|
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 - Uncle Pete
3651
« on: October 25, 2019, 11:59 »
Because of the quickly review.
I've known BS to review images while I was uploading the batch a few years back. The other explanation is they have too many reviewers at that time so no queues.
Maybe I need to go back to uploading at 3AM like I used to. Insomnia is good for something? Unless that means I'll get offshore reviewers, clicking for quotas who tend to be fast but random. By the way, SS reviews have been running around 24 hours for me this month, Editorial or creative. AS around the same. Not like the "good old days" when we'd see 5-7 days as normal.
3652
« on: October 25, 2019, 11:56 »
once they are out in the wild who would know who owns the copyright.
Ignorance of ownership is no excuse. And, in any case, if you don't help yourself to stuff you don't own you are not going to end up on the wrong side of a claim.
You're not wrong, but there is a big difference in theory and practice. In microstock terms, with RF licenses and the meager sums they earn not making it worthwhile getting copyright registrations for each image, it would be practically impossible to sue anyone.
Unless that person was a famous star and you took the photo, then it might be worthwhile to copyright the image and sue them? Minor detail, you have 90 days to copyright an image after the use. That might even be, discovery of the illegal use. But any way you want to slice it, 90 days. I wonder how much these two cases will settle for? Asking for $150,000 doesn't mean they will get that. And the lawyers will take a nice chunk of whatever is won, if anything. This is a lesson and I'm sure celebs will learn they can't just steal the images, even if it's their own image.  I had a local brewery grab an instagram photo of mine from Oktoberfest two years ago and use it on their instagram. I decided to be nice and I got a six pack out of it, and I'm trying to add a pizza on that as well. Guess I shot too low, lol.
I'd call that a win.
3653
« on: October 25, 2019, 11:43 »
Yeah back from the dead thread. Seems some people have been asking. Simplified restrictions
In addition to the simplified restrictions that were recently introduced across Alamy, there will now be a check box for Editorial Only. This means you can assign editorial only restrictions to an image if you wish and this includes Royalty Free images.https://www.alamy.com/blog/introducing-the-new-alamy-image-manager?utm_campaign=625892_Blog%20update%20-%20January%202017&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alamy%20Contributors%20&dm_i=2SWW,DEXW,12IO8X,1CHLW,1Also the new editor did finally get rolled out for everyone. Hey look, January 2017: Upload has been revamped with test submissions only requiring 3 images nowOK so I changed a bunch to RF, not all. I made sure others were marked Exclusive, I'll take the extra 10%. So for the math wizards, by clicking Exclusive I gave myself a raise. Instead of $50 for the last sale @40% of $125 I got $62.50. What's that in modern math raises? Cool, all I had to do was click some buttons, for a 25% raise?  Nice to have some RM Exclusive images still on Alamy. Nope I won't be retiring, but I did get credited with a nice sale. I'll count that money when it's paid and sent to me.
3654
« on: October 24, 2019, 09:18 »
Here's another one, anyone see a trend here? https://www.eonline.com/news/1085809/emily-ratajkowski-is-being-sued-for-150-000-over-an-instagram-photoEmily Ratajkowski Is Being Sued for $150,000 Over an Instagram Photo "The 28-year-old supermodel is the latest celeb to be slapped with a lawsuit over a photo that she shared on social media. She and her company, Emrata Holdings Inc., are being sued by photographer and professional paparazzi, Robert O'Neil. In the court documents, obtained by E! News, O'Neil filed the lawsuit against Ratajkowski in the Southern District of New York, citing copyright infringement. He claims the Gone Girl actress didn't license his photograph nor did she get permission or consent from him to post it to her Instagram page."
3655
« on: October 23, 2019, 13:16 »
Your mileage was disallowed? For why, if you don't mind me asking.
