|
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 - EmberMike
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 19
251
« on: September 18, 2014, 11:07 »
Thanks for the info. Unfortunately I'm not convinced that this is accurate, even if it is coming directly from the IRS. Your info says that reporting of the form 1099-K is not required on tax returns, and yet a microstock photographer is currently working to defend himself against an IRS claim that he didn't pay enough in taxes precisely because of his not reporting this 1099-K.
To me, it sounds like the IRS is saying one thing and doing another. Maybe reporting 1099-K info really isn't required, but that doesn't mean that the IRS won't come after you anyway and force you to defend yourself against claims that you owe them back taxes.
My take-away from all of this is that there seems to be no way to fully protect yourself from the IRS claiming you owe money on income you already paid taxes on as a result of these 1099-K forms. And the best defense is to simply try and not fall under the reporting criteria. I'm working towards that goal by splitting my payouts between multiple payment services, check payments, and direct deposit/bank transfer where available.
252
« on: September 17, 2014, 13:15 »
Well, their CS just confirmed they do! Good find, yesterday that didnt come up when I searched the site.
Maybe they do. Or it's a new thing for this tax year. I'm just skeptical because I can't find any mention of anyone actually getting one. You can find people talking about the PayPal 1099-K all over the web and Twitter, but not a single mention (at least as far as I've been able to turn up) of the Skrill form being received by anyone.
253
« on: September 17, 2014, 13:06 »
If PayPal is shady for issuing a 1099-K then so is Skrill and all other payment service providers in the US... Which other payment service providers issue 1099s? I'm not even sure that Skrill does. I can't find a single mention online of someone ever receiving a 1099 from Skrill. ...There is not one mention of a 1099-K procedure on the Skrill website. The only way to get this information was through their customer support... Actually it's here: https://www.skrill.com/en-us/siteinformation/privacy-policy/But again, I haven't been able to verify that they actually do report anything to the IRS or that anyone gets 1099s. Any Skrill users here ever gotten the 1099-K form?
254
« on: September 16, 2014, 16:20 »
Uncle Pete made it very clear, yet people still throwing toys from the pram. 
Calling PayPal shady when it is not even a PayPal thing. Shady because they follow orders from the IRS, or shady because you can no longer be shady? 
First, it's not so clear. I've read tons of stuff on this issue in recent days, much of it from tax pros, and many of them giving conflicting advice. So if tax pros can't agree on what the proper course of action is, I think it's safe to safe that some additional clarity is needed. Second, PayPal is shady for so willingly complying with this. Just because the IRS says they need to issue 1099s doesn't mean that PayPal can't put up a fight. Issuing these forms is wrong, plain and simple. Even if you submit the form in your tax return, people are saying to put a note in there saying that the PayPal 1099-K is wrong. This whole thing is a joke, and PayPal knows it. And yet they still just happily send out these forms without question. So although I can certainly see how the IRS is really at fault here to institute such a flawed method of collecting income data for PayPal users, PayPal isn't in the right just because they're doing what the IRS is asking. They should be trying to fix this, working with the IRS to create a better system that doesn't double-report income and put the burden of proving that the proper amount of taxes were paid on the individual and small business owner. Lastly, I resent the implication that I'm trying to do anything shady here. I pay my taxes, I keep clear and accurate books, and I work with an accountant to make sure that I'm paid up with what I owe every quarter. I'm looking to not run afoul of the IRS, something that I can clearly see happening in the future because of the 1099-K form issued by PayPal. I really take offense to the suggestion that I'm attempting to do anything nefarious. That's a pretty low comment on your part there.
255
« on: September 16, 2014, 12:25 »
...Repeating this part because it comes up over and over and some people don't understand you must have BOTH: PayPal will only submit 1099-K forms for those sellers that meet the BOTH 200 transactions and $20,000 income... I think my new strategy is going to be to just stay under the reporting criteria and avoid these stupid forms altogether. There's not much I can do to stay under $20,000, but I certainly can stay under 200 transactions. I'm moving some of my business over to Skrill, but apparently they do the same as PayPal, with the same 200/$20k criteria for IRS reporting. Seriously considering switching to checks from some of the companies that allow that payment option. I don't care if I have to wait longer to get paid.
