|
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
4601
« on: September 07, 2018, 16:05 »
Even assuming* earnings are capped at SS, there's a fundamental difference between Google allegedly damaging a third party (Dreamstime) to favour their new found partner (Getty), and SS allegedly controlling sales, despicable but probably not illegal. That said, this is just my opinion, I am not a lawyer and I would like to be proven wrong.
*I am still unconvinced, but this is not the point: as you said there are already many other threads.
That's because any thread is a chance for Derek to write something disparaging about SS and accuse them of "skull duggery" of some sort. That never changes.  I can't prove that something doesn't exist, we can't prove a negative, so proving Derek/Chris wrong is impossible. Proving you wrong, is impossible. The idea is, the person making the claim needs to present evidence and facts that show their claims are a fact and true. (unless it's a microstock conspiracy...) 
4602
« on: September 07, 2018, 13:49 »
I have launched a survey on SurveyMonkey that is designed to gather general information about the incomes Still Photographers around the world are earning from the editorial (not advertising) uses of their work in newspapers, magazines or online editorial sites?
To see the 8 questions before filling out the survey go here. http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/editorial-photographer-income-survey
To respond to the survey go here. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PhotogIncomeSurvey
Individual responses are totally confidential. We and not tracking IP addresses or gathering any personal data of individual respondents.
Caution: when responding to the survey you will not be able to change your answers after you have clicked Done. In addition, after clicking Done you will not be able to access the survey again from the same computer. You will receive a message saying, You have already completed this survey. However, you may still access the survey from a different computer. You can always re-read the survey questions by going to: http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/editorial-photographer-income-survey
Stock photographers may not receive an accurate breakdown of how their images are being used. If that is the case, on Question 5 please check Not Sure unless you are reasonably confident, given the subject matter of your images, that a certain percentage of the uses are editorial. All photographers who license uses of their images are encouraged to respond to this survey.
The data from this survey should be very helpful to photography students, working professional photographers and the organizations that license rights to use editorial photography as well as those who purchase editorial photographs. It should also help us have a better understanding of sales in various parts of the photographers working in various parts of the world.
The survey will remain open until mid-October. At that point I will do a comprehensive analysis of the data and make the results available at www.selling-stock.com as well as publishing the detailed report here on MicrostockGroup.
Question one, yes to both. OK have a good time.
4603
« on: August 30, 2018, 10:52 »
4604
« on: August 30, 2018, 10:47 »
Nevermind....I figured it out.
I wish there was a way to delete a post.....
.
4605
« on: August 30, 2018, 09:59 »
I'm waiting for the next exciting thing : pay for upload.
Deposit Photo did that, ask most of the people who bought into the agency. There are a few who are making something and happy, many more who left. Better yet, go read the Deposit Photos area here.
4606
« on: August 29, 2018, 16:53 »
I'm thinking so ... they used to reject a fair load of my stuff but, I'm thinking I should just dump my whole library on them and let them figure it out. lol.
Go through and see what of your old rejects might have some potential, upload them now. I did a small number, and one actually has sales. The rest were so bad, they turned my stomach and I couldn't do that to make my portfolio more embarrassing. LOL
I did that but simply threw the lot against the wall to see what stuck 90% accepted and pretty reasonable sales..
When I started, I took some really nasty crapstock. Of course back then, Upload on Thursday, accepted by Tuesday, sales by the end of the week. Maybe I could upload them as Blurred Background? I had most of them accepted at places like 123, BS, Panther, Lucky Oliver, the small sites, at which time I thought "OK I have an idea, I'll upload to FT, IS and SS" Ha Ha, rejected, nearly all. I had to take the test again for SS, but passed once I realized sharp, good contrast, clean, focused. Plus (another back then) downsized and submitted a variety of shots and styles. Passed in a breeze. The second part isn't about quality but content, and I don't need to waste time on filler, to make numbers, if they won't every sell. I have a good collection of those too. So when I actually do find something old, if it might have potential, based on content, I'll consider that. If it's something that's destined to languish everywhere, never sell, because of a poor choice of subject, I let it die. Numbers don't mean anything anymore. Besides I used to only upload one or two of any idea, rarely more. There are some old timers who have 800 of the same shot, with different backgrounds. Oh boy, and wonder why sales per image aren't any good?
4607
« on: August 27, 2018, 11:12 »
You can think of SS as like a nightclub or expensive bar.
Previously there was a dress code and vetted to get in. Once in you had to meet a minimum standard to stay a useful part.
