|
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
14976
« on: September 09, 2010, 02:08 »
At the weekend, a friend of my husband went to see a suite of rooms he's thinking of renting and turning into music studios. I expressed an interest in possibly renting one from him to use as a photo studio. My skills are sorely wanting in that area, but I reckoned that with the space to myself and the time [I can use the camera club studio, but it's only open at certain hours, anyone in the club can book it (but so far, few do), it's small, and it shares space with the computers and big printers, which are used], I could work on my skills, then put them to use.
Although it looks as though I might be "lucky" enough to 'stand still', I was reckoning on going Gold in Feb-March, so it will, in effect be a pay cut from what I was projecting.
I think I'll let the studion 'go'.
14977
« on: September 08, 2010, 18:21 »
I wonder about this because I have been wasting my time reading forums, instead of working. I wonder if the buyers are doing the same.
Probably only those buyers who are also contributers. But yes, I've wasted most of this evening keeping up with the relevant threads here and there.
14978
« on: September 08, 2010, 18:08 »
With the new changes resulting in a pay cut for almost everyone what will you be doing?
Continuing with my policy of focussing more on editorial shots to send to Alamy. Also, when swithering where to put an image, it'll more likely to go to Alamy now. Sadly, I have to admit that that's a triumph of hope over experience, though last week I got more from one sale at Alamy than I did all week at iS. First time, though. And with three payments pending, I haven't actually had any money yet. I'll keep a watching brief and make other decisions further along the line.
14979
« on: September 08, 2010, 18:05 »
I won't actually vote as my dls waver too much to be meaningful, but as it happens, I've had more dls yesterday and today than any two days last week. DLs very grim Friday - Monday - I checked back and that wasn't noticeable in previous years. But my dls are going down year on year anyway.
14980
« on: September 08, 2010, 17:40 »
I posted a translation of iStock's reply. LOL (Those of you who know me know what's coming. For the rest of you, this ought to be a bit fun.)
http://bit.ly/istockchanges
Well done! :-)
14981
« on: September 08, 2010, 16:01 »
OK so they made their "difficult decisions". Now make yours.
I made my first one: I clicked that Pause Uploads button on DeepMeta. No more new content for iStock.
But here's a problem. I can't find any way to deactivate or delete existing images. Am I missing something?
I think you can only deactivate one at a time, which would be a pain with a port as big as yours. You could contact contributer relations. (But I'd counsel waiting for a while before making such a drastic more. I'm keeping a watching brief.)
14982
« on: September 08, 2010, 14:31 »
Targeting image users is a waste of time. This will of course never happen so I have no dreams in this regard but the only thing that would work is if every single contributor started to deactivate ALL of their images. And even as Getty said well maybe we should revisit this, even then you would not stop. Once the ENTIRE collection was sitting in the deactivated basket THEN they would be willing to talk. The whole event would last about a week, all images would be automatically reinstated and a guaranteed contract would be put into place where no one would worry about this again. Simple.
I wish I were Pollyanna. 
14983
« on: September 08, 2010, 14:24 »
It's all so tedious and time-wasting.
First the subscription scheme, then the partner project and the Thinkstock fiasco.
Now this.
:-(
You missed the canister changes, that never ended up happening but still caused a controversy. I think we'd all rather have those canister changes and this load of crap.
I already mentioned that earlier in this thread, but the thread is so long, it's impossible to read and retain everything. I counted that as 'breach of trust' (because we'd been promised we'd be grandfathered in), parallel to istock emailling their top buyers suggesting they might move to TS, after promising us that PP customers were "new". It's just impossible to have any trust in their declarations now.
14984
« on: September 08, 2010, 14:03 »
It's all so tedious and time-wasting.
First the subscription scheme, then the partner project and the Thinkstock fiasco.
Now this.
:-(
14985
« on: September 07, 2010, 16:45 »
How do you figure out the number of credits you sold?
