|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
Pages: 1 ... 97 98 99 100 101 [102] 103 104 105 106 107 ... 291
2526
« on: October 06, 2015, 11:04 »
I received a reply from SS.
We receive the percentage as for custom images for these subscription plans. As it's a test they didn't notify contributors, but they said they do put it in the blog if it becomes a new product.
2527
« on: October 06, 2015, 11:01 »
What would make this story more interesting would be to hear what he received in total, publishing right, paid downloads, radio play, tours, tv appearances, ...
Beyond that, what was the total income received, not just the total songwriter royalties. The record companies - or sometimes a publisher who owns the rights to the music - are like the stock agencies are for us. If, for the sake of argument, the share a songwriter used to make of the total income was 50% and it's now 10%, that would also explain some of the rather sad numbers songwriters are seeing. When SS did the deal with Facebook, if there were any sums paid to SS as part of signing the deal, the contributors don't see any of that money, only the 38 cents for each image used in an ad. Likewise if there are fees for the streaming deals, that cuts out the artists.
2528
« on: October 06, 2015, 10:39 »
" customer wants to know where an image was taken" ?? I have had four of these mails. What is it all about, is this some kind of " fishing for info" thingy. I'm getting suspicious, one of the images were taken in the middle of nowhere so why would it matter where it was shot?
Even for wilderness shots, a company looking for images of a particular state, or part of a state, could want to avoid embarrassment by ensuring the location was where they described. Ages ago I found one of my shots in use - it was of Victoria (BC) inner harbor and was being used for Pine City park somewhere in Minnesota. Not exactly truth in advertising  The shot was of my house, so I did point out that it was private property and not available for someone to come and look around...
2529
« on: October 05, 2015, 23:33 »
still no answer?
No. I thought I was getting an answer earlier today but it was from someone in their "Contributor Success" department asking me "at my earliest convenience" to tell them exactly where a particular image was taken (a customer wanted to know). I was tempted to tell them that when it was convenient for them to answer my query from last week I'd be happy to answer, but no reason to ruin this woman's day for something another department did/didn't do I will post when I get an answer, and if I haven't heard in a week, I'll contact them again.
2531
« on: October 02, 2015, 23:01 »
we are not sure, can someone ask SS how much we are paid, because if we get 4%, we can close our jobs, this industry is working only because of 2.85$, if the drop 50% this is disaster for me.
I wrote to support earlier today to ask just that question. When I get an answer I'll post it here. I also suggested that they should put things like this (new products and clarifying contributor royalties on those products) into the contributor blog
2532
« on: September 30, 2015, 09:53 »
With the prices Dissolve is charging, why would anyone shop there versus at Getty or any of the other outlets that Image Source, Blend Images or Maskot collections are sold at roughly similar prices?
They have only 200K photos that lots of other macro outlets have, except the other outlets have millions more.
What's the point?
2533
« on: September 29, 2015, 10:41 »
...First, GraphicStock's free trial, which is offered through certain partners, does not allow unlimited downloads...
Right underneath your site's name is the tag line "Unlimited Downloads of Stock Images". If you go to sign up for the 7 day trial, it does clearly say that you get a limited number per day. On the about page it covers terms of paid subscriptions, which include unlimited downloads and use forever even if you cancel your subscription (items 1, 2 & 3) http://www.graphicstock.com/page/about/So you download the entire 300K library in one month, pay $49 and cancel, and that's OK with GraphicStock? http://support.graphicstock.com/customer/en/portal/articles/1461246-how-much-does-a-subscription-to-graphicstock-cost-Works about to about 2/100ths of a cent per image. Clearly you'd have to really work at it to download the entire library in a month, but the only reason you're not harming contributors with your lowball offer is that you have so few images in the library.
2534
« on: September 29, 2015, 10:29 »
What bothered me about this site is that it is being promoted by Kelbyone. Kelby has been very successful and if he is behind it, that could be bad news for the industry. They certainly have a budget for advertising so its concerning....
Kelby One lost me (and I dropped my NAPP membership) when they started promoting Fotolia's toxic Dollar Photo Club (and being a shameless shill for anything Adobe did versus a voice for users). I have them pegged, rightly or wrongly, as an outfit that will do anything for a buck. Not saying it makes their promotion of this free site any better, but just that they've been taking the low road for a while now...
2536
« on: September 28, 2015, 11:40 »
I've never heard of this site before. Do you know that they were charging for images before this promotion?
They only have 300K images, so perhaps they're just getting started? They talk about a new site launching October 1st on the home page.
There are quite a few free image sites, and in general, as long as the stuff is noticeably less good than what shows up at the paid sites, I don't see that it hurts our business.
2538
« on: September 23, 2015, 09:39 »
Now i can find my images on
http://www.glowimages.com via DP.
API and partner program is switched off!
But look at the prices being charged at Glow Images for DP images! I wonder if they're pulling the same stunt they did before where you get a subscription royalty and the site gets to pocket the rest...
2539
« on: September 23, 2015, 09:30 »
...You have to admire the nerve of switching out the backgrounds and reuploading the same simple icons again and again...
In addition to the perception of unfairness in how different groups of contributors are treated - one group seemingly getting a free pass to upload anything they like and the rest of us getting wrong white balance or out of focus rejections - why would SS allow its collection to be trashed like this? It had gone from a site that didn't really have the best quality (back in 2004-5-6) to a site with a really good, large collection, great search and visually appealing presentation of results. Now it's just padding the numbers with this rubbish. Really sad to see.
2540
« on: September 22, 2015, 10:05 »
Welcome. You have some lovely scenery in your portfolio.