Now they've axed the door security and the dress code, let everyone in and once in you can do whatever you like as there are no standards.
Net result, millions of new low quality images from new contributors who'd never previously have qualified.
Wonderful analogy Add that they also cut the bartenders wages and lowered drink prices, have a DJ instead of live bands?
4608
« on: August 27, 2018, 11:09 »
Side question for someone who never had Adobe cloud anything. I bought last stand alone versions when I could.
Say I get a photo software code for one year and it expires, what happens to the software? Do I have that last version and no updates, or is it crippled and no longer works?
4609
« on: August 27, 2018, 10:58 »
I'm thinking so ... they used to reject a fair load of my stuff but, I'm thinking I should just dump my whole library on them and let them figure it out. lol.
Go through and see what of your old rejects might have some potential, upload them now. I did a small number, and one actually has sales. The rest were so bad, they turned my stomach and I couldn't do that to make my portfolio more embarrassing. LOL
4610
« on: August 27, 2018, 10:51 »
I would suggest to upload all your editorials on Alamy.
Good advice
Adobe owns Fotolia, but there are two sites. If you are already a Fotolia contributor, then there's no need to upload to Adobe Stock directly - everything is already there, assuming you've linked your accounts.
If you aren't submitting to Adobe Stock/Fotolia you should - it's doing much better than anywhere other than Shutterstock.
Alamy is not consistent (at least not for me) but when sales happen, they can be for very decent royalties. I'd definitely consider adding them to your roster (uploading is a bigger pain than many agencies though, even with their new system)
I'll add that while I'm not a big fan of Getty/iStock they are holding up and doing business. They have eliminated some of the cheap subs like Thinkstock. They have a major connection and name in the market. As far as the OPs question, everyone must answer for their own work, how much they put into images, what are they and personal view of where they want to be in Microstock. If someone wants to feed the parasite agencies and take scraps from the bottom feeding low paying sales, fine. I don't and I won't. As things are now, I don't see a future is doing all kinds of extra work, uploading to low paying sites, and I don't see a return for scuffling for scraps and a pittance, on the little sites. If $35 a year makes your life, much better and improved, then do that everything everywhere plan. Make that about 50 sites! My personal answer is the top three and Alamy. Exceptions of course are for video where there are some sites like Pond5 and videoblocks. Maybe others. I really don't do video, but I make plenty of Editorial uploads. Adobe takes files that SS doesn't. I can spread what I do around, some multiple places, some only on one or two. "I'd rather sit for nothing, than work for nothing." Uncle Ed Klinger 
4611
« on: August 27, 2018, 10:31 »
What is normal and for whom? Before 2012 normal? From 2012 to 2016 normal, or now with 100 million new images added as competition? Nothing will ever return to the way it was, so normal is what we have now, and in a couple years "normal" will be something different again. Change is normal...
4613
« on: August 21, 2018, 10:17 »
OK I looked, nothing of great interest. Why am I still getting Thinkstock credits? Looks like I also got a 19 cents RF download total. Just can't wait to see if that's one DL or eight? Whoo Hoo  When does Thinkstock close and officially go dark?
4614
« on: August 21, 2018, 09:56 »
OLD THREAD ALERT!!!
Part of this is the way SMF works for new users. When they join and have seen a few messages, posted on the new area, whatever gives them rights to post a reply, the forum suggests topics of interest. Unfortunately the suggestions can sometimes be older or dead threads. Shooterguy77 registered, August 18, 2018, 01:46 he's getting suggestions from the forum for topics of interest. Yes we all know that the spam people also post to these same old topics, but usually the obvious irrelevant one liners.
4615
« on: August 21, 2018, 09:40 »
Who knows, most agencies won't say. The closest to make a claim of this nature is SS in their SEC filing. But they don't go into what exactly that AI looks for. DT, I still wait a week or so. Sometimes if I upload on a weekend, I get reviews approved as fast as I upload them, but not often. I really would not worry too much about the review process anymore because that, across all of microstock, has gone to hell in a hand basket. It's quantity based now, not quality.
Except maybe Adobe and Alamy.
4616
« on: August 17, 2018, 11:05 »
I'm interested to know who is responsible if copyright infringement happens.
For example, a photo of a building is sold on Shutterstock but the authorized representative of the building does not allow licensing it for public use.
Let's say the representative of the building finds out the photo is used on a website without permission, who is responsible, Shutterstock or the person who bought the photo?
The reason I am asking is
I am planning to sell stock photos on my own website and I am not sure if some of the photos should have a property release for licensing.
