|
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 - etudiante_rapide
Pages: 1 ... 63 64 65 66 67 [68] 69 70 71 72 73 ... 79
1676
« on: August 05, 2014, 10:26 »
good point. i have several gems, and they too found themselves. zero cost. actually, one was even not pleasant for me, but it ended up earning a lot of regular money for me. almost like saying, "sorry i f***ed up your life, now i pay you back for doing that by giving you passive income compensation for the rest of your bleeding life!!!" still, my favourite gems is food. i already got paid when i eat them after shooting them in-studio. i think it was you who said, i am fatter or whatever since 2005, ... well same here !!! oops, time to go on my daily workout ... jog jog jog.. ooh, who 's that good looking gal jogging my way??? .. bye goofy, got to catch me a rich wife  p.s. good idea, "hot cakes"... isolated hot cakes might just sell like hot cakes too
1677
« on: August 05, 2014, 10:11 »
As an Istock diamond with crashing sales month after month I don't think it is Istock penalizing anyone. It is just that buyers have left the place. That simple. Exclusivity Istock and Getty (I contribute to PC and house collections) are no longer a viable photography business. I give them 6 more months to change that trend, thats when my cut will drop from 40 to 35, then I will be out. I hope my psychological health will improve after that :-)
nary a worry, chum. even if your psych-health dips into looneymania, u & your IS diamonds will have enough chums from Shutterstock ... to welcome u at the microstock looney-bin.at least the monthly fee is reasonable, +- 33 cents per day , increasing to 38 cents
premium single-room only for fotolia members $1. 
1678
« on: August 05, 2014, 10:02 »
still a lot of hoops to jump !!! viewing at what magnification?  hopefully, when u satisfy the great "lord reviewer", (s)he, upon eventual approval, will increase your earnings by an equal magnification 
1679
« on: August 05, 2014, 09:17 »
btw, has anyone from SS read the thread on IStock (penalizing diamonds) similar disease going on there. it's not endemic, it's a bloody eperdemic with the top 2 it seems
1680
« on: August 05, 2014, 09:06 »
Seriously, am I missing something? Is it my eyes? My computer?
read my lips Shelma1 , "conflict of interest... !" reviewer/contributor !!! it's pretty obvious by now, since it is not robot-reviewers, then it has to be contributors who are also reviewers to knock off anything that is competing against their own portfolios or friends' portfolios. like in the old days of Istock where exclusives reviewed indies.
1681
« on: August 05, 2014, 08:55 »
As far as removing the logo, that may not be enough. John Deere is pretty aggressive in going after infringements
http://www.handmadeology.com/you-have-all-heard-it-my-shop-on-etsy-was-shut-down-for-copyright-infringement/
when i was introduced to micro, ironically, the first batch of shots were of John Deere . the rejection was that the colour and many other elements of John Deere is protected. similar to Porsche, Mercedez, Maserati,etc.. I think there was an article a long time back on this here on MSG which covered much including Eiffel by day,etc.
1682
« on: August 04, 2014, 18:12 »
so huge portflio and zero downloads? i have half of that and i made 10-15 dl on saturday or sunday. in june was 20 per saturday, 25 per sunday
i got 8 dollars or so on Aug 3, which is a sunday. which is odd for me, i never get anything on a sat or sunday, mostly pennies if ever. i wonder if they r making up for those blackouts last month.
still, i don't judge to jump until i see the end of the month and something much larger in single downloads.
the only shortfall i got in the past 5 months was april vs last year. so maybe it 's not so bad 4 me to grumble, but i am a total ingrate
i think the quote was misnamed, and your reply was meant for pancake tom. my portfolio is not BIG big, but honest, i never get anything for sat and sun. but i do get 84.67$ , 105$ single download enough for a good june and may 1.76% 1.89% respectively but july was a sad 1.02% without any BIG BIG single sale
1683
« on: August 04, 2014, 17:21 »
What was the rejection reason for the butterflies?
Out of focus. Nope.
Grainy. Nope. Shot in bright sunshine at fast speed.
Bad composition on a couple of the shots. I don't think so.
But no matter. I've moved on.
