|
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 - yingyang0
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 30
251
« on: March 04, 2008, 19:40 »
On the other hand, there are lots of images that would require a release and they have not (even nudes), all sold as editorial.
I'm curious what kind of editorial usage nudes could be used for?
252
« on: March 04, 2008, 19:38 »
I believe you are comparing apples to oranges here. The commission a few years ago on a small was indeed .20 for non-exclusive, and now it is about .60-.70.
I'm not sure I'm comparing apples to oranges. The commission for a small has indeed gone up exclusive or not, No? Now, comparing the commission on an x-small to a small, that is more like comparing apples to oranges. Did you contact IS about getting .16? From what I've seen the worst possible commission you can receive is .97x.2= $0.19 I'm not a fan of the sale either.
253
« on: March 04, 2008, 00:23 »
signing the contract did not imply that I should be dancing cheek to cheek with iStock to the rest of my microstok [sic] life. I may disagree with them, may I ?
You joined six months ago, hardly a lifetime (even in "microstock years"). It is fine to disagree with them, but I found it weird that you were complaining about a few .20 commissions when you're also on at least one other site where they are all .25-.30 commissions.
254
« on: March 03, 2008, 19:36 »
Today i had 4 XSmall sells and the result is less than $1. that is where 20% shows its unfairness.
Since you're new to istock I'm sure that you'd be surprised that x-small is a new thing. Before "small" was the smallest and the commission was $0.20 on a small sale in 2006. Now it's 2008 and a small sale has a commission of about $1.06. What bugs me is when people enter into a contract knowing what they're agreeing too and then turn around and complain about the terms. P.S. I'm not a blind loyalist. I'm pretty upset about the spring sale price drop that came out of no where. I also don't like the dramatic shifts in best match that happen monthly.
255
« on: February 25, 2008, 20:31 »
Recently the best match search seems to be giving a huge advantage to exclusives.
I'm exclusive and my downloads have gone down drastically this month (down 60% over last month)! It always amazes me how much people are willing to extrapolate their own experience to the general population. You can't draw general conclusions from anecdotal evidence (well I guess you can but you shouldn't). I'm not saying that exclusivity doesn't play a part in the best match, because it probably does, but I very much doubt has a significant effect.
256
« on: February 25, 2008, 20:07 »
Actually Getty has a phenomenal return on invested capital.
And if you take iStock as an example, they have more sales per image on a larger portfolio with higher prices each year and on the operational side they have economies of scale.
You can be sure that iStock is worth a lot more than the 50 million that was paid for it. On a 10X sales multiple one could see IS being worth $250 million today and thats only a small part of Gettys business.
Getty has a ROI of 8.09%, a ROE of 9.41%, both are well below the industry average (half). Not to mention its EPS is -7.34%. Istock is the only bright spot in an otherwise poorly performing company, and unfortunately iStock is a very small part of Getty. I don't think the firm will just sit on Getty, waiting for a better market. They will have to do something. The stock industry has gone from a duopoly, with monopoly pricing power, to a open market and Getty hasn't really adjusted. What they'll do, I'm not sure, but it will be interesting to watch.
257
« on: February 25, 2008, 19:48 »
I would suggest allowing an opt-in option (as opposed to an opt-in option). This way, those that are interested could opt-in if they are interested.
I think he means it's better to offer an opt-in option, rather than a default opt-in and optional opt-out. I'm generally a fan of more options. Why not let people opt-in/opt-out? It's just one more variable in your contributor data table, and a little more programming. More importantly, you should offer more and different extended licenses. For instance at iStock the extended licenses are for unlimited usages. However, capturing consumer surplus using price discrimination should be a obvious thing to the people setting prices and deciding sales options. Instead of offering one unlimited reproduction license there should be the option to buy, say an extra 500,000 prints, at a time. Or a per-seat license, instead of an unlimited user multi-seat license like iStock has (this one actually made me think about opting out). Whoever the genius at iStock that though a fixed flat rate system was a good idea should have a negative bonus this year. Simplicity should not be valued over the bottom line.
258
« on: February 22, 2008, 17:12 »
But when the server monsters jump and down on your basket...
You have no eggs.
Good stuff. 
259
« on: February 20, 2008, 19:45 »
There was a recent posting here about this (easy to find with quick search). No it doesn't do it better than photoshop. When I submitted images using fluid mask most of them were rejected because of poor isolation from fluid mask.
260
« on: February 20, 2008, 19:43 »
yeah - there I can see 2 downloadas - 0.23 and 2.30$ 
so tomorow those 2 counters will synchronize?
