|
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 - Shelma1
Pages: 1 ... 72 73 74 75 76 [77] 78 79 80 81 82 ... 116
1901
« on: February 27, 2015, 11:49 »
Weird site...can't find a search box once I've signed in, there are contests running, you get "free full size comps," and their subs pricing is higher than SS.
1903
« on: February 27, 2015, 08:56 »
In this case the image had been stolen from elsewhere, not from Alamy. But Alamy allowed them to license the image from them and then backdated it anyway. Why couldn't they just have said "I'm sorry, but we can't retroactively license an image?" That would have kept them out of any legal hot water. Was it worth the tiny bit of money they got from that sale? Now they've got legal issues AND and bad press.
1904
« on: February 27, 2015, 08:16 »
That chat between the infringer and Alamy retroactively licensing an image to them while the photographer was pursuing them for payment is remarkably sleazy. Isn't that falsifying documents, offering to go in and change the dates on the license after the fact to "undo" the stealing of an image? If I were the photographer I'd continue to pursue the infringer and go after Alamy as well.
Forget the new terms...that act alone is enough for me to decide not to place images with them. Now I'm glad their "two weeks" for uploading vectors stretched into years.
1905
« on: February 26, 2015, 13:48 »
Out of office until March 3. Lol.
1906
« on: February 26, 2015, 09:41 »
No, they emailed me a few weeks ago asking me to join but still don't allow you to upload directly to the site. They said that would happen "in a couple of weeks," but I believe they said that last year too.
1907
« on: February 25, 2015, 16:31 »
Shutterstock was the downfall to stock with their ridiculous 25 and 39 cent payouts for subscriptions!
It is my opinion they ruined the stock industry for everyone! All of you that submit there deserve what they pay!
They pay me about 5x more than iStock. So I guess I deserve it. Thanks!
1908
« on: February 25, 2015, 11:32 »
Svcks for vector artists, since our prices were slashed. Credit sales continue to drop, subs not yet making up for the difference. On the rare occasion when I sell a photo I do make slightly more, though.
1909
« on: February 25, 2015, 07:51 »
That's true for everything, pretty much.
1910
« on: February 25, 2015, 07:50 »
It's very difficult. But then, Jon Oringer became a billionaire doing it. 
1911
« on: February 24, 2015, 18:07 »
I didn't quit. I still work in advertising. I'm freelanceI move around. In exchange for all the perks, you're expected to put in 60-hour weeks. The perks are there to discourage you from leaving the office. But I'm really tired of working long hours and having a really long commute. So I'm trying to transition out.
1912
« on: February 24, 2015, 17:33 »
Well, I'd like a raise, and I've worked in spaces just as nice as SS's. In fact, the last place I worked had a beer tap built into the kitchen island. Free beer, as much as you like, any time. They also had a stage set up with musical instruments and speakers so you could jam if you wanted to (though it was annoying for the people trying to work). Those were different. The in-house gyms, yoga, free pizza lunches, free bagel or donut Fridays, free neck massages, ping pong tables, basketball courts, I'd all seen before. And of course, the times when you're the client (during shoots or editing) you also got free dinner at four-star restaurants and free spa visits. Yet each year I got a raise!
1913
« on: February 24, 2015, 16:38 »
You might seriously consider having a lawyer write up a demand for payment and email it to these people. Getty charges punitive fees well over the price of licensing the image. Even if only 1 in 10 is intimidated enough to pay, the letter could pay for itself and you might make some money from the image. Don't know if it's worth your time.
1914
« on: February 24, 2015, 16:30 »
It's not about knowing how to make images. It's about knowing how to sell those images. If the last two years have taught us anything it's that the sales platform is what matters. The real skill is in selling. That is why he makes more on his images than other more talented artists. It's also why people don't give him enough credit. They are focusing on the images and completely missing his real skill set.
Agreed. He took his background in sales, polished his sales pitch to a high sheen, trained his salespeople in successful tactics, and make tons of money. I just had a conversation about an illustrator who was really popular in the 80's...took him weeks to do one very simple illustration. Looking at his website today, I think he probably would not even be accepted at the stock sites. If he was accepted, his images would get buried instantly. But at the time he had everyone in the ad industry convinced he was brilliant. What about Lichtenstein? All this time I thought he'd done original works inspired by comics, but I recently read an article that he actually copied published comic book frames line for line, dot for dot, losing a lot of the nuance in the process. The original artists got paid very little for their original work. But L. made millions. And Warhol...
