|
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
Pages: 1 ... 63 64 65 66 67 [68] 69 70 71 72 73 ... 624
1676
« on: June 09, 2018, 02:37 »
Certainly are contributors, top contributors, who earn thousands of usd per month, but it's easy to spot them: they are well promoted, they have account with 20K, 40K, sometimes 80K footage, professional cameras, actors, huge investments in their portfolio etc.
So far more important is profit, not earnings. Earnings in the $800-1000 range is next-to-nothing if you have, say, $600 or more pm in expenses.
1677
« on: June 08, 2018, 12:37 »
ShadySue, I always hear about this cannabis man but have never seen his portfolio. Whats his username?
thanks!
Do what I did. Search in msg on 'cannabis' in the 'Shutterstock' forum. You're welcome!
1678
« on: June 07, 2018, 18:13 »
HOWEVER, I don't think you have to worry about it. Shutterstock can play the same game - and they'll look and (eventually) say 'hmm, who has a portfolio of 260,000 photos of almost nearly identical content'? And then all they have to do is push 1 button, "delete", and his entire portfolio is gone.
Most companies have a low tolerance for what they perceive as spam, and it's just a matter of time until shutter stock does something about that. Even though he 'only' spent 2-3 hours (maybe actually 10-20 hours) - he will be quite upset when his account is deleted, and/or most of the images gone somewhere down the road...
You mistake SS for a company which gives a d*mn. Cannabis Man is still up from at least 2015, and now has 46,684 images on SS, though I see that more recently he's moved into guns and one or two other themes. Wonder if he's drawing the outlines himself? (Of course he is!)
1679
« on: June 06, 2018, 12:31 »
Hi
A friend of mine wants to buy the rights to one of my photos. I am on several stock sites but the one he wants to buy is not on any of the sites, but the photo is similar. For example, if I have several images of Cabo San Lucas, and the one he wants is of the same place, same location, but not exact, am I violating any agreements with the agencies (assuming most contracts are the same).
Any suggestions,
Thanks,
Trish
I don't think so in general. Make sure that your friend signs off on knowing that there are similars/sisters still for sale - maybe even write it into the contract. Friends can sometimes become litigants.
1680
« on: June 06, 2018, 12:29 »
welche is the FT? :/
which one is FT? 
thanks
Fotolia
1681
« on: June 06, 2018, 09:01 »
Also, this site is mainly for sellers, though some buyers no doubt look in and some sellers are also buyers.
1682
« on: June 05, 2018, 06:58 »
I think Alamy said they were excited to open an office in the USA and would drop our percentage from 60 to 50% to pay for it (my earnings there have gone up quite a bit, so maybe that actually was exciting news).
My sales are up on Alamy also, but not my US sales, which isn't surprising given my extreme paucity of US content there. So another example of how an Alamy 'exciting news' benefitted some at the expense of others. I have no more sales via the US office, but I lost money to fund the US office setup; and although they say results from opening the US office were better than anticipated, they show no signs of restoring the 60%. From the reports on the Alamy forum, which is only a tip of the iceberg of sales, it seems that US content in general sell for a lot more $$ than 'the rest', but I still don't see why I should have had to help pay for that, and keep paying. Robbing Sue to pay Tom (nothing personal!)
1683
« on: June 04, 2018, 09:53 »
Alamy allowing RF editorials was, in my opinion, a rare occasion when "exciting news" was good for the contributors.
I see where you are coming from, but I see it as bad for contributors. With RM, I often get repeat sales, so even under the low-value UKNS, the little payments can add up - up to 40+ sales. Also e. g. a cover and an inside use, or a pupil book and teacher's manual.I see no evidence that 'real' prices for RF are making up for the loss of repeat sales.
1684
« on: June 04, 2018, 04:09 »
Mindstorm, again you have not read the OP.
He got the information he wanted.
What possible 'good business' reason does he have for phoning back?
@OP, you need to shake off a lifetime of being 'nice' and 'polite', on the phone. Unsolicited phone calls were a huge issue here. Now they're illegal, thank goodness, which has reduced their incidence considerably; but dodgy businesses, like criminals, are always one step ahead. However, they're self-identifing as being dodgy, so unless they're deliberately targeting the vulnerable, it's hard to see how it helps them. Definitely not 'good' business. I see that this case isn't quite the same as he was given the OP'S number by the gallery, we don't know whether that was legitimate.
Believe it or not, I used to reply to cold callers with a polite, "I'm sorry, I don't need X at the moment. Thank you." I soon got over that!
