MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - everest

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 24
176
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Stats for April are in
« on: May 17, 2021, 14:40 »
Weak Month in sales plus the decreasing value of the dollar is not helping for someone like me living in Europe.

177
It is just a desperate move to compete on price because they are loosing video customers. Why because if you do any search on Pond5 Adobe the selection is much better and deeper, and if you want price subs sites like Envato Videoblocks Artgrid etc are also much more competitive in many aspects. They are fighting for the lasts drops but don't be surprised if in a few years they drop video the same way as they did with music. If you are video exclusive I would look to drop the crown as there are much better opportunities outside Getty and also the future hasn't look good for a long time with royalties so low. Shutterstock and Istock are not viable options if you want to live from stock footage.

178
Unfortunatelly I don't know the specific law in US Canada or other countries. Surely I know in Spain where the problem happened. But in general terms in most democracies the right to photograph and publish for newsworthy content images taken in public space is granted with some limitation like minors , images that attempt against the honour of a person ( being stabbed by a terrorist for example etc). But images like the ones the photographer has shown, nope no problem. For sure not in Spain and I doubt it in most european countries as well (France might be an exception)


People are stating what the actual laws are in their countries, but you are saying they are wrong because its not true in yours.

179
You are on lawful grounds documenting and photographing someone on public grounds. It does not matter if the subject being photographed likes it or not. It is a right granted to you in most free democracies. Why? Because it helps transparency, freedom of press and because when you are on a public street you are not granted anonymity anymore. Nothing to do with respect or not. It is the way it is the same way as you have the right to not be arrested and maintained in custody by the police without a lawyer even if the police thinks that it detracts to catch the bad guy.
Things work this way in a democracy for a lot of reasons.

And about microstock and freedom of press. It does not matter if you have an official badge from a press organization which I have as I studied and have a degree in journalism in Spain, or if a microstocker or a citizen journalist documents any action on public ground. That freedom protects all.
And the photographer that had problems in Salamanca has all the law on his side and the subject that got angry not, only if the published image is used for "informative" purposes. If that would not be the case then the angry bad educated man might have a case.

Just to inform, this is NOT personally directed to Alexandre. I'm speaking generally about shooting strangers in public.

We photographers tend to get so defensive about our legal rights. Relax. It shouldn't ALWAYS be about legal rights. What about common decency, and what's reasonable? The other person you are pointing your camera at is not an anonymous object or a piece of meat. That's a real person with thoughts, feelings and opinions. I don't think it hurts too much to be considerate to other people, when you are shooting. Show some respect. If you are like most photographers, you have an enormous backlog of images to work on. It can't be ALL about that one photo of that one person who doesn't want his/her photo taken.

It's never a bad idea to think of your own reputation. If somebody starts complaining about you, it can be bad for your business. You come across as difficult to work with. Potential clients looking for a freelancer will choose someone else to work with.

"Freedom of press" is a huge exaggeration when it comes to microstock photography. A great deal of editorial micro shots are just a bunch of unreleased images that are not topical and will never be published by any news media. Even a microstock photographer who shoots some newsworthy shots every now and then can't be associated with daily news reporters employed by nationwide or international media. That's a whole different ball game.

You are just wrong and don't understand how freedom of press works. In public space you have no right to not to be your image being taken by a photographer or a security camera. Those images cannot be published in a commercial way but yes in an editorial way. That means if an article is about a city for example and you are standing in the shot the article has all the right to use the image with or without your authorization. Tha's the law in most democracies. You might like it or not but that's how it works. In North Korea China and Venezuela it might be different do.


A photographer has his or her rights but a person has a right to be left alone. I usually think in situations like this, "what if this would be me?" Do I want somebody to point a camera at me when I walk on the street? NO!
OK, then I will have to give the same privacy to others, too.

