401
General Stock Discussion / Re: Extended licenses.
« on: April 01, 2008, 14:10 »I firmly believe the more "arty" images do better with EL's.
I agree.
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. 401
General Stock Discussion / Re: Extended licenses.« on: April 01, 2008, 14:10 »I firmly believe the more "arty" images do better with EL's. I agree. 402
StockXpert.com / Re: StockXpert Announces Price Increase« on: April 01, 2008, 08:44 »Wow this is unbelievable! Maybe they don't have Adobe Illustrator. 403
Dreamstime.com / Re: Low color profile?« on: March 31, 2008, 10:40 »I find it very interesting that DT wants edited images that are highly saturated, while IS wants images right out of the camera with no editing. That's hilarious ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() On second thought, it's pretty sad because every time I submit an edited image it is shot down at IS, even though they are some of my best sellers at other agencies. 404
Dreamstime.com / Re: Low color profile?« on: March 31, 2008, 10:11 »
I find it very interesting that DT wants edited images that are highly saturated, while IS wants images right out of the camera with no editing.
405
General Stock Discussion / Re: Extended licenses.« on: March 30, 2008, 05:55 »Why is it that I never get any extended license sales? I've only had one so far on iStockphoto. Is it a numbers thing or just the type of photos I'm shooting? It seems that most of your images are isolations. I don't think that isolations sell many Extended Licenses. Most Extended Licenses are used for resale on items (e.g., mouse pads, coffee mugs, etc.). 406
Mostphotos.com / Re: Recent Conversations with MostPhotos« on: March 28, 2008, 18:13 »We have had some pressure from the buyers side to make this possible or else they will turn to sites like these below to name a few where photos are all without watermark: Arian: For what possible reason could a buyer want an image without a watermark? How does not having a watermark help them? I can't see a possible reason why a *legitimate* buyer would want an image without a watermark. You can create mockups of just about anything just as easily with a watermarked image as you can with a non-watermarked image. 407
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock One-Day Subscription« on: March 21, 2008, 09:52 »Take a look over here: http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml When I go to the link, I don't see a daily subscription?!?! I only see subscriptions that start at 1 month. 408
General Stock Discussion / Re: Important discovery about image theft from the Shutterstock forum« on: March 20, 2008, 07:50 »Of course it's infringement but I don't feel it's dramatic since (a) the size is maximum 500px or so, and (2) no serious designer is going to "license" photos from photobucket or flickr since he wants to play safe. Nothing personal, but I wholeheartedly disagree. First, most microstock sales are for blog size (400x300) or web size (800x600) images. So every time that someone illegally copies one of your images from a site like this, it is a potential lost sale. Not only that, but one lost sale could lead to many others. Second, if someone illegally copies your image and places it on another site, then there are now two illegal copies of your image. So this leads to a potentially bigger issue down the road. Third, if the illegal image ever makes it into some of the image search engines (such as Google), then you will really have problems. Finally, your image might eventually become a victim of the proposed Orphan Works Act. 409
Shutterstock.com / Re: What percentage of your portfolio sells at SS ?« on: March 19, 2008, 07:14 »
Please help me understand, but why this is pertinent?
410
Mostphotos.com / Re: What is happening with Mostphotos ?« on: March 17, 2008, 14:57 »8 euro is around $12.50 for a subscription not bad better then 0.30 8 euro is only if they downloaded 10 images in a month. If someone is purchasing a subscription, they will probably download much more than 10 images in a month. 412
General Stock Discussion / Re: I guess the buyer made a mistake« on: March 12, 2008, 18:50 »
Just pray that they don't ask for a refund on one of them.
413
LuckyOliver.com / Re: Payment at LO« on: March 10, 2008, 16:07 »
Just got my payment as well. Looks like today was payday.
414
General Stock Discussion / Re: I am starting a new stockphotowebsite ..« on: March 10, 2008, 11:39 »
Don't we already have a bunch of sites just like this?
What will make yours any different? And what is your marketing plan? ![]() ![]() ![]() 415
LuckyOliver.com / Re: Payment at LO« on: March 10, 2008, 07:41 »
I have a payout waiting since 02/16/08. 23 days and counting.
LO seem to take the longest for a payout out of all the agencies. My last payout took 29 days to process. 416
123RF / Re: function toString() { [native code]}« on: March 07, 2008, 08:27 »
SET TECH BABBLE OFF;
Hello! Anybody home! SET TECH BABBLE ON; 417
StockXpert.com / StockXpert Announces Price Increase« on: March 05, 2008, 19:11 »
Starting next week, a new XS size will be added and prices will be adjusted upward:
XS (new) >> 1 credit S 1 credit >> 2 credits M 2 credits >> 3 credits L 3 credits >> 5 credits XL 5 credits >> 10 credits XXL 10 credits >> 15 credits Here is the original forum thread: http://www.stockxpert.com/forum.phtml?f=showtopic&n=11322 418
Off Topic / Re: how long online on this forum?« on: March 04, 2008, 17:19 »
FYI: You can check the members that have the most time online here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?action=stats 419
General Macrostock / Re: Anyone submitting @ Photoshelter?« on: March 04, 2008, 07:41 »...the pictures didn't go into my portfolio. I hope they go into mine. ![]() 420
New Sites - General / Re: Beware of Red Bubble« on: March 04, 2008, 06:36 »All in all, I say yes, go for it, it's free afterall. Nothing to lose! Yeah, nothing to lose except your non-watermarked images that almost anyone can hijack. Thanks but no thanks. Like I said, anyone that doesn't respect copyright infringement and theft will never see my images. 421
Computer Hardware / Wirelessly Upload Images from Any SD-Capable Camera to Your Computer« on: March 03, 2008, 11:25 »
I'm not sure how many of you might have seen this, but it is quite interesting.
The Eye-Fi is a wireless SD memory card that can transmit images directly from your card (in your camera) to your computer, the Internet, or even your photo center. For details, see here: http://www.eye.fi/ http://www.eye.fi/making-it-effortless/ http://www.eye.fi/a-wireless-memory-card/ 422
New Sites - General / Re: Beware of Red Bubble« on: March 03, 2008, 07:54 »What do you mean by 'no watermark' policy?? As in your own custom watermark? Because you can actually choose to have watermarks on your images, but you must select it, and it is one provided from RB I just checked and they still have the same useless watemark that they used to have - it is a very tiny amount of text in the bottom right of the picture. It would be very easy to clone out or even crop out if someone wanted to. I refuse to upload my images to any site that doesn't offer them decent protection (via a good watermark). Without a decent watermark, they might as well stick the word "FREE" above your images. 423
Adobe Stock / Re: how to see refferal earnings ?« on: February 28, 2008, 07:39 »
No problem.
Glad that I could help. 425
General Stock Discussion / Re: Naturallifestock« on: February 27, 2008, 13:02 »Interestingly enough, I just tried logging in this morning (before this post) and found that my login didn't work (but my images are still there). As an update to this issue... I wrote support about not being able to login and never heard back from them. Funny thing is that I tried to login yesterday and I got in fine. So it seems that it was fixed, but support never contacted me about the matter. |
|