|
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 - ravens
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 17
201
« on: April 24, 2018, 02:25 »
This is what I think. Buyers are lazy. Buyers get use to one site and buy on that site. They don't shop around. To much time and way to much work for them to shop around. I don't like the low prices but I say to you all please leave Istock. Shut down your account in protest. For me I still get a good monthly check even with the few 2 cent sales. I even still pick up pennies on the street when I see one....... W.Scott McGill
I don't think buyers are stuck with one agency, it is just wishful thinking from image providers. It is free and easy to create an account, and think of all the offers the stock agencies for new customers. You get images free. The crazy prices, which we all know too well. No one has too much money, and there are budgets, so why would buyers be careless when it comes to images? And why spend too much on images, in particular, when they don't have to? When people shop online, they compare products and what's cheaper on other web shops. There are websites only for comparing prices accross the web. How would buying photos be any different? Image providers see it "special" but for image buyers it is nothing special, they just buy an image for a need. The easiest way to shop online - and to buy an image online - is to search via Google. Most stock agencies are well represented there. Just tell Google what you want and see a wide array of images. I'm surprised that so many talented contributors still continue to devaluate their work at 0.02. Even worse, if you begin to come up with excuses why you should keep this up.
202
« on: April 23, 2018, 15:34 »
Well to be honest as long as every one out there keeps uploading to these carpet baggers then stock producers get everything they deserve.
I pulled out of Isuck when they started messing us around and I haven't lost anything. In fact my earnings have gone up thanks to Envato and Alamy.
I deleted my account when Istock introduced the insult of 0.02. That was one of the easiest, and best decisions I have made regarding stock. Now thanks to skipping cheap sites my sales are up. It makes no sense to compete with oneself and offer the same images at 0.02, 2.00, 22.00, or 222.00 on different sites. Which do you think buyers want to pay?
203
« on: April 10, 2018, 14:03 »
I just got the letter today, and it is dated as a contract change of 10th April 2018.
Haven't read it through, but I noticed this, which hasn't been thought through:
"Any information supplied for display with any Image, including captions, keywords, ... and does not include ... any personal details from which a living person can be identified."
I don't think that's what they mean, or else they are going to lose a lot of sales from searches relating to well-known people.
However, even if it's not what they mean, it's what they said.
Full text:
"4:11 Any information supplied for display with any Image, including captions, keywords, Pseudonyms, agency names and descriptions only includes information that is pertaining to the specific Image itself, and does not include contact details, web addresses, Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), copyright and rights management information or any personal details from which a living person can be identified."
You can't include in the EXIF or descriptions - your website, name, phone number, email, Etc... which would allow people to contact you directly? Not about famous people if I'm reading it right.
http://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor-contract-changes.asp?utm_campaign=1157400_Contract%20Change%20-%20April%202018&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alamy%20Contributors%20&dm_i=2SWW,OT20,12IO8X,2JDNC,1
Contract changes in case anyone didn't get the email.
Just by browsing Alamy images I've noticed that some contributors have the habit to put their username or studio name among keywords. Maybe this oddly written clause is added to put a stop to that.
204
« on: March 27, 2018, 05:26 »
.
205
« on: January 31, 2018, 06:15 »
Micro, if you expect little, you will get little. In the end it's up to you what you want. Contributors who look at the next penny ahead instead of looking a little bit further (even some animals can wait for reward - why can't photographers? Is it a matter of greed, selfishness ignorance or stupidity?) ruin it for the rest of the trade.
206
« on: January 31, 2018, 05:40 »
I suppose all sites have their customer base. But what's the point competing with yourself? Buyers are not dumb. It's very easy to have multiple accounts at different agencies and follow the cheap and free offers. Also, if we're continue to support penny sites by uploading our work there, they are going to kill contributor friendly sites like Alamy. If you upload the same images to Alamy and to cheap sites, people buy them on the cheap sites. Alamy can work for you if you upload your premium stuff there and only there.
I disagree with this in general. I have quite an overlap of images that are both on macrostock and microstock and they sell in both worlds.
