|
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 - snaprender
26
« on: August 04, 2009, 17:49 »
Hey everyone, Just gone done with July's footage stats: http://snaprender.blogspot.com/July turned out to be a little better than June thankfully. How did everyone else do? Snaprender
27
« on: July 30, 2009, 17:53 »
I didn't see any of mine, but I did notice that the persons folder is called 'Fotolia'.
Snaprender
28
« on: July 28, 2009, 08:46 »
oops forgot to mention earlier re istock, that they kept the max size of subs on photos.com that was brought in with StockXpert. But at the time JIunlimited slipped under the radar (I wasnt 100% sure at the time and couldnt be bothered fighting anymore) and allowed "file sizes up to 75mb" for the subs price.
StockXpert & istock deal was your images go on both (& customers can pay at JI for full access to both libraries). Now IS cut this to $0.25 so istock pay $0.25 for any image up to 75mb
and it is same $0.25 for vectors, wheras FT offers around $1
IStock has an opt out for exclusive and non-exclusive contributors who do not want to sell their photos for so cheap, Fotolia only has an opt out for their exclusives. That there makes a big difference to me. Fotolia is forcing their 'Premium Subscription' down their contributors throats. IStock give you the option.
29
« on: July 27, 2009, 19:27 »
I'm not a huge fan of Fotolia's tactics, but I don't see what the big freak out is all about. Isn't this the same deal that Shutterstock and Dreamstime have?
No, actually it's not. SS pays much better for full resolution videos on their subscription plan. For that reason, I pulled my video portfolio as soon as I heard about the "Premium Subscription" on Fotolia. Then I decided to pull my pics too. I spend way too much time investigating every couple of months on how they are going to screw me over next that I could spend creating more images/videos.
30
« on: July 10, 2009, 10:53 »
Fibtolia videos online last night: 36,525
Videos online this morning: 36,221
Sadly, now later in the day there is 36,579. Apparantly everyone didn't read the newsletter.
I know even though I am signed up for the news letter...I never got mine. I actually found out from here (MSG), and there will always be the people who dont care...or think it is inevitable and decided they must go with the flow (I know one of these people and this is what I was told by him when I notified him about the premium subs and what they mean). 
31
« on: July 10, 2009, 09:04 »
Okay...my 300+ videos are now off Fibtolia. They told me they couldn't just delete my videos, that they would need to delete my whole portfolio....so I said, then delete my whole portfolio. Oddly enough, the mystical and mysterious deleting fairy managed to only delete the videos. So, if they try and tell you that they cant just delete videos, let the support person know that yes they can. Fibtolia videos online last night: 36,525 Videos online this morning: 36,221 Just when you thought numbers were supposed to go up LOL 
32
« on: July 09, 2009, 12:52 »
ok, quick question from someone who admittedly has no idea, why is video different to say illustration...
I don't think it is. When I was independent, I didn't upload my vector illustrations anywhere but iStock because for a complex vector (not the simple ones or icon sets) I thought the pricing wasn't right. Many sites didn't make any distinction in price based on the complexity of the vector file. For a subs sale the pricing problem was even worse.
The other sites got large JPEGs of the vector image which I had no problem selling at subscription prices - buyer paid less but got less value too.
I think HD video for subscription commissions is exactly in the same boat - a very high value thing going for next to nothing. It should be web videos only, IMO.
If FT doesn't get any/much video content, they'll have to rethink their decision. Unfortunately, past experience suggests that there will always be someone willing to sell for a very low commission; let's hope the majority of contributors don't.
I've already emailed them asking them to remove my entire portfolio. I also hope that the majority does not allow their HD/NTSC/PAL to go for such low prices.
33
« on: July 09, 2009, 09:58 »
So, I finally kinda of got confirmation from Fotolia that all video sizes are included in the Premium Subsciption. They never really answered my questions directly. It was a 'yes' or 'no' answer, but it was close enough. I then wrote support asking them to remove all of my videos and they will not do that. I will have to do it manually or just remove my whole account......I think I will just remove my whole account.
