|
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 - PixelBytes
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 74
151
« on: February 05, 2017, 21:14 »
Thanks for this Franky. I am not currently uploading to Istock, but if I ever start back up, this will be a lot easier than tackling Gettys ESP.
Can you use it with your iStock login, or do I have to go over and get set up on Getty?
152
« on: February 05, 2017, 17:04 »
I stopped uploading to everyone including isuck about a year ago.
For those agencies there's been no change to sales but they were rubbish anyway
As for Shutterstock it doesn't seem to matter if I upload or not the sales are still staggering around like a drunk man in a high wind.
Only Alamy has repaid uploading with a 100% increase in sales in the last year.
Sammy, I notice the same. Haven't uploaded in a year or so and there have been declines, but not worse than the declines I was seeing when I did upload regularly. Are you saying you HAVE been uploading to Alamy but nowhere else? If so, then you have seen big increases at Alamy? If you don't mind answering, are you uploading RM or RF?
153
« on: February 05, 2017, 16:57 »
How can anyone who's on iStock even answer the question? For the first time in 8 years I a week into the new month and have no idea what my total earnings were for last month. 
154
« on: February 05, 2017, 16:54 »
Would you mind reporting if uploading makes a difference? It had stopped having a measurable impact for me, so I quit.
Well, maybe the impact is that sales aren't going down MORE?
You can't go up forever, and at some point you need to consistently upload just to stay at the same level.
Uploading kept me at the same level for awhile, but eventually I was losing income anyway, so why bother? If resuming uploading would stop or slow the decline I'd do it, but with the big sites doing what they can to take more money away, seems somewhat pointless. That's why I'm curious what the real world result will be for someone who uploads again after a long break.
155
« on: February 02, 2017, 22:30 »
Thanks for the information from those who answered. It's hard to keep up with their plans, rescheduled plans, changed plans, etc. these days.
157
« on: February 02, 2017, 00:15 »
It was the best month of the year (worst too). It was just slightly worse than the average for last year.
On the plus side for the future I started uploading again in the last 3rd of the month so we shall see if that makes a difference or at least slows the slide.
Would you mind reporting if uploading makes a difference? It had stopped having a measurable impact for me, so I quit. For me, Adobe/FT and DT both performed very well. SS still outsold them, but keeps going down so not sure how much longer they'll be my #1.
158
« on: February 02, 2017, 00:12 »
Was partner program December reporting delayed? Or did my istock income drop 70%? No longer uploading there... but eager to see detailed reporting to decide if I'm going to remove my portfolio. Currently using deep meta to see balance.
It must have been delayed. Shocker! Istock not reporting on time  . (Sarcasm directed at istock, not you) I can't see my balance. Is Deepmeta still available for download? If so, does someone have the link?
159
« on: February 01, 2017, 19:58 »
Is there any way to see total earnings or total pending payment for January? I stopped uploading there a long time ago but whether I leave my old stuff is dependent on what I make.
All I can find is the stats page linked in this thread - thanks KuriousKat - but it only shows the POD sales (pathetic as usual), not the total for payout including December's green bars and January's gray ones.
160
« on: January 21, 2017, 15:59 »
Yeah, I put 'exceptional', then decided to downgrade it to 'proficient'. Under-promise and over-deliver... and all that jazz!
LOL! Admirable modesty.  Glad my wife had sampled the goods and found them to her liking before we got married. Those were the days before online dating, skyping, etc. You had to rely on trial and error.
161
« on: January 21, 2017, 00:44 »
you said: "then I'm pretty sure he doesn't know for certain."
You are completely wrong.
I read the US copyright laws, and I read the documents filed in court cases, and I read case law. I have filed over 100 trademarks and copyrights for my own work. I know the laws.
This woman will lose this case. However, ultimately, it is up to a jury to decide, and jurys can make stupid decisions (such as the Marvin Gaye copyright case which was clearly not infringement).
If you want to be educated about copyright laws, go to copyright.gov. Stock media agencies are completely clueless about copyright laws and their beliefs and understandings of copyright law are mostly incorrect.
And last of all, stop mocking people who are better educated than you are.
I don't know how educated you are. You don't know how educated I am. I never mock people simply for being more, or less, educated than myself... I usually only mock them (in instances like this) for stating things as fact, when they are usually nothing more than opinions!
