|
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 - Uncle Pete
3901
« on: April 25, 2019, 08:55 »
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20190423-how-the-paparazzi-make-their-moneySome interesting parallels with stock photography and along the same lines and times. The global financial crisis and the rise of online media finally killed the gold rush. Digital media increased the demand for celebrity photographs but decreased the price media companies were willing to pay for them. Photo agencies began to consolidate or go out of business, and the remaining ones changed their business model. Instead of making magazines pay per photo, they offered a subscription service: publishers could use as many photos as they wanted to fulfill the greater demand for cheaper shots. As a result, paparazzi are paid a small fraction of the subscription fee; how much depends on how many of their pictures are used each month. That means an exclusive Just Like Us photo that would have fetched $5,000 to $15,000 before, now pays only $5 or $10.
3902
« on: April 21, 2019, 22:37 »
Shutterstock should be ashamed of themselves for removing their forum thread about this, essentially condoning the theft.
It's been agreed between contributors that once a thread has been taken down, another one will re-appear ad nauseam.
Actually, the SS photo does belong to Adam:
FML, worse than I thought.
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000012476?l=en_US&fs=RelatedArticle
Can I submit work that contains copyrighted material for commercial use?
You must own or control the copyright to all content you submit to Shutterstock. This means that you cannot submit work obtained from other sources such as free image websites or public domain, or incorporate such work into your content submissions, unless you have permission to do so. This includes, but is not limited to artwork, photos, sculptures, architecture, exhibits or audio which are copyrighted.
Why is it so f***ing hard for Shutterstock to apply their own rules?
To both of you, but yours because it directly points at their own rules. If the image was before they started enforcing"their own rules" which are not legally accurate, then that's part of the problem. They used to accept PD images, then they decided not to. But the law is (at the present) you or I can license a PD image if we want, even if, easiest example, it's a NASA photo paid for by the taxpayers of the USA. I always wanted to ask, what if someone outside of the US wants to reproduce that same image and they aren't a taxpayer?  Simple as is is, public domain, means no copyright. And no copyright means someone can make copies. So I can print a book or make copies of a photo, same thing, or sell the digital copies of a book or photo, which is unprotected. SS has decided not to accept out of copyright materials. I think this is a wise decision, because 1,000 people or 10,000 people could all upload the same relatively unlimited supply of unprotected images, over, and over. Then what would the collection become? We can all see how spam and similars and duplicates are a problem. Now add, that anyone anywhere can legally submit every photo, published in the USA, before 1924. (before someone starts nit picking, I added the word published, which is very important to the statement) Every image ever published in the US before 1924 is public domain. Someone interested could open and agency, hosting only those images, and probably do just fine. No royalties, no licensing, nothing. 100% PD images for license. That's not all. Anything paid for by the government, is free to use. Unrenewed copyrights, free to use. Never registered, free to use.
3903
« on: April 21, 2019, 22:18 »
Just looked through my sales for last month and again down to under a quarter what they used to be a couple of years ago, commission rates are abysmal at 15 and 20%.
Essentially I believe it is time too stop paying Getty's loans and the wealthy shareholders with their dividend payments, who with their greed have moved into the MicroStock market.
Microstock was about a Stock imagery sites selling there contributor's photo's for a reasonable commission, it should be for both sides, a win, win, not as it is now, with Getty's turning it into a slave factory.
I stopped uploading, I'm just taking the small change they throw at me now and then. I suppose I could just shut down and leave, but I've decided that doing nothing and getting paid, isn't as bad as getting nothing at all. On the other hand, in a way, I'm supporting Getty? What I do for them is hardly enough to matter for either of us.
They have stock holders? Getty owns Getty Images as far as I know. The company was acquired by the Getty family in 2018.
Like others, I don't think Getty has turned anything, or different. iStock played at pretending they cared and has all kinds of friendly messages and events, in fact they were always low paying and low commission. The difference is IS had a bit of good public relations working, but anyone who used the forums, tried to get to support or had anything critical was locked or moderated.
Still I admire the Getty plan and what they are doing. Beyond the investment rape of the company, bleeding it and throwing the carcass back to the Getty Family, the plan and their concept is exceptional and will eventually be whole again. I'm not speaking of the iStock portion or our stock images, just the Getty Images as a business and company. If they had stock, I'd buy some.
Played at pretending... Love it. The whole "community" thing was a joke. I could give you 50 million reasons why it was a joke. IS never cared about anyone, but so many got duped.
