|
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 - disorderly
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 58
151
« on: January 03, 2015, 13:18 »
Be patient. With the New Year holiday, I wasn't surprised to have various month end emails delayed. I expect we'll see it on Monday.
152
« on: December 28, 2014, 00:50 »
I have two go-to lenses for people shots: 70-200mm f/4 and 24-70mm f/2.8. I use the 70-200 when I'm in a big enough space and don't need to use a small flash for fill (studio or outdoors). When I'm in a smaller space I like the 24-70. I try to keep to the middle or telephoto end of the range, but even at the wide end it's good for full length people shots. Either one produces fine results and they're both more flexible than a prime. Oh, and the 70-200 f/4 is half the weight and half the price of a f/2.8. I really like that.
153
« on: December 20, 2014, 09:11 »
It just shows how much variation there is in our results. For the year DT is in 6th place for me at 6%, well behind SS (40%) and 123RF (23%) but within striking distance of Envato (8%) and iStock (7%), neck and neck with Deposit (6%), and well ahead of BigStock and Canstock (3% each). None of the others shows more than .5%.
154
« on: December 16, 2014, 20:48 »
Just a random berry release won't do. You need a release for each of the berries in the image. 
I'm assuming these are underage berries, so you'll also need the signature from the papa berry or the mama berry. And a DNA test just to be on the safe side.
155
« on: December 14, 2014, 13:32 »
It's working for me, but it's been taking a long time the past few days. Just submitted a batch of 40, and it says it'll be 392 minutes to get through the queue. There's a bug that reports < 1 minute after the first update. Just click on the Processing Queue tab and it'll show you the real queue time.
156
« on: December 12, 2014, 18:44 »
If you stick to an older version, the odds are when you need to upgrade to a newer mac, older software won't work anyway ( this is why I got a subscription in first place, and I am OK with it.)
A bigger issue or at least one that bites me more often is support for new cameras and new lenses. Having the subscription means I have support for any new devices I buy. That was a pain when I stayed on the same CS release; I had to download a trial for the later version and hope they didn't break compatibility between RAW and lens support and my old software. Now I just let it upgrade and it's ready for whatever I throw at it.
157
« on: December 09, 2014, 15:34 »
I looked at some of the case documents on PACER.
This is what Shutterstock is arguing:
Plaintiff also alleges -- and thus also admits -- that, later she signed a "Universal Adult Model Release for all Agencies" that does not limit use of the photographs and in fact instead expressly authorizes unrestricted use of them.
While Plaintiff generally alleges breaches of Shutterstock's Terms of Service, she was not a party to those terms; does not and cannot allege that she was; and, does not allege -- and cannot in good faith allege -- that she is an intended third-party beneficiary of them.
To me, it sounds like Shutterstock is saying that unscrupulous buyers can throw out parts of the license terms if the model release is written in a certain way. It probably isn't what they mean, but it how its coming across.
I suppose they mean that violations of the ToS are up to the agency and maybe an image's copyright holder to take care of. However, has Shutterstock or the photographer taken any kind of action against the porn and escort sites, who VERY CLEARLY violated the terms?
I would interpret this as saying the model has no case against Shutterstock and no right to demand they take any action regarding violations of their TOS that aren't covered in the release she signed with the photographer. This is legal hair splitting; model's release to the photographer says one thing, photographer's agreement with the agency says something more restrictive. That asserts the agency's obligation to protect the photographer, perhaps, but says nothing about any obligation to the model who signed a less restrictive document. By the way, I have had two situations where photos of mine appeared on escort sites. I assume they were purchased, but I was able to have them removed with DMCA requests (the sites were in the US) since the claim that the model was the escort in question was defamatory and therefore a violation of the release and the agency's TOS. So it does work, at least in the US.
158
« on: December 03, 2014, 09:12 »
Not the case for me. I'm tracking just ahead of last December and well ahead of last month. Of course it's early, so things can change dramatically in either direction before the month is done.
159
« on: December 02, 2014, 23:45 »
For me November was down but not too bad. It dropped 24% from an exceptionally good October, and lost 2% from November 2013. Shutterstock was down 28%, but that was from my BME and still managed to be my #2 month there. CanStock was the worst loser, dropping 78% vs. October. But most sites were down from October. Still, it could have been worse, and it may not be much more than a seasonal adjustment.
160
« on: November 30, 2014, 10:49 »
There are much more reasons to get booted.
