|
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 - FD
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 82
176
« on: November 08, 2011, 20:24 »
And $0.23 for the sale of Level 0 image. Which works out to about 24% commission even with max number of credits bought. And they are supposed to be so much better than PD? Yes, since level 0 is about the very first sale. After that the image goes automatically to level 1 (you don't need to be Emerald for that) and the buyer needs to spend 3 credits at least for the smallest size. Does PD has a level system or is it an eternal-level-0 site? It's rather unfair to compare the worst case scenario on DT with the typical scenario on PD.
177
« on: November 08, 2011, 11:16 »
Write a macro. No need to wake up easily irritated dogs. 
178
« on: November 08, 2011, 11:13 »
Every time I turn my 5DII on the spots are at different places. Sensor cleaning = dirt shifting. 
179
« on: November 08, 2011, 11:09 »
I can find no way to set unsold images to be removed automatically instead of being tossed into the free section. How do you do that? There is a choice somewhere but I forgot (sorry). DT added that default choice after some (or many) people here complained. You can also delete your free pictures at any time. I would be careful with that since what else would you do with non-sellers, assuming they don't sell at other sites. It can drive traffic to you.
180
« on: November 08, 2011, 10:58 »
Let's not forget that images rather than contributors rise through the levels on DT so, assuming sales volumes are broadly similar, earnings per sale can increase much more quickly. My average this month so far is $2.50 on DT and 0.50 on FT with similar volumes and port size. That would double for exclusives. Make it triple or quadruple, since the search engine plays a very important role if you have a varied portfolio. There is always the "good enough" image vs the "best". A buyer (or most) won't wade to page 99 of the search results if an image on page 1 is good enough.
181
« on: November 08, 2011, 10:54 »
There was really no need for ironies, though... They were unavoidable.
182
« on: November 08, 2011, 10:52 »
Agree.... as former exclusive contributor with DT ( and very, very good results) i must say that DT is the best choice in this moment to become exclusive... Although i not recommend to become an exclusive contributor. Why?
183
« on: November 08, 2011, 10:49 »
Oh I am not trying to convince anyone to upload to PhotoDune. My point was that their commission rates are not that far off from other agencies (hence my wondering what's so upsetting about PD's 25%). The extended license fee.
184
« on: November 08, 2011, 10:47 »
'which microstock site/sites is/are best to start for a beginner and WHY ?" Dreamstime because there is no entry "exam". Just don't send too many at a time or it will bring down your acceptance ratio (and your sales). Honestly, the best would be to upload here a few images full size (you can watermark them) and ask for advice. There are some top microstock photographers around that will be happy to critique you.
185
« on: November 08, 2011, 10:27 »
Like I said, at least PD is straightforward about their pricing and commissions. You ignore a troupe of elephants in the room, oh Wise Elena (1) First of all, you don't mention the ridiculously low price of extended licenses on PD, the deal-breaker for most. (2) Second, the free images on DT are about images that didn't sell for 4 years. The Nikon 3DX was introduced less than 3 years ago. So you can't have "forced" free images on DT of a Nikon 3DX, not without using a time machine. What's more, your images go only in the free section after your approval. You can set that default easily on the site. No vigilance needed, at least less than on FT. What's more, the usage of these free images is very limited. I was asked recently to reupload a "free" image again as paying because the buyer wanted a full RF license. (3) Last but not least, top photographers cut a "special" deal at PD. That suggestion in this or another thread was never denied, so I assume it's true. Even Lee Torrens certifies on his site that top photographers can easily cut special deals with new agencies. Fair enough, they (and you) deserve it very well. But just don't think we low-life mortal snap-shooters will upload to PD just because we were told to do so. Comparing PD to DT is even a little bit insulting. Does PD has a level system for instance? Etc... etc... You can compare PD to iSuck and Stinkstock, fair enough. But not to DT. And this is not a flame at all. Elena is and was an inspiration to us all.
186
« on: November 08, 2011, 10:05 »
However, someone stated on the forums that they were opted out of referral/alliance program and still got the reduced payment. So I expect this isn't the end of it.... The answer of the boss was a bit evading. Something has changed. He will be back
187
« on: November 06, 2011, 19:43 »
Geez what a complete waste of time this thread is  Not at all. I learned a lot.
188
« on: November 06, 2011, 19:21 »
A query on MSG about it had some people mentioning subs through distributors as the likely reason. Well they had partners before but this phenomenon is new, so something (unannounced?) must have been changed.
189
« on: November 06, 2011, 09:19 »
I got a DT subs earning me 33c yesterday. Anything new? Probably. I got those too recently. Should we start a thread on the DT forum?
