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 - Jo Ann Snover
4276
« on: March 21, 2013, 10:49 »
I'm still a bit confused about what will need to happen for me to participate, but I said "open network" for the poll choice.
I don't think anyone will buy any or more of my images because I make it hard for them to search other people's images. I think that something like this - a collection of artist sites - has a chance of working well only if buyers can easily browse a broad selection. As long as it's clear that it's different artists, price differences shouldn't be too confusing - although there might need to be a way for the searcher to select by price or licence type at some point in the future.
4277
« on: March 21, 2013, 10:39 »
So the upload limits for vectors have been raised to let the crap from clipart.com be freely dumped onto IS's site. What's even funnier than this happening is the reasoning given in Jenn's blog post (see below). In practical terms, no one individually is going to be able to able to create that many illustrations per week, so the huge limit is really only useful for anyone bringing in a brand new portfolio...
"bortonia - Mar 13/13, 13:12 vector illustration inspections have historically had a much faster turnaround than the other file types on iStock. Because of this, we've been tweaking our upload limits over the past year to see how well we can handle higher submission volumes.
Our last adjustment was made in January and our average inspection time is still under 2 days, which is the same as it was 3 years ago. In other words, our inspectors are rockstars.
We've looked at how many people are actually using their existing upload slots and the number is surprisingly low. This got us thinking, what's the point in even having a limit to vector uploads anyways?
We are topping out our upload limits at 999 submissions per week (the maximum we can assign with our current upload system). This change already shows for our Exclusive contributors, with non-Exclusives to follow over the coming days.
Our inspectors are ready so bring on the submissions!"
4278
« on: March 21, 2013, 10:27 »
Even if they don't want those of us in the great unwashed (i.e. not "brand name" photographers that an art director might recognize) in Offset, I think some sort of note addressed to SS's existing contributor base about this new offering would be a nice courtesy.
My guess is that even if there is some cachet and attention garnered from this new offering, the bulk of the bills will still be paid by those of us in the "low end" SS market, so letting us know more about how we might be able to contribute to this high end collection - even if that's not something most of us manage - is important for them to do
4279
« on: March 17, 2013, 14:53 »
..jsnover: I think 85% of 2010 is quite good! I'm still exclusive at iStock and sales keep getting worse. I wouldn't be surprised if I drop the crown before the year is out. It just seems like such a daunting undertaking.
November & December 2012 I matched my Nov & Dec 2010 exclusive earnings, so I was happy about that. This year will be different as I left iStock (all but my iStockalypse and editorial images) on D-day in February and just left Bigstock (over the lack of an opt out from their low-ball subscription program). I'm well aware that my earnings will take a hit from this - and if SS reduces my royalties I won't hesitate to leave them too, and I'm expecting that will happen at some point this year, possibly after the 6 month window they gave the Bridge to Bigstock folks is up in August. Regarding DT, my RPD is $2 and in Nov 2012 (my highest month of 2012) it was $1.82, however I still made more money total in November 2006 when they were making me half as much per download but the volume was better. I think their pricing model is a mess and that they could be so much better than they are. In addition to the similars policy (don't upload a whole series that would be perfectly acceptable at any other agency; DT will rejeted all but a few and your approval percentage will take a hit), this apparent cycle that they maintain (it sounds insane, but you'll get a period with almost nothing but subs and then one with almost nothing but credit sales; I can't figure out why that would be), and some saying that your approval percentage factors in to your search placement, there has been talk in the past that you need to have your significant keywords in the title for best search placement.
4280
« on: March 16, 2013, 11:28 »
They have said the minimum buyer price per credit for the purpose of calculating royalties is 40 cents. So at 50% royalties, that's 20 cents a credit, at 45%, 18 cents, at 40%, 16 cents and so on. Work it out for your royalty rate
4281
« on: March 15, 2013, 16:32 »
Bigstock support replied this afternoon that they would remove my portfolio but leave my account so I could "...request your earnings at your convenience." My convenience would be to request my earnings right now, but that wasn't being offered  My images may show up in searches for up to 48 hours but downloads won't be possible.
4282
« on: March 15, 2013, 14:56 »
I just looked at that change based on Kenny's posting in the other thread. The problem is that the search results don't include any license information at all (I just search for a stock photo for a Google doc). So I marked the help page as not helpful as it was incomplete.
