|
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 - Adeptris
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 26
351
« on: July 04, 2009, 04:48 »
To much negativity going on here about this little game. Agreed, it looks like with the original concept it was not designed as a contributors 'Game', but as a learning tool to help or possibly test the 'inspectors' with identifing what type of assets get downloads and Sales. If you just click away and do not take in any information then it is just a game, however some posts here have already identifed what style of assets are selling with this tool, if anyone then chooses to use that information by creating targetted new assets for their own portfolio, increasing their sales and the stocksites, then the tool has a bigger value than the original idea. It is designed to 'help' you see how good an eye you have to identify stock assets that have sales, that should really be a positive for everyone. David 
352
« on: July 04, 2009, 03:38 »
It has a use as a training tool, as it is showing two assets with Sales v No Sales, the higher your rating the better eye for what might sell. Some of the assets with no sales looked to have a potential for sales, but maybe not the volume needed for microstock, but if used as an acceptance guide it could lead to many similars getting through. I am just hitting an average of 67% after 11 attempts, but some were 9 from 10 and one was 10 from 10, so there is hope for me yet. There is some weighting, if there was a vector v a photo, more often or not the vector seemed to win, so if I started again I could play the percentages with vectors, lifestyle, people, food and isolation, but the I would not be learning anything. David
353
« on: July 04, 2009, 01:41 »
I usually only post business related stuff as my tweets are also published on my website.
Need to do some shopping then it's off to get Corwin from Camp. But then sometimes we forget we have a twitter feed out to the world, as my DMAA tweets show on this forum I have to think about what I am doing and if the tweet may be informative. "I am following you!" sounds freaky, so "I am following your tweets!" David
354
« on: July 02, 2009, 09:32 »
Have a look at http://www.modelmayhem.com/ You may find a local model that will work, "Time for Prints" or "Time for CD", or for a lower hourly rate, check if you should offer only to cover expenses if the model is underage. If you agree to pay a model an hourly rate, check the local laws if the model is under the age of majority (a minor) to make sure it is legal to do so, as an example I can use family members and models for TFP and TFCD where no payment is made, but in the UK paid models are classed as actors and come under the child protection laws and the employment of children act, therefore permission is required from the local authority or the school for a shoot, a licence may be required and the time has to be logged as there are restrictions in the number of paid hours a child can work. Also try to make sure the witness that signs the release attends the shoot, having a third party at the shoot will help make the model feel more comfortable, as well as protect the photographer. David
355
« on: June 27, 2009, 03:01 »
As an istock contributor, it is ease for me to go there convert my account balance to just the number of credits I need for that small pix I need for a web site. The website owners just love these transactions, Istock have a basic commission of 26% and an earnings conversion rate of $1 = 1 Credit, but for ease lets round things and say your $1.00 of earnings came from 4 x $1 sales so we have the $4 of sales revenue, you then convert earnings and download an image, Istock now have $5 of transaction revenue after moving the $1 commission liability to sales revenue, and they will now only ever payout just $0.26 for $5 and not $1.30, a real commission of just over 5%. David 
356
« on: June 27, 2009, 00:45 »
Back to the $100 minimum. This minimum isn't that high if they would do like many other crowd-sourced enterprises and pay out whatever balance is accumulated under this threshold at the end of each calendar year.
It is estimated that 75% of stock contributors will never make the minimum for a payout, it is more than likely that this un-claimed revenue is calculated as part of any business plan, it is really quite cynical of the agencies to collect royalties and never pass them on the the artist, some of this revenue will be shown on the balance sheet as short term liabilities to be paid out, some will be moved from a liability to an asset or used to cover other costs, when we read how well a site is doing, some of that will be royalty revenue it collected but never paid out. We really need to get away from this 'We are a Community so lets help each other' scenario, the stock sites are a business that have to maximize and protect their margin, they are not our buddies, we are the Vendors and have the assets they need and should be looking for the best return for the least effort, the stock site should payout on every asset licence they sell once a month providing the transaction cost is met and that is a very small amount, so how about no minimum but a small transaction cost if the payout is less that $10, that might bring in a few Photographers. David
357
« on: June 26, 2009, 13:21 »
This sounds like a really good idea David. What are your plans to follow up and market the concept?
