|
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
15301
« on: March 01, 2010, 17:46 »
The OP is OK, as their editorial content is RF.
However, the Exculsive agreement is very, very confusing.
I've asked this at least four times on the iStock forums and have never got an answer.
Section 2 'Provision of Exclusive Content" says (I've cut a lot to try to avoid other issues):
In this Agreement, "Exclusive Content" means, as applicable to Supplier, either or both of: (i) Still and Flash Content, and (ii) Motion Content; ....... but shall not include (1) Content that is produced as "work for hire" ....... (2) Content that is produced for "Editorial" purposes except to the extent the Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement, where "Editorial" means visual reporting to illustrate general interest and specialty stories for information, documentary or photojournalism (but not advertorial) purposes only; (3) Content that is "Rights Managed", ...........
So: exclusive content is Still and flash and/or Motion,
not including (1) 'Work for hire"
not including (3) Rights managed images (such as the OP has)
And not including (2): "Content that is produced for "Editorial" purposes except to the extent the Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement,"
Can someone explain to me for sure, not speculatively, what on earth that means.
I.e.: in what way is the 'content that is produced for editorial purposes' different from RM Editorial. (It must be different, else it would just come under Rights Managed in clause 3.
What does "except to the extent the Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights..." actually mean???
15302
« on: March 01, 2010, 12:02 »
99% of his port is not studio shots.
He has this huge big aeroplane hangar set up with loads of studio sets, reminds me a bit of ikea, though he has other than domestic studio sets. I don't believe that he only does 1% of his shots in there. If so, no wonder he isn't making a profit.
15303
« on: February 28, 2010, 17:32 »
15304
« on: February 28, 2010, 15:43 »
I think what deyu16 is trying to say is that if there was not competition....the product would not be as good. Like the apple stand for example...if you were the only vender...you could stick rotten apples in there as well as good ones if there is not competition.
And now we have such over-supply that apples go to waste just because they're not a standard shape or size; nothing to do with their edibility or taste. In our local Lidl, they sell 8 apples for 1. I can't imagine how that's good for the grower.
15305
« on: February 28, 2010, 15:26 »
Another one who understand ...thanks a lot ...but I might add that the same law applies to contributors to,not just for buyers!An example so you can understand better lets say there are 10 photographer submiting photos each submit 10 new photos per week ....and there are 300 000 buyers so basicly the competition is very very small and for the moment you belive that you will make a fortune doing photos ...but in real life it's completly different because when the cleints will buy all the images there is nothing to do....I belive that is a good balance now on contribuitors and picture buyers because everyone gets a piece of cake
The cake slices are getting ever thinner for all but the top contributers. My downloads are plummeting, but I'm rising (slowly, but steadily) on iStockcharts, which proves that most others around me are plummeting even faster. Of course, some are shooting up past me, but the overall average of downloads per contributor is decreasing as there is only so much cake (so many buyers) to divvy up.
15306
« on: February 28, 2010, 14:41 »
Let's see if I got this right...so you are the only one who sells apples right?That means that you can sell any apples you like it doesn't matter if the client likes them or not...You are the only one and the client has to buy from you...furthermore you can charge whatever you want for that apples ...for example let's say you got an apple for $1 and you sell it for $10(because you are the only one selling there no competition) so you make 10 times profit...ok all good but when the other guy decides to open his own store the picture has change...Now you have competition and you can't do what you like because you will go out of business! So you have 2 options 1)continue living in the box with no competition and go bankrupted OR struggle to have the freshest apples and with a good price....the I guarante you that the demand will be much bigger......Competition is good either way you look at it...if a new microstocker comes in and submiting the most eye catching images this world has ever seen what do you do? ?Don't you try to perfect your self as much as you can?
This of course in both cases (apples and microstock) is far better for the buyer but not for the supplier.I'm not necessarily wanting to ban new members or refusing to help new members; even Sean was very helpful to me when I started, and he still is helpful to newbies, despite the sometimes-gruff exterior [1]. I was just questioning your bizarre allegation that competition is good for the supplier. Please explain how I will go bankrupt with my apple business if there is no competition? The competition won't necessarily be apples, it might be pears or oranges. This isn't the case with stock images. E.g, Sean sells gazillions of people and 'product' shots and isn't going to lose even one sale to my elephant shots, and vice versa. Each of us only has to bother about competitors in our own area of interest. [1] Actually given that competition exists, it's in his interest to do so, to make sure that the whole site supplies a quality product.
15307
« on: February 28, 2010, 13:05 »
A good question would be how many actually make a full time living off of microstock. Dollar amounts are not necessarily an indication of success. It all depends on what part of the world or country you live in. In many parts of the world, the cost of living is much less than in other parts so some photographers would be able to live off much lower numbers.
I should move to the US. I've just been doing some comparison checks on some lighting equipment I was thinking of buying. The stuff I'm looking at either isn't available in, and doesn't shop to the UK; or it costs about twice as much here. Plus the general cost of living is much lower.
