|
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 - NancyCWalker
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15
251
« on: July 03, 2009, 20:50 »
Twitter http://twitter.com/ncphoto Twibe http://twibes.com/nancycatherineWhen I post on my twibe it mirrors to my tweeter and my facebook. I'm still trying to figure out how to also forward the tweets to my Facebook Page. I usually only post business related stuff as my tweets are also published on my website.
252
« on: July 02, 2009, 21:44 »
They just announced an "all in" button. In your contributor panel you can select "all in" once you click on the "Partner Program" checkbox. If the box is not checked you won't see the option. It will only opt in anything older than 18 months with less than 5 sales, so newer images or images with more sales will still have to be added by hand.
253
« on: June 01, 2009, 10:46 »
You won't know if it works for you or not until you try. When I went exclusive on IS my sales tanked. There were months where I made less then I had as a non-exclusive only uploading to IS in preparation for exclusivity. My sales never recovered and I eventually left.
254
« on: May 28, 2009, 05:57 »
This would make sense except for the fact that StockXpert is owned by Getty. And on top of that their management seems to be in a shambles.
I doubt StockXpert are in any position to decide what they are or are not involved in.
OK here's the plan. Since so many people like StockXpert and would like to have it be free of Getty, and allegations of unreported subs, plus many people want to be represented and get a fair cut of "all those profits". How about we buy StockXpert from Getty and solve all the problems? A microstock site run by the people who supply the photos.
Up the revolution! Stop complaining and take possession of your own work instead of having other people pay peanuts. I have a feeling this idea will be followed by silence and reasons why it won't happen.
There is one stock group that is run like this. A co-op of stock shooters own it. However none of us qualify to get in, they won't deal with anyone who has images or any affiliation with the micros.
255
« on: May 27, 2009, 09:50 »
Has anyone considered that StockXpert may be the one pulling out of JIU/Photos.com? Leaving Getty with an immediate need to get new content for the site before the final deadline?
Think about it. How many threads have there been about JIU payment posting issues? Or the numerous threads about how Jupiter just "forgets" to pay contributors? How many about TOS violations not being resolved? If StockXpert wasn't pulling out of JIU/Photos.com then wouldn't they be pissed off about the new marketing phrase "powered by istockphoto"?
That would seem like a slap in the face to anyone with images on those sites that isn't posting through IS.
It becomes the perfect way for Getty to solve 2 issues. StockXpert stops complaining about reporting and payment issues, and IS has a way to cut payments down once buyers figure out that they can get all their IS images for a cheaper price.
256
« on: May 19, 2009, 21:19 »
This has nothing to do with RedBubble's agreement and everything to do with a lack of communication between the staff. It was made very clear when exclusivity was started that only RF sales are affected. You may not license as RF. If you want to use them on Zazzle, Cafe Press, RedBubble, sell prints from your website or license them as RM you are free to do so.
This application was probably denied by the same guy who denied the guy a month or so back because he had RM images on Alamy. She needs to call headquarters and ask what's going on. The phone support seems to have more of a clue than the email support.
257
« on: May 08, 2009, 06:54 »
Hey, if someone took CRAPSTOCK, it wasn't me.  I wanted my name to match my photo quality...
Be nice or I'll come back as Boy Wonder or Alfred The Butler. No wait... (evil laugh) The Riddler!
On Topic: I'm not going to read 125 PAGES of redundant messages and the log jam is getting pretty big here too. I thought it said, dollar photos, things that hadn't sold in two years and some other things, but finding the message is too much work.
I like SS and I'm all for sales from StockXpert on the sub sites and if IS decides to take the old and smaller images and dump them into the subscription market, it doesn't bother me any. I suspect there will be some conditions for a photo to make the non-exclusive agencies.
I really can't understand a site that has great exclusive photos and photographers, suddenly opening up all those exclusive photos to 30c downloads on subscription sites. There has to be something more to the details and conditions. Otherwise it's like blowing up the whole exclusive content conditions and becoming like all the rest of the sites.