None just to act as a think tank and to discuss the concept and see what other think, there are many clever business people that read these forums, maybe one of these will pick up the idea and run with it, agencies have the tools to make it happen quickly and for a smaller investment, but it would be bad if just one smaller agency was involved, we are only talking web sized images. The problem is the industry is too fragmented and there are organisations for the traditional stock sites that will not include the microsites, lets hope sooner or later they will not be able to ignore them and give them a voice. To make life easier there needs to be some standard rules for images, as much as some photographers hate categories and the controlled vocabulary, if there was a globally accepted format then this would benefit all photographers and agencies, acceptable image sizes should also be standard, so some sort of regulation would be a good thing as photographers and their customers would know what to expect. Until this happens we can only float ideas and hope someone that can action them is watching. David
358
« on: June 26, 2009, 12:57 »
I may be the "hassle" factor, rather than the cost, that drive people to swipe pix from google image search for their blog or website.
I agree, there will always be some that will rip off an image, if there was a plug-in promoted by companies like Microsoft for their software and browsers plug-in's for firefox etc many would follow, it would be harder for users to say, "I did not know", there is far less ripping off music now and with a $1m fine last week for a file sharing user many more should be aware. I do think the "hassle" factor is one element but also many users have never heard of microstock, why should they have? With a plug-in it would be part of the application or software rather than somewhere you have to find out about, how many photographers were aware or had heard of microstock before they read the "upload your snaps and retire" articles? David (is Adeptris and DWL)
359
« on: June 26, 2009, 11:19 »
I read many blogs and articles on the industry online, and I do buy Professional Photographer each month, as I like to sit back and read it sometimes.
If I am browsing the photography or software section in the newsagents and I see a headline that grabs my attention I will also buy that magazine, often only once.
Interviews with different photographers will get different results, but it does seem that Professional Photographer has a problem with associating it readers with microstock websites they sit more with Alamy, which is the same as some forums and blogs.
But the title "The definitive state of stock" is miss-leading as it is not an in-depth study of the industry, just one persons perspective.
The biggest problem even now is article writers and bloggers, many complaining about the business in one post and heading the next "Earn money from your snaps" in another attempt to get new photographers to click on the affiliate links!
I have seen the easy money from photography stories, on television, in printed articles in the press and magazines, and online on websites and blogs, these are defining "the true state of stock"!
David
360
« on: June 25, 2009, 14:48 »
Is it immoral for the car seller to charge 40.000$, when you can drive the same car for 50$ a day? No, because it's A DIFFERENT SERVICE.
So before coming here discussing ethics and legalities study this subject a little more.
Regards,
e=mg2
Different Service but the exact same Asset! How would you feel when you pull up in your 40.000$ car and your neighbour says, I had that exact car last week for 50$ a day I remember the plate, when you thought by going to the higher end Dealer you was getting a car that had not been a part of a hire fleet, and the mileage was only the delivery miles, would you say the dealer was un-ethical? David
361
« on: June 25, 2009, 11:55 »
Most Macro site do not allow the same images to be sold on Microsites, there are exceptions though.
Is it ethical is the question you ask, that is really a double edged sword, many producers supply the same produce for different brands at different price points, the ink in our inkjet printers comes from one company, a branded cartridge might be $20 and an unbranded $5, the ink supplied is often the same, there might be an extra chemical or process by the cartridge company we do not really know, but often we are paying just for the brand name and packaging.
Many think that subsrciption sites are un-ethical, and macro site selling through third party collections and cutting the photographers share might be seen as un-ethical, but this is a business and some will sell the same images on Macro and Micro as long as they can get away with it and the customers are paying.
I did move some images from Micro to Macro, but I removed them from the microsites first, but there are buyers out there that paid a couple of dollars for the same image another buyer paid $175 for, I know there are some big micro shooters that have similar images that look almost the same but the models top is just a different color, but content wise they are the same.
