|
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 - obj owl
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 25
276
« on: August 18, 2018, 04:24 »
277
« on: August 17, 2018, 14:35 »
Yep - it lasted all of one month!
One beat does not a pulse make. Stocksy and Istock made the same claim do you have graphs for them too?
279
« on: August 17, 2018, 10:48 »
280
« on: August 17, 2018, 10:38 »
I don't disagree - but there is a difference between who the law says is responsible versus who a slimy lawyer will try to sue. So the most likely ones in danger are the publisher (the buyer), the agency (as they have money) and finally the photographer. But I still believe that if the photographer has not lied about releases, and has taken the photo from a public place in the US, then they are not strictly liable for usage.
Steve
It matters not that "there is a difference between who the law says is responsible versus who a slimy lawyer will try to sue", what matters is that indemnity is offered by the agency to the buyer to defend even in spurious cases. In the original post the question posed is "who is responsible if copyright infringement happens"? That's when the game of pass the buck comes in and whoever has not kept within the Terms and Conditions ends up screwed, and you can be pretty sure it won't be the agency.
281
« on: August 14, 2018, 07:16 »
It could be search tweaking but it is not my first bad month lately, so it is not summer vacations the reason either.
I have no world wide sale at all, just US and there are too many of these small $0.26 sale, big sales are very rare compared to the past.
If you don't sell like before and your weekly rank is stable, then FT is "dead, dead, dead", indeed.
If don't sell like before and your weekly rank has dropped, then you are "dead, dead, dead", unfortunately.
So, which one is it?
Fyi, my rank has improved significantly the last couple of weeks (within the 3 digits domain)
If your rank has improved significantly and your sales have dropped then FT is "dead, dead, dead", indeed.
282
« on: August 13, 2018, 10:18 »
Just curious, how are your sales at Canva? My July was worst month in two years, really bad. August isn't looking any better, multi-use sales gone. I wonder if it has anything to do with them merging with Getty...
Have you checked your portfolio? They have a nasty habit of retrospectively rejecting content.
283
« on: August 10, 2018, 12:04 »
I've found a few instances recently of people crediting the site they stole my images from, some people are really thick.
Blockchain technology is the answer to this problem, or so a rash of new sites claim. I think the aim is, at least in part, to make money from infringement claims. Getty have done a deal with one of them so that makes sense.
284
« on: August 08, 2018, 13:58 »
Anybody and everybody can have an exclusive premium footage collection at Pond5. Your choice is an exclusive exclusive premium footage collection or an inclusive exclusive premium footage collection.
285
« on: August 05, 2018, 06:13 »
286
« on: August 04, 2018, 06:39 »
I've had a few released for missing colons in editorial captions and a few model release ones i used to use but rejected (and i cant tell why) lately.
What they dont seem to do now is check the technical aspect of images (ie look at the images).
Time and time again you see "why am i not selling" questions on the SS format and the portfolios show horrific exposure, noise and everything else wrong with them.
One guy even had a few images with his watermark in the corner accepted.
Things like the editorial captioning could easily have been outsourced to bots i guess.
Seems to me certain contributors are just "waved through" the system.
I don't think it's contributors with a free pass (unless you are a top earner), but the file type that gets waved through. JPEG illustrations for one if you look at what gets accepted. Reviews are done by AI and humans, if AI is letting in hundreds of images of an object from every conceivable view or cannabis leaves in a myriad of colors, and there is a target for rejections, the humans will be throwing out a lot more than they would otherwise need to do.
287
« on: August 03, 2018, 18:33 »
There's only one solution, everyone stop uploading! If QC eliminated NCV subject matter, similars and average content, the collection could be halved.
Well everyone except me ;-). Halved? More than that I reckon 80% at least of new content never sells.
Well everyone, stop uploading anything that I shoot would be my plan? 
As far as pk and half, I think if they limited ncv and dupes and similars the collection might be 25% or less of what it is now. Just start looking for ideas and areas where you can find something, no well covered or over covered, even if 90% are unmarketable crap. You should start to see how many images are nothing but numbers and have no hope of ever getting a download, if the buyer has minimal sense and any perception.
SS could stop accepting uploads and start culling out the junk, imagine that, just the good stuff. I know we'd disagree if ours were removed, but in the end, the entire collection might be a few million select images. Imagine that, buyers wouldn't have to wade through a cesspool to find what they want. 
Nope, not going to happen and 10 million new images every two months, looks like the level that can be input and processed. That could change. ANyone else wonder how many rejections go along with 10 million new images, or how bad they had to be to fail. LOL
3.5 million give or take a few hundred thousand if historical (up to two years ago) figures are anything to go by and they don't have to be bad to be rejected. In fact it's highly likely that the rejected ones are better than most of the accepted ones.
288
« on: August 03, 2018, 18:21 »
Thanks for the breakdown Jo Ann, always interesting to hear your take.
Ditto
If I remember right from long ago, Jon used to say, contributor earnings were 22%? Anyone have notes or remember. 26% would mean overall, contributor earnings are up? Really?
