|
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 - maco0708
26
« on: January 15, 2009, 09:23 »
EDIT EDIT EDIT I have changed the title of the thread to something more useful and less offensive. The old title was: "Very unprofessional behavior from Fotolia and Stockxpert". I hope it doesn't confuse people here. EDIT EDIT EDIT So I am trying to become exclusive at iStock so I deleted all of my images from all sites I SINGED IN with. I clicked the exclusivity button and I just got rejected because I have some live files at PixMac: http://www.pixmac.com/picture/autumn-lake/000004291716I always despised the affiliate sites of fotolia since I never knew how many there are,... But this is REALLY annoying! Thank got iStock was pretty cool about it and they just told me to take care of it and then let them know. ANY OTHER SURPRISES FROM OTHER SITES THAT I SHOULD KNOW OF? Thanks a lot guys. If it weren't of this forum I wouldn't even know that it was fotolia. See a reply below. I found also some of my files at photos.com (affiliated with stockxpert). Going exclusive with iStock turned out to be lot more difficult than I anticipated.
27
« on: January 12, 2009, 11:52 »
Nothing can be for sale as RF royalty free anywhere if you want to be exclusive at IS. It's not a "from this day forward" sort of deal.
And yes, it's a pain to delete a large portfolio from DT one by one, but that's the deal. A while back there was someone who had written some scripts to do the job. He was willing to share them but they'd need mods (probably) to match up with current site behavior and someone else's port. When I deleted my DT portfolio last August I was on vacation, and figured if I hadn't finished the job by the time I got back, I'd modify the scripts. I did finish before the end of vacation time.
Thank you jsnover I only have 344 images on DT so I will do it one by one (It should not take more that couple of hours). How did you delete your images on Bigstock? I contacted them few days back but no response. Is there any way to delete the images on my own? If I get DT and BS done I am ready to click the exclusive button.
28
« on: January 12, 2009, 09:36 »
I would like to disable all of my images since I want to go exclusive on iStock. I contacted dreamstime to do it for me and this is what I got: "Thank you for contacting Dreamstime. We cannot disable the images for you. Please disable them from your end. If you want to disable your whole portfolio, please note that there are some rules to be observed. http://www.dreamstime.com/terms#contributors Contributors are required to keep at least seventy (70%) percent of their portfolio online with Dreamstime.com for a period of at least six (6) months. You may disable all files older than six months from the date of review at any time. You will be allowed to disable a total of thirty (30%) percent of your total images submitted within the past six (6) months. Images that were disabled and then enabled again will be counted as new submissions, no matter of their original upload date. " I am OK with the rule and I haven't uploaded anything in the last 6 months. BUT, is there any way to easily deactivate all my files at once??? I don't want to go through all my files one by one. How did you guys do it?
29
« on: December 11, 2008, 08:58 »
I have never seen this mentioned here so: Yuri Arcurses girlfriend is exclusive on istock: http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=2459931Look at her profile. Few months back she has written there that she went exclusive based on Yuris advice. It doesn't say it anymore. She is little above my league in downloads and success but it tells me something. Note: I am a hobbyist who is not dependent on the income from microstock.
30
« on: September 30, 2008, 12:19 »
I don't see what's the big deal. I had ~2500 sales on iS and so far 2-3 refunds. And I think in those somebody downloaded the file twice accidentally. Regardless, it is a very small percentage.
31
« on: July 12, 2008, 22:54 »
Prints?
32
« on: June 18, 2008, 12:38 »
I had a $0.21 sale yesterday. I don't think I have ever seen anything that low a DT before.
06/17/2008 ($0.21)
It was probably XS so I am not complaining.
33
« on: June 13, 2008, 15:05 »
Yeah, submitting to getty is nice but definately not a HUGE deal.
And this announcement is nothing for people who are already gold or higher.
I am curious what will be the final announcement. My guess is that it will NOT be something HUGE and it won't convince people who are not convinced by now.
34
« on: June 05, 2008, 20:47 »
I really can't figure out what can they do other than a raise to lure more people into exclusivity.
Any ideas?
The non-exclusive upload limits are fine for me.
I don't care that I have to wait 10 days for review of an image.
And I don't think business cards will change my mind either.
I am still thinking of going exclusive just to simplify my life.
35
« on: June 03, 2008, 14:20 »
I don't understand why you close your account and delete all your images.
If submissions bother you, just don't upload for awhile. Then if you get bored again, you can upload more.
For me, microstock is a hobby. When I am busy, I won't upload for months. When I get sick of it, I won't upload for months,...
But over the years I think my photo equipment will pay off which (for me) is awesome.
