|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
3551
« on: March 22, 2014, 12:20 »
In addition to being disgusted about the slimeballs listing stock photos for sale on this site, it was pretty crazy to see the things people will do for $5. I can only assume that none of them are very good 
This. I am totally giving "5 professional isolations for $5" a go. Sure, it will probably come out terribly, but it's worth risking $5...
Aaaand I come back to report: The isolations aren't even half bad. Certainly better than when I dabble at it. For people who will always remain more photographer than "digital artist": can recommend.
If you can upload them to SS and get them accepted, then that's a win - I don't know how bad you are at isolations
3552
« on: March 22, 2014, 12:18 »
From the latest things he has written it is apparent that the EL is not an EL at all, it is RM. So people should be selling either RF or EL but not both. Very confusing. Also, he keeps referring to iStock as Getty. At least, when he says Getty I think he means iStock....
FAA Sean really doesn't understand half as much as he thinks he does - plus he's really dogmatic and defensive. Tough combination to have any sort of useful conversation with.
3553
« on: March 21, 2014, 22:28 »
I set the prices so they'd be pretty close to my Symbiostock prices (from the buyer's point of view). There are different sizes so it's not exact. The actual price is $2.80 and I guess they decided to round on what they showed on the preview page. I would make a little less from an FAA sale than I would from my own site, but then I don't have the alexa ranking that FAA has
3554
« on: March 21, 2014, 20:34 »
As I said earlier, no way to know if this will be a useful convenience for buyers - the ability to license a digital version of the image as well as buy prints - but I've added a license to a handful of my images just to see how it works. In case anyone else is interested, here's an example: http://pixels.com/featured/apache-trail-roadside-jo-ann-snover.htmlI don't see this as a market primarily for stock, but if you were there for art and wanted to license an image - say for a blog post about the art you're using - it's a ton easier to just buy from FAA than try and figure out where else the image is (if anywhere) and go there, buy credits, yada yada yada. And yes, it'd be nice to have a better watermark to discourage anyone from thinking it's OK to use the preview in a blog just 'cause you bought a print or two
3555
« on: March 21, 2014, 16:17 »
Thanks. I guess I had missed that part of the thread. It seems they are fudging the details on this just as with the varying cost to the buyer for ELs, all of which net the contributor $28. Sigh.
3556
« on: March 21, 2014, 16:14 »
Hyperlinks are not on board. Why is that?
Because you're new here - it's an anti-spam measure. It'll resolve after a certain number of posts (I think it's posts not time).
3557
« on: March 21, 2014, 15:04 »
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtmlThere's nothing here about royalties on team subscriptions, but there is a difference in monthly price based solely on the number of users (+$140 from 2 to 3 and +$75 from 3 to 4) and that's not going for number of reproductions or indemnity which would be part of the base 2 user package and not increase. Where did the text you quote come from?