Contributor numbers are also up so that would negate any benefit to most of us. Part of the reason for an increase in percentage to contributors maybe because the Enterprise part of the business is continuing to take a larger share of the pie and they feed the high earners (and therefore higher percentage earners) first.
289
« on: August 03, 2018, 14:59 »
I can guarantee that 90-100% of the capping theorists here are nowhere near $2,500 per month from Shutterstock.
Maybe change "capping theorists" to: "people who have seen their income straight-line for one reason or another". As I said earlier in one of the threads or this one, I don't actually believe SS is maliciously targeting specific portfolios. I think there is some software glitch or algorithm that is tweaking earnings some of us.
Case in point, this past July I was on track to eat some crow since my sales plummeted. Any change, however negative it might be, would show I was not being affected. On the 31st, my day was filled with high value SODs (after zero sods all month long) to bring me right up to my level.
High value SODs are dealt with personally by someone in the Enterprise Team so that would be unaffected by software glitches or algorithms. By raising your income for the month on the last day to your allotted level would suggest you are right in saying it is not malicious, but it does look benevolent, a safety net.
291
« on: August 03, 2018, 06:38 »
More ramblings of a Trump hater 
If the Pope stood up today and said Donald Trump was the second incarnation of "jesus" democrats and liberals would still hate him for no other reason than they have to hate him.
Surely that would just confirm the Pope had mental health issues, but making the invisible visible may make sense to some.
292
« on: August 01, 2018, 12:18 »
The last three months graph from SS (there is a 40 cent difference between them)
And 27% ($900) less than the same period last year.
I didn't believe in the SS Cap theory but this gives credence to the theory 
Could it be a safety net instead of a cap?
293
« on: July 31, 2018, 20:05 »
Stocksy proved a co-op could work. I think a few contributors going it alone would not do a heck of a lot unless the strategy changed from competing with the big guns in their own playground and go after boutique, direct market, small clients that the big guys don't bother with, kind of thing. Have a decent selection and enough image exclusive stuff, and it could work. I liked the original Symbio idea, just needed some tweaking and money thrown at it, plus curation, so that there was a quality level and common price points. Maybe multiple networks? Who knows..
Anyway, sorry for hijacking the thread.
What have you got to lose, then wait a year or two and you will have a lot less to lose, life's too short.
294
« on: July 31, 2018, 19:23 »
Been thinking about that with my own website. Back in the Symbio days my idea was to get 6 or even a dozen artists with complimentary portfolios and do one "bigger" site with lots of variety all around the same quality and price points.
Not a bad idea with Pond though, I have a negligible amount of photos there, but they do sell sometimes.
The structure is there to make an agency within an agency a Stocksy clone without the closed coop limitations, a Premier Select, but open to all, just needs enough contributors brave enough to take advantage of it. One drawback is lack of control over Pond5, they could change the rules halfway through the game as agencies are apt to do, but if it works would they want to kill the golden goose?
295
« on: July 31, 2018, 18:13 »
Do photos actually sell there?
Not yet, but it's about creating a market, Stocksy contributors promote on social media, find out who your buyers are and get in their networks. If half of those 5,000 Stocksy applicants did the same, Pond5 would start promoting it as well. It may take a year or two, but it beats the race to the bottom with the other agencies.
296
« on: July 31, 2018, 17:53 »
You know, my more recent stuff is worse than my older stuff. I have a few thousand newer pix that are way better than whats there now, but no incentive to upload except maybe to my own website.
Put it on Pond5, exclusive at a premium price, like Stocksy for the masses.
297
« on: July 30, 2018, 16:06 »
I believe most full time microstockers are way too busy producing product to bother with selfie tutorials...
Or they don't have enough of a technical knowledge to edit to an excellent standard, as seen by Guilherme's final result.
I certainly don't, and stick with publishing blog posts. Seems like these types of YouTube tutorials have the potential to reach a much further audience and have a greater impact.
To what end?
298
« on: July 30, 2018, 15:41 »
Have we all really got the spare time to worry about a single image appearing on Google Maps???
No, unless the OP has developed a time efficient strategy to extract money from infringers of Royalty Free images without upsetting the agencies, that I would really like to hear and could be valuable time well spent.
299
« on: July 28, 2018, 08:13 »
Don't you also cut your own throat as well as the agencies by selling on cheaper sites?
300
« on: July 27, 2018, 13:27 »
Pond5 rather uniquely are offering the contributor the choice to carry on with your race to the bottom or you can race to the top. Trouble is contributors need to act together if they want to race to the top, but don't trust each other enough to make that choice possible. Consequently, Pond5 are left in no mans land, unable to join other agencies in the race to the bottom and priced out of the market by their own contributors.
There have been many calls for contributors to get together to give some kind of strength in numbers, you don't need it, just through all your media at Pond5 exclusive and treble your prices, that would turn the market upside down in an instant and create a race to the top.
Ready, steady, Go!
You first
Seems we have a false start, refused to start due to lack of trust, didn't take long  . We need to act together, refusal to do so means the bottom is inevitable and we know you don't want that. How do we earn each others trust, or do we wait for the bottom to come racing up at us and hit us in the face, before we seek answers.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 25
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