Can I just sell the photos (without property releases) and say that the customer is responsible if any legal consequences occur?
Everyone is responsible to some extent. Whether they will come after you, the artist or the publisher, is just as mentioned, depending on if the lawyers think there's any return in suing. Steve is also right, that if you license properly and legally, you could still get sued, but then it becomes interesting because there are costs involved in defending, even if you are not guilty. Winning the defense should include having the claimant pay your legal fees. Much of this is why SS and other sites, reject photos that should be legal to license commercial. Also say the license on a site is Editorial and the buyer decides to use it commercial, you / the site, are not liable, because you listed and licensed it properly.
4617
« on: August 10, 2018, 09:26 »
They have special propitiatory software for reviews
I know it's probably just your spell checker, but you risk fuelling some conspiracy theory among people here that believe in magical thinking.
 Took me awhile to figure that out. Yeah, not the spell checker I'm the guilty one all the way. Thanks for the correction...
Proprietary software, it has been mentioned in the stock reports and prospectus. SS isn't the only place with agency specific review software. Alamy for sure, on site. Can show embedded data, levels, camera, histogram.
But the problem is still reviewers are human. They are subjective as well as getting tired or lazy. If they are paid by the review, a quick batch of rejections, with assorted vague or wrong reasons, they get paid we get stuck working double for minimal payments.
How else can these places review over 1 million images a week, plus video, plus I'm pretty sure Editorial or illustrations go on a different review track. Reviewers come and leave. I'd think it's very difficult to obtain or hold a good, qualified, review staff? Probably paid just as poorly as us, so many are off site, English is a second language at best.
I'm not going to defend poor and crappy reviews, just pointing out the situation. Reviews are an expense for the agency, making that as cheap as possible and throwing the obligation to re-submit to us, saves the agency money. Situation Normal
In your own post earlier you stated the SS collection has increased by 10 million images in 53 days. You also say they still reject images, in batches even, so what is the ratio? 1 to 1? For every image accepted there's one rejected? That would mean they receive around 20 million images in 53 days. That works out to a review pace of 15723 images per hour, 24 hours per day non stop. That would be 262 images per minute. If they had a review staff of 300 working in 8 hour shifts they would need to review about 27 images per minute each. About 1 image every 2 seconds. There's not much point even looking if you have to review an image in 2 seconds.
That pace will only increase and doesn't include video as you stated. I doubt most images are even seen by human eyes anymore.
I wish I knew the numbers, but I can see from complaints from people who are honest and that I trust, that the nit picking Editorial rejections are real. Rejections for other reasons are also wrong sometimes. Hypothetical math logic doesn't prove the reviews are done by bots, but nice try. Images are checked by the system for size and color space, missing parts, corrupted files. (and maybe other physical attributes) How would a bot know if an image needs a release or not, or if the release was correct? How would a bot know a case number? How does a bot see a license number, house number, and reject or any other minor SS rules, a violation, like location or protected buildings or sites. Yes, software could read for keywords and flag the image, so a reviewer (human) can reject. I think we need to be careful about keywords or risk rejections. How does a bot see a foreign word, when there are none? Hmm, must be a stupid human. Bots would be consistent, right or wrong, but not upload one day, rejected, upload three days later = identical, and they are accepted. Humans are subjective, bots aren't. Rejection reasons change for the same image, how's that? A batch of images, taken on the same day, same site, get clusters of varied rejections, three for focus, next three for shadows, next three for who knows what. I think some reviewer is just making assorted rejections, so it doesn't look like they are just making quick money. Good questions, how does SS or any other place, review 1 million images in a week? How many are actually rejected to get to that one million? And if I just accept your numbers, at 2 seconds an image, yes that's why we have such inconsistent reviews. Also right, video someone has to watch the whole thing, or maybe not. All a bot could do was see if it was whole or continuous, a human can see if someone slipped in a nude, suddenly out of context material, or a protected site? Essentially there are many, many, reviewers, and many are probably barely trained while some are going to be incompetent. Lets assume the cheats or incompetent get replaced, that means more, new, inexperienced reviewers, who don't understand all the possibilities and err on the side of caution. We get rejected, they take their money, the system gets over burdened with second and third uploads of the same. And we as contributors are waiting our time re-submitting something that should have passed the first time!  There are possibly also good, experienced, smart reviewers who zip through images at a fast pace, making good smart decisions. Nope I'm still not buying into bots do the reviews just because there are so many files reviewed.
