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 - Uncle Pete
4526
« on: October 22, 2018, 13:19 »
Hi, have just started attempting stock video with some files getting sold. I've currently been a heavy user of warp stabilizer and am planning to get something to help me get more stable shots of walking etc. The contenders are
1. Gimbal like the crane plus ($500), expensive but one of the best in getting smooth shots from my mobile and sony NEX6
2. A small roxant type stabilizer ($30), marginally better than handheld. Need a lot more time to stabilize and can get only level horizon shots. This is mainly to bide time if at all.
What would you all advise? Is the $500 investment worth it?
A real general answer, only you can decide. As an investment, can you recover the expense of the better one, in a month or two and make more money after that? Or will the gimbal be something that you want, but will take a long time to make a return on your investment and not significantly change your long term earnings for video?
4527
« on: October 18, 2018, 17:00 »
Hello everybody,
maybe I missed something about latest news about Shutterstock, so maybe someone knows better. I just saw that in the base is over 224 000 000 images. Whether that bought someone again?
at this point who really cares? out of the 224 million image about 90% are junk...
So true and noting another million would be every week, so I just settled on milestones with more zeros in them.  Like 220 million: http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-milestones/25/Note that Simon Brough has tracked four years of video growth also. Nice work. I'm still angry that they stole my concept of Crapstock and are making it pay. I had hopes that my site of only rejected images would be profitable. LOL
4528
« on: October 18, 2018, 16:57 »
Thanks all especially the PMs. I found a guy who does eyes, another who has yellow woods in Siberia, the hundreds of titanium gears, marijuana guy (a few of them, but never found the 3d bookshelf account. Not important for specifics, the point has been verified, there are many more totally spammed accounts, with hundreds if not thousands of similar or repeating images. More than I imagined. Oh yeah, clouds and the Moon, it's sad.
4529
« on: October 18, 2018, 12:22 »
https://houseofpostcards.pl/Someone on SS found her images there and after some review I see all kinds of copyrighted images for sale as postcards. You might want to look for yours.
4530
« on: October 15, 2018, 20:39 »
Thanks for explaining, Uncle Pete! I can see it is actually under Novel Use. Makes more sense now.
I'm not insisting that I know all or have all the answers, just that, reading this kind of contract leaves much to be desired. We're in a business where agents like Alamy and Shutterstock and Adobe and I'm sure others, are strictly above board and trying to be honest. But then artists read, free or no commission, and jump out of our chairs. This says just what it says: "9.3. Where Alamy does not make a charge to these third-parties, the Contributor will not receive payment. " If they don't receive money, we don't get money. They aren't going to pay us for examples or marketing. And it's under novel use which is mysterious enough on it's own.
4531
« on: October 15, 2018, 20:29 »
You can PM me if it's wrong for the forum.
I'm looking for the bookshelf guy, the shoes, the marijuana, and wasn't there one that was all clouds, identical? These are for an investor who says, Shutterstock has added far more new photos than Adobe. I was pointing out that if thousands of duplicates or spam images are what makes them growing faster, don't be fooled by artificial growth. If it's allowed by Leaf, links to the most spammed portfolios, anywhere, but specifically SS.
4532
« on: October 15, 2018, 09:40 »
I just deleted all my top-selling popular photos on Alamy and left a few that I wouldn't be too upset if given away for free. Too bad it takes 180 days to have them removed.
They aren't giving your photos away for free. If they don't charge for a demo, prototype, or proof of concept, you don't get paid. Poorly worded, because the rest could be misread as they can give away our work. That's not the intent of the clause.
Not the first time someone at Alamy has re-written something and made it impossible to understand clearly. 
What does it mean then?