I hope that's what I wrote also? The community was a well played con job. When I say the Getty plan, the archives, the digitizing old photos, the buying agencies, buying collections, and the way they get exclusive media access, or at the least, preferred media access, that has nothing at all to do with iStock, or Microstock. That's not the same as anything iStock. Getty will eventually get out from under the debt that was created by investment groups. There isn't much left. The dregs of UPI and AP are still around. Imagine the day in the future when Getty owns UP and eventually AP old photo archives. That isn't impossible in the digital media market, where the old analog files are a treasure. But stored away in the photo morgues, as nothing but old prints. The conversion to digital is where Getty is not only preserving and rescuing old images, but creating an archive that is far greater than any other.
3904
« on: April 21, 2019, 12:27 »
The Ansel Adams image of the grand Tetons, with altered clouds
https://www.doi.gov/photos/news/photos/Ansel-Adams-Mural-Project-Opens-at-Interior-DepartmentWhile it is public domain, SS stopped accepting those around 2012 images numbered 100,000,000 and lower would be before that "No public domain" accepted rule. It is an Ansel Adams photo, it is owned by the United States and is public domain. There is of course the whole new case where someone is filing against Getty for licensing PD images and charging a fee, claiming the rights.
3905
« on: April 21, 2019, 11:59 »
Just looked through my sales for last month and again down to under a quarter what they used to be a couple of years ago, commission rates are abysmal at 15 and 20%.
Essentially I believe it is time too stop paying Getty's loans and the wealthy shareholders with their dividend payments, who with their greed have moved into the MicroStock market.
Microstock was about a Stock imagery sites selling there contributor's photo's for a reasonable commission, it should be for both sides, a win, win, not as it is now, with Getty's turning it into a slave factory.
I stopped uploading, I'm just taking the small change they throw at me now and then. I suppose I could just shut down and leave, but I've decided that doing nothing and getting paid, isn't as bad as getting nothing at all. On the other hand, in a way, I'm supporting Getty? What I do for them is hardly enough to matter for either of us. They have stock holders? Getty owns Getty Images as far as I know. The company was acquired by the Getty family in 2018. Like others, I don't think Getty has turned anything, or different. iStock played at pretending they cared and has all kinds of friendly messages and events, in fact they were always low paying and low commission. The difference is IS had a bit of good public relations working, but anyone who used the forums, tried to get to support or had anything critical was locked or moderated. Still I admire the Getty plan and what they are doing. Beyond the investment rape of the company, bleeding it and throwing the carcass back to the Getty Family, the plan and their concept is exceptional and will eventually be whole again. I'm not speaking of the iStock portion or our stock images, just the Getty Images as a business and company. If they had stock, I'd buy some.
3906
« on: April 17, 2019, 10:09 »
Sensor the size of a grain of rice, lens the size of a thumbtack, made of plastic? Neither is my vote too.
... yet those little things can produce photos that can successfully be sold on stock sited. Why not to assume that the video can be decent too?
I disagree, a video camera would have something like a 1" sensor. A phone would have a 1/2.55 sensor. Phone 1 micron pixels, 1" sensor (rough guess) at least four times larger.  Lens resolution and diffraction, more on a phone, small lens, than a larger glass lens. You can't fool Mother Nature. I understand your point, how little can you spend to make money. But honestly, if you have better equipment, your work production will be better and you'll make more money. If you want the minimum to get accepted, you might just have spent the time and money for little or no return. Do you want to make good video that sells? A phone might make video but the phone will be more difficult to work with, limited, harder to get good quality and harder to make video that will attract buyers. The exception of course, if you have video of something that no one else has, then you can shoot with a phone and maybe make a sale. If you are going to shoot stock subjects, you need to beat the competition. Someone else posted that 4k is over rated and buyers are still downloading 1080. I don't know if that's a fact? But you might consider a better video camera that doesn't make 4k and that has high quality, instead of "bigger is better", only thinking size, from a phone? And of course if you question is, how to make money with the phone, because you can't afford a proper camera, then pick one, my answer stands. Neither and a phone isn't suitable for commercial sales. Plus you might not need 4k.
3907
« on: April 16, 2019, 12:59 »
It's a sickness? in order 1 - 10  1101771029 Syeda Kulsoom (8 ) 1277732206 Doni Asparingga (120) 1299157720 NI3EN (2) 1174873663 Chrysanthem (0) 1146621716 Rb Gowthamon (66) 456947011 Sebastian Voortman (28) 1287319801 Akash Srivastav (54) 1233320311 404 error 1245865771 Alex-Photography (519) 719612071 fatchul (0)
3908
« on: April 15, 2019, 09:00 »
Neither
Sensor the size of a grain of rice, lens the size of a thumbtack, made of plastic? Neither is my vote too.