180
You are just wrong and don't understand how freedom of press works. In public space you have no right to not to be your image being taken by a photographer or a security camera. Those images cannot be published in a commercial way but yes in an editorial way. That means if an article is about a city for example and you are standing in the shot the article has all the right to use the image with or without your authorization. Tha's the law in most democracies. You might like it or not but that's how it works. In North Korea China and Venezuela it might be different do.


A photographer has his or her rights but a person has a right to be left alone. I usually think in situations like this, "what if this would be me?" Do I want somebody to point a camera at me when I walk on the street? NO!
OK, then I will have to give the same privacy to others, too.

181
Microstock is no longer a viable professional option for 99% of contributors. If you live in a cheap country it might work for you a little longer but this has been as a business has been a loosing proposition for a long time.

If you do it as a hobby I also think micro is not a good proposition because it limits you creatively a lot. Somehow you begin to pump content that many times is absolutely worthless from a creative point of view although it might rack in the dollars for the corporations.

Think wisely if you think a new lens every year is worth to drain your inspiration and creativity to the bottom.

182
General Stock Discussion / Re: Microstock vs. Unsplash
« on: March 30, 2021, 09:06 »
"The Unsplash team share our values and share our vision of enabling global creativity and communication. We are impressed by what the Unsplash team and community has built and we look forward to supporting their continued development"

They can say it louder but not clearer.  ::) :-X :o

183
Newbie Discussion / Re: Stock footage newbie
« on: March 30, 2021, 08:22 »
So you are a professional. I doubt it. I am for the last 25 years as a photographer the last 13 living only from stock.  Do you live from Stock ? If so you will not soon if you keep uploading to Istock and SS. I plan to keep living from this in the next 3 years at least. And not in the Ukraine but in western Europe where cost of living is much more expensive.  Planning ahead of that in this convoluted industry is too unreliable.


Code: [Select]
Don't listen to advices like this.
If you want to be professional look what professionals do. All of top authors/studios upload to ss and istock

184
Shutterstock.com / Re: Will Getty buy Shutterstock?
« on: March 29, 2021, 00:27 »
Whatever. Getty is two steps away from bankruptcy and we will see this sooner than later. Now tell them why capitalism is strangling their throats and they do the same to their contributors.......


Quote
NOT having debt when interest rates are near 0 is the foolish move & most companies know it's cheaper to pay w other peoples' money,  while your debt 'decreases' thru inflation.  and debt can be hedged against the unlikely event of near term interest rates.  it's one of the reasons capitalism does work


185
Newbie Discussion / Re: Stock footage newbie
« on: March 28, 2021, 09:36 »
Pond5 and Adobe are kings of the game in the footage department. Forget Istock and SS pennies for clips and getting worse by the day. You will only devaluate your work and clap to your abusers.

Videohive you can dictate your prices and commission is not bad.

186
Same here. I was out of SS the meoment the dropped the bomb las year and Istock although still exclusive in images (at one point also this will be over) I did not the same mistake when Istarted with video. I have never submitted a single video to Istock because all the posts about 1 dollar royalties. I am happy with Adobe, Pond5 and Videohive as they are growing specially Adobe. still on the verge on Artgrid for a couple of reasons.

My two cents...

It depends on what you shoot for starters. My observations are some months are winners in images and other months are winners in footage and they both compliment each other for the final sum averaged out over an annual basis.

I think it also depends where you submit your work. For me I personally dropped anything to do with SS for several reasons of which their crazy insane senseless rejections are a waste of time, combine that with ridiculously low royalties it's a waste of time. I just dropped exclusive for IS in the video department mainly for the latter reason given for SS, low royalties. I will discontinue to submit to IS going forward but keep what I have online because the work is already done.

Good luck.

187
That's interesting. Please make a follow up if it appears as a sale in the next 60 days. If not we could be in front of a fraud maybe huge if it is common of other reselling parties that sell Shutterstock or Istock images......At one point there will be a huge lawsuit with planetary fines. It's a matter of time and that a bunch of large producers go ahead with a solid case and strong evidences like the one you mention.

