|
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 - travelstock
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 40
376
« on: November 12, 2010, 05:01 »
This is what a company should do...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20022318-93.html?ref=nf
Well I got my adsense banned with them a little while ago because someone started clicking my links. This was a person I know, but not something done at my request or with my knowledge - basically someone who had decided they wanted to "help me out". I had to ask around to see what happened because google don't actually give you any reasons about what's happened. Their response was to close my account and refund the balance to advertisers (about $60 which had been built up over about a year). Their "appeal" mechanism is an automated form that you can fill in, which automatically sends back a response a few days saying your appeal has been denied - again with no other reason or correspondence.
From what I've heard, this experience has also happened to much larger adsense earners.
In microstock terms, its the equivalent of an agency shutting you out, taking all your money and never answering any inquiries as a result of an event that you have no control over. Google may be really good with the PR, and have fuzzy slogans, but from what I've seen now, at the hard edge they're nothing but a ruthless advertising business.
They are trying to prevent fraud and it should be a black and white issue when it comes down to that. Im sorry about your case but if im google, i would have done the same thing because letting that happen would be an invitation for so much more fraud. The person that tries to help you out is really at fault but very hard to prove you werent involved so they make it black and white it seems.
There's also plenty of cases where competitors deliberately and successfully sabotage a site's adsense by doing basically clicking links. Google's method is to assume guilt without any recourse or reasons. They get away with a lot of things because they're so dominant and because people have no idea what they're upto. For example, how many people know that personal gmail is crawled by bots to make sure advertising is channeled to you accurately? What other use is being made of the content of your email? People are worried about loosing their privacy on facebook, but in reality google is far more liberal with the amount of personal data it collects than anyone. The only people who really win from google are those that build automatically generated content syndicated from free (or stolen) sources and optimized for the search. Google isn't the friend of genuine content creators and artists.
377
« on: November 11, 2010, 14:33 »
This is what a company should do...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20022318-93.html?ref=nf
Well I got my adsense banned with them a little while ago because someone started clicking my links. This was a person I know, but not something done at my request or with my knowledge - basically someone who had decided they wanted to "help me out". I had to ask around to see what happened because google don't actually give you any reasons about what's happened. Their response was to close my account and refund the balance to advertisers (about $60 which had been built up over about a year). Their "appeal" mechanism is an automated form that you can fill in, which automatically sends back a response a few days saying your appeal has been denied - again with no other reason or correspondence.
From what I've heard, this experience has also happened to much larger adsense earners.
In microstock terms, its the equivalent of an agency shutting you out, taking all your money and never answering any inquiries as a result of an event that you have no control over. Google may be really good with the PR, and have fuzzy slogans, but from what I've seen now, at the hard edge they're nothing but a ruthless advertising business.
That's a horrible way to be treated and it does put me off building up adsense as a form of earnings. Isn't there any way to contact to a person from google about this? They do so many things well but this is appalling and I have heard about other people having the same problem.
Not that I've been able to find. They really only have a webform and deliberately make it hard for you to contact anyone. Basically their attitude is that if something happens, even if its not your fault, they want to wash their hands of you. All the mantra about "don't be evil" is just marketing spin.
378
« on: November 10, 2010, 21:58 »
This is what a company should do...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20022318-93.html?ref=nf
Well I got my adsense banned with them a little while ago because someone started clicking my links. This was a person I know, but not something done at my request or with my knowledge - basically someone who had decided they wanted to "help me out". I had to ask around to see what happened because google don't actually give you any reasons about what's happened. Their response was to close my account and refund the balance to advertisers (about $60 which had been built up over about a year). Their "appeal" mechanism is an automated form that you can fill in, which automatically sends back a response a few days saying your appeal has been denied - again with no other reason or correspondence. From what I've heard, this experience has also happened to much larger adsense earners. In microstock terms, its the equivalent of an agency shutting you out, taking all your money and never answering any inquiries as a result of an event that you have no control over. Google may be really good with the PR, and have fuzzy slogans, but from what I've seen now, at the hard edge they're nothing but a ruthless advertising business.
379
« on: November 09, 2010, 04:08 »
Seemed like a good day until I went to bed, then woke up with the same DLs as the night before and to find that my uploads didn't go through...
380
« on: November 05, 2010, 22:11 »
Does anyone have any experience with a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 on a Canon 5DII? The thing I'm attracted to is the closer minimum focus distance compared to the Canon f4 or 2.8 (not to mention its half the price of the Canon 2.  . I'm looking to put together a kit that's as versatile as possible while keeping the total weight reasonable. I'm looking more to be able to do closeup shots than macro really, so don't think I really need a macro lens, but getting closer than 1.2m might be handy.
381
« on: November 04, 2010, 16:28 »
Am I right in thinking that he won by submitting something that isn't actually a photo?
382
« on: November 03, 2010, 23:56 »
So how much more engaged with the page are you going to be if it doesn't have photos at all?