1685
« on: June 03, 2018, 07:50 »
He phoned again. I did not answer this time.
That's really creepy. I would certainly have taken it up with the gallery that they passed on your info, unless you have given them permission to do that. Normally here, someone can leave a query and/or contact details with a gallery, the gallery pass the info to you and it's up to you whether to respond or not.
1686
« on: June 02, 2018, 18:20 »
That could be seriously creepy, but maybe he's genuinely shy and fancies you. Who knows which, though?
I expect he is a painter that wants to paint that scene. He might prefer to do while at the site himself, in which case he wants to know where to go. Or, he might just paint it from your photos, but wants to be able write a description stating where the image is from.
He has already painted the scene, whether from OP's images or not we can't be sure, but he didn't know where it was. Hmmm.
1687
« on: June 02, 2018, 18:18 »
I got a call from a local painter who asked me where I took some of my images. He got my contact info from a store where my works are sold.
Is there no data protection law where you are? Or have you given them permission to give out your personal info?
1688
« on: June 02, 2018, 14:49 »
I really don't know how to deal with this, honestly. He is actually an established artist associated with big-name art organizations.
I was polite. He said I could phone him if I have any art questions or he would call me in the future....
That could be seriously creepy, but maybe he's genuinely shy and fancies you. Who knows which, though?
1689
« on: June 02, 2018, 13:37 »
I got a call from a local painter who asked me where I took some of my images. He got my contact info from a store where my works are sold.
I looked at his portfolio and found he had some paintings, with compositions very similar to my photos.
These locations have very unique features and are not accessible by car. I was there because I had local guides.
He insisted on asking the approximate location. I told him, but feel uncomfortable. If he painted his works, he would know where they were.
In the past, other painters also wanted to paint my photos, I said no.
Is this guy painting on the basis of my photos? How do you feel about that?
Sounds like he wanted to know where they were so he could fend off enquirers. Next time, hang up just like any other unwanted caller. (Easy to say in retrospect  )
1690
« on: June 01, 2018, 10:30 »
will be amazed if we get 30% of the actual sale price, more like 30% of the royalty paid from Getty to 500px I would imagine?
No surprise there: not exactly lyin', but careful with the truth. Same ol', same ol'.
1691
« on: June 01, 2018, 09:57 »
Yep, another site where any creature or plant with a Latin name is unsearchable - not to mention foreign place names which also fail to register in the controlled vocabulary.
And if they ain't there then no AI on earth will find them.
Jolly dee.
You can't be talking about Getty? Scientific names are searchable there (if they are in the CV, which is addable via request).
The downside being that as the CV maps the vernacular name to the scientific name, people who spam have the species listed by scientific names also, which tends not to happen on other sites, as only a small percentage of spammers bother to spam the scientific name.
Meaning if you search by the scientific name on most sites, you get a reasonably clean result apart from a few genuine mis-IDs and extremely dedicated spammers, but on Getty, especially iS, the result is as bad as searching on the vernacular.
Few non US scientific names feature, or places. You can request (though I don't think there's an easy way to do this now) but they don't necessarily get added or become searchable. And in upload there is not the option to add them. Effectively lost in space. 
I looked up several UK and African bird/mammal species which I could think of off the top of my head before I posted, and they were all findable on Getty. I don't upload directly to Getty so I don't know how to request keywords there, only via iS, where it's doable, but in fact if the species is in the CV, the scientific name should be also - but they only update species names with scientific changes if requested to do so, so if a name has changed and no-one has requested it, it won't be under its new name.
1692
« on: June 01, 2018, 05:25 »
I wonder will the images go through to Getty's site like with EyeEm, we know how long that process takes.
Not to mention the promise that all iS exclusive editorials would be mirrored onto Getty. Took years, went up, came down, then some went up, some didn't and it seemed to be totally random. I see it's not all 500px images which are going to Getty, but "your images may be selected for inclusion on Getty Images,"Still, it's the retention of 60% / 30% royalties which intrigues me! Wonder what existing Getty suppliers will make of that?!
1693
« on: June 01, 2018, 03:56 »
Yep, another site where any creature or plant with a Latin name is unsearchable - not to mention foreign place names which also fail to register in the controlled vocabulary.
And if they ain't there then no AI on earth will find them.
Jolly dee.
