|
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 - MichaelJay
51
« on: December 16, 2009, 19:42 »
The wikipedia article for Santa Claus is interesting.
"A nearly identical story is attributed by Greek and Byzantine folklore to Basil of Caesarea. Basil's feast day on January 1 is considered the time of exchanging gifts in Greece."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus
Well, as you can see from the name Santa Claus is derived from Saint Nicolas - who has his holiday on December 6 (which is celebrated in some countries). Only the mixture of pagan and Christian values have moved him to Xmas in the first place. But in no way, he is bringing any presents on New Year's. I am aware that Slavian countries are celebrating New Year's more in the way of exchanging gifts like we celebrate Christmas in the west. But as far as I know this again is not in any way considered to be Christmas. From my understanding, the Orthodox church calendar is about two weeks behind of the Catholic/Protestant calendar and Orthodox Christmas is being celebrated on January 7. So however you turn it, Santa Claus or Christmas in general can not be connected to New Year's. Just my personal opinion, of course.
52
« on: December 16, 2009, 19:02 »
Yes, we exclusives all got down to 50 images/week - the basic rate for fresh exclusives... so this is definitely not a plan but an accident. 
53
« on: December 16, 2009, 15:14 »
Count me as another nowhere near the fence. I don't see the logic in going exclusive... I don't have a big port right now, but even if I did, I don't expect IS to ever grow to be more than 50% of my total revenue, so I would have to make double what I make as a non-exclusive to make sense to go exclusive. So a question to the IS exclusives out there... did the added exposure and/or increased upload limits get you anywhere near doubling your revenues on IS?
What you seem to have missed is that since June of this year, exclusives can contribute to Vetta which has been a huge success so far. And from next year there will be a second collection priced between regular images and Vetta. And exclusive images will be priced higher than non-exclusive images as of January. So I doubt that exclusives make "only" double what they would make at iStock as non-exclusives. And obviously there's also the option to get into Getty - which you can get into without iStock as well, of course. But not having to work for the application is a nice bonus... 
54
« on: December 16, 2009, 07:13 »
Wouldn't we see a 1Ds Mark IV first? And then maybe a year later a 5DIII with the same sensor? 
55
« on: December 15, 2009, 15:44 »
The industry now generates something like $500M per year and is still growing fast
May I ask if this number is just a wild guess or if you have a foundation to base this on? Just curiosity.
56
« on: December 14, 2009, 07:29 »
Still, if some files get promoted in the best match, others will have to fall back - and, at 20% of eligible exclusive content, we are talking a possible amount of 600.000 photos here - if every exclusive uses his/her full quota... No objection. Just wanted to point out that those quotes are not about the regular images. :-)
57
« on: December 14, 2009, 07:12 »
In the first one JJRD says - answering a question if exclusives would have a better postition in the best match come February: "We do not like, as you know, to answer such questions... with that said, if we introduce such a thing as ''Exclusive +'', controlled by exclusive contributors, chances are that the answer to your question could be yes.", in the second it's less obvious, but he still states that: "So given that statement, the conclusion is obvious, needless to say: yes, it will be easier, somehow, to find files that have been flagged by exclusive contributors as deserving to be included in Exclusive +''. Just to make sure everybody understands these quotes correctly: It's about "Exclusive Plus", a collection which is planned to be added some time next year. This collection will be at a higher price point than regular images, somewhere between regular exclusive images and Vetta. In those posts, JJRD mentions that - similar to Vetta files today - those Exclusive Plus images might get a benefit in search positioning over regular images. Whatever it is about best match positioning for regular exclusive vs. regular non-exclusive images is based on speculation. But those quotes have nothing to do with "regular" files.
58
« on: July 21, 2009, 01:35 »
Putting any level of ND filter on would just mean taking a longer exposure so I don't think that would offer any protection to the camera/sensor, but it would to your eyes. I wouldn't bet on a that. I think regular ND filters go up to about 8x, most likely not enough to reduce the sunlight significantly to protect your eyes, so definitely avoid using the viewfinder. And honestly, I am not convinced that the sensor will not take harm if you aim to the sun too long. I'd guess, the lens reduces the sunbeams like a loupe to the sensor. Combined with a long lens (200mm and more recommended) this will cause serious heat on the sensor. I wouldn't take that risk to an expensive camera. I would recommend to build your own lens protection with special sunfilter foil* (which should be available somewhere around when an eclipse is getting close). You need to keep it on the lens until very close before the total eclipse, then you can remove it to take pics of the corona during eclipse (though even that might look more impressive with the foil on and longer shutter times) but don't forget to put it on again. Be sure to set everything up (tripod, camera, foil) to test it in time before the eclipse starts. You won't have time to test it later. Use a big memory card and shoot lots of bracketing, you will hardly get the exposure right with every shot. * and don't try to build your own "sun protection foil" from other dark foils. They might reduce the visible spectrum but not protect from UV and/or IR, this won't help protecting your eyes or camera from getting burned.
