|
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 - bunhill
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 62
376
« on: November 08, 2014, 12:29 »
As you probably know Shutterstock are now a publicly quoted company and as such contributors have been requested to not divulge too many details on their earnings. What does "as such" actually mean in this context ? This could be considered 'inside information' and as such might not be available to the entire market.
This is clearly not privileged information since, as one example, the stock factories and big portfolios talking privately already have far more pertinent information than is going to come from a thread like this. @Jim - presumably an anonymous poll here would make it simple for people to respond openly.
377
« on: November 07, 2014, 08:08 »
I think you are somewhat flawed in this.
I'm not wrong in essence although I could probably have worded my post better. The rate of growth of the collection is an important number. Rightly or wrongly it is one measure of growth which is being taken into account. We know this, it's obvious, from the reporting. Suppose for example that they were to report that uploads had declined. That would be taken as a negative.
378
« on: November 07, 2014, 07:22 »
They don't need to sustain the growth in the collection. If they stopped accepting images today they could probably still keep growing the business for years.
^ I believe that this is not necessarily the whole picture. As follows: Shutterstock is clearly all about the revenues today. The revenues are without question impressive. But in terms of the future of the stock - and apart from the revenues today ... it has some aspects in common with social networking stocks. Those sorts of tech stocks are invariably also partly valued on the number of active users and the extent of that activity. Partly because there is always the (flawed IMO) expectation that an active membership represents a future potential other business opportunity - when the business inevitably diversifies as it must if momentum is to be maintained. Any analysis of the future direction of the stock is going to take in account data which relates to active engagement. The number of contributing members and the amount of content being contributed will be a relevant number (whether or not it really should be). There has to be the sense that SS is still the big thing. The stock price is crucial. A company with a falling stock price quickly comes under pressure. The whole market has been kept afloat by QE for the past few years - and despite that being wound down the reality is that govt money will continue to flow for years via existing commitments. (IMO - this thing about the amount of membership activity potentially affecting the price or future price is something which contributors often ignore when trying to work out, for example, why standards do not gradually get tighter).
379
« on: November 06, 2014, 05:46 »
They tell me to hang in there and upload more images to get the sales. I upload more images and yet I still have 1 sale for the whole of 2014. Dire to say the least !
Might be worth thinking about a few more images with some sort of potential economic or business angle. Things which might trend. You could wait for ever for random rural stuff and steps to be news.
380
« on: November 05, 2014, 10:00 »
Second point is not related to keywording, but I really need this: when I upload to Alamy, nobody can use the same router
Assuming you are on a Mac, Google "ipfw" for simple one line terminal code to temporarily limit and then unlimited the bandwidth on port 80. Then your machine will not suck all of the bandwidth available on the network.
381
« on: November 04, 2014, 07:29 »
You mean "Essential Keywords"  ?
If you mean, then a big +1 for that! No I meant Main. Main is all relevant, the list of keywords. Where as Essential is just the few that we decide are the most significant.
382
« on: November 03, 2014, 14:07 »
And when you have an image which nobody else has - do you want to sell that for SS prices ? Suppose the image is not something which is likely to sell in volume.
Those type of images are very rare nowadays.
I don't think that they need to be. I think we have the opportunity to predict editorial trends - i.e. the things which are going to be a story sooner or later. And the microstocks are rubbish for that sort of specific content. Eg. I've got one image which has done 7 RM sales because the company involved keeps trending. I am not going to pretend that this is my typical score rate --- but I took the picture based on a hunch and because I could see in my mind what picture would work - the same as I might place a bet or buy a stock ... and I think if I was less lazy and applied myself better I would be coming up with more of those. Those 7 RM sales would not have bought me lunch on microstock RF editorial. Especially considering that some of those sales were repeat usages which I would not have been paid for.
383
« on: November 03, 2014, 12:29 »
From my 10+ sales I had last month 90% were under $10.
My average is $31 NET. I would prefer to sell fewer for more. I only have RM at Alamy. One of the strongest collections in the past for alamy was travel photography. Now, at least for the most known places you can find great images on micro.
And when you have an image which nobody else has - do you want to sell that for SS prices ? Suppose the image is not something which is likely to sell in volume. allowing to mark images as "RF + no release available" would be good.
No thanks. Most editorial content does not sell in the sorts of numbers which justify RF from the artists perspective IMO. RF is for images which sell often. Micro stock and subs makes no sense for occasional sellers which, nevertheless, have value. If a picture is only likely to sell occasionally then RF pricing (especially micro and subsciption) is not sustainable IMO. And editorial is not typically a volume model. Also - RM allows photographers to impose restrictions on use. I agree with keeping the keyword tiers. It's one of the best things alamy has despite the work it requires. At least we can choose the most relevant ones and limit the spam.
