|
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 - Difydave
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 24
151
« on: July 27, 2015, 06:47 »
it looks like moire, like they left the low pass filter off.... but I don't understand how you would see that on the sky. It is a picture taken of the actual sky (not a sky that was displayed on a screen or magazine print?)
I agree. Have a look at some of the stuff online about removing the AA (anti aliasing) filter on your camera. Apparently the D200 gives some banding when this is done. http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htmI think if it was me, I'd try for them looking at what the fault is for no charge as it was right before it went in. FWIW I'm not a big fan of repair services, whoever they are run by, as unless it really is a local bloke you know doing it, you have no way of knowing the conditions in which work is done, or the quality of the techs there.
152
« on: July 24, 2015, 12:08 »
What happen if SIM never reach 1.000$ royalties in sales?
You'll owe your soul to the company store.
Whether you have shovelled sixteen tons or not! But (to mix up depression era type songs) that's what generally seems to happen once the railroad is built!
153
« on: July 22, 2015, 12:42 »
B and H only give you 30 days on a lens that expensive ? We have better guarantees in the UK by far then. Usually 12 months standard.
I was thinking of a D750 or 810 as my next purchase but I am beginning to think again. Might go with Sony. Oh wait, just remembered, I had to send back 2 copies of their RX10 in the last 12 months as being duff models.
Yes, but remember, that's "consumer rights" and guarantees. Business user "rights" are slightly different. [/size](You do make money from your photography?)
154
« on: July 14, 2015, 12:10 »
$150 an hour would be money well spent I reckon. 
The OP wanders in here, and asks for opinions on a PF which is from "A team of professional photographers and graphic designers" according to the blurb on the site where the PF is. Also states that he / she / they intend to upload 500 images a month to all agencies.
Now this isn't some newbie trying to make a few dollars, and willing to learn about the game. This is a professional team, who, let's admit it, should understand the business and (particularly in the case of graphic designers) know what sells at the moment.
In short the competition doing their market research.
You are 100% right  but we have been doing freelancing from last 5 years with clients from USA, UK & Canda, this is first time we are trying to dive into the world of stock photos so wanted your opinion about the initial few photos we uploaded.
Fair enough. It's not as if you are trying to hide who you are. I reckon you already have the answer above, and what to do about it. Use what you have that is unique to you locally.
155
« on: July 14, 2015, 11:59 »
$150 an hour would be money well spent I reckon. The OP wanders in here, and asks for opinions on a PF which is from "A team of professional photographers and graphic designers" according to the blurb on the site where the PF is. Also states that he / she / they intend to upload 500 images a month to all agencies. Now this isn't some newbie trying to make a few dollars, and willing to learn about the game. This is a professional team, who, let's admit it, should understand the business and (particularly in the case of graphic designers) know what sells at the moment. In short the competition doing their market research.
156
« on: July 10, 2015, 05:41 »
Must watch, 4 minute speech by Nigel Farage:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-09/nigel-farage-destroys-eu-group-think-just-4-minutesthere-new-berlin-wall-and-its-cal
He wants to split up Europe but wanted to keep Scotland in the UK. Never quite understood how he can argue for one union so passionately while doing all he can to break up another one. I also don't like how he tolerated so many racists in his party and didn't keep his promise to quit the leadership if he wasn't elected as an MP. He is just like most politicians, a huge ego and no principles.
The union of the UK has been in existence for over 300 years and is democratically approved. In short ... it works. In contrast the UK public only ever voted to join the 'Common Market', a simple trade agreement and that was 40 years ago. Almost all of us would still vote in favour of that. What we don't want or need is the EU dictating 80% of the laws that govern us, unbridled immigration, excessive cost and little democracy or accountability. We're not interested in a federal Europe .. because it won't work ... as is proven by the issues with Greece amongst many others.
Farage did resign as leader immediately after the election (in which he won nearly 4M votes but secured only one seat, more votes in fact than the SNP who won 57 seats in parliament) but was persuaded to 'un-resign' three days later.
But hey ... I'm sure you know all this but feel free to distort it and leave out most of the pertinent facts to suit your own little agenda.
Anyway ... back on the topic of Greece.
