|
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 - michaeldb
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 37
26
« on: December 31, 2016, 21:02 »
michaeldb
I do not understand Adobe Photoshop does not allow commercial use filter noise, blur in the pictures? Which filters? Where can I find the source?
The program Blender is free for commercial use. https://www.blender.org/about/
The blender program is free or say open source, but the resources have license associated to it, there are plenty of websites which say free for commercial use but when you go through their license terms, they do not allow re-selling.
Why don't you directly ask them about it, we can only share suggestion but a concrete answer can be provided by their team only.
This is correct. I do not know how to explain the basic idea of intellectual property licensing here but I will try again. Most graphics software, such as Blender or Photoshop, DO allow you to make images using them, else what is the point of having such software? The question is, after using the software do you own the copyright to the image you made? If the answer is yes, then you can sell the image on microstock sites, because what you are selling to other people is a license to use your image. And you can only do that if you own the copyright. Owning and licensing copyright is the basic concept of microstock. If you do not understand what that means, find some way to learn what it means. Otherwise you will never understand what business you are in.
27
« on: December 30, 2016, 23:44 »
michaeldb are you an Aspie?
Stacey, I've never been diagnosed but I wouldn't be surprised. I admire Temple Grandin for sure, the way she used her disabilities to create abilities is a wonderful story and inspiration. Thinking in pictures is a useful ability for us illustrators.
28
« on: December 30, 2016, 20:15 »
The relevant question about using any graphics software, elements, plugins, actions, textures or whatever is: Does the software license allow you to use the software to create images of which you are the copyright? If the answer is yes, then you can use the software to make microstock images. Because when you "sell microstock" images you are really granting a license to someone to use the image to which you own the copyright.
For example, what if Adobe did not allow you to use the fonts or filters in Photoshop to create images of which you are the copyright owner? Adobe would go out of business overnight - their software would be virtually useless because that's what people use it for, to create images of which they own the copyright.
Most 3D software grants you the license to create images of which you own the copyright. A few do not. One example is Turbosquid, the largest seller of 3D models for 3DS Max and other 3D software. Turbosquid's license forbids the use of models to create stock images. But, as I said, this is an exception.
29
« on: November 28, 2016, 22:12 »
Congratulations, Morphart. You made the right decisions and actions like yours help everyone who makes money from copyrights.
30
« on: October 27, 2016, 20:13 »
It is interesting to read what people think about this. But you will not really know where you stand until you get the opinion of an intellectual property attorney. IMHO.
31
« on: August 06, 2016, 21:52 »
It only shows the contributors with over 1000 images.
The headings on the top are clickable...
If you click on "% of sales" number 12 is "Jon E. Oringer".
32
« on: August 04, 2016, 20:43 »
I think some degree of contributor control over pricing will be essential.
Since you're very forthrightly coming here to MSG looking for input, notice the discussion in another thread about the loss of the 'niche' market. To us, 'niche' means anything that takes some time and money to shoot, but won't sell very often. There's no point in submitting such photos for sub-$1 returns. Some of us think the existing agencies are just writing off this part of the market.
Microstock has become like the Middle East - no one can figure out how to make things work. Years of competition on nothing but price have taken a huge toll on the perceived value of stock photos. New thinking is needed.
FYI, I never had a single bad thing to say about GL's previous owners. They were unfailingly friendly, fair and helpful. The business seemed to get off to a good start but at some point took a huge hit when Google changed their game.
I don't post much here anymore as I am not actively doing microstock. But I would like to say that I agree with everything Stockastick has said here - great post. I too always liked GL, always considered Kelly a friend, and still have a couple thousand illustrations on GL. Re niche markets and setting our own (high) prices for images which would only sell a few times - if I could do that I might consider doing microstock illustrations again. Right now, it is neither fun enough nor lucrative enough. Good luck to the new owners!
33
« on: March 28, 2016, 18:40 »
Looks like iSuck has Peebert writing ad copy now.