3909
« on: April 11, 2019, 07:49 »
More: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/architectural-design-copyright-laws-63786.htmlThis is what the MBZ lawyer is claiming, gives them the right to use the murals. I still think it's a stretch and wrong, but now I see the basis. I think the MBZ lawyer is reading between the lines of the first part and not following the law in the second underlined portion. A building in a public place or visible from a public setting can be photographed without violating copyright protection of the building. The photograph can be published and used commercially without requiring the consent of the copyright holder of the building. Other forms of visual representation, such as a videotaping or drawing, are also permitted. This exception applies to architecture only. You cannot, for example, use a photograph of a copyrighted painting in an advertising campaign without permission from the copyright holder. If you photograph or film a building, make sure that no people are recognizable in a final image used commercially unless you have obtained their permission to be part of the picture.I wonder if they will just settle and pay the artists and end this? Could be a preemptive strike to avoid getting sued. End around. If the idea was to create a way to negotiate, without getting sued themselves, and reach an agreement with the artists? I just can't see the MBZ lawyer being serious about his defense that the building is in a public place. I also can't see them winning.
3910
« on: April 10, 2019, 14:09 »
In honor of making it back to over 1,000 posts, for the third time, I'm posting the May/ June Milestone in advance.  264,795,106 royalty-free stock images / 1,676,474 new stock images added this week Today Yes I'm cheating. I had originally said May 27th, or that weekend. Not even half way to that date, in fact, a rounded two weeks from March 31st, and nearly half way. Looks like nothing has slowed, as I would have hoped. Last period was about 45 days for 10 million new images. Before that maybe 49 days, and this month, we're going to break the 45 day record. Closer to 40 days. Will this ever stop?  But since this is an edit, not a reply or new message, I expect it to just sit here until May unnoticed. 
3911
« on: April 10, 2019, 14:00 »
snip Just a note, you might have missed, Adobe did raise our commissions. Not a big number, but they raised the minimum, and o some reason, most of my subs, and I mean over 50% are 99c, some are 66c and probably the second most value is 33c. I am not a high rank or anything special from FT levels.
Since I have been back with Fotolia/Adobe, well over a year now, I have been receiving those commissions, mostly 99c and above. So I dont think this raise is anything recent.
I came back too, after AS bought FT. It was, some standardization, no more 29c subs. I don't know when the 99c thing started, but I like it! Yes it's an Adobe pricing deal, so it could be from when they started the transition right after they bought FT.
3912
« on: April 10, 2019, 13:57 »
but I have just noticed that SS keywords now go in alphabetical order, not the order I put them in.
Is this new? Newish? Or have I just been asleep for a long while.......?
Yeah awhile, but also you will see the order change after downloads and depending on what they might be featuring or promoting. There was some strange event where every video with Redone went to the top of the search. Shows that they can push words and alter the search rank, based on target words. Many sites arrange as they please. AS we can set the order and it matters. Strange place this land of Microstock. I just added a new word, it's first on the list. I can look later and see if it moved to Alpha or stayed. But just because they show Alpha, that doesn't mean the search looks at them all the same.
3913
« on: April 10, 2019, 13:50 »
Hi i was wondering how to leave videoblocks with my balance of $24.50
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did April do it for you?
3914
« on: April 10, 2019, 13:43 »
Your title implies you already have your files rejected, it's kinda misleading.
Tell me please a proper title so i can modify
Please change to something that's a question, such as:
Did Anyone Get A vector rejection due to 4MP limit?
Thank you i just modify the title
Nice, I think you made a bunch of people happy. 
3915
« on: April 10, 2019, 13:42 »
You're welcome and good luck.
Though, they aren't that well optimized for photos, much better for design elements, templates etc. But they worth uploading and they sell.
Always the most important, as anyone can offer 70% of nothing and pretend that's good news!
3916
« on: April 10, 2019, 13:40 »
If you really do care about your contributors how about raising their royalty?
That would send massive ripples throughout the stock industry!
It would show just how serious Adobe is.
Just a note, you might have missed, Adobe did raise our commissions. Not a big number, but they raised the minimum, and o some reason, most of my subs, and I mean over 50% are 99c, some are 66c and probably the second most value is 33c. I am not a high rank or anything special from FT levels. Considering what others pay, AS is raising the bar and offering us more in real numbers. I wouldn't be against adding new levels and incentives. Unlike the places that essentially set higher and higher quotas which are a disincentive and slap in our face. Like the RC or changing "consolidation" of levels or that absurd Big Stock 50,000 downloads bonus. Although AS might be doing away with levels altogether when FT closes. All pretty confusing.
