|
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 - cardmaverick
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18
301
« on: March 27, 2010, 10:09 »
There are other ways to be paid. I really don't see what the big deal is though, its literally just a few cents and your done, one sale covers your costs easily. This isn't for storage, its for paypal only.
302
« on: March 27, 2010, 09:28 »
You pay up front to open a paypal payment channel with them. I'm actually starting to like Panther now that I have quite a few things up.
303
« on: March 26, 2010, 21:41 »
They charge a measly couple of cents (less than a buck for me) to open up a paypal account for some weird reason. It's absolutely no big deal.
304
« on: March 23, 2010, 16:46 »
"Image Pools" - as I've heard them called before, are a fact of life, prohibition or not.
The solution I believe, is the march of time. Life changes, styles change, etc... After a while those pools will become useless for clients that want to look current, thus they need new content. This is probably why "image factories" do the best in stock, they are always trying to stay bleeding edge current, exploit niches, etc...
One thing that annoys me with most mico agencies, is their lack of efforts to penetrate other markets around the world, the US and Europe are not the only places where you can sell stock images!
305
« on: March 18, 2010, 13:05 »
I could probably type a book from what I learned, but in a nutshell many of our problems are stemming from the Agency level and how they have chosen to setup their business models - so it would be harder for a regular photographer to do anything about it.
Here's what I think is the most important thing to consider:
* You can only reliably sell the things you can control.
Example: Yes, you can sell stock shots in an IP free world, but only for "X" amount of time reliably because at some point there is a competitor who rises up, and there will also be copying of products you sold off and willfully lost control over. A good example of how this can be put into action would be LookStat.com - They do NOT offer a downloadable version of their tools - it's all online. Effectively, assuming they ever sell their image tracking services, your really paying to log into their site, and then use the tools. They would have a harder and harder time trying make money off selling the program the traditional way because of copying/hacking that always happens over time. Paying for online access to tools is certainly a frontier business model that could work as Internet speeds become faster and faster. They could offer a far more expensive traditional install disc, but only 6-12 months after releasing the online access version first, for less money. Now thats the future of software releases. Imagine having access to a super computer running Photoshop or some other intense program over a super high speed web connection. It's futuristc alright... but it illustrates my point - you can only reliably sell what you can control. By the way, I do NOT consider government threats of force a good, or even moral, way to reliably control you're images. Just look around you on the web - even with the current system (government threats), intellectual products are being taken left and right and very few people are ever successfully pursued legally and punished. So CLEARLY it's a failure.
Again, I could go on and on. Lastly, I think you should start looking for a way to get more assignment work, but really think about what you are selling people on - it's your unique skills, personality, customer service, customization of an image, etc... Anyone can take a photo, so thats not enough. If you want to stay in stock, which I believe has a place in the market even if IP laws vanished, you really need to stay on top of emerging needs, markets, niches, etc...
306
« on: March 17, 2010, 13:25 »
Once you release images onto the web - copyright laws or not - you're giving up control over it.
Get over it.
Photographers and Agencies need a reality pill and more creativity about how to monetize their work. Most people pursuing stuff like this are wasting time and money better spent elsewhere. As a side note, I suggest brushing up on arguments in favor of abolishing IP. Like I said earlier, there's a TON of problems with it, and most everyone in the stock photo business seems to be clueless about it. Once you better understand the issues with IP laws, you start to think in newer more innovative ways - which is why I suggest studying it. Will it challenge your world view? Hell yeah, so just suck it up. I went in a skeptic, and came out with a smile on my face because of the new avenues I discovered.
307
« on: March 16, 2010, 09:27 »
...
Judging by the sheer lack of searchable metadata in those shots, I wouldn't really assume they are out to share the images with the world.
I think it's about the actual images which are copyrighted and not some meta data...
As opposed to the exact same images being hosted on the buyers website - equal size, equally downloadable with still no searchable metadata? Copyright is full of holes, like a leaky boat getting ready to sink.