J
Bad Records.  Self employed, sales rep. for a company, traveling from factory to factory, or calling on distributors. Not detailed enough. I had a bunch of dates and miles, didn't log where to, who, exactly, and from, and basically, my fault. I'm sure there's a note on my IRS file now. I saw the top page when the state audited me, a copy of a letter when I hand wrote, the year they lost my return. Yeah, on top, negative, as I asked how come they couldn't find my return, when they could come to my office and spend three days, looking through sales tax exemptions from my customers, which was a waste of time. They made it a point to sit that on top for the auditor! A little revenge on their part maybe? Now for photo, I have a log sheet, I start, mileage, all gas stops, includes motel, and I keep all the receipts! Each event is a sheet on it's own for the weekend. I don't include or claim food or anything else except travel expenses and lodging. Well yes, if I buy a memory card or something, that's in there. I don't deduct most other photo shoots, I do deduct and depreciate equipment, with date purchased and cost. If I sell, I have to record that. Another database. I don't claim my "home office" too much of a flag for further investigation. Nice as it's a buffer if I do get audited. What I'm saying is, I actually under claim, in case I make a mistake, so I have some padding on my side. But the ability to claim expenses or some of them for photography, because of Microstock income, is nice. Bottom line and I'm sure Stockmarketer fits this, keep good records. His income and earning reports here, showed he was quite detailed about tracking work, sales and commissions. Shouldn't be a problem as it's just a double reporting error.
3656
« on: October 23, 2019, 12:27 »
is it possible to submit to Getty Images if already on istock?
In theory yes, in practice everyone I've read of who applied has been rejected. But for all I know people who have been accepted may be required not to tell (crazy hypothesis). All you can do is try.
There are occasional posts about this in the iS forums.
Or apply and get no answer at all.  iStock: Uploads to the Creative or Creative Unreleased collection will be rejected if they are News, Sport, Entertainment or Event Coverage. If you wish to upload such images, you will first need to apply to Getty Images to become an Editorial contributor for that site. Please note that Editorial Photo contracts are generally only offered to working photo-journalists. More info here: https://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/ArticleView.aspx?article_id=1105
3657
« on: October 23, 2019, 12:05 »
It's sad this situation, "due to the recent Presidential Executive Order in the United States (Executive Order 13884) regarding activities with the government of Venezuela, Adobe is no longer permitted to provide you with access to software and services, or to make your Works available to customers."
I'm Very sad ! 
Have you received this notice from SS or IS or any other US company?
Only from Adobe. Some people say, it is an over compliance of Executive Order 13884 from Adobe.
I'd say that you are correct. Someone in legal went overboard, otherwise how come, none of the others are making that restriction. Anyway I hope they just disable, until they figure it out, and restore everything soon. Bad enough to lose earnings, but having everything removed would be really bad. Good Luck
3659
« on: October 23, 2019, 11:54 »
Going from 50% to 40% is a 20% reduction in the commission you will earn.
Going from 100% to 90% would be a 10% reduction.
I remember when they promised us that they would never cut our commission again after going from 60% to 50% (a 17% cut).
It's old math...or the "new math" I learned in the 1960's LOL...which is now old math...
Sorry, Uncle Pete, just giving you a hard time, but the real point is that it is a bigger cut than it first appears.
I didn't mind so much when they first posted about their charities, since the charity was the impetus for the stock site to begin with. But after looking at the loss they wrote off last year in their Annual Statement, I'm not sure I believe they needed to cut commissions to improve operational costs. They said that earnings are flat, so the cut gives them 20% more revenue to work with. Seeing them pay dividends to their directors, write off a huge loan, and then brag about how charitable they are, without any info on just how they are going to improve operations, well, it certainly rankles.
Apologies to Shady Sue I somehow missed that your explanation and mine were nearly identical.
Yeah but I deserve it? Because I was differentiating earnings, income and money vs commission rate. I do understand, I'm just pointing out that 10% of one, may be 20% of something else, but they aren't the same. Everyone have fun. I'm done for now, until some agency issues another cut, which will happen, and we can go over the math again. 
