|
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 - SpaceStockFootage
Pages: 1 ... 76 77 78 79 80 [81] 82 83 84 85 86 ... 98
2001
« on: November 08, 2016, 01:20 »
A good portfolio makes good money, a bad portfolio goes empty. A bad portfolio means out-dated images which do not meet the demand of the market. The consequence would be, produce better images or leave the business and not to waste valuable time with complaints, petitions or weird accusations.
I think everyone knows that a good portfolio makes money and a bad portfolio doesn't, but that's not really the point here. People want to receive a decent commission rate for their work, whether they have a good selling portfolio or a bad selling one. Sure, the bad selling ones might be slightly more vocal, as they're making less money, but still... So if iStock decide to drop your percentage to 10% or 5% or even 1%... you'll still be happy as can be, telling everyone that they should produce better images or leave the business and not to waste valuable time with complaints, petitions or weird accusations? And if hell freezes over as the pigs are flying overhead when iStock increase their percentage to 20%, you'd be happy to miss out on that and stay at 15%. The thing you have to remember is that 5% more is 5% more, whether you're making $10 a month or $10,000 a month.
2002
« on: November 07, 2016, 21:33 »
Look on the bright side though... with 10,000 images and 1 to 2 sales a day, on average you'll have sold each of your images once... in just 18 years. Something to look forward to!
2003
« on: November 06, 2016, 22:05 »
Surely this only does half the job though? On its own, the service results in you being $10 to $20 out of pocket... and depressed at finding out so many people are using your images without licensing them. For there to be any benefit then they then need to do something about it, which your service doesn't help with.
Surely if I offered a service for $5 where I tell people that everything is ok and nobody is using their images incorrectly (whether it's true or not) would result in people being generally happier?
Maybe I've missed something though, and I've got your service wrong.
2004
« on: November 06, 2016, 00:11 »
Keep im mind that the 'best' export setting might not necessarily be what certain stock sites accept. Always double check what the site in question will accept, but I usually go for QuickTime PhotoJPEG at 90% quality. If the file is too big then I might go down to 75% or cut the duration slightly.
2005
« on: November 05, 2016, 05:32 »
There is no corporation or PLC in the entire world that just keeps going up up and up year after year.
I kind of get what you're trying to say, but for the sake of accuracy, your statement is 100% false.
Oh well in that case we will all be laughing all the way to the bank! we're not..... or maybe we are? you might be perfectly correct. 
Based on your reply, you seem to be under the impression that I'm saying that every person and/or company in the world will make more money than they did last year, and this will happen until the end of time. I don't think I even inferred or hinted at anything like that, but hey-ho!
No what I meant was that its hard pushed to find any corp who constantly lets say over a period of 15 years produce a constantly rising quarterly report every single year. Ups and downs are common in the business world and in the stock market it happens every second of the day.
Couldn't agree more. Although I was going purely on your original post, that didn't include this clarifying information! But I kind of knew what you meant. Sort of.
2006
« on: November 05, 2016, 05:29 »
You can also send a petition to mosquitos asking not to bite you.
It doesn't make much sense, because biting people is simply what mosquitos do. Fleecing photographers is what Getty do, they have always done so and probably always will, it is their raison d'tre. You can't change their DNA.
Mosquitos need your blood, and so does Getty. I don't send petitions to mosquitos. I avoid their territory or use a mosquito net or a repellent.
I'd sign that petition... I had dengue fever a couple of months back. I wouldn't recommend it.
2007
« on: November 05, 2016, 04:32 »
Yep I think you are splitting hairs...I think we all basically agree. Probably the most successful enduring business is the catholic church ;-).
Those guys are killing it!
2008
« on: November 05, 2016, 03:58 »
There is no corporation or PLC in the entire world that just keeps going up up and up year after year.
I kind of get what you're trying to say, but for the sake of accuracy, your statement is 100% false.
Oh well in that case we will all be laughing all the way to the bank! we're not..... or maybe we are? you might be perfectly correct.
Based on your reply, you seem to be under the impression that I'm saying that every person and/or company in the world will make more money than they did last year, and this will happen until the end of time. I don't think I even inferred or hinted at anything like that, but hey-ho!
2009
« on: November 05, 2016, 03:55 »
There is no corporation or PLC in the entire world that just keeps going up up and up year after year.
Indeed every business has a lifecycle and those related to IT shorter than most its just working out where it is that is the key for investors......SS stock down 10% yesterday.
Absolutely. I'm not disagreeing with any of that, but... I'm sure there's plenty of companies that have made consistent annual increases in revenue. That could be over a few years, of which there's probably plenty... or it could be over decades, of which there's probably hardly any. However, even if year on year increases become less likely as time goes on, and the odds of it happening until the end of time are vurtually non-existent... the companies which are still having consistent growth, are currently going up up and up year after year. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but for his statement to be accurate, it relies on something happening which hasn't happened yet. And although that something is very, very likely to happen at some point in the future... it's still not 100% guaranteed.
2010
« on: November 05, 2016, 02:27 »
There is no corporation or PLC in the entire world that just keeps going up up and up year after year.
I kind of get what you're trying to say, but for the sake of accuracy, your statement is 100% false.