36
« on: June 02, 2008, 09:00 »
Wouldnt image exclusivity rather kill the agreement for those that are already exclusive? If I could have image exclusivity over straight forward exclusivity then Id choose the former, and do slightly different versions (different enough to abide by whatever rules they have) of my most successful images. Itd be more sensible for me to do that- I wouldnt have all my eggs in one basket. Id probably dedicate a fair amount of my time to other sites. This would lower the istock brand. The only reason the other sites offer image exclusivity is because no one would go exclusive with them. Yup, I have a feeling istock knows better.
They could offer less % for image exclusivity only (compared to full exclusivity). But I agree with you on the other points and I don't think image-only exclusivity will happen at iStock.
37
« on: June 01, 2008, 19:54 »
I imagine those who choose exclusivity have their reasons.
I just won't have anybody restricting my work in any way. Period.
Totally fair. Everybody needs to do their little math and decide for themselves. For example: I will be silver soon but I would still take ~20% royalty cut if I went exclusive now. But since it is only a hobby for me, the saved time and easiness of uploading to just one site may be worth it (I am still doing my little math).
38
« on: June 01, 2008, 15:48 »
The Contract specifically does not allow:
* Images for sale on artist's own site (including collections, CD-ROMs, etc).
* Artist to give away images for free, either from their own, or any other site.
* Rejected images to be sold elsewhere
This is the killer for me. I broker my own images to magazine/book publishers. I also donate prints to charity auctions such as RMCC and others. That's the real kicker. I can't even give away a print that I own. That's just wrong.  =tom
Do you sell your images through your web-site as Royalt free??? If you sell them as rights managed, I think it would be allowed.
39
« on: June 01, 2008, 15:42 »
The Contract specifically does not allow:
* Images for sale on artist's own site (including collections, CD-ROMs, etc).
* Artist to give away images for free, either from their own, or any other site.
* Rejected images to be sold elsewhere
This is the killer for me. I broker my own images to magazine/book publishers. I also donate prints to charity auctions such as RMCC and others. That's the real kicker. I can't even give away a print that I own. That's just wrong. =tom
You can sell your prints. So for the charity, just sell them for 1c each:)
40
« on: June 01, 2008, 13:18 »
Hi all,
I think one thing to remember is that if you are exclusive with Istock you are unable to venture into the Macro RF business unless affiliated with Getty. Now Getty is 50% of the RF business out there in the Macro world but it does leave you with your hands tied in the RF market place. However, a great deal of you feel that the RF market is finished anyway so this may not seem relevant.
The positive side of this (as I see it) for Micro shooters is as revenues continue to go up in Micro all the Pros out there that have been producing in the RF market cannot go exclusive with IS without pulling all their work from the Macro RF market. Many of these markets have 5 - 7 year rights to the images that already exist there so Macro shooters do not have the opportunity to go Exclusive at IS.
That coupled with the minimal upload limits should keep heavy producers from the Macro community from coming in and hitting the Micro market at IS hard with tons of images. I see this as a good thing for the micro community.
Chumley
All comments offered are strictly my opinion.
In Summary The Contract requires full exclusivity: * Full artist exclusivity means no images may be sold on other Royalty-Free sites or businesses with the exception of Getty Images. Individual image exclusivity is not enough. The Contract does not require exclusivity for:
* Rights-Managed images with other organizations * Personal portfolio sites * Work for hire/editorial work contracts * Prints for sale * Prints, t-shirts and the like produced on art-only sites such as cafepress.com The Contract specifically does allow: * Exclusivity to artists if images previously licensed to any other RF agency have been sold outright. * iStockphoto to use images in promotional and advertising materials. * Cancellation with 30 days notice. * Restart after cancellation with 90 days notice. The Contract specifically does not allow: * Images for sale on artist's own site (including collections, CD-ROMs, etc). * Artist to give away images for free, either from their own, or any other site. * Rejected images to be sold elsewhere
41
« on: June 01, 2008, 13:15 »
Wow, I knew that exclusives had higher upload limits, but I had no idea it was that much higher.
I think they are high enough that they are not a problem for any exclusive (which I think is smart).
42
« on: May 31, 2008, 22:32 »
This looks accurate to me. I have about two more weeks left of being locked down to DT.
So are you going to pull the trigger? What canister are you?
43
« on: May 31, 2008, 22:21 »
IS - 47.1%
SS - 22.0%
DT - 10.4%
BS - 7.3%
SPX - 6.8%
FT - 6.4%
44
« on: May 31, 2008, 22:11 »
Because of recent development, I (and I assume a lot of other people) am now considering iStock exclusivity little more seriously.