+1 on the last wisdom. in a moment someone will come in and whoopie yay how 100% approval so really, to those affected as Mr. Rinderhart , the only thing is in fact, to move on.
1684
« on: August 04, 2014, 17:17 »
I think the most surprising thing about the pie chart is that anyone makes money on Zazzle, let alone 11% of your income! 
I see one product has over 5000 reviews, so even more respect!
what about the 15% deposit photo?
1686
« on: August 04, 2014, 16:19 »
I got another 0 day (Aug 3rd). July was my WMY.
i got 8 dollars or so on Aug 3, which is a sunday. which is odd for me, i never get anything on a sat or sunday, mostly pennies if ever. i wonder if they r making up for those blackouts last month. still, i don't judge to jump until i see the end of the month and something much larger in single downloads. the only shortfall i got in the past 5 months was april vs last year. so maybe it 's not so bad 4 me to grumble, but i am a total ingrate
1687
« on: August 04, 2014, 14:43 »
I'm not affiliated with the site in any way, just came across it and thought I'd share.
cheers, scott. so... did anyone here find out where they r located? and how do we see the members' portfolios?
1688
« on: August 04, 2014, 14:32 »
1689
« on: August 04, 2014, 14:29 »
u know u could make a lot more money (or extra money if u r already making money in stock photography), making these pie charts ,etc working as a temp in accounting, marketing , finance, etc no more hoops to jump
1690
« on: August 04, 2014, 14:24 »
it's a good site and a good concept I will apply with non-exclusive stuff that is a little bit edgy and not too typical micro.
If we rule out any new agency or concept nothing will change, the conditions are not ideal but a lot better than most others and I do like the pricing!
yes, precisely with what Jo Ann pointed out, who would pay the higher price when they could get it at SS. so, if ur images are uniquely and not too homogenous to micro, perharps that would be an impetus to clients paying more. which i too am waiting on the sideline before attempting to apply to 500px, Stocksy, ... Offset, and hopefully this one if only i can see the portfolios they have presently.
1691
« on: August 04, 2014, 14:09 »
Anyway, I get your point, but I don't need a lesson in contracts. I work as a freelance writer and photographer for a living and spent 15 years as an attorney in NYC, so please don't assume I'm ignorant of what a "for hire" contract is. I also worked as a staff writer and reporter for a newspaper right out of college and regretfully I know they own the copyright to that work.
my posting had nothing to do with assumption, nor directed at you. I would have assumed you had photography under the belt with an attorneyship in NYC (dealing with for-hire and intellectual property), rather than an ignoramus in the said issue it was made in general as most discussion and comments are here on the forum. of which to solicit insightful general responses such as the one volunteered by OP jrwasserman .
1692
« on: August 04, 2014, 14:00 »
Thanks for the links. I wouldn't rule an agency out on the basis of 30% royalties, but ...
Not thrilled about the 30 day hold on termination - just because they're new and an unknown quantity - but it seems reasonable. A $100 payout level is fine for an established agency, but I think a new agency could lower payout levels for the first year or so to encourage contributors to give it a shot.
So who are the people behind it and what is their plan to separate themselves from 500px, Stocksy, Getty, Shutterstock and Uncle Tom Cobley and all?
+1 on all counts -Jo Ann, Shutterstock payout is not $100. I think one can get payout with $75 . and that is so easily reached with Shutterstock, even $100. this is the sore point of so many single digit sites to the right. I would not say we are done here just yet. Give Emperor the chance to amend the issues, as did the other site that got Jo Ann's eventual "approval". my resounding + for Jo Ann is this closing para So who are the people behind it and what is their plan to separate themselves from 500px, Stocksy, Getty, Shutterstock and Uncle Tom Cobley and all?
i want 2 know the answer too , which is more important than perharps the 30% royalties, as many of the right side sites promised a lottttttt more, but a lotttt more of nothing = nothing.
