|
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 - trek
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 30
426
« on: March 07, 2016, 11:48 »
Shoot tomatoes. I hear the agencies need more tomatoes.
427
« on: March 03, 2016, 07:23 »
Maybe Alamy is picking up former Corbis customers. They initially choose Corbis over Getty for various reasons. Those reasons likely still exist.
428
« on: March 02, 2016, 16:44 »
Shoot what you want, where you want, how you want. At the end of the day the good art will rise to the top Everything else will be buried.
429
« on: March 02, 2016, 16:06 »
Those prices are pathetic.
430
« on: March 02, 2016, 11:14 »
They take editorial photos. They do not take editorial videos.
431
« on: March 01, 2016, 20:49 »
Hopefully Veer will make sure their partners remove our material too.
432
« on: February 28, 2016, 23:28 »
If we ever get our act together and get a union/coop we should demand a delete button on these sites. Most important to get it off the partners, but if they are too incompetent to pull the plug at least we could ourselves....
We will never have a union but we could have a guild.
433
« on: February 26, 2016, 20:49 »
4 year old thread.
434
« on: February 26, 2016, 19:30 »
If you have your images for sale in DP, you deserve to be ripped off and abused. We all know who these guys are, their methods and their ways of making business since long time ago. Knowing all these facts if you are willing to stay in DP you deserve everything they decide to do with you.
Can You be more specific?? I've been around a Long time and seen all the games and scams. Haven't seen any there.
The Shotshop scam was their most sleazy episode IMO.
Very brief summary is that they did a partnership with another site where the sales were up to 99 euros and the DP contributor was paid a subscription download royalty per sale. People who were opted out of partner deals had their work on Shotshop too - DP's explanation was that they weren't a partner but were using the API to make the purchase, so that was different. After the images were removed from Shotshop they came back again and were removed a second time after contributor outcry.
In some cases Shotshop images came back twice and had to be removed a third time! Plus, last years big royalty cut... especially sucked. DP has the lowest average return per download of the 15 sites I license through.
435
« on: February 24, 2016, 21:53 »
Hopefully they will give up their plan to 1099 for money we never received (their commission). Meanwhile I stopped uploading to Evanto - Photodune.
436
« on: February 20, 2016, 12:25 »
I have not seen any penny video sales yet. Does Wochit include istock nonexclusive video content?
437
« on: February 19, 2016, 11:05 »
lol, are you trying to convince yourself or other photographers???
you can do anything you like...
even sell john deere, mercedez benz, paris by night, etc...
just don't submit them to shutterstock etc,,,
and retain a good copyright intellectual property lawyer 
Or live where they can't find you....
438
« on: February 16, 2016, 17:52 »
Last I heard was that Alamy now sells much more RF than RM. Taking them from Micro RF and into Alamy RF should be quite OK.
Commercial should be okay as RF but all editorial at Alamy is RM.
439
« on: February 11, 2016, 18:46 »
Adding a "optional" center water mark should be quite simple to do. I don't know why they don't want to give us the option.
440
« on: February 11, 2016, 13:44 »
The watermark issue is the only thing preventing me from joining.
441
« on: February 11, 2016, 06:12 »
[/quote]
$6-$7 what a shame. I have 600 4k videos sitting on ESP, but not submitting them at these conditions.
[/quote]
Does ESP refer to Cisco's Evolved Services Platform? I'm looking for a cloud type solution for 4k - pro-res distribution. (Fiber is not available where I live.) Thanks
442
« on: February 08, 2016, 15:06 »
[/quote]
Just one observation: >$1/photo/month is not uncommon (for SS alone).
[/quote]
$1/photo/month @ Shutterstock. I wish!
443
« on: February 08, 2016, 14:05 »
Pathetic return per download is why I stopped sending videos to istock.
444
« on: February 04, 2016, 15:24 »
Big thanks to Duncan for his post but a 10% commission does not work for me. I'm opting out.
445
« on: February 04, 2016, 07:43 »
I sent a image removal request to Veer contributor support... twice. It's been two weeks and no one has replied. Has anyone heard anything from contributor support this year? Do they still have contributor support?
446
« on: February 04, 2016, 00:37 »
I also sent a requested to have my portfolio removed from the Free Art Inc deal.
447
« on: January 31, 2016, 11:03 »
There is a lot of editorial on P5 but I think it is mainly up to the contributor to put a note in each file to the curator. At the bottom of each file while in edit mode is a text field to put in "NOTES TO CURATOR". It is important to note that the file is editorial. Once the file is approved it magically has an editorial use only visible to the buyer.
But you're right about the system not having user controlled fields to mark as such. Seems like that could be an easy fix for P5.
I also add a note to the review when I upload editorial content. Sometimes the reviewers forget to add the disclaimer - so it's good to check. When they forget I write contributor support and they fix it quickly. The video upload interface has a "does this material contain... people, trademarks, etc..." box. I wish the photo upload interface had that box too.
448
« on: January 28, 2016, 18:52 »
My port is there and it's showing an Author name that I only use at Fotolia.
449
« on: January 24, 2016, 12:59 »
I'm eager to find out what they're going to do with Veer. Hopefully they will be proactive and improve the sites functionality for customers and contributors. Hopefully they will add other improvements like a partner program opt out and upload self delete function.
I've decided to stop uploading until I learn what their plans are. No sense investing additional time until I have the information needed to decide if my portfolio is staying or leaving.
450
« on: January 21, 2016, 11:41 »
FAA sells prints with illustrative editorial imagery (like Elvis and Michael Jackson). I assume they can do it because fine art prints are a different thing than licensing. Now that they are branching in tshirts and pillows doesn't that create the possibility of issues with entities that control and manage celebrity merchandising?
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 30
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
