I wish I had more like that...they don't come along very often unfortunately.

Each sales model has it's market and if one gets it right micro can be lucrative too...there are several artists who do well.

I'll certainly slow down on micro submissions for a while...but to ignore it would be silly as it is a growing market.

Quote from: ap on May 19, 2010, 20:27
pb,

after a sale like that (sorry, i'm drooling), don't you feel you should concentrate your work in rm and not bother with microstock anymore? obviously this experiment has failed for you rm guys.

Thanks! I always like to hear the views of others...

Yes, those productions from way back then have done very well...and still earn every month.

There are images on each sales platform that may well be better placed on the other if you know what I mean...but we must not simply give our work away. This was recently brought home to me after an excited call from one of my models after her portrait appeared in a Match.com TV commercial...and I got a measly 28 dollars from Shutterstock...around 3 years back I got a similar RM sale of a portrait that was pretty similar and netted over 3K.

It's tough to know where to place our work!

Quote from: Forgiss on May 19, 2010, 19:55
@PB:

Please don't get me wrong... I am not Dissing RM at all. I think RM definitely has a place, and not all images are destined for microstock, but there are images that has no place for $23k sales...

By the way, congrats on the sales... I hope it sold some more in the 12 years before today.

The only way to truly verify their authenticity is to get an approval code for the purchase from their credit card issuer...but even that is uncertain these days.

Proceed with caution...you are asking all the right questions...hope it works out and you make a great sale!

Quote from: click_click on May 19, 2010, 13:18

Quote from: hofhoek on May 19, 2010, 13:02
Thanks for your concerned reaction. Yes, I mean enhanced license and I'm also a bit worried if this is a legitimite request. I am not sure. They do have an address with phone but no website is found yet. I have asked this today by email so I'll see what will be the reply. My other concern is if they are for real that I have no idea how to get all these images (a few hundred I have) available for them to see without giving them the possibility to copy them. If anyone ever had a similar request how did you handle this? It would be a great chance to sell quite a lot of my images but I have to be sure it's no scam.

Thanks

EDIT: I have only a small portion of my images of the subject they are looking for on Dreamstime. Although I don't see how It would breach my contract with Dreamstime. I'm not exclusive to them and can sell my images anywhere I please.

Again, it's up to you to find out as much as you can. If it's impossible to verify the authenticity of a buyer who wants "hundreds of your images" then don't bother.

As much as I'm happy for you to get such an opportunity it sounds too good to be true. Also I'm wondering why one buyer would need hundreds of images about one topic?

This may all be legitimate but naturally it requires some communication between you and the prospective buyer. Selling 200 images as ELs with a 20% discount compared to what DT charges could put $7000-8000 in your pocket. If you're really talking about so many images or even more you need a lawyer to draw a contract for you. I can't see how you would be able to handle such a transaction yourself.

Maybe Sean or some other pro can chime in here.

I confess to not being an iTard or owning an iPhone full of cheap apps...sorry!

As much as I need to try and like micro as it is here to stay and us old RM boys need to come to terms with it and approach it in a professional manner...I am still a firm believer in RM and focus the majority of my efforts there...that belief was confirmed this morning when I saw an RM sale through Getty of an image shot 12 years ago for a gross sales amount over 23K...so clients are still willing to pay good money for the right image for their needs. How many images would one need on micro for how long a time to see such a return on their efforts? Guess where I'm submitting my next few months worth of images??

Enough said.

Quote from: Forgiss on May 19, 2010, 09:27

Quote from: PixelBitch on May 12, 2010, 22:10
... It is the micros that are new, and have come along and undercut on pricing and greatly contributed to it being so tough to make a living shooting stock these days. Perhaps Veer are wanting to establish a viable microstock collection with out descending to the level of those sites that take all comers just for the numbers...

I read these statements and am always amazed at the absolute lack of thought that goes into them.

What protected traditional stock was "barrier of entry" (both from the agency side, and the cost of technology) that barrier was lowered drastically as technology made it possible for the buyer to sidestep expensive RM images completely for day-to-day functionality.

It's wouldn't surprise me if the OP made that statement from their iphone filled with happily purchased $1 apps

Secondly. The old model was a lock-in model... You buy from XYZ company because you allready invested a few thousand Dollars into getting their catalogues and search disks shipped to you. That doesn't fly anymore, Getty's new site quotes 41% of images buyers do their search through Google... So to survive, you are either a niche market site (i.e. all Medical, all the time) or you have everything that passes a technical spec, and improve your search system to allow a buyer/designer to find what they want, exactly.

