2076
123RF / Re: 0 dollars for a sold image?
« on: August 26, 2012, 20:28 »They had a system problem today. Check again.
Thanks, it changed, it's now listed as an L for $1,335.
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. 2076
123RF / Re: 0 dollars for a sold image?« on: August 26, 2012, 20:28 »They had a system problem today. Check again. Thanks, it changed, it's now listed as an L for $1,335. 2077
123RF / 0 dollars for a sold image?« on: August 26, 2012, 16:37 »![]() Take a look at the middle one. It's in the list of sold images, but there's no sale and I didn't get paid for it. ![]() Does anyone else have the same issue? 2079
New Sites - General / Re: Pocketstock... something, anything? Where are we at?« on: August 07, 2012, 20:15 »
LOL, what a horrible feature.
So technically, buyers can -if they have the patience- almost always get a lower price for these images, because most bids get accepted anyway, under the motto: 'a small sale is better than no sale at all'. And after one successful low bid, what will stop buyers from trying to bid even lower? The contributor will be getting lots of cheapass commissions for their images, all sold at a price lower than the original price. Sounds like an instable system that is bound to lower the value of most images. 2080
Veer / Images online, no views?« on: August 05, 2012, 16:29 »
Why are there no views AT ALL? Some of my approved images are online for weeks (after a month review time!) but they get no views whatsoever? Does it take another month to make them searchable?
2081
Selling Stock Direct / Selling a stock image to the customer exclusively« on: July 18, 2012, 18:51 »
I need some advice on pricing an exclusive user license:
Someone wants to buy an exclusive license for use of a character I originally created for microstock. He wants to use the character as a mascot for his company. Sounds good, although it means I have to delete all images containing the character from all microstock sites. So I have to come up with a price that surpasses the amount of money the images would normally generate in a lifetime. But how many years is a lifetime? Would you use a revenue-generating period of 30 years as a guideline? Or 20? Or maybe just 10 years, taking into account the possibility that the industry will change? So let's say the image generates a hypothetical $10 a year. How much would you charge? 2082
Dreamstime.com / Re: Why we should remove our Dreamstime affiliate links« on: July 16, 2012, 21:42 »
Wait a second? Now when a high level image gets sold via subscription, it won't cost the buyer 2 downloads anymore, but only 1? So we will earn less money on high level subscription downloads?
2083
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS. highest micro sale I have ever had?« on: June 27, 2012, 21:20 »
Just had my first single sale, $4,75. It's nowhere near $150, but cool nonetheless
![]() 2084
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Nice going, Istock...« on: June 24, 2012, 19:51 »Fair enough. But I still dont see the need to go public with it. Reporting is one, going public with it is two. Completely unnecessary, no value add whatsoever. I'll leave it at that. Frustration? ![]() 2085
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Nice going, Istock...« on: June 23, 2012, 15:08 »No need to post links for a discussion imho... Or do you need pictures to have a discussion?Fair enough. But I still dont see the need to go public with it. Reporting is one, going public with it is two. Completely unnecessary, no value add whatsoever. I'll leave it at that. Actually, I did report these images to Istock as being wrongfully accepted if there's such an obvious possible copyright infringement. It wasn't my intent to 'catch' the contributor though, I never accused the guy in the support ticket I sent to Istock. And I opened a topic here, to discuss Istock's weird reviewing mistakes. Couldn't do that without showing the examples, as you said. Poncke would have done it differently, which I respect. But anyway, could we stop the discussion about whether it was immoral, too damaging, too hasty or too judgmental? 2086
iStockPhoto.com / Re: This brought a smile..« on: June 22, 2012, 23:13 »
I did not even bother to check which two images they were talking about, but the big sum of $0,41 I received is for two images that are not mine, either.