Many things, all mixed in together. First off what it doesn't mean: they will give away your work for free and you get nothing. Second it's under 9. Novel use licences {participation in novel use is optional} If you grant novel use rights;If you aren't enrolled in Novel Use #9 doesn't exist! Like Sue says, they will reduce prices to what they want for high volume customers or special use. I've had some of that too. Zero Talents example, distributor, to low price, one month web. That's a ball of strange. We get 50% of the what's left. 1) you grant Alamy permission to sell your Images at any price 2) and by any method we feel appropriate 3) and to supply Images to third parties without Alamy having to consult you 4) including but not limited to trials with new Customers, prototypes/proof of concept 5) and high volume low unit price licences. 6) Where Alamy does not make a charge to these third parties, you will not receive payment. Alamy needs to buy an OR  to replace some of these ANDs. No we don't agree to give away images. 9.1. In addition to the promotion rights set out in 8.3 above you grant Alamy permission to sell your Images at any price OR by any method we feel appropriate OR to supply Images to third parties without Alamy having to consult you, including but not limited to trials with new Customers, prototypes/proof of concept OR high volume low unit price licences. Where Alamy does not make a charge to these third parties, you will not receive payment. Now that we have covered Novel Use, what does the contract actually say? 8. Pricing and promotion
8.1 . Alamy offers Custom Pricing to some of its Customers in relation to Rights Managed Images with or without exclusivity and Royalty Free Images i.e. pricing contracts entered into with Customers where Images are licensed for set amounts, dependent upon usage or dependent upon volumes of Images purchased. These licence prices may vary from those of the Alamy licence calculator and you agree that your Images can be licensed at these rates without Alamy having to consult you.
8.2 . Alamy offers its Customers the ability to price up all Images on its site by using a licence calculator. You agree that Alamy can sell Images at the prices from this calculator without Alamy having to consult you.
8.3 . Promotion - Alamy shall have the right to offer Customers promotions on Images to promote the Alamy service without Alamy having to consult you, including, but not limited to acquiring new Customers or stimulating buying from existing Customers by offering discounts.
8.4 . If you are an Agency Contributor you may set your own prices for your Royalty Free Images (but not for Rights Managed Images or novel use licences). Agency Contributors can supply pricing via spreadsheet or via any other means agreed with Alamy. Alamy is still entitled to discount these prices in accordance with the preceding clauses, without reference to you.
4533
« on: October 15, 2018, 08:52 »
I just deleted all my top-selling popular photos on Alamy and left a few that I wouldn't be too upset if given away for free. Too bad it takes 180 days to have them removed.
They aren't giving your photos away for free. If they don't charge for a demo, prototype, or proof of concept, you don't get paid. Poorly worded, because the rest could be misread as they can give away our work. That's not the intent of the clause. Not the first time someone at Alamy has re-written something and made it impossible to understand clearly.
4534
« on: October 15, 2018, 08:05 »
So... thinking of uploading to shutterstock...
Then took a look at a few numbers, did some math, and then noticed a few posts talking about 'spammy' portfolios (i.e., 1000 pictures of a pair of shoes, from 0-360 degrees in 0.3 degree increments, etc)...
If my math is correct, it seems on 'average' right now you'd need to have a portfolio size of about 10,000 images to 'make' about $600/year? Does that sound right? (Of course, I realize there would be outliers on both sides), but that seems to the case?
Any agreements/disagreements?
What are the photos? Numbers, how many, don't matter. You could make $1000 a year on 20 photos, if they are the right shots.  And make $100 a year from thousands of spammy, repeating, or useless shots. Just start uploading and find out, and please do even imagine that those 2,000 shots of a shoe will make anything. Total waste of time.
4535
« on: October 15, 2018, 07:55 »
We should get at least 50% royalty from our creations' sales. Don't you agree? Some companies pay ridiculously low rate ripping off us creators.
You can choose to sell only at these agencies, but you have your own reason/s for choosing not to do so. There's your answer.
Clue: I've chosen to submit only to Alamy for the past 2.5 years, but I'm still earning more via iS on my existing port. You presumably find that unacceptable. We each have our own line of what we'll put up with.