The thing you seem to be missing is that the decisions made by the court on whether this is a breach of copyright, are very subjective. The outcome of a court case is based on decisions. Decisions made by humans. Usually different humans in each case... so there's a lot of room for variance in the outcome.
Yes, there are rules, and guidelines, and certain cases that will have set a legal precedent, but it's still very subjective. I mean, the main question is going to be... is this artwork or is it marketing? You may feel that it's artwork, but others might not, as demonstrated in this thread. It's not always black and white. And if those that do believe it's marketing, are involved in the outcome of the case, then that's going to make a big difference!
As such, you can't say for certain whether it's definitely artwork or whether she will definitely lose. To insist otherwise, and to surmise that I'm completely wrong, is wrong in itself.
I studied law at college by the way, just in case you're interested. I also study degree level astrophysics courses in my spare time, and I have a pretty high IQ... just so you know! That may still mean I'm less educated than you, but I'd say it means I'm not exactly stupid.
Oh and I'm single, a decent cook, and a proficient lover... if anybody's looking for a gentleman caller. Ladies preferably, but hey... times are hard.
Great dating profile! Will definitely forward this to the single ladies I know. But everyone thinks they're a proficient lover. This might require some references. LOL.
162
« on: January 20, 2017, 01:53 »
you said: "then I'm pretty sure he doesn't know for certain."
You are completely wrong.
I read the US copyright laws, and I read the documents filed in court cases, and I read case law. I have filed over 100 trademarks and copyrights for my own work. I know the laws.
This woman will lose this case. However, ultimately, it is up to a jury to decide, and jurys can make stupid decisions (such as the Marvin Gaye copyright case which was clearly not infringement).
If you want to be educated about copyright laws, go to copyright.gov. Stock media agencies are completely clueless about copyright laws and their beliefs and understandings of copyright law are mostly incorrect.
And last of all, stop mocking people who are better educated than you are.
You are anonymous. How the he11 is anyone supposed to know how educated you are? Good for you for reading up on copyright law. Useful thing to do in our business. But what you have presented here is opinion, not proof, and if you can't tell the difference, maybe you aren't as smart as you think.
163
« on: January 16, 2017, 23:45 »
You know that bolding things doesn't make them any more correct, right?
Apparently not. 
164
« on: January 13, 2017, 22:35 »
Me too. SS in Low Earners Tier now. On 123RF I have only 1/2 of my all images and sells AMAZING this year!!! Thank you 123RF 
I am pretty sure 123RF has tweaked their algorithm. I made the same each month, within a few dollars or so, for 4 years. A couple months ago, overnight my income dropped to 1/4 of normal and its staying there. Its lower than it was 7 years or so ago when I had only been at this a year and had 1/6 the images. SS has dropped for me, but in my case its been a slow, steady decline over about 2 years.
165
« on: January 10, 2017, 01:51 »
How did using the image harm her?
If I was a lawyer I'd go with the alcohol angle (apparently they comped in some alcohol in front of her that wasn't actually there). Seeing as it would be difficult to disprove, they could say stuff like... she's been invited to less events as people assume she's an alcoholic, she feels she's been overlooked for promotion as her employees think she has a drinking problem, her relationship has been tense since her husband found out she was drinking in the day etc etc.
LOL that would not wash in USA. it might work in a " religious country " where women are seen as harlot to be drinking. .. or maybe, just maybe in Ohio ( mormon country,etc)..
but in a place like NY, etc.. where alcohol or drug are "household basics" it won't work.
in my opinion, that is.
the only good out of this is that it teaches big companies like this to tell them,
"silly silly, you thought you can be cheap and not hire a regular model ..
like those newspapers that only use readers' freebies and wire photos".
cost far less to have just paid a model.
I thought the US was one of the most "religious countries" on the planet?! But still, I'm sure it would wash. The lawyer will spin all the angles and religious or not, there are few countries where people look on alcoholics with respect and admiration... so it would make sense to go down that route.
Not to mention if the woman can claim to be a recovering addict in AA. My brother's in Alcoholics Anymous and Narcotics Anonymous. It would negatively affect his social life and maybe even his job to be photographed drinking. I still think the suit is overblown, but the booze angle is the best shot they have.