I would not have the same or similar image on both but I think that each photographer has to run their business as they see fit, they do run the risk of the buyer seeing the image on a microsite and asking for a refund, and many buyers of traditional commercial images only buy RM, Alamy sell 78% of all images as RM if a buyer buys as RF they do not have the same protection.
Many Macrosite have account customers with good discount deals, which would mean the customer bases of the two stock models is often different, those buyers with a foot in each camp would know which sites to look for a particular type of image, just because a microstock image finds it way to a macrosite does not follow that it will sell there.
David
362
« on: June 17, 2009, 14:43 »
I have had three or four images of two different models in swimsuits rejected by IS. The rejections said that the fabric and design of the clothing needed a release from the maker. Of course that's impossible.
No one else has rejected these or any similar photos so who knows?
I had the same for a tee-shirt pattern and a girl with a hand of cards, the Ace and the pattern on the back of playing cards are copyrighted, but not the J K Q picture cards When I asked about a tee shirt image with the slogon 'Relax Don't Do It', they said you cannot copyright a slogan All a minefield I just learnt fast to accept and move on. David
363
« on: June 17, 2009, 12:15 »
Hi all,
I made a lingerie calendar for beauty pageant contestant and she agrees to let me sell the images as stock. The lingerie we used were loaners from a high end store in return for there business info to be printed on the calendar.
Since this is expensive lingerie, and not generic, i wonder if i need a property release to sell the images.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks
Given that the lingerie was used in return for a credit, you would be outside of the original agreement, if they were to be used in an inappropriate way it may damage the relationship between the model and the store, and could also affect your reputation in the industry. If the images are accepted due to the lingerie content they could wind up on the wrong type of website, like in this thread where the model in lingerie wound up used on a sex website. http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/my-models-images-from-dreamstime-were-used-once-again-for-a-porn-site-grrrrrr/David
364
« on: June 17, 2009, 03:42 »
As said 'Not needed on iStock':
http://www.fotolia.com/TopSales/FromThisWeek
It is on first page of best sales last 7 days on Fotolia!!!
You guys really should give the agencies a bit of credit for knowing what they are doing, if every asset is accepted on every site and the search returned the same assets, where would be the diversity and what would be the point? As has been said Istock use a different set of acceptance rules than ShutterStock and other sites, and will have some customers that the other don't, they have not said the asset is a bad quality one, just it is 'not needed by them at this time', subscription models need a lot more new images to keep their customers coming back and downloading, not always to use the downloaded asset but just because they want to use up the subscription limits, what is a best seller this week does not follow it will still be in a month or two. David 
365
« on: June 17, 2009, 02:40 »
My day job, put everyone except management on mandatory four day work weeks last January.
Management took a 15-20% pay cut as well.
It's not working for 'free' but it sure feels like it.
On the flip side, we still have jobs and will pay less in income taxes this year
Not all bad news, as you now have more time to work on your portfolio, do some assignment work, post in the forum, dream about turning a hobby into a full time job, or just pressing F5 waiting for the next sale to show on your statistics. Just this month I am out of contract, the first time in seven years with nothing to follow, but being optimistic I think it will turn by the end of this year or early next year. One thing I notice is that many companies employed to many staff in the good times, have not lost that much revenue, but are using the recession as an excuse, to squeeze more from employees and drop a few less productive ones. David
366
« on: June 17, 2009, 02:17 »
Most businesses have to pay for their stock and then make whatever % over cost that they can.
Some (furniture stores) markup is 100%.
Other models call for a 30% margin.
In the very expensive end of things (diamonds for instance) sometimes the margins may be as little as 10%!
Yet all these business models seem to work and often the owners make a very good living. Some even become quite wealthy.
Enter this business model, where the product (our work) is free and they only pay us what? 20-25% IF it sells.
