|
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 - loop
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 44
301
« on: December 05, 2012, 06:23 »
The system, certainly, has its flaws, and should be improved, but I think it is the best possible system, and works fantastic when translating to other languages. On the other hand, if you post examples of these pics with rejected terms stating the keywords, we will be able to see if they relate or no to these images.
302
« on: November 28, 2012, 10:51 »
I am already there, 40%. Next step is totally out of reach,
303
« on: November 25, 2012, 18:18 »
I don't have the d800, but one friend let me try theirs in an outdoors shoot we made together, and the resulting photos were clearly better than the ones I took with my 5D2. But I won't buy a d800 right now. Buying one would mean changing lenses, computer etc. Maybe next year.
304
« on: November 21, 2012, 11:32 »
Thats quite in order and will probably benefit us long term. 
The last cut, to fund the US offices, didn't.
Yes. Exactly. It isn't the fact that we will now be getting 50% that bothers me. It is the fact that this is the SECOND royalty cut in the last couple of years for them. I doubt it will be the last.
And the 30% part of the distributor sales is a problem. The distributor, who is a non-entity 3rd party, is getting more than the author of the images. And Alamy takes a cut on top of that.
Alamy sales are few and far between compared to the micros, and most of them aren't for the high prices they were a few years ago. They do NOT make it up in volume.
I don't understand the need of having re-distributors in these "access for everybody" internet days. It was more undesrteable ten or twenty years ago, when customers had to be reached through more pedestrian means.
305
« on: November 21, 2012, 11:31 »
Thats quite in order and will probably benefit us long term.
The last cut, to fund the US offices, didn't.
Yes. Exactly. It isn't the fact that we will now be getting 50% that bothers me. It is the fact that this is the SECOND royalty cut in the last couple of years for them. I doubt it will be the last.
And the 30% part of the distributor sales is a problem. The distributor, who is a non-entity 3rd party, is getting more than the author of the images. And Alamy takes a cut on top of that.
Alamy sales are few and far between compared to the micros, and most of them aren't for the high prices they were a few years ago. They do NOT make it up in volume.
I don't understand the need of having re-distributors in these "acces for everybody" internet days. It was more undesrteable ten or twenty years ago, when customers had to be reached through more pedestrian means.
306
« on: November 20, 2012, 14:41 »
16% is pretty bad. I think I will start to upload only Low res from now on. For 38 cents per download - that's the price of a a low res
The "16%" you are quoting is what iSTOCK are paying Luis, not Shutterstock. SS are paying him over 27%.
I supposse Yuri is getting 20% at Istock, or, at least, 19%, not 16... Knowing exactly which the SS percentage is, it's not easy, but that doesn't change the fact that he's getting 0.38 dollar per download, regardless of size.
he ain't getting 38 cents per download, how many times shall we repeat that it ain't our RPD  most average/top contributor is getting over 75 cents, if we enter PP on iStock income it can get that too, when will you guys give up on defending iStock after screw up and screw up 
Well, I neither wouldn't like getting 75 cents for an XXXL. I get around 15 $ (20x) for a regular exclusive at IS, not to talk of e+, Vetta and Agency. Maybe it would be interesting to know which agency pays less for a big print size (I don't think its SS)
307
« on: November 20, 2012, 14:27 »
shouldn't exclusives be out of this discussion?
Ouch... talk about freedom of speech. Besides of that, don't forget that many of us have RM stuff at alamy, so, I don't understand what are you trying to say.
308
« on: November 20, 2012, 10:15 »
16% is pretty bad. I think I will start to upload only Low res from now on. For 38 cents per download - that's the price of a a low res
The "16%" you are quoting is what iSTOCK are paying Luis, not Shutterstock. SS are paying him over 27%.
I supposse Yuri is getting 20% at Istock, or, at least, 19%, not 16... Knowing exactly which the SS percentage is, it's not easy, but that doesn't change the fact that he's getting 0.38 dollar per download, regardless of size.
