|
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 - a.k.a.-tom
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 44
201
« on: July 30, 2009, 22:39 »
Wellllllllllllllll from a guy who hasn't been at the day job more than 7 weeks this year..... It all depends on how you got that 6 months off.... here's a sob story for ya... 1. My 31 year old daughter died end of January... throws the whole family in a tailspin 2. March 4th, I bust my leg, outta work until July 15th 3. June 8th,(still out on workmans comp with the leg) I get diagnosed with stage one lymphoma (no biggie, looking at 100% cure barring getting hit by a truck). Looking like only 3 chemos and a couple weeks of isolated radiation to kill it (not me). I was fortunate to find it at the start. Lymph gland on the back of my tongue, felt it right away. Sooooo if everything goes well, I might be back to work by mid October... needless to say... I've not got much shooting done. Hard to hike around on crutches and hold up a 5D with long glass on the front. Fortunately,I've got two legs again and the chemo thing is going extremely well and I've been able to get out and back to burning flashcards. This year I've uploaded less than several dozen pix. I just started last week on keywording what I had sitting around on hard drives. Hope in the next 2 months to FINALLY get caught up and back on top of all my stock work. Havent done an lick of work on our company website... it's in a shambles. Fortunately, I just got handed another decent free lance gig for a regional mag article. That'll help pay some bills that the less than 50% that New Jersey disability pays.. yikes!!!! Might help with the 6% increase on the tax bill I got yesterday.... shoot me now...LOL So, to answer your question...  all depends how you got the 6 months off. LOL  =tom can tell you this....2009 has been a suck year for this kid. wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy......
202
« on: July 30, 2009, 22:17 »
Sounds like the same math I got from Verizon today.... or then again, maybe my brain has finally turned to oatmeal.... =tom
203
« on: July 30, 2009, 21:11 »
Now that I think of it... why couldn't IS ask me if I'd like to put them on in editorial??? WTH? They were selling, why dump pix that were proven sellers?
Maybe because IS doesn't sell editorial? 
I stand corrected and informed! Much thanks =tom
204
« on: July 30, 2009, 21:09 »
It seems to me that the most success comes from selling events photos on sites like SmugMug. Kid sports, running events, motorcycle race, graduation, highschool band, etc. The people I know who are doing this, however, barely cover expenses. Marketing is mostly word of mouth and images are not very professional.
I've been trying to build my site for 2 years now and it's still a shambles ...havent even gotten to the point to open for sales... no time... I'm on Better Photo. However, while not selling direct from online, it has generated business thru email contact. It's kind of pricey though, I think a little over 300 a year. Right now for me it's a tax write-off. But to WarrenPrice's point, my son is making a good buck on Cafe Press selling cups and shirts and bumper stickers. Enough to support his 32 year old 'kid' toy habits. My wife gets some nice pin money from Zazzle. You'd be surprised what people will buy from them. I am! Not very prestigious nor artsy, but ya cant take prestige or art to the bank for cash money.. LOL =tom
205
« on: July 30, 2009, 20:56 »
Tom, I think this Vegas coyright thing has being going on for a while, I remember some years back when the Wynn hotel first open, I stayed there for a few days and took some wonderful photos of the place, well I'm glad I got into a conversation with a local that informed me that everything was under copyright from the Parasol room inside to the exterior of the building, as well as any other Hotel/Casino on the strip...well little to say that was a big disappointment and a wasted effort...must of the photos had to be uploaded as editorial...so careful with those photos of yours, you just might get that knock on the door. 
BTW, if the person knocking is a big ugly guy wearing a black leather jacket and his name is Vinny, RUUUUN!
HA! , thanks M@M, that dates it for me. The Wynn was nothing but girders when I was last in Vegas. I think you are correct, I'll be getting online and changing all my Vegas stuff to editorial. At least then, I may have opportunity to continue to sell them......... UNLIKE at IS where they all got 86'd. =tom Now that I think of it... why couldn't IS ask me if I'd like to put them on in editorial??? WTH? They were selling, why dump pix that were proven sellers?