You would be amazed at the number of products in the high street that are there on SOR 'sale or return', much fresh produce is supplied like this, pay for what is sold and destroy whats left, and other products where the supplier supplies on a SOR basis and still the store owners dictate what the supply price will be. Just like this industry the stores cover all the overhead costs of bringing the product to market, and pay the vendor only when there is a sale, more popular goods will get more exposure and a higher position on the shelf, poor performing products get moved to less space and a lower shelf until the store or supplier pulls the product. Part of this relationship is that the stores will do the work to know what the competition is doing and what price the market will bear at the time, based on what market the store is aiming for will attract different products from their suppliers range, high volume products to the superstores, high value to the specialist and niche stores. We just need to think like the suppliers and target our goods based on quality and content into the different stores to maximise the return, if you sell specialist or niche products through a superstore for a high volume low value return then that is your choice, or just a result of you not knowing where your product fits in the market, do you ever think 'that was a bargin I would have paid a lot more for that'. I work in IT where the charge out rates are over $2000 a day and the resource or contractor rate is 30% of that, you would think that the companies are making a very high net profit but many fail and others report profits of between 3% - 5%, what tends to happen is we only focus on the raw selling and cost prices and not the overheads, extra costs of sale values. If the websites could charge a lot more for the products they would, but they have to be realistic and fluid with their model to reflect changes in the market and manage customer expectation to survive, when a stock site fails the supplier may loose a couple of hundred dollars in effort, the investors in these failures loose millions, so have a far higher risk. If you do not trust a website then you should not contribute to it, that is a choice you have in a free market. David
367
« on: June 16, 2009, 14:38 »
I have been doing some research and have read a post from LuLu, that the key seems to be the distribution method direct or through a 'Market Place', If Veer trade through a direct channel to distribute you images into the US, then they would be classed as the publishers and the contributors share of the published asset is then a royalty to non-nationals and subject to withholding tax. If the distrubution is through Veers Marketplace and this is a third party, then the contributors share is classed as earnings and not subject to withholding tax. Withholding of Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Entities http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p515.pdfHere is the post from the LuLu forum, I know that it is books and not images but the distribution concept seems compatable to stock assets. Interesting read as it looks like they withhold tax on books with an ISBN and sold through a direct US channel for US Authors as well: http://www.lulu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=46905David
368
« on: June 16, 2009, 09:42 »
Okay, maybe this is "fair". But there is cost involved in each payment made - guess how many contributors need to be tracked down to get current payment data... Someone has to pay for that cost...
Verification and Payment Methods are requested when you sign on to these websites, it does not cost $10 - $250 (Alamy) to send a check or process a paypal payment this can be automated, then any uncleared payments could then be used, which would be fairer, most online payment gateways now handle micropayments so there is no excuse not to payout whatever is owed providing the bare transaction cost is covered by the net payment. A large percentage of deffered revenue is seen by some sites as just working capital and not the artists royalties, so the sites are looking after the 25% that will make a payout at the expense of the 75% that will never, the main problem is all the 'you can earn money from snaps' blogs and articles which encourages new contributors to have a go, they get a few images online that generate a bit of revenue and then delete thier portfolio or convert the revenue to downloads as closing the account will not generate a payment, this is a win win profit situation for the websites. Back to withholding tax, if a contributor converts earnings to credits is that the same as a payout and subject to withholding tax? David
369
« on: June 16, 2009, 08:27 »
If they don't pay the contributor (because said contrib hasn't reached minimum payout) then they don't reach the point of withholding the tax from the payment. Presumably it only goes to the IRS if the contributor actually gets paid. Hence the sites get the use of a lot of money.
That is correct, having worked in both construction and IT as a freelancer during economic downturns, you may have done the work and not been paid, because you have not been paid that money is never subject to your personal taxation, your costs are higher due to expenses and bad debt than they should be and your net taxable income is reduced. Any calculations and forecasts by stocksites that are holding defferered revenue will factor in some of the revenue that will never be claimed and this will become working capital and nothing Illegal. I have seen a post here where one site had a policy where they paid out all deffered revenue under the payment level at year end to the contributors, much better for new and part-time contributors. 1). Royalties earned on SnapVillage will continue to be paid out as they have been.
When the SnapVillage site is eventually turned off later this year - you'll be paid out any remaining unpaid royalties (even if they do not meet the usual $10 threshold - similar to how balances were cleared at the end of each calendar year).
David
370
« on: June 16, 2009, 07:12 »
You are in Brazil, right? I don't know how they view it, but the IRS in the US definitely does view it as work income, if you are still working on stock photography.
