26
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Banned from Istock club
« on: February 11, 2013, 14:47 »
I saw somewhere that Rob Sylvan has been given the boot too. Doesn't he have something to do with Stocksy? I'm guessing that's what the real issue is.
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. 26
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Banned from Istock club« on: February 11, 2013, 14:47 »
I saw somewhere that Rob Sylvan has been given the boot too. Doesn't he have something to do with Stocksy? I'm guessing that's what the real issue is.
27
General Stock Discussion / Re: Tax for Australians.« on: February 11, 2013, 01:56 »
I'd probably stay with IS (after having deleted my more sensitive images) but for the fact that I really want to move ahead with 3D renders and they're rejecting just about everything I send them. I've been told that other sites are a bit more accepting of 3D work, and they do sell. Seems like the tax situation is manageable - thanks for advice people. I've got a few more renders in the queue and I'm anticipating giving them notice very soon.
ETA: Done. 28
General Stock Discussion / Re: Tax« on: February 10, 2013, 01:47 »
Thanks for that. I might just stay where I am. Pity they don't like my renders.
29
General Stock Discussion / Tax for Australians.« on: February 10, 2013, 01:21 »
I know this question has come up before but I've never been able to quite get my head around how to proceed. I live in Australia. I'm a hobbyist who makes a loss on my photography and my turnover is less than $20,000. The Australian Tax Office doesn't want me claiming my hobby losses against my main income so at the moment I don't declare my stock income/losses and everyone's happy.
I'm currently an istock exclusive and they don't issue any forms, don't withhold any tax, and all is simple. However if I go indie I need to deal with SS (and others). They withhold 30% and issue forms and put me in a position I don't want (or need to be in) - dealing with tax as a business when I the ATO would rather I don't. The advice I've seen involves sending my passport off to the US or something and I really don't want to do that. Are there any Australians here who have found a sensible solution to this state of affairs? 30
General Stock Discussion / Re: 3D renders« on: January 26, 2013, 14:05 »Great information, thanks. Now I need to decide how serious I am about making a go of this stuff. Up 'til now I've just been a hobbyist who uses stock as a reality check and an incentive to improve technically, so I've stuck with one agency. Going indie is a business decision (and maybe a moral one too atm) so I have to decide if I'm in business. It's a different attitude.Thanks for the links. I do use GnomonWorkshop a lot for tutorials. I'm happy to have had some work accepted on IS, at least it means I can make the grade occasionally. I've even sold a few. Problem is that for those that are rejected I'm not really seeing what I'm doing wrong, so a bit frustrated. 31
Shutterstock.com / Re: Former Exclusives Interested in Joining Shutterstock« on: January 26, 2013, 04:56 »
Does SS still take off a chunk of earnings in withholding tax? As my expenses exceed my income I don't actually make a profit (yet) and don't want to jump through hoops to keep what income I do make.
32
General Stock Discussion / Re: 3D renders« on: January 25, 2013, 18:35 »Hi crazychristina, Thanks for the links. I do use GnomonWorkshop a lot for tutorials. I'm happy to have had some work accepted on IS, at least it means I can make the grade occasionally. I've even sold a few. Problem is that for those that are rejected I'm not really seeing what I'm doing wrong, so a bit frustrated. 33
General Stock Discussion / Re: 3D renders« on: January 25, 2013, 18:25 »I could not find any 3D renders in your bort, I mostly saw photos, and maybe some 3 d books. I'll have a look at the spill problem, but I do tend to use a lot of fill when shooting isolated images so I'm not sure what you see as a problem. I always use a lens hood. Almost all the non-editorial images in my most recent 100 are 3D - there are 22 of them. Books, knives, jewelry, smartphones. gears, a couple of stylised figures. 34
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2« on: January 24, 2013, 22:42 »Why has CJ6 been banned? Hi spike, I think many people have a different reason for deactivating, not just to send a message. That is to protect your IP. If Getty makes your files available for what is effectively free distribution through Google then you'll have little prospect of selling them again anywhere. Also if you have images of models who were doing you a favor, maybe family or friends, you may not want to risk that they could be used for any purpose without redress, unlike the standard licences that give some protection. It would be nice to send Getty a message but it would seem they're not listening anyway. 35
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Image Deactivation Tally for iStockPhoto« on: January 23, 2013, 19:23 »
Deactivated my 7 people images.
36
General Stock Discussion / Re: 3D renders« on: January 23, 2013, 18:54 »Absolutely - IS are totally out of step with the other big sites when it comes to 3DThanks, what I expected and what I need to know. 37
General Stock Discussion / 3D renders« on: January 23, 2013, 17:23 »
I'm currently an istock exclusive thinking of going indie. This is partly due to the current issues, but I do have other considerations. My port is approx 600 photos, but I am trying to diversify into 3D renders and I'm finding that istock rejects most of my work in this area. If you're interested you can check my work on istock. The renders are fairly recent so search by age. Question is do other agencies accept renders more readily than istock does? While I can see the reason for most photo rejects I don't get much useful out of 'the quality of this render is not good enough'. I'm at an impasse with it and want to find a way forward again.