You can't be talking about Getty? Scientific names are searchable there (if they are in the CV, which is addable via request). The downside being that as the CV maps the vernacular name to the scientific name, people who spam have the species listed by scientific names also, which tends not to happen on other sites, as only a small percentage of spammers bother to spam the scientific name. Meaning if you search by the scientific name on most sites, you get a reasonably clean result apart from a few genuine mis-IDs and extremely dedicated spammers, but on Getty, especially iS, the result is as bad as searching on the vernacular.
1694
« on: May 31, 2018, 15:44 »
Does Getty use the same royalty/payout as iStock? I always thought they were the premium side of the corporate fence, more choosy about what they accept, charging more to their customers, and paying more to the photogs.
Is that true, or has that also gone by the wayside over the years?
I believe some of the Getty house togs get 30%; many big names left there years ago. Via iS, exclusives get 20% at Getty (no matter what their iS rate, unless some have negotiated a 'special deal', I wouldn't know) and exclusives get 15%. Interesting 500pxers are going to keep their current 500px rate (what is that?) which according to the 500px faq is 60% exclusive/30% non-exclusive. WOWSERS!!!!! As for high sales values, sometimes yes; but the tiny, tiny figures often complained about at iS are actually premium access sales via Getty, meaning buyers pay a premium then have access to all Getty and iS files for a vastly reduced price. IME there are lots more of the tiny sales than the big ones, and they seem to be migrating more and more of their customers into premium access.
1695
« on: May 30, 2018, 17:18 »
EDIT: I've just checked another of my images that was selected for inclusion on a Canva Layout. That image has been sold 17 in the last week, via a link from the layout, even though the image is apparently not available.
It's odd to me that a popular image, that was selected by a Canva staff member to include in one of their designs, suddenly is deemed to be no longer worth including in the collection.
That's not just odd - it's positively suspicious, at best. 
1696
« on: May 28, 2018, 16:18 »
For example:
if your file is used to illustrate an article, the buyer can share the article, including your image, on social media.
Getty can use your image in social media for marketing purposes.
Still, GI, as the old iS before it, does tend to word its contracts in the fuzziest terms, so you never know what they have in mind.
It's not unusual, e.g. Shutterstock
"Shutterstock may advertise and/or market your Content on social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, Twitter, and similar sites and the applications related thereto."
Adobe Stock:
"2.3 Social Media
(A)
We may allow our users and other relevant third parties to post or share the Work directly or indirectly onto Social Media Sites to better promote your Work, subject to our payment obligations in section 6
.
(B) We are not liable (1) for any terms of use or other provisions or authorizations which may appear on any Social Media Sites, even if such Social Media Sites explicitly or implicitly allow third parties to access, download, share or use the Work in any way; or (2) for any use whatsoever made by any third party who accesses the Work directly or indirectly via Social Media Sites"
1697
« on: May 28, 2018, 15:40 »
This guy must be the biggest troll out there, and hes just sitting back and laughing
He absolutely is and I'd block him, except I hate to think that some poor newbie might actually believe his drivel.
1698
« on: May 27, 2018, 17:32 »
I was wondering what people's opinions are on using backdrops for portraits. do you have a color that you think is the best? or a texture that you think is best?
for example, solid black, solid white, grey, brick wall, natural setting, etc?
I would like to know what backdrop produces the best overall or best sellable photo.
I film outdoors so I am most interested with a backdrop I can replicate outdoors in many cities.
thankyou
What's your experience from the shoots with 40+ actors you're so busy with? Why do you think that isn't working for you?
1699
« on: May 27, 2018, 17:31 »
you said: "because I, also, would prefer not to be sued"
why would you be sued? you can legally sell almost any photo that you take. you would not be liable if the buyer uses the photo in an infringing way, and neither would the agency that facilitates the sale.
How would the buyer know they were infringing if the image weren't designated as 'editorial only' in the agencies where that works, or 'no releases' in the agencies where that is the designation? there is a near zero percent chance that you will be sued for selling stock photography.
Au contraire, e.g. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/20/greeting-card-teasing-gets-this-farmers-goose
1700
« on: May 27, 2018, 16:33 »
only the buyer can determine what the use is. the seller cannot.
Many buyers would prefer not to be sued, and would be grateful for an advance headsup, though some take the risk and (presumably) hope they won't be discovered. I've had to take up several editorial-only images from iS being used commercially, because I, also, would prefer not to be sued. I haven't the time, money or inclination for that circus.
Pages: 1 ... 63 64 65 66 67 [68] 69 70 71 72 73 ... 624
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
