|
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 - Firn
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 26
401
« on: July 29, 2021, 01:36 »
If you are embedding your metadata directly in your photos or a using some kind of micros stock submitting service and it's just a matter of uploading the photos and clicking "submit", Dreamstime might be worth the little bit of extra money as it means no real additional work. Otherwise it might not be worth the effort. I make on Dreamstime in a year what I make with some other agencies in a month. But if it means no additional work, it's still nice "pocket money" once in a while. Just don't expect any big money from them.
402
« on: July 27, 2021, 03:49 »
Yeah, I can join the club, 0.04$ commission today 
403
« on: July 25, 2021, 03:14 »
I opted out. If I can't understand what they're doing, I won't be able to tell if there is an error.
My thoughts, though my concern is not so much that there could be an error I would not notice (as this happens with other agencies as well, for example Alamy, where some sales sometimes never get reported and other than by chance there is also no way for you to ever notice), but simply that the information given is way too vague. I have absolutely no idea what earnings I could expect from this sheme (and seeing as all agencies do is cut our earnings and sell images for even cheaper, it's very obvious that earnings would not be to my advantage) and if it weren't for threads about this in microstock forums, I would not even understand how it is supposed to work at all. Opting in would feel like signing a treaty I did not get to read. Sooner or later we might not even be given a chance and DepositePhotos might change to some unlimited downloads/shared revenue model altogether - but they aren't anywhere near my top earners, so I would not hesitate to pull my port, should it come to this.
404
« on: July 23, 2021, 03:57 »
Maybe these threads about this agency (the one in the SS forum about the same offer) might be of some help: https://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/stockphoto-com-36170/https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/102006-stockphoto/Personally I think an Stock agency that is looking that desperately for contributors can't be doing too well and is probably not worth your time. Also, my photos are also up there through Depositephotos and a contributor at the SS forum mentions that she got an invite from them a long time ago, but when they noticed that her images were there already through Depositephotos, the port was pulled again? It doesn't seem to make much sense to want contributors to sign up when they already have their ports through Depositephotso, but don't want their images in their database twice.
405
« on: July 21, 2021, 13:40 »
Did you check your pament for refunds waaaaaaay back? I once had a refund on Alamy for an image almost half a year after it sold.
406
« on: July 13, 2021, 06:23 »
it is not.
Thanks for this. I am guessing they have made you the offer. As you anonymous are you comfortable discussing the terms? Understand if you are not.
No, I can't say anything about the terms, sorry. 
407
« on: July 13, 2021, 06:17 »
Once SS and Adobe launch their free asset collections, it will be the coup de grace for contributors. I hope I'm wrong
Adobe has already launched their free asset collection in 2020.
SS has not announced any plans to launch any free collction at all so far.
That's about to change unfortunately.
It's to be expected, but so far it's still only speculation.
it is not.
It is.
408
« on: July 13, 2021, 05:54 »
Once SS and Adobe launch their free asset collections, it will be the coup de grace for contributors. I hope I'm wrong
Adobe has already launched their free asset collection in 2020.
SS has not announced any plans to launch any free collction at all so far.
That's about to change unfortunately.
It's to be expected, but so far it's still only speculation.
409
« on: July 12, 2021, 14:07 »
Once SS and Adobe launch their free asset collections, it will be the coup de grace for contributors. I hope I'm wrong
Adobe has already launched their free asset collection in 2020. SS has not announced any plans to launch any free collction at all so far.
410
« on: July 02, 2021, 11:34 »
I have the feeling every attachment slows down the review process. Maybe there are reviewers who are not "qualified" to review content with releases or references and therefore have to pass the images to other reviewers? Was always what I thought.
411
« on: July 02, 2021, 02:38 »
Shutterstock ...
It seems you missed the part where you signed a NDA that legally forbids you to talk about this. 
412
« on: July 01, 2021, 05:17 »
As far as I'm concerned they've broken their T&S's as it does not say that they massively reduce payments anywhere.
Their ToS say: "Please note that Shutterstock reserves the right to modify these terms at any time in its sole discretion." Do they have the right to reduce their pay rate yet keep contributors locked in their absurd new royalty system?
No and they aren't doing that. You are not "locked" in their new royality system. You are free to close your account if you do not agree with the new royality structure. No one is forcing you. And about needing to keep your account open till you reach minimum payout if the $35 are that important to you: It's written in the ToS that you will not get your money if you close your account before reaching minimum payout and you agreed to it by signing up.
413
« on: June 25, 2021, 12:18 »
About 4 sales rule it does make a difference as many summer assets start to sell again and in one month brings much more than 5$ per 12months.
And you were not able to consider this when you had the option to pick which photos to offer Adobe for 5$ until 2 days ago? If you had any images in your port where you expected sales to really take off during summer, you probably should not have checked the box that allowed Adobe to pick the image for the free collection.
414
« on: June 22, 2021, 05:18 »
That depends on what agency the image was brought from, how many copies were printed of that book and what their licence agreement for their standard license says.
Shuttersock, iStock and Adobe for example allow the usage of images for book covers with a standard licese up to 500,000 copies of a book.
415
« on: June 20, 2021, 04:50 »
No chance in hell I am going to ruin some of my bestsellers by offering them for free. If it's worth it for you, then good for you, take the offer. But for me it's a question of "Do you want 500$ for that image or 5$"? And that's not a hard choice for me. I have nominated a few images that don't sell well anywhere. In these cases 5$ is better than 0$. Doubt Adobe will pick them in the end. But I am not going to give away any image that sells regularly for me on other agencies for free for a meager 5$.
