|
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 - PixelBytes
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 74
226
« on: November 02, 2016, 22:49 »
I left two months ago but my images still went for sale and now after two months they are supposed to have been finally deleted from the site as they promised me. However... They are not on the marketplace anymore but they are still there and visible and for grabs. NEVER, NEVER start there.
Thx for the warning. I have been thinking about uploading to some new (to me) sites to make up for what I will lose pulling out of Istock. 500px will be one I cross off my list.
227
« on: October 31, 2016, 10:58 »
Okay, here's a quote from SpaceStockFootage from the Uber discussion thread and anyone looking to take them to court in the same way as Uber drivers have Uber needs to read it:
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'?
IMHO he's absolutely correct.
Depends on where you live. In the US the creator of the work owns the copyright by default, even if it is done through an employer or work for hire. There would have to be a separate signed agreement for the copyright to be transferred to the employee.
228
« on: October 30, 2016, 13:39 »
I can 't see what 'deleting your profile' can do: we can't even see other contributors' profiles nowadays AFAICS, and I don't understand what good deleting it would do in any case.
If you have many thousands of images there that you want removed because you WONT accept .02 for them, then the only reasonable choice to remove them is to close your account. It would be insane to waste time deleting 5-10k or more images one by one, even if it were allowed, which we are told it isn't. Of course if you are expecting one last big payout before it all goes to spit, then wait till its banked before you go if you want. Will you always be leaving some pittance behind? Sure. But better that then be treated like a back alley whore.
229
« on: October 28, 2016, 15:39 »
Just sent this to the greedy bass turds. I hope it doesn't take long.
Congratulations, IStock. After putting up with your total lack of respect and rock-bottom royalties for TWELVE YEARS, you have finally found a way to get rid of me. I tolerated your stingy 15% royalties for far longer than I should have, and now you have finally gotten my attention by informing me that my photos are worth as little as 2 CENTS to you. I considered deactivating nearly all of my files, but after thinking about it, I hereby REFUSE to support your ill-treatment of content creators by leaving even ONE file in your untrustworthy hands. Any agency that thinks so little of me and my hard work is not an agency that I need to have any type of relationship with, in any form or fashion. I will now concentrate my efforts on agencies which still pay me somewhat fairly. So please delete my account as soon as possible and send me any unpaid funds which you owe me.
PS. I will be educating my customers via my website exactly why they will no longer find my files on your site and I sincerely hope you go out of business.
I have reached this point too. Will you please post what response you get. I know there is a 30 day hold before images are deleted. I just want to know if they make it difficult to close account and have images removed or difficult to get last payment. For the ones that think some organized action will change their mind, WRONG. For those that think stopping to upload new images but leave existing portfolio there will affect them, WRONG. This was all tried in a widespread and organized effort a couple years ago with NO IMPACT. They are too stupid, greedy, and short sighted to consider contributor efforts or long term health of their own busines. Only one thing will have an impact. Deleting ALL images and closing the account. This will at least drive buyers to better sites and show other sites that contributors will enforce limits and aren't just all talk and no action. I don't say this casually. This will hurt my income. Istock currently pays my mortgage. But whether I stay or go I will lose a lifestyle affecting amount of money. I'd rather share the pain with istock than to suffer more loss of my dignity.
230
« on: October 27, 2016, 01:10 »
I deactivated large part of my folio before august 20th. Just 194 files left. Today I checked my IS account and I see 251 active files?! Anyone else have same experience?
P.S. I don't drink or using drugs.
Me either, but this sh*t has me ready to start. .02 for an image sale?!! I haven't uploaded to IS in about 2 years, but I am not gonna accept such low rates. I make 20% of what I used to there now. That's my floor. They may not miss me, but they will have one less Diamond with over 200k sales real soon when this hits the fan. I'm not going to waste time deleting many thousands of files. Just pull up stakes, and move on to protect my income at the better sites.
231
« on: October 24, 2016, 14:20 »
Yeah, I'm not sure what they mean by "moral rights".
232
« on: October 22, 2016, 23:13 »
Does this mean we all have to go back and spam the titles of our images, just to level the playing field? 
233
« on: October 20, 2016, 15:26 »
FT sales have been excellent for me all year. This month slightly down on September, but still good enough.
234
« on: October 20, 2016, 15:23 »
i just don't believe in right time right place with stock. Good images sell. Thats it nothing else.
Given enough time and no over-saturation, sure, but in today's world with so much content it's impossible to view it all I believe this to be closer to the truth, in most cases. In order of importance for generating sales:
1. Search position.
2. Quality of product.
3. Price.
If a buyer is very sensitive to price, it would look like this:
1. Search position.
2. Price.
3. Quality of product.
Yes. Any image, no matter how good, has to be SEEN to be sold.
235
« on: October 15, 2016, 23:58 »
Congratulations Alamy. I had a good Sept there. Glad to know the whole site is doing well. Hope sales continue to increase.
236
« on: October 10, 2016, 23:54 »
I want Getty to pay the image creators after they receive the extortion money generated by these letters. Instead they keep it all for themselves. Nice source of income for them.
This are not extortion letters.....this are letters directed to people that steal images and do not pay the proper licenses to use those images. I hope you are not one of them.
