|
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 - fotoVoyager
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 23
376
« on: June 04, 2013, 15:26 »
Mine now asks me to put the balance in US$ to withdraw and it gets converted to the UK amount it says its worth. Tricked me the first time because I was so used to entering the amount. Check the currency symbol to the right of the window you enter your withdrawal figure in.
I didn't have to re-enter any bank details.
377
« on: June 04, 2013, 14:31 »
I didn't get an email either, looks to be a policy change from PayPal. Don't think it makes any difference to anything though.
378
« on: June 04, 2013, 09:09 »
It was reorganised in order to stop paying people referrals as far I as I can tell, then sold as a 'benefit'. Brilliant.
379
« on: June 04, 2013, 07:51 »
I think that's probably right.
380
« on: June 04, 2013, 06:22 »
It's been pretty bad for me recently, sales are really crushingly low compared to previous months and years.
I've been dithering around dropping exclusivity for years but luckily iStock will make the decision for me soon enough. If I can't make my RC target with 10,000 images, what's the point? I'm buggered if I'm taking a royalty cut just because they're too greedy and / or have poisoned the atmosphere there enough to drive away buyers.
381
« on: June 04, 2013, 02:04 »
I only noticed it by chance too, it's a subtle change.
It does mean you have to request your funds in US$ in the withdrawal box, but presumably you could wait to see if the exchange rate goes in your favour which you couldn't before since it was converted to Sterling on arrival at PP.
382
« on: June 03, 2013, 07:50 »
I'm pretty sure I remember Laflor insisting that he was independent of Yuri when similarities were pointed out between their work in the past.
This is all pretty disgusting corporate behaviour on iStock's part when it's coupled with the screwing of the general contributor. One of the redeeming features of Microstock was its sense of meritocracy that generated crowd sourcing enthusiasm and launched exciting new work. Now it's back to who you know and that didn't work out well for trad libraries before.
Exclusivity is rapidly becoming morally and financially unsustainable for anyone who makes a living at this unless you can make a deal.
383
« on: June 02, 2013, 12:02 »
You're pretty good at analysing these things Sean - I and quite a few others would be interested to read your thoughts on which sites pass the 'Locke Test'.
384
« on: May 29, 2013, 02:56 »
I'd prefer real identities, but I'm sympathetic to those contributors who wish to remain anonymous given the actions of some agencies. Perhaps a smaller more token fee would be better.
385
« on: May 25, 2013, 02:51 »
Depends what you shoot.
Shiny happy people doing stuff is the way to regular sales and success, but I think it's harder than it looks to do well.
Be prepared to work like a dog, there are no shortcuts in this business.
386
« on: May 22, 2013, 14:55 »
I heard he was the original model for the Lego man.
387
« on: May 22, 2013, 04:27 »
Please don't get my hopes up like that so early in the morning!
388
« on: May 20, 2013, 12:46 »
Yep, that's pretty much the only thing you can't complain about as an Exclusive - the inspections.
389
« on: May 20, 2013, 06:15 »
Good luck with that!
390
« on: May 20, 2013, 04:48 »
It'll just be an increase in the basic royalty, a blind eye turned to his own site and a guarantee that all the work goes into Sig+ and therefore duplicated onto Getty.
Infuriating, unfair and hypocritical on iStock's part, but perfectly understandable from Yuri's point of view.
391
« on: May 19, 2013, 09:32 »
Sounds very reasonable. Can I send you one image as a trial?
392
« on: May 18, 2013, 12:19 »
I can't imagine Yuri would forgo the earnings from other sites just for the convenience of only having one agent and 20%, so I can only presume he must have negotiated a special percentage rate higher than the 20% offered to other 'special exclusives'.
I certainly don't blame him for accepting a generous deal even if it is with the devil.
Not sure why such generous terms and open exclusivity arrangements shouldn't be open to all though. It's not like it's a unique portfolio or full of rare, hard to obtain images, just lots of really great people images. If only there was a site that specialised in that.
393
« on: May 18, 2013, 08:43 »
This is good news for Getty and iStock, not so good news for other Exclusives who are subject to very restrictive rule that others appear to be exempt from.
If they made this 'image exclusive' deal available to everybody then I'm sure they could keep Exclusivity viable. Unfortunately falling sales numbers mean artist exclusivity will become uneconomical in the not too distant future, even if the return per download stays high.
He is taking his images off of all the microstock sites so it may not be that special of a deal in that regard. Also isn't it ok to have a business and personal account as long as similars and sisters aren't on both? His peopleimages site also might be changed to only images that he didn't create, I thought he had other photogs working there.
Hmm, do you think if you or I tried that 'business account' and 'personal account' trick to upload to multiple sites we'd last very long? There's no getting round it, they change the rules to suit themselves whilst grinding the rest of us down.
394
« on: May 18, 2013, 05:21 »
This is good news for Getty and iStock, not so good news for other Exclusives who are subject to very restrictive rule that others appear to be exempt from.
If they made this 'image exclusive' deal available to everybody then I'm sure they could keep Exclusivity viable. Unfortunately falling sales numbers mean artist exclusivity will become uneconomical in the not too distant future, even if the return per download stays high.
395
« on: May 18, 2013, 05:17 »
Are you sure he's not just outsourcing the actual work elsewhere? Sounds impossibly cheap for the UK.
396
« on: May 18, 2013, 03:17 »
hahahaha this is gotta be a bombshell for many guys here.
i'm literally shi-tt-ing in my pants while laughing !
Can someone remind me how to set the ignore feature?
397
« on: May 17, 2013, 16:24 »
None of his images have Exclusive prices or crowns next to them.
I'll bet this is some kind of typical shady deal to get all his stuff into Signature+ en masse in time for the changeover.
398
« on: May 16, 2013, 14:44 »
Sorry, when I said 'they' I meant the people discussing it in the forum.
399
« on: May 16, 2013, 14:08 »
I'm guessing they're not mentioning the price slider because most Exclusives haven't realised that the most commonly used setting - the cheapest - will now exclude most Exclusive content since that's going into the 'Signature' collection by default, apart from junk that doesn't sell.
I'm sure the fact that this new system will result in a huge reduction in RC's earned and thus royalty rates achieved by Exclusives is just a happy coincidence.
400
« on: May 08, 2013, 11:06 »
I bought a Sony RX100 for the very same reason. If you are okay with 28-100 range, I recommend you to put it in your shortlist.
My friend has one and says it's good, but I like the idea of a compact camera with the chip from the D7000 which was a great consumer DSLR with low noise. I'll have to try them both and see.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