3660
« on: October 23, 2019, 11:48 »
When did they cut the commission 20% in the last few months. What did I miss?
I'm still getting 50% on exclusive and 40% on non-exclusive? I was getting 50% since about 2010 if I remember right? That's 10%
Personally I don't care about their charity or board, I'm only interested in what I make.
10 is 20% of 50.
So each indie file sold earns you 20% less that it would have had it been 50%
Oh that modern math again where a 10% cut is a 20% cut? The post should have said, 20% loss in potential earnings then, not 20% cut?
Changing commission from 50% to 40% is a 10% reduction in commission, no matter how anyone wants to slice it.
Blowing on about your charity generosity a few months after cutting commissions by 20% is not a good look.
Note, it uses the word commissions, not income or earnings?
And no I still don't care about their charity, I care about what they pay me! Selfish, aren't I?
Semantics aside*, you are still being paid 20% less on your non-exclusive files, and that's all you care about.
*and no matter how you look at it, it's still a 20% reduction in commission.
If they went from 100% to 90%, that would be a 10% cut.
50% > 40% is a 20% cut.
And what is it from 60% to 40%? I'm trying to grasp at a bold number like 20% but I suppose that's wrong.
3661
« on: October 23, 2019, 11:46 »
3662
« on: October 23, 2019, 11:35 »
Per the IRS, You should receive Form 1099-K by January 31st if, in the prior calendar year, you received payments:
from payment card transactions (e.g., debit, credit or stored-value cards), and/or
in settlement of third-party payment network transactions above the minimum reporting thresholds of:
- gross payments that exceed $20,000, AND
- more than 200 such transactions
(Just in case you're freaking out about never receiving a 1099K)
Anyone with less than $20,000 AND more than 200 transactions. So it doesn't matter if you have 1,000 transactions, if you didn't make $20,000 which doesn't meet the trigger for a 1099 To answer how I handle it, itemized schedule C income, I have an accountant, she's got the brains. Yes I've been audited, the IRS was actually very nice, my mileage was disallowed, I paid $5,000 with penalty and interest. Note: in my state, if you are audited by the IRS, you are required by law to notify the state. The state told me that after I hadn't informed them. They weren't very nice... But the IRS was an actual, in person audit, not a letter saying, please explain something that was questioned. https://steemit.com/dlive/@jerrybanfield/f379acd0-2920-11e8-a5a6-dd5b02004a6a
This guy adds the "double reported incomes" as an "expense" on his schedule C.
"In other words, I put the exact PayPal "1099-K" income, I put the exact "1099-Miscellaneous" income, and then all I do in my expenses is I add in a line, essentially an expense back to that client for the double payment, because the client only actually paid me once, and yet the same income is reported twice.
Therefore, I put in an expense back to that client to cancel out the double income reporting. Then, if there are questions it's easy for me to demonstrate in my "1099-K" this income was reported here and in my "1099-Miscellaneous" the client reported it there.
I was only actually paid once, so this is an expense that cancels out the double payment, which reflects the truth. The truth of one single payment sent for this amount without reducing the income reported to the IRS."
Smooth!
3663
« on: October 22, 2019, 13:20 »
When did they cut the commission 20% in the last few months. What did I miss?
I'm still getting 50% on exclusive and 40% on non-exclusive? I was getting 50% since about 2010 if I remember right? That's 10%
Personally I don't care about their charity or board, I'm only interested in what I make.
10 is 20% of 50.
So each indie file sold earns you 20% less that it would have had it been 50%
Oh that modern math again where a 10% cut is a 20% cut? The post should have said, 20% loss in potential earnings then, not 20% cut? Changing commission from 50% to 40% is a 10% reduction in commission, no matter how anyone wants to slice it. Blowing on about your charity generosity a few months after cutting commissions by 20% is not a good look.
Note, it uses the word commissions, not income or earnings? And no I still don't care about their charity, I care about what they pay me! Selfish, aren't I?