So true and mine has been, I stopped uploading to Alamy and make the most on SS, same subjects. That's because of what I produce and what the buyers at those sites look for. Also different works sell better at AS than SS. There is no simple answer that fits all of us. You do better at Alamy because your work fits better at Alamy. I'm getting three times the downloads there and last I looked, 20% of the net earnings from when I started with Alamy. Lower license fees, not lower commission. Meaning, sales up, income down, the commission hasn't changed.  Meanwhile so true: We each have to decide what we'll put up with. That's why I dropped tiny/worthless agencies. I'm just not going to compete with myself based on undercutting my own prices or commission. I'm still open for IS if something changes, but for now, nothing goes there. And ps big news (no one cares) I actually opened a Pond5 account for video.  I'm trying to find the link or connection to the music modernization act which is the subject? What does that have to do with 50% on Micro? Someone help me please. We aren't streaming photos to Echo, Pandora, Iheart, Spotify, touchtunes or iphones.
4536
« on: October 15, 2018, 07:34 »
very good comments! Many of more former mentors feel that the digital camera, which allowed the masses to enter, ruin the lively hood of the professional photographers...
Don't even get me started about what happened to log and sledge makers when they invented the wheel.
The clever ones defined their business as "transport" and embraced the new world....the ones who defined their business as log and sledge makers went bust.
Candle Makers - gas lights and then electric. Buggy whip makers, saddle makers, some may have adapted but their products went from mainstream to historic. Just about anything hand made that was created by machines, except artisan and custom made. Moving forward a bit... fax machines, pagers, word processors, typewriters, Polaroid cameras and film.  Back in the days of slides and agencies there was also another factor. If the agency had a couple good people in an area, they didn't accept more or new. They didn't want to have a number of people shooting the same. subjects. Not only that, assignment work, we had to go to the location, take the photos, process them, and ship or transport the images to the buyer. Now they go anywhere in the world in seconds, digital. Let me say that blaming the digital camera or Microstock is ignoring the major part of the market changing. The Internet and a global market, where anyone, anywhere can sell to any buyer who can find their work. This is progress, all about high speed communication, not just "oh woe is me, someone invented a digital camera". Just like everything else that has become obsolete or a much lesser market, the major cause is changes in technology. Sometimes how a product is produced and marketed. In a global market, products that came from one location or country are now available from many sources and easily transported anywhere else. Microstock is like the big box and huge franchise stores, most of the little shops are driven out of business. Oh and the future is just fine. We won't be seeing a huge boom, no "next big thing" or fantastic growth. But there's room to make some money.
4537
« on: October 13, 2018, 21:26 »
Just submitted a batch of videos of a crop duster over a cotton field. Nothing special. No logos on the plane. Pretty straight forward. Got the videos back for revision with a request for a property release. Now... Can't really understand if these clowns want a property release for the crop duster or the cotton field. Dear lord... Is there no limit to the incompetence of iStock reviewers???
Went through your clip frame by frame and I could see no markings or other logos or what have you.
Conclusion ~ resubmit if you can
And yes iSuck are incompetent clowns 
HOWEVER!
You said you submitted a batch and other clips showing this crop duster you can clearly see the aircraft registration number 4X-AFC which will get the clip rejected.
https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-1017459817-crop-duster-spraying-chemicals-over-cotton-field
Unlike Uncle Pete, my observation (from the outside) is that SS tends to be more lax about IP than iS, sometimes seriously lax.
I don't think there's an absolute which one is lax or more strict, that's an opinion, the issue is more about WHAT. I can upload some subjects to iStock that pass and have no problems, the same will get rejected, never a chance by SS, for the last seven years. From the inside, uploading to both, you are still right, but it's a matter of agency lawyers and agency policy. Not as simple as lax or strict. Now back to the case at hand. Sammy might have the answer. Batch rejection because some have the planes ID showing. One was suitable, many others had the markings, now I have to say, the reviewer wasn't going to dig through a stack of infringing images to find one that would pass. We've been misled.
4538
« on: October 12, 2018, 16:25 »
Thanks for Pete. I'm glad you like the feature. We are open to improve the formula but this seems to provide useful information for now. As mentioned, the goal is to inform you and all contributors what buyers are actually looking for and purchasing. Any and all suggestions are welcome, we are happy to test and improve.