This way the customer gets all his files from one source with the exact same license and especially buyers with bigger budgets are not going to hunt it all down with the various exclusive licenses to make sure all files have the same rights.
Plus the macros offer editor services, so you dont even have to spend so much time looking for files, they do it for you.
I wish Alamy all the best, if they give me a sensible and simple upload system I will upload directly again.
But between low sales and the complicated uploads I very discouraged. But some of my images go there via partner portals, that is a lot easier for me.
207
« on: January 28, 2018, 11:41 »
If you upload the same images to Alamy and to cheap sites, people buy them on the cheap sites. Alamy can work for you if you upload your premium stuff there and only there.
208
« on: January 18, 2018, 10:36 »
I preferred Fotolia too. By the way, where do you find the max price? Can you set it any more?
209
« on: December 29, 2017, 04:32 »
JimP is wrong.
Shutterstock is going down. The best contributors, professionals, are either leaving Shutterstock or are left already. Businesses and serious buyers are moving on to reputable agencies which are not infested with thieves and hackers. A stock agency that openly allows hacking and stealing is not a reputable business or a secure website.
Left are hobbyists who produce repetitive, mediocre images with cheap gear and are happy if they get 2 more random sales a day.
By the way: SSTK share is -7,38% in 1 year.
SS is going down.
210
« on: December 23, 2017, 09:56 »
The article states that this ruling does not mean ALL stock photos aren't subject to copyright, only in the case of this particular photo.
But I don't agree with the verdict. In my opinion, every photo is a photographer's creation, whether or not the subject is 'boring', or 'not creative enough'. It's created because the photographer pushed that buttonm so by definition it should be subject to copyright laws.
I agree. ALL (stock) photos must be subject to copyright. They are a photographer's creation after all. How do you define "artistic" or "personal touch"? Where would you draw the line? These are all matter of personal opinion and taste which varies tremendously. No way someone's personal taste can measure a legal right, such as copyright.
211
« on: December 22, 2017, 11:13 »
Just checked, F*stock is back on.
212
« on: December 21, 2017, 06:31 »
How many of you have deactivated your ports? I think that's something SS might notice, if more and more contributors do the same.
I deactivated my port and let SS know the reason why.
I still feel sick looking at my photos on that F***stock site, thousands of images, distributed FREE by these thieves.
I did. Not because I think SS will care, or that anyone else will be willing to give up their pennies. I just don't want to do business with a company that makes millions, and yet knowingly lets this continue. I deactivated to give them the time thru the holidays to fix. If they don't, I will probably close my account and focus on another port that is doing better.
Good point and plan, Cathy. Their way of conducting business is very questionable. It's not only that they make millions, but what kind of "business" allows continuous stealing? For me there were numerous reasons to deactivate my images. It's sickening to see all my work free to steal. When SS doesn't care about image security, we will have to make our own decisions. I'm selling my work via other agencies, and I don't want to compete against myself by offering them free on SS. That scenario would be just crazy.
213
« on: December 20, 2017, 16:24 »
How many of you have deactivated your ports? I think that's something SS might notice, if more and more contributors do the same.
I deactivated my port and let SS know the reason why.
I still feel sick looking at my photos on that F***stock site, thousands of images, distributed FREE by these thieves.
214
« on: December 12, 2017, 04:40 »
Let's not get sidetracked. This is all about how indifferently Shutterstock deals with the pest sites that steal our work. Don't be fooled, don't explain on Shutterstock's behalf. That is called Stockholm syndrome.
There are no degrees on stealing. If someone breaks into your house and steals your computer, are you happy they did not steal all your electronics and valuables? Are you happy that they stole only little but not a lot? Will you not report this, because it was only a little bit of thieving?
If somebody steals a small image or large image, it is stealing plain and simple. We must maintain ZERO TOLERANCE on stealing!
215
« on: December 07, 2017, 13:13 »
For anyone else who wants to know how, since Shutterstock support probably won't tell you, here's how to disable your images altogether.
