|
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 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18
351
« on: November 04, 2009, 11:51 »
Update - I just realized that Blue Jeans Images misspelled their email! LOL - I can't believe I missed that for this long...
352
« on: November 04, 2009, 11:32 »
Thanks for the leads guys! I actually have seen Blue Jeans Images - I tried contacting them about contributing but the email came back as having failed to deliver.
Fastmediamacro, how did you get involved with Asian Images? I've also run into them as well but have not really found much on contributing to their collection.
Thanks!
353
« on: November 02, 2009, 10:20 »
Does anyone know of any Asian based photo agencies that service countries like Japan, China, etc... ? I know all the major US/European agencies offer their sties in those languages, but I'm looking for agencies that are literally based in Asia and sell to Asia.
Thanks!
354
« on: November 02, 2009, 10:10 »
You should talk to Yuri Arcurs, he has a second shooter now. You might also want to talk to Monkey Business Images and Iofoto (Ron Chapel), I'm pretty sure they are also teams of photographers.
355
« on: October 30, 2009, 07:33 »
Out of curiosity, what can you do about paintings where the artist is dead or unable to be found? Is there a point where the owner can sign a release?
If nothing is done legally, everything and anything becomes "public domain" at a certain point as copyrights by default have an expiration date if you take no action to extend them. I've always pointed to this built in expiration date as one reason why IP law is so ridiculous. If you truly owned the idea... there would be no shut off date on your ownership, the law itself admits you can't really own ideas even though the whole reasoning behind the law IS ownership of ideas. I could go on and on with the flaws surrounding the very idea of having IP law, but I suggest reading some books on the subject of abolishing IP laws to better understand why they are fundamentally flawed - and thus cause so much headache for the very people they are often designed to protect people like us. For the record, I actually don't buy into the idea that without IP laws, creativity would suddenly die and stock media wouldn't vanish either - for pure economic reasons, but thats a subject for another day!
356
« on: October 29, 2009, 20:00 »
Thanks for the info Jonathan! I figured most agencies would request some kind of release form per art piece, but honestly, its SUPER simple art. I'm talking orange circle on green background... which is one reason why I was wondering if would really even be necessary.
357
« on: October 29, 2009, 11:06 »
LOL, thanks for the replies. I think I just highlighted, yet again, more problems with the very idea of having IP laws in the first place. I'll probably just make a separate release form for all the artworks complete with thumbnail shots and call it a day.
358
« on: October 28, 2009, 18:02 »
I recently found a great home location which contains some simple modern style artwork made by the homeowner. What would I need to do to show I have permission to include their artwork in my photos as props which are not the main subject?
359
« on: October 28, 2009, 11:45 »
I've shot several films with the Red One - way back in the day when the camera hardly had any post support. It's an awesome camera. I can't wait for the DSCM full frame Scarlet to hit the market, thats gonna be my next big upgrade.
360
« on: October 21, 2009, 20:56 »
It won't backfire on them. If there's one thing that Fotolia have proven time and time again, it's that a solid buyer base is more powerful than contributor goodwill.
I meant in the context of signing up Istock exclusives - it would be quite ironic if the result was a whole lot of independents did exactly the opposite. IS is actually growing quite strongly in terms of and is dangling a lot of quite attractive carrots like the Getty contracts.
Unlike 6-12 months ago I just don't get the sense that there is much of a push from many people to drop IS exclusivity - more the opposite, that the ship has steadied and is steaming ahead.
I think what your really seeing here is something I wrote about a year ago - the "professionalization" of micro stock. Micro is now at a point where enough high volume PRO's who seriously invest in quality shoots (locations, models, makeup, post, etc.) are now in the game that they probably feel they can let go of the hobby shooters and FIGHT for the volume pro's. Seriously, with a few hundred volume pro's/companies you don't need zillions of hobby shooters to meet customer demand for the most popular subjects. Hobby shooters, at best, will become the mortar between the bricks - just filling in the gaps. Enough will come and go to keep the cracks filled. Micro really is a "changing" of the guard for stock photography - I would expect more mergers and takeovers of collections, they won't necessarily close down, just become a sister company for example. Getty did that back in the 90's if I remember correctly.
361
« on: October 21, 2009, 18:31 »
So I logged in this evening, and I was surprised to see I had a bunch of sales in one day - not the norm there. I was happy, but then I got curious because they were all from a series of images. I wondered how they found them all, and sure enough I found the answer - live contributor portfolios  I'm hoping this means more frequent sales now that buyers can finally isolate contributors they like. Check it out.
362
« on: October 20, 2009, 16:51 »
Not bad - I've been anticipating many agencies to take these types of steps. It's only natural, with the exception of Alamy, most traditional agencies will only represent a photo for 3-4 years and then either ditch it, or renew a contract to represent it if it sells well. Makes total sense to me.
