|
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 - Sean Locke Photography
Pages: 1 ... 96 97 98 99 100 [101] 102 103 104 105 106 ... 314
2501
« on: March 22, 2014, 12:09 »
Did the thread there go poof? I can't see it anymore.
2502
« on: March 22, 2014, 10:17 »
Looking at the example in that thread, why would you buy an extended license for "print advertising" when the standard license allows you to use it for print advertising? Or promotional use?
It seems like if you want the largest size for some reason, they force you to buy the EL, but if you don't, you're fine with the cheaper regular license.
2503
« on: March 22, 2014, 09:01 »
I read that thread. Sounds like they don't really have the knowledge, experience or planning to correctly implement this.
2504
« on: March 21, 2014, 09:45 »
I don't care if they take 10% or 40%, the buyer pays the premium. It could affect prices and sale, but we are still in control of our own pricing.
The buyer _always_ pays the premium. As you said, it's a math game. You're in control like you are at Pond. Whether you add the premium in before what you want or after what you want, it doesn't matter. If they say they're going to a 100% premium, then your "price" just went up by 50% or so.
2505
« on: March 21, 2014, 09:14 »
That's weird. So, if I "want" $9, then the price shown is $12.60?
2506
« on: March 21, 2014, 08:56 »
For those of us who aren't registered and can't log in, what's the deal? Sean is involved or something?
That's Sean Dunn (FAA creator) not "our" Sean -just in case anyone gets confused 
Whew! I thought I missed something, lol. I think a buyer would be happier to license work, if he thought the agency vetted the releases, instead of just hoping the contributor was in line. It's easier to "trust" XYZ agency as an entity, then Bob from Somalia, or whatever.
2507
« on: March 20, 2014, 16:13 »
It's said that way, because they don't foot the bill or setup shoots anymore. It's up to the contributor to schedule what they want. Which, I imagine is hard to do in a city you don't know anything about.
2508
« on: March 18, 2014, 08:38 »
Honestly, how many parade snaps do they need?
2509
« on: March 17, 2014, 20:16 »
How can they label it public domain when they know the name of the copyright holder? Weird.
2510
« on: March 17, 2014, 18:00 »
I like the woman in the market, the guy smoking, the tatooed pregnant couple. The jogging ones. The concert crowd shot. The girls at the market. Nice work. Maybe lose a few of the baby ones - there's quite a few.
2511
« on: March 17, 2014, 12:33 »
Sorry for the lateness...
I find the overall image very bright. Someone said you want to backlight a bit to get some shadows, and they're right. It also helps reveal textures. These days, I prefer more realistic settings, and this looks like "I put a plate of food on a placemat to take a photo of it". Along those lines, why is the fork there? You've got just the head in there, it doesn't have a bit or anything on it. I'd prefer it to the side in a setting, or across the plate, or anywhere more than "This is as much as I could get in the shot".
The fish looks nice and crispy, although the sides come across as underdone. I assume those are sweet potato fries? But the back right comes across more as peaches or something wet.
Just some things to thing about.
2512
« on: March 14, 2014, 13:51 »
And that gives you the chance to pick up all his sales tickstock. Let us know when you earn more than him on istock. 
I'm already earning more than him at iStock, remember he's not there anymore.
I got it. Ba dum bump.
2513
« on: March 14, 2014, 11:34 »
While Getty is busy trying to corner the market on non-paying bloggers, I just sold several extended licenses at Stocksy which pay out 100% to the artist.
2514
« on: March 14, 2014, 09:42 »
I still cannot understand what seems like an over-reaction here and on a few blogs. This is about non commercial use and not about bloggers per se.
That seems like an entirely selfish stance.
You may know that few, if any, of your images are use editorially or non-commercially.
That doesn't make it right for anyone, especially those of us who know that's how the majority of our images are used.
... and when did we decide it was ok for "non-commercial" users to get free use of anything?
2515
« on: March 12, 2014, 11:57 »
Hi Alexs great to have you here! Welcome!