3558
« on: March 21, 2014, 14:32 »
http://www.shutterstock.com/team/subscribe.mhtmlI saw a new linkk (I think it's new) on the prices and plans page "See Business Solutions" which took me here: http://www.shutterstock.com/business-solutions.mhtmlThey don't post the prices on the enterprise stuff, but I'm guessing that's where the SODs come from. For the Small business teams, they get 35 a day "team" subscriptions for $339, $479 or $554 a month depending on how many users (2, 3 or 4) Do we see any of the extra cash (for the multi-seat license)? I understand that some part of the extra is for more downloads, which we wouldn't get a higher royalty on, but some part is for the extra seats. These prices are monthly but based on a one year deal. The 25 a day license on an annual basis is $213.25/month for one user. For $125.75 more you get 35 a day and 2 users for $140 more you get the above plus a third user For $75 more you get a 4th user They also mention "Increased distribution and indemnification." - what does that mean? It's great that they're expanding their offerings, but I'd like to know how they're sharing the extra with us
3559
« on: March 21, 2014, 14:14 »
I just sent Veer e-mail asking if anything's changed with respect to opting out of partner sales - and if not, to take my payout at the end of the month and close my account. They're handling the closure - there's no opt out - and say it'll take 90 days to get my images removed from all sites. I have had it with the wretched setup with partners and AgeFotostock/easyFotostock was just the final straw. easyFotostock is a subsidiary of ageFotostock - both have my Veer images - but the license terms at easyFotostock basically include extended licenses. Look at the ad on ageFotostock's page "Go & buy cheap! Extended License Included. No extra fees whatsoever http://www.agefotostock.com/age/en/Default.aspxOne of my images at easyFotostock says the source ageency is "Kallum"! At least my copyright is there although you can't search on someone's portfolio http://easy.agefotostock.com/easy/ingles/easyenim01.asp?foto=22361818&light=&foto_clave=ESY-002659167At least on ageFotostock you can search to see a portfolio (albeit one of a photographer stigmatized as "low budget" http://www.agefotostock.com/age/en/Search.aspx?author=Jo+Ann+SnoverGiven that age owns easy, I don't know why the photo is in both places, but here's the page about licensing from easyFotostock: http://easy.agefotostock.com/easy/ingles/abag01b.asp"easyFotostock does not sell credits to download photographs; easyFotostock licenses free of risk. We dont offer "Extended Licenses" that sound good, but in reality are very difficult, if not impossible, to be regulated. easyFotostock images meet the demand of clients who need quality imagery for their projects, but require an affordable price and buying convenience, without having to read between the lines of a complex license agreement." I guess I'll put a note in my calendar to go check these sites at the end of June to make sure my images are gone http://www.veer.com/more/contributor/faq/royalties-payments/who-are-all-the-api-partners/It's a shame that some agencies just have no concern whatsoever with the rights of contributors - Chelsea (when she was with Veer) had said they were considering an opt out, but obviously that didn't happen: http://www.microstockgroup.com/veer-marketplace/veer-reseller-api/msg193763/#msg193763Some prior threads on ageFotostock and their view of microstock photographers: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/drop-in-status-we-are-not-rf-photographers-we-are-lbrf-)/msg235942/#msg235942 http://www.microstockgroup.com/ranting-general-stock/agefotostock-easyfotostock/msg325212/#msg325212In closing, I'm reminded of a quote from the late Ann Landers (I think it was her) - People can only take advantage of you if you let them.
3560
« on: March 21, 2014, 10:23 »
Welcome - would you care to expand on what brought you here? Are you submitting to stock agencies, or thinking about it?
3561
« on: March 21, 2014, 10:04 »
I think this will fail for sure. Multiple licenses, custom licenses, infinite possible prices, it's a nightmare for buyers.
Buyers want simplicity, uniform pricing, and being able to go to a site and knowing beforehand roughly what they're about to pay. And also know that licensing is consistent. This new system is the opposite of all if that.
It's certainly the polar opposite of the Shutterstock model. But if it turns out not to be a huge turnoff, then this is one massive A/B test that will let us see that.
3562
« on: March 21, 2014, 09:55 »
I've replied to the thread that I'm willing to participate in the beta. It may go nowhere but it'll be interesting to see if he can get something off the ground. Can't see how it could hurt anything given I've already uploaded a portion of my stock portfolio (and just need to exclude those items that require an editorial use only license unless they provide that)
3563
« on: March 20, 2014, 19:39 »
Here's a really interesting one: http://www.fiverr.com/maxsmorgan/send-you-20-stock-photos-vectors-you-want
This guy claims to be a contributor. Would love to know who it is and report them, get their contributor account shut down.
