|
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 - ThomasAmby
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18
276
« on: September 16, 2010, 07:35 »
I have some good success with raster illustrations on Alamy.
I'm guessing you don't have your micro-images for sale at Alamy then ?
I was once adviced to upload other images if I wanted to start contributing to Alamy. What is the general opinion on this?
I have other images on Alamy, yes. Images that I consider better quality and illustrations that took too long to make and that are too special for selling them on micro.
Do you think I am right in my assumption that most Alamy contributors do like you? Is it even allowed to sell the same images on the micros? Personally I think it's unethical unless the license is substantially different than on the micros. (But I'd probably consider it if everybody did it) 
277
« on: September 16, 2010, 06:49 »
How about contacting a programmer/designer and ask what we can expect the cost to set up a complete market to be? I guess it's a lot, but that would give us something to aim for in terms of donations for a start.
I would invest, but not a $1000. More like $100
278
« on: September 16, 2010, 04:30 »
I have some good success with raster illustrations on Alamy.
I'm guessing you don't have your micro-images for sale at Alamy then ? I was once adviced to upload other images if I wanted to start contributing to Alamy. What is the general opinion on this?
279
« on: September 16, 2010, 04:02 »
Just added the last four comments posted in here. I've been busy with a client the last couple of days and I'm finding it hard to keep track of all the relevant buyer comments. Probably missed a lot already.
But please, keep them coming. Post it in here whenever you see one.
280
« on: September 14, 2010, 19:24 »
Vectors only
281
« on: September 13, 2010, 10:12 »
I'm seriously considering taking the bull by the horns here. We need the micro stock equivalent of the SAA. Look at the SAA's mission statement, http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/info/about/mission This wouldn't be an organization with dues, just a loosely formed association where contributors can align themselves and agree to certain actions in order to keep these companies in check. We need a site where contributors can post a link to their portfolio at iStock and sign a petition / agreement to actions against the company in order to force their hand. I like the idea of increased actions over a period of time. I'm looking into a url now, we'll see.
Put me on the list as well... Would be willing to donate $50-$100 for a start (no, I'm not rich 
282
« on: September 13, 2010, 10:00 »
I've done an almost complete search for the word "buy" on every page of the three threads. I Imagine I would find some more searching for "purchase" or better yet "purchas", but it takes ages Also left out plenty of comments from contributors saying they had already persuaded their designer friends to go to other agencies. It leads me to believe the buyers' comments are only the tip of the iceberg as both contributors and buyers have extensive networks in the design business. It's sad, but I can only hope the IS managers will take this seriously and re-think their strategy.
283
« on: September 13, 2010, 08:18 »
Yes.
I'm solely an illustrator and didn't upload any photos for my initial contributor application.
284
« on: September 11, 2010, 08:55 »
9 more added.
Where are the nine more? I thought they were going into this thread.
Sorry for not explaining They are in my first post on page 1 of this thread. Just in order to have them in one place ...More to come
285
« on: September 11, 2010, 08:38 »
9 more added.
286
« on: September 11, 2010, 07:03 »
Thank you for your kind words Eireann Seems it was a bad idea after all. I don't feel like putting in any effort if we're just two people on the list
287
« on: September 11, 2010, 05:30 »
I believe sjlocke is still voicing his discontent and I guess he'd be one of the first for IS to contact if this was the case.
288
« on: September 11, 2010, 05:26 »
This seems to actually work for you. I guess for the vast majority going exclusive with Fotolia would be a very bad decision, but you have good sales, a high commission and lots of highly priced quality images. I can't be sure, but it doesn't seem to me you're selling yourself short. Either you're granted some serious perks by Fotolia being one of the few exclusives there, or you're selling images that are highly in demand at that particular site. Either way congratulations on your choice, and thanks for sharing this.
I would never dream of going exclusive anywhere, but it seems to work for some people (at least untill the agency changes the agreement and you're locked in)
289
« on: September 11, 2010, 05:00 »
You're joining a large club there Thomas 
Hahaha, just noticed
290
« on: September 11, 2010, 04:57 »
Now GO and ACT!
Does you mom know you're out?
Following the above will quickly lead to a massive raise in sales in the better paying agencies, god for all independent artist - bad for greedy bankers.
Come on, do you really believe that? You are completely naive if you think more than a tiny handful of small time buyers will take any notice. IS have a HUGE buyer base, the vast majority of whom shop at IS for the best pro images, they're not going to be put off by a few small time bloggers. We've seen this all before, every time something big is announced at IS that people don't like, threats to bring them down etc, here's a hint, IT WON"T HAPPEN!
If you believe nothing will change, why are you so fierce? Don't bother to reply, I'm putting you on ignore. What a child.
291
« on: September 11, 2010, 04:44 »
When I become irrelevant I'll be able to pull my port with little loss, so I guess it has a bright side
292
« on: September 10, 2010, 20:08 »
Byestock. I'm drunk and I'm going to sleep. Goodnight everybody
293
« on: September 10, 2010, 09:06 »
294
« on: September 10, 2010, 08:58 »
295
« on: September 10, 2010, 04:52 »
With the all the turmoil going on at the IS forums these days, one thing is clear to me: Nobody, or at least very few, believes that a company that distributes images need an average of 75%-85% per sale to be profitable. This is why the discussion at IS continues, and people won't calm. It's simply beyond imagination. I've read so many intelligent statements from contributors that I would never be able to phrase myself, but this is clear, many people refuse to adapt. To prevent things like these happening in the future, how would people feel like signing some sort of a "contract" that ensured they would not work with new agencies offering a commission lower than a certain percentage? Note that this would not affect the agencies you're currently submitting to but is a guarantee that you're requirements are met by upcoming agencies. Knowing that we would then have to agree on a percentage we could have for instance three levels, 30%, 40% and 50% (I would probably sign up for 40% or 50%). All of our names would be put on a list on the web and if enough of us were listed, the new agencies will have to meet certain requirements to do business with some of us. Perhaps it could have a clause that required the agency to fix the percentage in the contract so it wouldn't be lowered in the future. This could be the beginning of something bigger as I don't believe we can agree on a coop or a union. Maybe this could be the beginning of more involvement in the business from the contributors. We've never demanded anything from new agencies, maybe we're ready for that? I know Yuri doesn't go for anything below 40%, if we could get him to sign that would be a good start. If you think this idea is stupid, please let me know why. I'm just desperately trying to do something to change the microstock world in favour of the contributing artists.
296
« on: September 09, 2010, 16:57 »
If I chose to redirect my clients and my network to other sites, that MY desition.
Oh, I bet you're another big seller!
"vlad_the_imp", Do what you have to do, we'll do what we have to do.
297
« on: September 09, 2010, 16:13 »
One more added
298
« on: September 09, 2010, 12:50 »
Keep them coming, I'll try to keep my initial post updated
299
« on: September 09, 2010, 12:14 »
and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P
Why is that? What have exclusive contributors done to earn your wrath? In some ways, we are hurt more by this move than independents. Of course, it's your decision, and your money. I'm just curious why you feel that way.
Nothing personal, it just always seems to be the "little guy" that gets crapped on the most and it's the independants that get burned the most in this decision.
As a non-exclusive, I think it's the other way around. Well, we're both getting screwed, but exclusives seem to take a bigger hit
300
« on: September 09, 2010, 11:06 »
Should've kept the permalinks though :\ For what? The thread on IS will vanish soon. They can't afford that kind of content creeping into Google.
Well, that's very true. Better get them posted in here before it's too late. IS need to open their eyes. These are their buyers.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