Even if microstock didn't exist... do you really think that the old model would survive with Flikr and Deviant-art, etc images available to a designer?

Absolutely spot on...I remember being asked to work for a lower fee and being told that on the next job of course I would get a higher fee...bollocks...I always used to call them on it and decline. One particularly sweet moment was when a trendy young photographer fresh out of college underpriced me on a shoot I'd done for a client 3 years running...then 2 weeks later they called and told me he'd screwed up and they wanted me to do the shoot at my usual rate. There is no shortage of clients who will try and take the piss...and sadly no shortage of desperate photographers willing to fall for it.

Quote from: cclapper on May 14, 2010, 13:29

Quote from: ap on May 13, 2010, 23:03
when i started in photography last year, i was offered credit in exchange for a photo in a calendar of a popular and well known sports co. since i wanted to show solidarity with my new photog brethens and not give something away for nothing, i refused.

now, seeing this calendar full of beautiful photos minus mine own, i'm starting to regret this decision. i think it would have opened the doors to a young photographer and the money would have mattered not. but photographers keep insisting that this would be a detriment to the photo industry...i think in all arts related fields, name recognition is a lot more important than monetary reward, esp at the beginning.

You might feel you should have taken the credit, ap, but I believe you made the right decision. When people find out those calendar images were given away, you will have a whole host of impressive companies wanting to work with you...for free. It's easy to negotiate down with a company if you ask too much money, but once you work for free it's pretty difficult to go up from there.

No...I tried from San Francisco and even though I am a UK citizen and have a family address in London they declined to let me join...they have geotagging on their server and can tell where you are.

I got around it by joining Zoonar and enrolling in Polylooks through them.

Quote from: gbcimages on May 14, 2010, 17:10
does pollylooks take on contributors from USA?

Veer existed in their own right for quite a few years before Corbis came along and bought them...to suggest that they do not know what they are doing is profoundly ignorant. It is the micros that are new, and have come along and undercut on pricing and greatly contributed to it being so tough to make a living shooting stock these days. Perhaps Veer are wanting to establish a viable microstock collection with out descending to the level of those sites that take all comers just for the numbers.

[/quote]

This still doesn't explain why your rejection rate is far higher than any other micro I contribute to, and that includes iStock, the most rigorous, demanding micro in the business. Streamlining the upload process doesn't save us much time, when most submissions end up getting rejected anyway. Since Veer's rejection rate is far higher than all of the successful micros (this is borne out by complaints from many other contributors, not just me), your needs must differ substantially from the rest. Saying you want high quality, commercially relevant photography and illustration is a pretty generic statement, since all micros make the same claim. It doesn't tell me anything specific about why Veer's rejection rate is by far the highest in the business. This from a new micro with no proven track record! If you don't want certain types of content, you should state that clearly, so we don't waste time uploading imagery that Veer doesn't want in the first place.

The only reason Veer has made it this far is because of the Corbis name, and now this new Dash for Cash program.These things can't keep you going forever, people will become disillusioned, as I have. Where are the downloads? We need something of substance! Please show us some respect and have a little consideration for the value of our time.
[/quote]

Last set I uploaded were approved in 6 days...non-exclusive.

Quote from: contrastaddict on April 30, 2010, 17:36
With all the problems during April, I was hoping the queue would have picked up by now but i sitll have images 9 days plus that don't fall into the bad day categories 14-16th etc. This is really frustrating, especially when they say they are working on it and the queue hasn't moved.

Im curious if non-exclusives are experiencing even longer delays?

Sales have slowed right down, as have the sales amounts...been questioning whether to bother uploading more work. reminds me of that good old Aussie saying if this car were a horse I'd shoot it.

Try downloading and using their Zoonar Media Manager...that makes it a lot easier.

Quote from: FD-amateur on April 26, 2010, 02:59

Quote from: Michael Krabs on April 23, 2010, 11:40The submitting process is easy and fast.

This is a bit of an overstatement. In general the workflow is quite slow (but perhaps it's me).

