1626
Adobe Stock / Re: New to Fotolia
« on: March 08, 2015, 12:57 »
If you do, make sure you're opted out of DPC, that's bad for all contributors.
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. 1626
Adobe Stock / Re: New to Fotolia« on: March 08, 2015, 12:57 »
If you do, make sure you're opted out of DPC, that's bad for all contributors.
1627
123RF / Re: Earnings page temporarily unavailable???« on: March 06, 2015, 08:06 »
Works fine here. Last sale March 4th.
1628
DepositPhotos / Re: US contributors look at your 1099's closely from Deposit Photos« on: March 03, 2015, 18:30 »Then it sounds like they better pay up or send you a revised 1099. Not saying it could never happen, but I doubt any high-profile agency would take the very real risk of scamming contributors that obviously. 1629
Envato / Re: Envato want to be a reseller and makes the contributor to the seller!?« on: March 03, 2015, 17:37 »
I'm not involved in the Envato Marketplace, but I once considered becoming a contributor. However, considering the total lack of clarity on this matter I would now get the heck out of there.
(Edited to make more sense :O)So what does Red Bubble do, they act like an "agent" don't they, even though you set your own prices? Don't both companies originate in Australia? Has RB had sweeping changes this tax year? I was wondering about that as well. 1630
Shutterstock.com / Re: I think we need a WELL DESERVED RAISE this year...« on: March 03, 2015, 12:33 »This is why I keep mentioning Adobe because they are actually in a position to do exactly this. The only way SS can compete is to increase payouts to contributors. Even so, SS would never raise commission before Adobe does anything. SS doesn't need to, at least not until Adobe makes a move. 1631
General - Stock Video / Re: Grab the Asian Market with MotionElements.com« on: March 02, 2015, 19:42 »
John,
When I get paid by MotionElements through Paypal, Paypal charges me a fee for receiving the payout. Other agencies usually pay those fees for us, so the contributor receives the correct amount of commissions. Why doesn't ME pay those fees? 1632
General - Stock Video / Re: Video on istock - question« on: March 02, 2015, 19:31 »
Now is the worst time to enter istock as a video contributor. Last September they slashed video commissions for non-exclusives with their ridiculous credit pricing. I wouldn't bother going exclusive either, since iStock/Getty seems like a sinking ship.
1633
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Lightbox« on: March 02, 2015, 09:24 »
Contributors may add other people's images to their lightboxes because a lightbox can only be made public if it contains images from more than 5 different contributors. Or perhaps your images were added because it fits the lightbox theme, and a big lightbox containing relevant images could be attractive for customers (so the lightbox creator's own images would be getting exposure as well).
1634
iStockPhoto.com / Re: No more ugly lightboxes! Thank goodness.« on: February 28, 2015, 15:35 »
I can't ask on the forums, but what happens with files that have important file specific information (such as gradient meshes)? Buyers should be made aware of what contains Illustrator-specific features. What happens now that that information is removed?
1635
Shutterstock.com / Re: I think we need a WELL DESERVED RAISE this year...« on: February 26, 2015, 08:24 »Tyler asked and said before to please post a link to threads you are discussing that there is a link to so here it is. Even though I agree with the above (in that self-employment is not easy), you make it sound like being self-employed is a torture and a punishment. I assume you gave up employment to become self-employed for a reason: because you enjoy doing this work. However, the above doesn't sound like you're enjoying it at all. If so, why not go back to employment? For the record, I don't agree with ruxpriencdiam, because he's making it sound like we sit back and do nothing all day. I too experience the pressure of making ends meet if times are bad, it's no walk in the park. However, it's better than employment because of the freedom it gives me. I can accept any assignment I want, I get to work in my own time, whenever I want. Therefore I would never complain about it like you did. 1636
iStockPhoto.com / Re: No more ugly lightboxes! Thank goodness.« on: February 26, 2015, 08:07 »
I'd like to reiterate the fact that removing descriptions is not only inconvenient, it's a destructive decision. Take audio artists for example. Since they no longer have the possibility to guide buyers to different (short, full, looped) versions of their tracks, buyers are now on their own to find the version they want by wading through portfolios with hundreds of files. And there's no solution in sight.