I did some searching, both via google and on SS (max and morgan and nothing that looked right) and couldn't find the guy. The image he's using is on just about every wallpaper site out there (I used Google image search) - and other than it was taken in 2008 there's nothing useful in the EXIF. These are just two of the hundreds of sites with this image http://wallpaperswide.com/spring_landscape_hdr-wallpapers.htmlhttp://www.wallcoo.net/nature/Photo-manipulation-landscape/html/wallpaper4.htmlI found a Max S Morgan on twitter, but it's an IP lawyer from Philadelphia (who doesn't list photography as his hobbies, so I don't think it's him  In addition to being disgusted about the slimeballs listing stock photos for sale on this site, it was pretty crazy to see the things people will do for $5. I can only assume that none of them are very good
3564
« on: March 19, 2014, 17:24 »
Speaking generally, one issue a site has to address if it takes direct submissions is inspections - using someone else's API is effectively allowing them to skip that often messy part of the business.
Unless a site seems to be generating sales in any reasonable quantity or with regularity, why include them?
And as far as keeping the images to save you uploading, I highly doubt they'd be able to do that given the legal agreement they have with their source (DP in the case of Shotshop) and/or the technical details of the partnership - sometimes the distributor only has the thumbs and the main agency has the high res unwatermarked version.
3565
« on: March 17, 2014, 19:59 »
If you Google danny smythe oranges you get all your agencies and even the photo in your flickr stream has "copyright protected" all over it. There is no way this could be an inadvertent use. So I looked around their site a bit and they're using many photos they credit to AP, and I found this one credited to a Flickr user, but the user has this marked copyright All Rights Reserved, which I think means this site shouldn't have used it (I didn't see anything saying it was licensed via Getty) http://www.flickr.com/photos/105060570@N03/11925460513/#in/set-72157639683255965http://article.wn.com/view/2014/03/17/Catholic_Bishop_Who_Spent_Decades_in_Prison_Dies_in_Shanghai/The other thing about these folks is that they are actively seeking advertising http://wnnmedia.com/advertising.htmlSo this isn't just some blogger who doesn't know any better - they want to make money but don't, apparently, want to pay for their content. I looked for a DMCA takedown link but couldn't find one. If you don't get a response, perhaps it's worth trying to kick up a fuss with some of their advertisers (they helpfully post a link to some of the bigger ones
3566
« on: March 17, 2014, 19:40 »
So the question I have is if FotoSearch or GoGraph sell and image for $40, how much do we make?
https://www.canstockphoto.com/payout_schedule.php
so 20% or 8$ for a 40$ sale? How old school IS. (which was pretty lousy too).
You get 20% of what CanStock gets, which isn't always what the buyer pays (i.e. there's a split between distributor and CanStock and you get 20% after the split, not before.) @Rinderart - other than checking all the sites listed in the partner program thread here and a Google image search, I'm not sure we have anything. Part of my objection to the agencies considering it private information as to who they've done deals with
3567
« on: March 17, 2014, 16:28 »
I just posted in the CanStock forums asking for an opt out from distribution sales http://www.canstockphoto.com/forum_read.php?id=6255Even the parent company, FotoSearch, doesn't have any indication of the copyright holder of the work and I'm just not getting enough distribution sales to soften me up to tolerate this. I know at some point a while back we we around the block over the issue of stripping out our copyright information from uploaded images - somehow it seems like this is another step in that direction. Not only is the copyright gone from the images but there is nothing on the agency/distributor page that indicates who owns that image. I'm not expecting them to say "OK fine" but it's worth asking...
3568
« on: March 17, 2014, 12:45 »
... it seems unlikely that every one of the roughly 2k sales I Had in February were all at .28. Something is definitely not right with February numbers.
As you know, my tiny collection of remaining files is not representative of anything much, but in Feburary I did have one non-sub sale in the PP - a $1.60 sale. I don't know if others saw any non-subs, but I think it means that they didn't just make everything subs (even though they may still have a buggy connector.)
3569
« on: March 17, 2014, 12:38 »
CanStock is one of my favorite sites, I can't remember them ever screwing us.
Duncan and CanStock are fine - it's the bazillion partner sites that their parent, FotoSearch, distributes the content to. I have no opt out for that, they won't provide a list either. I am increasingly uncomfortable with having so many sites to keep an eye on when we are given so little information about anything that is going on. Given the low sales at CanStock it's easy enough to walk - as you say nothing bad has happened to date, but I think the garbage with DepositPhotos and Shotshop has me a little more cautious than before.
