|
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 - Photobomb
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 26
451
« on: March 08, 2016, 16:22 »
452
« on: March 01, 2016, 15:51 »
Dashboard was there 2 minutes ago and now it is gone! They would hate for anyone to screencapture what they are owed!
Dashboard is still there for me.
453
« on: February 23, 2016, 18:31 »
454
« on: January 26, 2016, 09:42 »
Just had 72 images approved - the oldest were uploaded Mid-November - newest yesterday
455
« on: January 23, 2016, 15:46 »
Hmmm....
"Jon Oringer
January 11 at 10:27am New York, NY
Financial incentives only work well for mechanical non-cognitive tasks....?"
Artists want to be fairly compensated for their work -- we're not looking for financial incentives to spur us on to produce more and better work. I think we all try to do that even at the pittance we get paid.
456
« on: January 07, 2016, 18:15 »
457
« on: January 04, 2016, 21:35 »
Tax forms are valid for 3 years. They do not automatically renew so be sure to keep yours updated.
-Mat
FT should advise contributors when and if their tax forms need to be updated!!!!
458
« on: January 03, 2016, 15:15 »
Everybody is entitled to his opinion.
However, waiting until many others have joined and pushed it, and have reported frequent sales is basically the laziest and most cowardly attitude anyone can have toward a new enterprise.
Well, that was my opinion.
Sorry, cowardly?! I was an early adopter of Symbiostock with over 5500 images on my site. Kept up with my site until a couple weeks ago when it stopped functioning. I didn't and still don't like the new Symbio's look (very amateurish) so I never converted. Plus I never saw merit in any of the new schemes. It looks like a business plan that is still trying to figure itself out. I wish you luck... but I'll sit this one out.
459
« on: January 03, 2016, 11:41 »
Hi guys,
The streaming option is, as I mentioned, a great way for bloggers and small businesses to get into image licensing. Most of our customers who use this option are not professional image users. These are people who have never before licensed an image, and their budgets are very limited. There are absolutely no customers who sign up for the streaming plan and use thousands of images. We also have an active program to get streaming customers to upgrade to our other plans. These plans also pay 50 % commission to contributors, which means that earnings for these sales can reach up to $49.50 for a single image. 50 % commission is fair, and we aim to among the agencies that pay a fair commission.
We will look into getting more editorial content onto YAY Images as well. So far editorial has not been in big demand, so it hasn't had priority. In addition our editorial collection must be curated better in order to be it's own category of images.
You can still keep your images even though you are opted-out of YAY Images / streaming. Your images will still be available on our partner sites. We will not automatically opt you in if you are opted-out.
If you are having trouble getting an answer from us, please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected] and I'll look into what has happend. We are not ignoring any requests, but we do have quite a lot to do with too few resources, so sometimes we might need some time to get back to you.
I think this just about says it all.
460
« on: January 03, 2016, 11:38 »
steheap how big is that community? last time i checked i saw tumbleweed
Despite Robins claims, from this abbreviated post in September, the network doesn't seem to be growing by leaps and bounds.
.... That being said, we are well over 200+ strong. New members are joining the Symzio network on a daily basis....
I was doing some checking, using the Symzio search and found there are about 8 contributors whose results come up when using popular and pretty broad keywords. Between them, they have around 13,500 images. With portfolios ranging from 14 to 4300 images. I only searched Images - not Video or Vectors. Keywords I searched were: businessman, business, people, food, drink, dog, cat, bird, flower, nature, travel Symzio as an agency without hundreds of thousands of images, at minimum, will not attract anybody. Until there are a lot more big name contributors joining the new Symbiostock and reporting substantial and consistent sales this is not going to amount to anything more than the original did.
461
« on: December 22, 2015, 14:29 »
An excel sheet might be fine for a few hundred images and a few sites, but how unwieldy is that document going to be once you have thousands of images and 10 or 15 sites where you upload.
Just upload everything to every body and be done with it.
462
« on: December 03, 2015, 18:00 »
Yes, that would be correct course of action.
463
« on: November 18, 2015, 11:06 »
From Scott Braut last year http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss-not-reporting-sales!/msg392017/#msg392017 Hi guys,
.....
Download Map
The Download map shows an assortment of recent customer downloads of your images, which could include preview images (see above) and redownloads. The location on the map is an approximation, due to the size of the map and other considerations. Like gallery stats, the download map should be looked at as a source of interesting information, not the place to derive highly precise information about your downloads and earnings.
...
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
464
« on: November 13, 2015, 16:24 »
This is a good warning. Really they should pay you, but their TOS say they don't have to. Best idea is to read the TOS before doing a mass deactivation.
Better Idea (to the OP) - Read them before you sign up!
465
« on: November 11, 2015, 17:37 »
Can't answer your question...
But if you go to your catalog manager it's a lot faster to delete images.
Double click an image - click the trash can then click the confirmation box.
466
« on: November 06, 2015, 18:44 »
Opt out will never happen. How can they explain to customers why only certain images can be viewed larger?
It will be all or nothing.
467
« on: November 04, 2015, 11:49 »
Has anyone ever gotten an SOD for more than $120? Because now I'm interpreting this differently:
Yes -I had 5 in one day at 125.61 each last June.
468
« on: November 03, 2015, 12:52 »
I can't correct you - I'm not an image thief or buyer. But buyers will buy and thieves will thieve, whether it photos, music, clothes, cars or groceries -- whatever. The problem is much deeper than a weak watermark. The term 'Royalty-Free' is no help, and that so many think that everything on the internet is or should be free. I just don't think anybody is going to wholesale copy your portfolio and sit there and remove 1200 watermarks. Doesn't sound cost effective. They'd probably get a subscription and just download the whole lot without watermark, or more likely use Google to find un-watermarked images.
