|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
Pages: 1 ... 72 73 74 75 76 [77] 78 79 80 81 82 ... 291
1901
« on: February 07, 2017, 14:14 »
I had a couple of these this morning. In FT's "My sales list" is says 4.76 credits - everywhere else is says $4.75.
On Adobe's site, it says it's a subscription sale. On FT's list it does not say XXL (credits) the way other credit-based sales are reported, so it looks like other subscriptions but just with a higher royalty.
My extended licenses are 100 credits on FT and $79.99 on Adobe. I also got an extended license this morning for $26.40 royalty, so that must have come from Adobe Stock (79.99 x 33%)
I looked at all the pricing options on Adobe, team and regular, and can't see anything more expensive than the 3 "assets" for $29.99 - which nets us $3.30 royalties.
The fact that we're all seeing the same royalty suggests it's an Adobe sale as our differing ranks at FT would produce different royalties from the same sales price. So what sells for $14.42 (sales price if $4.76 is the royalty)?
1902
« on: February 07, 2017, 13:34 »
just received the email..
it says "follow your unique link" but there is no link to follow 
Could it be because I had already signed in without waiting for my email a few days ago using my iStock email and password?
I just sent an email to support asking about it..
I had an email this morning with the "...sorry for the delay" intro and no unique link. I haven't written to support (came here to see if I was alone in this hiccup or not). I filled out the support form found at the contact us if you can't sign in link and the text they display after you submit that is: "Your message has been sent to our contributor support team. Our aim is to provide a response within 2 business days." I sincerely hope that customers get a better response time than 2 days. And if customers do, why not contributors...
1903
« on: February 07, 2017, 11:06 »
... if they are deleting top 50's and Photographer of the week's (from only a few weeks ago) are they starting again from scratch?
Even if they are (starting from scratch) does anyone care? We already have a number of non-mainstream looks at other stock agencies, such as Photocase and Stocksy, plus special collections at the bigger microstocks (Offset, Infinite, Evo). This isn't a new idea
1904
« on: February 06, 2017, 22:33 »
Sounds analogous to the issues of sampling in the music business. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/permission-sampled-music-sample-clearance-30165.htmlI don't suppose anyone will want to participate in detailed discussions until there's something pretty close to ready - do you think this is a year or two away? Five years? I'm guessing that agencies won't take anything that you don't own the rights to. They won't be looking at ethics but managing their legal risk (agencies are risk averse). Various sharing sites will use all sorts of copyrighted stuff as input and hope they don't get identified. If it matters to the finished image which pieces are used as input - versus any pile of pixels with the right colors will do - it'll be harder for the creator to claim copyright in the new work. If enough people wanti to create this type of imagery, possibly agencies will have a new type of license for use of image chunks in new works to make the synthesized images legit. A new type of extended license.
1905
« on: February 06, 2017, 21:21 »
Wow! For a rock bottom tier (for photos) agency, they really have big ideas about themselves I'm sure I would have been booted too except that I left when they reworked their tax approach as I did not want to add any complexity to my tax situation for such a low payout (yes, I do pay all my taxes on all my income) The idea that anyone would reapply (unless they started selling like Adobe/FT or SS) after being booted out is pretty silly IMO
1906
« on: February 05, 2017, 18:55 »
I saw your post, tried two images and was able to upload and submit them via the browser interface.
1907
« on: February 05, 2017, 17:13 »
I can't upload either - not via Chrome/Mac using the browser or via FTP. Sales are coming in though, so at least the buyer side of the site is functioning.
1908
« on: February 03, 2017, 14:18 »
Lots of wasted space so I have to look at two (or more if it's a good day) pages to see subscription sales for a single day. Something I could quickly get with one click - what sold today - now requires lots of clicks for more than one page.
Not sure what problem they were trying to solve, but I don't think this is helpful. I can live with it, but I don't see it as a step forward even though it looks a little less old fashioned than before. It is certainly nice that I can sort on column headings, but why can't I have more than one column to fill my monitor's available space?
1909
« on: February 03, 2017, 03:46 »
...
Isn't democracy allow us to choose titles we want? ...The topic is about SS unfair payment. If you do not like the title, please read the rest.
Perhaps you should read Leaf's guidelines (it's his forum that he runs and that some of us - anyone marked Premium member - pay for)? They include: "When you start a new thread, please give the thread a descriptive subject." You've mixed two subjects in the title: payments to SS contributors and US politics. I don't think your subject is descriptive.
