|
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 - ap
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21
351
« on: December 28, 2009, 13:33 »
352
« on: December 28, 2009, 13:32 »
No, Shutterstock offers editorial images under an RF license.
yes, you're right, and i've actually sold a few of those. sean, you may be an is exclusive, but you sure are keeping a tab on things elsewhere.  have you ever been tempted to, er, go indie?
353
« on: December 27, 2009, 16:51 »
I am confused... Can we submit editorial images elsewhere (like on Alamy) when we are exclusive at Istock ? Are we still debating this... If so, I will send a support ticket to Istock, because it's a question I need an answer on.
all "editorial" images without releases will require rm licencing, at alamy or elsewhere. so, yes, you're ok by is exclusivity rules.
354
« on: December 27, 2009, 16:21 »
Are you lonely, Princess?
Not really sweetie, just curious !
eh?...
355
« on: December 27, 2009, 03:19 »
I feel the need to say a few words about my introduction to Shutterstock. I'm very pleased. I have had at least one download on each of my ten days as a member. With just 79 images online (20 in the last five days) I have 35 downloads ... three on Christmas Day.
mighty impressive! were they your best sellers elsewhere? i really like ss, they are the choo choo train that just keeps chugging along, rain or shine. they also don't have all the drama of is either. i guess they're not as high maintence...
356
« on: December 24, 2009, 14:02 »
This is why I believe that the way forward, if one ever emerges, will be a different business model completely rather than a website owned by anyone. Maybe some sort of P2P market place. Perhaps guaranteed via some sort of 3rd party bond - the marketplace maybe taking a transaction charge. Or something.
i think the key concept here is to create a 'non profit' organization where there are no owners or stockholders to gain from the profits earned. the aim or mission is to allow photographers to not only have a say in running the organization but also to get a fair commission without a middleman. if run as a non profit, then the photographers can elect board members who will direct the operations of the website and appoint any necessary employees or recruit volunteers. the hurdle faced by any new stock company is getting enough buyers or establishing a brand. you can either drop prices, or offer a valued added product. on the first, there is a lot of room to maneuvre. i mean photogs are only getting a small percentage (20 - 60%) of the image price anyways. on the latter, a photog run stock agency is both a novelty with some cachet if people start contributing fresh new ideas, etc. these are just very rough thoughts since we're just throwing ideas around.
357
« on: December 23, 2009, 03:12 »
It is not in conflict with the RF licensing. You just sell it exclusively from the moment on and agree to pull it from everywhere you are selling it including DT pulling it.
thanks for clearing this up. but for someone who is considering exclusivity, with is, for example, how would this dt sr-el license fit in with their conditions? would it be considered a rm license for all intents and purposes so as not to conflict with their non rf licensing outside of is? if not, then, it seems you would never be allowed to go exclusive there. just food for thought. 
358
« on: December 23, 2009, 02:40 »
You should obviously offer the SR-EL license only in case you really want to and only in case you can stick to the rules.
Unless it is DT exclusive file, it may be quite difficult to ensure the file gets off-line in 72 hours. BigStock has a 90 days tie in, other sites like FT have 3rd party sites from which it take time to delete your stuff.
Your question:
Can Dreamstime just tell me to take it off all other sites?
Does not make much sense. You have opted in into the optional licensing under SR-EL meaning that you have agreed with the terms. Unless there is way to change defaults, the SR-EL option is something you must specifically check when submitting the file.
congrats anyka, you must show us the photo (the link does not work). i haven't been checking the sr-el licencing option since it would create a conflict of interest with it being sold as a rf licence. are people opting in to both the sr-el and the rf licenses at the same time? i thought it was either/or, kind of like the difference between a rm and a rf licence.
359
« on: December 23, 2009, 02:33 »
Second part, I'll guess that the IS legal team has been educating the StockXpert reviewers to their standards and we will probably see both sites attempting to have consistent rules for rejection and approval based on content.
 i'm sure they all appreciate the re-education. the only thing is that these same photos were all approved at is. now what?
360
« on: December 22, 2009, 14:06 »
I had one that was accepted / put in a collection / started to get more views / then was told it was acccepted by accident /had a fellow poster make a discrimatory remark about it /that left me with 2 accepted and 1 sale / dt said it wasn't discrimination / i quit their site in a hurry / i was treated fairly at the beginning but they ticked me off / i don't need them to be successful at stock.
is this a goodbye poem? like 'i quit thee, dt'.
361
« on: December 22, 2009, 13:58 »
interesting post. a sunset landscape and a flower shot were just approved two weeks ago. i guess that won't be the case going forward (if there is any forward at StockXpert)?
also, i think their approval criteria is a work in progress. a bike shot (with human) was approved without a problem a month ago. but two weeks later, another batch were all rejected for legal reasons.
362
« on: December 22, 2009, 13:40 »
hey, caz, i remember you from the holding area. i'm glad you made it through at least once. here's another thread where others had also found problems getting on the new site and some solutions. http://www.microstockgroup.com/site-related/glitch-or-me/
363
« on: December 21, 2009, 13:33 »
Even though artifact is really a part of some of the technical problems with some images rejected by IS, I've also notice that when they're not interested in the subject matter of the photo they tend to use it as an excuse to reject such, that's why in some cases is impossible to find the artifact they're talking about when you double check the image yourself at a 100%...hey if they found a tech problem, you should be able to see it too right!
well, i think that would be true if they also make it not possible to resubmit. however, many times, they offer that resubmit button like a throwdown, if only i can find the artifact...