Thanks for that. It sums up my feelings exactly. Common market yes, but the political BS they can keep. I await the results of the promised referendum here with interest, to see how they are going to screw us this time. And don't get me started on the UKIP / SNP fiasco. How can you have two different voting systems in the same parliament? That result shows what a fiasco the whole thing is! I'm waiting for the English to be given a referendum on whether WE want to stay in the British union! :-)
157
« on: July 07, 2015, 09:16 »
As already said, I just can't see someone seeing one of these free slideshows and thinking "I must buy that image"
If anything too much "free" exposure damages the perception of the value of images.
And I agree with Mantis. Someone is getting real value out of this deal if it's only encouraging people to use the service. I want paying for that.
I agree. Where is the "red line"? How much wriggle room is there in terms of how they define "for promotional use"? I think they define that and it's to the moon, Alice.
Yes, I think what we think of as "promotional use" and what they do are somewhat different. As I've said before, another problem I have in general is that I have uploaded my images on the premise that they will try to sell them for me. Not just to be a part of various "promotional uses" that as far as I can see are of no benefit to me. As I said earlier, sales are ever decreasing. Why the silence about these deals if they are a good thing?
158
« on: July 07, 2015, 06:39 »
As already said, I just can't see someone seeing one of these free slideshows and thinking "I must buy that image"
If anything too much "free" exposure damages the perception of the value of images.
And I agree with Mantis. Someone is getting real value out of this deal if it's only encouraging people to use the service. I want paying for that.
159
« on: July 06, 2015, 15:09 »
Whatever you make of the the semantics of the matter. Given away for no charge is free in my book. They're being given away. Someone benefits from this deal, otherwise why bother. So someone gets a benefit from it, where is the payment?
When you go to buy fuel for your car, they don't say, "Oh you're just using this to have a ride round for fun. No charge for that"
If it doesn't matter then just don't do it. Or ask the membership, and listen to what they say first.
People get to create fun slide shows to show their friends, slide.ly makes money from adverts, and Getty and us benefit from eyes on our files that are for sale. It can be mutually beneficial to all parties.
Well that's really nice for them then isn't it? Personally I haven't seen any increase in sales from these free deals. Sales keep dropping.
160
« on: July 06, 2015, 14:53 »
Whatever you make of the the semantics of the matter. Given away for no charge is free in my book. They're being given away. Someone benefits from this deal, otherwise why bother. So someone gets a benefit from it, where is the payment?
When you go to buy fuel for your car, they don't say, "Oh you're just using this to have a ride round for fun. No charge for that"
If it doesn't matter then just don't do it. Or ask the membership, and listen to what they say first.
161
« on: July 06, 2015, 14:40 »
I am pretty sure the copyright symbol and the link are going to be totally useless. The bloggers don't care if the images they use have watermarks, why should the people creating these.
"This isn't a free giveaway, what rights are given?" People looking for freebies don't give a rats a$$ about rights. They just want a free photo. Allowing the images, watermark or not, for these kinds of things just degrades the whole concept of "selling your images."
People looking for freebies aren't going to be buying images in the first place. I can go to google and steal full sized unwatermarked images much easier than going on Slide.ly and doing a screen shot, crop, and then downsizing to not much bigger than a thumbnail to get a sharp images. I don't see actual buyers deciding to go there and doing all that to steal an image. If it brings some more eyes to Getty and iStock then I think it will probably have an overall positive effect and at the worst no effect. I'm not really worried about this, it seems analogous to music pirates recording songs off the radio, sure you could do that but who would?
TO some extent I agree with the thing about freebies not buying images anyway. I've thought for a long time that the main selling market is business users wanting images that are safe to use. However it's one thing seeing the odd nicked image online in some schoolkid's blog, and quite another giving the use of images away, thus reinforcing the idea that these images are "free" They're not. They were uploaded by people expecting sales. "Promotional use" by Getty/ iStock on their websites or whatever is a very different proposition of encouraging people to think that images are free. There's no way of knowing that it does no harm, and I really can't see that it does any good. Certainly not for the individual contributor.
162
« on: July 06, 2015, 13:03 »
I am not even showing a balance now. Nothing for July so far. This never happened in the 8 years I have been there. I have to say I don't put any effort in. It's not worth the effort or expense to shoot microstock anymore. June was very poor and I received no payment from Getty either.