The eligibility of files is in flux right now. For a while it was automatic all files, then it was dollar bin and images over 18 months with less than 5 downloads and the option to send others images. There is also discussion about removing images that are sent to JIU/photos.com from the IS collection (like the Getty contract you can do one or the other can't have the same photo on both). They have also reactivated all of the old dollar bin images and are considering sending just those. The bottom line is that no one knows for sure what the image requirements will be because HQ is reviewing their plan after the unexpected reaction of contributors. There are also several theories on why to send IS's images to other Getty owned sites. Theory 1) it's the beginning of the end. If you can't beat them, buy them and dismantle them so they are not a threat. 2) Photos.com and JIU are not as successful and profitable for Getty so they want to try to use what IS has to boost profitability of its other holdings. 3) No one really knows what they are doing and they are making it all up as they go along. 4) Some one really believed that offering the same content at a lower price on another site would increase exposure for IS exclusives without cannibalizing existing sales at IS. Again we will never really know what the motivation or reason behind this was. Just for the record I'm saying if I do or don't believe any of these theories. These are just what I've read over the course of several threads and forums on this topic.
258
« on: May 07, 2009, 14:00 »
I'll have to go back and look for that update. One of my biggest pet peeves has always been that the only place to get info is some obscure post in the middle of a 27 page thread.
259
« on: May 07, 2009, 09:28 »
In one of the threads on IS they state that non-exclusives will get 20% and exclusives will get 22.5% of the monthly payment as it is used daily. Canister rank will play no part in the payment.
Kelly posted
Minimum payouts: keep in mind these only happen if someone was to use their entire download allotment in a day.
It also varies depending on the package purchased. So the answer to that question is:
3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 21, 39, or 72 at the 20% payment level.
The sticky Q&A states
As Kelly mentioned, royalties will be calculated and paid monthly. The royalty rate will be 20% for non-exclusives, and 22.5% for exclusives. The royalty paid will be 20% or 22.5% of the value of each download, which in turn is calculated by dividing the monthly value of the subscription by the number of downloads in that subscription that month (much like is currently done on iStock subscriptions, but monthly instead of daily). Were projecting the average royalty payout to be 30 55a significant upside to similar competitive subscriptions.
260
« on: May 07, 2009, 09:16 »
Aside from the concerns already listed I'm also wondering how enforcement will work. Who would I report a TOS violation to? Will photos.com and Jupiter modify their TOS to match IS's?
Jupiter allows for up to 10 people to use a single license, and for the images to be shared via a network for this purpose.
Photos.com allows for only a single seat license.
In addition to that Jupiter allows for images to be used in resale items. There is no mention of an EL being required. From the Jupiter website.
(III) Use the Image(s) on product packaging or in any items for personal use or resale, including book covers, calendars, consumer merchandise (T-shirts, posters, art, etc.), except in computer software and electronic video and computer games, which require a separate license (see Section F(IX) below), provided such use is not intended to allow the re-distribution, re-use of the Image(s) or access to the Image(s) apart from a product or service apart from a product or service.
261
« on: May 01, 2009, 20:07 »
They were sent via Linkedin directly to Adam. March 23 and March 26.
262
« on: May 01, 2009, 04:48 »
Hey Azurelaroux... noticed the same thing, but they aren't available to the public. Through the marketplace they are and after emailing them today, there is are new watermarks applied to the images and the right click options have been removed. Good start.
I quite like the site, the people behind it and their vision for the future. Sure it'll take some working, but they've only been "live" for a week. I've written to them twice and have had immediate responses.. even had the CEO ring me overseas to chat. Try that on any other site.
We all talk about how poor the sites generally are, how bad the market is and how to do it better! I said in a thread late last year that people should stop bitching.. and put their money where their mouths are.
Look at the list to the right of this post... seriously, draw a line under BigStockPhoto.. from there down, is there anyone that you really want to support? Personally...I'm tired.
I'm taking my bat and ball somewhere I'd like to play. If you don't want to come, cool. If you have something constructive (not destructive) to say... throw it to these guys as they seem willing to listen and learn.
Ok.. start the bagging now!
Cheers, JC
Yes they are. When I uploaded my images for review I then went to members - found my name - clicked on the images that were pending review - and got the unwatermarked image in the flickr style page. You can still click on members and click on their images, I just don't know if they are pending for stock or if the contributor was intentionally uploading to the flickr side. During the Beta I wrote several critiques of different parts of the site. Not once did I receive an email in return. Even when I asked a question it went completely unanswered. Personally I'll stick with companies that have an established buyer base or who I think are truly unique in their approach. But whatever works for you.