188
A complete disaster  :-\

189
Mat as you ask. You are right that the content need have changed and that now everybody has to wear a mask and "travel" "tourism" images are out of fashion but surely they will return once the pandemic is over. I truly think that those that produced lots of covid related content for sure did better but they will also pay a price for it because once the pandemic is over and it seems it will be sooner than expected now that so many vaccines are on the table that content will become stale very quickly and "regular content" has a much longer shelf life and hopefully will keep selling for years to come.

But the biggest problem I see now are the ridiculous nanostock prices everywhere. Today i received my Getty statement and I can tell you I have thousands of sales for 0.01$ thats right 0.01$ expensive lifestyle shoots that are given away. I don't supply anymore nor Getty nor Shutters in their race to become a free site. So what I have done is to concentrate in the few well paying sites that are left like Arcangel, Pond5 Envato (not element the regular one where I can set my prices) and Adobe , those last ones mainly in video as they still pay a reasonable amount of money for every sale. All the other receive 0 content from me and it is going to stay that way. If all the market becomes like Getty Shutter pretend it to be so be it . I will be out and doing something more profitable. I supply agencies for the money not for fun , ego or wasting my time.

I am happy that your agency is still resisting the urge to follow the other two gorillas that only take stain with mud a wonderful way to be creative. No respect at all for them and I really wish more artists take notice and begin kissing goodbye all those blood suckers.


190
No reason at all. Agencies are giving away the images for free or they have arrangement where they pay nearly nothing to contributors and get their piece of the cake. Worst offenders are without a doubt Getty/Istock and Shutterstock but the pressure is nearly everywhere. On the other side there might be an opportunity in the future. Many videos are already flowing to Pond5 exclusive and if tomorrow Adobe offered a 40% forever for exclusive images (not contributors) I think Shutterstock and Getty would loose half or more of their pro photographers in a year.
Maybe a large player outside of the known name like Google Instagram will enter the market.

Right now it is a total disaster and as you said selling your images at micro prices only gives you a very bad rap as a photographer.

191
iStockPhoto.com / Re: "exciting" News from Getty
« on: March 12, 2021, 16:44 »
I guess briefs are a huge failure and they are trying to push them hard down the throat.

I wonder if any pro would take the time to even read them. When I reviewed the program I was astonished. If they would pay 10x /image (literally) I might take the chance. Briefs are ok if somedy is searching for any simple image or something you have on your HD. To arrange a shoot with models and locations for such a low reward "if" you get rewarded is just crazy.

192
General Stock Discussion / Re: All down
« on: February 27, 2021, 17:49 »
My sales are stronger every month at Adobe every month. I wish the same was true with P5 as they have an even better cut but it is Adobe that is pulling ahead. I have not a single video at SS or Istock so I am really glad that my strategy is working. I hope the transfer of clients and sales from those two low ballers to Adobe and p5 keeps growing steady as it is now, at least for me.


193
Hello:

This morning I was running a test. If I search with my Shutterstock and account name on Shutterstock many of my deactivated videos months ago are visible on google and you can click on them and purchase them on the Shutterstock page.

As a chat window opens for customer service I asked why they are still selling my content if deactivated from the site. The only answer I got was that this was not the right forum and I should contact Shutterstock support.

So it seems they are selling the content even if deactivated. I wonder if they have a clause in their contract that they can do so and they rely on google searches to circumvent the deactivation. I wonder also where the money goes. i haven't had a report of a sale for months. So it is really suspicious that all the content is available for sale but "no sales happen".

Maybe that's the reason they really don't care much about deactivations. I wonder if it is also happening to you. Because if that would be the case a huge class lawsuit would be in order.