364
« on: December 21, 2009, 12:28 »
Some degree of noise is totally acceptable if it fits the image and the base image is large enough - at 21 megapixels from the 5DII, I wouldn't consider the noise in the sky a big problem. Question is why is the image shown here so small? Too much cropping?
wow, i'm really surprised you find that much noise in the sky acceptable. i don't think it would pass muster if it was one of mine. but where in the photo do you actually see the artifact? i honestly cannot see any when mine are rejected for it. i think i've gone blind from all the post processing work. thanx. 
365
« on: December 20, 2009, 16:01 »
I have been shooting stock for some years, but all my microstock stuff has been non-released (images of objects and such). Now I'm interested in shooting some images with recognizable persons. Which release(s) should I have the model to sign? Is there an universal release that would be OK for my top4 (IS, SS, DT, FT) or should I have the model sign four different releases?
i use the getty model release, which is pretty generic for all practical purposes for all the micro sites. http://contributors.gettyimages.com/img/articles/downloads/SAMPLE_Model_Release_-_English_-_Dec_2008.pdfonly is needs a photo of the model attached to the release, which i just photoshop in.
366
« on: December 20, 2009, 12:53 »
367
« on: December 19, 2009, 13:30 »
with a 8500 portfolio, you should get more than 1 or 2 dls a week. at this point, it's probably a smarter strategy to find new sites, than to shoot new stuff, unless it's very high quality images.
368
« on: December 18, 2009, 23:50 »
thanks a lot, using eyemypics has permanently blocked tineye for my isp.  users should be aware you may not be able to access tineye.com anymore.
369
« on: December 17, 2009, 14:35 »
But what of Group four, the one they forgot. I'd like to have my StockXpert photos moved to the new site, like the other people, not be penalized for having an IS account and not be penalized for being opted in for subscriptions and partners at IS. Oh thank you, because I've been working for you and have quality images on IS, I get penalized.
What do they offer for me? "If you had non-duplicated files opted into subscriptions on StockXpert, please feel free to upload them to your existing portfolio on iStockphoto to continue their subscription sales." Oh thanks I can take all the files that are on StockXpert and upload them to IS, 15 a week... where they will be refused.
But people in group one, who aren't on IS - "you do not have content on iStockphoto, your StockXpert content on JIUnlimited will be migrated automatically to the new site.
This tell me that, at least for the next couple of mouths, the smart thing to do is to opt-out at IS until the transfer is complete . . . . . then opt-in at IS after, if that is your intention.
Does that make sense?.
actually if you're a member of is and StockXpert, it doesn't really matter whether you opt in or out, at either site. if you want any of your StockXpert photos in the getty collection, you'll need to do it through your stock portfolio. the transfer of photos from StockXpert to getty is automatic only if you're not a member of is.
370
« on: December 16, 2009, 16:12 »
Actually I haven't been submitting for weeks, I got bummed out after about 10 months. All my images sell, but not in enough quantity to make it worth doing more at these miserable prices. The things I shoot tend to be unusual objects. Maybe macro would pay off, but it's a PITA compared to micro. That's what I'm complaining about - I want something in the middle, where I can charge a little more for my 'niche' images. There is no good reason micro should be leaving all that money on the table - they've just gotten themselves locked into a one-size-fits-all pricing model. Give me some pricing tiers and some choice.
there seem to be a lot of viable options available to you, but you don't seem to be making an effort since it's such a 'PITA'. i'd say alamy is great for niche images, cutcaster for setting your own prices, etc. the turnover is not that great, but that just reflect the buyers market place, not what agencies are trying to offer. if ever there is an agency that offers both high prices and high turnover, you'll probably be trampled under by all the competition trying to get into the door.
371
« on: December 15, 2009, 18:47 »
love the way downtown san rafael has evolved into a cool little town. the mill valley film fest is fab.
372
« on: December 15, 2009, 01:20 »
hey, i wonder if you guys ever noticed, but there are some really cool statistics tool on photocase. it's a link to the right of your photos called statistics. if you click on it, it's like a whole new world of info, in terms of all the key words used to search for your photo, whether it resulted in a sale or not, and a map of all the countries these visitors came from. wow, we've finally emerged from the middle ages...
373
« on: December 15, 2009, 00:37 »
1. i like the whole shebang - pool, steam room, sauna, top of the line exercise machines, nice and clean dressing rooms, temperature control, etc., otherwise i can just lift weights at home.
2. forcing me to pay another rejoining fee if i had to take a leave of absence.
3. i'm not a threadmill person but i do like the elliptical trainers with tv attached. definitely exercise machines over free weights, esp those that strengthen your knee muscles.
4. no.
374
« on: December 14, 2009, 23:31 »
i'm in the east bay!
375
« on: December 14, 2009, 22:55 »
it must be difficult to decide what to do with StockXpert, but i'm still getting ppd from them (even today). so far this month, they account for 12% of sales equaling ft+dt+cs+123 combined. i think everyone's port does differently, but i've been really lucky with them.
also, their uploading is super fast, no need for categories.
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