It's now at the top of your stats page. Just appeared with the announcement, so I guess they're serious about this one. Maybe no backtracking this time. Maybe Kelly's getting scared about achieving his target of 50% growth. So what did all these promises about us being grandfathered in actually mean. We can get the next colour when we get the dls, but it doesn't necessarily affect our payments. Trouble is, I bet the other agencies are watching this with great relish. :-(
14986
« on: September 07, 2010, 12:21 »
I ordered both from Amazon (Boughn and Rob's) as it was a bargain pack. I'm counting on using them as mandatory reading for my commercial photography class in the Phils. Some poor guys around with a lot of talent.
Oh, thanks. Sending us even more rivals. 
14987
« on: September 04, 2010, 16:47 »
I like Ellen and feel she is one of the few in the industry with the experience and overview of the stock industry as a whole, to actually write intelligently on the subject. If there is yet-undiscovered information to be had she would be the one to have it.
OTOH, every time one of these books comes out the industry gets further diluted with a wave of new contributors. The more people are encouraged to join up the harder it is for any of us, new or veteran, to make significant money.
Whoever the contributors are whose images are used as examples in the book had better prepare for hundreds or thousands of copies of those images to hit the micros. I am assuming the contributors gave permission for their images to be used that way, so maybe they don't care. Would definitely HATE to find one of mine used, even if it was bought with an EL.
I hear what you're saying about increasing the competition, but if bought from a micro, I can't see why the images would need special permission to be used 'that way'. At least I can't see any problem with the iStock user license. And at least from iStock it probably wouldn't get an EL: how likely is it that the book will have a 500,000+ print run?
14988
« on: September 02, 2010, 13:13 »
But then again, a locked thread is better than a deleted thread. A few days ago, a big, corporate buyer, (10 K spent on IStock over the years), opened a new thread. On IStock's forum.
Title - 'IStock - too much crap!'
Subject - the search engine. Very poor results and options. The guy was clearly annoyed and threatened to take his business some other place.
The thread lasted for a few minutes.
Blink and you miss it!
Gone without a trace. I can't find it anymore.
At the moment of writing, it's the second top thread on the third page in the Help forum. (He apparently changed the thread title to 'too much crap').
14989
« on: September 01, 2010, 13:40 »
partner program earnings are starting to show right now! slowly - few at a time as usual; another sign that it could be a technical issue
AFAIK, they do it in date order, meaning your sales from early in the month come in followed by the dates in turn.
14990
« on: August 31, 2010, 14:40 »
could some of you explain to me why are you opted out of the partner program.
I have just checked and my images arent there, in thinkstock at least. But now i wonder why shouldnt i opt in, i was a contributor in StockXpert and i am right now contributing in other sites as well, so my images are available in many sites, what would be the reason not to sell in thinkstock too? is just a matter of the price or comission they sale, or is it because you think it would damage your sales at istock? Thank you in advance for your opinion.
Bte
I put old, low-selling photos in when the program started, but after that breach of trust when they had told us they were going after 'new customers' (hinted: poaching SS's customers), they emailled all their biggest buyers and suggested they take out TS subscriptions, bizarrely encouraging iStock's best customers to ditch iStock. I opted out as soon as I heard about that. Insanity.
14991
« on: August 30, 2010, 15:01 »
I get paid by another company like this. Month 1 it on the 15th, month 3 the 16th, month 5, 17th. The goal post gradually moves just enough so no one complains and the money stays in their bank longer. A dubious business practice.
Not sure if this is the case with IS, they are transparent with payment dates, however some claification with these additional earnings would be appreciated.
Oldhand
Not that I'm in the PP, but when it started, payouts were made around the middle of the month, and now it's the end of the month, with no explanation.
14992
« on: August 30, 2010, 14:59 »
I have been exclusive for just over a year but now they have changed the site to a horrible new design, sales have nosedived (partly due to the confusing new design in my opinion) and their rejection rate has got ridiculous I am thinking of giving up my exclusivity. They won't let you question anything that borders on criticism as they lock threads or worse, ban you for a period of time (this hasn't happened to me BTW). There is no incentive for me to be exclusive as a days shooting could be written off due to their vague reasons for "lighting" issues. They don't even give you a chance to put right what is supposed to be wrong.