1910
« on: February 02, 2017, 20:04 »
...The danger is of course that this is adopted across all subs upto 750 images after the trial period in which case earnings will be reduced.
I think the "danger" is that the higher-royalty on demand downloads get replaced with these new packs. At the 30% tier I get $2.85 for an OD (2/$29, 5/$49, 25/$229). Why would you buy 2 images for $29 (or 5 for $49) when you could buy 10 for $49? The only thing you (currently) get extra for paying $29 for 2 is one year to use your downloads vs. one month). I would get paid $1.47 for a download under the trial scheme, a 48% cut in my royalty. That's if they pay by the month. It's worse if they buy an annual subscription, but that's a less obvious substitute for the OD packs. It's a mistake to think that subscriptions are the royalties with which to compare for the one month packs. For an annual subscription, it's possible that the current 350 a month deal customers will switch to 50, and 60 cents a download vs. 38 cents would be a nice increase. Whether that makes up for how we get scr*#ed with the team subscriptions, I'm not sure As the Premier Select segregation has all but removed SOD sales (of decent size) for me, zapping the OD income would be yet another cut. Given the earnings call is coming up and given the attention last quarter to the slowdown in their paid download growth, SS will want to say they're doing something about lower downloads. I'm guessing this is it. I posted a comment in the SS forum thread on this topic
1911
« on: February 02, 2017, 03:54 »
1912
« on: January 31, 2017, 23:42 »
I realize that you put the text on the book pages, but if that was someone else's book, the text is their copyright. Isn't there some process that took the place of a note to the reviewer where you contact support to explain? Or you could submit a property release for the book (as the creator of it) which would probably also make them happy.
Can't tell anything about the isolation issues from a reduced version, but try selecting a white area in the background with a 0 tolerance on the magic wand. If you have all sorts of areas not selected ('cause they're not white), that will need to be cleaned up.
1913
« on: January 30, 2017, 17:10 »
1914
« on: January 30, 2017, 14:27 »
I did a little experimenting, plus looking at which of my images supposedly have "good" discoverability versus "poor" and you need at least 40 of 50 keywords to get the good rating.
I have lots of images with over 30 keywords (some because Alamy used to split multi-word keywords up) and tried adding a category, or location, or information to the caption to see if it would make an image "good" and those seemed to make no difference.
I hope that their notion of good vs. poor doesn't affect search position because if you have the important keywords for an image, that's more important than getting the numbers up.
1915
« on: January 27, 2017, 13:26 »
At Bickstock I get 30 Cent per image, at Alamy 10 Dollar, for one and the same image. If any Alamy buyer finds out, that my images are 30 Cents, he or she will always buy from Bigstock.
This is my idea...
With reverse image search, any idea that you can hide where you sell from a buyer (if they want to check this out, and many don't) is outdated, IMO. I left Bigstock after they introduced their cheapo subscriptions and CanStock after they became primarily cheap subscriptions, but I do sell at sites with subscriptions and also at Alamy, with my real name used everywhere. Alamy offers different license terms, and a very extended payment schedule. As we're licensing images, it's fine for prices to be different for different terms - it's not the image we're selling. Buyers should pay more if they want to use the image first and pay months later, versus the model at most of the micros where you pay up front. There are also differences in the amount and quality of support a buyer gets, all of which can influence prices. Years ago, when I had a free image of the week (I think at CanStock), I sold that image that week on other agencies. Some buyers shop around, but clearly many don't; they find a couple of agencies to work with and stick with them until the agency lets them down in some way. Then they move on to another couple of agencies. YMMV
1916
« on: January 25, 2017, 11:38 »
All images submitted to Adobe Stock are mirrored and sold at Fotolia as well. I have a Fotolia account as well as Adobe Stock (now the two are linked) because I was a contributor a long time ago, so I can't be sure things will work the same for you, but you can submit tax forms via the Adobe Contributor Account Interface https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/account#tax-infoDid you try that (versus the link in the e-mail)? If you submit the tax form there it will cover sales via both outlets
1917
« on: January 24, 2017, 10:30 »
I know it is a very old post. I am just wondering: is no change regarding the possibility of opting out the subscription program on DT? 'Cause I would like to upload more on Dreamstime, even exclusive, but without subscription. Some good news about it?
I know of no good news about DT of late But to answer your question, you can't opt out of subscriptions. I don't know any microstock site where you can (even those that at one time used to allow that, like Getty and iStock, no longer do). And DT no longer offers higher subscription royalties for the higher levels of images (you used to get 70 cents for level 5 images). Combine that with an increasing proportion of subscription sales and I find DT earnings as well as RPD to be way down from a couple of years ago.
