|
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 - tickstock
Pages: 1 ... 92 93 94 95 96 [97] 98 99 100 101 102 ... 151
2401
« on: September 28, 2013, 18:35 »
Someone will appeal it to the Supreme court and it will be reversed just a matter of time.
It's already been a law, this bill just increases the penalties. I'd quote where it says that but the whole thing is only one page long.
2402
« on: September 28, 2013, 12:25 »
Looks like a lot of misinformation in this thread already. There is nothing about publishing at all except to say: "(e) The act of transmitting, publishing, or broadcasting a recording of the image or voice of a child does not constitute a violation of this section.". This is about the conduct of photographers in getting the photos.
2403
« on: September 28, 2013, 12:19 »
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB606SECTION 1. Section 11414 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 11414. (a) Any person who intentionally harasses the child or ward of any other person because of that persons employment shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. (b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply: (1) Child and ward mean a person under 16 years of age. (2) Harasses means knowing and willful conduct directed at a specific child or ward that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward, and that serves no legitimate purpose, including, but not limited to, that conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording of the childs or wards image or voice, or both, without the express consent of the parent or legal guardian of the child or ward, by following the childs or wards activities or by lying in wait. The conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable child to suffer substantial emotional distress, and actually cause the victim to suffer substantial emotional distress. (3) Employment means the job, vocation, occupation, or profession of the parent or legal guardian of the child or ward.
2404
« on: September 28, 2013, 11:59 »
Tickstock, all you are trying to do is redefine the term "top tier" to fit a vague and arbitrary interpretation of your own rather than accepting what it actually does mean on this site - which is "top four".
It's on a par with arguing that the UK football "Premier Division" has too many teams in it because you happen to think that half of them aren't scoring enough goals to be "Premier" so they should be booted out.
Silly, silly, silly......
Like I said I don't think it's a big deal. I think a lot of people post things like "how is dreamstime in the top tier?", I always assumed people were confused and thought 'top tier' or 'big four' had some more meaning than just being one of the four largest sites. I don't think you can always have a big four, like the big 4 operating systems or big four search engines, etc.. those fields are dominated by one or two companies. I think you can see I was trying to suggest something less arbitrary than what it is now. The thing is there is always going to be a 'top tier' and 'big four' even if Shutterstock takes 99% of the market share, that's why I think this is too arbitrary.
2405
« on: September 27, 2013, 20:30 »
.
2406
« on: September 27, 2013, 20:27 »
Looks live to me. I like the way the site looks and the images seem pretty good but they should be charging more, good royalty rate though.
2407
« on: September 27, 2013, 19:52 »
.
2409
« on: September 27, 2013, 18:27 »
@tickstock - There are about the same number of members here as an average top 4 site although no idea how active and whether they participate in polls or not but, yes, this is no making a living money.
I'm not sure what you are saying? I'm making a living at it.
2410
« on: September 27, 2013, 14:36 »
That's the thing - what is the average contributor? I'd suggest that there are a very very small number who make serious bucks, some who might make a passable living and the rest who make beer money. I only aspire to making beer money but my rank on FT for example puts me in the top third (the only place where some sort of relative positioning is available). The numbers for IS exclusives are skewed because, by definition, all of them have some sort of track record. It's a bit like saying life expectancy has doubled where, in fact, it has improved a bit but the big change is in infant mortality so all these people dying at 0 are not skewing the figures.
The average contributor, is the average contributor on this site. Someone who fills out the poll. Maybe this isn't the 'professional microstock forum' and it's really the 'hobbyist with a couple professionals thrown in microstock forum' and in that case I guess a 'top tier' site can make you $75 month because surely a professional couldn't live off those numbers anywhere but the poorest of countries. It's not really a big deal though.
2411
« on: September 27, 2013, 14:04 »
That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying that the 'top tier' should be sites that earn a certain amount for the average contributor (or some some other real measure) rather than just being the top four or change the name. 'top tier' or 'big 4' seems to me to imply that these sites have set themselves apart from the rest of the sites when really only Shutterstock and exclusive iStock. are at the top all the other sites are middle tier at best.
2413
« on: September 27, 2013, 10:47 »
The tabloids like national enquirer publish those kinds of photos, send them an email or give them a call and see what they say.
2414
« on: September 27, 2013, 10:38 »
Fox news?
2415
« on: September 27, 2013, 09:28 »
I have been faithfully exclusive since 2007 for video and I was set to drop an RC level this year because of such low video sales.
I've been meaning to drop video exclusivity for a while now, just haven't spent much time focused on video this year. Do you know if mirrored videos will stay up on Getty after going nonexclusive?
2416
« on: September 27, 2013, 01:18 »
Taxes
2417
« on: September 26, 2013, 18:30 »
.
2418
« on: September 26, 2013, 12:00 »
.