- Compared to modern Flash modules on microstock sites and The3Ds, the Flash upload is archaic, but it works. I had to add my files one by one to the window.
- After upload, the images vanish in the hayes and you can only access them again after approval. Approval is fast though. The IPTC was accepted well (description, keywords), except title, so I had to copy/paste that in one by one manually. It's no issue since I use a non-standard IPTC field for model info, and they prefer this field over "object name" for title.
- The options are a bit unclear: RM/RF is obvious, but what means discount,normal and premium pricing?
- Regularly, when managing the images, you get kicked out of the secure area and you have to enter your usr/pwd again.
- Even if you opt in all the partner programs in your profile, it seems that you have to set this manually again on all images after accepting.
- Would they accept editorial? It seems you can upload and tick "no release". (Magazines in general don't care that much about released or not.)

To whom it concerns: 50% acceptance, all overwhites of a business girl and 1 girl bikini shot. Male overwhite and female engineer in construction context + objects were rejected (they weren't that good though). One accepted image didn't show up. No remarks about the selection since they know their market of course better than we. I didn't try landscapes/landmarks yet. Most rejects were LCV for their audience. Too early to say anything based on just 10 uploads.

Recommended.

It's all been done before...we just need to do it our way to reflect our times...and those that can't do that copy those who can.

Quote from: Phil on April 21, 2010, 06:58
to me the cupcake is to close, Milinz's stuff inspired me to do some fire. Some concepts are the similar but I'm not the same league and there is no way they could be a considered a copy (if I got that close I'd be pleased with myself, but wouldnt submit to sale anywhere).

but we have 'draganizing' an image, 'the dave hill' style, ring flash fads etc etc. I'm sure now with PS5 we'll see a big run on grunge hdr / tonemapped images.

i have magazines from the 50's & 60's with pretty girls holding phones doing the 'our operators are waiting to take your call', the clothing / hair etc styles are different but it is the same concepts etc. I dont think stock was around then but they may as well be stock shots. Not much is new...

Getty are image exclusive unless you are istock exclusive. This is odd seeing as they are the ones that ended the old agency exclusive deals in favor of image exclusive.

Their rates are 20% for royalty free, RM is 40% for your home territory (eg USA) and 30% outside your home territory.

Quote from: Phil on April 21, 2010, 06:45

Quote from: pancaketom on April 21, 2010, 05:25
Does anyone know what percentage Getty normally pays? I suppose at least they are keywording for their 80 (or 70%), but it seems like Getty is trying to get 80% Getty and 20% artist to become their standard.

--=Tom

From my limited knowledge, they pay 20% regardless of brand, licence type etc (although I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are a few people around who get more). Their big analomy are the istock exclusives (imo 1 of the 3 main reasons for thinkstocks existence). Aside from istock they are pretty much always shoot exclusive, heard of a number of people that are basically Getty exclusive (through choice), not sure whether this is the norm though.

I'm a Getty macro contributor as well as micro...March RF sales on Getty...35 sales at an average of 34.62 from a collection of 212 images...micro comes nowhere near that return. If you can get images on Getty macro then do it...micro returns are a pittance in comparison...and becoming more so each month.

Quote from: Mr. Stock on April 20, 2010, 19:17
Now that Getty's artist's picks has reopened I'd like to ask photographers who submit to both, Getty and microstock, if they would be willing to share their experience regarding if one model makes more money for them as a whole than the other. Also, is there any criteria regarding what images goes where, how do you determine which images to place with Getty and which to place with the micro agencies. I have some new images and I'm just not sure where I should place them. I had 5 images selected to Getty / Flickr just a few months ago and before I could add more, they closed the artists picks for six weeks. From what I have read so far regarding this, and it hasn't been a lot, sounds like overall people make more money from images placed on Getty versus the micros. I'm not talking about per image sales, I'm talking their overall RPI for X amount of images on Getty versus X amount on the micros. Hope that makes sense. Thanks.

They really  should allow us 2 to 3 weeks worth at once...but will they do that? It's like cell phone plans where you lose unused minutes...maybe we should be allowed to carry over unused slots? Will they do that...not likely!

Quote from: franky242 on April 12, 2010, 22:13
Argh, I wonder how they will deal with their 15 images/week upload slots....

You have a link to upgrade to a pro account but it comes up with an empty window. You could at least email present contributors offering the upgrade and a 48 hour time frame rather than have us keep checking to see when it can be done...and you may get more takers that way.