By the way I have images at Getty and get often payment labeled as compliance licenses and that is precisely that......recovered money of misuses of the license or even worse..... thievery. I for one am happy that those images that I have with them are somehow protected against "image rogues" Most "agencies" don't move a finger to fight those that think can go away with their shameful practices..........
Congrats. You are the first person I've heard claim to get any recovered money based on these Getty letters or lawsuits. Any one else get payments from Getty over recovered funds?
237
« on: October 02, 2016, 09:01 »
Sounds like you got it exactly right. They collect money from our violated copyrights, but do we ever GET any of the money?
Do you even need to ask that question?
Should have used an emoticon. It was a rhetorical question.
238
« on: September 29, 2016, 23:36 »
I'm really starting to believe that Getty want people to steal images from them. By not having watermarks, it make it really easy to pin to Pinterest or share a decent sized un-watermarked image on other social websites without knowing the source. Once someone downloads it and uses its on their website, Getty send the "enforcement" letters and demand large sums of money. They take advantage of people's ignorance of the stock photography market and the rights attached to it.
They've build a machine around sending these letters and they've gotten incredibly efficient at it. I'm sure this has become a good percentage of their revenue and they would hate to lose it. It's like a Venus Flytrap eating the unsuspecting insect nibble on the sweet nectar.
Sounds like you got it exactly right. They collect money from our violated copyrights, but do we ever GET any of the money?
239
« on: September 28, 2016, 14:42 »
I'm on the top tier at 123. Usually make around $400/month. This month below $150. Worst Month I've had in years there and happened all of a sudden. Not a gradual decline.
What do you mean by top tier? Level 10 with more than 1,000,000 credits per year?
Level 5 I believe. That was the level where they didn't drop earnings % when they went to the level system. I didn't know they went higher. Anybody know someone higher than 5?
240
« on: September 28, 2016, 13:46 »
I'm on the top tier at 123. Usually make around $400/month. This month below $150. Worst Month I've had in years there and happened all of a sudden. Not a gradual decline.
241
« on: September 28, 2016, 00:56 »
I went ahead and signed, but the irony of Getty pretending to give a rats a$$ about contributors and our coprights was not lost on me. Still this Google practice is BAD and sales noticeably dropped off on multiple sites when they implemented it, and have not recovered.
242
« on: September 28, 2016, 00:47 »
Maybe the change is not to the release itself but more around the policy of it. SS are saying that if a model signed a release, for example 7 years ago, should that same release still be valid if you rework the images, composite them into new images, etc? They are saying that the model should sign a new release which relates to the images you want to produce now. They are making sure that the model is aware of the new work you are wanting to produce and have agreed to it.
The whole POINT of having models sign a release is so they DON'T get to come along months or years later and complain about how the image was used or reworked.
243
« on: September 28, 2016, 00:42 »
I was using the same one since day One. and still do for the other 8 sites Im with. had to use a new One if I wanted to get accepted at SS. It is theirs with a few Modifications. I think the Original One I used in 2003 was a IS release. Just rewrote it. I'll be switching to new one for all sites next week. when I shoot I always have a backlog to upload in reserve.Like said if ya want a copy just ask.
I haven't uploaded in over a year. I have a huge backlog of model released images. Does this mean I can't upload them with the releases signed the day of the shoot, or with the ones that have been stored on THE SS site? If I can't use my existing releases, that kills any chance of me uploading to SS again. OTOH I can stop feeling guilty about not uploading...
244
« on: September 26, 2016, 04:10 »
Don't trust these polls....
In this case it accurately reflects my experience.
245
« on: September 26, 2016, 04:07 »
Deja vu. God I'm tired of this sh*t.
I wondered why my earnings had taken a big drop on DP. Now I know.
Another one bites the dust.
246
« on: September 23, 2016, 17:48 »
I would like to have my business contact information widely available. It's my business, after all.
Some people have also businesses in other fields and might not want to be associated with the micros.
Just to play devil's advocate here... Does an agency have more responsibility to help someone maintain some sort of subterfuge or to be more transparent about the people/businesses that provide artwork to their company?
Ridiculous! If you have photos of models, especially kids in your port, why would you want your location available? Not hard to go from where the studio is to be able to find the models. I don't mind my name being used. It is my address, even as little as the city, that is an issue.
247
« on: September 18, 2016, 15:31 »
I'm not all that happy with any of the agencies. I guess the only one that's doing pretty well by contributors is Adobe ATM.
But there have been sites I was on that closed in the past and I never saw the earnings move to another site. Just less earnings overall. So honestly I think if any of the sites closed it would be less money for me.
I would rather see them stay open and stop fracking us over.
248
« on: September 14, 2016, 22:09 »
As i can see I am probably the only one in the forum with this issue
I had the same problem last month. They did finally pay up by the 15th so you did better than me! It is troubling that in 7 years I never heard a complaint of a missed payment at SS and now two people in two months. Hardly a landslide, but added to the other site problems this doesn't look good.
249
« on: September 12, 2016, 13:46 »
on Adobe Stock you can work on the watermarked image in photoshop and with one click the mark will disappear upon purchase. Dose the SS app have the same process?
Yes. I just commented about that inn the other thread.
250
« on: September 12, 2016, 13:44 »
Anyone else bothered that they can edit and alter the watermarked images BEFORE licensing them? Shouldn't you at least need a license to alter someone else's copyrighted material?
Also, for the SS plugin will we be getting OD pricing, or are they going to slip this in with subscription royalties?
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