309
« on: November 16, 2012, 18:09 »
To starve becaue you parents couldn't provide to you an average or glamorous education and you have to work for pennies maybe is not a "terrifying" legal risk, but certainly is another kind of risk.
310
« on: November 15, 2012, 05:19 »
No.
As exclusive, ou can sell other unrelated (not for sale at istock, not even submitted and rejected at istock, not deactivated at istock) as RM at other sites. Different images.
311
« on: November 12, 2012, 06:34 »
BTW... italian... Italians seems to have a special ability for making obnouxious demands. Last one I remember is when they tried to copyright some LANDSCAPES at San Quirico d'Orzia, Tuscany. BTW, they didn't succeed.
312
« on: November 12, 2012, 06:31 »
As for the glasses : the eyeglass company is right because these images would have never sold well if the author used some cheap 1$ chinese plastic glasses, these photos are so successful because the girls look good AND the glasses look good, the author makes money while giving nothing back to eyeglass company, it's not fair no matter if the logo is not visible the design might be unique and easily recognizeable, which indeed is the same logic for previous lawsuits about jeans or cars.
You'd better check the entire catalogue and back catalogue of the Italian maker in case the Chinese specs are rip-offs of some of their designs. Then you could be caught in the middle, and you'll be easier to chase than the rip-off merchants (if they are such).
Sorry, I don't know Yuri, but I can assure you that I've sold lots of photos of models wearing cheap chinese glasses. Cheap chinese glasses can be fragile and don't last years (not even months, sometimes not even weeks) but, when new, for photographic purposes, are ok.
What if? I dind't buy them as replicas but, anyway, I have the glasses to produce and prove that they are not made by these people. If they want sue the chinese, ok, that's not my problem.
313
« on: November 12, 2012, 04:53 »
As for the glasses : the eyeglass company is right because these images would have never sold well if the author used some cheap 1$ chinese plastic glasses, these photos are so successful because the girls look good AND the glasses look good, the author makes money while giving nothing back to eyeglass company, it's not fair no matter if the logo is not visible the design might be unique and easily recognizeable, which indeed is the same logic for previous lawsuits about jeans or cars.
Sorry, I don't know Yuri, but I can assure you that I've sold lots of photos of models wearing cheap chinese glasses. Cheap chinese glasses can be fragile and don't last years (not even months, sometimes not even weeks) but, when new, for photographic purposes, are ok.
314
« on: November 10, 2012, 12:41 »
There isn't any law in Denmmark against people or companys making frivolous threats or demands?
315
« on: November 08, 2012, 20:20 »
No such agency exists.
About point 2: displaying digital images on telephone or computer devices etc consumes electricity.
316
« on: November 08, 2012, 13:24 »
I'm not being a smartass. My question is serious (to me). I do not participate in any of the iS community activities (Forums) nor do I know any of the admins, company officers. I have heard of RogerMexico and Lobo through this forum. My question is:
How does/will Roger Mexico's departure affect me?
Is this a bad thing or just normal company operations ... turnover?
Thanks and please don't take this as anything other than a request for information.
Hard to tell. Maybe he wants to pursue his literary ambitions, maybe he has been fired (I don't realy think so). All I can say, having met him, is that he is a nice guy.
317
« on: November 06, 2012, 18:11 »
Wow, I'm getting 10x that (6.5 $ per download, and that is before Getty sales). Even wirh the Exclusive factor the difference seems too big.
Loop, do you have your port mirrored in the PP? If not, that would explain the difference. Most of us independents are getting more sales on TS than IS these days. Those .25 sales really drop the average.
For example, my average RPD on Istock in Sept. was $1.79. But when you factor in the PP sales, it drops to .85.
Just a little percentage of pics that I put there at the beggining, many of them deactivated from Istock. I don't ever look at my PP sales. Few files, as I said, and the older and worst ones, te kind of stuff I imagine can be sold for 0.38.
Anyway, I calculated the RPD from my numbers from October. I think October PP sales aren't added yet.
El's, Agency, Vetta, E+ ans so on, must play a part in this difference.
sorry, accidentally duplicated post.