From your dashboard, go to the drop down under your name in the upper right corner of the page, and select "account settings"
On the right side, about half way down on that page, will be buttons to opt out of selling extended license, etc.
Opt out of image sales. Save settings. (big red button, bottom left) You're done.
This doesn't delete your images, so you can opt back in, if Shutterstock gets their s*** together.
This is something to consider!! Imagine if we all did this at the same time? SS would NOTICE.
216
« on: December 05, 2017, 15:41 »
New security issues with Shutterstock pop up all the time. Thieves, apps and stealing sites probably make use of the Facebook loophole. SS should fix that but it doesn't look promising. Instead, they pretend everything is okay and hope that contributors forget about this issue.
I have stopped uploading to SS due to this.
217
« on: November 06, 2017, 06:56 »
Who is this Eric? Can someone give me his email please? In this "age of the creative economy" I would like him to send me some $$$ so I can stay relevant and make my life more exciting.
218
« on: November 02, 2017, 07:26 »
Thanks for your replies. Has anybody tried notify them? My yesterday's FTP upload seems to be disappeared for good, and the web upload is frustrating with partially uploaded images. Sent them an email about this issue, hope that they will do something about it.
219
« on: November 02, 2017, 07:22 »
More information would be required: were the photos taken on private or public property, like monastery? Was the access open for all or not? Did you have to pay a fee? Was this a part of a photo tour, maybe arranged for tourists? Was photography OK? By that I don't me law. I mean if it was respectful? Photographers always speak "it is my statutory right to photograph this blah blah" and it just gets other people defensive. You get better results if you treat people with respect. Check out Shutterstock editorial guidelines if you already haven't https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/submitting-editorial-content-part-2-documentary-editorialIf you believe you don't need credentials, you can always write to SS and state your case. They will issue you a submission code. It works much better than resubmitting.
220
« on: November 01, 2017, 07:23 »
Anyone else experiencing serious upload problems with 123RF?
Just recently several of my files show up corrupt - if they show up at all.
Tried both web upload (error messages with a couple for files which do not show at all) and was lucky to have 1-2 files show properly. "Processing" took about one hour. The rest of the files, corrupt.
FTP does not work, have no idea where my files end up, to Mars? Another solar system?
Does anybody else experience similar problems?
221
« on: November 01, 2017, 07:17 »
They have required press credentials as long as I can remember. If you want to submit these images to SS, you need to have a permission from the event organizer.
222
« on: October 19, 2017, 03:26 »
Thank you, Mat, for the information. It's nice to have these two new features.
However... the profile image: due to the severe crop just faraway landscape images look good in this. I know people like to look at landscapes and nature, but this is not what my work is about. If I choose a random landscape (which I shoot seldom) I'm doing more harm than good to my port, I think.
Would it be possible for the user to upload a custom header, or can you make the crop adjustable?
Getting along with the collections ok, but would like two features: 1) changing the title image 2) transferring the collections/lightboxes from Fotolia.
223
« on: October 18, 2017, 14:17 »
Desintegrator, It's quite simple to connect Fotolia and AdobeStock accounts and you can still continue uploading to Fotolia. You will just upload to one site and your work will show up on both. The Fotolia site functions well and I too prefer using it.
224
« on: October 16, 2017, 09:39 »
Thank you Jo Ann for sharing this article.
I'm not surprised.
Shutterstock is going down. Down, down, fast!
Contributors work for SS, too, and it's obvious SS is an openly contributor hostile company.
We can see this in their approach to image stealing - they choose to sweep theft under the carpet and pretend it doesn't exist. No respect to contributors whatsoever.
We can see this in their "new ideas" like Shutterstock Custom which is basically robbery. Offer to pay contributors a silly amount for ALL RIGHTS of their work (if they are desperate enough to agree).
The CEO is financially independent and has checked out this sand box of his a long time ago.
225
« on: October 12, 2017, 06:00 »
Shutterstock Custom: it's best not to get involved.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 17
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