308
« on: March 14, 2010, 20:13 »
This Flickr user had one of my images (multiple copies of) in his photostream along with many other Fotolia images. I have sent Yahoo the required takedown notice for my images, but you may want to take a look and see if any of yours are there and do the same.
In the past I've found Yahoo to be very prompt at dealing with this sort of thing - but you must follow the wording in their copyright/IP notice to get them to act.
Some people use Flickr to host their images. Judging by the sheer lack of searchable metadata in those shots, I wouldn't really assume they are out to share the images with the world.
309
« on: March 09, 2010, 15:01 »
I've been submitting some files recently for consideration to Flickr RM at Getty. It seems pretty random what they're looking for, but the more 'snapshotty' the better. I think its safe to assume that they will not be interested in anything remotely smelling of microstock. I've started taking my camera on holidays and travels to try and get some fun images. Honestly, its a nice break from micro..
I've got 9 files approved so far, only in the past week and a bit, but no sales yet. Anyone seeing any movement here?
I am interested- are you allowed to submit to Getty through two "doors" - Istock and Flickr?
I'm petty sure Istock exclusives are not allowed near Flickr.
310
« on: March 08, 2010, 16:56 »
Getting attention on Flickr requires work: don't expect to upload a bunch of pics and have people contacting you out of the blue. First you'll have to downsize everything and add a watermark - watermarking is generally frowned upon, so I don't do that. After uploading you'll have to add tags (that's what they call keywords), which isn't done automatically. There's probably a way it can be done automatically, but I add add pics infrequently enough that I can't be bothered to get set up this way. To get good exposure you'll have to add your images to appropriate groups. The comment-on-a-photo-when-you-add-one groups are a popular way to increase an image's "interestingness".
Flickr can import IPTC data. All keywords are imported as Tags, so the process is totally automated, at least now it is, I can't say much about the past since I've only been active there for a month. Like anything, you get out what you put in. After just shy of one month, and only 23 shots, I've had over 4,800 total views. Keep in mind, NOT all viewers are buyers! I've found some really strange searches used to find some of my womens fitness photos that are CLEARLY from someone not buying images - some are freaking hilarious. On the other hand, some are 100% buyer searches, as I'll see them looking for something with "ad woman fitness drinking" - stuff like that is NOT a casual browser. Another thing to remember is this: Flickr is seeing as the ANTI STOCK collection. I'm really not sure micro style images will be successful on there, simply because its those kinds of images buyers on Flickr are almost always RUNNING AWAY FROM. Getty's "Flickr Collection" is very different from its other collections. Keep this in mind. I watermark my shots, haven't gotten any beef about it. I see Flickr more as a way to promote myself for assignments than selling stock per se. My brother has been on it for years and has sold a few photos, but the biggest snags pay wise were exotic destination weddings about a year ago. Can you make it happen? It's up to you!
311
« on: March 06, 2010, 14:40 »
Selling on Flickr is possible, and for good money I might add, but so is getting assignment work.
312
« on: March 04, 2010, 22:49 »
Anyhow, back to the pay for play search, it could be just like the current model, only featuring higher subscription and credit fees - the search engine being the INCENTIVE to pay more money. I really believe the future is selling access to power search tools, and you can already see how the agencies stack up in order of industry dominance. The top agencies have the best search engines. It's not hard to see this trend. There is one downside though, some of these power search tools would require more human input to achieve - you can only automate so much data entry and have so good a search experience. Sometimes you need that "human touch".
I don't see anyone paying to search when the same content is everywhere. Maybe an epiphany will come while I'm sleeping as to why this would make any sense.
The same content could be elsewhere, but can you find exactly what you need in just a few seconds? That's the difference, if you don't think that matters when people select an agency to buy from, your just not paying attention. You also gotta expand the mind a bit more and imagine search technology that goes way beyond just looking for keywords. Imagine custom search brains for each client you buy for - just load in their search brain and it'll tailor the results based on the preferences of the clients previous searches. Theres TONS of ways you can make searching for content faster, and more enjoyable. A BIG thing to remember is the quality of the database your searching. This is a big issue for things like google to jump over - if your database is lacking in quality information to pull from when searching, your results will suck. I've searched google images in the past, and have been pretty disappointed with the results (tons of irrelevant results), it's a very overrated search to be honest, because it can't totally control the quality of database input, thats why. Istocks controlled vocab, as much as contributers hate it, is a great example of fine tuned database input. Is it perfect? No, but over time it'll get better. Another thing to point out, exclusive content. I'm not against it, in fact I think its a good idea for an agency and makes a lot of sense. What does not make any sense are draconian contracts that practically hold you hostage as a photographer.