256
« on: September 15, 2014, 23:36 »
Makes sense, but still I dont think its a PayPal only thing... I have yet to hear of any other payment processing company issuing 1099s for money that they didn't actually pay out themselves. I'm still totally confused as to how any company can issue a 1099 for money that didn't actually come from said company. A 1099 is pretty basic. It is essentially a form that states that Company XYZ paid me $X,XXX. But PayPal didn't pay me anything. Shutterstock did, along with iStock, Dreamstime, Fotolia, etc. To me, this seems almost fraudulent that PayPal is claiming to have paid me any amount of money. Maybe it is a government thing more than a PayPal thing, probably with the IRS pressuring PayPal to better equip them to track all of that money changing hands on eBay and get their share of it. But it's too general of a tool for doing so. Maybe it helps to hold eBay sellers to the letter of the (tax) law, but for everyone operating outside of eBay, obviously including microstock and other businesses that process payments via PayPal, it is hugely flawed. And even if it is a legit thing they're doing issuing these 1099s, I still don't want to support that. PayPal seems like just another big company screwing small businesses and independent workers. They don't care that they're putting the burden on us to prove that we did, in fact, already pay taxes on the money they claim to have paid us. Or that all of what they claim is taxable income actually is taxable. If you sold some junk from your basement on ebay, that gets lumped into this 1099 also. I'm not interested in supporting what PayPal is doing. I'd rather work with another payment processor that won't screw me over down the road. Or just get checks.
257
« on: September 15, 2014, 17:12 »
How can a government charge you twice if you have proof you paid taxes. This is not a PayPal issue, PayPal is following the law. Our government is the issue here, in my opinion.
Are they? I'm not sure. How can PayPal legally issue 1099s when they don't actually pay us? It's like my bank issuing a 1099 for any checks I deposit. They didn't write those checks, nor did PayPal pay me the funds they're claiming I earned from them on these forms.
258
« on: September 15, 2014, 16:48 »
Mike, do you have skrill where you live? That might solve your problem.
Looking at them right now. Does Skrill submit any info to the IRS? To be honest, I'm a little skeptical right now. After just signing up and logging in I'm seeing promotions for online gambling. Is Skrill legit?
259
« on: September 15, 2014, 16:11 »
Aside from the above mentioned concerns, I'm also a bit concerned by your artist terms. Particularly this one: 5.1 The artist allows Indivstock the exchange and sale of sub-licenses of the works in compliance with the terms and services and additional of use by granting Indivstock the simple, temporally and spatially unlimited usage rights. To this end, the artist allows his works by Indivstock to make available as a download and sell it under their own name. The sale proceeds will be occupied by Indivstock and credited pro rata according to seller share the artist. The artist admits Indivstock a right to use their own license terms for licenses under this and after with immediate validity to change at any time and to complement. The artist admits Indivstock the rights referred to in point 5 a charge. I don't completely understand it and certainly some things are lost in translation, but it sounds very odd to me, pro rata credits and all.
260
« on: September 15, 2014, 15:59 »
...In the long run it reduces the possible measures that we could implement. These measures directly contribute to the possible success. Therefore, 50% are not to be despised. This is an absolute maximum (purely Costing)...
...Unfortunately, prices of $ 20 per image are not feasible. The market price is significantly lower. 70% Commission would be theoretically possible. But what sense does this, when Indivstock ran unable to move. 60% of a a few sales ist not much. 70% of even less is almost nothing. 80% commission is nothing, since no sales are coming into existence.
