|
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 - jamirae
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 33
376
« on: April 01, 2011, 13:24 »
377
« on: April 01, 2011, 13:23 »
OK, now Dreamstime is down. Now, that is funny. 
I bet too many people were pissed off at their stupid "free- but not really - but we'll give you 10% off insead" sale - - and whatever else was supposed to be funny that is just causing outrage instead so they took the site down quickly to fix it. but geez, I'm not even getting a "down for maintenance" message - just a 'unable to connect - problem loading page' error.
378
« on: April 01, 2011, 13:18 »
I will wait until tomorrow, April 2nd, to make a judgment on this one.
379
« on: April 01, 2011, 13:10 »
Overall it looks like the golds and diamonds did ok with many of them having BMEs.
not this diamond.
380
« on: March 31, 2011, 21:18 »
Isn't the new motto if it ain't broke fix it?
more like "if it ain't broke, break it"
382
« on: March 31, 2011, 12:31 »
No marketing = no business. Good grief.....I may have asked this before but do they have a salesforce working the phones to drum up new business?
A couple of months ago, they advertised for a marketing specialist and that job is not currently being advertised, so they may have hired same, or decided not to bother.
They also seem, for the first time in four years, no currently to be looking for "someone who can break our system".
I think they found someone who can break their system.
yes, I'll admit it. it was my 4-year old nephew.
383
« on: March 31, 2011, 12:30 »
someone pointed it out on their Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/#!/istock
the relevant posts:
#Lorraine Swanson Commissions from 20-45%? Why are you only paying me 16% Mr Thompson?
#iStockphoto There does seem to be some context missing from that quote regarding exclusive and non-exclusive royalty rates. That being said, I'm sure you're already familiar with the rate schedule.
Guilty. I hear they had Canon correct the facts after I posted. I love the "I'm sure youre already familiar with the rate schedule". Snarky buggers.
haha.. well to be honest, I attempted to post almost the exact same thing as you but my iphone has been having connection issues so it didn't get posted. I was happy to see you had posted. and yeah, I thought the same thing about the snarky tone on that lastremark. One would think that even in the face of criticism a large company/presence like iStock could remain professional.
384
« on: March 31, 2011, 11:03 »
If I search by contributor, I can see his whole portfolio, but if you click on any image you get a 404 error and if you click on his user name you go back to the iStock home page. I can't quite believe that such a long association could just be over like that - if it was the tutorial issue that triggered it.
Does he have a blog or any other web presence?
his website sucks, IMHO, but he does have one. though no blog that I can see http://www.russelltate.com
385
« on: March 31, 2011, 10:58 »
They've edited the Canon article to change the figures, so they now read 15% to 45%.
Oh, the power of MSG!
They haven't yet worked out why Sean objected to the line about editorial images not being sold RF but maybe that will get changed later since the article is, apparently, a work in progress.
someone pointed it out on their Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/#!/istockthe relevant posts: #Lorraine Swanson Commissions from 20-45%? Why are you only paying me 16% Mr Thompson?
#iStockphoto There does seem to be some context missing from that quote regarding exclusive and non-exclusive royalty rates. That being said, I'm sure you're already familiar with the rate schedule.
387
« on: March 30, 2011, 16:18 »
@loop: you're probably right. I guess I should have said traditional publishing. I worked/still work in traditonal print publishing. The whopping royalty percentage for my book was 6 percent. Articles for publications are different. I'm usually paid a flat rate per piece, no royalties. anyways, back on topic...the incorrect data in the article, IMO, is more directly attributable to the publication rather than to KK.
but you don't know that for a fact.
