|
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
3701
« on: February 18, 2014, 19:13 »
Yeah, it didn't get enough votes to be listed. The number may still be high, but it needs 50 votes I believe to get a number on the charts.
So... (some) people paid for their domain name and hosting, went through all the trouble of setting up the site and then shut it down after a couple of months. It seems unlikely.
My guess is that the results aren't as good and that people don't report zero sales. But that seems strange, why do that?
I almost never post in any of the categories - and it's not because I have zero sales  Voluntary polls are just that and you can't do more than get a general idea of what's up from looking at this one
3702
« on: February 18, 2014, 19:03 »
Both are low earners and I'd generally say PD is a bit more consistent than CanStock - and except for the occasional bigger royalty sale from Fotosearch (CanStock's parent company) PD pays better most of the time too - no subscriptions and $2.97 for an original size image versus $1.25 for an XL (regular) on CanStock. And CanStock has subs that pay only 25 cents for most, which is another drawback
3703
« on: February 18, 2014, 18:54 »
Self hosted covered everything anyone used to sell direct - PhotoShelter, Symbiostock, DIY, KTools, etc. - and I think there had been someone encouraging everyone to post results that month.
If people don't post, the category drops...
3704
« on: February 18, 2014, 14:06 »
@Jo Ann Snover
Getty should go after infringement fairly rigorously - even in such a way as it generates publicity. Also - I believe that companies have a fiduciary responsibility to defend copyrights and trademarks....
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I don't have any issue with people pursuing payment for license violations of one sort or another. My issue was with what appears to be a truly idiotic methodology. Not to mention the immediate about face when a TV reporter gets involved which suggests lack of either backbone or a valid case. Getty holds the copyright to only a portion of the images it licenses, and I have no clue what trademarks have to do with the issue in this topic.
3706
« on: February 16, 2014, 15:23 »
I think Sean said he had email promising his work would be sold only on deposit's own site and his work ended up on shot shop anyway. Be careful to check.
3707
« on: February 14, 2014, 22:25 »
I just did a search and there was the e-mail in my trash folder! I hadn't even looked to see what the offer was I have never used this sort of canned filter product - does anyone have any experience with it and find it helpful?
3708
« on: February 14, 2014, 22:00 »
EL's are a fixed amount (unsure whether dependent on your lifetime earnings status?) but are around $28 for the contributor.
ODD's are non-sub regular sales @ $2.48 or $1.07 (smaller size)
ELs are $28 for everyone. OODs are $2.85 or $1.24 at the current top rate (which Sean will be at next week ) I don't like the fact that we don't know the license terms for the SOD sales, but having complained about it and they won't change, it's accept it as is or walk. I have yet to hear of anything unfair or wrong with an SOD, so for the moment I'm taking the money and trying not to fret about not knowing what's been sold for those $75 or $90 or $114 licenses
3709
« on: February 14, 2014, 13:59 »
I'd never heard of shotshop, so I thought I'd take a look. I was interested to note that there are multiple pricing models for images there - take a look at the prices on these two as examples, one from Sean and one from Monkey Business Images http://www.shotshop.com/search/34171731http://www.shotshop.com/search/mmq-kapThere are many more examples of images with numerical iDs, which I assume are all the DepositPhotos items and also with the text IDs - which have the same prices as Monkey Business: http://www.shotshop.com/search/gqy-fmvThe letter codes have higher prices from Large up but lower extended licenses. Are these images uploaded directly to Shotshop or are they a different deal with a different agency "partner"?
3710
« on: February 13, 2014, 20:52 »
I am not with DepositPhotos because there were a number of things I wasn't happy with about how they operate.
However, I do think that if you don't get a better answer than the insultingly idiotic ones so far - it's not a partner it's an API reseller - the only way to get this kind of nonsense to stop is to leave.
I did that with BigStock last year over the lack of opt out for subs (which where at ridiculous royalties).
I stopped uploading to Veer over their handling of partner programs - no opt out and although they don't do such sleezy deals as DepositPhotos, they do have partners who sell at high prices but we only get the same royalty as "regular" sales
I opted out of Distributor sales at Alamy because they give a distributor 40% of the gross, often sold at very high prices, and I get 30%. The only good thing about this is they have an opt out, although it's only once a year.
I all but left iStock over the Getty Google deal when they wouldn't give us an opt out.
If we don't vote with our content, the agencies will keep on with this abusive behavior. They have no sense of responsibility in that they don't even bother to tell us about these things - it's always one of us finding out.
This one isn't my squabble, but I'd suggest setting a date - March 15th has a nice ring to it - and if they don't give an opt out for all off site sales by then (i.e. who cares what you call it) then pull your portfolios if you don't like this sleazy deal
3711
« on: February 12, 2014, 21:15 »
If you remember, one of their "things" was that designers just ignored ELs so make the standard license include them. I didn't buy the reasoning (and I'm not there) but that was something purposeful, not an accident...
3712
« on: February 12, 2014, 20:16 »
That list is very helpful and this problem has come up many, many times with most of the agencies, not just CanStock.
The lack of an opt out is a big issue and the lack of transparency - with Veer, for example, you don't know which sales are partner and which not. I think 123rf is the same. As some of Veer's partners sell the images at much higher prices than Veer does, but we get only the standard royalty, I think the reason to make the list secret is the agencies try to avoid problems with the artists over their various cash grab deals. Do a search for Veer and Alamy and you'll find several threads here on that ill-fated (now removed) deal.
CanStock does show distribution versus regular and instant in its stats, which is a small step up from some agencies. Getty/iStock does have some partner/Getty360/main site separation of stats, but in general they're awful about providing sales details. Even SS won't provide us with sales details for SOD sales. Before BigStock was bought by SS, they did some deals that people found out about - not via them - and the prices were very much higher (which obviously meant they didn't want it known you could buy the same stuff for less at BigStock). When contributors squawked, they said that we made extra money too so it was all good. We still squawked and they gave us an opt out. But by the time SS owned BigStock and imposed the insane royalty schedule for the subs program, they refused to provide an opt out.
