|
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 - RalfLiebhold
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15
51
« on: March 24, 2024, 17:04 »
I was also in the red this month.
Let me ask you a stupid question.
Why do we actually have to pay if a customer buys pictures here illegally and against the rules?
In my world, the customer has to pay for the damage.
52
« on: March 20, 2024, 16:49 »
Yes, for me too.
Images submitted on Friday.
Today, unusually after 5 days, the review of my editorial images:
Entire batch of different images rejected due to allegedly AI-generated images or illustration designations. Both of which are wrong.
Commercial images are still on hold. Something seems to be going very wrong at the moment.
Thanks for the info, this seems to be a general problem.
53
« on: March 15, 2024, 15:37 »
I don't understand why people waste their time uploading to Dreamstime
The upload for already prepared images runs on the side and I wouldn't call it work. Brings in around 400 dollars a year. If I add the other small agency Deposit, I get a total of $800. I can easily fly to the Canary Islands or pay the electricity bill from here from that amount. I think that's cool for the small outlay and a nice extra income for a hobby. I don't understand your question.
54
« on: March 14, 2024, 15:58 »
Hi Ralf,
Thank you for the really interesting information.
Editorial did really very well for me on SS, which is the main reason I miss the port a lot and twenty20. Also on istock still regular sales.
Never thought about sending editorial to Dreamstime. Will absolutely do that.
They even have a breaking news section from what I read.
And always, they were the only agency that raised payouts during the pandemic. i think that counts for something.
Jasmin, every agency reacts differently to the portfolio. Because of the editorials, Alamy is probably also doing very well for me in comparison. But I have completely written off iStock for myself. I only reach the payout limit here every 1-2 years. It's a shame because of all the upload work, but it doesn't really upset me. It works better for others, so it's down to my port. I absolutely agree with you that Dreamstime is one of the fairer agencies. That's why I don't understand all the excitement here, or even hostility. If you only cash out once in a blue moon, you should just forget about the agency like I did with iStock. There are more important things to get excited about 
55
« on: March 14, 2024, 12:45 »
"Some people do cash out a few times a year, my compliments to them for having the right images for DT, to make it work."
I have been wondering about this. The DT sales thread has people who post quite often. Most of them are fully exclusive with DT.
Not sure how much they make, but some of them have very strong sales with a small or a not so great port (IMO). Also quite a bit of editorial sales. I keep undererstimating editorial everywhwere.
There also some well known people with large people ports that have very high sales numbers.
In the end quality always makes money.
I get a payout from Dreamstime (not exclusive) 3-4 times a year. Approx. 15,000 images, no videos. Rarely sales in the 2 digit range. Most sales are actually editorials. I wouldn't necessarily attribute it to the quality, but to the topics. I edit a whole range of niches.
56
« on: March 08, 2024, 15:37 »
Even automated online payments are not free. You need software, a payment service provider or payment gateway. This costs money and the prices usually depend on the invoice volume.
In this respect, Dreamstime's argument is understandable.
I prefer the high payout limit to lower sales revenue 
Payment companies offer these transfers, services and free software to many sender, as they take a good cut in the currency exchange, with the loss of the recipient of course.
In my opinion, this is not correct. If you look at the price structures of payment gateways such as Ayden, Stripe (payment service for Airbnb) etc., the client (sender) pays the costs and not the the recipient. This is comparable to card payments. As a businessman, you pay the fees for the transfer and use of the devices.
57
« on: March 08, 2024, 09:17 »
I haven't written them, but I have seen statements by them in their forum, here is a direct quote:
"We cannot accommodate requests of $50 for the simple reason this would increase the payment requests volume considerably."
I have no idea why in 2024 some companies still claim an online payment process cannot be automated.
Even automated online payments are not free. You need software, a payment service provider or payment gateway. This costs money and the prices usually depend on the invoice volume. In this respect, Dreamstime's argument is understandable. I prefer the high payout limit to lower sales revenue
58
« on: March 07, 2024, 16:52 »
You signed up with the site when these payment terms were clearly stated - no changes, no subterfuge. Making totally false statements about the agency doesn't help anyone.
Thank you Jo Ann, that's exactly the point. Dreamstime pays me on time several times a year. If one is struggling to reach the payout limit, it might be the wrong agency for the portfolio.
59
« on: February 19, 2024, 16:56 »
The logo is not protected, so it can be used for this purpose. However, agencies, especially Shutterstock, may still only accept it as editorial.
60
« on: February 19, 2024, 11:05 »
Just wanted to check, Am I ok to use the recycling kitemark on images?
