|
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 - Sean Locke Photography
Pages: 1 ... 69 70 71 72 73 [74] 75 76 77 78 79 ... 314
1826
« on: May 11, 2015, 13:34 »
Honestly, I can't recommend it because there's no sales tracking. The only way I know what sold is to hold on to the emails.
1827
« on: May 11, 2015, 09:29 »
Yes, but demand for a random or even s specific bird is tiny, so even three people with images of the subject can oversupply.
1828
« on: May 11, 2015, 06:43 »
"iStock started as a file sharing site and found a need in the market for cheap, user-generated content and kind of exploded from there. So we as a business at Getty Images have the premium imagery on Getty and iStock is the crowd, its the community."
Still painful to read stuff like this. 'User generated'... 'Premium on getty'... Etc.
1829
« on: May 10, 2015, 15:41 »
I wonder why I never get these requests ...
1830
« on: May 09, 2015, 21:27 »
"Two months on, Le-May has no regrets he gave it away."
Says the guy living in a van down by the river.
1831
« on: May 09, 2015, 06:56 »
Also, when I click on "isolated objects" in the header bar, nothing comes up. And "man" only brings up mangoes. I think you need to work on the interface a bit more.
1832
« on: May 07, 2015, 16:44 »
I don't think it's working. I just did a keyword search (I think - I tried both search boxes) and nothing came up on your enlightened media site.
1833
« on: May 07, 2015, 12:49 »
See, what do I know?
1834
« on: May 07, 2015, 12:34 »
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Thinkstock was mandatory for everyone?
1835
« on: May 07, 2015, 06:05 »
I think unsplash is affecting the whole photographic scene now. Those photos are so in demand right now. I'm using them frequently. I would assume that those kind of images sells great on microstock.
Nice images, but I wouldn't touch them with a 20 foot pole. Nothing about releases or protection for the user or anything.
1836
« on: May 07, 2015, 05:32 »
Is this thing optional? All my work is already keyworded. I don't need some AI screwing my work up.
1837
« on: May 06, 2015, 13:39 »
Stocksy may be the saviour some say, but when I talked with them a year or so ago, they only want one or two images per shoot, those are exclusive, and you can't sell any others from shoot elsewhere. Even if that one does well on Stocksy, I don't see how it could pay for a HCV shoot involving models. Maybe someone who does well on Stocksy can correct my misperception if I'm wrong.
They do like "found" images, which are normally limited to one or two, but model shoots are fine to have as many images as are different and useful.
1838
« on: May 05, 2015, 07:53 »
I'm sorry, what is that about "digital templates"?
The license states:
"AN ENHANCED IMAGE LICENSE grants you the right to use Images:
...
Incorporated as elements of digital templates for sale or distribution."
That is not a "standard license". According to the submitter TOS, they are not allowed to change those terms without 90 day notice.
1839
« on: May 02, 2015, 10:36 »
Your portfolio is about 5x the size of mine, so there's a very good chance that it would act differently from mine.
But to answer your question, Feb '13 happened to be the third-best month of that year for me. Removing GI sales from the comparison, April 2015 was down 60% as compared with my Feb '13. As a more accurate comparison, compared with the "average" month in 2013, April 2015 was down 55%.
Thanks a lot for your feedback. I appreciated that. Taking that value as a reference I would say that today I'm making the same income as non-exclusive when I was exclusive. I know it is not a real way to compare, but just a way to fool myself. :0)
If you had a lot of income from Vetta or Agency sales, I think it is safe to assume that you are probably better off now as a non-exclusive, than you would be if you had stayed exclusive. If not, then probably about the same income, as you said.
Right. I have no idea where I'd be today as an exclusive, because Agency from IS and Getty brought in a lot for me. I'd probably be lower than I am right now as a non-exclusive with no IS.
1840
« on: May 02, 2015, 09:59 »
The lighting is very engulfing, which is kind of boring. And yeah, the composition isn't too hot. I get the copyspace thing, but you've really cut off too much of the avocados. The cherry one is a bit better.
1841
« on: April 30, 2015, 08:52 »
"We're also including subscription packages. The cheaper ones will provide the same OTU licenses we currently provide, though the bigger ones will provide the new RF license. Royalties for both types of subscriptions are the same 35 cents we're currently paying. "
I guess I'm not quite sure why they pay the same thing when they aren't the same thing.
1842
« on: April 29, 2015, 06:34 »
Got the email about the new licenses and all. Question about this part :
"We're also including subscription packages. The cheaper ones will provide the same OTU licenses we currently provide, though the bigger ones will provide the new RF license. Royalties for both types of subscriptions are the same 35 cents we're currently paying. "
Why isn't the new RF license paying higher than the OTU? I don't think people want yet another SS paying pennies for full rights.
1843
« on: April 28, 2015, 07:22 »
You don't need a property release from an architect to shoot on private property. You think all these business images online have architect signed releases? Lol. The architect hold copyright on the plans, which is why blueprints require releases. Private spaces just require permission to be there.
1844
« on: April 24, 2015, 16:33 »
Omg, I had to stop after about a minute. 'Customers loved Vetta imagery, but it was out of their reach".
Tough! Suck it up! Boo hoo. Mercedes didn't price down because it was 'out of my reach'.
What a terribly scripted piece.
1845
« on: April 24, 2015, 16:28 »
Who?
1846
« on: April 24, 2015, 12:44 »
Moved all the spam to the garbage.
1847
« on: April 24, 2015, 09:03 »
You need to up the tesselation or divisions. On the pencil, for example, you can see how the sides do not match the end cap.
1848
« on: April 24, 2015, 09:01 »
Well, someone buying is going to have something specific in mind. And even though we have X monkeys shooting Y topics for Z days, that particular angle, lighting or whatever may not be available.
1849
« on: April 24, 2015, 08:42 »
I figure there's a buyer for every image and it's your job to find them.
I can't understand why your reaction on my question is so, hm, strong. Yes, it is our job to find a buyer to each image. That's why we have inspectors, who examine your portfolios and choose those photos which have commercial value. What I am talking about, is a process of creation photos. Now I have the feeling that for you it is absolutely the same to whom you produce images, what will happen to photos and the context in which they are used. I thought that the authors are careful to their work, even to stock images.
No, I'm happy to create what I do, leaving copyspace and such, but every image is usable to someone. We make 'em, you find the buyer for 'em.
1850
« on: April 24, 2015, 08:13 »
I figure there's a buyer for every image and it's your job to find them.
Pages: 1 ... 69 70 71 72 73 [74] 75 76 77 78 79 ... 314
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