Arguably if you stop working on photography and your images continue to draw royalties years after that might be able to be considered as royalty income.
At least that is how the accountant explained to me.
That would be right if you are a national you would not pay withholding tax while you are producing images, you would have running and equipment costs that you would off-set against your income tax liability when you do your accounts, so you are not taxed at source. If you stopped producing stock images you would still be active because the works would still be generating licences, and the revenue would be subject to income tax. Is it a royalty payment or income from the sale of a product. There are many part-time photographers that feel what they are earning is pocket money and not worth declaring as taxable, this was a similar scenario to casual worker and the construction industry at one time in the UK, avoiding or evading paying the income tax, the tax office realised that this was losing a massive amount of reveue and changed to a sytem of taxing at source. I was wondering if the IRS and HMRC might change this industry to include nationals in the future, how they see the revenue, to me it is not a wage but a product that you lease rights to, but is it then a royalty payment. The sales of licences from non-nationals that will never hit the payment level should attract withholding tax, but withholding tax is only liable on payments so the tax office will never see this revenue if things stay the same. The whole business of payment levels is defended by some photographers, but in reality it is not a financial number plucked out of the air or based on the cost of reviewing a new contributors images, but is cynically calculated to maximise profit from photographers failure, the common observation is 75% of photographers never making a first payment, so the stocksites know what revenue the average contributor can generate, but set the level 25% above that value, there is a lot of profit in there for the stocksites and a lot of lost income tax revenue. In the current financial climate, the IRS and HMRC will be looking for where they can find more taxable income, and this industry is new, ripe and ready for picking, my day job is as a freelance IT consultant and HMRC has changed this industry over the last few years to bring it in line with the Construction Industry and I am now taxed at source. David  (HMRC = HM Revenue & Customs)
371
« on: June 16, 2009, 02:14 »
Mutualism - when both species involved benefit from the relationship.This is the most likely, as both benefit from the relationship, the Photographer benefits by getting thier products in front of the customer and receiving the revenue without any of the marketing overhead, the stocksites benefit by having a ready supply of content to licence, there might be a case for how fair the percentages are, but both parties do benefit. Parasitism - when one species benefits, and the other is harmed in the process.This has been choosen by most, but this is a double edged sword, look at the websites that have gone under in the last couple of years, they might argue that photographers had the benefit of having their images inspected for free, and got good feedback to help the photographer improve their business skills, but the stocksite was harmed by a quantity of sub-standard content that was uploaded, after review and feedback some contributors still uploaded sub-standard content and the cost of reviewing this content damaged the stocksite by increasing the cost to market. I would think that because content review requires manual interaction this would be the largest cost in getting an image to market, taking the raw cost paid to the reviewer to review each image, add in a percentage to cover reviewing images that then get rejected, and another percentage for accepted images that never sell, then storage and bandwith. David David
372
« on: June 16, 2009, 01:30 »
I wonder if the next announcement will say StockXpert will be shut down? I will be greatly disappointed. 
PS: I'm opted out. so this news per se doesn't affect me.
