|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
Pages: 1 ... 94 95 96 97 98 [99] 100 101 102 103 104 ... 291
2451
« on: November 13, 2015, 15:28 »
So I checked again, and they have added 8 cents for a 30 cent download on Saturday. Small wrinkle is that the same image earlier today got a "real" SOD for $21.00. Right now I see that it has 2 today for $21.08
If I hadn't just happened to see the earlier display, I would have no way of knowing how that 21.08 broke down. If I look at the list sorted by SODs I just see a total for that image.
It's fine to give an amount and a volume when all sales are the same value - like subscriptions. But they should not lump together things of different royalty amounts - SOD and on demand need to be itemized somewhere.
2452
« on: November 13, 2015, 15:07 »
The two I got today for 8 cents matched up to two images I got paid 30 cents for on November 3rd. There are other days that got 30 cent downloads, so I'm waiting for those to show up.
This really isn't an ideal way to make the fix - although I do appreciate getting the error corrected. They need more detailed reporting for payments...
2453
« on: November 13, 2015, 13:25 »
I'm not having a problem. Possibly it's an issue with your service provider versus with PayPal not sending them? I did check the e-mails I received and they are from [email protected] - most recent from 123rf last night - so there's no change there. If you move money to your bank account via the PayPal UI, do you get the e-mail from PayPal confirming that? Or any other PayPal e-mails?
2455
« on: November 12, 2015, 12:01 »
I see the watermark in Firefox, Chrome and Safari (Mac)
It's also a very small preview (what used to be typical, around 450 to 500 pixels on the long edge), so the need for an all over design really isn't there.
2456
« on: November 12, 2015, 10:27 »
...DT has a good solution but low sales..
What solution is that? DT offers the same size (1300 pixels on the long edge) as 123rf and that's not a lot smaller than SS's 1500 pixels. DT's watermark is decent, but still fails on isolated images in many cases. I agree about DT sales though - have dropped off a lot and I'm not assuming a connection with the previews.
2458
« on: November 11, 2015, 19:01 »
Shutterstock raised their subscription prices - started at $89.99 a month in 2004 and went up. They added per image sales, which were higher priced than subscriptions - about $10 each in a 5-pack. All the SOD sales are at higher prices than the subscriptions or on demand.
iStock did fine raising prices at first - and there wasn't a problem with that at the beginning. Vetta was a bit of a shock to the system, but it was tightly edited and it was clear why you were paying more.
When Getty started dumping a bunch of schlock into Agency and jacked those prices sky high, you ended up with images that SS would have rejected at insane prices on iStock and the buyer was left with no clear notion as to why images were at the prices they were. You don't pay hundreds of dollars to license a fruit slice.
iStock was competing just fine with Shutterstock for a good long time - each had its model and pricing structure and each found a place in the market.
I get that many exclusives don't like Shutterstock, but blaming Getty's demolition of the iStock business on anyone but Getty is just not supported by any of the data.
2459
« on: November 11, 2015, 17:06 »
Gorgeous stuff - there's a link there to his Instagram feed too
2460
« on: November 11, 2015, 17:02 »
...Check out Fiverr."I will give you x amount of stock photos for 5$.
Fiverr is a disgrace - and I'm pretty disappointed that Shutterstock hasn't shut down the gigs that openly advertise resale of SS images. I have reported this to them (late last month I did again as I happened to notice over a dozen results if you search for Shutterstock at Fiverr). However, I don't think these resales are a result of the preview, I think people who have a subscription are loading up and reselling in violation of license terms. It's a problem, but I don't think it's an issue with the image previews.
2461
« on: November 11, 2015, 15:46 »
I didn't understand "oldschool" but then I looked at your portfolio and I got what Ignatus meant. Traditional takes on traditional stock concepts. That's not bad, but that will make it hard to stand out. Much of the styling looks very odd to American eyes - that might be fine in other markets.I did find that a number of images were a bit muddled conceptually - just a hodgepodge of ideas as if you didn't perhaps understand how things fit together? And some of your keywording really needs work - I think you're copying and pasting from one image to another without editing out inapplicable words. So, for the keywording example, this image of rather ornate women's shoes has men's shoes, throw out, red ("Golden lady shoes closeup isolated") and so on https://us.fotolia.com/id/94241482For the styling, the shoes above, and the jacket on this guy https://us.fotolia.com/id/86874676Or this shopping bag https://us.fotolia.com/id/95348312Or the thermometer on this shot - I at first thought it was for cooking https://us.fotolia.com/id/94827976An example of the muddled concept would be this one https://us.fotolia.com/id/86875146The drawings on the tablet aren't oriented for the hands that are writing, and quite why he's writing in a notebook with a tablet and phone to hand is lost on me. The coffee needs to be nearer the person who might drink it - I think he needs caffeine! There are other examples, but I hope you get the general idea from the above. Good luck
2462
« on: November 11, 2015, 13:04 »
It sounds really complicated. ...
