|
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 - dirkr
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 56
251
« on: September 10, 2015, 16:53 »
You cannot go to a stock photo agency, buy a photo, then put it up on your own stock photo website and resell. No. Generally that is called redistribution.
You can go to Dreamstime and do just that.
No, I don't think so. From their page ( http://www.dreamstime.com/about-stock-image-licenses): "Sell the Rights (SR-EL) - this license represents a full ownership of the downloaded image. The buyer can use it exclusively (exclusivity applies from the moment that the file was downloaded using this license), and include it in any type of design with just a few restrictions: sensitive subjects may still apply and the buyer may not claim that the file was created by him nor resell it as a photo. The agency will disable the image immediately after the buyer acquired this license. The photographer is required to disable the file permanently from all other places where he may sell it, as soon as possible after the sale occurred, but no longer than 72 hours. The photographer acknowledge and agrees to provide the buyer with full ownership for the file retrieved using the SR-EL license." I don't know if that also means you can't use the licensed image as source material in some kind of photoshop work and then re-sell that work, haven't looked into the license terms exactly.
252
« on: September 10, 2015, 09:08 »
Wouldn't it be more accurate if the poll did not ask for total revenue, but rather for RPI per month? That would include portfolio size in the answer and probably show a more realistic picture.
253
« on: September 09, 2015, 14:14 »
254
« on: September 09, 2015, 03:10 »
I think that last policy change is the closest they will get to admitting their review process is broken.
Now they allow to resubmit (even without changes) and essentially re-try as often as we want. Until we are met by a reviewer who lets the image pass...
255
« on: August 26, 2015, 09:48 »
Am I wrong or doesn't DepositPhotos still pay a higher percentage than SS or Adobe and charge more per download? Seems to me like that's the reason they are changing.
You are missing IS in your list, they pay the lowest royalty rates.
I thought most people here stopped supporting them a while ago. But if you are still supporting them then you can add iS to the list, if you accept lower rates other places why get mad about this. It's still better than those sites isn't it.
The idea that you would drop a site that pays a higher royalty rate than another because of the royalty rate seems a bit strange to me. Shouldn't the site you drop be the one paying the lower royalty rate?
I stopped uploading to DP long ago due to low sales. Now lowering rates is not improving the situation. So I am considering dropping them. I accept lower percentages at some sites (including the obvious examples FT and SS) because the make it up with a lot higher volume. I don't like their percentages, but I accept them. At some sites paying low percentages (123RF, Bigstock) I stopped uploading. Still undecided what to do with them. I used to accept even the lowest percentage in the industry (IS, when they paid a flat 20%), but after they thought it was a good idea to go even lower I dropped them. For me it's always a case by case decision, some sites do get away with paying lower percentages than others.
256
« on: August 26, 2015, 09:26 »
Am I wrong or doesn't DepositPhotos still pay a higher percentage than SS or Adobe and charge more per download? Seems to me like that's the reason they are changing.
You are missing IS in your list, they pay the lowest royalty rates.
257
« on: August 26, 2015, 08:42 »
time to drop them...
258
« on: July 29, 2015, 02:18 »
They've had SODs now they are calling them Custom Images, that's new isn't it?
Yes, looks like they changed the wording. Numbers did not change though.
259
« on: July 25, 2015, 13:17 »
Don't know when they introduced it, but it's not new, has been there for quite some time...
260
« on: July 23, 2015, 08:10 »
Try looking at more than one page, I looked at aprox 30/40 pages and picked the lowest quality content and quality from each page.
So you're saying the lowest quality new submissions do come from new contributors? That's not really a surprise. And does not prove anything else.
261
« on: July 23, 2015, 07:01 »
I wonder how new photographers are able to get into SS with such high rejection rates. It's extremely hard to get 7/10 images approved these days.
I think its because they want newbie content because they pay less commission.
Lets take a look at the new content coming in these days using the commonly used keyword food. www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=food&sort_method=newest&page=1
As you can see the shutterstock reviewers are consistently letting in plenty of LCV images with questionable content and quality. I opened around 30 of these new images and then navigated to the photographers portfolios. Without exception they were all new contributors who had started submitting in 2015.
Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.
Just out of curiosity, I clicked on the link you provided, looked randomly at around 10 different portfolios (I clicked on some more images, but several were from the same contributor). Out of these portfolios one was from 2015, one from 2014, the others from 2008 - 2012. Some of them with 10.000 - 40.000 images. Not exactly the same as you experienced. I do have the same issues with inconsistent and strange rejections lately, so I fully agree there is something wrong with the review process. But I don't believe the explanation is so simple (that strange rejections are only an issue for established portfolios and that they are only done to promote "cheaper" content). I think it's rather an issue of Shutterstock not training and controlling their reviewers good enough - because that would cost money and they don't believe they lose too much by not investing that money.
262
« on: July 17, 2015, 09:18 »
still doesn't work for me...
263
« on: July 14, 2015, 09:12 »
Thanks, just logged in to see that same message in my GL account.
Got some backlog to upload to them....
264
« on: July 12, 2015, 13:13 »
Here's actual numbers: $2700-$4900+/month or $0(literally)/month
I just checked and those are the actual figures for my top 500 and bottom 500 earning images this year
So you have 500 images that together produce more than $2700 each month? Congrats, that's impressive.
266
« on: July 07, 2015, 14:22 »
I just spent a little time re-reading some of the stuff written in late 2012/early 2013 in the iStock forums about the Google Drive deal - the forums are now all an "archive", and I assume will shortly go away as they move to the Getty contributor community. It's a shame in a way, but might as well bury the dead body - it's not coming back to life.
