|
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 - MichaelJayFoto
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 27
251
« on: December 04, 2014, 04:29 »
It always took the pages on iStock a day or two to catch up with the data in the background. I also had the same happen when I dropped exclusivity two years ago. But it "fixed itself" within two days or so.
252
« on: December 04, 2014, 04:27 »
I received a reply from support yesterday, apparently they had a technical problem that kept the servers from processing images. It appears to be fixed and the servers are supposed to catch up now.
And this morning I indeed had a bunch (not all yet) of those "processed" images to show up.
253
« on: December 04, 2014, 04:24 »
"Sign up to Stock Performer and see how we can help you make more money. The first month is completely free!"
So, basically, Spam.
So, basically, you are in a market to get paid for your content being used in advertising and promotion but you consider any kind of advertising and promotion as "spam"? Well, smart guy.
254
« on: December 04, 2014, 04:21 »
many others get away with making profits all around the world without paying taxes on those? They only pay taxes to the IRS for profits they actually made within the US.
When Shutterstock announced their quarterly results in November, one of the issues which they specifically talked about was the relatively high level of taxes that they are currently paying despite, they said, 70% of their business being done outside of the US. This is something which investors have commented on previously.
I wondered at the time whether that implied that they were looking at relocating some of the business outside of the US. Or can anyone here think of any other ways in which they could reduce their tax liability whist remaining solely based in the US ?
Yes. And investors at Apple are complaining that the company is sitting on a huge amount of cash they can not bring back into the US because then it would become taxable... Even as a corporation, apparently you can't have it all and make everyone happy. 
255
« on: December 03, 2014, 02:10 »
OK, I get it. They are just selling an overpriced "extended warranty" to go with "the product". The buyer doesn't really get any extra rights to use the photo.
Exactly.
256
« on: December 03, 2014, 01:59 »
I get "extended legal guarantee". What the heck is this? I am starting to hate IS more every day. I'll go check it out.
Thanks, Michael
Simply said: It's an insurance for the buyers. With a standard license, iStock/Getty take over up to $10,000 in legal costs in case the customer gets sued for using an image. The client can extend that insurance up to $250,000. As Getty/iStock are the ones taking those risks all upon themselves, they also keep the money. That's what they decided and told us years ago. As usual we didn't get asked. Shutterstock has a similar limited liability in their terms ($10,000 as well) and as SSTK does not tell us the exact type of license they give away with each of their SOD agreements, we will also never find out if they sell a higher insurance without paying us for it in exchange.
257
« on: December 03, 2014, 01:53 »
As for the rest, you mean they didn't collect taxes before? How did they get away with that for so long? Yes Canada but owned by a USA Corp. How do Apple, Google, Starbucks and many others get away with making profits all around the world without paying taxes on those? They only pay taxes to the IRS for profits they actually made within the US. Does this mean IS images will be sold on Getty as a collection? No. Not soon at least. That would mean that Getty would have to deal directly with a) an active contributor community and b) small and medium customers. They showed enough disdain for both of these groups in the past, so I believe it is unlikely they want to take over those tasks anytime soon. Getty prefers to make business with businesses (corporate media and advertising agencies as customers, other agencies and image factories as producers). They never showed any understanding of this "crowd thing".
258
« on: December 03, 2014, 01:39 »
Tell me they haven't stooped this low. But it appears that they have done just that.
Date (DD/MM/YYYY) License Royalty
02/12/2014 10:34 AM MST Extended $0.00 USD
I sent in a support ticket and am patiently holding my breath waiting for a reply.
If you click on the link behind the "Extended" part, do you get a "Legal Guarantee" type of license? If that is the case, it's no news because ever since introducing that type of license (several years ago) they decided that contributors do not deserve to get a share in it because it's kind of an insurance policy and they take all the risk involved...