318
« on: November 06, 2012, 18:08 »
Wow, I'm getting 10x that (6.5 $ per download, and that is before Getty sales). Even wirh the Exclusive factor the difference seems too big.
Loop, do you have your port mirrored in the PP? If not, that would explain the difference. Most of us independents are getting more sales on TS than IS these days. Those .25 sales really drop the average.
For example, my average RPD on Istock in Sept. was $1.79. But when you factor in the PP sales, it drops to .85.
Just a little percentage of pics that I put there at the beggining, many of them deactivated from Istock. I don't ever look at my PP sales. Few files, as I said, and the older and worst ones, te kind of stuff I imagine can be sold fort 0.38.
319
« on: November 06, 2012, 17:37 »
Istock pay some of the lowest rates when you take thinkstock into account. I'll have to double check when I've got access to to my stats, but I think as an indie I am under 1 dollar rpd on IS/TS counting both sites together as we are forced to upload as if they are one site.
I've just looked at my figures for last month and my RPD at IS/thinkstock was 64c!!!!!!!
This compares to
71c at SS
2.18$ at DT
1.21$ at FT
and I earnt considerably more at each of these sites than I did at IS.
Wow, I'm getting 10x that (6.5 $ per download, and that is before Getty sales). Even wirh the Exclusive factor the difference seems too big.
320
« on: November 02, 2012, 18:43 »
Yes, I meant UK no (except Scotland). Sorry for my poor English. But there's also a lot or non european contries (South and Cental America mainly). In general, Catholic countries.
321
« on: November 02, 2012, 15:48 »
My sales yesterday was about 40% of what they usually are on a weekday. If that's because of the new moronic best match change I'm in BIG trouble... microstock is my only income and I can't afford a 60% cut.
Note that yesterday was a public holiday in many european countries. Most people won't work today neither.
10 European countries have a public holiday in Europe on Nov 1, out of the 45
Anout twelve, but besides UK, the biggest and richest, including Germany and France.
322
« on: November 02, 2012, 07:44 »
My sales yesterday was about 40% of what they usually are on a weekday. If that's because of the new moronic best match change I'm in BIG trouble... microstock is my only income and I can't afford a 60% cut.
Note that yesterday was a public holiday in many european countries. Most people won't work today neither.
323
« on: October 30, 2012, 15:49 »
I just heard, here, sighs of delight when Istock started Photo+. It is also a different (Higher) price but it looked that everybody loved it (as I've just re-read in old threadS) . Guess what's the difference is...
The difference, as I think you well know, is that Photo+ allowed indies to sell at the same price (for that portion of their portfolio) as exclusive "regular" files. The difference between indie regular and indie P+ is tiny. The difference between indie regular and Agency is huge. We'd cheer (and did) for small price increases and royalty increases as the agencies upped their standards - agencies want higher quality images and are willing to increase the prices. Seemed very reasonable.
You also well know that a lot of the Agency files imported to IS from Getty could not get approved if a regular iStock contributor submitted them. They're substandard and over priced.
You're convinced there's some double standard here, but I don't think that's even close to accurate.
But there's a difference and that's the substance of it. I've also seen people cheering when someone has sold something for 120 $ comission at SS. I've seen people selling for 0.35 at subs sites and selling the same at Alamy for 100 or more. That also seems accepted. It can be said that IS is daring in its price structure, but what can't be said is that they are fooling customers. Prices are very readable, if someone think it's expensive won't buy and will look elsewhere. Customers are not fool. That's all. Vetta is expensive compared with average micro, but it's still 3x cheaper than Getty or Corbis. I would prefer old Vetta prices (from 20 to 70) to sell more, but that's what be have, and it works. And yes, I don'tlike some of these Agency imported files, but nothing is perfect. If customers don't like them either, they won't buy them.
324
« on: October 30, 2012, 14:14 »
I just heard, here, sighs of delight when Istock started Photo+. It is also a different (Higher) price but it looked that everybody loved it (as I've just re-read in old threadS) . Guess what's the difference is...
325
« on: October 26, 2012, 06:44 »
That's quite weak.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