I was re-reading to be sure I wasn't mis-remembering events. Getty was unwilling then to give an opt out to contributors from any deals they came up with and they clearly stated they planned to continue making deals. They didn't communicate the Google Drive deal up front either (not even to iStock management, apparently).
Two and a half years later, they're continuing down the path they clearly said they were going to take. It beggars belief that between Mr. Klein, Hellman & Friedman and the Carlyle Group, they've damaged iStock (and Getty Images) as badly as they have, but at what point do contributors who keep hoping something will be different or better decide that they have to write Getty off as a business partner?
Keep selling there if that makes sense to you, but be aware of Getty/iStock's history - none of this current idiocy on their part is surprising in light of their (many) previous idiocies. If anything, Getty seems to be doubling down on a failed strategy hoping to reverse the downturn in their fortunes.
Lots of sites have these deals. Shutterstock allows POD where the product (the image) can sell for over $400 and the contributor gets 1-4 dollars, maybe less? They say the minimum cost for the seller is $2.99 but there are products for sale at 99 cents, something fishy is going on there I would guess. You'll probably have to stop contributing to all sites if you want to avoid those kinds of deals.
It is sad to see that a large number of contributors have pinned their hopes on shutterstock when SSTK is quietly going down the same path. Blinders on denial is costly.
If ever there was a time to take a stand with the scumbag deals all of the micro agencies are scheming up, the day is now.
I deleted my port at IS in support of my fellows, not sorry that I did.
That's the only way things will change. There's a lot of talk in here about buyers being trained to think images should be free (even if they are only able to be legally used on a noncommercial site and would be a pain to steal) but only positive things to say about the Facebook deal that makes images free to actual buyers. Yes you get paid for the use (a commercial use) but the issue that seems to be brought up here is that buyers will think they are free. Headlines like this are seen as great news: "Facebook Partners With Shutterstock to Offer 25 Million FREE Stock Photos to Advertisers" strange times indeed.
I agree. Removing the portfolio from IS is the only way to fight the worst deal in the industry. I did so when they told us that keeping 80% to themselves was "unsustainable" so they had to lower our rates.
267
« on: July 07, 2015, 09:26 »
According to the poll the average would be about 3 or 4 dollars per month.
How do you arrive at that result?
@Op: I don't think there is any relevant number available simply based on the number of files. Depending on topic, style, quality, keywording and luck (or lack of) the results can vary a lot.
Average port is about 3500, average monthly income is $25. So for 500 images the average income would be $25/7 or $3.57 per month.
The average port size you take from the yearly survey ( http://blog.microstockgroup.com/2014-microstock-industry-survey-first-look/)? Where do you get the monthly income from? (Genuine interest, I always regard the poll numbers as a way to compare relative earnings potential across agencies, never tried to derive any monthly earnings figures). If I take the survey as well, the average yearly income was $17.000, so roughly $5 per image / per year (across all agencies), so that would result in $2500 per year or $200 per month. Again, total across all agencies. As the op says "My plan is to upload these to all major stock photos websites" I think it's misleading that the thread is in the Bigstock board...
268
« on: July 07, 2015, 09:10 »
According to the poll the average would be about 3 or 4 dollars per month.
How do you arrive at that result? @Op: I don't think there is any relevant number available simply based on the number of files. Depending on topic, style, quality, keywording and luck (or lack of) the results can vary a lot.
269
« on: July 06, 2015, 10:44 »
Solliman says his work if from 2008
the other files he supposedly copied were uploaded 2009 / 2010.
Or am I missing something now?
Maybe the other sentence where he fully admits what he was doing (and claims pure ignorance as an accuse): "first of all i want to say sorry to you all and all authors that i have copied there work  but i want you to know that i didn't read terms and conditions carefully" If he started doing that in 2008 that does say nothing about what he did in 2009 / 2010 and later... While I'm not personally affected (only photos for me) I have not much sympathy for such behavior.
270
« on: July 02, 2015, 14:04 »
How will someone repay a loan he took in euros to invest in a small apartments to rent tourism company when he has to repay in drachmas? Impossible.
[sarcasm] Ask the greek government. They seem to think that repaying loans is optional. Maybe they have a solution. [/sarcasm] I believe leaving the Euro will be a lot harder for most of the people in Greece than staying in the Eurozone - even if the latter means unpopular reforms in the short run.
271
« on: July 02, 2015, 10:24 »
Fotolia file number of 27 million means it was uploaded around November 2010 to FT (so yes, the Istock version was uploaded earlier).
272
« on: July 01, 2015, 09:46 »
There's probably more money in infringement lawsuits than in licensing the images.
Is this your expectation or have you been successful in retrieving money for misuses of your images?
273
« on: June 30, 2015, 17:05 »
No idea where it comes from, but the issue is the word "free" and the missing word "license".
Therefore a better name could be "Comprehensive Rights License" as opposed to "Restricted Rights License" (which could replace RM, though it does not adress the "managing of the rights" part, i.e. the keeping of a usage history to enable the granting of specific exclusivity rights).
274
« on: June 26, 2015, 15:21 »
So for me Adobe is not the first target in the line when fighting against contributor-unfriendly conditions.
They might be the first that's willing to listen?
Good point. I must admit I didn't look at it that way...
275
« on: June 26, 2015, 15:06 »
I finally got at least one of those SODs. Nothing to write home about, but at least I don't feel ignored any more 
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 56
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