313
« on: March 04, 2010, 18:37 »
Most people wouldn't pay, they would stick to the free search engine. That's what experiencie tells. Paying customers would be maginal, if they see that exactly the same that costs money, can be got by free.
Just to clarify, the free search doesn't mean free download in my example. It just means lower prices, but you get less in terms of services etc... Judging by the reaction from the Thinkstock search engine, among others at major sites, I bet people would be willing to pay for a search engine they know is extremely powerful, especially if they can take it for a test spin. You could also make more content available via the pay search, and only a smaller fraction inside the free search, plus non downloadable teasers of whats inside the pay search area. In essence you make it more like a club you wanna belong too because it offers things actually worth buying that make life easier for the stock buyer. Why do you think people pay more to go to Disney Land and not just save the money and go to the more local amusement park, both have roller coasters and cotton candy. It's the experience. I should point out that Agency Access uses a business model similar to the one I'm proposing, you pay nothing for a freebie 3 day trial, you pay a lower base fee for 1 year access to their database, more to use their email campaign management, and they offer other services ala carte on top of everything - but the bottom line is they are charging for entry into the services.
314
« on: March 04, 2010, 17:41 »
Will the magical stock fairy be filling this 3rd party search thing with content?
I'd imagine they would be doing searches, for a fee, through all the agencies.
I think his point was that without the content producers there would be nothing to search through...
I'm assuming this is aimed at my idea of a pay search engine. This really isn't a radical idea, and it could be enacted today if an agency really wanted to do it. The key point here is this: They would be selling something you can't just download and give to your friends. It's pretty easy to control who can log into secure accounts these day because of things like ISP numbers, so even "account sharing" could be effectively controlled. Ideally, I see an agency with two search engines, one is the "crappy public search" - anyone can use it and download for lower fees - the other is the mega power search that you have to pay extra to use. Make the freebie lower cost search less appealing, and I bet people would be willing to pay extra for a vastly more powerful search engine. Tin Eye already limits the number of searches you can do for free, so obviously some companies are moving towards this concept that you can only reliably sell things you can actually control. Once you release images into the wild, existence of intellectual property laws or not, you've just lost control of that image. Suing every Tom, Dick, and Harry over usage terms can quickly become an unprofitable thing, even with a Tin Eye like service helping you find content being used, Tin Eye can't find stuff NOT online, and theres also no saying if Tin Eye can search for images inside of ZIP files, especially encrypted ZIP files- which is how I suspect many images get passed around. Anyhow, back to the pay for play search, it could be just like the current model, only featuring higher subscription and credit fees - the search engine being the INCENTIVE to pay more money. I really believe the future is selling access to power search tools, and you can already see how the agencies stack up in order of industry dominance. The top agencies have the best search engines. It's not hard to see this trend. There is one downside though, some of these power search tools would require more human input to achieve - you can only automate so much data entry and have so good a search experience. Sometimes you need that "human touch".
315
« on: March 04, 2010, 13:40 »
Stock photography was born as RM and will die as RM.
RF and micros are just a passing fad, a heresy, and soon they'll show their real face
and their real hidden goal : screwing photographers and destroying the stock market.
I find this statement funny, and kind of ironic. You could restate it like this: "COMMERCIAL photography was born as ASSIGNMENT WORK and will die as ASSIGNMENT WORK. RM, RF and micros are just a passing fad, a heresy, and soon they'll show their real face and their real hidden goal : screwing COMMERCIAL ASSIGNMENT photographers and destroying the ASSIGNMENT COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY market." There's always someone pointing a finger at you man. Thats life. Stock photography will continue, too many sound free market reasons for it to be here, but it's look and business model will be very different in the coming years.