I'm sorry if this comes across as harsh, but let me be frank here. It's not 2004 and we're not idiots. Some companies have gotten away with paying low percentages and low subscription royalties over the years, but it's a different game now. We're past the point where many of us still believe that royalties over 50% are impossible. Especially not when I'm looking at my monthly earnings and seeing a company that pays 70% as my 3rd highest earner. And we're way past the point where I'll even look at a company paying less than 50%. I kind of feel somewhat insulted these ridiculous notions of yours about what is and what isn't feasible. We're a community that includes many people who have been around here for a while, and you're acting like we just don't know what we're talking about. Of course you don't have to take my word for it. Bruce Livingstone has stated that, "Every photographer should ... understand that if they get anything less than 50%, they're not being fairly paid." Less than 50%, as in, 50% is the new acceptable minimum. Not as the high-end down-the-road possible earnings level. And $0.18-0.25 subscription royalties? Come on. If I wasn't already insulted enough by your weak explanation of why royalties over 50% aren't feasible, I'm entirely insulted by an offer of possibly the worst subscription royalties I've ever seen.
261
« on: September 14, 2014, 23:20 »
Those are less than impressive pack commission rates and downright terrible subscription commissions. I'll pass.
262
« on: September 14, 2014, 12:07 »
I heard from a microstock photographer friend the other day that he was contacted by the IRS that they believe he underpaid his taxes and owes over $20k. The basis for this claim is the 1099 form that PayPal started issuing a couple of years back. Sort of like I feared might happen, even if you claim your income properly and completely from each individual stock agency, this PayPal 1099 gives the IRS the impression that you earned twice as much as you actually did from the companies that pay out via PayPal.
So for example, Shutterstock pays you $1,000 in a year, they issue a 1099 stating they paid you $1,000, you claim that in your income taxes, and you legally are doing everything right. But then the IRS gets the PayPal 1099 and as far as they believe, you never declared that $1,000 in income. Because they see it as coming from PayPal.
Anyone know how to avoid this problem? I've ignored the PayPal 1099s because I believed them to be basically erroneous and borderline fraudulent (PayPal doesn't pay me, agencies do, so I have no idea how they can issue a 1099). But obviously ignoring these PayPal 1099s leads to problems later. And I sure as heck don't want to pay double taxes on all of my income that goes through PayPal.
I'm seriously considering not taking payments through PayPal anymore and requesting checks whenever possible.
263
« on: September 14, 2014, 12:01 »
So... from what I can tell from your website:
36-50% commissions on single image sales and packs. $0.18-$0.25 commissions on membership sales (subscriptions). Is that right?
264
« on: September 04, 2014, 10:08 »
Terrible - I stopped uploading a few months ago, with that sort of pricing there kill there own site
Nah, they're doing fine. They make tons of money on these reseller deals. It's just us who don't make anything. This is one of many things that has DP currently on my DNU list (Do Not Upload).
265
« on: September 04, 2014, 10:06 »
Looks like they're just using the jpg preview uploaded with the vector as the jpg file version. Which is fine, except that not everyone uploads high-res previews with vectors. Mine are typically around 2400x2400, but some older ones are far smaller.
Guess I'll have to get into the habit of uploading larger previews.
266
« on: September 04, 2014, 09:26 »
Or you could look at it like a nonexclusive image costs $31 for a cash sale now but will be $15 in two weeks. That moves the price down to surprise, surprise almost exactly what SS is selling them for. It's not really hard to see what pricing pressure from that other agency is doing. Pricing pressure? You forget who came up with this pricing. iStock used to sell large images for around $10-15. And they did it back when SS wasn't even selling single images of image packs, just subscriptions. If anything, SS responded to pressure from customers to offer something like what iStock offered. iStock just took it and ran with it up to a high-priced level that exceeded what customers wanted to spend. So now iStock has to come back down to earth, and that's because of SS? Absolutely wrong.
267
« on: September 04, 2014, 09:17 »
I always suspected they never offered this option because it gave them an advantage in bragging rights about how many images they have. And for that reason I doubt they'll completely get rid of the solo jpg files any time soon. It would mean a huge dip in the total number of images they have.