34
« on: March 22, 2016, 19:10 »
I would like to see a stocksy-ish site created for us plebs.
I wouldn't join any elite club that would have me as a member
A very appropriate sentiment, given your username. 
35
« on: March 15, 2016, 19:20 »
Indeed, there's an announcement on the buyer side and also articles on financial platforms (I own some SS shares). I did some searches too and found some of the results amazing (especially with vectors). One thing that works perfectly is uploading previews/comping images from other agencies I (tried fotolia), to see if the file is also available at shutter...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-launches-reverse-image-search-140000740.html
36
« on: December 23, 2015, 21:29 »
Our images are exposed to the same buyers as Offset's through Shutterstock Premier. Just sayin'.
How is that? (Guess I am a little out of touch these days. I googled "Shutterstock Premier" but was not shown any details, unless I registered first.)
37
« on: December 17, 2015, 20:35 »
That's because everyone is done with their introductory year.
I guess I should have seen that coming and bought Adobe stock. 
38
« on: December 17, 2015, 20:30 »
For years I got a beautifully designed card signed by Jon and others. Not for the last couple years. I think they are only sending cards to Offset contributors now. Those of us who supplied the images they built their business on are now forgotten by Jon and the others.
39
« on: December 16, 2015, 22:06 »
OK, so these are the Google deal downloads.
What I don't get... why are they still held for a week "under investigation" so we can't request our earnings?
The default at DT is to be suspicious of ELs, to make sure there's no fraud.
But why the suspicion for the Google deal downloads? Would be nice to access that money now for the holidays and not have to wait for DT to "investigate" these.
My guess would be that it is just the way their system works. A sale over a certain price automatically kicks in a waiting period. Software is software. They probably didn't think about changing it for the google deal or else it was too much of a bother to alter the code.
40
« on: December 06, 2015, 18:27 »
I like DT and have submitted a lot of images there and have been there a long time (I earned my first microstock payout there 10 years ago this month). IMO, DT's 'too simple' rejection is idiotic. I would never add elements to an image which doesn't need them. Just deal with the fact that sometimes agencies do stupid things, and keep submitting.
41
« on: November 30, 2015, 18:17 »
My lowest recent extra small was 26 cents (level 0 image) but I think the problem is not any one sale but the amount the portfolio brings in each month compared to (a) before on DR and (b) other agencies.
The ratio of 35 cents subscriptions to the higher credit sales is rising - and it could just be perception, but as the images rise to the highest level I think the credit sales drop off. There are some, and they're great when they happen, but it's not enough to make up for the drop in sales volume. The only way their pricing model could work, IMO, is for exclusive images where there really weren't any alternatives to the expensive level 4 and 5 images at DT. Common images (fruits and veggies on white, for example) won't do well even if exclusive because there's a bazillion of them everywhere.
I see DT sinking in monthly performance even though their RPD number is reasonable. I'd rather have the larger monthly totals 
As a comparison, an image I uploaded to both SS and DT in 2011 (after I returned to being an indie following iStock exclusivity) has one tenth the number of downloads at DT and about one quarter the earnings.
I'm not uploading there (I stopped when sales took a nosedive) and just collect the payouts as I reach $100.
I assume at some point they'll get acquired or fold, but until then (or until they make some pricing or royalty changes I can't live with) I'll leave what I have there
I doubt DT is going to fold anytime soon. They still seem to be spending quite a bit in online advertising. And with their website running fine, why would they shut it down and turn off the revenue stream? The Stockxpert site is still online. I cannot remember very many microstock sites 'folding', only Lucky Oliver comes to mind.
If you cannot remember that makes it true and fact. Have you looked at closed sites topic here or the recent close that didn't pay people, or the site that sold and never opened again. Let me be help for you.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/sites-that-no-longer-exist/ sites that no longer exist
Look at the list again. One is Stockxpert, which did NOT fold, it is still there, as I mentioned in my post, and I get paid from it every month or so. The others on the list were never big enough to be listed in the Microstock Poll Results. They were just tiny startups which never got off the ground, except for Lucky Oliver, which I also mentioned in my post. None of those companies was ever in the same ballpark as even GL or Vectorstock, let alone DT.
