|
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 - steheap
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 63
401
« on: December 29, 2017, 18:09 »
Great news, Alex! You deserve it!
Steve
402
« on: December 29, 2017, 18:09 »
Someone asked me how they know what discounts they are getting. Is there a promo page anywhere which explains the sale?
Steve
403
« on: December 28, 2017, 09:49 »
I've been trying to work out this scam - it can't be that the scammer wants some small payment to generate all the Enhanced License downloads. It can't be that they want the images themselves (as they could get them from our favorite free site). It can't be that these specific images or illustrations are fantastic. It must be that they are going to download lots of images with a high payout with a stolen credit card AND have a way to get at the money being paid for the downloads. That seems to be the only way to defraud Shutterstock in a way where you end up with cash, not a few lousy image files.
So the fraud must work by making an arrangement with the contributor to share the revenue that the image sales generate. How else could it work?
404
« on: December 27, 2017, 08:46 »
I use it every week to upload new images and in the nine months since I started working with Stock Submitter, I have never had one crash. I also use Windows 10. No issues at all for me.
Steve
405
« on: December 20, 2017, 12:05 »
Hi Mat
I just checked mine on the Adobe site (a W-9) and the page says it is validated and has no expiration date. So does your advice to create a new one not apply in those circumstances?
Steve
406
« on: December 20, 2017, 11:13 »
Why not submit them to multiple agencies? I wrote a blog post yesterday about how I upload to 16 different agencies with not much more effort that it takes to upload to one. http://www.backyardsilver.com/2017/12/my-current-workflow/I get about 66% of my earnings from the top 4 (SS, iStock, Alamy and Adobe) and then it tends to drop off quite quickly. I've 8 agencies that give me just 10% of the revenue. But it costs nothing in terms of my time to put them there and it is still $300 a year or more. Hope you find the article useful (and if you sign up for new agencies you could always use my referral links on my site (sorry for that shameless plug!)) Steve
407
« on: December 19, 2017, 18:01 »
Having a bit of free time on my hands, I decided to update the description of the workflow I follow to upload my images to 16 different agencies. If you are interested in how I organize myself to do this, here is the post: http://www.backyardsilver.com/2017/12/my-current-workflow/Steve
408
« on: December 18, 2017, 14:16 »
I think your best approach is to get a lawyer to send them a strongly worded "cease and desist" letter. That will show them!
409
« on: December 16, 2017, 09:39 »
When I started this thread, I was expecting to see my own blog post on the Dreamstime blog rise in the ratings - dream on! They rejected my entry for some reason and I couldn't be bothered to work out why. However, to save my pearls of wisdom for a more appreciative audience, I have extended my original entry and put it on my own blog, so if you are interested in reading about how I go about creating stock images for abstract topics in the news, here it is: http://www.backyardsilver.com/2017/12/create-images-things-news/Steve
410
« on: December 04, 2017, 09:12 »
If you took the photos on private property, you need a property release for the location, which I assume you don't have. And for places with entrance fees, they set rules (often) about use of photographs taken on their premises. Especially when the objects are recognizable, you can't expect the location to stay unknown even if SS were to let them through inspection as commercial - which I'd expect they wouldn't.
I think these would have to be editorial and it has nothing to do with the copyright on the objects themselves.
Yes, I agree - this is nothing about the age or copyright status of the objects. You can take pictures of people in "public places" and submit them without releases as editorial, but you cannot go into a private house or office and do the same thing. In this case, the museum is a private place and it is their rules that apply to whether you can legally license the image at all. If it is something generic, then you can "get away with it", but you are still potentially at risk. Steve
411
« on: December 04, 2017, 09:09 »
Well, my entry was rejected! I'm not altogether sure why, but it was... I'll reformat it and post it on my own blog a little later. In the meantime, Alex has written a nice blog post about the perspectives of someone who is trying to make it full time in stock photography but was pretty late to the game. If you get a minute, you could help Alex get to that fantastic prize with a marking of "useful"! Here is his entry: https://www.dreamstime.com/blog/can-you-make-living-stock-photography-47942Steve
413
« on: November 30, 2017, 13:21 »
Here is my Fotolia evolving into Adobe story - I talked about it last month in my blog post about October earnings:  November so far is even better - $450, although I think I have had 4 videos on Adobe which has made a difference. Most of my earnings are stills and I have been adding files regularly to Adobe over the years. Steve
414
« on: November 29, 2017, 15:58 »
Looks as though they didn't approve it yet! Sorry - the link works when I am logged into their site!