I'm not doing quite as badly as this, but we're already on the 6th of the month. OK it's been a holiday weekend in the USA we know, but I have what would have been a very poor single day's money at one time so far this month. If this continues as it's going, and PP and GI payments are as bad as last month then I reckon this will be the worst month for many, many years. I am, as I write this, uploading some more images. I must admit that I've been finding it increasingly difficult to raise much enthusiasm for uploading lately. They whys and wherefores have all been said before, but I'm really feeling that uploading images which seem to drop out of sight without generating any income is less than businesslike. Like many others here, I don't do this as some sort of hobby.
163
« on: July 06, 2015, 04:42 »
Is it only me who doesn't really care what Greece or for that matter the EU does or doesn't do. It's up to them how they run things. I just don't want to be dragged into it.
As far as I can see, the EU is a failed, left wing body of failed, left wing idealists. Who just happen to have made themselves very wealthy and powerful as individuals in the process of screwing Europe up.
The "Common Market" was a good idea, but once the people in charge obtained too much power, and it became the EU it always was a disaster waiting to happen for all of us in Europe.
And yes, I'm from the UK. Someone earlier in this thread said we're smug. We could be if we were sat outside.
I'm also aware that this is a simplistic view. There again simple answers are usually the best ones.
164
« on: July 03, 2015, 05:07 »
Yes thanks for the link. The rhino shot made me smile.
165
« on: July 03, 2015, 05:03 »
Totally confusing, and after a quick scan of it my brain lost the will to concentrate. On the other hand with PP payments at around 20% of what they once were in my case, I'm not going to spend much time deciphering it. 
166
« on: June 18, 2015, 12:00 »
All I can say is that I'm British, and the sooner we are out of this silly, self serving, extra layer of unnecessary bureaucracy the happier I will be.
"Unsustainable" is a word that is often bandied around here.
That's what the EU is.
Well they broke constitutional laws and changed referendum rules just for a single case and pulled Croatia in this artificial union ruled by people who have never been elected by nobody and calling them self democratic. Doing all that with their corrupted puppets who would sell their mothers if they could.
I hope this breaks into peaces sooner the better.
What makes me laugh, is when we kick politicians out here because we don't want them, they bob back up with their cheery buddies in the European Parliament. As you say, who are these people elected by?
167
« on: June 18, 2015, 06:13 »
All I can say is that I'm British, and the sooner we are out of this silly, self serving, extra layer of unnecessary bureaucracy the happier I will be.
"Unsustainable" is a word that is often bandied around here.
That's what the EU is.
168
« on: June 11, 2015, 04:44 »
Wow this has certainly been a very spirited debate! While my question was dealing primarily with the legal end i was just and interested at hearing the ethical discussions that would ensue. I really appreciate everyone sharing their thoughts concerning both issues
iStock exclusivity has really been a double edged sword. When I went exclusive iStock promised a great royalty rate, marketing and better protection for my work. Back in the Bruce Livingstone days, they made good on the promise. I had 45% royalty rate, my work was posted all over the place and getting lots of views and iStock even chased down copyright infringers working up a very sizable settlement for me at times. Now however my royalty rate has dropped to 30%, iStock's marketing power and visibility has dropped significantly (see alexa.com) and iStock won't even follow up on my infringers.
I want to leave but the exclusive royalty rate is the thing keeping me. I'm the only one in my house that's working and I have a family to support. Losing exclusivity with nothing to immediately supplement it would be taking food out of mouths. Also afraid that if I was brave enough to drop exclusive and come back that my work would lose it's priority in searches on iStock and Getty. I was merely wanting to explore ideas that would minimize immediate financial risk test the waters legally so I can ween myself from iStock exclusivity.
That's life though isn't it? There is nearly always some compromise; You can't have your cake and eat it etc. It really is simple. If you want to do business with multiple agencies, drop exclusivity. The exclusivity rate is for having your work exclusively at iStock, unless you have arranged another deal with them directly. If you want to submit as multiple entities, I'd run it past them first. That way there will be no problems down the line. Also remember that (as far as I know) none of the agencies has any actual obligation to do business with any individual or business. It's entirely up to them. I wouldn't want to fall foul of the rules either written or implied.