42
« on: November 24, 2015, 23:42 »
My lowest recent extra small was 26 cents (level 0 image) but I think the problem is not any one sale but the amount the portfolio brings in each month compared to (a) before on DR and (b) other agencies.
The ratio of 35 cents subscriptions to the higher credit sales is rising - and it could just be perception, but as the images rise to the highest level I think the credit sales drop off. There are some, and they're great when they happen, but it's not enough to make up for the drop in sales volume. The only way their pricing model could work, IMO, is for exclusive images where there really weren't any alternatives to the expensive level 4 and 5 images at DT. Common images (fruits and veggies on white, for example) won't do well even if exclusive because there's a bazillion of them everywhere.
I see DT sinking in monthly performance even though their RPD number is reasonable. I'd rather have the larger monthly totals
As a comparison, an image I uploaded to both SS and DT in 2011 (after I returned to being an indie following iStock exclusivity) has one tenth the number of downloads at DT and about one quarter the earnings.
I'm not uploading there (I stopped when sales took a nosedive) and just collect the payouts as I reach $100.
I assume at some point they'll get acquired or fold, but until then (or until they make some pricing or royalty changes I can't live with) I'll leave what I have there
I doubt DT is going to fold anytime soon. They still seem to be spending quite a bit in online advertising. And with their website running fine, why would they shut it down and turn off the revenue stream? The Stockxpert site is still online. I cannot remember very many microstock sites 'folding', only Lucky Oliver comes to mind.
43
« on: November 20, 2015, 20:18 »
DT is doing well for me. So far November there is on a pace to be down about 11% from 2014. But that is pretty good because:
1. I stopped doing new images over a year ago
2. All of the other sites, except Fotolia, are down more than DT
DT remains in the Top Tier for me.
44
« on: November 05, 2015, 17:33 »
I'm no statistician, the 2 college statistics courses I took were many years ago, but it is interesting to see some of the thoughts here about SS's numbers for the quarter. "Image collection expanded 49%". In one quarter!!?? That was a shock to me. In simple terms, it looks like you would have to increase your port by 49% every three months just to keep keep up. So if you start out 2016 with 1000 images you will need to add 3000 during the year just to stay even with SS's increase in its image collection. Ouch 
45
« on: October 30, 2015, 21:08 »
I am experiencing a bump in sales at FT. Sales had been going down gradually since I no longer submit new images. However October sales are up about 25% over September.
47
« on: October 28, 2015, 19:32 »
Pakistan and other similar thief country = Planet of apes. Intelligent people not buying pictures from this warez sites. If you buy one pictures, you got a beautiful keylogger, and they stealing your all password. This warez sites picked up the scattered coins off the ground, just like images spammers.
Dont worry, this country: Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and others killing himself soon
The scary thing is that not only does Iran now have a lot of our stock images, they will soon have a lot of nuclear weapons, thanks to the recently passed agreement. 
48
« on: October 26, 2015, 19:37 »
IMO just ignore istock's idiotic rejections. If they are as senseless as they used to be (I quit submitting there years ago because I got tired of putting up with their idiocy) it will do you no good to try to figure out their actions. Spend your time and energy making good images. They will be accepted elsewhere.
49
« on: October 04, 2015, 18:45 »
I still get sales there. Got one today. 
50
« on: September 02, 2015, 19:59 »
I got the email. I'm not doing new stock images any more, but I am buying some. So I went to Fotolia site to take advantage of the sale today, but could find no sign of it or any promotion for it. Is it available to all customers? 
The sale is at Adobe Stock, not Fotolia
https://stock.adobe.com/plans
Thanks!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 37
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