-Mat
I hope none of that looked critical, I was just making the Contributor OTW it's own topic and pointing out some parts behind the how. LOL  In my view, the formula "is what it is" and the idea is showing what's actually most popular subjects or concepts is pretty good. Years ago some places had most popular keywords searched. It was rubbish, just imagine what some people search for on the web. Another has some good data which is so specific that sure if someone sold photos of 7,000 Macidonian's in full battle array, it would look like the latest hot topic, while it was just the most downloaded because someone, somewhere in the world was doing a feature. In other words, after the fact, and of no practical future use. Someone at Adobe came up with a good real plan, that uses, more recent uploads, recent downloads, and that uploads to sales ratio, so it's weighted. Pretty good concept.
4539
« on: October 12, 2018, 11:57 »
(...in business terms) Quality means "fit for purpose".
"ISO 8402-1986 standard defines quality as "the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bears its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs."
Art: Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating, which express the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power. Microstock is not really about art, it's about the business of making useful images that buyers want and need to express or convey a message. Something very creative or artistic might never get one download on stock sites because the images need to be about their message. True however a more artistic version of an image, might get more downloads and make more than a strictly boring factual image. Still the objective here is not about creative ART but the message and the concept.
4540
« on: October 12, 2018, 11:39 »
I think everyone's number will be similar. Most are somewhere between .60 -.70.
You'll get a better variance with RPI.
Do I want more variance for some reason? Not sure if you are saying, this would show the quality of my work, which is quite variable, as are the types and subjects, or what RPI means to the group as a whole? If you mean to compare, for example, your RPI to mine, yes, I'd say that would be interesting. I'd bet yours is better. 
RPI on its own is totally meaningless ROI is what really matters ;-).
Of course but honest how would I break that down. Travel, lodging, cameras, lenses in / lenses sold, cameras that self destructed, computers, accessories, software. Oh I get it, ROI if all was just Microstock, would be a negative number. Your question is well based though for anyone who imagines that this is a business. Track everything. Honestly speaking time is free, unless someone is missing paying work to do Micro. Then find total income MINUS total expenses and there you have it = profit. I liked Minsc's question so I looked at sets on SS. I chose that rather than all images, because I have such a mix of subjects and ideas, some misguided. Triple cheeseburger, RPI .12  (message is, that's a bad idea) Different set $2.12 (of course I'm not telling!), Oldest 100 $3.51, (but there's on top ten in there), Blurred Background .27 (your results might be better?), 2018 - .29 (includes some former rejects from the archives), An Idea I had in 2013 - $25.66 no I didn't add more and dilute my earnings, but maybe that would change the RPI too. But while RPI can be useful it can also be a false indicator. The last one I have under 20 images that make that $25 RPI, another I have thousands of images that make a .54 RPI. BIG Letter acronyms are nice but bottom line, or more like Net Income for us as this isn't literally investment, is the answer. How much did I really make, not RPI, RPD and mostly statistics that only apply to my work, not yours or someone else's. If we were all shooting the same sliced vegetables, OK, that might be interesting. We aren't. I have photos that no one else here or anywhere have. Yes, honest one of a kind, news, historic that are impossible to duplicate or re-create. That's an advantage, but also means my RPI or RPD isn't yours. I have others that anyone here wouldn't want to recreate, like triple cheeseburgers with fries. What I mean is, bottom line, net income is the end. All the rest is amusement for the most part.
4541
« on: October 12, 2018, 11:07 »
Just submitted a batch of videos of a crop duster over a cotton field. Nothing special. No logos on the plane. Pretty straight forward. Got the videos back for revision with a request for a property release. Now... Can't really understand if these clowns want a property release for the crop duster or the cotton field. Dear lord... Is there no limit to the incompetence of iStock reviewers???
Should I bother to answer? You've already decided they are incompetent clowns and you are right.
Are there registration numbers on the plane? Is it pained any special color scheme? Anything else besides the plane and a crop, like a building or a tractor that could be recognized? Show a frame so anyone here can take a stab at the why, otherwise everything is just a guess. What keywords did you use, any that might be trademarks or protected?
The footage was shot on purpose against the sun, so the plane shows no colors or markings whatsoever... Here is a link to the same shot on SS: https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-1017459790-crop-duster-spraying-chemicals-over-cotton-field
I think you neglected to tell the whole story. "No logos on the plane." ?
