|
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 - cthoman
3051
« on: October 05, 2010, 14:37 »
You can also do it at the submit area after your jpg's are in your unfinished section.
When you do all the keywords, titles and descriptions and whatever else you need to do at that screen, press submit and there will be a text link to submit additional formats. You'll have to click it quick as it's on some goofy 3 second timer and then browse to your eps file and submit it. It will also be attached to the jpg you just uploaded.
That's what I do when submitting. You can turn off the auto-continue as well.
3052
« on: October 05, 2010, 10:46 »
I don't understand all the negativity directed toward StockFresh. First we all jump on the bandwagon thinking they are going to magically rival Istock/Getty overnight, and then bash them when they don't meet those expectations in the course of a month's time?? 
Peter and co. know what they are doing. And they are doing it in a reasonable timeframe. Let's just cool our jets and let them do their jobs.
Nobody is forcing any of us to upload there. Personally, I see a lot of potential in SF, but I am not going to freak out if it takes awhile for them to build momentum.
Like many other endeavors, they could do it fast and badly, or take the time to get things right and have a good chance at longevity.
Really... I don't know why anybody would expect anything to happen overnight. Even if you get in, that's no guarantee of immediate sales.
3053
« on: October 04, 2010, 11:53 »
What I don't seem to understand is why all of you think you are smarter then IS (or the rest of them) to know what is best for them ? they have been doing this for years and are worth well over 1B $ I guess they are doing SOMETHING right...
That's a good point, and I'm sure they have thought these changes through. It just doesn't appear that they have from my perspective.
3054
« on: October 04, 2010, 09:24 »
It is just data. They don't really have to have a purpose for collecting it. They can just collect it and decide how they want to use it later. I thought the more detailed stuff was in relation to the topic, uploading.
The most interesting question I saw was about doing the keywording yourself versus an editor doing it.
3055
« on: October 01, 2010, 17:04 »
Yeah, I can't say that is true for me. My numbers were better at IS this year. My numbers at SS, were about the same as last year (not really any growth despite uploading a lot). DT was kind of a wash. I took a big hit from the royalty reduction last year, but gained most of it back. FT grew from last year, but kind of peaked this year. Overall, my numbers were kind of stagnant this year. The smaller agencies grew, but the bigger ones didn't do much. I may have hit that wall everyone is talking about though. I guess I'll need to reach back into my bag of tricks to improve my numbers.
3056
« on: September 30, 2010, 15:08 »
I actually think the desk set up makes a big difference too. I like to have an L shape, so I can rest my arm on the desk and my wrist is straight.
3057
« on: September 30, 2010, 14:56 »
3058
« on: September 30, 2010, 09:29 »
the requirement for exclusivity is now 500 downloads, not 250. the general trend is actually to drop exclusivity at is rather than reach it. did you arrive here in a time capsule, by the way? 
note to self: AP=troll
C'mon, I thought the time capsule remark was funny.  Besides, it does throw a little caution out there about becoming exclusive now. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, but you might want to wait to see how things go at the beginning of the year when these changes kick in. I think there are some advantages to being a new exclusive under the new system, but I'd definitely be worried how the independents will react come January.
3059
« on: September 30, 2010, 09:23 »
I'm sure they'll want to avoid rasterized vectors showing up elsewhere if exclusive illustrators become independent for photographs, but they've brought this mess on themselves with this series of crazy decisions to hose contributors. I couldn't blame any vector contributor for wanting to keep vector exclusivity and make a little extra on the side with rasters.
These announcements all seem to beg the question, "Did you guys really think this through?". It seems to be about 5 seconds in the forum before someone pokes a big giant hole in their "special" announcement.
3060
« on: September 29, 2010, 18:00 »
Yeah sure, very popular idea among exclusives! 
Yeah, probably not. I think it was more of postulating an alternative, and not a serious plan. I just have a hard time believing that they sat in a room, and this new scheme is the best that they could come up with. I don't have anything against exclusives. I also don't really care that they are lowering the royalty rates by 5% or more. Nor do I care that the tiers for photographers and illustrators are unfair and different. I'm solely focused on the part about getting paid below a 20% royalty rate. It was like a switch went off in my head. Clearly, they don't respect my work enough to give me a measly 20%. Why should I have a company represent me that doesn't even respect me?
3062
« on: September 29, 2010, 16:53 »
From Onfilm: I spoke to a designer friend of mine yesterday. He was one of the buyers here in the early days, but not so much recently. He was looking for an image last week, but didn't buy anything as it was all too expensive, despite the fact that his credits will be expiring soon. This happened to me. I had 10 credits that were going to expire and wanted buy an interesting vector to dissect. I couldn't find anything for that price that I liked. It would have been nice to search by price instead of tier.
3063
« on: September 29, 2010, 16:49 »
I think that's exactly what Getty would like to do, but for the moment, exclusives are the reason they can charge higher prices. Once they dump exclusives, they're just competing on price like everyone else.
Oh, my solution was to price better selling content at the exclusive prices and keep image exclusivity for Vetta. It was a little rant, but I think it got buried in the monster thread.
3064
« on: September 29, 2010, 16:11 »
Try posting that on IS forums.
I already said they should dump exclusives and pay everybody over 20%, so I'm sure my ideas are real popular over there.