263
« on: April 30, 2009, 14:46 »
When I beta tested the site I discovered that all of my images were automatically placed on the Flickr style part of the site while they waited to be reviewed. As stock images I was uploading full size images not realizing that they would be made available to the public in this manner. Is this still part of the process?
264
« on: April 22, 2009, 08:00 »
It's a physical CD that is sent to the buyer with the images they licensed on it.
265
« on: April 18, 2009, 15:23 »
I can't answer for Lisa but I don't see why this is a surprise. There are so many variables involved. If the clients purchase larger packages of credits then they spend less per credit and you get less money. If they purchase alot of smaller sizes then they spend less credits and you get less money. Add frequency of sales and you get something else all together.
My average for YTD is 99 cents with IS. Last year (Jan - Dec) was $1.36.
266
« on: April 18, 2009, 15:16 »
Results are extremely accurate. Downloads are flowing. What more can be asked?
This depends on what keywords you use. If you do a search for wigwam you only get 7 wigwams out of 55 results for the word. On a good note at least "boy reading" no longer has an image of 2 women in a kitchen talking with an out of focus adult male in the background with a book on the first page of that search.
267
« on: April 18, 2009, 14:59 »
IS pays 20% of what the buyer paid for the credit. The largest package makes each credit 96 cents per credit. It was promised to contributors when they introduced subs that this was the lowest that the credit price would ever go. So a 1 credit image paid for with the largest credit package will net you 19 cents per download.
I have no idea where the 10 cents comes from. Payments that low should have all been phased out by now since credits have a 1 year life span.
268
« on: April 18, 2009, 14:52 »
I uploaded today using FTP and they all went through fine. It took the last 3 images (7 in total) about twice as long to appear as the others.
269
« on: April 06, 2009, 17:54 »
One site I just found out about requires that you upload your initial 10 review images to their Flickr style site where they can be downloaded for free until they are approved.
Ridiculous. What site is that?
The site that was announced on Linkedin. They are trying to make a merge of Flickr and the micros. They asked me to participate in the Beta. I did until I discovered that interesting issue. I can't remember the name of it right now.
270
« on: April 06, 2009, 13:03 »
All of the site have their own quirks. DT has always been the 6 month lock in. Another site has a 3 month lock in. A third site will only pay 20% regardless of your status as a contributor. One site I just found out about requires that you upload your initial 10 review images to their Flickr style site where they can be downloaded for free until they are approved.
You have to read the TOS and figure out what you want. If you want to be exclusive with IS then your easiest option is to suffer through the 20% only income for the first 6 months to a year until you qualify for exclusive. If you sign up with anyone else in the hopes of making more before you hit exclusive you will run into issues.
Every site TOS states that if you leave before the payout amount is reached then you forfeit that money.
271
« on: March 27, 2009, 10:26 »
CE stands for Compliance Enforcement. It's usually referenced when you report a violation of the TOS or find watermarked IS images on the web.
272
« on: March 26, 2009, 10:30 »
It's not an announcement in the way that you are thinking of them. Like Bruce posting that he's leaving. This is more like the way that most of us get our information. An IS contributor tried to become exclusive and was denied because he has RM images on Alamy. He posted the situation to the Yahoo group and Leaf has already quoted what the contributor was told by IS as the reason why he was denied.
Craig - this was brought up in the Yahoo thread. The answer given by IS was doesn't matter. If you have images on Alamy you can't be exclusive.
273
« on: March 26, 2009, 06:55 »
Exclusivity used to just apply to RF images. You could have RM images with Alamy and still be able to be exclusive. In another forum it has now been announced that this is no longer the case. If you have any images at Alamy you will not be eligible for exclusivity.
The original thread can be found on in the micropayment yahoo group.
274
« on: March 26, 2009, 06:48 »
If you change things using a third party program like Deepmeta then it can reset your subscription and extended license settings. It's happened to me a few times.
275
« on: March 18, 2009, 15:49 »
If I remember correctly SS requires that the photocopy be mailed in. That would eliminate the "upload" and "online" hacking worries. Particularly if you did a simple background check based on the ID and then stored the paper file, not putting excess info into the database. If memory serves me I had to mail it in with a contributor document that had to be signed. Or was that IS?
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