1915
« on: February 24, 2015, 16:18 »
I guess it's not worth taking legal action against the people who've gotten in touch about cleaning up the image? Can't you at least send them a bill? That works well for Getty.
1916
« on: February 24, 2015, 15:53 »
I've got to say that I'm skeptical about images suddenly catching fire and making thousands of sales. I've had 250,000 sales (more than 50,000 of them on iStock as you can see in my profile) and I've never observed that. I've only got a handful that have generated more than 1,000 sales on all agencies combined.
I have several that have sold more than 1,000 times just on Shutterstock. One will pass 2,000 today. You have to keep in mind that subs sell much more often. I have a tiny fraction of that number of sales on iS. (I'm not saying which imagebut SS does not consider it one of my "most popular." I considered not uploading it because I thought it would never sell. Go figure.)
1917
« on: February 24, 2015, 14:38 »
And who are you, exactly, person who hides behind anonymity yet feels free to dis other people's work?
I really have not say that your work is not good! Have I? I only asked, if you really think that your image is so beautiful, universal and suitable for so much different advertising topics that 10000 advertisers would use this each image in 10000 different advertising campaigns. Do you really think that Google has so many advertisers in one suitable topic that each of them would use exactly this one your image? If there is such demand for this image, would not you think that you would already sell this image several thousand times? If I count my 11 picked images, they were sold 6 times (80, 11, 12 and 13). Do you really think that now, as a miracle, will they be used 110000 times instead of 6? Each one of them 10000 times? 10000 times, if they had only 0.5 sales on average until now? Do be so naive.
Maybe it is not great deal, we do not know. On the other hand, almost everybody, who is opted-in, says, that mostly non-selling images were picked. So, maybe my image will be used 5 times or more and it will be not good for me, maybe they will never use it and I will get $2 for nothing (and the image would not be deleted after 4 years of no-sale). Maybe it will continue as EL (after year) and more money will come. I really do not know the numbers and how many times will be used these image on average, but I am certainly sure that it will not be 10000 times per image on average.
I have no idea how many times the image will be resold, and neither do you, Milan. That's the problem in a nutshell. Sometimes relatively old images of mine catch on later for some reason and do sell hundreds or thousands of times. And though four out of eleven of your chosen images hadn't sold before, you had no choice about which images Google would choose. You didn't even know it was Google when you were required to decide whether to opt out or in. As for my images being "so beautiful, universal and suitable for so much different advertising topics that 10000 advertisers would use this each image in 10000 different advertising campaigns," I do have images that have sold thousands of times. I got paid for each sale. Am I "naive?" I've been on the "buyer" side of advertising for more than 30 years. I've seen ad agencies pay tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars for one image, many many times. I see art buyers pay hundreds for images from SS and Getty on a daily basis. That's their sole job...to buy art. They make six-figure salaries buying art, BTW (though I'm not sure how much longer that job will exist). You got $22 for a full year of usagewho knows how many timesfor 11 images. That's less than one ED sale for one image on Shutterstock.
1918
« on: February 24, 2015, 10:31 »
Hey Shelma, update - Leo has told me that it's not doable with the current SS, but acknowledges that it's a a good idea and should be included in the next version. In reply to that, I asked this question:
"OK thanks Leo - question then; is there a way to customize the message at the checkout stage somehow to make it very clear to people, in very large obvious type that they will definitely see, that they can use a credit card WITHOUT a paypal account, and that it's VERY secure?"
Is there a field in the SS dashboard or elsewhere that I can edit myself to display this, right at the point of purchase?"
I'll post here what the reply is - KK
Thanks for the compliment on my work.  Let us know if you can edit the payment page. I've actually asked a web designer to help me add payment options, but unfortunately he never got back to me.
