|
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 - Sadstock
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 24
401
« on: June 17, 2011, 17:02 »
I didn't see Stocklib by Epictura on the list. Whose partner are they?
I found some images I recognized there - Lisa Young, Paul Cowan, Sandra Cunningham - so I assume it's one of the micros.
My images have the same file ID like at 123RF so I think it's their affiliate.
If you look at the individual image pages, line at bottom left of the image page says Copyright 2003-2011 EPICTURA/ 123RF/STOCKLIB - Royalty Free Stock Photos. I've updated the list
402
« on: June 17, 2011, 16:52 »
What about http://pixers.pl/naklejki ?
Fotolia affiliate? They have all kinds of other domains like pixers.fr pixers.es
Found images that have the Fotolia watermark, so I've added it to the list.
403
« on: June 17, 2011, 16:50 »
Who . are these guys? WebStockPro
Looks like its from Bigstock to me as WebStockPro's images of mine match best to what I've uploaded on Bigstock, but the file numbers are different. I'm also not attributed as the photographer, instead it lists "Value Stock Images" as the "Publisher".
Funny, "Value Stock Images" is the same credit line for Reflexstock.
This is getting weird now...
When I did a search on Value Stock Images I got the following NOTE: We found no results in the valuestockphoto database so here are a few matches from our partners at Fotolia.com you might find useful. Fotolia have more than 6 Million images available for download from just a few dollars I then found images with the Fotolia watermark. I've updated the list adding Value Stock Images to Fotolia.
404
« on: June 16, 2011, 09:27 »
Then there was the company selling greeting cards - cheaper than the store. I sent them e-mail asking them to confirm that they had purchased an extended license to allow making greeting cards with my image. Depending on what sort of answer I get, I'll post here if it sounds fishy. A couple of agencies had in the past done deals to allow them to buy small images and only purchase the EL if they sold cards. If they're one of those, I guess there's no problem.
You should buy a card from them using your image! Then they must purchas an EL and you will come out way ahead! If they don't purchase an EL, get the micro to chase them down for an EL. :-)
405
« on: June 15, 2011, 19:42 »
406
« on: June 13, 2011, 22:48 »
Who . are these guys? WebStockPro
Looks like its from Bigstock to me as WebStockPro's images of mine match best to what I've uploaded on Bigstock, but the file numbers are different. I'm also not attributed as the photographer, instead it lists "Value Stock Images" as the "Publisher".
407
« on: June 10, 2011, 20:32 »
Thanks cclapper and zager, I've updated the list.
408
« on: June 08, 2011, 20:02 »
Another point from the OP no-one has commented on:
"These new editorial files will all be in a single contributor portfolio called EdStock."
So the photographers are not being credited. Wonder if they'll be mad about that, or relieved that their names are not being 'outed' in Micro.
Will that mean the photo is listed as 'copyright EdStock'?
Well, who is this Ed Stock, and does he get to keep the royalties? 
And here I thought ED stood for something else entirely  http://tiny.cc/7mgob
409
« on: June 07, 2011, 21:32 »
Snip
I believe iStock as a company had slower growth than projected hence why the RC system was concocted. It is a way of strengthening the core of the company while avoiding raising prices heavily to an already high system of offerings.
Snip
I am actually in awe of how far it has swung towards the company and its owners. It makes it for a more stable and strong company to weather opposition, competition and economic storms. It is their job after all to make the company stronger at any cost but it is our job to defend what take we finally get and we have failed dearly at it in what respects to RC.
Welcome and thanks for posting! I do disagree with your conclusion however on the motivation for the RC system. Don't know if you've seen this, but H&F basically sold/mortgaged Getty last fall. They could not find a buyer or pull off an IPO so "Hellman & Friedman is paying itself $500 million after borrowing $1.3 billion for portfolio company Getty Images." http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/2010/11/03/short-memories-finance-private-equity-payouts-2If Getty fails to pay it off, the creditors get the company while H&F get to keep their $500 million. To prevent a default Getty needs to generate lots of cash and I believe the RC system was imposed to boost that cash flow. The RC system will not make Istock stronger/better, in fact I would say that the debt load has made it less likely that Getty and Istock can weather opposition, competition and economic storms.