416
« on: November 26, 2017, 14:48 »
I am having issues with Alamy today, but it is saying that the FTP server is not responding properly. All the other sites are working correctly.
Steve
417
« on: November 26, 2017, 12:17 »
Its working fine for me
Steve
418
« on: November 17, 2017, 12:02 »
Sorry - normal month for me - perhaps even a bit better. And to add to your misery, we have Thanksgiving in the US next week so a loss of good buying days from that holiday.
Steve
419
« on: November 16, 2017, 19:17 »
I did a month long analysis of all Alamy zooms in August and checked whether the same image had been sold on any of the other sites I submit to. In a nutshell, I didn't find any evidence that a buyer would search elsewhere. In fact, my thinking is that most buyers at Alamy have company accounts there and so why would they search elsewhere? The chance of a Google search ending up on Alamy with someone willing to join or start an account and license the image is pretty remote as well. As a result, my current philosophy is to submit all images to all sites and let the cards fall where they do... Here is the analysis: http://www.backyardsilver.com/2017/09/alamy-buyers-search-elsewhere/I also did an analysis of RF and RM pricing on Alamy earlier in the year if you are interested. Bottom line - they are pretty much the same for me: http://www.backyardsilver.com/2017/06/decide-whether-submit-macro-sites/Steve
420
« on: November 13, 2017, 10:00 »
There is one other factor in this discussion about premium images. A premium editorial shot needs to be one that a buyer will search outside their normal stock agency to find that specific image. As an example, if I'm a buyer for the Washington Post and my normal agency is iStock (they tend to use a lot of iStock photos to illustrate articles on their App), then I need to first of all not be able to find a suitable image on iStock, but also I need to be willing to search on more expensive sites (Alamy, Robert Harding, Getty etc.) and be willing to pay for a license at that site. So a premium image must be sufficiently unique to make someone take that extra step.
Obviously specific news images will require that search, but it is harder to justify for the sort of editorial images that many of us take.
That is why I'm more of the opinion that our images might as well be placed on all sites, not divided into "premium" and "ordinary."
Steve
421
« on: October 21, 2017, 10:13 »
Search for Symbiostock on this forum as well for a lot of history of similar attempts. Symbiostock is still going, but my sales using the approach have been pitiful, I'm afraid, mainly because of those two words mentioned earlier.
In essence, many people search for images, but don't want to spend money. The ones that spend money usually have accounts at an agency somewhere and go there first.
Steve
422
« on: October 20, 2017, 09:30 »
The RPI also depends on the number of agencies you have images with, so getting to $1.20 a year with 15 agencies is obviously easier than if you submit to just one or two.
Steve
425
« on: October 09, 2017, 13:27 »
Alex and I have had this discussion many times. It appears that RH get more of their sales via agencies that they send the images to and so you have to take account of the first agency commission and then RH commission. That may be OK in the end, but we don't know at present. If instead you supply to Alamy on a non-exclusive basis, you can also put the same images on the micro sites as well. So you have a chance of a larger sale on Alamy and the chance of more regular small sales on the micros. Ahh - but what about someone seeing the image on Alamy and then searching for a cheaper version? In my experience, they rarely do and I did a reasonably detailed analysis of this on my blog: http://www.backyardsilver.com/2017/09/alamy-buyers-search-elsewhere/But, the real answer is that no-one knows what will actually happen to specific images that we decide are "great." Steve
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 63
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