388
« on: March 30, 2011, 14:26 »
overall I think the article is decent, but the misleading part about the 20-45% is definitely a deal-killer.
in this case the fact is that the article misrepresented the facts. with an article like this I would think that Kelly or someone from istock was more than likely given a chance to review it before it went to print. the lie should have been caught and corrected. yes, it makes a big difference from 15 to 20 beause the industry low 'standard' used to always be 20% - and now it's dropped even lower. this article seems to want to forget about the fact that the majority of contributors to istock are making even less than 20%.
whether Kelly is a nice guy or not does change the fact that the article has outright untruths in it.
sadly articles are regularly published including misinformation. having watched how SOME journalists work, they have their eye on the deadline and usually know diddly squat about the subject they're writing about. which almost always results in misquotes and misinformation. in this case, I have no idea how the percentage figures were delivered to the reporter. probably info sent in an email. who knows. since I can only guess, my guess is that the numbers given were not calculated to mislead anyone. I'd suggest that iStock/Getty be more careful about how their words are represented...but even there, interviewees only see the article they've participated in for the first time when the articles are published. I don't know of any publications that would dare send an article to an interviewee for approval. it just doesn't work that way.
well I know it happens because on several occasions when I've been interviewed for different stories the author sent me a copy prior to publishing to ensure things were stated correctly. granted, not always can/does this happen and evenso things can still get misrepresented, but it does happen. and back on point, this is one factoid where they quoted him and should have gotten it correct. how can a journalist possibly misinterpret 15 to 45 with 20 to 45?
389
« on: March 30, 2011, 11:55 »
overall I think the article is decent, but the misleading part about the 20-45% is definitely a deal-killer.
in this case the fact is that the article misrepresented the facts. with an article like this I would think that Kelly or someone from istock was more than likely given a chance to review it before it went to print. the lie should have been caught and corrected. yes, it makes a big difference from 15 to 20 beause the industry low 'standard' used to always be 20% - and now it's dropped even lower. this article seems to want to forget about the fact that the majority of contributors to istock are making even less than 20%.
whether Kelly is a nice guy or not does change the fact that the article has outright untruths in it.
390
« on: March 29, 2011, 11:07 »
Different era.
Different corporate masters.
Things change.
We don't have to like it, but its up to each of us to decide whether or not to put up with it.
True. 2006 was another era, and I suppose it's not entirely fair to compare it to today. In 2007 I was able to quit my job because of iStock. In fact, we were all encouraged to do so, if you recall the very first Getty deal. Now, for the first time since, I had to get a part-time job. IStock changed my life once; it is changing it again.
that is so sad. 
391
« on: March 28, 2011, 10:32 »
I think it's been absolutely fantastic for my sales at Dreamstime! 
392
« on: March 28, 2011, 10:25 »
how is that possible? from deep discounted credit packs?
393
« on: March 28, 2011, 10:20 »
That's right. When it came down to it, money won over his "baby". I am not saying I blame him one bit, but his motives were the same as Getty's. Business is still business.
I think Getty sold him a bill of goods too...how they were totally going to leave iStock alone, how he could run it just the way he always had, how much better it was going to be with the added infusion of cash...I'm sure they made it sound too good to pass up. And of course, all that money. I know I'm not that strong. 
I agree. back when Bruce was at the helm, they would ask us our opinion and listen and act based on feedback. Today they ask for our opinion, say they will listen and act based on that, but in the end they just do what they want to do. (e.g. PTOTW)
394
« on: March 27, 2011, 16:22 »
I go to check out a fellow contributor's portfolio, and what do I see but naked women all over the place. Since my content filter has been on for YEARS, my first thought was that these had slipped through the cracks (pardon the pun). But there were so many I figured I better check the content filter.
Somewhere in the F5 fiasco, the content filter was defaulted back to "Show adult content". Just lovely.
And before anyone jumps down my throat for being a prude: I have a lot of kids in my portfolio, and they and their parents often drop by the site to check on how their images are selling.
prude.  (sorry, couldn't resist!) okay, so I checked and my contributor account was set to show adult content - I fixed that because I'm a prude too. then I logged into my buyer account which I haven't used for awhile--- anyhow I checked that but it was still checked for off. so that's kind of a weird and random bug if you ask me.
395
« on: March 25, 2011, 18:25 »
I didn't read this thread for a while, then when I caught up I saw something about links to people's lightboxes not working from their blogs. So I checked the links to personal lightboxes on my file_closeup pages and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM was broken. Hundreds of files had to be fixed manually, because they changed the way that the text and tags in the description are translated into HTML.