Such a crazy move by Istock and it goes to show they really don't know what they're doing. Even Shutterstock has descriptions (yet no titles) and that is no example to follow. So why remove descriptions? Why deprive buyers of information about their products? Looking at the new layout, it feels like information is missing and buyers are left to guess what they're buying. 1637
CanStockPhoto.com / Re: Images pending pending pending pending pending pending pending« on: February 26, 2015, 06:12 »
Yeah, the review times may be "quick", the pending queue sure as hell isn't. Waiting days before the images can be SUBMITTED after uploading is ridiculous. That really shouldn't take more than 10 minutes for any decent server.
1638
iStockPhoto.com / Re: No more ugly lightboxes! Thank goodness.« on: February 25, 2015, 08:33 »
Here it's still the old style.
1639
Shutterstock.com / Re: I think we need a WELL DESERVED RAISE this year...« on: February 24, 2015, 17:49 »Well, I'd like a raise, and I've worked in spaces just as nice as SS's. In fact, the last place I worked had a beer tap built into the kitchen island. Free beer, as much as you like, any time. Why did you ever quit? 1640
Shutterstock.com / Re: I think we need a WELL DESERVED RAISE this year...« on: February 24, 2015, 17:08 »
Agreed.
1641
Shutterstock.com / Re: no "Status of your recently submitted images" mails« on: February 24, 2015, 15:38 »
My images keep disappearing or fail to be submitted through both website upload and Stocksubmitter. SS seems to be buggy lately.
1642
Dreamstime.com / Re: Strange surge in $2.00 royalty subscriptions« on: February 22, 2015, 18:36 »
I've had some $2 sales earlier in January, do these have anything to do with this deal? I am opted out of third party partner sales, so I guess not. But what are these $2 subscription sales then?
1643
123RF / $0.16 royalty?!« on: February 22, 2015, 15:36 »
Wow, I think I have hit a new low at this agency: $0.16 for an S-sized download.
To my knowledge, a 1 credit S-sized vector should be at least 0.76 euro's, so at level 3 I should be getting 40% of that amount. Most of the time I receive $0.28 or $0.35. So what is going on? Why was it sold for only $0.40? 1644
Shutterstock.com / Re: Best weekday to upload?« on: February 20, 2015, 21:54 »april 1 2017... Forget it, microstock is dead by then. Nowhere to upload to ![]() 1645
iStockPhoto.com / Re: No more ugly lightboxes! Thank goodness.« on: February 19, 2015, 15:45 »
The aspect of maintaining lightboxes which (used to) bring me more sales has gone. All the time spent on those has been a complete waste of time then. Pity.
The image carousel is fine by me, as long as the images are actually a) relevant and b) my images only. Most other sites have carousels too. The bigger preview size is fine. The download and view counters were never relevant to the customer to begin with (well, it could work both ways: 100+ downloads speaks for its quality/popularity, 0 downloads/1000 views could make a customer believe that "maybe something's wrong with the image if nobody wants it"). SS doesn't show counters either and that works just fine. However, I don't see why descriptions should be eliminated during subsequent views, as it could contain a lot of information for the customer. 1646
New Sites - General / Re: excellent contemporary content - free site worth visiting« on: February 19, 2015, 11:40 »
The article says he gained a lot of traffic, and plenty of traffic went over to his main site, so he still makes money through his free photos. It's counter-intuitive to give photos or vectors away for free, but it may work for some people.
The difference with agencies giving away stuff for free, I think, is that the quality of freebies is often too varied and there's no personal feel to it, Just a 'free photo from one anonymous contributor'. In that case the contributor won't directly feel the positive impact of the free give-away. 1647
Shutterstock.com / Re: ShutterS and BigS Down?« on: February 18, 2015, 11:23 »
Wow. Completely down, that's not good.
Probably while trying to fix the uploading issues, some intern pulled the plug. 1648
Shutterstock.com / Re: uploading issues with SS« on: February 17, 2015, 09:49 »
Now the number of submitted images is off. Some images are not shown, even though I submitted them.
1649
MicrostockSubmitter / Re: Updates« on: February 17, 2015, 07:33 »You can enable "Automatically cut metadata according to agency requirements" option in program settings Thanks! 1650
MicrostockSubmitter / Re: Updates« on: February 17, 2015, 05:45 »
I used to be able to upload to Vectorstock despite their 30 keywords limit, and the images would get accepted even though they had 30+ keywords. The keywords would be trimmed on Vectorstock's end. Now, it's become impossible to upload because Stocksubmitter says I don't meet the requirements.
I don't feel like deleting keywords from my files solely for Vectorstock, so could you perhaps not make it a requirement? |
Submit Your Vote
|