259
« on: November 30, 2014, 05:48 »
Roughly 10 million a month, held in a 30 day investment vehicle (for example a Bank of Montreal short term investment certificate) that has a 0.600% rate can earn them $60,000 in a month. For one year that's roughly $720,000 in free money. And if you can invest up to 10mil a month you can get a better rate than that. What that gives Getty is "float", basically making money from other peoples money. It's how Buffett made billions from people's insurance premiums. Obviously you are lacking understanding of how interest rates work. No bank is paying 7.2% annual interest rates at the current market. The 0.6% you are talking about is the annual rate. You would receive 1/12th of that for a single month, equalling $5,000 not the $60k
260
« on: November 29, 2014, 03:14 »
I also agree that any relation to any IPO makes not that much sense. Accounting related the royalties are still due payments, they are not added to their profit margin. And based on the last numbers we know, we are probably talking about $10 millon payouts delayed by a month, given the current interest rates, we are talking about less than $20,000 a month that could be earned in interests.
It is likely that they are going to make more savings from removing the additional acccounting and tax departments they had to keep running in Calgary. And that's what I think is the most important reason for the change.
261
« on: November 28, 2014, 05:21 »
I found one of my images with the copyright attribution "Източник: Thinkstock/Guliver Photos"
I assume one of my agencies filters photos down to TS as I don't submit there. But I don't get the Guliver Photos part. They are an agency in their own right. Is another agency sending photos to Guliver and then Guliver has a port on TS?
Thinkstock is a website belonging to Getty Images; non-exclusive images on iStockphoto are being mirrored to Thinkstock; Guliver Photos is a master delegate of Getty Images in Eastern Europe. Master delegates are distributing Getty's images in countries that are not easy to access from western countries (e.g. Russia, China, India).
262
« on: November 27, 2014, 01:04 »
As much as I resent Getty, I must admit Alamy is much worse in delaying payments.
Out of curiosity, how often do contributors get paid by Stocksy? Every week? Monthly. And I typically have the money in my bank account on the third business day of the followin month.
263
« on: November 26, 2014, 14:27 »
Do you have a quote, I haven't looked too closely to see what the cut off dates are for payments. That was my question originally. I also wasn't saying everyone else does it so it's ok, I was disagreeing that it will take 4 months for payments to be made (as Sean was saying, 3+months and 20 days I think is what he said). I think everyone else doing it is bad for contributors too, maybe some places do it to less of a degree but I still would rather get paid as soon as possible.
Maybe start with the very first point in the FAQ: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364057&page=1
264
« on: November 26, 2014, 14:16 »
I am on Shutterstock, for video and I am waiting for my payment (they are the weakest of the sites I contribute to so I may drop them soon). Still exclusive for photos at iStock. I'm not sure if that is correct either. Your balance changes when the PP and sub sales are counted. They've said if you have $100 in your balance on the 25th then you will get paid. Maybe I'm reading that wrong but it looks like as long as those sales are posted by the 25th you will get paid for them then. If you can find something that contradicts that please post it, I don't think it's been clearly stated one way or the other.
Even if they do pay a month later that's 1 month and 25 days not 3+ months and 20 days like Sean was saying, I'm not sure what he's talking about? If I read the statements made correctly, you are wrong in two aspects (I marked them): First they are accounting until the last day of the month, so you have to reach the $100 before the 30th/31st of a month. This typically will include the GI Sales for the prior month. But the second one is wrong as well as you are assuming that all sales would happen at the last day of a month. But the "average sale" happens at the 15th of a month. With all PP, Image Subscription and GI Sales, those sales are only reported in the following month and paid another month later. A sale* happening on March 15 will be reported and added to your balance in April which the is getting paid out on May 25th. This is 70 days. In comparison, a sale happening on Shutterstock on March 15 will be paid out around April 7, that is 23 days. Getty keeps our money three times longer. In addition to already paying the lowest royalty percentage in the industry (at least in microstock). There is no way you can turn all of this into something like "oh, everyone else is doing it similarly". (* I need to add that if we are talking about GI Sales, there already can be a delay of up to three months from a customer starting to use the image before the sale is being reported as Getty is giving their big customers quarterly invoicing. But that is a different issue and did not change with the upcoming new system)
265
« on: November 26, 2014, 09:29 »
Some agencies will accept a single release, however most will require different releases for each date.
My experience is the reverse: nearly all agencies I work with are satisfied with a single release for each model. The exceptions I know of are iStock (to which I no longer submit) and Canva.
