Quote from: Me on July 10, 2014, 10:35

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 10, 2014, 09:19

"Fountains, bridges, waterscapes, landscapes, landmarks, etc."

Aside from zoo animals and feet, you've named thed the top things that are easy to shoot and don't sell.  Just because you like shooting them doesn't mean anyone necessarily wants to buy them.

Really? These genres don't sell? $hit, better scrap my portfolio of over 5000 images which comfortably bring in well over four figures a month.

Wonder what other landscape photographers think about landscapes being "easy" to shoot?

Notice I didn't say 'good', 'great' or 'epic' landscapes.

LOL, fair enough Sean

The shirt could be the problem

Never pictured IS as Bambi's mom

+1

Opted out of Alliances

Assuming you are in France does it not pick up your IP address as French so uses that as your location, similar to what Google and such does?

Quote from: shudderstok on May 07, 2014, 21:28

well bruce sure objected to being paid fairly while at the helm at IS. but he is a new man now with $50 million in the bank, so after years of royalties being 20% or so and undercutting many agencies, it's ok now to be holier than though and have values.

that said, if he had those values from the get go, i'd be a loyal fan for life, but these new values are very very late to arrive and for that i see it for what it is.

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

So you're going to base a business decision on some bad feelings from the past, even with the current opportunity is a good one. Well that's brilliant.

Stocksy improved literally everything that was wrong with iStock. Fair royalty rates, image exclusivity vs. artist exclusivity, simple pricing, and on top of that they added the coop model and a pretty much unheard of 100% EL royalty. But you're still going to hold a grudge about iStock...

But watch out for that sneaky Bruce... he's going to get us with his fair pay and generous terms. Just when we least expect it, BAM, he'll hit us with some other fair thing to add to Stocksy. Then you'll be laughing, right? Wait...

So if FT offered the EXACT same royalty payments as Stocksy in the future, you would happily sign up and forget about past misdemeanours?

Of course you should consider past performance in future business decisions, it would be na�ve and foolhardy not to. We all do it everyday. You don't go to a restaurant where you don't enjoy the food, you don't go to a shop where you know the service is bad, the list goes on. Why should this be any different?

In the past the guy has paid unfair royalty rates, why should you not expect the same in the future? Because he now has $50million and a conscience? Because it is now a co-op? The largest co-op in the world is struggling in the UK. A co-op is not the holy grail all saving grace of business, it is a business model which can fail the same as any other. It is down to the management of the business/co-op and in this case the management has a track record.

Please. Save me your platitudes for Bruce Almighty. The proof is in the performance. At the moment things are going well and congratulations to them all, but that is no guarantee of future security or prosperity.

Quote from: onepointfour on April 29, 2014, 12:41

I was browsing in Offset collection and stumbled on this shot http://www.offset.com/photos/61270.

Since most of my issues with SS is focus, it makes me wonder if the images in Offset need to go through the same reviewing process.
Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to bash Offset or the photographer. In fact I have high admiration for this photographer and have been following their works for years now.

Hello,

Sorry for the confusion - that image looks like an upload error (the wrong file in a single edit being uploaded or approved) and has been removed.   

Best,

Scott

And that's why you don't link to someone else's images.....

Why?

IF I remember correctly, they contacted me a year or two back. Basically they say they will use their positioning on Getty to sell your images - but you sign your images over to them to put onto Getty as their work so they can sell. Whatever they sell of your images, they pay you up to 40% of the commission. For example. Your image in their portfolio sells on Getty for $500, and they get, for example, 50% commission so $250. They will pay you 40% of $250 i.e. $100. You get $100, they get $150.

I declined politely.

If I want my images on Getty, I will sell them there.

They are basically offering their position as an agent on Getty and for it they get paid more than you do.

Caveat - this is all IF I remember correctly.

ETA - I'm pretty sure with me they were talking about Alamy though.

Hopefully it�s a bug. I just checked and mine are set on 20 too. I have gold rank there.

Same here, just contacted Customer Services asking them to investigate and provide confirmation that any sales at this time will pay out at correct level

Anyone else getting this on 123RF? Been like it for me for a few hours now. Maybe I missed a maintenance announcement?

Quote from: Mantis on April 01, 2014, 07:07

You are a very arrogant individual, one who infers that he/she is far more educated and experienced than the masses who choose to be a part of this forum...

Yes, out loud: I am actually 100% sure of that. Last time I checked this wasn't exactly a high art academy board. But you are welcome, raise your hands: how many have taken years of classical/contemporary/applied art classes, drawn/painted hundreds of portraits, figures, nudes, done posters, billboards, annuals, you name it, anything since photoshop (and the rest) 1.0? Of course this is arrogance to you, what else could you say.

Quote from: Mantis on April 01, 2014, 07:07

. You make COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED statements in here that we are all STUPID, yet you are the mighty engine of success. Your rhetoric essentially states that if we micro stock contributors had your level of expertise, we'd all be successful.  Have you returned from fantasyland yet?

What does this delusional rant has to do with my posts? Did I say anything about success in micro or it's relation to expertise in art? You don't need any of that to be successful in micro... and yes I insist: running around claiming that these things like a balancing elephant montage or a handshake shot is his/her idea to be safeguarded from concept thievery, does make them look extremely stupid * 100000000000... but that's not everybody. I'm sure there are many people here that get same amount of laughs out of these originality claims in micro. Here are some caps from me too : It's STUPID

Just check SS forums, people going in there all up in arms about their "idea getting stolen" then others just keep posting the link after link after of "his idea" often from decades ago. How can someone be that stupid? Quite amazing.

Hands up those of you that did this then lowered yourself to microstock?