|
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 ... 74 75 76 77 78 [79] 80 81 82 83 84 ... 116
1951
« on: February 04, 2015, 08:49 »
I don't know...I think it's an interesting idea. An illustrator could team up with a photographer and add text or drawn images to a photo. If they were from the same country the tax situation should be OK. The person with the higher royalty rate could submit the images.
1952
« on: January 31, 2015, 12:55 »
I nominate iStock. They lowered the price of all my vectors, then decided to be snooty again about what to accept, rejecting best sellers at other sites. So as usual I only upload about half my images to them. And credit sales are dropping like a stone as subs take over, lowering RPD to below that of SS and DT.
1953
« on: January 30, 2015, 12:45 »
No, there are several ways to reduce the complexity and file size of an image. Shrinking it is just one option.
1954
« on: January 30, 2015, 11:19 »
The OP has already tried shrinking the image and it's still too large.
1955
« on: January 30, 2015, 10:18 »
It's impossible to tell without seeing the image and the outline, and knowing what kind of effects are in the file. But why such a complex file for micro stock? Hardly seems worth it.
1956
« on: January 29, 2015, 15:08 »
What's scary is how anyone can be sued for anything, no matter how ridiculous, and in order to defend yourself it will cost a minimum of 50 grand, I had a lawyer tell me that. Completely unrelated to photography, but my family was sued by a cousin and aunt (an inheritance / property issue) and they made false accusations, which in the end the judge recognized and acknowledged and we won the case.
Sounds like my situation. Luckily my case was dismissed after only a year, and the estate paid my legal bills. But it's very sad to have your own family members falsely accuse you of something. I'm very glad to hear Katja won. 
1957
« on: January 29, 2015, 04:59 »
I have no idea. Sorry.
1958
« on: January 28, 2015, 16:52 »
I switched to EPS10 a while ago, even on iS. No problems with that either. I'm not aware of a site that doesn't accept it, though anything's possible. But EPS8 is fine too. I have both on iS and SS.
1959
« on: January 28, 2015, 10:45 »
Remember: Inspectors are contributors (of differents levels)and contributors are human.
first recognize that 80% of the stock photos are horrible, (because 80% of payments are miserable ...ok) but if something is true is that only shutterstock has the worst reputation for arbitrary rejections.
We must also recognize that sometimes horrific photos are approved ... or sometimes you can see a portfolio with 11000 similar pictures from yogurt approved.
it's crazy. I do not care about the mass rejections because I do uploads mass number of photos.
Well, we're all human, more or less. But when my eps files are accepted and *exactly the same file* in jpg format is rejected...and all those rejections are then labeled "mistakes"...then someone is rejecting things just for the heck of it. I'm not sure what the point is, either. it just puts a strain on the people who need to re-inspect all those files, the person who spent time creating something and now has to spend more time re-uploading and re-keywording, and the next inspector, who has to go through the same files again and approve them.
1960
« on: January 28, 2015, 08:10 »
Same problem for me. My vectors are all accepted, but jpgs are rejected. I email them with each rejection, and every time I get a note that the rejection was a mistake and to resubmit with a note for the reviewer. But if almost 100% of the rejections are mistakes, what's up with that reviewer? It's a waste of my time and the time of the person who takes the trouble to email me about the mistake. It really does seem like someone figures they should have a certain percentage of rejections, so eenie meenie miney moe...
1961
« on: January 27, 2015, 14:26 »
I'm pretty torn about my Symbiostock site. I do like having my own website, and I usually make a few sales each month (though the last couple of months have slowed down), but I have to admit I lost money on it. Besides the costs of building and keeping the site...hosting, advertising, etc...there's the cost in time. I've spent hundreds and hundreds of hours building, designing and advertising the site, and hundreds of hours uploading and keywording. If I'd spent that time creating more illustrations and uploading them to the micos, I would have made money instead of losing it.
However, I believe the future does not bode well for micros, so what is the alternative? That's the $64,000 question.
1962
« on: January 26, 2015, 10:00 »
I searched for something and every image that came up was completely unrelated to my search terms; you can choose "all" or "free," and "free" gives you the same unrelated images, just in a small size.
So the site seems to be giving away images which are unrelated to whatever it is you need.
1963
« on: January 24, 2015, 13:30 »
I'm not on Pond5, though I was considering it (now I'm not so sure). It disappoints me to see Pond5 advertising the free public domain images/footage in banner ads all over the internet. I do wish they spent that money advertising paid content instead. But maybe I'm wrong and paying to advertise, edit, upload and keyword all that free content will lead to more sales for everyone. I'll be watching for the woo-yays.