Other than getting more of your portfolio on Shutterstock, I'd suggest you look at keywords to help your images be found more often (only when appropriate; spam is a bad idea)
For example, if I search on SS for Italian coastline, over 8,000 images show up. Having the specific town and region is important, but also think about more general words a buyer might use as well. Also terms used for wind power generating windmill include wind turbines - and your shot of the railway tracks in the countryside has only windmills.
Check the keywords you do use on a big site (SS is good) and pick one of the images similar to yours and see what other keywords it has - it's a good way to learn how to describe things.
2541
« on: September 20, 2015, 12:40 »
2542
« on: September 19, 2015, 10:25 »
Take a look at this recent thread for some more examples: http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/image-spam/The person starting that thread referred to it as image spam, and I think that's the right word for it. Sometimes - the marijuana portfolio with endless variations of text overlaid - even one is questionable, but there's clearly some other review process that these submissions go through (no review?).
2543
« on: September 17, 2015, 15:00 »
There's an exclusive who reported elsewhere that he had over 1,000 images deactivated for this reason.
2544
« on: September 15, 2015, 18:04 »
I think the point in general is that rights managed just means that you get a limited set of rights for a limited time, geography, page size, page position or other conditions.
It doesn't say anything about the specifics of any given license, just that the licensor knows and tracks every use of the image. Unlike with Royalty Free where you not only don't get paid for additional uses, but have no idea what's been done with the image (unless you happen upon it or the designer tells you).
2545
« on: September 15, 2015, 14:34 »
I've had three so far in September; had 2 in August. They're not dead, but perhaps not as frequent.
2546
« on: September 15, 2015, 10:45 »
I have to assume that this means Adobe isn't selling its stock offering in the volumes it wanted to - you don't offer a 50% off sale and then giving away more rights for the same price if people are already buying in the volumes you hoped for. The bad news for contributors - beyond the obvious bad news for those who are Fotolia contributors - is that SS will probably further reduce prices or eliminate the team subscription offerings they have. What's the point of discontinuing the Dollar Photo Club if they turn Adobe Stock into the same thing? And don't let's hear anyone from Adobe trumpet how it'll be good for contributors because it will increase sales... the stock agency equivalent of jumping the shark Here's the Adobe blurb about this change http://blogs.adobe.com/creativecloud/new-adobe-stock-features-for-creative-cloud-for-teams/
2547
« on: September 14, 2015, 15:04 »
Can someone please explain me how this partner programs works?
Agencies do deals with companies that want to offer stock images but don't have any relationship with suppliers (i.e. us). They offer their library and there's a split of the money the buyer pays between the partner/distributor company and the agency that accepted our uploads. Some agencies share the money they receive from the parter according to their royalty schedule. Alamy's like that. Buyer pays distributor $150; distributor pays Alamy $90; Alamy pays contributor 50%, same as always, but it's 50% of $90 ($45) not 50% of what the buyer paid ($75). Some agencies (like Veer) pay you a fixed amount per download regardless of what the partner charged the buyer, which is sometimes a lot more than the price paid via Veer. Veer also won't give contributors a list of the companies they partner with or let contributors opt out of partner sales (why I left Veer. IMO it's a terrible arrangement for contributors). Some, at least until they get caught (Deposit Photos) let a distributor pay a subscription price (and give the contributor a subscription royalty) and the distributor charges a substantial credit price, pocketing a huge amount for themselves. One of the scenarios that seems too bizarre to be real was where 123rf had its own parent company, Inmagine, hosting images as a "partner" site - they had some claim that it was because of the way the two businesses were structured. Bottom line is they got to keep more of the buyer's money and pay us less. They do at least let you opt out (which I did). Some agencies, like Dreamstime, handle the partnership arrangements via an API that's live - if you opt out of partnership sales, your images are immediately removed from sales with their partners. Some agencies take up to 90 days to remove images after you opt out. Alamy only lets you opt out once a year (in April, I think). There are virtually no rules - the agencies make up whatever terms they like. They'll tell you it'll increase your sales, but in the internet age, it's hard to fathom why this practice continues other than to siphon off some of the money a buyer pays to a business that does virtually nothing to earn what they keep. In the case of Alamy, they get 40% of what the buyer pays and the contributor gets only 30%. I'm guessing, but we never get to see these deals in detail, that if there are fees paid to the agency we upload to as part of the creation of the deal, contributors see no part of that money (as it's not a sale of an image license, just a fee for a deal).
2548
« on: September 12, 2015, 00:50 »
There is the SS facebook deal where the image goes with an ad sale and we get a royalty each time an ad is sold, which is pretty close to a one time use (as the ad buyer doesn't get to use the image anywhere else)
And Canva isn't one time usage, but one design - which I think the purchaser can use as much as they want (more than one web site or domain; more than one print run and so on).
2549
« on: September 10, 2015, 15:41 »
You can purchase the right to resell - there are packages of images you can buy that way: http://www.royalshot.com/http://www.freepik.com/deal/stock-photos-with-resell-rights--only-$79_133.htm Search for photos and reseller rights and you'll see bucket loads of ho-hum images. You can also write a contract to transfer copyright to you from the person who currently owns it - but make sure that the person selling them to you really has copyright (versus a scam where they are selling you rights they don't possess).
2550
« on: September 09, 2015, 23:33 »
Thanks. I'll just wait until the end of next week and see what happens. I don't recall seeing anything in writing from CANVA so didn't have much to go on other than previous payment dates.
FYI: I just received my payment for August.
Pages: 1 ... 97 98 99 100 101 [102] 103 104 105 106 107 ... 291
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