363
« on: October 19, 2009, 17:12 »
Well, when I researched S-corp's I found that after the John Edwards thing happened, S-Corp audits across the board jumped up, I can't remember how high, but I think it set some records... Paying yourself a salary of "$1,000" is a sure fire way to be targeted. What kills you the most is the HIGHLY opinionated definition of a "reasonable salary". This is the famous S-corp loophole - what is reasonable? What you think is reasonable pay is all you get hit up for on self employment taxes. Another thing to consider is overall income you pull in. $50,000 might be fine if you made $100,000 and had lots of expenses, and took a $5,000 dividend payment - but it might not be viewed by a judge as reasonable enough if your business did say $1 Million in business and you took a six figure dividend payment.
Well, here's a reasonable salary for a photographer:
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_CM02000016.html
I don't buy the percentage argument. If you say $50,000 is reasonable, and the business brings in $60,000, I don't see that as being any different then bringing in $600,000. Especially for us, who are licensing past work repeatedly.
I totally agree with you, but keep in mind, its not so much the salary, but the dividend payment (more technically it's called a "profit distribution") that really rouses suspicions. If you pulled in a ton of money but only took a small salary and never any profit distributions, you'd probably be left alone. Suddenly taking a big profit distribution would probably raise red flags. Anyhow, its highly opinionated.
364
« on: October 19, 2009, 16:46 »
I am an S-Corp so I do have to actually file a quarterly tax return too, but if you aren't incorporated you don't have to bother with that.
This is actually not true. ANYONE, even sole proprietors like myself, or just plain old individuals who earn enough non-withheld money in one fiscal year that would require paying greater than $1,000 in taxes on, is required to pay quarterly taxes. No one escapes it! It just so happens that most people don't have to worry about that, because you have to earn around $10,000 in extra non-withheld income per year, and many hobby shooters never reach that level.
Actually, you misread what I wrote.
I said I PAID quarterly taxes (on 1040ES) as a sole proprietor. But a sole proprietor is not required to file a quarterly TAX RETURN (form 941). Sending in a quarterly payment with a payment coupon is not the same thing as being required to file an actual tax return.
Again, I would advise anyone reading this to consult a professional accountant. You should not rely on any of the self-proclaimed experts on this forum (myself included).
Ah, thanks for the clarification on that Lisa! Gotta love the tax maze :/
365
« on: October 19, 2009, 16:43 »
I did considered S-Corp for while, but I discovered thats SCREAMING TO BE AUDITED. S-Corps can save lots of money, and as of late, have been increasingly targeted by the IRS. It's due to a loophole regarding dividend payments and "reasonable" salaries.
would you say that it's s-corps across the board getting audited or just those who are using these loopholes? if the latter, perhaps just be more careful when using them.
Well, when I researched S-corp's I found that after the John Edwards thing happened, S-Corp audits across the board jumped up, I can't remember how high, but I think it set some records... Paying yourself a salary of "$1,000" is a sure fire way to be targeted. What kills you the most is the HIGHLY opinionated definition of a "reasonable salary". This is the famous S-corp loophole - what is reasonable? What you think is reasonable pay is all you get hit up for on self employment taxes. Another thing to consider is overall income you pull in. $50,000 might be fine if you made $100,000 and had lots of expenses, and took a $5,000 dividend payment - but it might not be viewed by a judge as reasonable enough if your business did say $1 Million in business and you took a six figure dividend payment.
366
« on: October 19, 2009, 16:32 »
Aren't agencies required by law to send 1099 if you earned more than $400 per year?
iStock is Canadian. They don't have to give you one.
I'm an LLC, filing as an S-Corp in 2010 to save on the self-employment taxes. I actually talked to my CPA today, and we're going to use around 60K as the "average" photographer income, as far as "salary" goes. It will be well worth it. I don't see what they can audit me for.
It depends on how low you go with the "salary" - and yes, that is where you can actually save big on taxes. Last time I looked around, self employed / small business people are the biggest target for IRS audits. They claim more "abuse" of the tax code happens in that demographic than any other sector. Not sure I agree with the word "abuse" - tax avoidance is perfectly legal  How big a pain is the paperwork for LLC's? I've read up on them a bunch, but have never really dived into the paperwork required for them.
367
« on: October 19, 2009, 16:16 »
I am an S-Corp so I do have to actually file a quarterly tax return too, but if you aren't incorporated you don't have to bother with that.
This is actually not true. ANYONE, even sole proprietors like myself, or just plain old individuals who earn enough non-withheld money in one fiscal year that would require paying greater than $1,000 in taxes on, is required to pay quarterly taxes. No one escapes it! It just so happens that most people don't have to worry about that, because you have to earn around $10,000 in extra non-withheld income per year, and many hobby shooters never reach that level. I use a custom created spreadsheet that actually calculates my tax debt in real time for me - pretty cool I'm considering incorporation in a few months - but at the moment I'm a little unsure if I'm "there" yet. Motion picture jobs for me tend to be temp employment where I work under another company. As for the stock photography - I did considered S-Corp for while, but I discovered thats SCREAMING TO BE AUDITED. S-Corps can save lots of money, and as of late, have been increasingly targeted by the IRS. It's due to a loophole regarding dividend payments and "reasonable" salaries. You can pretty much blame John Edwards for lighting this fire - he saved quite a bit of money using the S-Corp loophole and ever since the light was shined on that, it's never been the same since. Given the current political climate, S-Corps are more and more in the government cross hairs. I'm also weary of how LLC's might be targeted by the current crop of politicians looking for blood to suck, another factor to look into if you think it's time to leap.