Okay. Maybe I deal with a different set of agencies. Or maybe I'm used to fill out new MR's for each shoot, so I never experienced any rejection for supplying an outdated MR. Mostly because an MR is a contract between the model and the photographer, so I prefer to stay on the safe side myself, independent of what the agencies are asking me to do.
266
« on: November 26, 2014, 09:20 »
From the forum: "from what people are saying other sites do exactly the same as Getty"
I'm not sure what Getty does is something to strive towards.
Isn't this about following tax laws in the United States? I don't see how you can blame Getty for that. Can you explain what they are doing differently than is required by law?
We don't know yet because their email inferred that they would take out taxes. But if they are following the law we do a W8 and get 1099 treatment
We do know, you just have to read the whole announcement and the FAQ in the forums. They will ask you for your tax details like all US based agencies. Fill out the W8 and depending on your country's tax treaties with the US you will either get 0% withholdings or a reduced amount or 30% only on US sales. Just like it is on Getty themselves and most likely all other US based agencies (I only can speak for myself and I get 100% of my royalties due to the German-US treaty).
267
« on: November 26, 2014, 07:17 »
The 25th (or, it sounds to me, even later) is totally unacceptable. It's not just those 18 days in difference. It's also that I nowadays make 60% of my royalties through the PP and Subscription sales, and those are only being reported a month later already. So when I get a subscription download on January 15 next year, Shutterstock will pay out that amount on (or around) February 7 but iStock will most likely pay out the same money only on March 25 (as I don't get to see the sale before early in February). That's about 70 days delay between sale and payment.
268
« on: November 25, 2014, 14:25 »
So besides getting less sales, now I have to pay 30% tax to US...
Why? Your country has no tax treaty with the US?
269
« on: November 25, 2014, 08:56 »
This may be a daft question but, i have several sets of images from various trips to the mountains with my hiking partner, would i be ok to use the same release for each shoot or do i need a different one for each time?
Thanks, Phil
Some agencies will accept a single release, however most will require different releases for each date. I highly recommend electronic apps these days. I use EasyRelease - with a repeating model I only have to enter address data once and it takes me less than a minute to set up a new release for the same person the next time.
270
« on: November 22, 2014, 11:28 »
http://smallbiztrends.com/2014/11/wix-and-bigstock-hi-res-stock-photography.html
the race to the bottom continues
How? Why? $3 for a website use is more than most images are sold for in this market today. And I'd rather see more of these deals as they will address a lot of those users who are typically taking the images they use from Google Images because they are not even aware of stock photography. Any deal with web hosting companies is putting the option to pay for images in front of a lot of people.
271
« on: November 18, 2014, 07:05 »
In Poland I pay 18-32% and I consider it quite a lot. Thinking about moving my business to Malta or Luxembourg  How would that help you? Then you'd have money in a business account in Malta. When you want to use it for your personal living, you'd have to pay you a salary, and you would have to tax it as income in Poland again. You would have to move to pay taxes in a different country. Everything else would be illegal. That's why Apple is sitting on hundreds of billions in cash on some islands - they can't transfer it back to their main company in the US because then it would become taxable.
272
« on: November 16, 2014, 04:02 »
You are not a lawyer Michael, I would be very careful to generally believe you are not liable or safe from harm if you upload content as editorial.
And the biggest problem of a court case are the costs and time involved.
Even if you eventually win the case,you might go bankrupt inbetween, because you cannot afford the running fees.
The question: do you believe anyone could take your material as an incentive to sue you in any way, even if they were in the wrong...then I wouldnt allow my work to be used otherwise.
But I would make that decision very carefully for every individual case.
All true, of course. There always is a risk to get sued. Actually I have heard of cases where photographers, agencies and customers get sued by models despite them having signed a model release... actually I have heard more of those stories than any others. So if I want to avoid any risks, I can't upload images containing people anymore because I could be sued one day? And as I said, I am talking about "editorial only" images specifically. Those where I as a photographer already say by uploading it to an editorial section "there is something risky in this image, use it only where allowed". And we are talking about a scenario here where a customer already says "I know the risks and want to use it for my purposes anyways at my own risk". Yes, I am not a lawyer. Even if I was, anyone would be stupid to act on my advice since not even a lawyer can know about all legal situations in all countries. So I am just saying: I am not worried about people using my editorial images at their own risks for something else. Otherwise I could not upload many images at all because I already have no control about how the customer actually uses my images, do I? I'm not really sure what everybody's problem is... taking pictures of things almost never is a legal problem. It's not illegal to take a photo of an iPhone or a McDonald's restaurant. It's the publication of images that is a problem. And that part is always the buyers' worry and not yours.
