|
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
4626
« on: January 18, 2013, 20:03 »
Why are you considering "A" place to move? The logical action would be to move your port to multiple sites, such as GL, SS, DT and so forth. Each site has it's own strengths and weaknesses. ...
I liken it to people getting a kitten or puppy prior to deciding to have kids - you need to ease into it  Particularly for those who have never uploaded elsewhere (I was indie for nearly 4 years before becoming an exclusive, so I got it anyway) there is a strong desire to find a single good agency to work with. As I see things, right now that's just not an option, but recovering exclusives need time to adapt to their new circumstances. I'm heading for 2 years "clean and sober" and I still occasionally have warm longings for the thought of a decent, fair, honest agency to be able to leave behind looking around to see which agency is trying to fleece us today. They'll figure it out in time, IMO
4627
« on: January 18, 2013, 19:47 »
I sent a link to Sean's blog to my CN also, at least to those that I haven't seen posting about it elsewhere already - in other words, to those who might not know. I'm waiting to get my sitemail shut down now for that.
Also, I deactivated another ten, leaving only ten more -- those may or may not wait until February 2, That still gives them two weeks to screw around with things, and who knows what will happen.
Perhaps send your CN a message asking them to send you e-mail - if you have an e-mail address you're willing to share? That way if you do get shut down on iStock you'll have a distribution list you can use where the reach of Lobo isn't an issue
4628
« on: January 18, 2013, 19:40 »
No problem - with their super-transparent, comprehensive, state-of-the-art contributor sales information system, it doesn't take much to get confused
4629
« on: January 18, 2013, 19:01 »
If you want to find out about individual images you can get details, however the only way I know to locate those is on the PP version of the my_uploads page you see images with a disproportionate $$ for the number of PP downloads. Then you can look at the individual download history for that image.
Even then you don't know what the big ticket item was - unlike with an iStock EL where you see if it was multi-seat or extended print run or whatever
4630
« on: January 18, 2013, 18:58 »
Thank you Kenny.
I can't believe what a bunch of duplicitous scum Getty is. They're silent in the forums all week as they're busy adding more content - KNOWING all the fuss.
Is this their idea of sorting things out with Google???
4631
« on: January 18, 2013, 18:53 »
GL is by far the easiest place to upload to for model released images. No attatching model releases, no catagories. If the Iptc data is all there then you don't have to do anything at all after ftping them unless you want to change the prices.
How do they know which model release applies to each image? Does it need to be referenced in the IPTC data?
I have small reference images on my MRs and PRs which helps to match things up. I don't have as many as you but there have been no questions so far (I'm not done uploading my portfolio there)
4632
« on: January 18, 2013, 18:50 »
I got a extend license sale for 27 dollars but its not showing on my balance on the main page. The .28 sales are. Do the EL totals show up after they finish for the month? I'm asking here because I never get satisfactory answers on there forum.
How do you know about a PP EL if it's not showing in your balance? In past months the larger amounts - something like $24.10 as I recall - showed up along with the other sales. I was able to look at my graphs for the month and see the bars where the $$ were not 28 cents x number of downloads for that day. But any numbers that showed up there were also increasing my balance.
4633
« on: January 18, 2013, 17:18 »
Sandra was two years ahead of us when it comes to action!
With respect to iStock, but she could still get caught by having images with Blend, Image Source and the other macro agencies which distribute through Getty. I think it's worth her seeing to what extent she's affected outside of iStock as well.
4634
« on: January 18, 2013, 17:11 »
I also wonder what someone like sandralaise (sp) is planning to do....even though she is not exclusive. Her port is mighty nice and powerful and big. I've said this once, when images are pulled from Istock they have to be meaty to make any kind of difference. She has a lot of meat, so to speak.
Sandralise, is blisfully unaware of this sh*t storm. She only has about 300 images left on istock having tired of them a couple of years ago, I believe. She no longer reads the istock forum either.
I sent her a note with a pointer to Sean's blog and the D-Day post here, so now she knows
4635
« on: January 18, 2013, 16:15 »
If you're planning to upload, you do need to read the contract that you're signing. It's a pain, and one can certainly skim or speed read once you get the gist of what's in each section, but given the problems of handing over your valuable property to an business that either isn't above board or has some onerous conditions, it's in your best interests to do so. Every job has its miserable chores
4636
« on: January 18, 2013, 15:42 »
Given that for me - and I think many/most of us - the primary goal is to produce work we can license, I'm not inclined to spend more time than necessary on other tasks.
Getty will continue to trample all over photographers/musicians/illustrators as they have done since they started the business. I think focusing on boosting other places to sell our work - whether it's our own web sites, other agencies - will likely yield us more net benefit than becoming full time social activists.
We need to take this detour to give Getty the bully enough of a bloody nose that they back off and leave us alone. If they persist, we get our work out of their greedy little mits.
Some sort of "search central" site pointing to artists' own sites (or their primary agency) - no reference to Getty or boycotts - sounds much more interesting to me.