410
« on: May 31, 2011, 19:39 »
Very slick, should help lots of contributors. The keyword comparison tool looks great too.
Is it possible to draw results from other than shutterstock? It would be useful for me to see a broader range.
I'd also love a search again function excluding the first set of results. The results I got for one search were way off the mark because of spammed images at shutterstock. Maybe a second set of results would be better?
First tried this at work with IE 7 (what I'm stuck with) and the check all, uncheck all, and start again buttons seemed to all be piled up on top of each other, making it hard to use them.
411
« on: May 31, 2011, 09:24 »
I don't quite know what to make of the language but Istock seeking any type of take back from a contributor in May 2011 for a file sold in 2010 is shocking (well maybe not...).
412
« on: May 28, 2011, 19:51 »
link?
413
« on: May 27, 2011, 20:36 »
It was discussed a bit in this thread http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss-now-showing-keywords-used-to-find-images/I think that if you look at images with one sale you can deduce a lot about how they make their best match work. If one term is used, it gets 100% of the keyword weighting for a single sale. If two words are used, each gets 50% of the keyword weighting for a single sale. If a compound term like "central park" is used (presumably in quotes) then 33% of the weighting is given to "central park", 33% to "central" and 33% to "park".
414
« on: May 27, 2011, 13:13 »
Wow, but since they announced they arent going to make huge changes anymore, I bet this was done by mistake.
You believed them? :-)
415
« on: May 27, 2011, 12:56 »
Having a really lousy day today. One sale just after midnight, iStock time and nothing since.
Mind you, I had only 2 XSm sales on Monday.
------------------- Monday in the US is memorial day, the unoffical start of summer, so many folks in the U.S. are on vacation. My standard search is back to a normal distribution like it was a year ago, so in theory my sales should pick up.
416
« on: May 23, 2011, 20:30 »
417
« on: May 23, 2011, 13:31 »
I've had similar problems going back several years. Despite giving them good examples with times and dates they were not able to find that there was any discrepancy let alone what caused it. Since it seemed like it was in my favor, I did not pursue it any further.
Seems to be happening less often than it did for me.
418
« on: May 22, 2011, 22:20 »
if it shows that I have more downloads that istock is not recording then that is a big deal. I don't get why you are being so negative.
Tell me if I understand. Someone else makes an app that reports downloads wrong, so you blame IS for the problem? Is that it?
-------------------------------------------- Who says the app is reporting downloads wrong? Maybe it is or maybe istock actually has a problem? Personally I'd be shocked if there was a problem at Istock. Everything at Istock has been running with clockwork precision for months.  Certainly worth a question to Istock.
419
« on: May 18, 2011, 11:31 »
Looks like a standard clause. It says '... in relation with the Contest'.
Note the orginal thread has been dissapeared... I disagree. It should be read " submitted in connection with the Contest" meaning if you submit it, they can do as they please. If you look at the clause above this one they make clear that they are using the phrase "in connection with the Contest" to mean submissions to the contest. "Proprietary Ownership: Subject to the Company's right to use the Images, as detailed immediately below, the Company acknowledges and agrees that all Images in connection with the Contest are the property of their respective Entrants." I think what they are saying is that while you own it, if you "connect it to the Contest", they can use it any way they like. Rogermexico in the new thread http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329250&page=1 says they will only use for promotional reasons, but given Istock's recent track record in sticking to forum commitments, do you trust Istock/Getty/H&F to not abuse these terms? I sure don't.