1919
« on: January 24, 2017, 09:01 »
...
Thanks for testing Jo Ann. When you're on the SS buyer site, did you try to click on a bunch of images from your portfolio (right click 'open in new window') to check if the image is displaying ? Because my problem is not 'images not showing up when doing a search', it is that my images are not showing when clicking on the thumb to go to the image detail page and buy it... ...
I just tried that and every thumb I clicked on to view came up OK. The sets are a huge mess (missing most of their contents) but for what shows, and for searches of my portfolio, I can see the image page for every thumb. Given the other problems I am seeing, it's not surprising you're seeing this though. I'm using Chrome on a Mac, FWIW
1920
« on: January 23, 2017, 18:49 »
So, how long does it take for sale to be reported after image has been zoomed (and downloaded). I know from my experience, that it usually takes 3 months between zoom and reported sale, sometimes less. I found one of my images here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/slovenia/articles/slovenia-restaurants/
Article is from 5th of October, image was zoomed about 2 days earlier, but no sale has been reported yet.
And also, what commission can I expect from that kind of usage:)?
It really varies a lot from one customer (and type of contract they have) to another. I have contacted support in the past when I found a usage for an image online but there was nothing showing for a sale at Alamy. They replied "Weve a relevant download for your image CTxxxx from (customer name). A delay in reporting usages is perfectly normal. Some of our customers take up to 3 months to report usages. If you dont see the sale appear in your account within this timeframe then please get back to us. Well then check this against the customers downloads and invoice it." And the amount of the sale isn't predictable unless you know the terms of the contract that applies.
1921
« on: January 23, 2017, 13:34 »
...I just discovered that many many of my images in my portfolio are not displayed when i click on it on buyer SS site .... Are you experiencing the same
Could you check if that 's happening with your port ?...
I did a little checking today and I don't think I see what you're experiencing. I have a buyer account and am logged in to that. I do a search that I know will produce one of my images. I click on that in the search results, then on my name. Then I search within my portfolio for some search terms and see all that I expect to see. I am seeing again today a bug I thought was fixed last week (other people's images showing up in my sets and some sets missing images). Even though sets are sometimes short on images, if I do a portfolio search, those images are found. It's possible that one or two images might be missing, but results look correct to me
1922
« on: January 23, 2017, 13:26 »
It's less than one page today, but that remaining set still has stolen images (the clearly striking ones I checked all had the original in the similars list).
Why is anything still there given they've seen fit to remove a massive pile of stolen work? Shouldn't this person's account be closed with instructions never to try and open another one?
1923
« on: January 23, 2017, 13:21 »
That problem with other people's images in my sets is back today....
1924
« on: January 22, 2017, 20:21 »
Even if you could get data on sales, knowing what's profitable requires data no service could possibly give you - the costs of producing the images.
If you look at what is for sale, you'll see a range of types of work, from those where there were no costs beyond owning the equipment needed to make, process and upload the shots plus the contributor's time. Other work has locations and models that need to be paid for.
In the earlier days of microstock, many more sites did display download data, but as that led to attempts to copy success, you won't see that data now. Dreamstime does still show it, but they're not doing well these days so it won't really tell you much.
I can't imagine any legitimate purpose for a service offering such data and I can imagine that the largest and most successful contributors would lobby heavily to have any agency that made stats available stop it. Copying other people's work would not count as a legitimate purpose...
1925
« on: January 20, 2017, 11:35 »
...I just dont like to put so many keywords because if I have for example a fireplace video,
I just add "fireplace, chimney, fire,warm, burning, wood, flames"
I mean whats the point in putting 30or more keywords for this simple scene? The buyer will look after those words if he wants a fireplace.... not "romantic" or sth. Like that...
Buyers may not search the way you think all the time, so sticking to what's in your scene/footage is important, but - as an example - including living room, cozy, house, home, interior along with fireplace, mantel, mantelpiece, gas fire (or wood or whatever) may well help your files sell if the buyer looks for "cozy living room" not "warm fireplace". Looking at Shutterstock's list of keywords used to find my sold files, I see some files have house selling more than home and others the opposite - so I now always include both; for interior shots, sometimes room is more important than bedroom or living room, and so on.
Pages: 1 ... 72 73 74 75 76 [77] 78 79 80 81 82 ... 291
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