4542
« on: October 12, 2018, 11:01 »
Just wanted to highlight this outside of the features thread. https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/en/insights/best/contributorsSome pretty nice work. And just for continuity: The goal of this feature, apart from celebrating our talented contributors, is to inform you of what type of content is trending based purely on sales data. Contributors of the week are determined each week using the following process:
For each asset type we generate a list of 400 contributors who made the most sales in the previous week, only considering their uploads from the past six months. Then, we order the list based on each contributors uploads/sales ratio, and the top 10 contributors on this list are featured as Contributors of the week.
Contributors are eligible to be featured at most once every five weeks. This selection process is subject to change in the future.1) most sales in the previous week, 2) only considering their uploads from the past six months 3) uploads/sales ratio Looks like a fairly current viewpoint, not a historic catalog. Just imagine if "popular" also worked something like this on some sites.
4543
« on: October 12, 2018, 10:30 »
HUH? Onepixel only sources content from a much lower number of stock contributors than other platforms, which is why the extra income generated by each Onepixel Contributor will be significantly higher.Because only so many people are desperate enough to take 35c for a download? And I ask myself why would less contributors be significantly higher? The part that would make more income would be more customers, and that's where this will eventually fail. Less choices for buyers from less contributors means less sales... Doesn't matter if this is "the next big thing" for some willing victims, I'm not even going to consider them. I continue to stick to my policy. I will not support parasites.
4544
« on: October 12, 2018, 10:23 »
By the way, although it's an assumption, ONE probably means someone is exclusive but not necessarily. Someone could choose to only upload to one place. That's why I included that option. Results are interesting so far. I hope more will take time to click one circle.  Another issue, at least for me, is the number could change. This isn't rocket science, just a general, how many do you usually upload to?
4545
« on: October 12, 2018, 10:14 »
Just as you think that things cannot get possibly worse they suddenly will?  I would not have any confidence that earning money or a living for most people is a future reality in Microstock today. Yes some do, some will, hard work and smart, will pay more. In some places where $100 - $200 a month is good money, Micro is a good income. Living where I do, it's spending money, discretionary income. In general I use the returns for more equipment or waste it on "stuff" from eBay. My current personal position is, I shoot what I like and if someone else buys licenses, I'm happy. I don't depend on this income, however I find the hobby interesting and a challenge to come up with new ideas. I get to use my experience and equipment which I'd have anyway. I get a tax deduction for equipment against my earnings. If I needed the money or depended on the Micro income, I'd be looking really hard for somewhere else to earn money. Not that the future is terribly bleak, but growth in this area has gone flat, incomes are not going to rise like they did in the early years. Many will drop as competition is 20 times more than five years ago. That's just the way markets, trends and economics works. There's still room to make some money but for most, not a living wage. We are suppliers of an over produced, easily available commodity.
4546
« on: October 11, 2018, 10:13 »
They know that the charge was made by Payoneer, but they dont know why =/
When they do not have any valid reason for the charge, aren't they refunding it?
WINNER!
4547
« on: October 11, 2018, 10:11 »
Times have changed. Many used to upload to as many agencies as they could. I remember one friend who was approaching 50. Also with the automated software, it's much easier to upload to many. The subject has come up recently and I'm just wondering how people here still feel about everything everywhere or if the distribution has changed to being more selective?
If anyone wants to explain why, that would be interesting as well, but I just wanted a simple survey of how many places do you usually upload to when you make a new image? So please don't include dormant or ignored or those that have your old work, but don't get anything new. Not Video or audio or templates or POD or any of the alternatives.
Only who gets new still images, illustrations, Etc.
Just Stock Image and News Agencies.
4548
« on: October 11, 2018, 09:55 »
Thank you! I bookmarked it, appreciate it! 
I just do well at searches, I don't know much myself...
4549
« on: October 11, 2018, 09:43 »
I think everyone's number will be similar. Most are somewhere between .60 -.70.
You'll get a better variance with RPI.
Do I want more variance for some reason? Not sure if you are saying, this would show the quality of my work, which is quite variable, as are the types and subjects, or what RPI means to the group as a whole? If you mean to compare, for example, your RPI to mine, yes, I'd say that would be interesting. I'd bet yours is better.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|