4283
« on: March 15, 2013, 14:54 »
It's an extra extra large TIFF file - they upsize the largest JPEG to offer it at 10 credits
4284
« on: March 15, 2013, 14:53 »
A number of the images formerly on Google Drive appear to be gone - team does not show the raised arms, hand pile or green vested folks with boxes, for examples.
I thought Sean's images could be found via "tailgate" which produces no results now.
The text has been changed from what Kenny posted below to say, in part:
"When searching for images in Google Drive, your search results page will include license details that specify how image search results may be used. Only select images that you have confirmed you can use in your intended context according to the license details. Your use of selected images must comply with our program policies. Include appropriate attribution if necessary. If you find images without a designation of usage rights in the search results, please report them in the help forum."
It's still vague, but the biggest problem is that the search results have zero information of any kind (that I can locate) about the licenses. So they say it's your responsibility but they don't provide any license information for stock images.
4285
« on: March 15, 2013, 09:39 »
I received a reply from support this morning saying (1) no opt out for subs and (2) did I really want to remove my files but leave my account open as they don't normally do that. She'd have to check and see if that was possible and would I write to confirm that was what I wanted.
I explained (again; I had made it clear why I asked in the first message - that I want to clear the last 7 days of sales so they don't keep the balance) why and said that if there was another procedure for me getting paid in full all the money I was owed, I was happy to do it a different way.
We'll see. The funny thing is that I went through this same two-step in 2008 when I went exclusive at IS. First they said they couldn't do it, and then they were able to after I fussed about leaving 7 days worth of royalties on the table.
Is this really so hard to comprehend? It wasn't my idea to withhold royalties for a period of time...
4286
« on: March 15, 2013, 00:09 »
I just sent a note to support asking if they have an opt out for subscriptions, and if not to delete my portfolio. Having walked away from iStock over the Google fiasco and them refusing to let us control where and how our images are licensed it makes it much easier to blow off Bigstock if they insist on switching to the dark side. And when I logged on to send the message, I see my balance had gone up this evening by three new subs sale. Woo yay  Perhaps we should start a betting pool on when that noxious subs royalty chart will go into effect at Shutterstock...
4287
« on: March 14, 2013, 23:54 »
I don't check those numbers, but just did a quick check for a few days in March and everything looked correct as a multiple of 38 cents on the subs downloads.
I'm not aware of anything other than the crap going on at Bigstock where there's a variable rate for subs downloads for a given sales level at SS. Have you contacted support?
4288
« on: March 14, 2013, 15:09 »
the subs (I guess) are showing up for me as "standard license", is that ok?
No idea if it's OK, but that's how mine are too. It's the royalty amount that's the giveaway
4289
« on: March 14, 2013, 13:40 »
It hasn't been mostly subs, but a fair number. The only decision I have to make is whether I formally ask if I can opt out (others have and been told no by Bigstock support) before I have them remove my portfolio. The ides of March is my day to take the files down if I don't have an opt out. I'll then need to wait a week for my sales to vest (their one week wait is a ridiculous pain in the rear) and then request payment. Once I'm paid I'll close the account
4290
« on: March 14, 2013, 10:11 »
I liked the old heart system better - just a way to note something you liked or agreed with or which was well said. It had the option (at one time anyway) of the person giving the heart including a brief comment which went only to the person receiving the post.
If you remember iStock's disastrous" forometer", I think the +/- system is somewhat similar (although less bad). I assume it's fairly easy to detect the pattern of +/- voting to automate picking out the juveniles, but if this new system brings with it the need to police it actively (something I'm not aware of happening with the old heart), is it really worth keeping?
4291
« on: March 13, 2013, 16:30 »
I have just got $0.906 for a PEL , which is 50 credits. Have sent of an email to much sure it is correct.
Any one else got one this low lately?

No, but in the past I had some insanely low numbers that were errors - or they got fixed after I complained. They said that 40 cents a credit was the minimum price on which royalties would be paid - so 20 cents a credit for us at 50% royalties. If it's below that, then it's wrong.
4292
« on: March 12, 2013, 16:12 »
... Sean, I am really sorry to hear that. Hopefully a middle ground can be reached through your on-going communication with them. I wish you all the best!