I'm very new at 500px (last week!) so there are probably a number of things I don't understand, but I have found it to be pretty simple to upload work - and everything is marked for Marketplace sales. I didn't realize that things could be rejected for Core (but that's good to know) and I upload once, request a watermark, request Marketplace, pick from a stored release if that's appropriate, set a Category and I'm done. I do have all my IPTC data in the files - it's all read. I sometimes have fixed keywords (I have a few images that have Getty CV-style keywords like Nautical Vessel that I change to boat or ship) and sometimes accepted one of 500px suggested keywords where appropriate. There are a few images where I've had to remove keywords - the maximum is 30 - but each removal is one click. By far the most time consuming thing has been trying to decide what's suitable to upload - and none of my images on white is an easy part  I would like a few more portfolio tools - a way to see a list of images in Prime for example. I'd love a daily digest of the like/favorite e-mails (which I turned off as it's a bit too much). I feel a bit at sea with some of the social aspects of the site - what's the difference between liking and favoriting, for example? I've been doing both on things I like just in case I'm participating in the watermarking interviews because I am concerned about having rudimentary theft protection. Given the state of agencies right now, and my recent departure from Canva, I wanted to find a new approach to try and 500px is my pick. Too soon to say how it will be as an agency.
2463
« on: November 10, 2015, 21:19 »
So big previews are in...
DT and 123rf which have had their larger previews for years
is that so for dt? i dont know about 123, but if they had larger previews for years, that explains why my dls have been comatose in dls for years
Back in Jan - Mar 2014 I was doing a lot of test searches to see how images from my own site fared versus my images on agency sites. 123rf and DT had some of their images using their new larger previews then, but not all of them. Not sure when prior to that they were introduced, but I seem to recall these things were new around the end of 2013
2464
« on: November 10, 2015, 19:46 »
So big previews are in...
I think SS is the largest - 1,500 pixels on the long edge. alamy, 123rf and DT are tied at 1,300 pixels, iStock 1,235, Deposit Photos around 1,024, AdobeStock at 1,000 (but with a very weak watermark) and 500px at 900 (but their current watermark is tiny), Getty is small but around 500 to 650 pixels on the long edge and a very minimalist watermark.
Before this rush to bigger previews, Shutterstock's old image was 450 on the long edge, same as 123rf, DT, iStock and most of the other other sites (give or take 20 or so pixels; Fotolia's is 500 pixels).
Some images don't do well with 123rf's watermark, but in general, it's pretty good - better than SS v2 IMO.
If you look at a google image search - for some terms and stock photograph - I don't yet see any of the new larger SS previews, and for DT and 123rf which have had their larger previews for years, some images show up in a search with those and some with the 450 pixel smaller one. I guess google takes a while to index things, or chooses only a subset?
It'd be nice to get an ISO standard for watermark size and configuration (with each agency's logo in the center) - about 1,100 pixels on the long edge? Banner at the bottom with agency, image ID, contributor name.
2466
« on: November 10, 2015, 12:52 »
2467
« on: November 10, 2015, 02:01 »
In the photos section, I see some of mine in the "advertising" section - i.e. referring back to SS for sales - but none that are free.
Did you try a DMCA takedown notice for the ones of yours you were able to download? If they're a SS affiliate, they'd risk losing that if they host pirated stuff (wherever they got yours from). Perhaps that makes them more likely to behave and take down the stuff they shouldn't be giving away?