Yep. I think they synchronize every 12 hours now, but for sure they do it early in the morning (Canadian/US morning).
261
« on: February 19, 2008, 18:32 »
I will let it die now.
Bump Charity is an important topic.
262
« on: February 19, 2008, 18:30 »
The problem is the US court system which just allows crazy damages for anything...
For one thing, what does the US legal system have to do with a company where the governing law is Canandian? Also, the McDonlads spill was not due to our court system, it was because of a stupid jury. The verdict was overturned on appeal. As for medical malpractice, health care costs have very little to do with medical malpractice suits (despite what Bush and the far right-winger are telling you). It has very much to do with the lack of health care insurance here in the US. And the "doctors make mistakes, so you should you should assume the risk" argument doesn't fly. How do you assume a risk when you don't know what the risk actually is? Am I to assume that the doctor was drinking the night before? Am I to assume the doctor will leave a surgical instrument in me? As an attorney it dives me nuts when I hear Bush rant about tort reform, caps on punitive damages, and medical malpractice. Why, well because attorneys have to pay malpractice insurance too. Why should I have to pay premiums (that are nearly as much as the avg. medical) and not the doctors? If I make an avoidable mistake I should be liable for the money I cost my client. If a doctor makes an avoidable mistake they should be liable for the loss of life! I'd suggest reading Grisham's new book "The Appeal" for a very real look at the tort system today in the US. And now back to the actual conversation about Canadian Copyright/Trademark law.
263
« on: February 19, 2008, 00:32 »
my point being though, that if you think the high interest rates are unfair to the people - you CAN find loaners who have low 'western world' type rates. There was another couple registrations here today, and the most reason loan funded was this one
http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses&action=about&id=35990
provided by these people
http://www.kiva.org/about/aboutPartner?id=9
only 11%... I would say that is not bad at all. That is better than a lot of car loans or other short term type loans available.
You do know that you already responded to my post right? (See posting Feb. 15, 10:34:26 AM) And no, 11% isn't bad at all. However my posting was about kiva in general and the average interest rate.
264
« on: February 15, 2008, 16:43 »
but the photographer gets $1.3 x 20% = US$.26
I remember statements that the photographer gets 20% of the actual cost of a credit, not 20% of the costs in US$. That was mentioned during the short "let's screw Brits a bit" phase at the beginning of the year when photog got incredible large royalties from those British and European buyers ...
ok, so if someone pays the US$1.505 per credit, I will still get 20% so US$.30 
Yep.
265
« on: February 15, 2008, 16:42 »
I think - again I will be doing my taxes shortly - if you do not generate a profit a minimum number of years than you will have to depreciate over the 7 years. If you are profitable than you can either choose the 100% first year or 7 year time period. If you do not opperate profitable sufficiently and you did claim the 100% depreciation you might be in for a pay back to the Government.
This answer is why you don't ask tax advise in a forum. If you're a US citizen and don't know what I'm talking about when I say 162 requirements, or the class life of property that needs to be capitalized and depreciated, then you shouldn't be trying to deduct your photography expenses. The only advise you should listen to is advise that has been paid for. Go hire an accountant/tax professional (H&R block and the like are not what you're looking for when you're claiming this as a business).
266
« on: February 15, 2008, 13:28 »
You may have no idea how bank interests are high in the 3rd world. Here in Brazil, even with the low inflation rate we currently have, it may cost 7% a month. That's what my bank charges me (a client for over 20 years with investment funds) if my balance goes negative. Gladly it never does.  Now imagine someone who doesn't have a regular income.
That's an overdraft charge, which is typically the highest rate a bank charges other than on credit cards (though that one is pretty high if it's truly 7% a month rather 7% APR that is compound monthly). Overdraft charges aren't a typical loan like the ones kiva is giving. Yes I'm familiar with what banks charge in "3rd world" countries (I don't consider Brazil to be 3rd world anymore), my grandfather is a banker in Uruguay. It is good to make an informed decision. I have a feeling we are going to disagree in the end, but it is nice to hear both sides.
I completely agree. Though it's not the only option. My favorite microloan setup are the ones that act like credit unions. They pool money (typically from people in a local block or village) and lend it out at reasonable rates. It's not just a choice between no money and a loan shark, the other options just take more effort on the part of the people. Anyway it is nice to see people trying to make a difference.