1693
« on: August 04, 2014, 13:27 »
... commercial shoot outtake but this does show how micro has devalued what we do - volume has to make up for a reasonable license fee.
excuse me, but ...unless something has changed since then.. . here is something that has been bothering me. u know, some keep repeating that outtake bit. but it depends too. if the shoot is "for-hire", the client owns all the images, not the photographer. so out-takes from food shots, aerial shots,etc... may well be not the property of the photographer(s) to licensed. . or there is a written agreement that the "for-hire" contract allows the photographer to retain the out-takes and the ownership... but as long as i remember it, all materials belong to the client in a "for hire" shoot. if it is on-spec the client will pay for what they take, then maybe just maybe, out-takes can be up to the photographer to use to his discretion . still, i do not think a client who pays 35K would expect your out-takes to be used elsewhere either. and furthermore for SS and other stock matters, neither would an employer who pays a photographer who shoots food, aerials,etc.. on their payroll. it is intellectual property of the employer, not the salaried photographer. unless the photographer is doing it on the sly and under a pseudonym . still, even if it is the property of the photographer such as a wedding photog, i doubt if the family , bride and groom would like to see the outtakes being used as stock, and would sign the MRs . i wouldn't as a grand-dad.
1694
« on: August 04, 2014, 13:16 »
Thanks Shelma1, here are the royalty rates:
https://stockafe.com/appendix-a/
I find it sad that "Why bother?" seems to be my most asked question in stock. It's disappointing to constantly be underwhelmed by new offerings.
1- scottdunlap, where u r located ? 2 - i like 2 c some of the members' portfolios but cannot seem to do that.
1696
« on: August 04, 2014, 12:02 »
Here's an image on Stocksy that really blows my mind.
http://www.stocksy.com/224056
Can anybody explain the appeal of an image like that?
I'm not going to comment on this image, but to answer your question, no, I cannot.
At least the background is sort of sharp.
As opposed to some of this portfolio on SS:
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-198979p1.html
I have to say that I like that port a lot but I've never managed to get any 'defocussed' stuff past the SS reviewers.....and I have tried.
it's like the anecdote, a violinist asked a stranger, ..."how do i get to Carnegie Hall ?"(Albert Hall if u're telling this in king's cross or there across the pond)... to which the stranger who happens to be a maestro replied, ..." practice, my son, with lots and lots of practice!" plus of course, a re-submit to SS to tell Scott, defocussing is a technique, dude !!! I deliberately shot it this way !
1697
« on: August 04, 2014, 11:48 »
actually last week i redirected a poster to you after i noticed his portfolio was asian-cultured.
not sure if he did come to you.
do i get a free tshirt? even if i am not with you as i do not have asian culture port.
1698
« on: August 04, 2014, 11:44 »
do u get enough sales there to make it worth while uploading?
just asking...
other thing is , this is like a one stop many things to many ppl (photdune audijunglewordpressetcetc), right? story, song, clip, photo, vid,etc..
sort of scattered. i wonder for this reason i ask the first question.
or is it just yet another social media where u gets lots of likes, favorites, with hope that u do them the same.
if it is a social media, it tends not to bring buying clientele in there. hope i don't sound too blunt
but this is the only forum we can find new sites to add for future potent.
1699
« on: August 04, 2014, 11:33 »
if u pass our Jo Ann Snover's test, i will check u out
1700
« on: August 04, 2014, 11:21 »
i think if u read SS forum, it is the same trend as well. the issue of "capping earnings" experienced by certain earners, not just as you say top earners, or "having their portfolio invisible". just to quote two from that forum.
not sure why they would do this perharps the commission structure , smaller percentage?
or that bigger earners tend to be moving elsewhere (Stocksy, Offset, Yuri where he goes..no one knows,etc).
with sleepy site , there is the increase cost of the image when you change color.
but the seeming trend is to cut earnings for any earners, that's for sure. still, i am not a "top" earner, and i too see that "capping" effect. ie. as soon as u get a big 105 single sale, the next week till payout suddenly drops to zero to ** cts days.
too much of a coincidence that it happens monthly.
the only hoorays coming in are from those with a portfolio of less than one or two years...
as witnessed on SS forum too (show your latest earner or whatever).
so, not just IS; not just diamonds not just top earners. just about anyone and most everyone who is earning better than the "cap"
...
Pages: 1 ... 63 64 65 66 67 [68] 69 70 71 72 73 ... 79
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