It's just one opinion but I think those who are suspending uploads, deleting images and even whole portfolios are 'cutting off their nose to spite their face".
If anyone thinks all this hubbub will really affect the way SS does business is sadly wrong. They will do the things they decide will help their business, not your business. We are not partners, their success is not dependent on any 1 or 500 contributors. They spent the time and money to give us a 'final' watermark - don't expect anything more.
If all of us think as you do, of course, SS will do whatever they want. Fortunately, everyone is not like you. It's pathetic to see contributors like you.
They are already doing what they want. I was probably one of the first to write support directly when the 1st new watermark came out. You're entitled to your opinion - I just think you're getting your blood pressure up over something you can't change.
469
« on: November 03, 2015, 10:25 »
I understand your point, yes, many of my images are on blogs, facebook etc without watermarks but with the SS watermark someone can just click on my entire portfolio and steal the images right at their fingertips and assume it is okay because they are just "stock images". I think theft occurs more with stock images because people assume it is okay. The "photo robbers" probably don't just take images off random facebook pages and blogs - they go to stock agencies and then remove the watermark. Just my thoughts... Correct me if I am wrong...
I can't correct you - I'm not an image thief or buyer. But buyers will buy and thieves will thieve, whether it photos, music, clothes, cars or groceries -- whatever. The problem is much deeper than a weak watermark. The term 'Royalty-Free' is no help, and that so many think that everything on the internet is or should be free. I just don't think anybody is going to wholesale copy your portfolio and sit there and remove 1200 watermarks. Doesn't sound cost effective. They'd probably get a subscription and just download the whole lot without watermark, or more likely use Google to find un-watermarked images. It's just one opinion but I think those who are suspending uploads, deleting images and even whole portfolios are 'cutting off their nose to spite their face". If anyone thinks all this hubbub will really affect the way SS does business is sadly wrong. They will do the things they decide will help their business, not your business. We are not partners, their success is not dependent on any 1 or 500 contributors. They spent the time and money to give us a 'final' watermark - don't expect anything more.
470
« on: November 02, 2015, 12:13 »
Okay so who is going through uploading withdrawal waiting for them to fix this?
I really don't like them putting the high resolution images online at all! No watermark will make me feel safe because they are so easy to remove ...
First I want to make it clear I think the SS watermark on the large previews could and should be better. I also think its about time someone figured out a way to protect our image rights in a way that makes it difficult for unauthorized use. But Im confident that as soon as somebody came up with a way to do that some low-life would figure out a way around it. That said, I think everyone who is up-in-arms over this has forgotten one thing: The moment you uploaded your images to Shutterstock or to any other stock site you gave up all control of how your images would be used and abused, now and forever. The SS watermarked preview image for your most popular image (girl with camera, teddy bear and balloons) is 1500x1087. A quick google search finds that image without watermark (without attribution to you) and at a size of 2900x2109. So its already out there in a larger size without watermark and no copyright notice attached. Which is more likely to be stolen and misused, a smaller one with watermark or a bigger one without watermark? I know when to let go of something I have no control over. If I had an image I thought so highly of that Id be devastated if it was stolen, it wouldnt be on the internet.
471
« on: October 30, 2015, 00:13 »
Consider yourself corrected - you do not have to be signed in to see the large preview. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in order to see the big watermark preview, you have to be signed into shutterstock where the company knows who you are.
472
« on: October 06, 2015, 16:06 »
DT year to year comparison --
2009 +71% vs 2008
2010 +13% vs 2009
2011 +29% vs 2010
2012 +12% vs 2011
2013 +7% vs 2012
2014 +6% vs 2013
2015 -9% vs 2014 (thru Sept)
473
« on: October 01, 2015, 09:15 »
it doesn't really work like that in the photo-agency business. SS, whats their company assets?.... picture of course. They are in the business of selling pictures, the more the better. By keeping the majority of contributors "happy" they will forever upload more and more and soon some 60 million assets will turn into 70 million assets. The share-holders are extremely impressed with this.
Of course what they don't think about is that all these assets belong to the photographers but we have allowed SS to market and sell them on our behalf since they can do that a heck of a lot better then we can.
Its business all the way. 
Shutterstock is in the business of selling Subscriptions and other plans - not selling pictures. There is no real incentive to have more images downloaded unless they can get more buyers to purchase more Subscription Plans.
Of course its subscriptions packages, the ultimate killer of this industry, we all know that. I was calling it pictures since their product is pictures and not cars. Thats all.
However if you have lets say plenty of EL's, Single-sales and On-demand sales. That is sales of single images. Not subscriptions.
True - but I'd venture to say that for most people Sub's make up the bulk of their sales at SS. Last year there were many more SODs. I think it was naive of all of us to expect SS would be able to continue to provide the same level of higher dollar sales. It was inevitable that competition would erode those sales, make deals with those same buyers and we would be the ones to really suffer.
474
« on: September 30, 2015, 19:55 »
it doesn't really work like that in the photo-agency business. SS, whats their company assets?.... picture of course. They are in the business of selling pictures, the more the better. By keeping the majority of contributors "happy" they will forever upload more and more and soon some 60 million assets will turn into 70 million assets. The share-holders are extremely impressed with this.
Of course what they don't think about is that all these assets belong to the photographers but we have allowed SS to market and sell them on our behalf since they can do that a heck of a lot better then we can.
Its business all the way.
Shutterstock is in the business of selling Subscriptions and other plans - not selling pictures. There is no real incentive to have more images downloaded unless they can get more buyers to purchase more Subscription Plans.
475
« on: September 13, 2015, 19:04 »
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 26
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