34
« on: July 09, 2009, 09:46 »
Like the others said, a 20 sec. video @ 30 fps is 600 pictures. For 3D or Vectors...its not only making or modeling you image, but then animating it into different positions for 10-30 seconds. There is a big difference.
35
« on: July 07, 2009, 20:57 »
I'm waiting for reponse from FT support. If there is no changes I will delete all my video files from this week. Video is new at FT and sales are very slow. No pain to lose few dollars now.
I can lose much more in short time, when my HD sales from pond5, IS, SS... from 12-30$ become 3.8$.
With 249$ buyer can have 60 HD at FT. It's just insane. Kill it before it's too late.
I am also waiting for a response from FT support. I know of one other person who said support confirmed all video sizes are included in the subs, but I want to wait for my response from them before acting. I will probably just take my whole portfolio (pic, vectors and video) off. Their constant changes are becoming too much for me.
36
« on: July 07, 2009, 19:46 »
Hello Everyone,
I was just wondering your thoughts on the Fotolia videos pricing for the Premium Subscription. As far as I can tell, with the Premium Subscription, we will be making (depending on rank - I'm bronze) $3.60 for an HD/NTSC/PAL or whatever size video. I do not feel that $3.60 is fair price for most of those sizes...small web maybe, but not an HD/NTSC/PAL.
Was just wondering what others thought???
Snaprender
37
« on: July 07, 2009, 10:41 »
Thanks for posting the newsletter. I personally wont be selling my HD or NTSC videos for $3.60. What a pain...I just got them all uploaded, now I have to delete them - ugh.
Snaprender
38
« on: July 07, 2009, 09:48 »
Could someone please post a copy of the newsletter? I didnt get it and if video is going to be that cheap, I need to start deleting.
Thanks,
Snaprender
39
« on: June 25, 2009, 09:41 »
WooHoo. 10/10 approved for my application! If I had to take a wild stab in the dark about what kind of imagery Veer is looking for, I would have to say conceptual. Many of my batch had a conceptual theme to them.
40
« on: June 19, 2009, 16:12 »
Florida has other taxes you're supposed to pay, but probably don't. I remember something about being supposed to list investments and having to pay taxes just for having them.
I'd like to know how they would know how much. "the only thing I bought was a lens cap".
Like Lisa's accounts said, they may be doing an audit on B&H. There was something similar here in Washington several years ago. People were going to Oregon to buy cheaper cigarettes from Costco (membership wholesale company) and Costco got an audit - the Washingtonians who purchased cigarettes from Oregon all got letters that hey had to pay tax to WA on those cigs.
41
« on: June 19, 2009, 15:10 »
Same thing here in Washington. We have to pay 'use tax' for state and county taxes (8.3%) for anything bought for use in the business. I pay it quarterly.
42
« on: June 18, 2009, 23:00 »
I remain opted out also, but I get the feeling if there aren't enough people opting in for their customers on photo.com and jupitar - opting out wont be an option for long.
43
« on: June 18, 2009, 19:52 »
44
« on: June 16, 2009, 20:03 »
I got a sale on there a couple of days ago.  I was very happy. They are a new company, so I too will be very patient.
45
« on: June 01, 2009, 17:03 »
It looks we will be able to use an EIN number, if it is appropriate. This is the thread that an admin has replied to.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=62691
The weather here has been too nice to read through all the details but does anyone know if there are any drawbacks doing this? I want to keep it as simple as possible, doing my tax in the UK is all I can cope with, I should get an accountant but I like doing it myself. Don't think I could cope with having to do a US tax return as well though.
From what I was reading, if you supply an EIN instead of at ITIN, you will need to do a US tax return every year for the IRS (Due not later than April 15th).
46
« on: June 01, 2009, 09:32 »
Hi All,
I don't know anymore...
I just signed up with another US agencie ...and indeed I must fill the W8BEN form but I didn't need to fill in the ITIN number
they said :Just your legal name, address and signature. We do not withhold taxes.
So if this company could do it why is it not possible for Shutterstock?