Quote from: clustershot on April 05, 2010, 21:33
We just wanted to give everyone an update.

We've made all of the necessary changes to the site that should free the restrictions on our paypal account. We have let Paypal know and they will be reviewing the changes we've made. Hopefully all will go well and we'll be back to normal within a number of hours.

Once the new changes go live to satisfy Paypal we will be waiting 1-2 days to roll out the new features that got us into this mess in the first place.

WARNING: For anyone who has been considering a pro-account with us this 1-2 day window is your last shot at getting in at the $20.00/year for your first year. When we launch the new updates we are raising our prices to a staggering $50.00/year. The big new feature launching is a very cool and very slick pro-store/page customization. Your own logo, choose a font, you own backgrounds, colours, etc.

I'm finding their WebDAV upload system is brilliant...so much faster than the usual FTP...wonder why all the micros don't have that feature??

Quote from: shiyali on February 15, 2010, 02:30
I don't like their webdav upload feature. On my setup it has transfer problems and I have to set it to autoskip with the result that quite a few files don't get uploaded. I wish they would set up a proper FTP upload or a solid Java uploader.

Try the Zeiss ZE 100 f2 Makro...more expensive but the Zeiss optics leave Canon for dead

I don''t even count on it now...micro is simply somewhere to place out takes and shoots that I don't feel are right for macro. It's starting to pay towards monthly bills but to be quite honest the returns on micro are not worth shooting specifically for it.

I find it unbelievable that a company will not pay you out for your royalties if you quit and have not reached payment threshold,  this is totally unethical if not illegal.

At least Veer pay out at the end of each year regardless...but then again...if they all did that they may need to drastically rethink their business plans which may count on most artists never getting paid out.

Has anyone else noticed that if you want to upload more than 5 files at a time they charge you 10 pounds a year membership?

The site is new but it has blood on it's hands! StockXpert and the old Thinkstock have been bumped off.

Quote from: lisafx on February 03, 2010, 22:04

Quote from: cclapper on February 03, 2010, 21:50

I also believe that Thinkstock has been around for quite awhile.

I didn't realize the name had been around already.  Still, the site in its current incarnation is new.

If I remember rightly...Thinkstock was one of Jupiter's brands...they commissioned wholly owned shoots...so Getty just put the name to a different use after they killed of the Jupiter wholly owned program.

Quote from: lisafx on February 03, 2010, 20:38

Quote from: madelaide on February 03, 2010, 20:36

Did thinkstock exist before StockXpert's murder?

No, it's brand new.

Well that's a lot more positive scenario than 'the end of macro rf is nigh' that was floating around earlier.

I should imagine there would be a macro artist revolution if they put our images on the sub site...I for one would stop submitting to Getty if that happened

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on February 03, 2010, 02:09
Hey Loop,

I was just messin with you but I am impressed by your reply I found out a bit of info for certain that they will not be moving any images from contributors that they will only stick to Holly owned when it comes to Macro RF being added to this new collection, along with other micro work they have recently acquired through their purchase of Jupiter. In a way this removes a great deal of competition from the old Getty site for Macro RF because people with content at Getty will no longer have their work hidden behind any holly owned stuff, it will all slowly move to the new sub site. Still have to wait and see.
Seriously though Loop, if you wanta put a wager down drop me a PM, it will make a bit of fun out of all this guess work

Cheers,
Jonathan

I think patience is needed...Veer MP has only been up and running for 6 months or so in an overcrowded market...what I have found is that their average sale is higher than any of the other sites...visually their site beats the others...give them a chance to produce results.

Quote from: lisafx on February 02, 2010, 17:54

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on February 02, 2010, 17:43

This is Getty the guys that own everything with the exception of one big agency. The only other agency that can give Getty a run for it's money is Corbis, pretty small market to try and grab a piece of.

Jonathan, sorry to only sample one part of your very interesting and informative post.  However I am curious in what way you anticipate Corbis giving Getty a run for its money? 

I had high hopes for Veer marketplace to compete effectively in micro, but the results have been beyond underwhelming (closer to pitiful).  It was quite clear to me as a contributor that Veer had absolutely no idea what they were doing as far as microstock is concerned. 

Don't really see any quality RF macro images on there...just their wholly owned stuff and it all looks very micro to me