59
« on: July 16, 2009, 07:28 »
Michael sorry but you are assuming I was in retail, No, I don't. You posted a different example from a supermarket before already which had no connection to agency business model. The other example you are bringing now is sub-contracting, yet another way of doing business, very common in construction and IT. Also, comparing physical products with licenses for digital media is just not right. There is no (direct) loss occurring when somebody copies a file. There only is a potential indirect loss of unlicensed use. That's why I object to all those comparisons. Why not keep it simple and discuss the matter at hand?
60
« on: July 16, 2009, 06:01 »
Payment refunds should be written in the contract, if not then they are liable to pay you the revenue for the downloads, I have run a small business and if my customers did not pay me, I was still liable to pay my suppliers and the tax (VAT) on the revenue that I never received payment for, no one in the real world will work on a pay when paid basis, unless they are paid a premium rate! Sorry David, your comparisons don't make any sense. There is a difference between agency business and retailer business. An agency doesn't take ownership of your property at any point, they just offer you to market your product on your behalf. They also deal with payment and delivery of the product. If they sell one of your products, they are taking a share of the sales they have made. But at no point they are the owner of your product and as such they are at no point obliged to pay for a product of yours. That's how agencies are working in principle (I'm not talking about stock images here but a business model that applies to different industries). Edit: Doesn't add to the actual debate of this topic, of course.
61
« on: July 15, 2009, 01:50 »
thank you, sean! i followed your advice and i'm now all approved... 
Congrats. ;-)
62
« on: July 09, 2009, 13:26 »
Would like to know the experiences of other people who don't have vetta files (exclusive or not). Have your Istock sales died out in July too?
(exclusive without Vetta images) My sales have suffered before from the best match changes in spring and BM2 but I can't see major changes between June and July. A friend of mine who has some Vetta images has a bit lower downloads than June which can easily be attributed to summer slowdown but it's currently compensated with a few but valuable Vetta sales each day. I'd expect the summer drop in general to be much lower than the last years due to many companies sending their employees into vacation and closing down completely for one or two weeks. And marketing money that is left will be saved for the holiday season. If you are seeing steady sales on other sites I'm a bit surprised but it might also be that the American market (where iStock is strongest) is taking vacations earlier than Europe (where others are relatively stronger). I'd say this year we all can only judge if it was a good year end of November.
63
« on: July 09, 2009, 09:14 »
I think those points are very interesting and valuable. As an agency owner I wouldn't agree to point 3), though - editing takes time and effort. And customers don't like it because the image they added to their lightbox suddenly disappears. I would ask contributors to leave their images at least 3 months on the site and would try to find a way to pre-warn customers that the image is going to disappear (say take 14 days after removal request). Also, I think all your points are very contributor driven. You don't mention a lot how you would attract customers (besides the fact that you don't have all the popular images everyone else has ). So I assume your agency would fail quickly as you focus too much on the wrong side of food chain.
64
« on: July 06, 2009, 07:32 »
Hi, the original release that i downloaded on the 28.06.09 has the word "optional" next to the "attach visual etc etc" wording. The current one i downloaded today doesn't? Ok, I see... as it appears to me right now is that iStock has decided to unify their release with Getty's MR which makes sense especially for contributors uploading to both sites. I am still not aware that there is any change to the policy that Visual Reference and Ethnicity Information are optional. I will try to find out what I can.
65
« on: July 06, 2009, 06:36 »
As i don't upload images with people that much have i just realised something that changed months ago or just recently. No longer is the "Attach Visual Reference here" box optional as it was it seems; and is also more prominant on the form. Has this had any impact on anyone else or will this make it even more unlikly for me to upload model based images to istock. People are reticent to say the least when faced with a form let alone one that requires further visual reference!! If this is the case i shall take them elsewhere. I'm not sure which old MR you are referring to. But from my knowledge, there is no change in policy, Visual Reference is still optional (hence the grey box) and is meant to be an additional protection for photographers who wish to use it.