I don't know your port but I am convinced that $500 for an image these days is more like a fantasy even for the best contributors.
I am not for giving away anything for free but I understand that for a contributor with say 10k images caching in $1k upfront for 200 images that just sit there for many years is a good choice. In a few years, not so many, we will be proud and thankful if someone chooses them for free.
After all, nobody is forced to do anything they don't want to.
I would guess a fairly typical serious contributor would have around 3,000 images at $500 per annum they would be making $1.5m dollars ;-). Even $50 per image is a very high estimate for most I would say.
Before there is even more misunderstanding of what I wrote: I neither talked about havng individual sales for $500 per image, nor about having an average sale price of $500 per image per year in my port. I'd be indeed a millionaire if that was the case. I am, very abviously, not. But I have some images in my ports that sell regularly and that, all sales and agencies combined, can earn me such sums within a year and Adobe has managed to select quite many of such images, just because they are the odd one out that fail to sell these images well for me. And, as said, there is no way in hell I am going to give away these images for 5$. I hope that was phrased clear enough now. (Sorry, English is not my first language)
416
« on: June 19, 2021, 12:43 »
If you have a recection rate of 100%, chances are pretty high that there is a problem with your photos.
Yes, SS rejections can be a bit erratic and reviewers have a problem finding some common ground regarding the quality they accept, no doubt about that. But with a rejection rate of 100% I'd really take a close look at my pictures and do some self-reflection instead of blaming it on SS.
417
« on: June 19, 2021, 11:35 »
I don't know your port but I am convinced that $500 for an image these days is more like a fantasy even for the best contributors.
I guess Firn didn't mean getting 500$ for one image with one sale, but getting 500$ for one image with combined sales spread in a one year period. .
Exactly.
418
« on: June 19, 2021, 00:28 »
It's not like, images with less than 4 downloads are bringing you bunch of money, so you can get 5$ for each selected or you can have them sit in your port for free.
Oh, but images with less than 4 downloads on Adobe actually bring me quite a bunch of money....just not on Adobe.
so if they're not selling on AS, why not take the $5? it's not like most users go to multiple sites
Big companies with a 750 images per month subscription probably won't search for free alternatives as many might not even use up all their images and they have a large budget to begin with. But these are the 0.10$ customers I don't really care about anyways.
What I care about are the smaller customers who have a 10 image subscription plan or even buy images on demand because they actually earn me dollar amounts instead of cents per sale. And someone who is on a tight budget and has only 5 or 10 images he can download within a month might very likely look for free alternatives.
No chance in hell I am going to ruin some of my bestsellers by offering them for free. If it's worth it for you, then good for you, take the offer. But for me it's a question of "Do you want 500$ for that image or 5$"? And that's not a hard choice for me. I have nominated a few images that don't sell well anywhere. In these cases 5$ is better than 0$. Doubt Adobe will pick them in the end. But I am not going to give away any image that sells regularly for me on other agencies for free for a meager 5$.
419
« on: June 18, 2021, 13:46 »
It's not like, images with less than 4 downloads are bringing you bunch of money, so you can get 5$ for each selected or you can have them sit in your port for free.
Oh, but images with less than 4 downloads on Adobe actually bring me quite a bunch of money....just not on Adobe.
420
« on: June 17, 2021, 10:16 »
I had the same problem with them. Waited several weeks and nothing happened. So I sent an E-mail to the support team and it was reviewed immediately, I suggest you do the same.
421
« on: June 16, 2021, 13:57 »
No, they don't.
422
« on: June 14, 2021, 12:01 »
423
« on: June 13, 2021, 13:51 »
Honestly, most sales from other agencies comes from subscription.
True, most sales come from subscriptions, but not most earnings are. While most of my sales are from subs, I earn the most money from non-sub sales. Also, big companies with a 750 images per month subscription probably won't search for free alternatives as many, as you said, might not even use up all their images and they have a large budget to begin with. But these are the 0.10$ customers I don't really care about anyways. What I care about are the smaller customers who have a 10 image subscription plan or even buy images on demand because they actually earn me dollar amounts instead of cents per sale. And someone who is on a tight budget and has only 5 or 10 images he can download within a month might very likely look for free alternatives.
424
« on: June 10, 2021, 00:57 »
those 'competing' images will be there whether or not you nominate your own images.
so the choice is whether you take a12 mo payout on images that have not sold well on Adobe
Nope. I can guarantee you that with many of the images Adobe nominated from my port there is no free alternative available from someone else. I photograph, among other things, my dogs in mostly custom-made, one-of-a-kind costumes and these photos are probably what earn me the most money on other agencies. You will, just to name one random example - not find a photo other than mine of a dog in a Japanese winking cat costume on any microstock agency. And this is just one example. I have a few other fields that do well, but not many other people have covered (that is, after all, one of the tricks of success in microstock). So, no, my choice is not take a payout for images that have not sold well on Adobe, but on other agencies. I would be shooting myself in the foot if I offered unique bestsellers on other sites for free on Adobe for $5, just because Adobe failed to promote these images to their customers.
425
« on: June 09, 2021, 09:09 »
If everybody accepts the offer in full capacity, free section will be so big, noone will need to buy anything anymore.
Adobe says that they select images from the images you nominate, so there is no guarantee they will take all images, even if you nominate all. Even if they selected 1000 of your images now, in the end they will probably pick the raisins and only select a handful. I suspect from many ports they will probably not pick any at all.
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 26
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