206
« on: July 30, 2009, 20:47 »
The problem I see is this.... yeah we can yank all our ports off of FT.... but where's the gaurantee that all our pix will be pulled off of all the so-called 'partners/affilates' of FT? A partial list of their outfits was posted yesterday on another thread... agencies with names sounding like the 2nd graders at Johnny JoeJoe elementary school made 'em up.... again, why are we all in this handbasket and where are we going..?? Exlcusive.... It's still a maybe/if IMO. Problem is in my case, I pull in as much from SS due to pure volume as I do on IS... not to mention, many of the pix I have on the micros, I sell free lance at obscene prices. Does that conflict with 'exclusive' agreements? I'm shooting a free lance job for a regional magazine right now (for publication in an early 2010 issue). Those pix are also already being prepped for upload to IS, SS, BigStock & DT. A one day free lance shoot earns me 4 digits from the mag's publisher (current standard rate in my area).... exclusive with IS, how long will it take to make that? I'm pretty sure that as an exclusive I am not able to sell my own pix... does anyone know if that is factual?? I'd like to know. I tell all my local photog friends to get out there and sell themselves. And some have. The work is there, you just have to go out and grab at it. Of course it helps to be based inbetween NYC and Philly, but, the work is there. And by the way, I DO NOT consider myself a world-class photog, Im just a regular guy with over 40 years exp with SLR's. Please dont take this as bragging or tooting my horn. Im not like that. Everyday I am blown away by work soooooooo much better than mine on the micros. I only started selling a little over 4 years ago. Once you get your foot in the door, it starts to snowball. I reccomend it to everyone. Heck, pick up any magazine and see the photo credits, Getty, Alamy, Jupiter and on and on. It's much nicer and much more profitable and rewarding to see YOUR NAME or YOUR company's name alongside the pic and even better to see your name in the info column as a contributing photographer. Not to mention the digits on the check you take to the bank. Get out there and start knocking on some doors, what's to lose? You'll find you may be making a ' few' bucks more than microstock pays. =tom p.s. I'd be happy to give tips on how I did it if any want to PM me. It might work for you and it's not rocket science.
207
« on: July 30, 2009, 20:18 »
I stand corrected. However... I still dont think I'd want my pix with some of these outfits....
208
« on: July 30, 2009, 20:12 »
Sigh.... And yeah, Fotolia's "watermark" is indeed ridiculous, did anyone suggest to them (nicely:)) to alter it?
ha ha ha ha.... Elenathewise... I am so SURE there are plenty here that have suggestions for FT... most of which should not be printed here on a family oriented site...LOL. =tom
209
« on: July 30, 2009, 20:07 »
zWell, your maths were better than hers since 100 minutes at 45 is 45$ and not 450$ 
God.... the chemo is affecting my brain.... LOL. Holy smokes, I cant believe I sat there and didnt realize what she said....am I a moron or what. glad she wasnt selling prime building land in Florida................ none-the-less, I suppose I still got a deal LOL LOL.... Thank you, sir. I may need you to accept all my incoming calls for the next 6 weeks while I go thru therapy...my brain has changed to oatmeal.. ha ha ha ha.. I suppose that answers the question I posed at the start of the thread... =tom It's me..
210
« on: July 30, 2009, 19:53 »
deleted by me... no sense making myself look more moronic than I already am oh boy, thanks for watching my six, talanis!!! =tom
211
« on: July 30, 2009, 19:40 »
Every Casino on the strip is trademarked and the sidewalks of the strip belong to the casinos not to the city. You could still license the images as editorial but not as RF stock. In fact if you look closely most of them have small signs posted around the grounds and major attractions with a no commertcial photography notice. One that comes to mind right off the top is the Mirage, has signs dispersed all along the perimiter, they are small but they are there.
Photoshow... is this something recent? All my Vegas shots were taken in '06. None-the-less, I've uploaded them to every site I belong to over the years and have never had them shot down and... have sold plenty. Fact is, they're still on all the other sites... who knows.. Maybe I should be pro-active and pull them off everywhere before somebody's knocking on my door?? ...or redirect them to editorial. =tom
212
« on: July 30, 2009, 19:34 »
I never liked their manner of accounting. For me it was always a pain in the backside trying to track sales.... =tom
213
« on: July 30, 2009, 19:27 »
Thanks for letting us know.
I wonder whether this person has bought the pictures or just took the from fotolia and erased the watermark (wich is a ridiculous watermark by the way!) . It makes no sense buying pictures to display them on Flickr...
Yeah, thanks... I've been going nuts the last couple of days finding my stuff all over the place on sites I've never heard of!!! And the ones that I have been able to trace go back to...... .yeah, FT!!!!!Neither of my TWO pix on FT were there (the reason why only 2 there explained in other threads and too long to repeat again) . and yes, if that isn't the most asinine watermark I've ever seen..... I'm pulling my FT port ..... pulling as soon as I can be assured they will be pulled off all the other outfits FT is or is not (by the disclaimers on these other sites) associated with!! I'll be damned to hades if I'm going to pull them from FT and these other morons are still selling them. One of them is my #2 selling foto all time!! I should have walked away from them with the first outrageous problem I had with them years ago! =tom
214
« on: July 30, 2009, 19:18 »
Yeah... I wrote in another thread, I got an email from them last week informing me that they dumped all my Las Vegas strip pix.... that I have been selling there for a few years... now.... they're proprietary? =tom
215
« on: July 29, 2009, 20:53 »
Thanks for the referral Puravida...I'm having a special for FT contributors this month, 2 tubes for the price of one...and there's more... you get a AM/FM radio free of charge with your first order...