I think 500px should us guarantee the 70% for a minimum of three years in the contract. Personally I think it would have been better to start with 50% and leave it at that forever, now it looks as soon you have some success you will switch it back. The whole thing 30/70 and then 70/30 doesn't build trust in a long-term relationship.
We have no intention of lowering the 70% royalty fee. The contributor agreement is not a contract with time restrictions, but an ongoing agreement that we will honour throughout the relationship. We're going to do all we can to build and maintain your trust in every aspect of Prime, including fair compensation. Thanks!
Well, there was probably no intention of raising the 30% either... 
2516
« on: March 11, 2014, 16:58 »
Ouch today!
2517
« on: March 11, 2014, 14:38 »
Well, I don't do that, because I don't want to deal with it, but obviously the creepy NY window guy has no issues.
2518
« on: March 11, 2014, 14:28 »
No need to get upset Luis, its just a discussion. All I know is you dont need a release for prints. If you say you do, thats fine. I am not taking my stuff down. I have gotten advice about it, and its ok what I am doing. YMMV.
even on a private place?
No, you don't need a release for prints, art or not, cases or posters or plates.
2519
« on: March 11, 2014, 13:07 »
2520
« on: March 11, 2014, 08:45 »
Yesterday, I made 50% more off of ODDownloads than 25aDay. Interesting.
2521
« on: March 10, 2014, 17:48 »
If anyone is interested in participating, we've worked to put together the First Annual Stocksy Awards, and anyone can join in the voting. You just have to have an account on the site to take part. It's a celebration for the first anniversary, and hopefully it will highlight some of the cool talent on the site. The page to start is here: http://www.stocksy.com/awardsps. This is just an announcement - no need to get all "I don't like this person" or "I don't like the style of that", etc.
2522
« on: March 10, 2014, 15:07 »
They just announced they are bringing in a huge crowd of flickr artists into the getty community. These guys all get 20%
Isn't that the same people who already have Flickr/Getty contracts, rather than more people coming in, necessarily?
I don't know how flickr works. Once they "discover" you, don't they have to keep an eye on your portfolio when they want to find more images? Now, these folks can actually just submit as much as they want to the queue. Sounds like a different thing.
2523
« on: March 10, 2014, 10:41 »
This isn't about the embed program. I think we're asking: Have any long-time Getty contributors ever been paid a royalty where expenses were deducted for pursuing payment? In the section of the agreement tickstock pointed to, it only mentions deducting "Any costs associated with a claim due to a breach of the Agreement on your part." Not on the part of the person who used your image without permission.
From the FAQ:
If Getty Images successfully pursues unauthorized use of my image, how will I be paid?
You will be paid your normal royalty based on the license fee after we deduct any applicable unauthorized use detection and enforcement fees and expenses. These expenses are deducted from the total license fee so Getty Images and you share in these costs of pursuing your copyright infringement.
https://contribute.gettyimages.com/producer/help/agreement
So, they get a punitive payment of $5000. The license for a web based image was $10. They spent $100 sending out a letter (which went to their own lawyers). They subtract $100 from $10. 20% of -90 is -$18. So, you own them $18. Lol.
2524
« on: March 09, 2014, 19:11 »
It is a sub deal. It is not different from anything else they do.
Except that none of the end users of those images had to pay for subscriptions. All we know is this: SS made a deal with FB for use of images. Every time one gets used, the contributor get 35 cents. So what was actually "paid" for that image, in total, over time, by FB? I don't know. Does anyone, outside of SS?
Right, they didn't have that purchase barrier of ponying up for a full subscription. Opens the door to a whole new audience. Since the usage is less and the pay is the same, why would I care what was 'paid'?
2525
« on: March 09, 2014, 15:17 »
I get paid for every Facebook sale, there is no need to opt out.
Oh because YOU like the deal there is no need for an opt out? Didn't you just say "Again, a simple opt in or opt out button solves everything. Let the people who are enthusiastic about the project enjoy it." ?
It's not 'a deal'. It's a simplification of a process that can already be done. That's all.
Pages: 1 ... 96 97 98 99 100 [101] 102 103 104 105 106 ... 314
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