If you execute a right as a photographer you will very soon get a blackmail from shutterstocks "compliance-department" which is threating you with getting booted if you still try to protect your rights.
SS policy against contributors is:
"Shut up, hold still, get milked and if you ever try to stand up for you rights we kick your ass".
Blackmail? I want details, not innuendo. Tell your story if you have one, but I doubt you do. This is so far from the Shutterstock I've dealt with for the past ten years that I don't believe it for a second. I've seen Shutterstock act with both deliberation and patience, even under extreme provocation. They have always acted in the interests of their business, including treating its suppliers and customers consistently and with fairness. If you know otherwise, don't just make unsubstantiated accusations. Back it up with facts.
161
« on: November 25, 2014, 11:57 »
Some agencies will accept a single release, however most will require different releases for each date.
My experience is the reverse: nearly all agencies I work with are satisfied with a single release for each model. The exceptions I know of are iStock (to which I no longer submit) and Canva. That said, you are best off having a release that covers every shoot with a model, just in case you have a falling out and he or she decides to make trouble. A release with a range of dates may be good enough; I have them sign a new one for each shoot, but require only name, signature and date on those.
162
« on: November 05, 2014, 17:54 »
This might have already been answered, but is there a way to view your portfolio that is actually approved and online? I know there is a Portfolio link in the menu, but it doesn't seem to be able to display simply which files are online/approved?
Here's how I do it: Select Your Portfolio from the pulldown. Click on any of the pictures in your portfolio, whether or not they're approved. Then click on your username on the right side of the page. That will bring up a display of your approved images. Or it would, if the site wasn't giving errors at the moment.
163
« on: November 03, 2014, 09:39 »
My balance has updated several times, so sales are still being recorded. My Image earnings page hasn't changed since October 28th. Hope they fix the site soon.
164
« on: November 01, 2014, 10:28 »
A very good month, after a couple of weak ones. It was my 3rd best, beaten only by two months when Envato paid out for my participation in their content bundles.
BME on SS by a wide margin, 51% of my total for the month. 123rf was 2nd at 19%, Deposit 3rd at 7%, iStock 4th at 5%, Envato 5th and Dreamstime 6th at 4%, BigStock 7th at 3%, and Canva, StockFresh, and CanStock in 8th, 9th, and 10th at 2%.
October was my third month at Canva, and I only have a small percentage of my work there with an equal number waiting patiently for review, but I'm pretty happy with the results so far. And getting sales at StockFresh feels like some kind of miracle. Curious to see what November brings.
165
« on: November 01, 2014, 10:15 »
Why can't I find a link to all my images on 123 for editing keywords, descriptions, or like an overall list of what's uploaded there?
Two ways to get to your images: Under For Contributors, click on History. Then from the Summary matrix, click on Accepted. You can page through your approved images. Looks like you can edit there as well. Under For Contributors, click on More. Then click on Followed. You'll get a display of your approved images in (imperfect) order of number of downloads. You can nominate a 5% subset for better placement in searches.
166
« on: October 23, 2014, 09:59 »
I would agree that the custom helmet might be problematic and might require a property release or some heavy retouching, but a model release isn't needed. I've always followed the rule that it doesn't matter if the subject of a photo recognizes themselves; it only matters if a third party who wasn't there when the photo was taken could identify that person with any degree of certainty. I have a few candids that were accepted at Shutterstock and elsewhere; none of them showed the subjects' faces or involved clothing so distinctive that someone would know them.
167
« on: October 21, 2014, 23:49 »
Canva is doing a lot of new things - micro rights managed, buyer never gets our files, and design in the browser. I'm willing to cut them a fair bit of slack to see if this can fly
50% is meaningless in the absence of some context
But there is plenty of context here! And yes, Canva is doing a lot of very interesting things, but you should still be payed at least 50% when they sell your IP.
The fact that the license is only valid for one time is a great thing, but it is certainly not an argument that Canva should keep 65% from selling your images.
Its really sad that we are now so used to getting screwed with low commissions that there are actually contributors defending 35%.
I can't agree. Canva is doing something new and different and providing a lot of value to its customers with its design tools. They're doing a lot more than just providing a marketplace for my content, and I have no problem with their taking a larger share for that. I don't see 50% or any specific percentage as magical. If an agency uses their share to increase my sales and manages to deliver more revenue to me in the process, they're welcome to a bigger piece of the pie. Not 80% as iStock did or 84% as they take now, but I think there's middle ground we can both live with.