3917
« on: April 10, 2019, 13:25 »
Thanks for suggestions, I forgot that I had installed DaVinci resolve and uninstalled, I never got to timelapse. No I don't pay for cloud. But consider what software costs and the upgrades, I should really be subscribing. Or use the Gold Standard -- LRTimeLapse.
I have used the Pro version for years, and it has never let me down.
I ran across that too, I'll go look.
3918
« on: April 10, 2019, 13:16 »
I don't have time to write all that I went over with this new Storyblocks deal. I feel this is very important to this community! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyeQmy3BV70
That made my day, almost as much as the free pizza truck handing out samples. I'd never get that letter, but at least you warn anyone who might, to read carefully and consider what they are really saying.
3919
« on: April 10, 2019, 09:31 »
https://timelapsetool.com/Anyone have experience with this one. $99 for the full version, that allows commercial licensing and does 4K Mostly I'm just getting frustrated with converting stills from a DSLR to proper aspect ratios, black bars. Or from a smaller camera to video. OpenShot drive me nuts, Premier Elements crashes, I don't see anything else with the capabilities that the Time-Lapse Tool claims. But I'd like to know from someone who has used it, can I drop in, lets say for example, 800 sequenced shots from my DLSR, full size, or will I have to convert and downsize like everything else I've tried, because the other software, OpenShot, Photolapse and the rest just can't handle it. Plenty of memory on the computer, GTX 1070 Windows 10, I just want to stop having to convert, resize, downsize and spend all that time. Anyone use or have used T-L Tool?
3920
« on: April 10, 2019, 09:23 »
Here's a question that's been on my mind lately. Have you noticed declining sales on illustrations at your favorite MS sites? I see lots of photos being sold and uploaded but not really illustration images.
So what's your thoughts?
To my surprise, IS my illustrations have become a bigger percentage of my sale. Of course... I have more illustration sales than before. It goes well ! Instead of new photos not selling ... !
That might be why? Photo sales down, illustrations up. I'd say for what I have, and I'm not very special, Adobe is my best site for Illustration income and downloads.
3921
« on: April 10, 2019, 09:21 »
I really didn't expect this place to be such a hostile environment, there's some toxic people here but i'm glad everyone isn't like this. Thank you to the 1 genuine response iv'e had from this forum.
Tell us who you are and what academic institution you are studying at and you might find us less so but I'm guessing you won't.
The thing is - you have no credibility. A number of people are university educated here, so know that you are full of crap.
a) You don't wait 3 weeks before your thesis is due to do a survey. A thesis usually takes 1-2 years, and this is something that would be done at the beginning. Unless this is an undergraduate course, in which case calling it a 'diseration' is not the correct term to describe what you are writing, but rather a paper.
b) Your questions are too generic to derive any meaningful data. The only one that appears somewhat detailed (perhaps disguised to hide your true intent) - is - "which stock clip sells the best and go into detail".
I suspect all your points are well made. But I hear the best wool comes from the UK, so maybe the best wool pulling does too?
3922
« on: April 10, 2019, 09:18 »
Yes for me the math works, and because I'm lazy. Also because P5 distributes to Vimeo and Adobe. Although I have no clue if that is vetted or what percentage. I won't need to upload to more than one place and I'll get 2-3X more for every download.
I am not a regular or large video producer. For those people the situation could be very different
Yes you are right, the 40% is still a nice reward and better than most other sites.
3923
« on: April 10, 2019, 09:14 »
Ducks in the pond series shot in 8k with RED Helium camera has done really well for me. Please don't imitate.
But did you cover 120k FPS slo mo of the ducks?
Will do 1,000 fps with Phantom camera soon. That'll be awesome.
Make sure the ducks are extra sharp, you know how that goes... They can be terribly fast and tricky.
3924
« on: April 10, 2019, 09:11 »
Yes, but here it happens the exact contrary: the total earnings on the homepage show that there are new sales, but they don't show in the statistics.
Yeah but I wrote and got no answer. My acceptance percentage is something like 39% with only two files rejected, because anything deleted counts as not accepted. Nice trick. Remove files they are now counted against me. Does rank and acceptance count for placement on DT. If it does, I'm screwed. Is this the new DT plan? Don't answer questions or inform about issues?
3925
« on: April 10, 2019, 09:08 »
Your title implies you already have your files rejected, it's kinda misleading.
Tell me please a proper title so i can modify
Please change to something that's a question, such as: Did Anyone Get A vector rejection due to 4MP limit?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