166
« on: January 06, 2017, 22:30 »
This is why I won't sell a photo of a person without a release. Its possible that the photog sold it as editorial. In that case only Chipotle would be at fault. That said, this woman is delusional if she thinks a jury will give her anywhere near that amount.
167
« on: January 03, 2017, 22:51 »
Speaking of losers.. how's it going for everyone on 123rf?
My earnings have almost halved there comparing 2014 to 2016
They've quartered for me. Not a fan these days.
168
« on: January 02, 2017, 14:06 »
GL is on the chopping block for me. The ONLY site where I didn't get a sale in over a month with 6k images. Actually haven't had a sale there in over 3 months. Buh bye!
I last had a sale a few months ago. I'm leaving my (tiny) portfolio there for now because a sale nets a few dollars, and they have new ownership. Maybe something will happen.
To each their own, but in my case the sales stopped dead when the new owners took over. I never had a month without a sale under the prior owners, and NOTHING since. Wishing you all the best on your plans to go macro. Hope you will stop by to give us an update after awhile.
169
« on: January 01, 2017, 13:19 »
GL is on the chopping block for me. The ONLY site where I didn't get a sale in over a month with 6k images. Actually haven't had a sale there in over 3 months. Buh bye!
170
« on: January 01, 2017, 13:06 »
What about payment of december 2016 sales? It is not show anymore at the payouts report page.
Any reason to believe it won't be around Jan 25 as usual?
171
« on: December 30, 2016, 13:03 »
You will remember we had to sign not to quote posts on the new forum and I'm presuming that also means not sharing links.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif
I was asking for a link to see my earnings, not a something that is in the forums (which I know is forbidden to post). Thank you anyways.
Why everything so complicated at istock, beats me. Sometimes I feel like in a maze when navigating that site 
It is easy to understand why they make it so hard to see how they are ripping you off. They don't want you to know!
172
« on: December 19, 2016, 14:46 »
Good for Germany. Hope the rest of the world, including the US follows suit.
173
« on: December 18, 2016, 23:32 »
Only remaining option to remove a lot of images AFAIK is to close account. I am waiting to see what my monthly payout is for the first month after the new payment scheme. If it is noticeably down from current rate, then I will be closing my account. Frack 'em.
I'm more interested in what happens to my rpd. I have no doubt they can increase sales by paying me 2c per dl and aggressively discounting subs packages, taking all my sales from other sites paying me 10x as much per dl. This could even increase my now pitiful income from istock, I'd just be loosing way more from other sites.
I don't see how my income could possibly increase or even stay steady under the new scheme. I'm just curious if the .02 is the worst case scenario horror story or a common reality. If I start getting good paying Getty sales that might mitigate the losses.
But I agree with Mantis. I will also not let them cannabalize my sales on other good paying sites. That's suicide.
I can see it. They can pay out literally almost 20X less (2c vs 38c) than Shutterstock. The amount they can discount a buyer would be mad not to switch, all things being equal, which is why it is so important we make things unequal by refusing to upload any of our work to IStock.
If they didn't plan on regularly giving us 2c/dl they wouldn't have it in the contract. Why would they sour contributor relations for no reason?
I have that part covered. I haven't uploaded to istock in almost 3 years. As for souring contributor relations for no reason, they've done that so often I think it must be in their mission statement.
174
« on: December 17, 2016, 12:45 »
Where did Giveme5 go? He just showed up recently and gone already. Did I miss some sort of dustup?
175
« on: December 17, 2016, 12:38 »
Only remaining option to remove a lot of images AFAIK is to close account. I am waiting to see what my monthly payout is for the first month after the new payment scheme. If it is noticeably down from current rate, then I will be closing my account. Frack 'em.
I'm more interested in what happens to my rpd. I have no doubt they can increase sales by paying me 2c per dl and aggressively discounting subs packages, taking all my sales from other sites paying me 10x as much per dl. This could even increase my now pitiful income from istock, I'd just be loosing way more from other sites.
I don't see how my income could possibly increase or even stay steady under the new scheme. I'm just curious if the .02 is the worst case scenario horror story or a common reality. If I start getting good paying Getty sales that might mitigate the losses. But I agree with Mantis. I will also not let them cannabalize my sales on other good paying sites. That's suicide.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