190
« on: November 05, 2011, 23:19 »
Wow. 25 cents. I've logged in after not following fotolia for quite some time. I noticed the smallest sale makes one 25 cents. Are you other contributors up-pricing your files? I see there is an option to do so. What is reasonable for a selling price in general?
I have very regular sales on FT of 23 dollarcents. I don't understand how FT works, but it seems you have to email them to pull your prices up.
191
« on: November 05, 2011, 10:43 »
That's ironic considering that they plan on knocking our images back to 1 credit if we sell them on other sites for less than they do. That's the point I wanted to make actually.
192
« on: November 05, 2011, 10:34 »
Lol!!! You basically said that you hope his soul is always good. Which is probably the nicest thing you've said on this forum.  Is it that bad?  I thought after becoming a nun I mellowed a bit.
193
« on: November 05, 2011, 03:22 »
By the way, they still don't have a solution for the US tax withholding for non-US contributors unless sending in that cumbersome Wxxx thing. Unfortunately, there is no solution because the US government doesn't view it as being a problem  We are a USA based company and must follow the USA tax laws. Other companies may be based outside of the USA and thus not have this "problem" to deal with.
194
« on: November 05, 2011, 03:17 »
By the way, as in English the word spirit has lots of meanings in Indonesian too, but they use different words, where as in English there is only one word. I think GT gave u the wrong one. Oh what did it mean? May the Whiskey always be with you?
195
« on: November 04, 2011, 22:44 »
Now My Heart Being Calm And Confident With Your Answers. Now I Will Over spirit To Learn More. Thank you for your concern for him .......... Terjemahan Google tidak bekerja dengan baik untuk Indonesia, karena itu, tidak banyak orang akan memahami Anda. Semoga Roh Baik selalu dengan Anda!
196
« on: November 04, 2011, 22:33 »
Well as you're so well educated in the subject maybe you'd like to actually show where it says "the copyright symbol does mean the owner of IP" I'm not educated in those matters at all. I just repeat what our legal counsel (I'm connected with a media agency since a year) said on the occasion for the situation in Belgium (alone). Hence my statement ("most countries") was probably much too bold. He also insisted several times that group releases are legally valid but since stock agencies ask an individual release, I have my own at the side. He also told that removing copyright info from an image is an offense (but was not clear about the EXIF) and that it should have the form (c), author, year. To be clear, I got this info from him a year or more ago, and I didn't ask it again before my post. Specific laws might be different in other countries and the counsel might be wrong too, but until proven wrong, I trust him. In the meantime here's a snippet from a site explaining about the copyright symbol:
The normal format would be to include alongside the copyright symbol the year of first publication and the name of the copyright holder, however there are no particular legal requirements regarding this. While it has historically been a requirement in some jurisdictions to include a copyright notice on a work in order to be able to claim copyright over it, the Berne Convention does not allow such restrictions, and so any country signed up to the convention no longer has this requirement.
Even if they can get away with omitting the copyright holder (even on a sales site), the attribution of the copyright to thinkstock is false, unless they own the content. Anyways, it seems that the contributor "agreed" to this in the small print so it doesn't matter.
197
« on: November 04, 2011, 22:13 »
Though you and I, among others, are aware of the agency name situation at that agency, and pulled our ports, there are thousands of contributors, particularly non-exclusives, who might not be aware of it, or perhaps not see the implications as significant, and so will not pull ports because of it. Fair enough. Thanks for the heads up since I also didn't know it.
198
« on: November 04, 2011, 11:19 »
Of course RT is wrong. The copyright symbol does mean owner of the IP in many countries. But why getting worked up over it? iStock/Getty ask to release the copyright by contract. Then just dump then. Nothing is easier.
199
« on: November 04, 2011, 08:39 »
Nothing automatic. You can raise prices a) for exclusive files or b) if your rank is emerald or higher. That does not happen automatically, you have to do it (although you can set the price when uploading a file).
New rule (since a while, IIRC): When a file does not sell for six months (used to be a year not so long ago) the price will be reduced to the minimum price (1 credit for XS). Once the file has sold again five times, you can raise the price again - but you have to actively do it, nothing automatic. Thanks for the explanation. I'm far from emerald (I think) and I guess I'll have to cancel them soon since they are selling my best seller (level 5 on Dreamstime) far too cheap at 1 credit. Update: I just deleted all my level 3-5 DT images that were on FT at 1 credit. Nothing personal but I just don't want my images for 1 credit on FT when they are making much more on DT. On the other hand, I noticed some files on FT that are doing well but are in the free section on DT for no sales in 4 yrs. This game (nanostock) is getting too crazy for my poor head.
200
« on: November 04, 2011, 08:33 »
Just one almost kill me on a "sub agency": "Too amauter" Not many (Americans) know how to spell "amateur" right. They are even too dumb to use a spell-checker.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 82
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