I probably will drop the crown due to all these other issues, although I'm not convinced that other agencies are fundamentally better. I've seen some pretty severe criticism of all major agencies on this forum. Being a libran I'll take my time to make my decision. I have already deactivated a few images that I really don't want unrestricted use of out in the wild. Anyway I'm a very small player, and not really at risk with no Agency or Vettas. 38
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStockphoto can be saved« on: January 22, 2013, 20:52 »
Time will tell I guess. My hunch (and that's all it is) is that Getty is not interested in crowd sourcing.
39
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStockphoto can be saved« on: January 22, 2013, 17:50 »I really don't see how the google deal can be described as a "traditional payment model". It seems to be a unique deal. As I said earlier I'm certainly no authority, so I stand to be corrected. Didn't Getty once sell CDs full of images? Seems to me the Google deal is a somewhat updated version of that, which is what I was referring to as 'traditional payment model'. Or one of them. 40
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStockphoto can be saved« on: January 22, 2013, 17:45 »
According to Wikipedia istock's revenue in 2007 was 71M. According to a thread here the revenue in 2011 was 400M. So it would appear that under JKs leadership istock has increased revenue 5 times in the past 5 years.
41
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStockphoto can be saved« on: January 22, 2013, 16:46 »
My knowledge of the industry is minimal. However it appears to me that Getty has been severely impacted by the microstock model over the past decade. They are attempting to come to terms with it. Microstock actually consists of two main aspects - the micropayment online delivery bit and the crowd sourced content bit. What seems to me to be happening is that they are maintaining the micropayment business model but are getting rid of the crowd sourced contributor aspect. Also they are applying more traditional payment models (such as the Google deal) to what is currently crowd sourced content, which is where the current friction is occurring. We contributors don't have the bigger picture, we don't really know what is going on behind our backs. And I don't believe Jonathan Klein is a fool.
42
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStockphoto can be saved« on: January 22, 2013, 15:59 »
According to a report from management a while back istock is doing just fine. Since the original contributor base is not experiencing this I can only presume that their income is coming from their wholly owned content and the raft of outsiders they have brought in (none of whom seem to be complaining about the current state of affairs). IOW Getty have maintained the istock brand but replaced the content and business model with one that is more beneficial to them.
43
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Image Deactivation Tally for iStockPhoto« on: January 18, 2013, 20:15 »For many people it's not about sending a message (although that would be nice) but about protecting their property. If Getty gives yours stuff away you won't be able to sell it anywhere. Also if you've made assurances to models (perhaps family, friends) that the bespoke Google license doesn't appear to offer any protections for, then you might want to reduce their exposure to abuse.Listen fellas and try and understand something! this is a formidable and courages effort to make things better but go back in history a bit, to the stoneage in fact. 44
Shutterstock.com / Re: Huh? Can they do it like this?« on: December 09, 2010, 18:37 »
ten, you may not be aware of the cyber war currently raging because some large companies (Amazon, Paypal, Mastercard etc) closed accounts without actually having legal justification. I notice other agencies haven't been so quick to close FD's accoumts.
45
Shutterstock.com / Re: Huh? Can they do it like this?« on: December 04, 2010, 23:43 »...I do not understand why they would not just suspend "offending" pictures...I don't understand either. Yesterday I got an email from SS that they had deleted one of my images. "We have removed the following images that you uploaded.... deleted because: Quality control - Removed per legal. Do not resubmit." Quote We discovered serious copyright infringement issues within your portfolio of images on Shutterstock Images, LLC.I'm not seeing how this could be a MR or PR issue. 46
Shutterstock.com / Re: Huh? Can they do it like this?« on: December 04, 2010, 20:11 »
Nice of them to do it right before the weekend. Hope you get it sorted soon or you might have to become an istock exclusive.
47
General Stock Discussion / Re: Microstock has warped my photography....« on: December 02, 2010, 18:40 »
All my stock is studio these days. If I take my camera out the front door it's not for stock. Sadly I hardly ever take my camera out the front door any more.
48
General Stock Discussion / Re: I Give Up - iStock« on: November 30, 2010, 03:32 »
I can't see why any new independent would even bother with istock. Given the bias against independents in search and the low royalties they'll be getting is it really even worth trying?
49
Canon / Re: 7D versus 5DMkII - ISO performance and Noise« on: November 20, 2010, 21:25 »
I usually handle noise reduction by using blending mode options rather than masking - you could set up an action to implement it with a single click. I generally set the blurred layer to blend if the underlying layer has a white point set from about 30 to about 70 (split). Works like a charm and very easy to finesse.
50
iStockPhoto.com / Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA« on: November 14, 2010, 14:54 »
In my opinion the Vetta image is a better image. It expresses a different concept, has had more thought put into it, and is somewhat more stylish. I think the issue is how much more is one willing to pay for a 'slightly better' image. Sure, it's not twice as good, or ten times as good, these things are very subjective. But it is better, and some people want the best, and are willing to pay for that, even if the difference is not great. For some people 1% better is worth ten times the price. How much faster is the worlds fastest athlete than the worlds second fastest?
|
|