15308
« on: February 28, 2010, 12:16 »
Let me explain to you as easy as I can.I study management of business and the first thing that I learned in my 1st year was that no business exist without competition.
OK, so I have the only shop selling apples in my town. I'm doing just fine, everyone loves apples and they come to me to buy them (they have no choice). I exist happily for years. Then the guy down the road, seeing how well I'm doing, decides he's going to sell apples. He either has to sell better ones for the same price or the same ones cheaper. Either way, I'm screwed. The World Bank has shafted the Developing World this way for at least four decades - "Oh look, X country grows coffee/tea/cocoa/fruit, you have to do it to or we won't lend to you". All that happens is a surplus is produced and the worldwide price drops. Ask for your money back on that course. (Of course, if I introduce a friend who shoots totally different things than me to microstock, I'm not shooting myself in the foot.  )
15309
« on: February 28, 2010, 08:17 »
As it's a human process, different inspectors are stricter than others. I had one image rejected for 'copyright' recently when I'd already had a few others accepted from the series. I've Scouted it (which I very seldom do) to see if the rejection is valid, and if so should I deactivate the others in the series, and pointing out the hundreds of similars already on the site. (I guess they could all have PRs, , but I've given up writing to ask for PRs, as I never once got a reply, not even a refusal, either by email or by snail when I tried.) It seems to me that as soon as they decide something is unacceptable, they should 'search and delete' immediately - at least 90% of images would be easily found by keywords. And as for keywords -again, differences between inspectors. I recently had 'traditional festival' removed from a photo of Easter eggs (I guess they want to see people celebrating the festival), yet I've wikied several images accepted in the last month with over 20 'factual' words which were totally wrong in the apples and chairs model (I never wiki concepts, emotions etc as they're far too subjective). (Of course, the words may have been added after inspection, but you can often tell if so.)
15310
« on: February 27, 2010, 11:23 »
I can see why they want to see that you can do different stuff, but it's largely irrelevant, since they don't force you to do different stuff once you're accepted, and some people specialise quite tightly.
15311
« on: February 21, 2010, 08:21 »
Love it, Leaf.
That couldn't have been the first time you built an igloo, surely? You seem to be such an expert.
I think the shadow moving really adds to this particular video.
15312
« on: February 21, 2010, 05:27 »
My personal opinion is that these types of photos might do better and be more appreciated by a site like Photocase.
http://www.photocase.com
I hadn't heard of that site so hopped over there and did one of my usual searches. First impression: over 50% of returns on the first keyword I tried don't match the keyword. At all. Not even at a stretch. Around 70% of my second keyword didn't match, but several of these, generously, could be considered a 'stretch'. Second impression: They don't half soup up their images! Anyone using this site? Anyone getting decent sales?
15313
« on: February 16, 2010, 18:47 »
(deleted)
15314
« on: February 16, 2010, 12:19 »
You'll get "second opinion" :-) You won't make it with nice landscapes and meadows full of flowers. What product or service could be endorsed with it?
My question is why do stock controllers leave submitters guessing what subjects they are needing more of...and more likely getting it wrong, it would surely save everyone's time and resources if there as a bit more descriptive criteria.
If they said they wanted red spingleplonks, you'd get hundreds of them within a fortnight, so how would you be better off?
15315
« on: February 15, 2010, 18:13 »
^ gotcha, so perhaps its the content thats not winning through, makes sense since I guess the subjects I choose are easy to shoot
Forget the nature...sunset..flowers...the stock sites are already swamped with these type images and the reason being is just like you said...they are easy subject, but they aren't big sellers. You have to think of what that photo can be used for, not just..."heh thats a great photo". Look it magazines..you'll see there the variety of uses.
They can be big sellers, and what I see in magazines is nature, sunset, flowers; but they're seldom stock shots. The problems is, like you said, there are too many already in the collections. But you can say that about just about everything. And take it from me, the fact that you have the only X, Y or Z on a site, or even across microstock is no guarantee that anyone is going to want to buy it. Good luck!
15316
« on: February 15, 2010, 12:32 »
Funnily enough, after over a year trying to coax my 1290 to make glossy prints without red lines, I gave up on it and got an end-of-line 1400 a couple of months ago. Suddenly realised the hand-in for the Camera Club annual competition is on Thursday (have only been entering the 'projected images' section this year) so I thought I'd better do some. So I'm surrounded by inkjet prints from A4 to A3+, both mono, toned and colour for the first time in ages. All except one are pics I've got either on iStock or Alamy.
I know it's so expensive to print you own prints between the cost of the cartridge and the photo paper. I have an Epson Photo printer that does great prints, but Epson paper is the only one that prints with out the lines or the weird colors. I can't buy any off brands or HP brands. I do have to say the paper thickness is better with the Epson brand but sometimes it's hard to find.