A year ago when I went exclusive they accepted almost everything I submitted. My methods haven't changed. Other members are experiencing the same problems. The whole climate has become unfriendly and up itself.
I have almost stopped uploading pro tem. When my photos taken in Scotland get lighting rejections and so do my photos taken in Madagascar, and I've gone from over 90% acceptance to c50%, I'm guessing they really only want studio lighting. Or really badly lit 'creative' stuff that you can call Vetta.
14993
« on: August 30, 2010, 13:07 »
I stopped uploading for 6 months at DT to be able to apply for IS exclusivity, but the sales are so low at IS these last 2 months that I was scared of the jump and decided that I wasn't going to do it.
Maybe because it's Summer, maybe Thinkstock deal (I retrieved myself), maybe new design change favoring exclusivity or whatever but I wonder if some of you were going to become exclusive also and decided not to do it after all?
July and August have been pretty grim; that happened last year too (though not as bad as this year). My advice would be to see if things improve in September before making a final decision. In any case, you're only tied on for a month. Good luck whatever you decide.
14994
« on: August 30, 2010, 10:38 »
Thank you all for your feedback!
This only proves that the client either got the wrong license, or is trying to "scam" the prices down.
Linda 
The latter, no doubt.
14995
« on: August 29, 2010, 13:41 »
That was RF license and price is 45,46$, my part is 27,28$, but price for that resolution is 90...?
Where do you take the info that the price is 90 Euro? There is nothing like fixed price. And there are huge discounts if you are big enough...
Or if you are a newspaper, or an educational distributer. Even so, it's disappointing that three fairly recent school textbooks I have in my hand have 0, 0 and 6 images credited to Alamy respectively. (Oddly, one of the books has its cover photo credited to Thinkstock/Alamy, but it was published before Thinkstockphotos was launched, so presumably there was a previous agency of that name?) BTW, in two of these books, a large number of agencies is credited, while in the third, the author took nearly half of the photos and the others are credited to a variety of agencies. So I guess the competition is fierce. I'm guessing that they put a 'wants list' around all the agencies. I wonder if Alamy puts all relevant pics forward or just a selection. If the latter, how would they be decided.
14996
« on: August 29, 2010, 12:43 »
We've been contacted buy a potential client, and he claims they can buy EL at iStock for less than a dollar, -if they maximize the subscription plan they have.
I find it hard to believe that iStock would sell their EL for so little money, and unable to find any information to support this claim I'm wondering: Do any of you know the price for EL when you buy them in bulk/subscribe, for use on a print-on-demand site? All I can find is that EL don't grant you the right to use images on print-on-demand sites, making this even more odd. I do suspect the client is using the wrong license from iStock.
There is no way we'll reduce our EL price to a dollar, but it would be interesting to know how low other agencies are willing to go on these licenses.
Do you have any experience with price and commission on EL?
Thanks,
Linda (from yaymicro.com)
(Yes, we're a competitor to iStock, but I hope this don't exclude us from discussing prices & licenses. If you feel we shouldn't discuss this here, we'll refrain from it in the future).