Looking at it as a non contributor to either website, and without the doom and gloom, there are a few ways to grow a company, one of these is growth by acquisition, Getty seems to use this method. After acquisition you look at the poor performing area's, where you can add value and where you can cut costs, Photos.com and JIUUnlimited are likely the poor performing area's so cut them, add value by growing the library quickly by the IS content which has already been approved so they cut costs with not needing inspection, share servers, marketing, development, R&D, premises etc: by merging some of Getty, IS and StockXpert existing staff and properties and infrastructure streamline the business. StockXpert as a known brand and will share some Customers with IS and also have their own, Getty did not rebrand IS and are not likely to rebrand or close StockXpert why should they, if the wanted to kill competition they could do it with pricing rather than acquisition, as StockXpert was another vertical business they were a good target for a takeover, Getty would not merge the contributors accounts across agencies as cynically a very big part of the revenue stream comes from the 75% of artists that will never make a payout, the payout limits are nothing to do with the cost of managing these accounts, so merging accounts would be a bad move and mean an actual drop in revenue with more contributors making the payout level. The main aim would be to keep both profitable by sharing resources across different websites, different sites and price points will mean more customers, with the profit coming back to that shareholder or partners, so I think you will just see the two businesses as separate entities under a common umbrella. David
373
« on: June 15, 2009, 00:50 »
The IRS and HMCR both treat the income from stock as a royalty payments and not as payment for a product or service, and subject this reveneue to withholding tax for non nationals. So the stock sites are collecting this tax on their behalf, I wonder if this could change in the future where they start to include nationals as well, this is something they have done with casual and construction labour in the UK, taxed at source and claim back rebates later, this was to stamp out illegal tax evasion or avoidance, where people worked under false names, did not declare the earnings, or were non nationals that worked illegally or returned home without paying any tax. The 75% refers to the contributors that never reach payout level, how many millions of dollars in royalties will never be subject to income or withholding tax, it will be taxed at a later date as the stock sites profit if not used, at the moment this revenue is a cynically calculated asset and factored into the business plan and accounts, and a percentage of this revenue will be used for running the business, paying the reviewers to review other photographers images, marketing, bad debt, R & D etc:, without this revenue percentages would be smaller or contributors would have to pay a fee. The stock sites have it covered at the moment as the withholding tax is taken at the point of payment to the photographer, I wonder if the IRS and HMRC will start to take a different view as to what point the royalty payment becomes subject to tax, and who has to pay it, and move it more like sales tax and VAT at the time of sale. Commision is the payment of commission as remuneration for services rendered or products sold is a common way to reward sales people. Payments often will be calculated on the basis of a percentage of the goods sold.
In art, a commission is the hiring and payment for the creation of a piece, often on behalf of another.
The stock sites do not hire or commission a work, and the photographer is not the salesman, so we do not get a commission payment. Royalties (sometimes, running royalties) are usage-based payments made by one party (the "licensee") to another (the "licensor") for ongoing use ...
royalty - payment to the holder of a patent or copyright or resource for the right to use their property; "he received royalties on his book" So it is correctly a royalty payment, the photographer is the licensor and the end client is the licensee, that would leave the stock sites as a merchant that facilitates the transaction. David (My thought for the week)
374
« on: June 14, 2009, 02:24 »
relax just messin with you. It would be nice if every artist left for IS it would make me a lot of cash
MisterElements, no problem I enjoy debate, Looking at your portfolios and numbers. IS 74 files and 3500 downloads DT you have about 780 files 123 you have about 1229 files SS you have 1,858 files It looks like your content is best suited to SS and 123 as you seem to have favoured these sites, the numbers at IS look good in download quantity to number of files, unless you have had a clearout and deleted files which distorts these numbers. Just wondering why the IS quantity is so low considering the downloads are high? David
375
« on: June 14, 2009, 01:52 »
[you are right everyone should go to IS
There is a simple way to look at this by numbers, so talk quantity not quality for now. SS is a high volume, low revenue per download website, IS is a low volume higher revenue website, sometimes one of these models might not suit a portfolio. IS restrict the number of files you can upload and have a lower acceptance rate than SS. If you produce low volume vectors that require a lot more work then it is likely IS is a better option, if you can create several new vectors a day then SS might be a better option for a quick turnaroud. So it is a matter of what the artist is looking for, a quick return or a steady return, also how much time they have to invest full or part-time, after the initial upload frenzy will they be able to maintain a flow of assets to feed SS, reading the SS forums it is clear that uploads perform well in the first few days but drop off quickly, over on the IS forum it is clear that an asset takes time to move up the searches and then will return steady views, downloads and revenue. Both models have positives and negatives, the OP was asking about going exclusive before the artist has opened an account, this is not a bad thing as the artist would then have an objective and be able to set milestones, with a clear business plan to work to, one factor for any artist to consider is production, what volume they can produce and which sites will give the best return on that investment. It is not about IS vs SS, Micro vs Macro, Quantity vs Revenue, Us vs Them or Me vs You  An image might sell 340 times a year on SS to earn $85, or once on Alamy to earn the same amount, they both return the same RPI so which model is better. David
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 26
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