169
« on: June 10, 2015, 07:21 »
Although IS have been woefully ill prepared for changes in the past it is hard to fault how they handled the new payment and tax changes, with months of emails and forum posts explaining the upcoming changes. To call them incompetent on this issue is a bit unfair, and to take no responsibility yourself is a bit rich IMHO. Did you not read any of the information or emails regarding the changes? They were made very clear, and it's hard to see what more they could have done. Sometimes we have to take a bit of responsibility ourselves. On top of this, the amounts you are talking about must be very small, you have 300 sales at IS in 6 years so not a great deal in terms of money. You are also presumably aware that if your income is taxed once ( ie. you are taxed in US on your income from US) you won't be taxed on it again in the UK? This is sounding like a very small storm in a teacup.
I have said earlier that failing to do the tax interview was on me (taking responsibility). Also true that we are talking about a trivial sum of money. However, in principle, the mechanics of the situation are that money is moved from the contributor to a pot of money for revenue which is paid out at various points in time but will always have some funds there. Where a deduction should not have made (for whatever reason) it should be a simple matter to debit one account and credit the other - this is how companies (even American ones as I happen to be employed by one) operate. So, notwithstanding my error, I stand over my statement that there is a lack of competence and imagination involved by IS. This is the very same IS who feels that its FAQ takes precedence over the contract it enters into with its contributors.
The taxman wants the tax due to him. iStock arranged for YOU to get YOUR waiver (or whatever it is called, it's an official IRS document) to not pay the tax through their website. This saved anyone who did the interview from having to contact the IRS directly and sort it out themselves to get it. It worked OK for the vast majority of people, which is pretty good when you consider that there are at least four sets of people involved, you, iStock, the US IRS, and your own domestic tax service. I'm certainly not an iStock woo-yayer, but it seems to me that they got this right. Also I have never known iStock be anything but completely straightforward when it comes to actual payments. If it's actually owed to you then it will get paid. Sometimes not straight away, but that's typical of big business dealing with small payments, It really isn't as simple as just shuffling the money around internally. As already said iStock would be liable for the tax themselves.
170
« on: June 09, 2015, 05:39 »
AS I understand it, although the interview was / is conducted through the iStock website, the arrangement whereby you are not liable to pay US taxes is actually directly between you as an individual or company, and the American IRS. It's nothing as such to do with iStock itself. The IRS then gives iStock permission to pay you the full amount without the witholding tax being taken.
iStock can't just pay the full amount to you without permission from the IRS or they would become liable for the tax money.
171
« on: June 09, 2015, 05:30 »
The "proper" jpeg specification doesn't support clipping paths (at least from what I have read) Only the Adobe (Photoshop?)version of jpeg does that. Plain ordinary jpeg is an 8 bit format, not 16 bit, so some information is lost. Whether that makes a big difference in the real world or not is down to the eye of the beholder.
172
« on: May 28, 2015, 06:00 »
I still waiting my payment ... 
Did they take the money out of your account at the end of April? (Actually the money comes out a few days into the month, but it's the amount from the end of the month) Do they know your preferred payment method and correct up to date details?
173
« on: May 28, 2015, 05:46 »
If start a new thread, then the topic is up for discussion. That's what forums are for surely?
Not everyone is going to agree with you.
Particularly if you didn't make your point 100% clear to start with.
174
« on: May 27, 2015, 12:33 »
And, BTW, Google has no interest in licensing. I was a sighted guide at an RNIB technology conference in September. One of the sessions was by Google. I was in a sort of 'ante-room' during the sessions, and I heard them describing all sorts of accessibility features, but I couldn't actually see what they were demonstrating. One section was about DTP, and I heard the speaker say, '...then you just do a google image search for an image and when you've found the one you want (aside: some of the delegates were partially sighted, so that wasn't as odd as it might seem) insert it like this ..." Not one word about checking copyright. That was just it. Find an image on Google and use it.
That'll be fine then! I'll see them in court. Seriously I've thought for a long time now that most sales are going to professional / business buyers who want "safe", licensable content. No proof of course, but the uses I find point that way. So that would mean buyers searching on sites where they know the content is safe and licensable. . .
175
« on: May 25, 2015, 10:10 »
. . . If you catch a native tackling a Bengal Tiger in a remote location then you probably have something. . .
From what I've read the native in the remote area is just as likely to be selling you a ticket for the car park these days! Seriously though there's some good advice here. The point about it all is the best times for microstock have gone. TYou need to manage your expectations.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