2087
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Nice going, Istock...« on: June 22, 2012, 18:27 »You concluded guilt before innocence or you would have never posted it in this public forum. No I did not. I posted this to show Istocks bizarre reviewing habits. Not to turn the contributor into a scapegoat. 2088
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Nice going, Istock...« on: June 22, 2012, 18:16 »If the guy/girl got his/her account suspended over this then I hope the OP can sleep well. It might have been someone's livelyhood taken away over 2 images. Not even stolen from the OP, it had nothing to do with the OP. OP himself said all the other content was fine. Oh please. I never intended for his entire portfolio to be removed. I never accused the contributor of infringement. I never even mentioned his name here. I simply asked whether Istock agreed this was a similarity with trademarked characters. I just brought the bad reviewing on Istock's part to their (and this forum's) attention, because it affects the microstock industry, the company and us contributors in a bad way. And it was Istock, not me, who decided to (apparently) put his portfolio on inactive to investigate the matter. It's understandable though, however drastic the measure may seem. If it's indeed a mistake (which I doubt), then it's too bad, but then it would have happened eventually (with Istock being sued). If it's not an honest mistake, it's probably better for all of us that this user can't upload any more images. 2089
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Nice going, Istock...« on: June 20, 2012, 17:39 »Is it common to rat out other contributors about there images? Who are we to judge? Or is this about copyright? Isnt that up to IS what they put in their database? Well, it's more publicly shaming Istock than shaming the contributor. That's why I didn't mention his name. ![]() Are you Flemish, btw? Your name (Poncke) sounds Belgian. 2090
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Nice going, Istock...« on: June 20, 2012, 11:41 »Is it common to rat out other contributors about there images? Who are we to judge? Or is this about copyright? Isnt that up to IS what they put in their database? I clearly said I'm NOT out to screw this contributor, since his other work seems his own, but when infringement of copyright is involved (and proven) then I don't feel sorry for that contributor. There is nothing wrong with pointing out something this obvious, either. 2091
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Nice going, Istock...« on: June 19, 2012, 09:11 »A quick search with Google Images showed the images were also approved at Dreamstime and 123RF Maybe I should have contacted Time Warner, in an effort to punish Istock for what they did to us in the past ![]() 2092
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Nice going, Istock...« on: June 19, 2012, 08:51 »
A quick search with Google Images showed the images were also approved at Dreamstime and 123RF
![]() 2093
iStockPhoto.com / Nice going, Istock...« on: June 19, 2012, 01:12 »
*sarcasm*
So I searched for 'mouse character' and by chance came across this image: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-18309482-cat-and-mouse.php?st=20d94b5 You may have noticed the mouse closely resembles Jerry from the famous duo Tom & Jerry. A further look into this contributor's portfolio reveals this image: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-18695475-bulldog-and-dachshund.php?st=a3eafb5 Yep, that's awfully similar to Spike the Dog from the same cartoon series. How in the seven hells did this pass the quality control at Istock? I already sent a ticket to Contributor Relations. I'm not out to screw this contributor, because the rest of his work seems genuine, but I think it's better if these two images are removed from their database. ![]() 2094
Illustration - General / Re: how much I can earn from these cartoons.« on: June 10, 2012, 03:33 »
Stylistically, I find these cartoon illustrations a bit boring.
- They don't have a unique style, and there is no variation in line weight. It reminds me of those medical illustrations. - The colors are also too flat and the lighting is inconsistent. - The expressions on their faces don't match their depicted emotions. The player looks angry while celebrating, for instance. - Their poses look rigid. So that needs some work. You have potential though. They might get accepted on some (most?) stock sites, but I doubt these will be big sellers. Then again, who knows? There are much worse cartoon images to be found there. 2095
New Sites - General / Received invitation e-mail for a new stocksite« on: May 25, 2012, 08:24 »
I received an e-mail today inviting me to a new vector stocksite called "Image Toons" (http://www.imagetoons.com), run by Chud Tsankov. Another website promising 70% commission and plenty of sales.
The site looks decent, but I'm always a little bit sceptical. Has anyone else received this invitation and what do you think of it? Worth the effort? 2096
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Yuri arcurs has stopped to upload on istock 3 months ago« on: May 24, 2012, 05:14 »
Breaking news: I heard Yuri wore his cornflower blue tie to work yesterday, instead of his red one. And he went to the toilet, too.
2097
New Sites - General / Re: Toon Vectors« on: May 20, 2012, 17:41 »
I deleted a vector file from my portfolio and dropbox folder, to replace it by a better version, but when I resync, the new file with the same name can't be found.
It does work when I rename the file to something else, but imo it would be nice if it would work the normal way (for instance, checking the modification date of a file to check for updated files?) 2098
CanStockPhoto.com / Re: No big news« on: May 19, 2012, 05:46 »With these type of keywords no buyer will ever find your illustration: Those keywords get added by CanStock themselves, except for the first one. ![]() 2099
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS down?« on: May 17, 2012, 23:12 »
I cant submit through the Content Editor.
2100
New Sites - General / Re: Toon Vectors« on: May 16, 2012, 21:38 »
I've decided to give it a try after all.
|
|