420
« on: May 18, 2011, 10:10 »
rights grab Each Entrant irrevocably grants to the Company the unconditional, perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free and worldwide license to utilize the Images and materials submitted in connection with the Contest. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, you acknowledge that the Company may copy, reproduce, encode, store, transmit, publish, post, broadcast, display, publicly perform, adapt, exhibit and/or otherwise use or reuse (without limitation as to when or to the number of times), Entrant's name, Entrant's iStockphoto member name, address, image, voice, persona, sobriquet, likeness, statements, biographical material and all Images and other submitted materials in any media now known or hereafter developed for any purpose, without limitation, and without additional review, compensation, notice to, or approval from the Entrant or any other party, unless prohibited by law. I'm shocked
421
« on: May 13, 2011, 10:55 »
yes they will! that was one of my major concerns as well. You just have to remove the istock logo and address from it.
Dreamstime won't accept IS MR's unless either the photographer or model is resident in Canada (the laws of which govern Istock's MR).
Since day 1 in microstock, I took the IS MR and altered it to remove the logo and address/country specific wording, making it generic, and have uploaded to Shutterstock, Dreamstime and BigStock without problems. I did the same for the property release.
Is this something new for Dreamstime, because I've uploaded both in the past few months.
I think its a new issue for Dreamstime. I personally think they go out of their way to make life difficult for former and prospective Istock exclusives. They have the six month lockup period which causes problems primarily for people seeking to go exclusive at Istock. Now they introduce this new requirement that basically only affects the Istock model release so former exclusives have difficulty getting their content onto DT. I realize this is tin foil hat talk, but why is DT the only one who has this issue with the Istock release? And why now at the point where they can anticipate a surge in content from former Istockers do they discover this problem after accepting the wording for years?
422
« on: May 13, 2011, 10:08 »
yes they will! that was one of my major concerns as well. You just have to remove the istock logo and address from it.
Dreamstime won't accept IS MR's unless either the photographer or model is resident in Canada (the laws of which govern Istock's MR).
------------------------------ I had a similar experence with dreamstime. I'm left with the choice of hunting up models that I have not talked with in years or not uploading my people images.
423
« on: May 11, 2011, 15:33 »
Thanks for tracking and posting this data. It's good to have a window into these best match tweaks, though trying to reach conclusions is a challange.
Shame how they have stacked the deck against new images. Seems designed to keep a top layer of exclusives happy while screwing the rest of exclusives and independents.
424
« on: May 10, 2011, 12:08 »
i thought the best match was skewed towards price. If P+ files are the same price as regular exclusive files, wouldnt it mean that it is essentially on the same best match placement as exclusive files? anyone do some tests on this yet?
I would assume that. Mine are sure selling like hotcakes today. Maybe Gostwyck, the testmeister, will come through with some info...?
I am not the testmeister but I noticed that a couple of my best sellers which were half way in the first page for a certain word, are now in the first line for the same word. Not sure if it's due to Photo+ or other tweaks, but it's nice.
--------------------------------------------- Maybe Istock in its rush to get P+ out the door has inadvertantly granted the exclusive best match bonus to P+ files?
425
« on: May 09, 2011, 14:57 »
I still have some time to think about this - and see how others are doing - but it might be a good idea (a) to do what you did with the 'lypse images which can't be anywhere else and (b) soften the blow a little of the cut in both price and commission by putting some proven sellers that I don't think have obvious on-site competition.
I can rationalize it with respect to buyers by thinking that they can easily get the files elsewhere if they wish and the files aren't any more expensive than they are now (as exclusive files) 
Edited to add that JJRD just locked a thread in the exclusive forum asking about the (long-ago promised) boost in best match placement for E+ images. In the way he said that it would be coming when they were good and ready and that contributors had to realize that this recent best match change was the biggest they'd ever made, he tacitly acknowledged that there hasn't been any E+ boost yet.
Given how long ago E+ was introduced (at which point this boost in search placement was promised) his comments that some contributors expected things to happen with the flick of a switch seems disingenuous to me - being impatient over one year later (E+ was introduced in April 2010) is hardly expecting things with the flick of a switch.
Bottom line: don't base any decision about putting files into P+ on an assumption of improved search results placement.
--------------------------------------- Bottom bottom line: Don't take anything JJRD ever says at face value 
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