Personally I like the Matte paper over the high glossy...to much reflection on the glossy to me.
I always used epson ink/papers. The red lines thing was a known 'feature' with the 1290. I know what you mean about glossy, but judges always like high gloss. I've got some work to do, though. Some of my mono prints have got weird colour casts - not even consistent. Ho hum, it's been a long time.
15317
« on: February 15, 2010, 10:57 »
Funnily enough, after over a year trying to coax my 1290 to make glossy prints without red lines, I gave up on it and got an end-of-line 1400 a couple of months ago. Suddenly realised the hand-in for the Camera Club annual competition is on Thursday (have only been entering the 'projected images' section this year) so I thought I'd better do some. So I'm surrounded by inkjet prints from A4 to A3+, both mono, toned and colour for the first time in ages. All except one are pics I've got either on iStock or Alamy.
15318
« on: February 09, 2010, 19:23 »
I'm presuming you're talking about vectors, as I've seen the problem mentioned on a couple of threads on the iStock forums, thuogh I can't actually find one of them at the moment.
15319
« on: February 09, 2010, 13:37 »
It's your image so if you're happy with $25 then fine, but they're ripping you off and they know it, especially as the book is already published. You could try informing them that the amount is not even 10% of what should be paid and unless they come up with a better offer they'll have to recall the printed books.
The more people are allowed to get away with this the more it'll happen.
actually i dont think it is published yet...i hope  From my flickr anyway they can only get a small sized version (i have disabled downloads and so on), so I think they can't use it like that.
it seems that the person that wrote to me is not very well informed and just makes her designs or so. the publisher should be informed however.
yes, i actually want to point this out that photography is not just a free business! I dont like that it has become something "for free" due to the internet and google images and all the rest. if i am professional or not, people have to acknowledge this profession and value it!!
The Big Question is what copyright restrictions was on the image at the time when they downloaded it? If you put copyright, all rights reserved or even CC but not for commercial use, you have some leverage over them, depending on jurisdictions etc. Still, like I said, $25 is a lot more than you'd have got from istock.
15320
« on: February 08, 2010, 17:34 »
their answer seems honest to me
$25 is about what you'd get if you sold an extended lincence on most microstock sites, and that licence would certainly cover their intended use for a book cover
I've had two book covers via iStock (that I know of) and neither of them needed Extended Licences, as neither of them would have a run over 500,000. I guess that figure would be a small run in the US, but a pretty big run for a factual book in e.g. the UK. So you're getting a lot more than you'd get on iStock, unless it's a huge run book.
15321
« on: February 08, 2010, 12:33 »
My own impression is that there are different camps with different responsibilities within Getty and that one side, in pursuit of their own ambitions, is not concerned with 'unintended consequences' on other parts of the business. I think the extraordinary silence from TPTB at IS on the subject of Thinkstock speaks volumes. I suspect they despise it every much as we do.
To be fair, I think that's the sorry truth. 
15322
« on: February 08, 2010, 03:18 »
Time shows that we must help those who are good to us and "punish" (too hard word) those who did not.
But not to leave them, but to change them.
"Forgive them they know not what they doing"
I'm sure they know only too well what they're doing.
15323
« on: February 08, 2010, 03:16 »
Way back in the long long threads about the partner program when it was first posited, and there was all the thrashing of details and the Opt Out campaign, Kelly (I'm pretty sure it was him) made a peeved little post stating that if we didn't play ball they'd source their imagery elsewhere.
I guess if Getty can source imagery from Flickr, so can Thinkstock. I'm sure 25c sounds better than nothing to a lot of people.
15324
« on: February 08, 2010, 03:10 »
...
How did we get to a place where people agreed a photo was only worth 1 dollar to begin with, but now .30 cents is a rip off. It all started at Istock trading images for free.
...
If it doesn't seem like much of an argument to you, Jonathan, maybe it's because you're not taking into account the much larger numbers of downloads that subscription sites can afford. It's not uncommon to have a download-per-image (DLPI) ratio greater than 2:1, and for even a modest portfolio of 2000 images the difference of only a few pennies per DL can really add up. On the other hand, it does seem a bit silly to be willing to license your imagery for, say 38c on Shutterstock, but not 36c/38c on Thinkstock. I don't really 'get' that logic either.
I don't think it's uncommon to have a DPE of more than 2:1 on iStock either. Heck I'm a miniscule player and my dls are 4:1. Also your second argument doesn't make sense. If you're selling your imagery for 38c on SS, you clearly aren't iStock exclusive, and non-exclusives are getting 25c from Thinkstock.
15325
« on: February 07, 2010, 17:13 »
3. Can't stomach the idea of assigning value based on size? Make it an RM hybrid. $100 a month for up to M for personal/student use. $250 a month for up to L for blog/small business use. $750 a month for up to XL/commercial use.
This so much appeals to me, but it would be very difficult to police.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