Perhaps you can specify this in more detail. The BSI Kitemark logo for recycled Computers/IT is a trademark and protected. The classic recycling logo with three green arrows in a circle, on the other hand, can be used freely.
61
« on: February 14, 2024, 17:06 »
So if this happened, one has the purchase date, the ID of the asset bought. Screenshot both, maybe even do a screen recording of buying the assets. If they don't appear in your sales after a month - voila, you've got yourself a case against SS and potentially millions in reimbursement.
Just like that. You could prove it if you wanted to, especially as it was alleged that work was affected that had never been sold before. Screenshots on both pages.
62
« on: February 12, 2024, 14:50 »
I think it's irresponsible and there's nothing but someone who knows someone who said they did this.
There needs to be better accounting and methodology to start running to forums with "Shutterstock steals sales. Control purchase" claims. I'm not the one, but years ago someone else and a few people said, if Leaf wants to risk the whole forum and being sued by allowing this kind of post, he's risking that all, for rumors and a friend who knows someone who.... What I mean is, SS could sue him into oblivion.
"The result as of February 1 is the total number of sales for all interested parties - 7" And "9 purchases randomly" If there were 9 random purchases, how did this group verify, if there were sales reported or not. Did they go contact the 9 random people who had images, with no sales? Can you see if an image has no sales, on someone else's account?
How many sales does this image have?
If Shutterstock reads your message, they could shut down the forum, demand to know who you are, and by law Leaf has to tell them anything he knows, email/IP address/logins, and then you would be sued for libel.
How about someone do this test, with data, verification of everything, and independence from the contributors financially. Then after discovering if the claims have a basis in fact, publish the study. Do what you claimed, buy a 25 pack, start a fresh new buyer account, no link to any contributors. Find 25 contributors that can be associated with their images. Make the buy, without their knowledge, without knowing which image. Wait a week and collect the facts.
I'm really surprised at how many people here are willing to spread rumors and believe that the whole Microstock industry is just a game, and fake. I've read the same claims about other agencies, just in case that seems out of place. Especially DP and those not based in the US.
Fair is fair, ask for the proof and people making claims, show the evidence, not I know someone knows someone, who says...
Thanks Pete, thought I was the only one with rumblings in my belly here. "Shutterstock steals sales..." is sold as fact in the headline here. No evidence is given. But somehow it works, as it always does. Because the news fits the picture for many, the brain is switched off and the "facts" are applauded. Based on journalistic research, millions of people in Germany are taking to the streets against a right-wing party. Because it fits the political mood, the content was adopted one-to-one without thinking by politicians and the press. It is now becoming increasingly clear that this research was largely a hoax. The protests continue nonetheless, and the wording and narrative continue to be used.
63
« on: February 11, 2024, 16:21 »
It's an interesting experiment, and I understand that the contributors want to stay anonymous, because buying your own images is against the TOS. But on the other hand, this leaves very little room for verification. Anyone can claim anything. Always be careful with 3rd party information like "heard it from a friend who has been told by a friend that another friend..." Information can get thickened or altered per hop :-).
Not saying it isn't true, but always be careful with jumping into conclusions. We don't know what happened afterwards, there might be a delay in reporting, and maybe the rest of the sales were reported later, after the story started to get around. Or the system flagged some sales as fraudulent, because, well, they were buying their own images, and however not directly, it still might have triggered some red flags in the system.
That said. I wouldn't be too surprised either if it's true. There's also no way to know what has been sold to whom and how it is used. We just have to... trust the agencies. And in all fairness, that's a bit of a stretch for me. They might not hold back on reporting deliberately, but technical issues do occur, and what happens in case of database corruptions, interfacing issues, or anything else technical. I can imagine that in such case some sales went into the nirvana and never got reported.
I don't have a personal experience with this. I use google alerts to see if one of my images pops up on the internet (if I'm credited) and in such cases there was always a matching sale reported at the agency. I know this covers only the tip of the iceberg, and impossible to track for images that sell daily or very regularly, but at least, it's that. Until now I could not catch one of the agencies on not reporting a sale.
Thank you, you have also summarized my thoughts very well here. Fraud is conceivable and possible, but there are too many unknown variables to draw reliable conclusions. Edit: What always makes me a little suspicious these days are lurid sensational headlines without supporting evidence: "Shutterstock steals sales..." At this point in time, this should perhaps have been worded a little differently.
64
« on: February 10, 2024, 18:38 »
Now to the next rejections, which I don't understand.
I had already contacted support with specific questions, and after several weeks all I received was a reference to the relevant link for illustrative Editorial. Not really helpful.