2011
« on: November 04, 2016, 23:49 »
Enough to find out who is who. Write a petition. Even if it is, it will consist of only one sentence:
Please note our interest, since we believe that these royalty rates do not cover our costs of production and does not bring profit
I don't think that works. If they paid 1% of the purchase price, rather than 15% or whatever... but you sold ten trillion of them, then even if you're in a solid gold helicopter shooting aerials from space, then that's probably going to cover your cost of production. There's rarely a firm correlation between cost of production and total earnings. Yes, a trip to some exotic locations with models and props is going to cost more than a shot clip of a poorly framed manky cat down the road, but a well shot clip of a fancy building down the road isn't going to cost more than a poorly shot clip manky cat down the road... but the former is going to make you more money. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for decent prices and decent commissions, but your suggested content for the petition just seems a bit 'wooly'.
2012
« on: November 04, 2016, 23:13 »
but what is a niche in micro stock?
Space stuff!
2014
« on: November 04, 2016, 23:08 »
Would seem like you can't on Shutterstock then. Unless your client is displaying the wall art in a commercial space, and you'd need a license per sale.
2015
« on: November 04, 2016, 04:32 »
I believe it's fine to advertise the image for sale, then buy extended licenses as needed and print and deliver the product. This could be totally legit. Right?
That's what I was thinking. Regular license to display the image for sale on the site, extended license whenever anyone actually buys the image in question and you make the print.
2016
« on: November 04, 2016, 04:30 »
Envato allow it as long as the parent or guardian contact support prior to them setting up an account, and agrees to the terms and conditions of the site. There's a guy on there in the music section who sold his first $100k before he was 18. Not bad going!
2017
« on: November 02, 2016, 21:31 »
Can they not do this with an extended license? Or they can and you know they haven't done so.
2018
« on: October 31, 2016, 21:53 »
I think the massive thing that separates the two is that although your doctor might be getting $20,000 a year rather than $200,000 with them taking 90%.... in this game, that doctor has the potential to bill for the same operation.... ten, a hundred, a thousand times over.
In that respect, we're doing pretty well compared to the poor souls over at iDoctor.com
2019
« on: October 31, 2016, 21:40 »
But this image:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html
predates your one above no? I am just notice some similarities like the number of swooshes at the bottom, position of the sideways "v" by the mouth. Number of lines above the eye. Way the eye is cut off at the bottom. Way eye intersects line. Way the dark shape swooshes under the eye and so on.
Weird huh?
I'm not sure I understand your point? First the image people quotes in this thread is not related at all to the issue I am talking about. Second I don't see any similarities except that they are both eagle heads?
Please read the start of the thread if you didn't. :p
You should compare the two side by side, IMHO every element of the eagles head has a corresponding almost identical element in your version, but whatever.
I am talking about these two, not the one Sean linked to:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html
Yeah, but you're still comparing them to the one he posted... for all we know, the logo in question could be a bat having intimate relations with a horse. As a result, I see no similarities in the eagles you've posted, and the bat horse action logo that this thread relates to.
No I'm not, I'm comparing the two links to each other not to the one Sean posted. One is by the OP, the other is by another contributor. If your point is that this isn't what the OP intended to discuss, then yes you are correct. I just noticed the similarity when I was taking a look at his portfolio for this thread.
Ah right, I see what you're saying now. Sorry!
2020
« on: October 31, 2016, 21:38 »
And when you say 'buy the license' keep in mind that they can't buy that license from any of the stock sites they may have got it from, as none of them provide a license where they can use your item in a logo. So you'll need to sell them one of your own custom licenses directly, one that happens to cost considerably more than what they may have paid elsewhere for a non logo license.
2021
« on: October 31, 2016, 21:34 »
If you don't have anything on iStock then that was probably the best course of action! If you do have work on there, then probably not!
2022
« on: October 31, 2016, 11:18 »
But this image:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html
predates your one above no? I am just notice some similarities like the number of swooshes at the bottom, position of the sideways "v" by the mouth. Number of lines above the eye. Way the eye is cut off at the bottom. Way eye intersects line. Way the dark shape swooshes under the eye and so on.
Weird huh?
I'm not sure I understand your point? First the image people quotes in this thread is not related at all to the issue I am talking about. Second I don't see any similarities except that they are both eagle heads?
Please read the start of the thread if you didn't. :p
You should compare the two side by side, IMHO every element of the eagles head has a corresponding almost identical element in your version, but whatever.
I am talking about these two, not the one Sean linked to:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html
Yeah, but you're still comparing them to the one he posted... for all we know, the logo in question could be a bat having intimate relations with a horse. As a result, I see no similarities in the eagles you've posted, and the bat horse action logo that this thread relates to.
2023
« on: October 31, 2016, 08:37 »
iMac? Oh right, sorry... I didn't realise this was just your hobby. Sorry if all this is going over your head slightly.
😉
2024
« on: October 31, 2016, 07:53 »
B) If we're considered employees, then surely we'd not own the copyright on our own work, as it would be 'work for hire'?
In this case the car shoud belong to Uber (Toronto case)
Wrong! The work for hire on SS would be the images or video you create. The work for hire on Uber is delivering somebody from A to B... Uber own 'the ride', so they can charge for the ride and the driver can't. They don't own the car! Yes, you need a car to.work for Uber, but that's not what they're selling. They're selling a service that is carried out with the use of a car. Just like when somebody hires a wedding photographer. They own the prints and not the camera. A caterer, they own the food created and not the kitchen knives.
2025
« on: October 31, 2016, 06:04 »
Yeah, I just gave it a go and they're pretty far off. Yes, they're both black and white illustrations of the same beast, and it could be said that the style of illustration is pretty similar, but there are a lot of considerable differences.
Pages: 1 ... 76 77 78 79 80 [81] 82 83 84 85 86 ... 98
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
.