3664
« on: October 22, 2019, 13:15 »
I just had a small batch reviewed and the inspection seemed fair. One rejection for focus on a marginal image I put through as I liked the subject and thought I might get away with it and other for similar which I was not surprised about so not all doom nd gloom ;-).
I was actually surprised that a batch of 27 was 100% accepted. Well one exception where I forgot to click the Editorial box. I don't get many rejections for focus except when I try to send "hills in the rain and mist".  Plop and Shoot: that was my mission this morning. Microwaved breakfast, took two shots, uploaded one, I was eating and keywording before it cooled enough to start feeding my face. Hot cheese stays hot a good while. If it's rejected, well... I had breakfast anyway, and wasted a tiny bit of electricity on the lights and camera.
3665
« on: October 22, 2019, 13:08 »
I find the new similars policy a bit heavy handed and that lots of good content is being refused.
This will only weaken shutterstocks position as adobe will eventually over take them as the top stock agency.
Adobe has a fairly strict similar policy too. But yes, you are right, AS is slowly grinding them down and gaining. Someone will draw a vector similar to mine and it will be accepted because it was not drawn by me! And if I draw a vector similar to mine, it will be rejected.
Sad but true? Another side effect I hadn't thought of. That applies to similar photos also. Once again, AS has rejected one of mine for similar when I had nothing even close. I asked why and they said, too many already in the system that were similar, not just mine were used to determine too many similar. But, make a note, unlike just about every other agency, they actually answered and actually answered what I was asking about instead of some boilerplate link to some irrelevant answer! That's why Adobe will pass SS some day, and why Adobe passed IS. Remember when IS was #1?
3666
« on: October 22, 2019, 12:59 »
The difference between one million dollars and 1 billion dollars is approximately 1 billion dollars. You can get paid $2000 per hour for 40 hours per week for TWO HUNDRED YEARS and still not have a billion dollars.
You aren't accounting for inflation and wise investing. LOL  That would also explain more millionaires than in the past. But heck why ruin a sympathy thread about someone losing their income, when the rest of us can go off on politics, the rich, the health care system and more politically biased rants?  Oh I hate to be a distraction and go back on topic, but I hope that AS simply deactivates accounts until this blows over and then restores them. Years of uploads and work, just wiped would be sad as well. And I know no one wants to hear this, but if AS is a US company and they are complying, why aren't SS and IS, or any of the rest. Not asking for that, just wondering why?
3667
« on: October 22, 2019, 12:51 »
Pauws99. I just voiced my opinion. Please respect it and I will respect yours.
Alamy, respect your contributors! Be charitable to us!
I signed up to contribute to a photo agency , not do charity. Charities should be kept completely separate.
I'm not sure that Alamy's profit margin is any different to the rest of the industry what difference would it make if they spent the profit on coke and lapdancers? When you signed up to them their business model was quite open.
I'm with you ravens. Blowing on about your charity generosity a few months after cutting commissions by 20% is not a good look.
When did they cut the commission 20% in the last few months. What did I miss? I'm still getting 50% on exclusive and 40% on non-exclusive? I was getting 50% since about 2010 if I remember right? That's 10% Personally I don't care about their charity or board, I'm only interested in what I make.
3668
« on: October 22, 2019, 12:46 »
3669
« on: October 22, 2019, 12:44 »
By the way on the right have a lot which do not meet this requirement, some of them even do not exist anymore (Macrografiks, PhotoSpin.. )
Add ViscoImages and Stockami to the list of defunct agencies that are still listed on the right and in the monthly poll page. Hopefully, Tyler can remove these when he has a few spare minutes.
Have you sent him a note? I don't think he can read every post on the forum, all the time. Wow those four places, came and went and I never knew they existed. I'm wondering how some of those and a bunch down the list, are getting 2 votes a month, when the agencies are closed? I've pretty much limited myself and cut down to the top five. I do have a DT account, just because, which recently surpassed 100 images. (so it doesn't actually count as trying?) My point is, I don't want anything less than the best potential for returns, I don't understand why someone would work for two downloads a year?
