|
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 - Sadstock
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 24
201
« on: August 13, 2012, 16:30 »
Got two for $.70.
203
« on: July 30, 2012, 16:51 »
Was there an announcement or is this just something that you noticed?
204
« on: July 30, 2012, 12:28 »
In addition to price, there does seem to be a lot of discouraging factors to buying it. They kind of created a mess when they decided to cross-pollinate their content to all their different sites. I don't even know how you would untangle that. I definitely would not want that job, and I wonder if anyone else would. I guess I'd be worried (if I was a contributor) about the entity that does buy it. They might just want to gut it for parts.
--------------------------- Gutting Getty for parts might be the best thing that could happen for Istock, if it is split out as a single entity. If the SS IPO goes well, maybe there would be a demand for an Istock IPO?
205
« on: July 28, 2012, 09:13 »
Note that "Other buyout firms that had earlier taken a look, such as KKR & Co (KKR.N) and Charterhouse CHCAP.UL, have dropped out of the process, the people said." If KKR, who purchased 50% of FT in May for $150 million (and convinced some banks to lend FT $150 million more) http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/fotolia-sells-50-stake-in-business/, has passed, then I can't see anyone paying $4 billion. Being the owner of FT, KKR is clearly interested in the industry, but I think also understands the financials and has realized that what H&F is asking for a mortgaged Getty is ridiculous. Here is another article. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/private-equity-firms-vying-for-getty-images-as-final-bids-are-due-on-august-6-20120728-00001
206
« on: July 27, 2012, 17:57 »
Updates I made today
Added Alamy to Veer
Added India Pictures to Veer
Added Profimedia to Veer
Added Profimedia to Unknown
Added Pocketstock.com to Unknown
Updated existing entry for Pocketstock.com.mx to reflect full name
Just went back and looked at message one, with all the changes and adds.
HOLY COW! 
But I wanted to add, nice work, this was a great idea. Keep it up.
-------------------------- Thanks!
207
« on: July 27, 2012, 17:57 »
Made a bunch of updates today including adding Pinterest. Welcome suggestions on how to more clearly include Pinterest in the master list as I'm not happy with they way that I've done it, but don't have a better idea.
7-27-12 added Pinterest to 123RF
7-27-12 added Pinterest to Bigstock
7-27-12 added Pinterest to Dreamstime
7-27-12 added Pinterest to Photodune
7-27-12 added Pinterest to Stockfresh
7-27-12 added Pinterest to Istockphoto
7-27-12 added Zcool to 123RF
7-27-12 added timelineimages.com to Dreamstime
7-27-12 added bumperstickers.biz to Istockphoto
7-27-12 Removed Alamy from Veer
208
« on: July 26, 2012, 08:14 »
Maybe the wing logos? The equivalent U.S. would not be allowed I don't think. Don't know how the UK feels
209
« on: July 25, 2012, 13:44 »
I remember a year or two back somebody had shot a whole series of different types of fresh herbs and DT accepted the first submission and rejected the rest of the series as too similar. 
210
« on: July 25, 2012, 10:52 »
I've always thought the similars policy is linked to the image level system.
The fewer images on a given subject there are, particularly from the same shoot, the more the few uploaded images from that subject/shoot will sell and will climb up through the levels. This allows DT to get more per sale and justify it by saying "these are the cream of the crop images, just look at how many times they've sold". It probably works well for buyers who only have an account with DT and nobody else, since they don't really have a choice.
Personally, I think its a dumb system, kind of like damming half a river since buyers can go to the many other micros for more diversity for a given subject/shoot. Few big buyers are going to limit themselves to just one company.
211
« on: July 20, 2012, 18:03 »
I don't currently contribute because I have not yet had the time for a low earner like this but this will ensure I won't. My keywords are alphabetic, so I'd have to manually edit thousands of images. Not going to happen for 3.2% of shutterstock.
212
« on: July 19, 2012, 09:24 »
I think Antistock was ignored by 30 or so folks here, so guess he/she is right that people here did not want to talk with him/her.
No doubt he/she will be back under a new name to troll some more.
213
« on: July 16, 2012, 11:29 »
I'm an independent forced onto Thinkstock and with about half my portfolio now showing there, it is adding about 25% to my monthly Istock earnings. That number will grow as my full portfolio is there, so my bottom line is better.
Flipside is the volume of sales at Thinkstock appears to be really huge. I've not counted, but I suspect that I get more Thinkstock sales per month then I do for the rest of my sales accross all other sites combined. Those are sales that would likely pay me more at another site or on Istock itself. Long term I think Thinkstock accelerates the inevitable race to the bottom.
214
« on: July 16, 2012, 11:17 »
In addition to Lee, I'd like to thank Leaf for this forum. Without MSG, I would never have seen Lee's orginal post, and DT would have not felt nearly as much pressure as they evidently did.