194
Shutterstock.com / Re: Very low video sales
« on: February 22, 2021, 16:36 »
Remember that in stock 1+1 is not always 2 as you point out. If you sell files at P5 and get a sale were you earn 40$ net that sale might have happen is you have the same file at SS. Buyers are very price conscious nowadays. All the corporate crap those business talk about the price does not matter to customers and its the experience at their site is bs and the main reason they keep competing on price.

There are not so many options on the video front and buyers can search in 5 minutes at the gig 4 and locate the file if it is there. Now if they subscribe at shutter you get your 1$ and loose 39. Not a winning proposition under my point of view.

Sure not every buyer does that but if only 1 in every 5 does that your stategy to be everywhere even if the practically give your videos for free is failing. it is ok when all the prices are at the same ballpark. Now they are not. Istock and SS pay nearly nothing almost most of the time for video content.

Everybody has to pick up their battlefield wisely.

You're missing the point. You may be selling 100 clips a month at Adobe, or 50 clips at Pond5, or $500 at iStock, or $75 per download at 123RF... but my point is... if you make $0.01 at SS per month, then you make more contributing to SS than if you don't.

Principles don't pay the bills. And while you can dispute that until the cows come home by saying 'my principles made me X dollars last month'... my principles made me X dollars last month... plus my SS earnings on top.

195
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS sales January
« on: February 10, 2021, 02:40 »
Adobe will be dominating this market in no time. Shutterstock and Istock are being left behind much faster that everybody thought. The Shutterstock move is just a quick money grab so the founder and a few more people in the management can make as much money as possible before leaving the sinking ship. Mr Oringer is slowly selling his stock in the company every week. I wonder if he still has more than 50%.

Istock did the same when they raised prices like crazy with Hellman&Friedman in this case making a quick money grab on the back of their customers. They run away and then they had no other option to reduce royalties, introduce subs, ...... Since today they have not recovered from the hit, have a huge debt that at one point might put them out of business in the future.

Less and less top contributors are giving any content to Shutterstock and that only means one thing in the near future. As simple as that.


196
Shutterstock.com / Re: Very low video sales
« on: February 04, 2021, 16:32 »
Opt out. Don't damage your much higher sales agencies if you are on those. Staying at Shutterstock will only encourage those to follow the same track. A few dollars made at Shitterstock are not worth it.

197
It is a campaign where the message is that all catalans should embrace themselves again for the elections that will be held in 2 weeks in Catalonia, autonomy territory in northeast of Spain (similar to a federal state ). As there has been a lot of conflict among catalans in the past years, those that want independence from Spain and those that want to stay in the country the campaign was supposed to be a metaphor to reunite this two very distant points of view.

The article says that the campaign has been criticized a lot is the social media because of different reasons. First, because the images do not use the party colours (orange). Second because many people say the images are "naive". Third because there are images from the same shoot where the same model shows his middle finger (:-D)  and the most weird of all is "that in a time that hugging is not recommended because of the pandemic situation this images spread a wrong message....whatever.

In any case it is weird that in a political campaign that costs lots of money in banners, prints, leaflets, the design,.....they cannot spend a little of that budget hiring a photographer and a few models that make it a personal and unique one. The sign of our times ...-good enough- although the images are quite "microstocky" and you risk this kind of problems using people endorsing an ideologic view as they were sympathizing with this party. Well many mistakes and they are learning the hard way. Now they have to start all over because of the prohibition and people backslash they retired the campaign.


198
https://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20210130/6210148/c-s-retira-campana-elecciones-autonomicas-vota-abrazo-imagenes-permitidas-politica.html

Interesting story about how a political party has retired a whole campaign for using these images licensed at Shutterstock because that use "is not allowed" according to the newspaper article.

The article is in spanish but google translate is your friend if you are interested.

199
Despicable and shameful.

200
Amazing what he has accomplished in the last years when he ramped up production. He has definitely  gone the volume route and it is working well for him and not in a cheap country like Spain. So kudos for working in this tough environment.

Thank you for this and all the interviews you make. It is always interesting to read how producers approach this business.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 24

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors