|
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
2901
« on: January 23, 2015, 18:27 »
Is there any reason to think this is something other than a venture partner cashing out, 'cause that's what they do with all their deals?
2902
« on: January 23, 2015, 14:54 »
I realize reading this anguished English is a form of torture, but all the rules are (I think) on the IRS instructions for form W-8ben, should you want to go back and re-read details or see if you need to change something in the future http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/iw8ben.pdf
2903
« on: January 23, 2015, 11:49 »
Well, the very first question, Individual, Sole Proprietor or Business, I thought I'd better see Help to find out whether I'm US-legally an Individual or a Sole Proprietor, and Help told me:
"Individual, Sole Proprietor or Business?
If you are preparing tax information as an Individual or Sole Proprietor, select the appropriate "Individual" or "Sole Proprietor" radio button."
Help? = 'not as advertised'. Bl**dy obvious information, but not telling what we need to know, and I've seen two different interpretations on two different groups discussing this, both peer information, not official.
FLOG
Unless you have a company of which you are the owner and sole proprietor (i.e. not a partnership) you should select individual 
2904
« on: January 23, 2015, 11:40 »
At the end of the first (instructions) page for the Tax Interview it says:
"Do not update your tax information using our tax interview if you want to be the payee for the account. A change of payee requires a change to your agreement."
Of course I want to be the payee for my own account! I am a US resident and thus shouldn't have any tax withheld, but I never filled out a W9 with iStock before because they were not a US company.
From the forum FAQ it says
"What happens if I don't do the Tax Interview?
You will be subject to maximum withholding tax."
and
"Im a US Citizen will I have taxes deducted from my payments? - new
If you are a US person or business and complete the tax interview (completing a W9) you will not have taxes deducted from your payments."
So I have to complete the tax interview, I guess?
Edited to add that I did complete it, and they now have a W-9.
Perhaps the first quote about not doing the tax interview if you want to be the payee for the account relates only to cases where you wish to change the account payee and they're trying to tell you not to do it via the tax interview.
2905
« on: January 22, 2015, 11:45 »
Still, I have to wonder could it be (as Justanotherphotographer's experience suggests) that opting out of partner deals on DT actually might make the old-fashioned credit sales come back???
I don't think so. I've been opted out of partner sales at DT for about a year. I have had these lurches between subs sales dominating (most was 19/20 on one sales page) and bursts of credit sales (where it's more like 50/50 for a bit). I can't explain the lurches - no other agency that sells both subs and credit sales has patterns like these - but I don't think it's different from what I saw before dumping the partner deals.
2906
« on: January 22, 2015, 10:54 »
...It's really no use getting upset about it. ...
I am apparently pretty stubborn about the things that make me angry - I am upset about it, at least if I think about it. That's why I try not to think about it, in general, and should probably have skipped this discussion I don't disagree with your point, but don't much like that view of our current business climate. But regarding the original topic, I'd have to be able to convince myself that a new agency/collective for selling stock imagery was something other than "business as usual" before I'd even care to consider their pricing or licensing model.
2907
« on: January 21, 2015, 18:04 »
...When you read between the lines in people's posts, I think the real complaint here is that sites sell images as RF for subscription (or low dollar) pricing at all. This deal is just a sad reminder of the potential of what one agrees to, when one agrees to sell RF under a subscription model... This use by Google sounds to me exactly like what the RF license was intended for (which is to say nothing about getting good returns for the contributor):... I don't think it is at all a typical RF use - it's more like Google becoming a distributor to all the companies it sells an ad with that image to. In the "normal" way of things, each company buying an ad would have to purchase an RF license for the smallest size to use the image in their ad. And that's very much how SS's deal with Facebook works - we get a subscription royalty for each ad run; what Facebook has done is make it easy for the ad customer to do this by taking the image purchase complexities off their plate. In the DT/Google scheme, the contributor gets paid a very small amount once for 12 months of unlimited ads. As I said above "I think there's a big difference between agreeing to a small per sale amount in return for high volume sales - 300 x y - and a small amount for an unlimited number of sales - (300 x 0) + 5y"
2908
« on: January 21, 2015, 11:29 »
@Jo Ann - A wasteland for 10 years? In those 10 years it has bought me a house in the UK, lock, stock and barrel, at the cost of a fairly modest effort. It doesn't look like a wasteland to me.
I should have elaborated. I've made a fair bit of money from various agencies (especially while exclusive at iStock) in that time, and I should probably have stated that. There was a lot of good - and I have learned a lot along the way via the agencies plus my investment of time and energy. What I was trying to convey is what I see of lost opportunities, broken promises, and promising businesses dismantled or run into the ground. iStock is the biggest example of a business that was very successful and completely sustainable but has been crippled by Getty and its private equity owners. There's dreamstime and their endless complexity leading to being a perpetual #4; CanStock that used to pay substantial royalties and was a real innovator in site features, but which has never managed to sell; Fotolia whcich was a real innovator in internationalization and which has become a leader in scummy business practices. I could go on down the list, but I think you get the point. Then there's SS, a success story in so many ways, but at what long term cost overall to the business we're all in? The handling of BigStock subscriptions and SS's ever rising share for me (and many others, I think) of the monthly income both worry me. I guess the wasteland is largely the relationships between contributors and the agencies, not the money we've made along the way.
2909
« on: January 21, 2015, 01:09 »
The wording doesn't say the purchaser gets the right to sublicense, but that you grant iStock the right to sublicense your work to a purchaser - covering things like Thinkstock where you grant iStock the right to license your image and it's Thinkstock that grants the license to the buyer, sublicensing your image from iStock.
The wording in SS's TOS is similar:
"By submitting any Content to Shutterstock, you hereby grant Shutterstock a worldwide, non-exclusive right and license to reproduce, prepare derivative works incorporating, publicly display, market, sublicense and sell any Content uploaded by you and accepted by Shutterstock, until this Agreement is terminated as herein provided"
As far as the prints, that's also you granting iStock the right to sell prints as well as licenses to use your image, not granting those rights to the buyer (they have to buy an EL to be able to sell prints).
2910
« on: January 21, 2015, 01:02 »
Have you tried our search by image? This could save a lof of time for our image buyers, I dare say our image search technology is the best one in image stock industry. Although not as good as Google, it's far beyond than others
I hadn't tried it before, but I just did. It's hard to tell much because some of the searches failed because you don't have any images of that subject (easter eggs, for example). One of a generic office building produced lots of office buildings, but not as many as if I searched using the words, office building. And then there was a search for a small boat anchored at a buoy in a lake. Your image search said there weren't any like that, but a search for boat lake produced 107. Its not a time saver over a keyword search unless (a) you're trying to match an exact image (and then Google image search already does that) or (b) it finds you relevant images. 
2911
« on: January 21, 2015, 00:37 »
Hello Do you have an online portfolio of the work you're thinking of selling as stock? Although it's never easy to hear people opine and criticize your work, if you feel up to it, you might ask for feedback before you apply to the selective sites (like Shutterstock, where you need to get 7/10 approved from your application set to become a contributor). As there is an increasing wait time after each submission, avoiding some common mistakes in selecting application images will help you get started sooner. Jo Ann
2912
« on: January 20, 2015, 18:45 »
If you had an agency that paid 20 times more than SS but had 1/20th the sales who would you upload to first? In other words if you were earning $400 at SS over 500 sales or earning $400 at X on 25 sales which would be your preferred agent?
It would depend on the other agency and my best guess as to their long term plans. If the alternative appeared to be a SS-wannabe who was just getting started with the SOD end of what Shutterstock sells (but which I thought was heading towards being the amazon of the stock imagery marketplace) then it'd be out of the frying pan into the fire and I'd probably stick with the abuser I know than try a new abuser I'm not with Stocksy but I have a small portfolio at Creative Market and also one at Canva (it's not high price, but it's effectively low cost RM with an online design site, and I think that has lots of potential if they can make it all work for a large audience). I'm interested in trying new approaches, where they seem potentially viable. I'm interested in finding partners who are honest, competent and in it for the long haul. The price per transaction isn't such a big issue for me - some people balked at 35 cents royalty on a $1 license at Canva, but this isn't at all the same as a RF sale via one of the agencies. (a) the buyer never gets your image directly, only their design and (b) each item they design requires a separate payment, rather than being able to re-use an image on multiple pieces. I want a fair deal. I want buyers to get a fair deal. I'd like the agency/sales site to stick around and keep their promises. Good business can be built on such things. The wasteland of the last decade in microstock (not to mention all Getty's acquisitions of stock agencies in the years prior) gives us lots of examples of what to avoid and what not to do
2913
« on: January 20, 2015, 17:05 »
... It's all very well to talk about licencing for peanuts but most of us went down that road by putting material on subs sites in the first place.
I think there's a big difference between agreeing to a small per sale amount in return for high volume sales - 300 x y - and a small amount for an unlimited number of sales - (300 x 0) + 5y * Correction * I see that they increased the rate from 25 to 28c in Jan 2011, a year after the programme started, not sure you can claim credit for that, though. There was a big forum fight over that raise. A number of exclusives, including me, opted out of the PP and argued strenuously that this notion that subs buyers were different and it wouldn't erode credit sales was nonsense. Because of the holdouts, they tried to encourage more people to opt in by very slightly increasing the bribe royalty. Back then, iStock was still a major player and provided substantial income to indies and exclusives alike; it was worth the risks of a fight to try and get the contributor situation improved. DT is a fast-sinking also ran, so given they've let us opt out, I'm not sure they're worth arguing with - except to say that the deal sucks for contributors in spite of all their happy talk
2914
« on: January 20, 2015, 13:42 »
Can you walk me through a possible scenario where this deal (first 12 months) boosts DT traffic/business and/or your sales at DT?
I'm not thinking about a positive effect on sales, I'm thinking that it won't have a negative effect so it might chuck a bit of beer money in the kitty. I don't see it as making much difference either way, really.
Ah. If you're not on Canva yet, once they've sorted out their review backlog (not yet), give them a try for beer money for the kitty I'll take another look in a year when they roll out phase 2 to see if the deal looks any better to me.
2915
« on: January 20, 2015, 13:27 »
So there is still nobody thinking about whether or not this would actually affect any other sales?
This is the first thing I thought and my big reason for opting out. If one of my best sellers ends up littering the internet all over the place in Google ads, nobody is ever going to buy it again.
I thought about that, too, but if it is a best-seller it is already littering the internet - and the best-sellers keep selling regardless.
I don't understand what the mechanism might be for this deal to boost sales. DT images (some selection) appear in Google ads. The buyers of ads don't get to look at DT (at least not for the first year) or have any reason to look at anything other than which of the freebie images they can put in their ad. They might not even know where the images come from. If I could envision some workflow where something good (for contributors) might come from this deal, I'd be game to take some risk, but I can't. Can you walk me through a possible scenario where this deal (first 12 months) boosts DT traffic/business and/or your sales at DT?
2917
« on: January 19, 2015, 20:35 »
This is mental... You're being kind The iStock images are a commodity and they need to be able to manage these "assets" from various sources in a uniform way to cut costs. No personal experience. No connection with the artist. The only good thing I can see is that the new approach more honestly reflects their current modus operandi.
2918
« on: January 19, 2015, 20:29 »
It wouldn't be right to compare Google to a designer or ad agency in this case. It's more like the TV network or media group. Imagine if we sold images just once to Viacom or Dow Jones & Co and any time someone bought ad space from them, they let the purchaser use one of our images in their ad at no charge (beyond the advertising cost) to the buyer and no royalty to us?
We'd (rightly, IMO) be furious.
What is madness is the notion that dreamstime thinks it's a great deal to allow someone to bundle an image with an ad to entice the ad buyer to purchase and not compensate the image producer beyond this once a year token payment. Our images are the "free" plastic toy in the cereal box at this point.
A while ago I worked in a software group at a large company that sold both hardware and software. The hardware sales reps loved to "give" the customer some free software to go with their hardware as a way to close the deal. However the software groups got no credit for the sales and thus looked like one huge cost center that brought in minimal revenue.
If Google (or anyone else) wants to play that sort of game with ad sales then they need to acquire some wholly owned content that they can give away as they please - or pay more to license content to which they don't own the copyright
2919
« on: January 19, 2015, 14:56 »
Im surprised nobody called for a d-day yet 
There's an opt out. In the Getty/Google case, the Fotolia/DPC case, Deposit Photos and their credit sales for subs royalties partners, (and to a lesser extent BigStock's subscriptions-for-peanuts-royalties case) there was no opt out (Fotolia eventually caved and provided one).
2920
« on: January 19, 2015, 14:33 »
This really isn't different from the Google/Getty deal with the exception that there's an opt out offered (which is a very good thing; and the worse the deals, the more I appreciate that). I think people see Google and get all starry eyed and do daft things.
I can't find the opt out possability. Either you agree to any partnership or you opt out from any partnership. A special opt-out option for the Google deal does not exist
Right - it's all or nothing. If I were interested in other alliances, I'd fuss about this, but as I'm not (almost all of these schemes to let multiple people siphon off some of the money my work earns don't interest me), I can live with it.
2921
« on: January 19, 2015, 12:44 »
I posted something in the DT forums asking for clarification. It's all very well that they trumpet that the selected images get a $2 royalty even if no advertiser ever uses the image, but they're apparently glossing over the fact that Google can resell the image to multiple end users multiple times if an image ends up in lots of ads.
This really isn't different from the Google/Getty deal with the exception that there's an opt out offered (which is a very good thing; and the worse the deals, the more I appreciate that). I think people see Google and get all starry eyed and do daft things.
2922
« on: January 19, 2015, 12:09 »
I've been opted out of Alliances for a while now (can't remember which partner site with a crappy rate led to that, but I'm pretty sure that was why).
I had several $2 sales last week and one on Sunday, so they're definitely coming from other buyers, not just Google.
If I thought this was a good deal, I'd be urging them to allow contributors to choose individual alliances, so one could opt out of the bad deals and opt in to the favorable ones (it's just software, and an API could certainly handle something of this sort)
However the notion that because Google is technically the purchaser, they get to pay $2 royalty once for resale of the image in multiple ads over a period of time is insane. Daylight robbery is the phrase that comes to mind.
I know many weren't happy over the SS/Facebook deal, but we get a subscription royalty for every ad usage, and while that won't make me rich, it's pretty much the subscription deal I already agreed to with SS.
2924
« on: January 18, 2015, 16:57 »
If you look around at commercial web sites, magazines, sales literature, annual reports, etc., can you see your work being used there given the type of imagery you currently see? Styles do change over time but in general I'd say that the subject matter and overall feel of your images would be a tough sell as stock.
This isn't at all a criticism of the images, just the nature of stock where images are used for some purpose, not just because they're pleasing to look at.
2925
« on: January 17, 2015, 23:34 »
From last Dec,sales of Shutterstock started to being sinking and sinking and never come back  . more photo uploaded,more visitor on photo portfolio,more nice photo ( i suppose) but less download. It really not good.
How long have you been selling stock? I ask because there is a strong seasonal variation for most portfolios, so what you want to do is compare Jan 2015 to Jan 2014, or 4th quarter this year to last. Sales are generally pretty low in January and mid-summer and there is a Spring and Fall/Christmas boost. Sales in late November and December will be poor if you have no seasonal images. Sales in January are slow for most people regardless of how many new uploads or nice photos.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