4618
« on: August 10, 2018, 09:03 »
I read an incredibly well-thought-out argument by a professor from Baylor University (a conservative Christian university in Texas) outlining why a true Christian could not vote for Trump. I just wish that more of his fellow conservatives had read it. (I'm a liberal New Yorker).
I'm no longer a Catholic but I love the new(ish) Pope - and you're right, many conservative "good" Christians would probably put Jesus in one of their for-profit prisons today, or run him out of town with their guns, but I digress....
Trump has no idea about the Constitution, the role of a free press, the role of the judiciary, and so many other things.
And for my UK pal, like many of my fellow Americans, I wish that he wasn't "our dear leader"... I was going to say I wish he was someone else's, but I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, and certainly not on those I hope will be our allies again once there is a new administration.
Between Hillary and Trump I would've voted for Mickey Mouse had they run for president as an independent! Both were bad choices- I feel for the 'R' if Trump is their best! time for some new blood in both parties and a good Independent...
Some other people, including myself, agree with you: 5.7% of the vote went to other candidates, like Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, or Evan McMullin Trump haters are just like the Obama haters, they just flap their lips and repeat the same distortions of the truth or facts. Some spent/wasted eight years trying to prove Obama wasn't a citizen and couldn't be President. Hey wake up, he was already President and in office, give up. And for you Trump haters who twist his words into something he didn't say, have your fun. I can imagine your turn is next, on the getting bashed relentlessly and unnecessarily in 2020. One thing I'm sure of, it's won't be Trump again!
4619
« on: August 10, 2018, 08:40 »
A drone crashed in downtown Montreal last year, a DJI Phantom. This drone weighs about 4 pounds, he could have killed someone. I know the police are investigating this incident (drone serial number, etc.). The person who crashed his drone must be a little stressed! The problem is that this kind of gear can be bought by any idiot who could put people's lives in danger, they have no choice to regulate.
Apparently the argument is, empty, same as others. Here's the entry model RC plane. No license, no history of fear because it's not a "drone". It is a UAV same as the quad copters. The Falcon 56 has been offered for at least 40 years at hobby shops, virtually everywhere. Still popular. Wingspan: 56″ Wing Area: 558 sq.in. Length: 47.5″ Flying Weight: 5-5.5 lbs.Power: 2-stroke .40-.46 or 4-stroke .40 Radio: 4-Channel 4-Servos Of course someone crashing into downtown anywhere should be located and punished, flying near an airport is wrong, doing anything unsafe that could harm someone else is out of the question. But once again, why all the regulations now? RC planes and helicopters have been around for ages and are not expensive? Why the change? Because the news and the hype and media putting a false fear into the public eye. If it gets page views, pump it up. Then the public makes a demand for safety and UAVs are banned in parks (hey what better place to fly?) because they are a danger. And the weight? Imagine this, a 56" wingspan airplane, weighing over 5 pounds with not an electric engine but a alcohol fueled engine with a big wooden propeller! Lets see, fire, fuel, 5 pounds, flies 15-20 miles an hours, unregulated... Call it a drone and people are afraid and up in arms over control. WHY? Because RC fliers are usually careful and some of the people who bought drones are idiots. So that's why we should ban drones and punish all the responsible people. Applying the same logic, automobiles should also be banned, look at all the accidents and injury they cause.
4620
« on: August 10, 2018, 08:12 »
Seems like stock has always been low paying but the next year is always lower than the previous. I'm still pretty new at this game but it seems, based on the more experienced contributors, that pattern will continue. Yet we all keep "feeding the beast." A lot of people quit the biz or are on the verge of quitting. In the future, are we going to talk about today's stock market as the good old days? So why do we keep at it?
I have fun, don't expect much, Microstock is a nice hobby. I'd be shooting most of what I upload anyway... some small monetary return is good. The microstock market is not growing. In fact in decline for most. People need to recognize that the growth and time for making good returns are in the past. Yes some will continue to make money but most of us will see a decline until our earnings are flat and level, month to month. How long the new competition will continue to bury us, I don't know, but at some point, even that will level off. Small parasitic agencies will eventually cease, while the best and the profitable will be all that remains. At that point, Microstock will reach a stable equilibrium. We aren't there yet, maybe not close. Only time will tell how far this will fall before the business and market hit a stable equilibrium. I believe the first sign will be when we stop seeing one million new images a week on Shutterstock.
4621
« on: August 09, 2018, 12:23 »
They have special propitiatory software for reviews
I know it's probably just your spell checker, but you risk fuelling some conspiracy theory among people here that believe in magical thinking.