Oh wow. Are they going to put in a fix, or are they really expecting us to go in and fix them ourselves? I might fix the dozen or so on the blog page, but not on 6k+ files.
FWIW, my older links, that were linked to search terms instead of lightboxes are all working. Guess I will go back to linking that way on newly uploaded files.
Murphy's Law: as soon as you do that, the search will links will get changed.
396
« on: March 25, 2011, 16:39 »
It's a program that should have been shut down long ago, and resources invested elsewhere.
agreed. at this point it just seems like they are stringing along those few who are still contributing to their work into the black hole.
397
« on: March 25, 2011, 14:16 »
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=308462&messageid=6019582
"While its true that we indeed plan, very thoroughly, future developments and improvements for the year ahead, it's also necessary that we are able to shift our development focus if the need arises. The past year has seen significant changes in iStock (F5 being one of many) in our effort to fortify our position in the marketplace and make things better for everyone, our contributors and customers alike."
Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like the development resources planned to be used to implement the logo program got sucked into F5 and other stuff, and rather than hire more staff, they delayed the logo program.
Then the logo program will never be launched. The site is such a mess I find it hard to believe it would ever get fixed. I wonder how many people are still submitting logos to that dead horse (aside from the few that are still submitting to the challenges).
The other thing about the logos that I've seen that I wonder about is how they are even going to have a market. Some of them are *so* specific that I can't see them fitting too many businesses. I thought the whole point was to create something general.
and very interesting - is this post that refers to a logo design site, Brandstack.com (surprised it hasn't been deleted or edited yet): Posted By iskenderus:
I'm a graphic designer but especially I'm good at logo design, some of my logo designs are published in Rockports books about logo design. But, I could just upload only one here, then I saw the uploaded logos which contributors placed in this forum. They were I say very bad, its my opinion, if it will go that way my foresight is that iStockLogo will not be famous, because it will sell out of fashion logos which where popular in 2000th, and with quality it will not pass Brandstack.com for example. Thats why I stopped contributing logos, if I'd be wrong I'll start contributing. they are selling logos there for $250 to $250,000 (USD - not a typo!) and the site only keeps15% while the designer/seller gets 85% of the sales price. seems like a much better deal than the istock one which will presumably sell for 100 to 1,000 credits - though I'm not clear what the percentage of that is for the designer with all the royalty changes lately, but I am pretty sure there is a snowball's chance in hell that it will be 85%.
398
« on: March 25, 2011, 12:52 »
More iStock logo program failin'. Still no hint of a lauch date. I like how the logo admin says "the logo program can't exist" without the contributors. Is it too obvious to point out, that the logo program actually doesn't really exist? I feel bad for all the people who submitted. Making logos takes a lot of time, and from what I've seen of the submission process, iStock doesn't make it any easier.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=308462&page=1#post6174672
this is the one I just don't get. Why has it been delayed so long? I'm glad I never got around to submitting again after my initial upload. what a waste.
399
« on: March 24, 2011, 14:24 »
makes me want to drop my contributor account there. I have not been thrilled with them from the start.
is it supposed to be an ad aimed at young european designers? because I think it's idiotic and sophomoric.
400
« on: March 24, 2011, 10:54 »
The OP has posted:
"I just called the magazine and they told me it was bought over getty. Since it was printed in febuary as far as I know it should show up in the GI sales from yesterday, but I can't find it there. Maybe getty pushed it into march. Weird...."
The OP better check who is listed as the copyright holder to the image over on Getty. It's my understanding that many of the images over on Getty have someone different than the photographer listed, so who even knows who is getting paid! I know someone who has "Ocean Photography" listed as the copyright holder to their images. Who (or what) the heck is Ocean Photography and why would Getty replace the real copyright holder with that name?
yep, some of mine are there. this, in spite of the fact that I canceled my Getty contract a few months ago. all my getty files are still at getty and 4 or 5 of them are at Veer under the "ocean photography" label. however, I found them using my name in the search, so I'm given credit somewhere apparently.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