I agree with this. I think it gives Alamy a better opportunity to rank what is most important. I wish it were the norm.
384
« on: November 03, 2014, 07:30 »
Why do images with unrecognizable people (like tiny spots on a far away beach) have to be RM? Allow them as RF, so they can be sold at other RF places as well, that would be an improvement.
Who decides whether a person is recognizable - especially when so often that is about context ? Straight yes/no is best IMO. Same as with property - e.g. vehicles, houses etc. Anyhow - surely we don't do want them to do anything which encourages people to upload the same content to Alamy as they are also selling elsewhere as RF for typically much less money ?
385
« on: November 03, 2014, 07:05 »
Basically, we need just one thing: if the IPTC data is complete, then you must import images without any action required on our part.
OT/ That is never going to work since there are multiple other details which are essential - e.g. number of people, releases, licence type etc I like the Alamy system and would like it tweaked, not abandoned.
386
« on: November 03, 2014, 06:51 »
If you really need to have main and secondary keywords, then you can import the first 8 keywords as "main", without asking for manual intervention of course. OT/ This would not work for the vast majority of users using Lightroom since Lightroom puts keywords in alphabetical order.
387
« on: November 03, 2014, 06:45 »
we're looking for your top 3 things you'd like to see improved.
Hi. Thanks for asking. 1. End dependence on Flash. Alamy is the only reason I still need Flash on my Macbook.OK - I see I didn't read the OP properly. 2. IPTC keywords would be mapped to Main Keywords. Either recognising but removing separating commas - or else making comma separation the norm. 3. The ability to add additional keywords to multiple images in the batch / bulk editing functionality. i.e. whilst leaving existing keywords in place.
388
« on: November 02, 2014, 11:35 »
The ISSUU app is really worth knowing about.
A while back there was a discussion about magazines - and especially the more obscure hip fashion and lifestyle mags which until recently tended to be available only in capital cities. Now they are all (well many of them) available legally free for the iPad. Plus much of the mainstream stuff too.
ISSUU is back on iOS now and is based on free. It's the whole world of magazines. Also - it looks like a good platform for people who want to publish their portfolios.
If you have got an iPad and you like magazines then you want this app. IMO it is going to be a revolution in the same way in which YouTube was.
PS - also allows downloads for reading offline - e.g. on flights
I've had this for about a week - I came to it via a portfolio which someone sent me. It has taken me a few days to realise just how great this app is. It takes a while to find starts finding stuff.
ISSUU has been around for ages on Android. But I think it is the change of model which has brought it back to iOS that potentially marks the big change.
389
« on: October 31, 2014, 15:05 »
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/1: we've directly asked MPEG-LA whether or not using an H.264 camera simply to shoot video for a commercial purpose requires a license, and the answer is no 2: the MPEG-LA's general position that only the final link in the chain -- the party selling or distributing the video to the end user -- has to pay royalties for using the H.264 encoder Since iStock (and presumably the other stock sites) do not distribute h.264 content you should be good to go. But this is not legal advice.
390
« on: October 31, 2014, 13:23 »
I don't particularly want my IS images to have good SEO because they skim too much of the take.
So this is probably a stupid question. But if you don't like selling your content at iStock then why upload there at all ? ----- I have long been very dismissive of SEO - but, truthfully, the iStock email and and article has got me thinking about the best way to describe content and how that relates to what people specifically search for. Also - I had forgotten how excellent the DeepMeta software is for bulk editing.
391
« on: October 29, 2014, 13:01 »
According to Alexa, 22% of customers comes to Shutterstock directly from Google
The Alexa data relating to iStock, Shutterstock etc is estimated rather than measured according to Alexa. My understanding is that this means it is extrapolated from the data collected from users who have the Alexa toolbar installed. IMO this raises 3 key issues: 1. I have never met anyone who has the Alexa toolbar installed. I am not convinced that a typical sample group of stock buyers have the Alexa toolbar installed. 2. The last time I Googled it various of the main anti malware security vendors had the Alexa toolbar blacklisted for blocking or marked as malware. 3. The toolbar is not even available for Safari which is the default browser on Macs. As we know, many stock buyers are Mac users. For these reasons I doubt the value of Alexa anything with respect to stock.
392
« on: October 27, 2014, 17:06 »
we will be investigating who the images belong to that have sold and will be returning the owed funds to them
Impressed. Not sure whether I have ever heard of any of the microstocks ever doing this. That should be the norm.