Here is a list of the major sites and how to delete your portfolio. PLEASE, if you think that any of the information below is incorrect, don't hesitate to correct me.
SS:
Just click opt-out from shutterstock at anytime.
FT:
Can remove your images at any time.
DT:
Uploads older than 6 months can be deleted at any time. Uploads newer than 6 months can not be deleted (You can delete 30% of the new files but that’s useless if you want to close your account).
So in conclusion, IN ORDER TO CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNT AT DREAMSTIME YOU CAN NOT UPLOAD FOR 6 MONTHS!
BS:
Every approved file can not be deleted for 90 days.
SPX:
Can delete images at any time.
123RF:
Can delete images at any time.
FP:
Can delete images at any time.
Honestly, I was not aware of the requirement on DT. Half a year is a long time. I am definitely not uploading to DT until I know what will iStock offer next week. If the offer is good and subscriptions take off, it will be a LONG wait. My last upload was May 5th so I still have 5 months left.
If I decide to go exclusive at the end of the year, I will keep uploading to SS (quick return on new images) and keep portfolios on the other sites. Then close all accounts at one time and click the button on iStock.
45
« on: May 31, 2008, 13:01 »
a slight raise:
Hi Fotolians,
I am happy to report that Fotolia has listened to our members and as a result we are raising the commission structure for subscriptions.
The new commission structure will be as follows.
Ranking Payment / Download
White 0.25 Credit
Bronze 0.26 Credit
Silver 0.27 Credit
Gold 0.28 Credit
Emerald 0.29 Credit
Ruby 0.30 Credit
Sapphire 0.31 Credit
Diamond 0.32 Credit
This is an effort to appeal to the concerns of the majority of contributors. Subscriptions will be released soon with the new commission structure. We hope to raise the commission even higher after we receive more data after the release. We would appreciate your support as we make public this new service.
but still low.
(there are only 2 sapphire members, and 0 diamond members).
Isn't Rubis more than Sapphire??? http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Ranking
46
« on: May 30, 2008, 13:13 »
Why can't a credit based subscription be offered? A plan were you pay for so many credits to download images that are priced by the size. This would be fair and Fotolia would still generate alot of business!
how do you imagine that?
600 credits for 200$ ?
than FT must pay to photographer 300$, where is the profit for them? LOL!
Chode, I don't understand what is funny on what tdoes proposed??? What he is proposing is exactly what iStock has just implemented.
47
« on: May 30, 2008, 09:11 »
me neither... sniff sniff
but do you have to be gold to be exclusive?? because i am only silver still.
I have no intentions of going exclusive though.
Leaf, I got the e-mail and I am only bronze.
48
« on: May 29, 2008, 20:37 »
WOW, same for me. Until last week I had 98% acceptance. Then the last batch got about 50% rejection. Lot of "blurry" rejections and some "artifacts" rejections. Most of these photos accepted at the other major sites.
The other sites are working nicely to push me toward iStock exclusivity. I find reviewers at iStock super picky but almost always logical.
49
« on: May 21, 2008, 12:36 »
I would also settle for 10% of Yuri's income...
I think you'd be very disappointed.
I'm not normally someone who studies how much other people sell and make, however I was shocked at a post I saw detailing how much he made in one month, I don't know whether it was true or not because for some people he's an icon and as such 'chinese whispers' tend to spread around, but if the statement was true and what he say's regarding the number of people he employs is true then believe me I'm making more money than him.
Remember in business the only figure that counts is 'net'.
As for the photo mentioned in this original thread, yeah it's bad and it makes him look bad, it also highlights the problems with reviewers in microstock, it doesn't really matter whether he did it or one of his assistants it's his name that's at the bottom, he proudly states that no image ever gets uploaded until he's approved it, of course we all know that's marketing talk at least for his sake I hope it is!
As pointed out earlier it actually goes to prove that on SS buyers just download anything, I'd be interested to see if the image has ever been used.
I am sure we all have a few images in our portfolios that aren't representative of our best work. The difference between my goofs and Yuri's is he makes a fortune off his! That is something to admire - and maybe envy...?
Absolutely, in fact I have an image in my portfolio that although there's nothing wrong with it technically, I made a major blooper with the concept it was portraying and it wasn't until well after it had been on sale and sold a few times that I noticed, it still sells though !
Note about Yuris income. He makes a lot. He spends a lot. He nets decent money. BUT, it he would retire right now, he would still have ~10,000 great images that will make him a LOT of money for next few decades. So you can think of it like he is an investor. He cashes very few dividends but his worth is large (because his fortune is in his photos).
50
« on: May 19, 2008, 13:29 »
Also you are breaking the law by not paying import tax to SLO (Slovenia I presume?)
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