Took me awhile to figure that out. Yeah, not the spell checker I'm the guilty one all the way. Thanks for the correction... Proprietary software, it has been mentioned in the stock reports and prospectus. SS isn't the only place with agency specific review software. Alamy for sure, on site. Can show embedded data, levels, camera, histogram. But the problem is still reviewers are human. They are subjective as well as getting tired or lazy. If they are paid by the review, a quick batch of rejections, with assorted vague or wrong reasons, they get paid we get stuck working double for minimal payments. How else can these places review over 1 million images a week, plus video, plus I'm pretty sure Editorial or illustrations go on a different review track. Reviewers come and leave. I'd think it's very difficult to obtain or hold a good, qualified, review staff? Probably paid just as poorly as us, so many are off site, English is a second language at best. I'm not going to defend poor and crappy reviews, just pointing out the situation. Reviews are an expense for the agency, making that as cheap as possible and throwing the obligation to re-submit to us, saves the agency money. Situation Normal
4622
« on: August 07, 2018, 12:18 »
Laws for drones are necessary nowadays, seeing how an average person can afford them, and there are always those who, for lack of common sense, fly it in areas where there pose a threat I.e. near airports or flight paths, over crowds, etc
Very unnecessary, and a weak set of arguments. Sorry but RC planes are and have been very affordable, less expensive than a "drone". Over regulation and laws will never prevent idiots from doing stupid things, but will prevent honest people who are responsible from taking photos or having some fun. Of course you are right about UAVs near an airport and lack of common sense for a minority, so the majority get punished and over regulated.
4623
« on: August 07, 2018, 09:19 »
Who knew that flying a toy R/C plane or helicopter could be so complicated and have so many laws surrounding them. People have been flying these for over 50 years, but call it a drone and suddenly new laws and the police are involved. Drone free zones, banned in most parks, banned by some countries.
I'm happy I never invested in one for photo. They have a really nice perspective and could make some fantastic shots. With the expense, the licensing, the laws... not worth it.
4624
« on: August 04, 2018, 10:14 »
Seems to me certain contributors are just "waved through" the system.
As far as technical standards (exposure, noise,white balance, focus, sharpness etc etc) EVERYONE gets waved through. Again, a quick glance at their own forum shows newcomers asking why no sales and you look at the portfolio and not a single one of their images would have been accepted by the previous policy. There are a few examples on there on the moment (bad form to directly link to them though).
SS QC now basically seems to be check for releases, check for editorial captions then click accept. No actual technical evaluation, im not convinced anyone even looks at the images now.
Maybe they're unofficially doing an Alamy now and only QCing a few images per batch.
Yes, I don't see why some people can't understand the difference, we'll all get rejections for nit picking legal reasons, and some of the worst crap in snapshots will get passed. No one gets a free pass and there aren't bots reviewing captions. There's a computer pre-check for requirements, then it goes to humans. That simple. They have special propitiatory software for reviews that shows all kinds of information about the image, plus the caption and keywords, license, also photo measures. I still say it's easy for them to look, say "I don't know" and hit reject and get paid. So the people fighting the system who don't understand, add information to the caption like "shot from public property" or "public location POV" are just making their own life more difficult. The reviewers may be stupid and the legal dept may be overboard, but that's their choice. I can play with their rules or keep banging my head against the wall, because I'm getting stupid legal rejections. Play the game by their rules, it's their agency. Nearly nothing is rejected for quality anymore. It would have to be horrid. OK beyond horrid, I've seen some of the files that pass. Does anyone get a LCV rejection anymore? Remember when some were advocates of the Alamy system? If it's good enough quality, the content doesn't matter. Now some want to flip on that and complain about junk photos. Which is it? I hate the photo spam, but we can't have it both ways? At least Alamy used to restrict too many similar images. When you look at the numbers submitted the time allowed per image must be tiny. So that wouldn't surprise me. Ironically I think its probably those new to Mstock who suffer the most...when I started a had to learn a lot very quickly to get my pictures up to a decent technical standard even though my friends etc thought I was a "good" photographer. Now people are happily uploading stuff that has close to zero chance of selling as its technically deficient.
Sounds right also. Getting accepted is only the first step. There's no use in my mind, to waste time uploading images that have no chance of selling, much less, hundreds of the same subject. Personal choice, but I still make the best set and move on. Many are one, some are three shots. I have done bigger groups, but not often. Portfolio size doesn't matter if it's mostly Crapstock!
4625
« on: August 04, 2018, 09:55 »
Google Free NIK is gone, went back to pay. I'm happy to have the old version on my XP computer.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