316
« on: March 04, 2010, 12:46 »
I think the future of ALL stock will not be in trying to license "Intellectual Property" - but in how one gets to access and download it. There are major issues with IP, I sugguest you read up on arguments for abolishing it.
Imagine finding the image database of your dreams with the most powerful, turbo charged search engine ever with features like drawing out the image you want to find, similar image searching use Tin Eye Technology, etc... - except you can only run a few free searches a day, then you gotta "pay to play" with it.
Now thats the future of stock.
317
« on: February 17, 2010, 22:59 »
Sounds like a good idea... worth pursuing. Have you contacted them about your wish list? Not yet. I doubted if anybody is interested, and the integration work would take a lot of time.
Sorry to be late to the party.
We are interested. We have a planned set of features that would do some of what you're looking for. Without getting into much detail we're working out a way for anyone to put together any collection of images under their own "site". It would be like one of our pro-stores but for any collection of images. We have a number of steps to make and dependent features to build before that can become a reality bit it is in our plans.
Multiple sizes isn't in our plans.
What do you mean by "integration work"?
Cheers!
Dan
Thanks for featuring me on your front page! Overall, I really like the pro subscription, the analytics are awesome (blows away other sites "data" we get). I do have one big suggestion: Make sure people know your license is unlimited reproductions. This is why I sell for about $30-50 a pop on your site - its essentially an EL license. I think people are more willing to buy if they understand that they are getting full res work with very broad terms. It's hard for me to convey this threw your site. I'm getting interest in my work there, I just feel like people need to better understand the deal they are getting.
318
« on: February 16, 2010, 17:03 »
Ok, so Im the guy to take the heat ... the upload tool, already tested by many photographers, has been reschedulded to a later date.
Sorry for this, and we will keep you posted, of course. 
I sure hope its good! At least your testing the thing, can't say many other agencies have done the same for their back end tools....
319
« on: February 12, 2010, 15:52 »
I get the sense that this will be more geared towards RM licensing than RF. I've been debating buying a Cluster Shot pro account and giving that a whirl. The Cluster Shot license reads almost like an extended license, so I would probably price my images fairly high on there ($50-$100).
320
« on: February 11, 2010, 13:36 »
321
« on: February 09, 2010, 02:23 »
I keep on wondering when an angry ASSIGNMENT commercial photographer will join this thread and start ranting about how all forms of stock photography are hurting their business. 
322
« on: February 08, 2010, 13:16 »
Is anyone else having FTP issues? I keep getting some weird error when trying to upload to my folder, it was working all weekend though...
323
« on: February 07, 2010, 11:44 »
Thanks for info guys! I just sent in my application.
One thing I like about an upstart like this is they seem to understand they have to invest heavily in the startup phase before they really roll out. Paying every photographer $100 just to submit ports adds up really fast. My rough calculation of what they *may* have spent so far on content aquistion came out to about $600,000.
324
« on: February 07, 2010, 11:41 »
I'm still waiting as well, I like Panther, I've had some sales there and think it has potential.
One thing that I noticed, and it concerns me, are English keywords not being translated and vice versa when searching. I noticed the site does not differentiate! It's German agency, so I feel I'm loosing sales because of my keywords not being translated.
Fix that ASAP!
325
« on: February 07, 2010, 11:28 »
Why should Yahoo, serving pages to millions, get their content for $.30?
Thats a bit misleading - to get $0.30 an image you have to buy in bulk, just saying. I think the future might actually be the purchase of controlled hot linked images you can't easily take a screen capture of, you get it for "x" amount of time on your domain and then its gone. Not sure if the technology is here yet on the anti screen capture thing, but I don't see why it couldn't happen, I tried taking a screen cap of a DVD playing in Nero once and it always failed, I just got a blank box when pasting into Photoshop. Thats were the idea came from. They could also hide the source file, and maybe even do something to prevent right clicking and saving from the agency site. Just a futurist guess.... and yes I have plenty more! LOL.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
