|
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 - travelstock
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 40
51
« on: April 14, 2015, 15:26 »
Like all of these new entrants, they offer good terms to start with, knowing fully that they have a clause in their contracts that says:
"This Agreement is subject to change by us in our sole discretion at any time. "
When they change their pricing or commission structure, they also know that very few contributors will pull their content. What it 100% of $49 now will almost certainly change to a lower percentage of a lower $$ figure in the future.
For those earning a living from licensing content, it also makes no sense to offer your content to a site that makes most of its money through a model where contributors only get paid once - the really cheap subs model from their own content.
If you don't think the other agencies have responded, take another look at what SS is doing with video on Bigstock. Its exactly the same model.
Having more agencies in this market doesn't help contributors - the opposite has proven to be true.
52
« on: November 30, 2014, 11:50 »
@holgs: this may apply, depending on your account and card. If you'd like me to confirm this for you, please send me a message with your account e-mail.
Thanks, I sent that message, but haven't received an answer yet.
53
« on: September 18, 2014, 07:45 »
This is something called a "cross border" charge, which is not specific to Payoneer and exists with many different online payment solutions, debit cards, and credit cards. You can do a general online search for that term to read more about it.
In addition to the Payoneer card, individuals getting paid from Pond5 or any other company that pays with Payoneer can choose to receive funds directly to their bank account. This service is localized in over 60 countries (and available to over 200), which means that we send funds from local bank accounts, in local currencies. For 6 major currencies we do so using rates of only 2% above the official market mid-rate at the time of transfer, which is an extremely good rate and better than most other wire solutions. At a cost of only $2.99 per transfer this is a great way to receive payments at a low cost.
Of course for anyone looking to receive cash in hand immediately, the Payoneer card still enables you to access funds literally within minutes, which has proven to be extremely beneficial to the millions of people around the world getting paid with Payoneer.
Does this 1% apply if I withdraw cash from an ATM in the US & my account address is outside the US?
54
« on: November 09, 2013, 08:17 »
I wonder what contributors expect from the Mexpo. 
A good party ;-)
Ok, this one is a good reason :-)
On the more serious side - meeting people and networking (as business cliche as that sounds) and sharing and listening to ideas is one of the bigger things I get out of conferences like this.
+1 I'll be there also, mainly for this reason. There's a lot of interesting and impressive people who will be coming along. As always you'll get something out of the presentations, but probably just as much or more in the discussions along the sidelines.
55
« on: February 08, 2013, 14:22 »
Looks like a really crappy, spammy site that seems to be using hidden links on the images to get people to click through to Agoda.com - presumably they're part of the affiliate program there. Pretty sure this practice isn't allowed by Agoda's affiliate terms. You could also send a complaint to them. Also don't forget these sites are trying to use google's image search to generate traffic - they're counting on google's search giving more weight to large image sizes. If you have a valid copyright complaint you can also send a notice to google to have your images delisted there - of course there is the problem with 123RF's license not placing any restrictions on web sized use. Probably worth noting that they are also using editorial images contrary to the 123RF license: 3. You may NOT (For Content marked as "Editorial Use Only"):
(a) Unless additional rights are stipulated in the Section 2, or granted pursuant to a separate license agreement, Content may not be used for any commercial, promotional, advertising or merchandising use. So if you have any editorial images up there you probably have a more valid complaint that they can't use them for this.
56
« on: February 06, 2013, 07:18 »
We do not really have "contracts" with the agencies. You agree to accept their conditions and they can change the terms and notify you of the changes. Then you have the choice to either leave the agency or accept the conditions. The word "contract" implies that both parties had some input into their mutual business arrangement, but that is not the case. It is a one-sided take it or leave it. A bit like renting a stall at the market to sell your stuff, if the landlord raises the rent you can either accept it (and the reduced profit) or quit and find a different market. But maybe the original market is still the best location for your products, so you put up with the higher rent.
No this is more like you renting out the stall, and the renter telling you they've changed the contract in a way that lets them keep the stall but stop paying you rent for it. There's nothing left to do on your side of the contract with respect to previously referred contributors, just SS deciding to cancel payment as previously agreed. Many contracts are created in a way where a standard set of terms is drawn up by one party on a take-it-or-leave-it basis - that doesn't mean that the weaker bargaining party has no rights or that alteration clauses can be read so widely. As with most commercial transactions, there is a contract involved - how its going to be interpreted really depends on whether anyone is prepared to challenge what is being done.
57
« on: February 05, 2013, 13:42 »
From Shutterstock's referral program page (emphasis added): Make money by referring other photographers! If you sign up a photographer - that photographer will receive $0.25 on their photo downloads - and you will receive $0.03 on their downloads! You could make money by merely promoting the Shutterstock Submit Program! All you have to do is have them visit the link customized for your account below. A cookie will be stored on their computer so that they could sign up within 30 days - and you will still receive credit! As long as they continue to be a member, you will continue to make money off of their photos! Basically they're now trying to reneg on their side of the contract in respect of past referrals. If they want to do it for future referrals that's one thing - if you don't want to participate you can simply withdraw from the program by deleting links etc or not passing on information by word of mouth. For past referrals, there is simply no way of "unreferring" contributors. You've already performed your end of the bargain, now they're trying to back out theirs by cutting off payment. Time to seek decent legal advice for those that have enough of an interest in this.