Hey Kaycee - I just read through the W8-BEN instructions again (I'm US but an trying to help some friends with their paperwork) and it specifically states that you must provide a ITIN if you are: "Claiming benefits under an income tax treaty" (or you get the 30% deduction) - So, they may be changing their pratice pretty soon to comply with US Tax Law.
47
« on: May 31, 2009, 14:19 »
Jon isn't that smart ...
Huh? When was the last time you built a $50M+ per year business from scratch in under 5 years?
Yeah. Wow. Totally uncalled for.
Fact is that Jon has managed to run his business quite successfully, and with a minimum of drama and aggravation for everyone, including buyers and submitters.
This is the first time in years I can remember a dustup at Shutterstock, and it isn't even their doing, but something externally imposed by the IRS.
If you ask me it is the IRS (actually congress) that should rethink policies that push successful US businesses offshore.
This is not the fault of the IRS, they are just doing their job, which is collecting tax. Other agencies know about it, so for the life of me I don't understand why SS didn't for all this time.
This is an SS cock-up pure and simple, their tax lawyer or tax accountant should have let them know when the business was started. Jon/SS haven't been very smart, they should have known about this situation a long time ago which obviously they didn't, so in theory SS has been paying submitters illegially which has now jumped up and bit them and us on the arse.
There are a significant number of Eastern European contributors who will be hammered by the 30% tax, if I was in this boat I would say goodbye SS, now if SS were smart they would open an overseas office and make the effort to keep these photographers happy. Opening this office could have happened quite easily with a minimum of fuss, SS has made a hash of this. Plus Jon's outbursts on the SS forum also haven't helped matters either.
So what now - it's Jons fault that the IRS imposes a tax on non-resident aliens??? I think not. Jon lives in the US. Jon is a US citzen. Jon started, owns and operates his business in the US. Do you really think that even if his tax accountant told him about the IRS non-resident tax prior to starting the business, he would just have up and moved his family and business to a completely different country??? Move away from his friends and family?? Seriously - think about it. There is nothing wrong with Jon running and operating a business in the country in which he lives. Opening an 'office' in another country does him no good, but he would still be incorporated and having the headquarters in the US - meaning there would still be this tax problem. I feel badly for the contributors that are going to be hit with this 30% tax...but again it is NOT SS who is demanding this money - it is the IRS.
48
« on: May 31, 2009, 09:42 »
Can anyone please answer this question? I would be very happy!
In 6e it says "skip line 6f" if you say no. But it doesn't say skip line 6g, where you have to fill out the name of your college/university or company. In the "Line instructions" section it says about 6g:
"If you checked reason f, you must enter the name of the educational institution [...]"
So - do I have to fill it or not? I mean, 6e doesn't say "skip 6f and 6g", only "skip 6f" - however, in the line instructions it says I should only fill it if I checked f? I don't know what to do, I am SO bad at this.
I would have asked on the Shutterstock forum if they hadn't banned me for appearantly no reason
Thanks in advance
Thomas Amby
Hey Thomas! Just got done reading through the instructions. It looks like you would also skip 6g - that line is for people who are coming to or are already in the US temporarily to preform work with a college/university or Company (as a researcher). Since you have marked 'a' and 'h' above that, line 6g does not apply to you. **disclaimer: That is how I am reading the information in the form...I am not a professional W-7 filler-outer**
49
« on: May 31, 2009, 09:27 »
Can I ask. If my country is Singapore and it is not in the list of treaty country. I dont need to do this right? Since whether I fill it in or not, they will deduct 30%? ; 
Unfortunately, that is correct. There is no need to fill out the ITIN for your W8 if there is not treaty to reduce or eliminate your deduction (on US based customer sale only) 
50
« on: May 29, 2009, 19:06 »
I believe what that means is that if the buyer is in the US - you will get taxed the 30% if you dont get your ITIN and W8 to them (or 30% if your country has no treaty with the US)
If the buyer is not from the US (lets say the buyer is from Europe) you will not be taxed at all even if you dont get your ITIN and W8 done.
Thats how I am reading it.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