368
« on: October 05, 2009, 19:05 »
I'll go ahead and be the odd man out on this one... This thread is a perfect example of why IP laws just don't work - the real solution is to just keep on moving and out perform / out pace the leeches, and increase enforcement of license agreements that stipulate you can't transfer the images to others, but thats about it. I remember Yuri complaining about people ripping him off, and as far as I know, he took the smart free market road - out pace and out perform - and in the end his loyal buyers won the riches of his efforts. By the way, it's really hard to pursue 3rd parties who never entered into any written agreements with the agencies, its almost like trying to sue someone who found a copy of a DVD in a dumpster and claimed it for themselves. Seriously, that is actually one of the core arguments against the very idea of IP laws. Licensing between two parties is one thing, so is blatant theft (hacking into a site and taking images for example), but when someone recieves images who neither stole them or entered into formal written agreements is actually very hard to go after, nor very economical. Last, but not least, the great irony of IP law is that whenever we feel like an "idea victim" - we love IP law, but when our images come under scrutiny because of some generic props shape being protected - we scream bloody murder. Moral of the story, you simply can't own ideas. Even the ideas you think you originated, are built on top of others ideas - which is a long way of saying "derivative works". Times change, so do industries. I no longer look at myself as selling images anymore, but rather I get a download commission from an agency that is really selling... access to a superior image search and download mechanism. Getting ripped off sucks, but hey, at least you know your doing something right - thats only reason they'd be doing it - now go out there beat'em into the ground Just my 2 cents.
369
« on: October 03, 2009, 22:35 »
I can also vouch for a Dreamstime stagnation of sorts. Veer is really surprising for me, its doing far better than Big Stock with less than half my portfolio uploaded there. I just wish they'd activate contributor portfolios.
370
« on: October 03, 2009, 16:10 »
Sorry, could you explain what 'microstocksolutions' actually does and why what that is would benefit me? Thx.
This isn't aimed at contributing photographers, its aimed at the agencies.
371
« on: September 30, 2009, 11:15 »
Guys, PLEASE wake up and realize that free can't self sustain for any business without either ads or a mother business subsidizing the losses. This is clearly a bait and hook marketing operation - nothing wrong with that as it's the big reason why iStock now makes so many millions in sales. I always laugh at these threads, everyone is so quick to forget iStocks "give it all away for free" origins, and then it became a pay site - low and behold, people stayed and paid! Ever been to Pandora.com? It's a great site, I listed for free for around 1 year, and guess what - now I have to pay after 40 hours of use - just $1 to finish out the month, or $36 for 1 year unlimited if I remember right. Not bad at all really, if I were a big music addict, I'd buy the yearly package. They also have integrated Ads into free listening, so if you pay, no more ads when you switch stations, etc...
On the internet....
Free = Pay Later
372
« on: September 24, 2009, 13:53 »
IS and all the other agencies really needs two sets of keywords for images - Literal and conceptual, then add the ability to search via either set. Problem solved.
I recently had a TON of shots rejected for some really non sense keyword reasons, and not surprisingly, the invisible artifacts and imaginary photo filters only IS reviewers can see.
373
« on: September 23, 2009, 20:37 »
Really? I don't exactly like the new one better necessarily, but it's not too difficult to utilize.
To me it is a PITA to have to remember every time I select multiple images for categories to remember to check that little box so the keywords of each image are preserved. If I happen to forget then all of a sudden I am spamming because keywords from one image is applied to all selected images.
So far I haven't forgotten but it is probably only a matter of time... 
Also wondering if the folks who think it's easy are uploading mostly non-model released images?
Having to break out my uploads into the similars with the same model and then go to the next screen with each group to assign releases, then back to the category/keywording area for the next batch is time consuming and clunky.
I'm uploading hundreds of model released shots with speedy ease. I think you might have deeper internal workflow kinks to work out. Most upload systems are slow if you approach them with some kind of erratic or unorganized approach. All my shots and release files are strategically named, and it drastically increases my uploading speed. Going back and forth doesn't feel clunky to me, not nearly as much as having to scroll threw hundreds of drop down menus to complete the *same task* over at SS and some other agencies.
374
« on: September 23, 2009, 17:11 »
Oh no. I hope they won't kill BigStock. I don't like SS's business model. 
They won't kill it, they plan to pump it up actually.... They bought it BECAUSE of its credit based system.
375
« on: September 23, 2009, 15:56 »
PLEASE-O-PLEASE import Big Stock Photos upload system into Shutterstocks site!!! Shutterstock uploading is so arcane compared to all the other agencies.
You are joking __ right?
No actually, I'm not, I shoot and submit large batches (read: 100's of shots), and I've always gotten all my stuff up on Big Stock Photo WAY faster than Shutterstock. The lack of batch anything at Shutterstock really slows things down. How could it possibly be worse? I suppose if you don't keyword offline or shoot image series type stuff it wouldn't matter.
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