3670
« on: October 22, 2019, 12:26 »
3671
« on: October 21, 2019, 17:19 »
I've always suspected something was unusual about Miley but a recent photo tipped the scale. Take a look and you decide?  Can there be any doubt?
3672
« on: October 21, 2019, 09:20 »
Theres nothing wrong with the policies its their ability to implement it thats the problem. I think most of us would welcome a more demanding inspection regime if it was implemented consistently.
I hate to mention the old days, but IS and SS had the strictest reviews for quality, and even if reviews took longer, they were much more consistent. Alamy and AS are still holding up the standards for submissions. Inconsistent reviews are terribly frustrating, not that I'm personally having any problems, but here we are, and I'm hoping for a change. The real idiots aren't the reviewers who are "only following orders" the problem is the people who dictated the new standards and issued the directives.
3673
« on: October 21, 2019, 08:54 »
Why is anyone still uploading there?
These rates are an insult
I'm not uploading, but I have left what was there. Sometimes I doubt that I should be doing that, but these are not my finest and what I get is just "free money". It works different for each person. My RPD this month was 0.76. Higher tan SS and AS.
I don't spend RPD I spend money. Besides = 0.26 average for the last period on IS is terrible. No I don't have any video there, and my images are old. If there was a way to disable individual images, I'd remove a few that sell much better on SS and AS. just in case? But since you mentioned it, I'll play along. Sept to Oct, so it's the same period, RPD AS .90 & SS was $1.11 I guess you must have something that IS buyers like? While I uploaded what SS and AS buyers wanted for more? I was ignoring last month like many others because the refunds and resale at the proper rate was skewing the results. One DL on DT last month it was $2.20 so there's the best RPD? LOL DT has my SS and AS rejections, always uploaded as exclusive. Good news, some actually sell. Fun to watch. But the point is, IS is the worst and remains the worst at 15% and down.
3674
« on: October 19, 2019, 13:51 »
It's such a shame that as the microstock market has matured and so many shooters' skills have grown, average income has gone down and even top shooters have to scramble for other ways to make ends meet.
If i may comment as a newbie, what everyone seems to forget is the drastic price drop in combination with evolution of equipment. Before stock near-death experiences, some other industries and jobs died or eliminated. Including respected brand names. Guess we all remember that compact consumer cameras (film) were sold in millions and labs worked overnight to make prints for individuals. Same thing as back then with the addition of social media and web-spread knowledge (or rumors).
Right both. Cook photo in Iowa, which I knew of, provided the service for many corner drug stores (remember those?). They flew the film from Wisconsin to Iowa every evening, private plane. Processed overnight, or next day, and returned it to the many shops and stores. That was before Fotomat - also gone, or One Hour Photo. Except for major cities and some exceptions, camera stores are also history, people now shop at discount and big box stores. Or online. And the other part also, even top people have lost sales and income, as the market has matured past the initial boom times. iStock was right when they announced unsustainable.
3675
« on: October 18, 2019, 21:42 »
Uncle Pete that is awesome your new images go straight to page 1 after uploaded. Yes, I can only wish!
Seems like a lot of you are doing very well. We are all going to have different experiences that can be the result of many factors.
Keep up the great work and wishing everyone a great season ahead
Next upload see where yours go. I don't know why he gets special treatment?
Uncle Pete could provide more insight, but I am guessing that it isn't so much special treatment but it is down to subject matter. If you upload subjects that only a few are uploaded a week then your images can be on page one for a while. If you upload subjects that get hundreds of uploads per day or even hour, chances are your images won't be on page one for long, or even ever (depending on how often things get indexed).
Right, I'm nothing special, I try to find niche areas, I also upload stupid ideas that get a download here and there, that aren't high volume to start with. And yes, I don't try to shoot "best selling" because thousands of people are also doing that already. Anyone who shoots best selling is competing against everyone else who's shooting best selling. Destination = failure.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