And of course there was the Google/Getty deal about a year ago - lots to read about that, here, on Sean's blog, on my blog, on all sorts of places.
It shouldn't be this way but as they agencies became bigger and they figured they could get away with it, they work for their own interests and bottom line first and foremost.
3713
« on: February 12, 2014, 20:04 »
3714
« on: February 12, 2014, 19:47 »
It somehow seems wrong to have to pay to correct a misspelling - if you wanted to hijack Lock to feature you instead, I could see having to pay for that...
It's not that unusual, and is why Google is often useful.
I misheard the dentist saying I had 'angular colitis', which I realised must be wrong, so googled, and the first result for 'angular colitis' at that time was the correct angular cheilitis. It still comes up first under the type-in box as the top suggestion for angular colitis.
I'm sure if I needed to be found and had a surname which is often spelled two ways (I do, in fact, but I don't need to be found) I'd make sure my SEO featured both spellings.
I agree that the "did you mean" is very useful but that's not what happened with typing in Sean's name. Look at what I see for your misheard diagnosis:  Up at the top it asks if you meant something else and lets you correct what you typed with the link There's also the "showing results for" version. I deliberately mistyped the name of an actress and got this  There it tells you that it switched and lets you search for the original if you wanted to with just a click. But in Sean's case it just mungs the two together - including a picture. No links or did you mean or anything. And it knows something is up because if you search for the comedian it removes Sean's ugly mug from the lineup. I think we all need to be a able to "brand" ourselves in such a way as to show up in searches, largely so we aren't so dependent on the agencies to get our work front and center.
3715
« on: February 12, 2014, 16:29 »
And I did check a search using Safari, with private browsing turned on and ensuring I wasn't logged in to Google - same order as what I posted originally, so it is being in the US or something other than my search history that's determining the order.
It somehow seems wrong to have to pay to correct a misspelling - if you wanted to hijack Lock to feature you instead, I could see having to pay for that...
3716
« on: February 12, 2014, 13:09 »
I forget what started me on some Google searches this morning, but I wanted to compare searches for well known microstockers to others and typed in Sean Locke. What a feast that was Click for full size  I was amused to see that Sean is beaten to the top spot on a search for his own name by a comedian with a different last name! Then I was wondering what the comedian would think about Sean's picture being in the collection of his likenesses Perhaps I had something to do with the moustache and the devil horns - can't blame Google for everything... I guess that I found it interesting that Google conflated the two without even a "did you mean" note at the top. It's also amusing that if you search for the comedian's name it drops Sean's image out of the lineup. Perhaps Sean could try standup and put this other guy out of business
3717
« on: February 12, 2014, 12:50 »
It seems everyone is jumping on the 'make money with your smartphone' wagon lately, will be interesting to see which one will survive if any.
It didn't help Pocketstock - that was one of their ideas way back at the beginning. And Yuri was touting it when he invested in a startup focused on that. I'd vote for "if any"
3718
« on: February 12, 2014, 12:47 »
It's more than a month to get photo reviewed. Vector are faster ... It is too long ... I like veer website design and it's easy for contributor. But if I want sales, I need my images reviewed !!! Need to be patient I guess ...
As I think I mentioned before, I've stopped uploading to Veer, but you just need to put the horrendously long review time out of your mind or you'll go insane! They've been this way for ages - I guess they're trying to keep costs at a bare minimum? Sales have been more than decent lately, especially given the slow time of the year and my small portfolio there.
3719
« on: February 12, 2014, 12:41 »
So I really don't understand what Lobo is hinting at here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6984128 "We are doing our best to limit the impact and reduce the reach of the recoupment. " Limit the impact would be taking a little bit out at a time rather than in one lump sum? Reduce the reach would be not going back more than a certain period (where that would hint that the problems had been going on longer than just a month)? At this point my exposure for really long ago clawback is limited given how few files I have left there - there's only so much you can earn on 109 files - but can this really be so big?
3720
« on: February 12, 2014, 12:18 »
Given how large the collections are now, 100 items is small enough that it's easy to get lost.
I did do the Fave thing but I haven't updated it as I couldn't see any pattern that indicated the faved images were getting extra attention (where attention = sales; views are irrelevant even for sites that show view counts).
3721
« on: February 12, 2014, 12:15 »
I just went to check and see how I'm doing on my progress towards the annual payout and I may hit $50 before September at this rate A few sales in January and one so far this month - won't help me with the move to a beach hut on Tahiti but it's at least enough to leave what I have there. Still wouldn't recommend this site to someone who wasn't already there though.
3722
« on: February 12, 2014, 12:12 »
...This will determinately give me a great boost in my drive to becoming the worlds no.1 stock photographer 
Congrats on your goodies!
3724
« on: February 12, 2014, 10:55 »
Today my second best seller has become my best seller.
The sad consequence is, (try to guess), that today my best seller has become my second best seller.
I guessed right! What is my prize?
3725
« on: February 12, 2014, 10:52 »
I recall lots of discussions about stuff like this - people who had loads of experience with print uses or standards in other aspects of the photography business - as they couldn't get their head around the rules the micro agencies set.
Bottom line is that the rules don't have to make any sense (although it's certainly nicer when they do) - their sandbox, their standards. I think trying to learn to ignore most rejections is important after you get over the basic hurdles of taking decent images. If an image gets rejected across the board, that's a reason to go look at what you did wrong, but if one agency gets a stick you know where about an image - and they all do this from time to time - just ignore it.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