66
« on: July 02, 2009, 08:51 »
That image has very good sales on other places... Happy to hear that, good for you. Wish I could see it somewhere actually selling.
67
« on: July 02, 2009, 08:25 »
And then one photo only sells for $1? You mean, after you sold your image once, it's lost forever? Sorry but there might be an error in your calculation. LOL Seriously: Jonathan Ross stated that he aims for about 200 stock images from a day's worth of shooting when trying to produce microstock. I guess most of them will return far more than $10 or $20 in the long term. Also I doubt your numbers are true for most model shoots. Many models are working at much lower prices. Yuri himself stated somewhere (if I remember correctly) that his models have to work for free for the first two or three shoots to get used to his style of work. And many of his key images picture his girl-friend... that's a way to save money from your calculation I'd say.
68
« on: July 02, 2009, 07:58 »
I sold an image with a New Year's resolution for January 2008 just two weeks ago. May sound a bit late but if a designer can make use of it in June 2009... who am I to complain?
69
« on: July 02, 2009, 06:46 »
It's a bit difficult to build a large portfolio on istock with 15 slots a week and less than perfect acceptance rate. One reason I want to go exclusive there is the larger upload quota. I think the "small portfolio" / "big portfolio" does not reflect the actual problem. Might have been in the past when more uploads mostly meant more downloads. But a portfolio built from images that sell just randomly will always see random phases of less or more downloads. Scroll a bit down here to see the "Related Topics" and you will see that others always had similar issues on different sites. It's just part of how it is. edit: Just having to add that you started uploading at iStock almost at the same time as I did but I still have three times more images online and I feel I have been terribly lazy for months in between. 
70
« on: July 02, 2009, 03:32 »
Now I get it: Getty's out to appease the exclusives. Well, in a way I guess that's fair , if you're exclusive. Well, factually not right. The Vetta (formerly project name Premiere) collection was already announced in early December 2008. There is no connection to the "Partner Program" (which is the photos.com/JIU deal you are discussing about here). It was launched as the research indicated that the market might be mature enough to grow from microstock to provide higher-value imagery.
71
« on: July 02, 2009, 03:09 »
I apologize if I read your first postings wrong. It seems I was a bit off track by assumptions that any "reasonable" country in the western hemisphere has more or less similar rules.
I have now tried to get some information about the situation in Spain and from all what I have seen in the internet, it appears that Spain actually is the country in Western Europe making it the hardest to become a self-employed person, especially if you try to do it as a secondary income.
I hope you will find some fellow Spanish microstocker who has gone through all this. Or you can find a local tax advisor who can give you some other solution.
72
« on: July 01, 2009, 03:05 »
BTW Michael, when are you available for a tie-breaker? Two lypses ahead and a relocation in September... I'd say ask me again end of October.
73
« on: July 01, 2009, 02:11 »
StockXpert had more images from most non-exclusives and we were able to sell new images, unless I have missed something, they have to be over 18 months old to be put on photos.com from IS. If I remember it correctly, this limitation (18 months) is only valid for IS exclusive members to assure that new exclusive content is available at IS only for that period. Non-exclusives should be able to send all their current uploads to both places as well.
74
« on: July 01, 2009, 02:09 »
I like ISTOCK very much. But how do you know that you will not encounter an egocentric individual who will frustrate you just as much as Fotolia? Well, I would say iStock has multiple ways of dealing with complaints. From my personal experience (and those issues of other contributors that I had to deal with), you will always find more than one person willing and able to (re-)consider a problem. I really don't think that "an egocentric individual" will be able to cause problems. Though, honestly, I also doubt that this is the case very often at other professional agencies. However, there are cases where the policy just says "no" and no matter how good you think your arguments are (including the often heard "but other similar images are online...") and how irrational you judge the decision, you will find most agencies to be pretty strict on those matters. With regards to the "using bought 3D models" issue: I would recommend NOT basing a decision to go exclusive on iStock solely on the assumption that iStock will accept all 3D renders built on bought models forever. 3D rendering still is in a pretty early stage compared to the photo and vector illustration parts and you see changes to policies all the time in those areas as well. So at any point in the future, iStock might change their policies in this regard as well (as they did with using public domain NASA images last year, for example)
75
« on: June 29, 2009, 08:13 »
Try the Irs again and im sure youll get another answer. I don't think the IRS (I assume you are talking about the US one) is going to be the right entitiy to ask. Ask your local tax office, an accountant or tax advisor. They are more interested in helping you...
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