3570
« on: March 17, 2014, 11:51 »
I'm not sure how I missed this the first time around, but I just had a look at the site and the license terms - my stuff is there via CanStock. Quite what sense it makes to says this is "inexpensive" when the prices are from $5 (xs) to $65 (xl) and the same stuff can be had at CanStock prices escapes me http://www.gograph.com/index/aboutusI don't see any big rights giveaway in the permitted uses or print run length http://www.gograph.com/index/eulaGiven what I'm seeing in recent (last year or so) CanStock sales - where distribution sales have all but vanished - I assume this isn't working very well for them. I keep dithering about whether to pull my portfolio from CanStock - I really hate my work being spread about like this...
3571
« on: March 16, 2014, 16:56 »
I am not happy with DP, not at all. They are dishonest!
But its DP (not Shotshot or any other partner or reseller) that pays the photographer the pitiful subscription price!
We simply do not know who much DP gets from their partners. The probably get a normal 50/50 deal.
I think its you who is naive here if you really believe that DP "allowed second parties to pay subscription prices (to us) and those people have re-licensed our images"
If you read earlier in this thread, you'll see a contributor posted the text of a reply Shotshop sent him when he applied - that they don't work with microstock photographers. There were other contributors who submit to Shotshop directly who earlier in this thread reported having work rejected as "not suitable" only to find that same work on Shotshop's site but via the DP reseller API I realize that is circumstantial evidence, but to me it says very clearly that Shotshop does not have clean hands in this deal. And I would point out that many deals with distributors are not 50/50, so I don't think there is a normal. Those of us who have been on the receiving end of these "deals" for a while are not being naive, but circumspect. And as you point out, we don't know what DP is paid - and you don't know either - but contributors should know about the split between agency and distributor. Alamy, for example, (a) lets you opt out, albeit only once a year and (b) is up front about the split - 40% for the distributor, 30% for Alamy and 30% for the schmuck who created what's being licensed. I applaud their transparency, but I opted out of distributor deals as it just seemed wrong for the company that did virtually nothing to walk away with the lion's share of the payment.
3572
« on: March 16, 2014, 00:55 »
The difference is in the low entry point.
For SS, you have to cough up $249 for a month's subscription - you get more images, but it's a ton more expensive. For DT, other than the rather odd 5 images in a week for $39, you're looking at $239 for a month at 25 a day.
Anyone would assume that they'd be unlikely to be caught for stockpiling, especially when they're such small fish.
I think it's great to offer cheap-ish blog sizes and I can live with the higher volume subscriptions, but the short term low volume subs are just a bad thing (for contributors). Hard to say if that or something else is behind the doldrums BigStock seems to be in, but I can't imagine it's helping.
3573
« on: March 15, 2014, 19:49 »
I happened upon this comment in a blog post about the Getty "free" images for bloggers "Try Compfight (free) or BigStock or iStock. With BigStock, you can sign up for a month, buy 5 images a day and start creating your own library, then use those images as you need them and ditch the monthly fee." From this article: http://www.v3im.com/2014/03/getty-images-sets-35-million-images-free-but-theres-a-catch/So if this blogger is at all typical, they want to spend $69 and grab all 150 images and then leave. Can't be good for Bigstock because they depend on buyers not purchasing everything, but the price is such that even at 46 cents an image they still don't lose. The problem is the low volume - SS is doing well because of the non-subs sales as well as the volume of subs sales.
3574
« on: March 14, 2014, 18:21 »
I've seen what appears to be the rotation a lot, but I think 18/20 (last 20 sales) being subscriptions is a record for me. Granted two of them are the $2.00 subs but the RPD as well as number of downloads is down over last year.
Having level 4 and 5 images just doesn't matter with a flat royalty structure for subs and such a large percentage of sales being subs. Perhaps an EL will rescue March's totals, but the trend to lower volumes and more subscriptions just isn't good.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