4637
« on: January 18, 2013, 15:20 »
I feel like I'm super late to this party, so I'm sorry if this has been answered. I attempted to read as much as I could here, but I'm still catching up. I haven't checked in here for a bit, been sick and busy with life... anyhow and thanks to Jo Ann I found out something was up and I needed to get back on here to catch up. so...
Groundhog day is still a few weeks out. is everyone deactivating now or on that day? seems like people are doing it now or is everyone prepping for that?
Some people are just testing with a few images now - using Sean's greasemonkey script to make sure they know what to do and how. Some - Lisa, you know you who are! - got carried away and did several hundred that way. Some are concerned that in waiting for Feb 2 Getty may give their images away in some other deal and so are deactivating model released images now. Sean's blog post is a very good summary of what's been going on I deactivated 10 the other day to test and I'll zap 1,000+ on February 2nd if we don't get anywhere useful by then - for example.
4638
« on: January 18, 2013, 15:03 »
When you make that symbol, make another one for me - a walker perhaps? - I joined SS when there was no entrance test! Of course there was also no FTP and Jon was doing inspections himself in his spare time
4639
« on: January 18, 2013, 14:40 »
I only photograph people, so it looks like I can't even complete the application as it would be impossible for me to find 20 images for application that represent my body of work. I am surprised that an agency would have such a limiting constraint.
I turned on the No People filter on your iStock port and it showed me 844 images. I think there's at least 20 keepers in that lot
4640
« on: January 18, 2013, 14:38 »
GL Stock Images DOES NOT ACCEPT the following images:
Editorial images. We do not offer this license.
Images that contain copyrighted or trademarked content.
Images that require a property release.
I asked about that as I have quite a few. It's fine to submit those once approved - just add the property releases to the same area as model releases
4641
« on: January 18, 2013, 14:34 »
Fixed - thanks.
4643
« on: January 18, 2013, 12:53 »
Bear in mind that some of those in the 30 day wait or about to start the clock don't want that known just yet. Those of us who know some who are in this situation are not going to "out" them.
And, back on topic, thanks to SS for doing this. And I think that those of us who do well there needn't fear more files getting added. Making the SS library stronger just makes it more appealing for those business customers not already using it. That rising tide lifts all boats thing...
4644
« on: January 18, 2013, 10:54 »
4645
« on: January 18, 2013, 02:39 »
I submitted 20 today and received the accepted letter. What does "15 pending" mean though? Does that mean they only want 5 in their collection, but the others maybe okay but no commercial value maybe? About 95% of my shots are released people so I didn't have a great selection to pick from. Need to figure out the release business also.
Releases are straightforward - you upload them and their inspectors reference them. No need to attach releases to images (I do have shots of property and people on the releases for reference; not sure if they might need a bit of help if that wasn't the case) Pending means it's in the queue; unfinished means you've left off necessary information (title, keywords, description). I assume they will inspect the other 15 shortly and you'll see those become accepted in your dashboard
4646
« on: January 18, 2013, 01:50 »
oh dear, I have nil so far, that is disappointing.
They're only up toDec 3rd so far - there's lots more of the month ahead. And January will be slower - March will be the next uptick. ETA: They're working on Dec 4th Dec 5th now
4647
« on: January 18, 2013, 01:32 »
I have no ill will towards Google over this deal. They did nothing wrong. They probably didn't know that Getty was orchestrating a shady and potentially illegal arrangement in terms of how this would affect the contributors whose images were included in the deal, but Google really wouldn't have had any way of knowing that.
It's none of their concern what sort of arrangement (or lack there of) Getty had worked out with us. Google needs images, Getty has lots of them, a deal is made. And Google would have no reason to suspect that the images were acquired in any underhanded way.
I understand your point, but I think you're letting Google off the hook way too easily. If you tell me you have a great deal on a 60" flat screen LED TV for $25, I have to know that there's something amiss. Google knows what they paid per image - $60 for the first round and with the $6 royalties showing up, I guess some cost them $30 each. Given they get the right to offer these images for free to millions of Google Drive users, they have to know that $60 is dirt cheap even if Getty gave us all the money - and they have to know Getty won't give us all the money. You don't buy those kinds of rights for that amount of cash - not legitimately anyway.
4648
« on: January 17, 2013, 20:40 »
I can't find it at it seems to have been deleted from the thread on Istock. If anyone has it can you post it? I have also contacted Sean for a direct link...
Here's the post where Leaf posted a link in case iStock deleted it. Thanks Leaf
4649
« on: January 17, 2013, 17:29 »
...Can't remove my Photo+ collection images right away, ...
If you meant that you can't afford to remove them, that's obviously understandable. If you meant that you thought iStock would prevent you from removing them, that's not the case. You can disable Photo+ images at any time. The 6 month lock is only to prevent movement back to the main collection. It's not like DT's 6 month hold which really means you can't delete them for that time.
4650
« on: January 17, 2013, 15:59 »
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