Here is a Pink Floyd cover and the cover of a book with the Pschyrembel brand, a medical reference book used in Europe and therefore also a strong brand.
65
« on: February 09, 2024, 15:05 »
66
« on: February 09, 2024, 05:29 »
I received the answer today, thank you Mat.
In my example, the MGM logo is from the fifties. Today's logo looks different, so it was wrongly assumed that this image was generated with AI. The image is now online.
I think this can also be applied to rkz91's example.
The question is how to deal with this realization in the future. Some of my images are affected.
67
« on: February 07, 2024, 13:55 »
What is wrong with this picture, for example, by definition, no people, brand bold in the foreground.
Images that feature tight crops of copyrighted or trademarked material,
That's my guess for each of them.
Maybe, but last year this stuff was accepted. I hope that Mat can shed some light on the matter.
68
« on: February 07, 2024, 06:08 »
I'm not sure on this one Ralf. What is the image number? I'll look into it.
-Mat
Thank you Mat, I have just sent you a PM.
69
« on: February 06, 2024, 16:28 »
At one point I thought I had understood their Illustrative Editorial system. No significant problem over the years.
For months now, I've been receiving a hail of rejections :
Thanks for submitting your file for review.
Unfortunately, during our review we found that this file does not meet the Adobe Stocks Illustrative Editorial Guidelines.
What is wrong with this picture, for example, by definition, no people, brand bold in the foreground.
70
« on: January 25, 2024, 15:02 »
Oh, I see. Now I am the bad guy here and I need to prove innocent. This community and whole stock industry is going downhill.
It's not about me and my portfolio. I will deal with it together with Adobe support. It's about unfair contributors that steal also your images. If you don't have any problem with that then GOOD LUCK.
You should have noticed that many people here are interested in your topic and want to support you. But nobody can really understand the real problem. So it's not very helpful to curse the whole forum. Nobody expects you to reveal your entire portfolio here. But just show an example so that the simple-minded forum community can understand your request.
71
« on: January 17, 2024, 13:55 »
After I dutifully ticked the box for the new annoying superfluous confirmation for the terms and conditions, a window popped up that I had never seen before:
Are You human?
I would have spontaneously said yes.
But I was presented with 9 pictures in which I had to click on cats. I hate cats. Nevertheless, I passed the test, which fills me with a certain pride.
However, I was very unsure about one picture.
...
this called invisible recaptcha
from developers POV:
"reCAPTCHA v3 allows you to verify if an interaction is legitimate without any user interaction. It is a pure JavaScript API returning a score, giving you the ability to take action in the context of your site: for instance requiring additional factors of authentication, sending a post to moderation, or throttling bots that may be scraping content."
https://developers.google.com/recaptcha/docs/versions
so most of the time real users won't need to answer a captcha. i have it working on my WP site & it eliminated most bots while letting actual users in.
re having to be exact in the puzzle - if you make a mistake it just gives you another chance
Thank you Steve, I know that. My posting was rather ironic in nature. I would prefer to recognize beer bottles or cheeseburgers The question is how many more obstacles Adobe wants to put in the way of us submitting images for a multi-week review that are then rejected for incomprehensible reasons. As a conventional contributor, I no longer enjoy using Adobe.
72
« on: January 16, 2024, 16:41 »
I just wanted to add five photos to my three-month queue at Adobe today. That's ok, I appreciate careful checks. After I dutifully ticked the box for the new annoying superfluous confirmation for the terms and conditions, a window popped up that I had never seen before: Are You human?
I would have spontaneously said yes. But I was presented with 9 pictures in which I had to click on cats. I hate cats. Nevertheless, I passed the test, which fills me with a certain pride. However, I was very unsure about one picture. Adobe, are you really serious that I have to research naked cats before I submit my pictures? Now 2 very urgent questions pop up in my head: - What kind of stuff do you smoke at Adobe? I might be able to advise you - Will I be banned for months if I click on the dog? Thank You.
73
« on: January 16, 2024, 13:31 »
Generally when you ask yourself if it is a waste of time you already know that it is a waste of time 
I don't think you can generalize that. I have 4 - 5 payouts a year. That's okay for the effort involved No problems with uploading here.
74
« on: January 11, 2024, 15:01 »
Pete, your joke was good and there was really nothing to explain Your aluminum foil seems a bit outdated though. I use aluminum adhesive sealing tape, which is better to sleep with. During the day, an aluminum salad bowl is usually enough
75
« on: January 11, 2024, 14:33 »
Yes, something has changed.
This year, almost half of my downloads were for $1.36 or $1.40. Nothing above that either, though.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