2419
« on: September 26, 2013, 11:05 »
I was just saying as an average, this is the 'professional microstock forum' so I wouldn't think that would be too high. I'm thinking to be a professional microstocker you need to be making around $40,000 US (maybe less maybe more) a year which I think roughly translates to $300 for Dreamstime. I was just throwing numbers out there, the point was that just being the 4th best doesn't make something top tier. Shutterstock is in a different league than Dreamstime for most contributors.
2420
« on: September 26, 2013, 10:42 »
My point was more that an average of $80 per month doesn't seem like top tier. It's just the top 4 sites in the 'top tier', they aren't necessarily top tier sites. One of the top four and top tier seem to me to be different things.
What an utterly ridiculous and contradictory statement! As usual Tickstock is trying to talk authoritively about a subject that he/she has absolutely no knowledge or experience of. What a waste of forum space.
DT are most definitely a 'top tier' site as far as I'm concerned. Solid and reliable earnings and only marginally behind IS and FT for me this month. Not only that but the RPD at DT (at $2.13 averaged over the last 13 months for me) is more than double that of the other 'top tier' sites. Also, with regard to 'contributor relations', DT are second only to SS and absolutely miles ahead of IS and FT. I very much like DT and also the people who run it.
Top tier to me would be measured by meeting an actual number, for instance a site that averaged over $300/month. Just being in the top four doesn't say anything at all about the site. It could be that all the other sites are just really terrible so an ok or slightly less terrible site ends up in the 4th position. Just saying that no matter what there has to be four top tier sites seems a little arbitrary doesn't it? I've got to add in that I'm not talking authoritatively at all, I'm expressing my opinion "seems to me" and what does it even mean to say I have no experience of this subject? I think I have just as much experience with top and middle tiers as the next guy.
2421
« on: September 26, 2013, 10:34 »
The new fresh match may address this somewhat as it may get some additional exposure for newer files.
Nope, it isn't designed for that, unless your 'newer' files manage to acquire keyword relevency, which is usually after ten sales. Fresh Match is only to make newer files which have had ten sales get more views. In smaller searches, that won't seem so bad. Also note that Fresh Match is designed for single keyword searches.
I just did my default search using the fresh match and I don't see what you are saying at all. It looks different from yesterday too. The keyword I searched has well over 1000 results and out of the first 10 results only 1 has more than 10 dls, out of the first 20 results only 3 have more than 10 dls and out of the first 50 only 10 have more than 10 dls. There was even a file with 0 DLs in the top 40.
2422
« on: September 26, 2013, 08:38 »
My point was more that an average of $80 per month doesn't seem like top tier. It's just the top 4 sites in the 'top tier', they aren't necessarily top tier sites. One of the top four and top tier seem to me to be different things.
2423
« on: September 26, 2013, 08:15 »
It is not a lower royalty. Getty only pays 20% for Rf, so Offset is already paying significantly more. And 40% was only for RM in your home territory wasnt it - rest of the world is lower??
Plus in a brand new and extremly small collection your chances to be seen and your files to be sold are excellent. Much better than drowning in a sea of millions...where wholly owned content and favoured contributors professionals come up first...
Also, if you want to compare royalties, you need to look at the same license. The RM market is "completly different" as our longtime swedish member keeps pointing out. And he has been doing it since 92! So he knows all about it 
stocksy pays out 50%, plus 100% of extended licenses, plus shares profits with artists. So even at a lower price point to the customer the results for the artist are very good.
I wasn't comparing Stocksy to Getty RM I was comparing Offset to both of them. Shutterstock has said that they want to take sales from Getty RM, that's why I'm comparing those two. What SS said (it looks like that part is attributed to a SS spokesman) is that "Offset seeks to upend that entirely, as the first set of high-end images sold royalty-free, online, without an agent." talking about Getty RM. They are offering what they say is more efficient revenue (lower costs for SS) and paying contributors less.
Do you have a link to the Getty 40%? Wont the vast majority of people here that don't do many photos of their local area only get 20% from Getty? 20% sure seems like less than 30% to me
And I've seen numerous posts that most of the money from Getty comes from the main collection and that's almost a closed shop now. So independents have some poor options, like having to pay $50 per image to upload to Getty
For creative RM it's 40% for home territory and 30% for others. 20% is for RF. You don't have to pay for submitting RF. I was comparing Offset to Getty RM because that is what Shutterstock is trying to say Offset is going up against.
2424
« on: September 26, 2013, 08:13 »
15.5 means that the average contributor here that contributes to Dreamstime is making less than $80 per month. It may be 'top tier' but $80 per month is nowhere near top tier in my book.
2425
« on: September 26, 2013, 00:11 »
Pages: 1 ... 92 93 94 95 96 [97] 98 99 100 101 102 ... 151
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