1964
« on: January 24, 2015, 12:11 »
"Graft" has two completely different meanings in the U.S. You can graft two things together...for example, grafting a plant to rootstock. Or you can engage in political corruption, also known as graft. I'm sure there's some reason behind it.
1965
« on: January 21, 2015, 12:30 »
Your PayPal account. 
1966
« on: January 21, 2015, 08:21 »
Once again I'll make the case that having nice office space in SoHo is a good thing, since they'll hopefully be inviting clients and potential clients into the space and they're located near a lot of NY video editors who are potential buyers. And editors have very cool office space.
However, I would have preferred they spend a portion of the profits from contributors' work on hiring a larger sales staff to sell that work, rather than using it to pay staff to make clips of public domain footage.
I don't know...I just get the feeling they're tossing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, like iS. If they'd said editors were clamoring for vintage footage and this would generate tons of traffic, and backed it up with research that shows the increased traffic would result in an increase in sales, then maybe...
1967
« on: January 20, 2015, 13:26 »
I don't know about anyone else, but I think just being pissed off is enough reason to opt out. These guys made a nice deal for themselves and gave their suppliers two bucks. It's insulting. That's enough for me.
1968
« on: January 20, 2015, 13:17 »
It's truly mind-boggling that after the negative reactions to recent "exciting news," agencies still aren't thinking before they post here. Know your audience!!!
1969
« on: January 20, 2015, 11:35 »
In an ideal world every contributor would delete their account in unison, and the SS would have absolutely nothing. That way they may respect that contributors are their only asset. One day stock photographers/videographers may find a way to use their collective power in a way to gain control or at least respect from the agencies.
We built this city. The images we created are the bricks in the SS/IS/FT/etc billion dollar empire. What if someone created a petition for microstockers whereby we the signers promised that when a total of 5000 of us had signed we would all delete all of our images in unison from the top 3 microstock sites. I would sign it, in blood.
One problem is that we all agreed that we could only delete 10% of our work from Shutterstock per...how long was that period, again? I think you need a petition that makes specific demands. For example, a new 40 tier for SS subs once you've earned $10,000, and 35% royalties pegged to the amount the buyer actually pays, not a flat rate. (I'm just making that up. i don't know whether it would be lucrative or not.) And some sort of demand for iStock...30% royalties for indies and 50% for exclusives? But you have different issues at different agencies, so that would need to be thought out. And iStock is on the way down, so they might not be willing or able to negotiate. Already you have some success with DPC and people opting out of the exciting $2 Google deal. So people do act on things.
1970
« on: January 19, 2015, 19:53 »
Is there anything in this 'deal' that is different than a standard RF sale to an ad agency (aside from Google's larger reach to customers)? Can not an ad agency currently purchase an RF license and resell the image as part of an ad to multiple customers of theirs without needing another license? No, ad agencies cannot buy an image and resell it to multiple clients. (And why would they? Think how angry their clients would be if they were running campaigns for different clients using the same imagery. And they can't have different clients who sell the same products, because they sign non-disclosure and non-compete agreements. Though some mega-merger_agency behemoths manage this by buying up smaller agencies and keeping them separate from one another.) In fact, ad agencies are usually the customers who buy the most expensive options, because often they need extended licenses, RM, or outright buyouts for large campaigns.
1971
« on: January 19, 2015, 19:52 »
double, sorry.
1972
« on: January 19, 2015, 17:47 »
I find their upload process, and then having to create my own links, quite onerous. Hopefully they'll move towards something like SS does, where similar images in your port show up first and others' images after. This encourages licensing a series of images, at least it seems to for me. (Which is why I find DT's rejections for images in a series being "too similar" pretty shortsighted.)
1973
« on: January 19, 2015, 15:56 »
It's never too late. And every revolution seemed impossible before it happened.
1974
« on: January 19, 2015, 12:11 »
I just checked, and I am not enrolled in their alliance program. 
1975
« on: January 19, 2015, 09:31 »
Once again an "exciting" announcement that leaves out a lot of the pertinent details. If it's a yearlong license for Google to make the images available for infinite use and we get paid $2 once, it svcks. If we get paid every time someone wants to use one of our images in a Google ad, like the Facebook/SS deal, woo yay.
I'm always suspicious when they leave out important details like that.
Pages: 1 ... 74 75 76 77 78 [79] 80 81 82 83 84 ... 116
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