But, it's still nice to see the integration of jpg and vector options on one file. I think this is something SS really needs to continue working on, giving buyers more options and flexibility with vector purchases. And I still think they have a long way to go to catch up to what other companies are offering, especially in terms of editable text in vectors, alternative formats like AI, PSD, etc.
268
« on: September 03, 2014, 22:05 »
Am I oversimplifying this is I say that it looks like iStock is just shifting the dollars-to-credits conversion rate, raising the value of a credit while reducing the credit cost of an image?
I know there are other factors, but in basic terms, from what my attempts to catch up on in this topic, essentially their system remains the same, just with a change in the balance between what credits cost and what they can be used for has changed.
And most of us will earn less because of this. But basically it's still just a shift in credit/currency conversion..?
269
« on: September 03, 2014, 22:00 »
Smart move by iStock, nice and simple pricing... Is it? For who? If I'm a buyer, this looks confusing still. Credits don't cost $1 (haven't for a while now), so it was never really simple at iStock. But now they cost between $8 and $15. Even though the number of credits required to purchase an image is greatly reduced, this whole system is still based on a dollars-to-credits conversion. To me, simplified pricing would be to just price things in dollars. Or if they insist on credits, using a basic 1-credit-equals-1-dollar system. This new thing, though, looks like just more of the same complicated pricing from iStock.
270
« on: August 28, 2014, 15:52 »
Hi All. I need some Caf Press followers to keep my commission score at 10%... I think it's awful that you have to help them promote their business in order to keep a miserable 10% royalty rate.
271
« on: August 27, 2014, 13:54 »
...If they do it with an exclusive program then fine by me, I've seen it work very well over at iS... I'm not sure I can ask this without it coming across as snarky, but... if it worked so well at iStock then why aren't you still exclusive there? ...SS need to evolve into a more mature agency if they want to be around in 10 years time. If they don't you can guarantee Getty will start a price war with them. I think Offset is Shutterstock's more mature "agency" (collection). I can't see what sort of price war Getty could bring to Shutterstock's doorstep. Shutterstock is already cheaper than iStock. What can Getty do? Match SS prices? Not sure that will do much damage. The only price war I see happening is Fotolia/DPC vs. everyone else.
272
« on: August 26, 2014, 11:10 »
Currently Fotolia, GraphicRiver, Crestock, and Depositphotos.
Lol, didn`t even knew that Crestock still is out there....
Might as well not be. I'm up to $0.60 there this month. Actually after posting in this thread and looking at my earnings over the last few months I emailed them asking to close my account.
273
« on: August 25, 2014, 18:42 »
...But this trend is very real, creatives that had been producing for micros are actively searching for other outlets for their best content... And those outlets now exist. More of them are popping up, and we have more options to distribute our work with companies that that can pay well and generate sales volume. I get multiple sales daily at places like Creative Market, which is currently my #3 earner and rapidly approaching #2. ...The ripples have started. Some of you have to show initiative and take control now, before it is too late... So why should I care enough about these other companies to try persuading them to offer something similar? I don't care if they take control of anything. I'm doing well enough elsewhere. They can continue on doing what they're doing and paying us our 30% or whatever. Or they can come up with some other product that pays a little more, but even then what's the best I can expect... 40% or 50% on prices that I have no control over and are generally unfavorable to artists already? I'm still not impressed. So no thanks, I don't care if these companies "take control" and try to nudge their way into this higher-end market. They don't deserve my concern, nor do they deserve a piece of what these smaller yet far more innovative companies are doing. They made their choices years ago and I think they should get to live with those choices. It's time for some new thinking in the stock business and I'd much rather see it come from new companies. For the old ones, I hope it is too late already.
274
« on: August 25, 2014, 18:11 »
Currently Fotolia, GraphicRiver, Crestock, and Depositphotos.
Crestock is just a dead end, they haven't done anything bad but they're not doing anything good either. FT and DP because of shady/unethical/concerning business practices, and GR because of poor image pricing.
275
« on: August 20, 2014, 20:46 »
Flatlined, as far as I can tell.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 19
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
