|
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 - SpaceStockFootage
Pages: 1 ... 60 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 70 ... 98
1601
« on: April 13, 2017, 09:23 »
I don't make masses of money from the clip on Shutterstock, so I won't lose too much sleep, but I agree it would be nice to be paid their earnings. But as they've probably already paid out and they'd be losing money to send me that money after the fact... I can understand why they don't.
It would probably be less than $250 or so. Better in my pocket than theirs, but still.
1602
« on: April 13, 2017, 06:08 »
August I estimated.
1603
« on: April 13, 2017, 00:48 »
He'd be angry, but I think he'd also feel bad for them, knowing how much fun it was to actually come up with something new that feels like "you", and seeing other people responding to it
I'm sure the people he copied were also angry, but also felt bad for Warhol... knowing how much fun it was to come up with something new and seeing other people responding to it, and copying it.
1604
« on: April 12, 2017, 23:53 »
Their account has disappeared. Good stuff. Even one of the few works I recognised and told the owner of... he said he recognised a few more... so it definitely wasn't a one off.
1605
« on: April 12, 2017, 10:52 »
That's the standard rules, which apply to everyone, so it's kind of accurate... but they're making an exception for those that have had their portfolios removed, and will be making payouts on the May payday. There was another post about it here recently.
1606
« on: April 11, 2017, 23:41 »
How did you catch them?
I wanted to check something in my portfolio, how buyers see it. Now, it's rare I have to look at my portfolio, and I usually forget the quickest way to get to it... is it just me or is going to 'approval status', then clicking on file numbers, within an approval batch number.... not the most intuitive way of getting to your portfolio! So I just went to the main site and searched for the title of that clip, as it was the first file that came to mind. Still had to go through a page or two, got to my video, clicked on it, went to click on SpaceStockFootage to get to my full portfolio, but there was Anna_Stock instead. If I had learned the system better, or the back-end was more intuitive... I might never have found it!
1607
« on: April 11, 2017, 16:58 »
Yep, mines finally gone. Crazy, since they solicited ME and uploaded my whole port for me a couple of years ago. I was still making good sales, even last month, for a site of their size. At least it was their time wasted getting my port online and not mine.
And I don't get this with artists like you. I am more of a ham n egger and they kept me.....I fully expected to be dumped and may indeed dump myself. But the talent that they unloaded baffles my mind.
Same here I get one sale a month and fully expected to be dumped. Doesn't make any sense 
I was making 50%. Maybe thats higher percentage than they want to pay, so they kept people earning lower rates?
That'll be the one... 64% of $0 is always better than 50% of $2 to $9.
1609
« on: April 10, 2017, 00:27 »
when an image is RF it can be used for anything.
It can be used for whatever the royalty free license stipulates it can be used for, which is rarely 'anything'. Most sites will have a disclaimer on editorial images, stating that it can't be used for commercial, advertising or promotional purposes... but it's still royalty free.
1610
« on: April 09, 2017, 21:44 »
It's always been my understanding that RF can be commercial or editorial... being RF doesn't really define the content of the image, just the fact that it's royalty free. I don't think Alamy have to make all editorial images RM, but they choose to do so. I could be wrong... it happens from time to time.
Although, I'm sure unonimous will be along shortly to confuse the matter.
1611
« on: April 09, 2017, 21:25 »
If it gets to a few months, drop them an email. They'll probably say it's normal due to the number of submissions etc... but then they'll miraculously get approved in the next few days. Like they've forgotten about them, but didn't want to admit they'd forgotten about them.
1612
« on: April 07, 2017, 20:03 »
Always nice to see you practising your 'law blogging' skills, but stock agencies can do what they want. It's not illegal for them to specify what they will accept, when they accept it and how they categorise it.
Sure, they may not be able to make a legal determination on whether something is 'commentary' or not, but they're not doing that... they're making a general determination on whether something is 'editorial' or not, a term that the majority of stock sites use to classify such content. And they have every right to do so. Editorial may be similar to commentary, but as you yourself have stated, they're not the same.
The main reason they do this, as far as I can tell, is to remove any potential legal issues that might arise due to the usage of the content. They have to show due diligence so they might not be implicated if anything comes of the usage of the content.
They're also not able to make a 'legal determination' of what constitutes 4K, what should be a featured file, what category something should go in, and whether something should be approved or rejected... but they do. Mainly because it's their business, and unless they're doing something that is specifically against the law, then they can do whatever they want.
1613
« on: April 07, 2017, 08:25 »
After looking at some of the top authors, I'm not surprised they were dropped. 170,000 files with 40,000 sales since 2011?
40,000 sales is great, not surprised they're a top author, but from a quality over quantity vibe... if they're all $1 sales, then Envato is making 0.1 cents per image, per month... or 1.2 cents a year. Even if they average out at $5 sales, then you're looking at half a cent a month, or 6 cents a year. Would that even cover the storage costs, maintaining the site, and the time to review?
I appreciate that Photodune is for from one of the 'big boys', so it's not really the author's fault, but something had to be done. I guess it beats shutting it down entirely.
Thing is what they did seems to make little sense in that they appear to have dropped a lot of people who sold well. I guess time will tell.
Agreed, but it depends how you define selling well. 40,000 sales a year is great no matter how many images you have in your portfolio... but if you're earning a couple of cents a year per image, and it costs them more than that to host, review and maintain... then they're losing money on your portfolio. Now, if they got rid of people who were making an average of $1 to $10 an image per year... then that would be a bit daft.