Don't you remember that Yuri got sued by a big eye glasses manufacturer for letting his models wear their glasses in (closeup) photos? It wasn't the buyers who bought his images that got sued ...
Can't say how the story ended, as Yuri stopped talking about it after his first post.
Did he upload those images for editorial or for commercial with the typical remark "nothing in it violating the rights of others" that is required by all microstock agencies? I am rather careful about what I upload with a commercial license to microstock as well because in this case I take part of the responsibility by clicking that checkbox. With the latter you are also saying anyone may use these images for his commercial purposes. And that includes competing companies of the manufacturing companies. I can see how this can cause problems. And that is something happening all the time. But typically we don't hear directly about it because a company is sending out "cease and desist" orders to the agencies, Getty usually first. That's when a few months down the road we get an email from iStock saying "we have pulled images containing XXX because we found it contains a legal risk".
273
« on: November 15, 2014, 10:54 »
I'm not really sure what everybody's problem is... taking pictures of things almost never is a legal problem. It's not illegal to take a photo of an iPhone or a McDonald's restaurant. It's the publication of images that is a problem. And that part is always the buyers' worry and not yours.
The only really problematic images would be those that you were not allowed to take in the first place like in locations that require photo permits (start with professional sport stadiums, museums etc.). But those images rarely make it through the microstock inspections anyways because they will ask you for a permit even when you upload them to the editorial sections.
The whole "editorial use only" question came up only because microstock at first offered the (quite often inexperienced) buyers the assurance that all images are safe to use. Only when the demand for "problematic" images (containing logos etc.) became big enough from editorial users like blogs and news sites the microstock sites came up with these "editorial only" sections. However, the stock agencies are - as before with commercial images - always staying "on the safe side". There are a lot of "editorial only" images that also could be used for commercial purposes, as long as it's not against competition laws etc. There is no problem with someone selling iPhones to use a licensed image of an iPhone, for example. However, as the license terms with microstock are very broad, the agencies are restricting the access to those images to "editorial only", so it's the buyers responsibility to check if they are allowed to use the image or not. Professional image buyers were always used to that themselves. Have a look at what Getty and Corbis are licensing as unreleased "commercial images" which never would be accepted in microstock. They just mention "this image is not released but a release may not be required".
As a contributor, with commercial images, you also state that "this image does not violate the rights of others". When you upload an image to an editorial section, you do NOT state the same. From my point of view, as a contributor you are on the safe side when someone uses an image you uploaded to an editorial section because with that you already make a clear statement that the image contains unreleased content and it's the buyers risk to use it.
I wouldn't have any problem allowing any image user to license any of my images for whatever they want to if they want to take the risk.
274
« on: November 14, 2014, 08:05 »
We are two contributors to iStock using the same computer. How can we get DeepMeta to work for both of us? There is an option tab in the top of DeepMeta but i cant figure out how this can help. Anyone succeded with two users?
There is a "work around": You can localize the DeepMeta folder on your computer (it should show in the "About DeepMeta" screen). Now close DeepMeta, rename the folder from "DeepMeta" to "DeepMeta1". Start DeepMeta again and it will create a new "DeepMeta" folder. You can now set this one up for the second user. Later you can close DeepMeta, rename the folder "DeepMeta" to "DeepMeta2" and then rename "DeepMeta1" to "DeepMeta" and start the program again. You are now back in your first account.
275
« on: November 12, 2014, 03:24 »
We have our own photos that no one else has ( over 100, 000 ) which we are currently catagorising and will be uploading shortly. You mean you have 100,000 unique images of badly isolated salad with color casts in the shadows, keyworded with "beer making"? Yeah, I am sure customers are just waiting for that. It's understandable that you don't really need us contributors for that. Good luck.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 27
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