1919
« on: February 24, 2015, 07:29 »
To each his own, I suppose. I don't mind the SS/Facebook deal, where the images are also tiny but we're paid for each use. I have a problem with gigantic Google paying me $2 and then making my image available 10,000 times. Clearly, it's possible to make deals where artists are compensated for each use, because SS did that. I also see that SS and Getty are selling our work--the same work--for hundreds of dollars for each use while DT sells it for two bucks for thousands of uses. SS is looking in the right direction, IMO. Their prices are going up and they're aiming for larger sales. I've decided I'd rather look in that direction too.
Do you really think that your images are so super-brilliant that they will be used 10000 times during this one year (or less)? For your information, 11 of my 813 images were selected in this deal and 8 of them were never sold in DT (and 4 of them were also never sold in any other agency). As it was already said, there is probability that many of these selected images will be never used (and replaced) and some may by used many times and in the average, it could be not so bad deal. Who knows.
And who are you, exactly, person who hides behind anonymity yet feels free to dis other people's work?
1920
« on: February 24, 2015, 06:29 »
Everyone who didn't opt into this should be kicking themselves right now.
I was working in a major ad agency this week. If you saw what an ad agency pays for one-time use of an image (from Shutterstock and Getty in most ad agencies), you'd be shaking your head sadly at these $2 resell-all-you-like Google payments, as I am today.
I'm not kicking myself at all about opting out...instead I'm realizing how much people are actually willing to pay for one use of my images. (It's a lot more than all the $2 payments you got for all those images put together.)
realizing how much agencies might pay is quite different from GETTING that payment -- i don't see how that makes any difference in deciding whether to opt in to DT-google; the 2 are entirely separate - a few people opting out is not going to affect the deal.
another factor people are forgetting is how SMALL images are that are used in google ads
To each his own, I suppose. I don't mind the SS/Facebook deal, where the images are also tiny but we're paid for each use. I have a problem with gigantic Google paying me $2 and then making my image available 10,000 times. Clearly, it's possible to make deals where artists are compensated for each use, because SS did that. I also see that SS and Getty are selling our work--the same work--for hundreds of dollars for each use while DT sells it for two bucks for thousands of uses. SS is looking in the right direction, IMO. Their prices are going up and they're aiming for larger sales. I've decided I'd rather look in that direction too.
1921
« on: February 23, 2015, 12:35 »
She had a job, she was offered another job. She left one for the other. I doubt she'd be willing to burn bridges by making comparisons or trashing a former employer.
1922
« on: February 23, 2015, 12:31 »
I hope there's an answer, because I'd like to offer other payment options as well. Are you getting spam registrations or real ones? For real ones, you can certainly start an email list and make some sort of offer to keep people engaged.
1923
« on: February 21, 2015, 09:10 »
1924
« on: February 21, 2015, 07:39 »
Everyone who didn't opt into this should be kicking themselves right now.
I was working in a major ad agency this week. If you saw what an ad agency pays for one-time use of an image (from Shutterstock and Getty in most ad agencies), you'd be shaking your head sadly at these $2 resell-all-you-like Google payments, as I am today. I'm not kicking myself at all about opting out...instead I'm realizing how much people are actually willing to pay for one use of my images. (It's a lot more than all the $2 payments you got for all those images put together.)
1925
« on: February 19, 2015, 11:11 »
Interesting article, but the flippant comparison to the Beatles' music is problematic. Of course it takes just as much, if not more, work to produce "She Loves You" as to go on a weeklong shoot. You need at least four musicians, two of whom are amazingly talented collaborators (Lennon & McCartney), to write the music; then you need to score it for four instruments, have two other incredibly talented musicians (Harrison and Starr) rehearse the song to get it right, you need to purchase equipment (guitars, drums, speakers), pay for recording studio time and expenses, the producer, tapes, pressing vinyl (in those days), promotion, distribution.
Also, the Beatles and many musicians were poorly compensated at the beginning, with legal wrangling over the rights to their own music for decades...the most famous example being the falling out between McCartney and Michael Jackson after the former suggested the latter invest in music rights, only to have his "friend" turn around and buy the rights to the Beatles' library, cheating the original artists of earnings from music they created. I believe McCartney eventually bought back the rights, but to have to pay for the rights to your own work...jeez.
Pages: 1 ... 72 73 74 75 76 [77] 78 79 80 81 82 ... 116
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