393
« on: October 25, 2014, 13:01 »
Recognizing yourself needs a MR? Only in the USA then. There is a lot more to it then just recognizing yourself.
When an agency licences an image to a client, the client has a right to expect not only that the image has been strictly signed-off legally, but also that the image is 100% hassle-free. A stock image needs to be not only legal but also definitely completely problem free. Suppose for example that the image is used in an advert and that the person photographed recognises herself and objects to the context. Then suppose the issue goes viral - hence attracting negative publicity. See that the need for a model release can go beyond what merely satisfies legal requirements. IMO Alamy has it right.
394
« on: October 22, 2014, 17:04 »
Pixelmator is fully 16 bit now. It's a strong contender. If you don't need all that content aware stuff then it's good enough IMO. Also - it's lightweight and properly Mac native. It won't suit everyone, I know. The Apple keynote last week also include a demo of the iOS version.
LR + Pixelmator is a good combination currently. I like Lightroom but I don't trust Adobe not to ultimately make it subscription only. So I hope that the replacement for Aperture & iPhoto can ultimately make LR redundant.
395
« on: October 19, 2014, 14:02 »
Keep your knickers on. If anyone had been reading the thread then they'd have known, from previous postings, who had said what and when. It was perfectly obvious that BT had made a minor error in his editing but the point he was making was clear. At no point did I even begin to attribute BT's excellent sentence structure and arguments to your good self __ obviously.
Fair enough I suppose.
396
« on: October 19, 2014, 12:59 »
Somehow it was attributed to Shelma. The rest of the quote, attributed to you, is Baldricks reply to what you posted. It gets confusing when there are too many quoted strings of talk. I doubt it was on purpose.
It's trivial enough to edit a mistake and get it right. I doubt any of us wants to be quoted saying things we did not write. It's a basic courtesy surely, if using the quote function, to ensure that you do not misrepresent peoples' opinions. ^ I did not write the stuff which Shelma Baldrick has attributed to me previously. Just to be clear again. .... See .... Easy to edit 
397
« on: October 19, 2014, 11:08 »
^ really ? What kind of nasty person votes someone down for pointing out that they never wrote something which they have been quoted as saying? And does not have the common decency to at least explain why.
398
« on: October 19, 2014, 10:31 »
^ To be clear I did not write any of the stuff which Baldrick has attributed to me.
Whoever she has quoted - it was not me. Shenanigous
I appreciate you correcting this.
399
« on: October 19, 2014, 08:01 »
Well, with the majority of people reporting lower income, it looks like iStock's shot itself in the foot again.
There is obviously too little evidence here and over much too short a period to draw any sensible conclusion about the numbers. From here. IMO iStock now has a long window, probably even years, in which to demonstrate growth vs today. Because growth (specifically subscriber numbers growth) is measured against previous quarters and not against all time highs. Investors (and probably ultimately markets) are most interested in growth and the potential for growth. If growth, by whatever measure, is the only thing that matters then I think that starting on the back foot may end up being to their advantage. Especially compared with other companies which may have less room to increase the number of subscribers at a time when markets are looking so very uncertain.
400
« on: October 19, 2014, 05:34 »
I believe copyright has expired, but what about model releases? Thanks.
Copyrights will not have expired. You mention the US - but you do not say whether you are in the US or where your father was domiciled. This if how it works generically: You will need to establish and document that you have inherited any remaining copyrights as applicable. A lawyer will be able to draw up a document for you ... detailing your ownership via inheritance of the footage. The lawyer will need to see your father's will and will want to be clear that specific inheritance of the footage can be established. If you inherited all of your father's property then this will be easy. If your mother or siblings, for example, jointly inherited with you - then there may need to be an assignment document ... in which the copyright is specifically passed or sold to you. The document(s) will reference the specific copyright legislation in the applicable jurisdiction. This establishes and documents your ownership. Your lawyer will probably ask you to supply a description of the footage as a whole ... you need to call it something. Eg - A collection of film shot by Mr XYZ between dates / years. You would then typically complete and supply a property release when submitting this content - the property release would detail your ownership of the content (established above - and you would probably include the document(s) from the lawyer in support). To be clear - in this case the property release would relate to the film footage itself - not property perhaps shown in the footage. The footage is property. You would need model releases for identifiable people. Otherwise people content can only be used editorially. Which is a pity because old footage with people works great in pop videos, adverts etc. You should get it telecined ASAP before the dreaded vinegar syndrome sets in. Old color film especially is quickly going bad.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 62
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