383
« on: November 01, 2010, 16:07 »
I'm not talking about art versus commercial here, I'm talking about the ability to react to what's in front of you and around you (whether in the studio or out in the field), and being able to get it down in a meaningful way.
Isn't that just the key though? Its not about reacting to what is around you, but deciding what it is you want before you take the shot. You start with the image you want to create and work back from there, rather than starting with the object of a bunch of them and trying to create an image out of it.
384
« on: November 01, 2010, 10:05 »
Not a bad month for me - 3 mths in to exclusivity I'm just under 12% off a BME in overall $$$. I uploaded a lot of files this month, most of which have only just entered the search, so will be hoping for a big November.
Breakdown is very simple: 95% IS, 5% Alamy
nice to hear your overall $$ is getting close to your BME. November has always been my biggest month so perhaps you can break your record this month.
Well its been steadily upward so there's no real reason it shouldn't continue - I've had about 200 images accepted in the last month, most of which have only just gone into the search, and vetta #2 accepted this morning, so the month is off to a good start! Should get a reasonable idea of how well new files are doing too. At the moment I have the feeling that they're taking a few weeks to get started.
385
« on: November 01, 2010, 06:47 »
Not a bad month for me - 3 mths in to exclusivity I'm just under 12% off a BME in overall $$$. I uploaded a lot of files this month, most of which have only just entered the search, so will be hoping for a big November.
Breakdown is very simple: 95% IS, 5% Alamy
386
« on: October 27, 2010, 16:20 »
They can also earn barely 40% more incomes from microstock due to their low value money... Maybe 20 years ago. Moscow is amongst the most expensive cities in the world right now.
Yea right, I just see the prices. About 50 000 roubles each month for a 3 rooms apartment. If you don't live in Moscow or St-Petersburg it might be worth it though, they still get 30 roubles for each american dollar
Is that cheap or expensive? How much is the heating?
387
« on: October 27, 2010, 15:40 »
Maybe its time somebody sued flickr...
388
« on: October 27, 2010, 00:46 »
I feel bad for the diamonds who will drop by a lot since most of their success was in the earlier days with less competition. I would figure these exclusives are the ones thinking about dropping exclusivity but they really should weigh the pros an cons.
On the other hand some of those have had a very good run. Some have made a few thousand dollars from images of some random objects - dogs, fruit, a bunch of apples, whatever - because they uploaded them in 2006 and have been selling them ever since. Its unrealistic to expect that this sort of portfolio or subject matter is going to continue to earn a huge income indefinitely into the future. Its a competitive market and increasingly professional. To succeed in future contributors will have to take a professional approach. For the most part those who have continued to expand and improve their portfolios and techniques can still do well at IS and elsewhere.
389
« on: October 26, 2010, 23:50 »
I think dropping exclusivity after a long period of time is a much tougher choice than becoming exclusive after being independent for a long time. The starting over at the other agencies at lower royalty levels is what concerns me the most. I know of two diamond illustrators that dropped exclusivity and then came back within a year.
I was independent for a year or so, when I wasn't serious, and had about 60 files in my port. I guess I should have stayed that way, but my income went up 3.5x when I became exclusive and I saw no point in going back. However, if my royalty drops for next year, it will be an easy decision.
No really - by dropping the crown you're just giving up $$ - you don't have to terminate your relationship with an agency or delete images. If the experiment doesn't work you can still quite easily go back. Your pride may be a little battered and you'll have spent a lot of time for nothing, but just you have to wait a little bit. Going back to being an independent means trying to re-establish your place in a search that has much tougher competition than when you did it the first time - it would be unrealistic to expect to earn the same as you did before from those images. I made the decision with over 2500 images on other agencies that were well established in the search and had an income that was covering all my daily expenses. My income needed to go up by around 3.5 times to equal the past. The decision was based on where I wanted to be in the future and despite the changes I think it was the right decision to make. Some of the exclusives who are going to be hurt in the changes are under the impression that somehow the conditions are better with a dozen other up-and-coming agencies and that there is less competition. In reality though they're often the ones being hurt because the got to diamond in the early days and have been steadily dropping in the rankings in recent times. Unless the images that they're planning on putting elsewhere place at the top of the searches they're aiming for, the results aren't going to be any better than what's on offer at IS.
390
« on: October 25, 2010, 14:00 »
Sean visiting Jonathan at the latest Russian Convention?
Maybe Russian's interpretation of this forum of late! Gee they're quick!
391
« on: October 25, 2010, 07:38 »
Sometime soon I'd like to ask you about costs, apartments, studio space, etc.. there I'm thinking of stopping some place and doing some studio work too, maybe Thailand or Malaysia. I might be coming there to check things out in the next 6 months.
Pretty much plan at the moment too. Send me a message with any specific questions and I'll see if I can help! What's on the agenda in the meantime?
392
« on: October 25, 2010, 04:15 »
I am wondering is it better to start at the big sites or to upload to some of the smaller agencies even if only to get myself acquainted with the whole process.