Your 'client' chancer is lying. It's easy to check out iStock's rates, both for buying credits and for how many credits are needed for each type of EL. Just click on 'how to buy credits' http://www.istockphoto.com/buy-stock-photos.phpCheapest subscription you can buy [1] is 480 downloads a day for $46,146 per year. I haven't worked it out, but the front page says, 'as little as 24c per credit', so we'll assume that that's the deal. [1] Allegedly. if you want to buy more than that, you can negotiate with support, but that's lot of credits. So we'll say 24c per credit. Cheapest extended licence is 75 credits, for multi-seat use. So that's $18. http://www.istockphoto.com/license_comparison.php
14997
« on: August 29, 2010, 08:27 »
There was a bug discovered a few days after the launch of F5 by which we all show as being opted in to the PP, and can't seem to uncheck the box. However, to find out if any of your images are actually in the PP, you should go to Thinkstock and search on your real name (registered on iStock). My opt-in box is checked :-(, but I have no images showing on Thinkstock :-). This has been reported on at least two istock threads (first announced on the Push for Gold thread, when the discoverer posted to see if anyone else was getting it, then got a thread of its own. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=246012&page=1However, a further complication is the issue that people who actually WANT their images in the PP  are finding that they don't show up in there for weeks - in fact AFAICS, there isn't any evidence that recent pics 'sent' to the PP are appearing there at all. Where recent = a couple of months at least. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=246142&page=1So, worth keeping a watching brief.
14998
« on: August 28, 2010, 17:07 »
Thanks for sharing that Pet Chia. I have always heard the same - once you allow people to deposit money INTO your bank, they also have the ability to take money OUT of your account. That's my main reason for not wanting too many people to have access to my account.
Lisa: Did you check this thread on the forums? They're considering PayPal, Moneybookers, Payoneer and 'others: please specify'. http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=8749
14999
« on: August 28, 2010, 13:30 »
ShadySue, lastly, thank you for pointing out the illusion that Alamy mean only big commission. I did have no idea that there is other distributorship to wittle downbig commission from Alamy.
So, still based on what I see in my wallet now, and compare to moon dreams of visual vapour big money and bigger commissions, I am still better to stay with Shutterstock,
right?
Not necessarily. (Though to be fair, I can't speak for Shutterstock). I've discovered that on iStock, it's all very well having the only pic of something in the whole collection, and probably on the whole of micro, but if it's not a subject the buyers want (e.g. less usual wildlife) you'll only sell very few, if any, licenses. Then on Alamy, it's far more difficult to get the only shot of something. Even less usual species from less usual places seem to be well covered on Alamy! Anyway, here is the information about the Distribution scheme: http://www.alamy.com/distribution-terms.asp (note you can opt out of this; only you can decide if you think 40% is better than 0). Here is the information about the newspaper scheme: http://www.alamy.com/editorialuse.aspx (again, you can opt out, if you decide that "average prices maybe lower than previously attained" is better than 0.) And finally, here's the Novel Use info: http://www.alamy.com/noveluse.aspx. You can opt out of this. It seems that as an iStock exclusive, I must opt out of NU, but from what I'm reading, it's no great loss. However, some interesting information came out with a very recent forum thread about NU, which would be worth reading before making up your mind. PS: I'm glad I decided to post these links. I discovered that since I changed my email address registered with them earlier in the week, I wasn't shown as opted out of NU. (Nor was I shown as opted in, so I'm hopefully OK!) Now done.
15000
« on: August 28, 2010, 02:28 »
micro stock you know you can make 25 cents and sure to at least make say $5, $10
total. Alamy, you know it is one time in a blue moon chance, but one download will bring a lot of money, esp since editorial sell best for Alamy.
Do you choose Alamy or the more sure thing of microstock?
My approval with Alamy is 100% .But of course, not many of my work was 48 MB,
so I do not have many. But now 24MB it is possible I can increase upload.
Be aware that a lot of Alamy editorial photos are sold to newspapers or educational publishers, who both get big discounts off the prices you see on the pages. Yes, you can get big sales (so I'm told!), but you can also get surprisingly small returns for sales. Remember also that your 60% is only if an image is sold directly by Alamy. If sold by a distributor, they get their cut too. However, I didn't upload one photo to iStock in August but sent many to Alamy. Each has their place, and I much prefer 'real' photos to set-ups or those with reality cloned out. The difficulty is knowing what to place where. Of my measly six sales, four were scenics, no MR or PR needed, but hard to know how they'd have done on iStock. One definitely could not have gone micro and one was marginal for possibly identifiable tiny fuzzy people - but that last one would probably never have sold on Micro (a very specific developing world, non-touristy location). Good luck!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