2468
« on: November 10, 2015, 00:14 »
I'm very new with 500px so I don't really have an opinion on what makes sense. There is some information here https://licensing.500px.com/distribution/But not really a lot of detail. Can the distributors sell for higher prices and if they do, does the contributor make 70% of that or just a flat rate of what they would have made at the marketplace? I've left my account opted in for now (the default)
2469
« on: November 10, 2015, 00:04 »
I don't really understand the nature of the financial deals described, but Getty has apparently borrowed $100m (minus a $5m "discount" and a $2.5m "fee"!!) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-03/carlyle-s-getty-images-said-to-reach-creditor-deal-for-new-debthttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-05/distressed-debt-lenders-aid-getty-images-in-shutterstock-battleThere is an article from September with some more background, written while they were looking around for the ways to borrow the money: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-10/goldman-said-among-firms-pushing-carlyle-s-getty-for-debt-swap"Getty, which is controlled by Carlyle, is seeking to raise between $50 million and $100 million of new debt as it attempts to bulk up its flagging stock-photo business, people with knowledge said earlier this week." I don't know what they mean by "bulk up" - improve sites and software? advertise? acquire new collections? There is this quote, which also is a bit short on specifics: "Getty will use the cash in part to increase its marketing efforts and develop a consumer-facing business,..." I guess the 10.5% interest Getty will pay reflects the perception of risk involved in lending a company already $2.46 billion in debt. Moody's downgraded their debt rating to Caa1. This Barrons article refers to the deal as a "limited default" http://blogs.barrons.com/incomeinvesting/2015/11/05/getty-images-distressed-debt-exchange-called-limited-default/I can't see any way this can be good for contributors, but thought it was worth noting for those still significantly dependent on iStock income.
2470
« on: November 09, 2015, 10:58 »
That guy's portfolio is a puzzle. He's at Shutterstock, 123rf, Canstock (probably others but I just checked out the first few). He doesn't seem to have one clear style - there's a little bit of everything. Hearts with wings background; a tree with hearts for leaves; three crosses on a hill with a sunburst background and so on. I didn't see anything else of yours copied - and he's done a bit of reworking rather just a straight trace of the man at the computer image. He has some vector dog sketches that look to me as if he were trying out something quickly - not very polished. He has some photos mixed in with his vectors - again, nothing special. When I did a quick search on the tree with hearts on Shutterstock, there are over 10K vectors with "tree heart valentine" and "heart wing valentine" had about 19K - if he has copied something there, I don't have the patience to look Seems to me he's just trying out a bunch of things to see what sells. If you're up for it, perhaps contact him and ask him to remove it or do something to make it more his own and then upload. He might just have skated too close to the line when trying out something new rather than being a blatant leach ripping off other people's hard work.
2471
« on: November 08, 2015, 14:05 »
That's in line with their promise to meet a minimum payment per credit, even if promotional (or free) deals take the actual buyer price below that.
The "floor" is 40 cents per credit, of which you get 35% or 14 cents. I get these (mine are 18 cents which is still bargain basement) very rarely - perhaps one or two a year that I notice
2472
« on: November 08, 2015, 14:02 »
There are a couple of reasons to join an agency - or not to. One is earnings potential and one is the reputation and trustworthiness of the agency. You should read the past threads here about Deposit Photos and their many underhanded dealings, probably the most prominent of which was the ShotShop deal where contributors were paid a subscription royalty on a sale at a partner site (ShotShop) where images were sold for up to 99 euros (I can't remember exactly, but not subscription prices) http://www.microstockgroup.com/depositphotos/the-german-shotshop-reseller-of-depositphotos/They have also played all sorts of sleazy games where contributors would opt out of partnership programs, then find themselves on a partner site, only to have DP claim that the site was an API reseller, not a partner and thus the opt out didn't apply. I never joined them, primarily because I found their initial approach to me to be fundamentally dishonest. I got e-mail offering a special deal - not to start at the lowest royalty rate and preferred search placement for my images. As you can't give "preferred" placement to everyone, I assume this is just some ephemeral thing that would last until the next contributor signed up. Not to mention how you're not really serving buyers if you're not even trying to give them the best results for each search. I'd stay away...
2475
« on: November 06, 2015, 11:57 »
I went to see if there was any update on this from SS in their forums. There isn't, but I did get a chuckle over this guy's post http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1512865For those who can't read the forums there... "Vincent ...my sexy ladies are still unprotected... Can we please do something about it finally??? You clean photo like this under 2 minutes. What's your opinion on this? Do you think that's OK to give them free? Why SS is doing this? I really would like to know the answer.
And not the usual one " our goal is excellence ...bla bla" but just the straight forward honest one.
Like....... "We have no idea how to reverse it, out technician guy is on vacation"
Or......... "Jon told us we gonna be OK, he has a plan"
or......... " the person who designed the new watermark is Jon's girlfriend and we can not tell her that she sucks"something like this..."
Pages: 1 ... 94 95 96 97 98 [99] 100 101 102 103 104 ... 291
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