3065
« on: September 29, 2010, 13:55 »
I'm not defending the various agencies share of revenue, but i can tell you from experience that it costs a ton of money to drive eyeballs to a website, and then you have to close the sale.
In my opinion, the best company to be in all of this is google.
I have no doubt that it is a pretty pricey bill, but I was just curious if my share of that bill would be more or less than the percentage they are cutting from my sales. I know there's not really an answer. Just thinking out loud.
3066
« on: September 29, 2010, 13:46 »
That's lovely and all, but it does nothing to help vector artists with the fact that our targets are double that of photographers. Good for people with split portfolios to have more options I suppose.
I was thinking about this the other day. By their logic of vectors selling for more so they have higher targets, shouldn't exclusives have higher targets too because of higher prices. Uh, oh. Maybe, I shouldn't have said anything.
3067
« on: September 29, 2010, 13:42 »
I guess that is their solution to the split discipline people's redeemed credits. I assume raster illustrations are still considered photos.
3068
« on: September 29, 2010, 11:42 »
With all the royalty adjustments over the last several years, the excuse of needing more to advertise has come up often. So, I was wondering how much companies actually payout in advertising. I was under the impression that in a typical agent/artist (contract work) deal that the agent gets around 20% and advertising is split 50/50 between the agent and artist. Would it make more sense to pay a portion of the advertising instead of giving up royalty percentages? How much could your share be spread out among all the contributors? Just a thought.
3069
« on: September 29, 2010, 09:06 »
How many employee-employer relations are based on the employer unilaterally reviewing the wage levels each year and setting them in accordance with what is most agreeable to the company. Would you take a job on those terms?
They aren't my employer though. They are my agent. I use them to sell my work.
3070
« on: September 28, 2010, 15:22 »
When a portfolio is "willed" to a family member the account is frozen ... no files can be added to it, only income can be pulled. That's what I've heard/read in the iStock forums about it at least. I'm sure if the family member wanted to use the files to create their own account then yes, they would have to jump through the same hoops.
As for copyright name ... just a guess but as long as the person is the same person (name change) or they are their own business then they probably don't have to re-upload images or create a new account.
Interesting. It makes me wonder if I should set up everything as business name instead of my real name as a sole proprietor. That way it seems you would have more options or room to maneuver to turn over your business or sell it. Not that I have any plans of going anywhere, but it would be nice to know everything could be easily transferred.
3071
« on: September 28, 2010, 14:56 »
Just got an official answer from IS.
Even though this makes things much more complex and much more risky, I am still on the market for portfolios!
Thank you for your email.
To do this, there are a few steps that iStock requires.
1. The contributor you wish to take over must deactivate all files from iStock
2. You need to supply us with a transfer of copyright document showing that they agree and sign over all rights.
3. All files that you receive from the other contributor will need to be uploaded within your regular weekly upload limits and put through our current inspection standards.
Any monetary exchanges for the files will be handled on your own and not with iStock.
Please let us know if there is anything else we can help you with.
Kelly
iStockphoto LP
Contributor Relations
Toll-free 1-866-478-6251
OK, this brings up my next question. What's the difference between buying someone's account and willing your account to a family member? Would they have to jump through all the same hoops? Also, what is to stop you from changing the copyright info on your files? I assume people change the copyright info on their files occasionally to put it under a business name or married name.
3072
« on: September 28, 2010, 14:43 »
It's still possible to do it, but it put a much lower value on portfolios. Since only a portion of it would be re-uploaded, the best ones.
That's kind of what I was thinking. Buyers and sellers might have a harder time agreeing on a price because the portfolios aren't as valuable to the buyers. That and the risk seems pretty great that you could buy a portfolio full of useless images that IS would reject.
3073
« on: September 28, 2010, 11:33 »
My images were reviewed within a week, all were rejected and I was told not to contribute anymore. I guess they only want IS diamonds to apply.
OMG, seriously, Nancy?!! Wow.
Yeah, they told me they knew where I lived, and they'd come to my house and break my knee caps if I submitted any more images. I'm in the witness protection program now. Kidding, of course. I hope your issue gets straightened out.
3074
« on: September 28, 2010, 11:25 »
if these files are substandard in relation to Agency pricing...then what's the worry? a buyer might find them, and then find something similar in the regular collection and purchase that. it's not like these files are coming in, being priced lower than ours and given preferential treatment. they are priced well above reg and Vetta collections....so what's the big deal? assuming they are given any best match boost, which I suspect they will be, they will fall back like any other non-performing file does, which we know happens even with Vetta.
I think you're looking for reasons to be pissed off.
In a way, I agree. I don't think anyone really knows how this will play out in the long run. And some us won't be sticking around to see it play out anyway.
3075
« on: September 27, 2010, 15:15 »
I don't think you could say 'forever' but it would be reasonable to have a non-compete clause for a defined period, say 2-3 years. Of course there wouldn't be any way to stop the photographer from building a new port during that time and then uploading it at the end.
Definitely, but I guess that would probably factor in the price as well. My stock portfolio brings in freelance clients, so that would be something to consider. All this talk though makes me wonder why some of these shooters that supposedly spend ludicrous amounts on shoots aren't buying portfolios instead. You'd think buying diverse content would be a lot more profitable if you spend a lot to create it.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
