Brilliant!!!! I hadn't actually realised that. So when he comes on this forum with the same pompous belittling attitude he has on his forums patronising and generally being obnoxious to members he actually doesn't have any handle on what it's like being a microstock photographer or illustrator at all. I can't get over it. You have to admire his testicular fortitude if nothing else.
NB: Like I said, he may be a contributor under a different member name. I have no idea.
14770
« on: November 16, 2010, 08:36 »
Apparently Sean has written a script which obviates the problem. I don't go to that tools/apps page, as when I started, I ran some (not Sean's) stuff which gave me no end of grief, and I'm not techy enough to know what to do.
Sorry, they should work pretty simply. Anyhoo, the uploads page fix script just changes the css width of the table. That should work pretty simply.
Hey, no need to apologise - I said it wasn't your script which had caused me problems.
14771
« on: November 16, 2010, 07:35 »
He is in fact one of the nicest guys at IS.
By the way, the last one. Where are the other IS people?!?!?
Lobo isn't actually a contributor (unless he has another alias), so has nothing to lose with the current/proposed changes. Most (not all) of the other admins are also contributors, so I guess are as p*ssed off about the latest shenanigans/disasters as the rest of us. Some are also buyers, and similarly are no doubt as hacked-off wearing in that capacity as other buyers. There are a couple of admins posting in the Vetta/Agency forums, but other posts are very few and far between. PinkCottonCandy has been made a moderator to replace the much-missed Rob (Sylvanworks) who resigned as Moderator, being too gentlemanly to voice his reasons abroad, but I'm sure the timing wasn't unrelated. However, so far PCC seems to have been posting in a personal capacity, so maybe she's 'in training', or maybe has a certain 'start date' or something. That's pure speculation on my part.
14772
« on: November 16, 2010, 07:17 »
So you got banned? what did you say or do for that?
Lobo thinks I'm "too negative". The last straw was when someone posted about the overwide uploads/reporting page and asked if anyone else had noticed it. I posted that it was one of the 'improvements' introduced in the "almost flawless" (quote from KKT) F5 implementation and refered to the bugs link above. Anyway, my post was deleted. Apparently Sean has written a script which obviates the problem. I don't go to that tools/apps page, as when I started, I ran some (not Sean's) stuff which gave me no end of grief, and I'm not techy enough to know what to do. However, instead of deleting the post, shouldn't iStock be thinking about why a contributer, who is already giving iStock 60% of his earnings, should have to spend his own time writing a script to cancel out a problem which they wantonly introduced, apparently not having heard of the saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". It's not as if there weren't enough well-documented problems which needed fixed, without introducing more.
14773
« on: November 16, 2010, 06:12 »
Slanted against new files??? well sometimes I get a real peculiar feeling that a new independant file must under no circumbstances be allowed to threaten an already existing VETTA- file, if they were very similar that is and heaven forbid if it turned out to be better. So its pushed back to end of the world.
Grotesque thinking isnt it?
Well, I got banned from the forums on Sunday night and yesterday I got only 1 Sm and 1 Sm dl, coming to $2.98. Do you think that's connected? (I did, but apparently not, as DM reported that over 700 of my files were looked at over that 24 hour period.) I have a Vetta file of an African Elephant. It has sold 19 times as a Vetta, which is good for me. In the best match for "African Elephant" it's at position 2071 (I have another which is on the top line, but I'm just pointing out that not all Vettas are shunted to the top of the best match search). Well below many of my non-Vettas with 0 downloads. Below several Asian Elephants wrongly keyworded. Below at least one of yours with either 0 or 1 dl (i was whizzing down the pages to find how low my file is now, so not paying full attention.) Out of interest, I have a sister image taken at the same time which is not Vetta or Exc+ (give the customers a choice). It's several pages in the best match search above the Vetta one - yet it has only two downloads. There does seem to be some sort of weighting given to certain people - I don't know if it goes by their cannister/exclusivity. There's one in particular who appears in several searches I have files in, and his generally appear above mine, even with no dls, and whether older or younger. It's especially noticeable in one particular keyword search where you and I have most downloads, but he has, in general, better positioning - though his files have, after several months, gone down a bit in the last month, leaving you and me some spaces in the top line at last.
14774
« on: November 16, 2010, 04:28 »
Lisa, is right when she says, whats the point of producing stunning quality, as an independant, they end up so far down the best match, they will never see daylight. Ive tested it! only a few months back I uploaded 4 shots, each one with a fabulous track-record of earnings, each one ended up well beyond page 15. No point.
This particular 'feature' isn't anti-independent. It's anti-new. Although even exclusive files are taking a week to inspect these days (though some have reported turnarounds of under 12 hours, I'm not in that A-team!) and around three days to appear in ports after accetance, I managed to catch some of my recent acceptances and noted that they'd sunk well below 100 on what I'd consider the most likely keyword within 24 hours of hitting the port - in every case below some non-selling exclusives. There were Vettas but no Agency on a couple of these keywords, and no Vettas or Agencies on the rest. I don't know why the best match is so slanted against new files, but there you go.
14775
« on: November 15, 2010, 10:53 »
It would make more sense to me if Vetta images were exclusive. If you have something nobody else has, you can more easily put a higher price on it.
Unless you know something I don't, they are exclusive at the moment, though 'towards the end of the year' they are being rolled out to some of the 'Getty family'. If you do know otherwise, please tell.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