1614
« on: April 07, 2017, 06:15 »
F to the Y to the I:
"Ive attached a sample copy of our non-exclusive contract here. I dont think theres anything unusual in the T&Cs, but please have a look through it and let me know what you think, thanks. This version of our contract, despite it being non-exclusive, does grant us the right to distribute to some of our partner agencies around the world. If you have material with other agencies, or make sales in other countries that you want to protect, you can turn that off, or pick and choose from the list which agencies and/or countries youd be happy us sending to.
Email I got from one of the guys at Science Photo Library.
1615
« on: April 07, 2017, 06:13 »
a month ago they said they will keep my portfolio - now they say that I have to become part of envato elements or they will close my account on photo dune - until 12 od april - I don t know what to do?!
That was part of the original announcement back in November. https://forums.envato.com/t/adjusting-our-focus-a-new-approach-for-photos-at-envato/73708To be fair, it's not 100% clear from the initial post that you have to be included in Elements or nothing at all... but that is clarified in some of the official questions and answers further down the thread.
1616
« on: April 06, 2017, 18:22 »
Here is the link to my portfolio:
www.shutterstock.com/video/gallery/MotionWorks-Film-Studio-4312687/
(if you say 'hey those are videos...' - please be aware that at the end of every video I shot, I then took a still at 4k resolution, so basically the technical quality and artistic value of the shots you see in the link are exactly the same as the stills I submitted)
I think if 99% of the portfolio is accepted at Istock, surely only 1% acceptance rate at Shutterstock is beyond any reasonable logic?
Or you could look at it the other way... I think if only 1% of the portfolio is accepted at Shutterstock, surely a 99% acceptance rate at Shutterstock is beyond any reasonable logic?
1617
« on: April 06, 2017, 18:19 »
When I look at a new site, I often do a broad search with the term "business" to see what level of photographers they have. This is the result on Bentbox: http://bentbox.co/search?business... people peeing at coffee shops: NOT a good sign!
If images or footage of people peeing at coffee shops was a multi-billion dollar industry, then it wouldn't necessarily be a bad sign. Could be an untapped market. But I get your point!
1618
« on: April 06, 2017, 18:15 »
I'm going to guess this image isn't really as interesting as you think it is, and probably isn't worth the trouble. A straw in a glass of water would demonstrate both surface tension and refraction.
Well you guessed wrong. Other people have seen this image and I can assure you that it's a lot more interesting than a photo of a straw in a glass of water (which by the way would only demonstrate refraction - not surface tension.) If the straw is sitting passively in the water, the surface tension is not being visibly disturbed. And I'm not going to fall for your trap by posting the image here. It's not available on the internet at this current time.
I'm not doubting you, it may be amazing... but how does 'other people having seen the image' dispute the possibility that 'it isn't really as interesting as you think it is'?
1619
« on: April 06, 2017, 05:04 »
Could be different for video. I'll dig out the contract after I've been to the pub. It'll all be clearer then.
1620
« on: April 06, 2017, 04:36 »
They sent me a contract and it definitely wasn't exclusive.
1621
« on: April 05, 2017, 12:48 »
If you have a lot of pornographic content, then go for it! Nothing to lose.
1622
« on: April 05, 2017, 10:35 »
Fotolia with Adobe stock is great! I have some 3000 images with them and I get approx $.800 a month give or take.
Either that's a typo, or you have a low threshold for what constitutes 'great'! 
Yes, your beloved Photodune is surely better
Speak for yourself, I never said I was a fan of Photodune! I'm on about him earning 80 cents a month and thinking that's great... which I'm assuming is a typo.
I had just the impression that you were trolling here and on the Photodune site
I should be wrong, sorry
I think Derek is the only one trolling at this point.
1623
« on: April 05, 2017, 08:08 »
After looking at some of the top authors, I'm not surprised they were dropped. 170,000 files with 40,000 sales since 2011?
40,000 sales is great, not surprised they're a top author, but from a quality over quantity vibe... if they're all $1 sales, then Envato is making 0.1 cents per image, per month... or 1.2 cents a year. Even if they average out at $5 sales, then you're looking at half a cent a month, or 6 cents a year. Would that even cover the storage costs, maintaining the site, and the time to review?
I appreciate that Photodune is for from one of the 'big boys', so it's not really the author's fault, but something had to be done. I guess it beats shutting it down entirely.
1624
« on: April 05, 2017, 07:53 »
Fotolia with Adobe stock is great! I have some 3000 images with them and I get approx $.800 a month give or take.
Either that's a typo, or you have a low threshold for what constitutes 'great'!
Yes, your beloved Photodune is surely better
Speak for yourself, I never said I was a fan of Photodune! I'm on about him earning 80 cents a month and thinking that's great... which I'm assuming is a typo.
1625
« on: April 04, 2017, 17:23 »
Dubai is the big one. They make so much money from oil taxation, they don't need to tax any individuals. Just did a quick search and there's four more... Bermuda, Monaco, the Bahamas and Andorra. None of them are the cheapest places to live, but I guess it helps if you're not paying tax! Maybe the whole tax thing is the very reason why they've become the go to destinations for the rich and the famous.
Pages: 1 ... 60 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 70 ... 98
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