If you think about it, who in their right mind would place any trust in an organization that had pulled the sleezeball tactics Getty has pulled with Sean over the last month? It might be in Sean's best interests to stay at iStock as an indie if Klein, Carlyle & Co are willing, but as far as going back as an exclusive if they said "oops! We didnt' really mean it. Please stay", I think Sean's way too smart to do that. Possibly he might say "yes" for a few months more breathing room to plan a transition, but that'd be about it, IMO.
4293
« on: March 10, 2013, 17:45 »
Also note that if you change your mind while the 30 day clock is running, there is no going back - so you can't just cancel your cancellation as it were.
I asked support about this in early 2011 when i was trying to decide if I'd leave exclusivity. That is a pretty big financial penalty if you start the 30 day clock when you aren't sure. You'd not want to upload anywhere else for just 90+ days, so that'd mean that you'd wait out the 90 days with indie income from iStock and no income from other sites to make up the difference.
4294
« on: March 08, 2013, 10:49 »
As I noted above, this is a one-time thing as I expect to be paid by Pond5 in the future. However, the attitude that it has nothing to do with the agency bothers me.
iStock isn't in the US and I never paid any "cross border fees" to receive my USD payments from them. DT I think pays me via a US subsidiary even though they are based in Romania, so no fees there. PhotoDune is in Australia, but I don't pay any fees there either.
At a bare minimum, an agency that is going to pay you less than the full amount if you live anywhere but their home country (and I expect even there you might pay fees to convert from USD to the local currency if they are nominally paying contributors in USD) needs to spell that out up front so that contributors can decide if they want to take that cut.
It is not OK to just brush this off as a PayPal problem. If other agencies that are not in the US can manage to pay the full amount, why is that not standard across the board?
4295
« on: March 08, 2013, 10:38 »
Has someone notified SS?
4296
« on: March 07, 2013, 11:33 »
If it's everyone getting stuck with the fee, then so be it, but not one of the other agencies I receive payments from makes a deduction from my balance for fees.
Not one.
It is an agency cost to process and send payments, not something the contributor should be covering - otherwise it's just one more way to try and increase their take from the gross.
Thanks for feedback, and I guess I have one more item to add to the list of things a fair trade agency should do/not do...
4297
« on: March 07, 2013, 10:42 »
I was finally able to receive payment from Pixmac this week, and this morning received the PayPal payment which had a $2.37 fee deducted from the $53 I was owed.
The amount doesn't match the 2.9% + 30 cents a transaction for debit cards or the outside the US fees (.5% to 2% for bank account funded amounts and 3.4% to 3.9% for debit/credit card funded). The deduction is 4.47% of the total.
Is this how payments from Pixmac typically are? I think if there are fees they should pay them, but as this is a first and last transaction for me (I'm trying to get my portfolio onto Pond5 as review time allows), I'll just take the loss and be done with them if it's always this way.
4298
« on: March 06, 2013, 14:27 »
4299
« on: March 06, 2013, 11:48 »
...Yes, it could be viewed as unfortunate that the distributor gets more than the artist but again, this is not an unusual trend in the industry. Indeed, I could mention many agencies that take more than the artist for direct sales, not even third party. ...
Thanks for the response. Regarding the other agencies taking more than 50% of direct sales, that's true, although some of us are slowly shedding them unless there's some really good reason to keep the agency. The big "bribe" to contributors for lousy splits is such a high volume of sales that the monthly total from our portfolios is high. When the volume of sales is low, as it is in Alamy's case, it makes it really hard to justify. Shutterstock and (before I left them) iStock make much more per month from my portfolio than Alamy does. I guess I'll go see about opting out of third party deals and Novel Use (got one of those the other day and I thought they were going away/gone).
4300
« on: March 06, 2013, 11:31 »
Just ducky...
No contributor newsletter telling us about this? They're probably afraid of blowback, but in another era perhaps contributors might have helped to promote a reasonable deal to their buyer/designer friends, so one way or another, keeping us informed seems like a good idea.
I did check the blog, but other than a super-cheesy Easter Bunny composite, there was nothing about the promo.
I guess that explains the 72 cent royalty I received on an XL sale - at 45% royalty and only 4 credits instead of 5, that's the minimum per credit price of 40 cents (18 cents a credit to me). Discounted prices plus discounted credit levels = contributor gets a pittance.
The XXL size is 5 credits instead of 6 during this promotion. The TIFF XXL remains the same at 10 credits as do all the ELs.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|