267
« on: February 15, 2008, 10:16 »
check out this Field Partner
http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=about&action=aboutPartner&id=13
They are only taking 3% interest whereas the Average Local Money Lender Interest Rate is 125%
Also, check out this thread for some good info on interest rates
http://www.kivafriends.org/index.php/topic,368.0.html
Not to "rain on the parade" but when looking at that particular field partner you'll see that the average kiva loan is 22% and the avg. local money lender rate is 82%. That does look impressive, except that when they refer to "local money lender rate" they mean loan sharks, not banking institutions. The argument that "look we're cheaper than the local loan sharks" doesn't fly with me. They should be comparable with local banking rates, not local loan sharks because their cost of money is zero. As for the origination costs, they're way offbase if they're saying (as they do in the thread you pointed to) that origination costs would be $50 on a $500 loan. You picked one foundation that has made a total of 3 loans and has no currently on going loans. It may be just me but I'd much rather donate to the individual organizations rather than go through kiva where they take money off the top for their costs.
268
« on: February 14, 2008, 22:27 »
I remember statements that the photographer gets 20% of the actual cost of a credit, not 20% of the costs in US$. That was mentioned during the short "let's screw Brits a bit" phase at the beginning of the year when photog got incredible large royalties from those British and European buyers ...
Yep, the photographer gets their fair share of the premium. Rustyphil is mistaken. The royality percentage stays the same, 20%.
269
« on: February 14, 2008, 21:59 »
You don't get an interest, you only receive your money back (most of the cases in monthly payments).
Then I'll just stick with donating money. I've never liked what most of the micro loan groups do because of the loan shark interest rates they charge for the loans (25-36%). After reading Kiva's "about Microfinance" page I'd be vary hesitant to lend through them. If you read question 6 "Why are microcredit interest rates so high?" They claim that there are three types of costs, yet the two don't exist for them. For kiva there is no cost for the money it lends (you're lending at a 0% interest rate to them) yet their example uses 10%. They also use a 1% default risk premium, yet I don't think they pay the lenders (you) if the borrower defaults so that's not an actual cost. Really the only fees they should be charging are related to transaction costs and shouldn't amount to 36% interest on the loans. Just my opinion, but you'd be doing much more good by lending through a site like prosper.com if you want to lend money to people. At Prosper the lenders compete for borrowers and actually lower the interest rate for the borrowers. Or if you're in the mood to donate rather than lend, but still like the microcredit idea you could donate to groups like villagebanking.org They actually setup microloan banks that make loans at reasonable rates in poorer countries. They also have low program expenses, which puts more of the money where it belongs.
270
« on: February 14, 2008, 21:26 »
I like it. I would change a few things, though. The navigation menu at the bottom of the contents.html page would look nicer with actual buttons rather than just text like "<Portraiture>". I'd also try for more uniformity in format/ style between pages. The Stock Video page doesn't look as professional as the other pages, mainly do to the use of simplistic tables. And finally, the text on the sports page is a little to light gray making it harder to read, I'd darken it.
Besides those few small critiques, I like the overall feel. Good job.
271
« on: February 14, 2008, 21:04 »
The website doesn't say what interest rate you earn on the loans. Can anyone fill me in?
272
« on: February 14, 2008, 01:09 »
Oh of course, frames are a must for Flickr though IMO, if you don't put watermarks on the images themselves. According to copyright law, your name on a digital frame is no different than a copyright on the image itself, and the harshest penalties are levied upon those that remove copyrights from images. Plus every time somebody blogs your images without citation (quite an often occurrence), it is on the frame anyway.
Please, before talking about copyright law, learn the law. The harshest penalties are for those that violate copyrights that have, infact, been filed. That being said, submit that image to any microstock you wish. All of them would admit it (minus the frame).
273
« on: February 14, 2008, 01:04 »
yingyang0,
That's good advice but everything, including the agreement, on the site is in English except the part where they tell what they don't like about the image, and sometimes that is in English too.
You're right, but the governing law in the photographer's agreement is German. Sorry, but as a US citizen, German law is so socialist that I wouldn't want anything to do with a company that wants to claim German law governs. P.S. I'm so far democrat that many of my coworkers call me the "commie".
274
« on: February 14, 2008, 00:55 »
The best camera that I have seen justified, economically, has been the 5D (canon). The 1D isn't economically in the microstock setting (not to mention crazy headliners that buy "H' backed digital cameras). At present, the best microstock camera is the 5D Canon.
Remember that the most important choice is the lens quality, not the body. Canon has the best overall quality and quantity of lenses.
275
« on: February 14, 2008, 00:47 »
And yet, their initial "f-you" posting should bring hesitation to anyone. If they offered RM licenses then I would consider since at least 1 of the top execs. knows "P.C." communications.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 30
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