LOL LOL Thanks M@M... I think you may be the perfect replacement for Billy Mays... LOL, right on! =tom
216
« on: July 29, 2009, 20:33 »
I am a little confused here: are you surprised about the Fotolia API and the fact that they have this type of redistributors?
madelaide.... if it was all up front in plain language, shame on me... I missed it. But to answer your question.. I'm not surprised at anything that comes out of the FT stable. =tom
217
« on: July 29, 2009, 20:30 »
You don't just takeover a business to kill them. You take over the business to control prices. It's been done many times before micro stock. Then when the business strategy is implanted and successful, you sell the same company (companies) for a profit to some joker who believes they too can be as successful with your takeover business.
Greed is a prime mover to all this. And we know there is also someone who is greedy enough to fall for it.
We only need to look no further then the man in the mirror 
Perseus, I must admit, point well taken. That's why I deleted myself... I'm AM going overboard! Thanks for the humbling nudge. =tom
218
« on: July 29, 2009, 20:24 »
took me almost 3 years to hit payout with them. Pix that sell daily elsewhere had dismal sales. Soon as I hit payout, I cashed and bailed (may 09). =tom
219
« on: July 29, 2009, 20:15 »
.... I deleted myself... I gotta take a break... LOL =tom
220
« on: July 29, 2009, 19:59 »
Closer to home, has anyone followed the recent case with the group of photographers who took Getty to court? Not a peep.
Need we say more?
Interesting.....
221
« on: July 29, 2009, 19:57 »
Phil.. all I can say to that is 'Amen". Your point is well taken!! Right on, right on, right on, bro! =tom
222
« on: July 29, 2009, 19:53 »
I checked and my entire Fotolia portfolio is there, even the pictures that got accepted yesterday. I guess they are a selling partner and they probably mean they are not endorsed by Fotolia because they are an independant entity, not a Fotolia sub-company.
I'm hearing ya, Talanis. But that sounds to me like a father who is giving the local 25 year old hoodlum the go ahead to date his 16 year old virgin daughter... okay, I exaggerate a bit but not too much. LOL =tom Sorry for going off so much tonite across the board...must be the chemo hitting the brain today!
223
« on: July 29, 2009, 19:46 »
Last week, and you'll have to forgive me, I don't recall which one it was, but either IS or StockXpert mailed me to let me know they were deleting all my Vegas strip shots because it was determined that all the hotels and casino images were proprietary and belonged to them. I've been selling these pix for 3 years. WTH? My crystal ball tells me the day is coming when you'll have to get the owner's sig and the pup's paw print to take a pic of a dog turd on the side of the road. LOL =tom ...... why are we all in this hand basket and where are we going?
224
« on: July 29, 2009, 19:39 »
Puravida... no sir.. I'm batting 60 yrs and I've circled this planet several times, and been up and down just about every road in life.... There's no ' wool pulling' here, some of this is bordering on just plain and simple abuse of business ethics. Some of these outfits are just festering wounds of complete distrust in their contributors. That's how I'm seeing it. =tom .... probably why FT will be the 3rd I've bailed out on this year.
225
« on: July 29, 2009, 19:10 »
scary !
did you write Fotolia to ask them?
No.. I just found this nonsense last night.... truth is, I cut my 'folio down to 2 pix on FT a long time ago. When I first joined I ran into problems with my earnings being eaten down my purchases I was supposedly making. I go in and see I bought something. I've never purchased a pic in my life anywhere. If I want a pic of something, I make it. Happened twice. Big hassle getting that fixed, went as far as phoning ...forgot his name, Chad Bridwell?? to discuss it. I was asked if I had given my passcodes to anyone, was I downloading on a public computer and more nonsense.. I DID get my credits back but not until after Iwas left to feel like I was trying to rip off FT. I left 2 pix on. One my #2 seller, figured I'd let it sit and as soon as I hit payout, cash in and delete. Well while that pic sells daily on 3-4 sites or more, it doesnt seem to sell at FT. And now I find it on these obscure sites.. and after reading how many have found unacceptable problems with their sales... I gotta wonder ... WTH? I'm just getting a bit fed up with all the 'behind the scenes', ' dont let the left hand know what the right hand's doing' crap. Perfect hot example now, StockXpert. WTH?
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