215
« on: July 14, 2012, 21:58 »
From that thread Issue/Question:
Hi - In the February Newsletter an announcement was made that in March 2012, the Thinkstock royalty rates would be increased. An Image Pack 1 for a non-exclusive, for example, would go from $2.40 to $4.00.
I haven't seen the increase yet, and am wondering when it might take place.
Thanks!
--
Comment:
Thank you very much for your message and sorry for the delay in our response.
Please take a look at the following link, some files have updated on Thinkstock however the following link will be updated once the changes take effect.
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule
Please let us know if you have any other questions.
Sincerely,
Kaylene
Contributor Relations
iStockphoto----------------------------------- What does "some files have updated on Thinkstock" mean? That some are sold at the increased royalty? That some Thinkstock images sell at a higher price but pay at the old royalty rate?
216
« on: July 13, 2012, 22:00 »
Perhaps a client demanded a refund on a sale which istock never reported to me in the first place?
Have there ever been sales at iStock that weren't reported?
How would we know?
AFAICS, the only way of catching that would be if you found an in-use of a file you'd never sold, that had only ever been on iStock, and you reported it as used without a sale and there was no reasonable explanation. I don't think I've ever heard of that happening. Once, someone thought he'd found that, but it turned out it was a Getty sale via V/A, which was reported a few weeks after the sale, as usual.
--------------------------------------------------- Another way would be for an audit. Getty permits (or at least they used to) audits once a year per contributor at contributor's expense unless a certain dollar value was found to be inaccurate. I think somebody could make the argument that Istock is Getty so they are entitled to an audit. I bet it would be fascinating to see out that turned out. Another option would be a mystery shopper www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/stock-photography-mystery-shopperI'm not holding my breath on that one.
217
« on: July 13, 2012, 21:49 »
In the movie business, the whole scheme for big stars getting a percentage of the gross (versus the profits) came about because the studios always managed to keep the books so that there was no profit. The agencies are increasingly following the same path and trying to effectively continue to cut contributor shares while assisting their own bottom line.
-------------------------------------------- Art Buchwald where are you when we need you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount
218
« on: July 12, 2012, 06:45 »
it does seem to have worked out for the better.
I can't say I have seen anything to suggest this is true, at least in financial terms.
---------------------------------- I'm a diamond and dropped exclusivity in early 2011 and I'm ahead financially for dropping the crown, despite the fact that only about 40% of my Istock files are uploaded to other sites.
219
« on: July 06, 2012, 16:39 »
Cancellation policy
Provided you have not used any images, you may cancel the Licence within 30 days from the date of the invoice. Please notify us of the cancellation by emailing our customer service team: [email protected].
You may cancel the Licence within ten (10) days from the date of the Invoice without charge.
If you cancel less than thirty (30) days after the Invoice date, a cancellation fee of fifty (50%) percent of the Invoice will be charged.
After thirty (30) days, no cancellations will be accepted and the full amount of the invoice must be paid.
Cancelling the Licence revokes an right to publish, reproduce or use the Image(s) in any manner whatsoever.
I don't know anything more, but that's the policy.
Only one I had, someone bought and image, cancelled then bought the same image, for less, the next day.
----------------------- So what happens to the 50% that Alamy collects for cancelation between day 11 and day 29? They get to keep it all and the refund more or less comes out of the photographers end? Or am I missing something?
220
« on: July 03, 2012, 21:33 »
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/h-f-presses-4-billion-224345818.html?l=1
The business has seen little growth in earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) since Hellman bought it but has enjoyed increasing demand for its online imagery products and services.
--------------------------------------------------------------- I don't understand. With all the cost cutting, price raising, and increased demand EBITDA has not improved? Where is the money going? Is it all dividends paid to H&F? Was Kelly really right about it being unsustainable after all And yes, the mortgage/dividend thing is again obscene. And the idea that you can sell this for $4 billion... Somebody call PT Barnum.
221
« on: July 02, 2012, 19:21 »
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/retired-nasa-astronaut-killed-jet-ski-accident-involving-son-article-1.1106326
Tragic story, but OMG, what is up with the hack job on the photoshop? Do we need to see a picture of the guy with a beach background?
Does the Getty photographer own both images? I think this is the front page image for Racephoto's new site!
-----------------------------------
The image was created today no doubt, so if they choose to sell it again, it will take several days at least to show up in the search I would think.
Beyond dumb. What was the editor thinking? It makes a bad joke out of this person's death.
It is odd. I found several photos of this person on GettyImages, but not that one.
224
« on: June 22, 2012, 20:27 »
.
225
« on: June 20, 2012, 19:06 »
Both files are no longer available. Is the contributor's account still active?
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