168
« on: October 14, 2014, 21:28 »
FTP is working again.
169
« on: October 09, 2014, 07:34 »
For me it's been very good. 123rf has been my #2 seller for the past two years, and well ahead of #3.
170
« on: October 08, 2014, 21:55 »
There are only two kinds of people opted into DFC
1/ Contributors who don't know about it, who would opt out if they did know
2/ Complete muppets
That is an insult to Muppets.
171
« on: October 08, 2014, 12:16 »
If the polls are right, shouldn't people be able to recover from dropping exclusive by uploading their collection to the top ten sites +2?
No, for a bunch of reasons I've already stated. The polls suggest that independence will produce more income than exclusivity on average, but they don't say anything about how someone making that move today will fare. The polls show the average performance of portfolios that range from about ten years of age to brand new. They tell us nothing about moving a successful portfolio to those agencies now. And even if they did suggest that independence would be more profitable, they can't tell us anything about how long that profit would take to achieve. As a separate point, "The plural of anecdote is not data." Perhaps the only thing I remember from undergrad Probability & Statistics is that it takes a lot of data points before you can say anything with mathematical confidence. 30 points is what I remember, and that'll get you to 95% confidence. Even then, there's a 5% chance that your conclusions are wrong, and would be visibly so if you had more data to analyze.
172
« on: October 08, 2014, 11:39 »
Your premise is suspect, your conclusion (that the numbers don't match people's experiences) invalid. First you have to consider how much of the earnings reported here are based on submissions that would not be accepted today. There is work in my portfolio that continues to earn, even though it violates acceptance policy for new work. That suggests that a new submitter with the same work would not do as well with at least some of the agencies, since what can't get accepted can't make money.
Second, a new submitter's work won't have the same search placement as that of a veteran. Assuming that there's some benefit to work that's been around a few years and still makes regular sales, a new submitter will be at a clear disadvantage.
Third, different agencies are more or less successful at selling different types of work, even separate from what they accept and reject. An iStock exclusive may have gravitated over time to producing work that sells there and not bother with content that is either rejected at a high rate or fails to deliver earnings. That unsubmitted or even unshot work might do well at other agencies. By tuning a portfolio to one agency, a submitter may do far less well if they make the move to others.
Fourth, in my case at least I have found value in submitting many images from the same shoot. Each image may sell infrequently if at all, but the aggregate from a shoot may do very well. This is my argument against RPI as a metric, but it's also a reason sites that had or have upload limits don't do as well for me as those that are more open to submissions. The same applies to Dreamstime and their former policy of rejecting similars.
There are probably other objections I haven't considered. Maybe some of the former exclusives gave up or reduced their efforts too soon, either before they had uploaded the largest part of their portfolios, or before all those new images had a chance to get noticed. Maybe it takes two or even five years to get a true picture of a move from exclusive to independent. Or maybe things have changed too much, and an exclusive can't make the move successfully in the current climate. Or maybe there's something about the self-selected group that has reported their results that wouldn't apply to a larger population.
I don't know that breaking exclusivity is the best answer for every microstocker. I don't know that it isn't. But I also don't see a contradiction between the poll numbers and the anecdotal reports we've heard.
173
« on: October 06, 2014, 14:37 »
It's a mistake on the part of the customer, but I suspect not the result of any bad intention. My guess is that they wanted to credit the source of the images but not go to the trouble of writing separate credits for each photographer. They aren't obligated to credit anybody, so I think it's nice they at least point readers at Shutterstock. Saying Credit: Shutterstock.com would have made it more clear and more accurate, since SS isn't the copyright holder.
174
« on: October 02, 2014, 00:46 »
I have not uploaded any model releases yet, simply because couldn't find the way to do that.
Here's how I did it, and so far the folks in charge seem okay with it. I create a folder for all the photos of a particular model from a particular shoot. In that folder I also create a subfolder called Releases into which I place the release for that shoot. I drop the whole folder into my FTP application and let it all transfer. Like this: Ann
---10101.jpg
---10102.jpg
---Releases
--- ---20140102-Ann.jpg
Betty
---10503.jpg
---Releases
--- ---20140410-Betty.jpg
175
« on: October 01, 2014, 11:25 »
Wasn't there one place that got upset if you sold them lower elsewhere? Was that Fotolia?
I believe it was. I think they were particularly angry about Deposit and threatened to eject suppliers who dealt with DP. Then of course they introduced Dollar Photo Club, which lowered the bottom for all concerned.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