This article appears to support the latter approach.
Also, I shoot lots of travel photos: places, attractions, etc. Is it more suitable for macro sites?
Thanks.
Wow that site is awful, even for as spam site trying to get you to click ads or referral links.
393
« on: October 25, 2010, 03:30 »
Hi Everyone
I'm going to be based in Bangkok for probably the next 12 months or so, and spending some time traveling from here around the region - was wondering if there was any interest from people who live in the region, or anyone planning to visit, to organise some sort of meet-up or event in the next 3-6 months?
394
« on: October 25, 2010, 02:30 »
The two problem areas I see in micro for buyers are people who falsify releases or don't follow proper practices, and the "image thief" type contributors.
In travel imagery, I'm starting to see a lot more model released indigenous shots - now its possible that the photographers get the document explained to people who can't read and that this is in their native language, track down the child's parents and do the same, as they're passing through - or its possible that they just get someone to sign a bit of paper for an extra dollar.
This exacty - I travel a lot and to very far away and remote places, especially in Asia - yet I see model released images of people in places I have been where I know there are no addresses, no phones, etc (for example the mountains in Burma and in remotest Mongolia) - and the internet? They don't even really know what a computer is - and this is why people think they are safe model releases to fake because the people pictured have no access to modern technology of any sort and have virtually zero chance of ever knowing that their image is for sale somewhere. Even if by some miracle they did find out, so what? It's not like they could do anything about it anyway.
Its very true that the chances of there being consequences are very slim, it doesn't make it right though. I also see MR images from out of the way places I've been where I know it would be almost impossible to get legitimate model releases. As a photographer by submitting a model release you're claiming the person has consented to have their image used commercially. If they haven't in fact done so, and particularly if you're faking releases its a black and white case of fraud - you're faking a legal document for personal financial gain - which is a crime in most countries. It annoys me that I get rejections for an unrecognizable person in the background of an image that's something like 10 pixels high, while others are making it to the front of searches with dubious model releases.
395
« on: October 24, 2010, 14:09 »
The two problem areas I see in micro for buyers are people who falsify releases or don't follow proper practices, and the "image thief" type contributors.
In travel imagery, I'm starting to see a lot more model released indigenous shots - now its possible that the photographers get the document explained to people who can't read and that this is in their native language, track down the child's parents and do the same, as they're passing through - or its possible that they just get someone to sign a bit of paper for an extra dollar.
396
« on: October 24, 2010, 01:23 »
I don't because I'm not a US citizen.
This is a perfect example of where the US decides that its procedure is better than the relevant international convention and its put in place a system that works to the detriment of artists both locally and internationally. They signed up to the Berne convention, and its about time they applied the spirit as well as the letter of that convention.
The idea that you can or should register every piece of creative work with the government is a bureaucrat's wet dream. In the digital age its even more of a joke.
397
« on: October 23, 2010, 12:43 »
Very interesting thread, Carolyn. Seems like the "guarantee" may have had unintended consequences. Here's the post from Chris3fer:
I work for a good size agency and its come up in a meeting today (for the second time in a year) that we shouldn't be using istock to make purchases. Quote from the meeting from pretty important purchasing people:
"They (istock) don't have proper licensing, and now they even have an additional legal guarantee you can purchase for another $100, because apparently their standard legal guarantee is meaningless. They also use a points system that doesn't make any sense. We should avoid them whenever possible."
It seems like charging extra for additional legal guarantees is making people think you have no real system for licenses and releases.
Like I said, this is the second time this has come up. a couple years ago everyone was using istock, now mangement is saying to stop. I just think this seems to be getting more common. Just sayin.
And his later post, which I think really speaks volumes about what Istock is losing: In response to the question "Are you in a position to explain these licenses?" He replies (emphasis added by me):
I am, but I didn't. I decided to cut back on my defending istock from 40% to 35% and I am currently over that percentage.. After all, money won't bring istock happiness.
So where are the buyers who aren't happy with IS's guarantee going to go? Certainly not to one of the smaller microstock agencies that don't have a guarantee at all. I'd say Getty wouldn't be unhappy if these buyers continue to use rights managed licensing or their premium RF offerings.
398
« on: October 21, 2010, 15:12 »
If I went exclusive at Istock I would start at 40%.
Really? How are you going to do that with 12K sales in 3 years? I guess this is yet another of your fantasy number exercises.
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure JR passed the Gold mark after me, but is now at 12K+ images sold whereas I'm on 11K with not much to spare - I think its a reasonable bet that on the exclusive Redeemed Credits over the course of a year he'd get to 40% with the increased upload slots etc if he's not there already.
399
« on: October 21, 2010, 06:11 »
You can use Photoshop and add IPTC also.
True, but it makes more sense at the image management stage before you convert from raw because you won't have to do it again that way.
400
« on: October 21, 2010, 06:02 »
Deutschsprachiger Australier in Thailand...
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 40
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