58
« on: October 28, 2012, 15:18 »
I'm really tempted by the Olympus E-M5! What lenses do you have? Are you able to submit to all major microstock website and Alamy?
"The quality as as good as a Canon 7D or quite as good as 5D Mark II." maybe this is a little bit too much, but anyway I love the body, and I was just concerned about picture quality for microstock.
Have you tried also shooting some videos?
I have to agree with Amos. Image quality is a subjective term and will really depend much more on the lenses you're using. On a straight comparison of sensors, the OM-D holds up very well to the 5D mk2 (lets not forget that the 5D mk2 sensor is about 4 years older) and is a little ahead of the 7D http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/793%7C0/(brand)/Olympus/(appareil2)/619%7C0/(brand2)/Canon/(appareil3)/562%7C0/(brand3)/Sony. Compared to other mirrorless systems, NEX is still a let-down for available lenses & the quality of what is there. X-Pro is a great fit for some, but its not really for everyone. Micro 4/3 has by far the bigest range of lenses available & although theres still some gaps has compelling options in most focal lengths. I'd keep away from the Olympus 17mm f2.8 though - the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 is a much nicer lens - faster, sharper, better contrast & lower CA. The new Olympus 75mm 1.8 is a beautiful lens if you're after a top quality portrait lens, but its not cheap. The 45mm f1.8 is tiny, inexpensive & a gem. My one big con with the system is the maximum resolution that's available at the moment - at 16MP it only gets XL file sizes on iStock, not the XXXL that most full frame or some of the APS-C cameras allow you to upload. Really its the one big factor thats stopping me from switching away from full-frame completely.
59
« on: September 17, 2012, 22:40 »
If it can be of help
http://www.microstockjournal.com/real-value-istock
These graphs are only useful if you also give the size of your port at each, and the length of time they have been on each agency.
For example, there's a regular poster on the Alamy forum who constantly reiterates how much more he makes from his Alamy port than his iStock port. I don't doubt that for a minute: he has thousands of images in his Alamy port, and the last time I looked, fewer than 20 in his iStock port.
I'm not implying that your figures are so extreme, but there are certainly stats and 'useful stats'. I for one would be more interested in $$ earned at each agency than dls, but again it would mean nothing without the other details.
Better still let us see the portfolios. Not quite as extreme as the alamy examples, but still: 12715 images on Shutterstock http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-210376p1.html7,594 on Fotolia http://us.fotolia.com/p/2021631685,115 Dreamstime http://www.dreamstime.com/minervastudio_info1559 on istock http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/3809571Probably compounding the difference in sales is that iStock is much more restrictive with image collages & doesn't let you create the sort of "budget bundles" of isolated business people that are popular in this portfolio.
60
« on: September 05, 2012, 00:15 »
Got it. Any chance that exclusives will have a place on the rankings?
Yeah, i should figure out how to include them. I have them sifted off in the results but haven't displayed their results anywhere
Why not compare total incomes from photo sales for exclusives to non-exclusives. It may mean creating a separate question or two, and having higher maximums than in the current poll, but isn't that what everyone is really interested in?
61
« on: September 05, 2012, 00:08 »
They said restart your browser and try again.
I've done that. three different computers and a tablet.... nada.
Yeah, me too, nada.
The site is back online, just that many servers won't have caught up yet. At the moment I can't get to it from an IP address in Thailand, but can access the site via a proxy server from an IP in the US.
62
« on: June 24, 2012, 10:54 »
Thank you. Yes, I realized than, that probably I will not get much responses here to such specific question. But I wanted to give it a try anyway. Who knows maybe someone from here could have experienced similar problem.
But I will try to post my question on Olympus specific forums to see whether someone will help.
I think the problem you're running into is that the lens you're using is pretty slow and isn't one that is really intended to use with teleconverter in the first place, even if its technically possible on the original 4/3 format.
I am not sure if this could be the case of speed of lens. If it was only slow, than there should be at least SOME light changes on resulting image if the lens is pointed into very intensive light source, such as into light bulb, with long exposure set. Shouldnt it?  But the black image in viewfinder, also image on preview display or image itself is not changed. Never! No matter what I do with it, or how long exposure I set. The result is always black, as if NO light reaches sensor. When I demount the configuration from E-M5, I mean configuration like this, without camera:
[MMF-2] > [Olympus EC-20 Tele Converter 2,0x] > [Zuiko Digital ED 70-300mm/1:4.0-5.6 EZ-7030]
And look through it, aperture is wide open and I can see light through it without any problems.
But when mounted on E-M5 it seems to close absolutely somehow, or whatever happens to it, because NO light seems to pass through it.
If the configuration was left untouched when mounted on camera, I mean aperture untouched and left wide open this configuration could be usable even without any electronics. The lens itself has button that can switch it to manual focus.
But once when mounted on E-M5 camera, the light seems NOT to reach sensor COMPLETELY...
And that is odd behavior which I dont expected...
I meant more that because its a slow lens that Olympus might have decided to electronically limit it from working, strange as that would seem.
63
« on: June 24, 2012, 00:47 »
You're probably more likely to get a proper response on this question somewhere like the micro43 thread on dpreview: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1041 seeing as there's lots of people that use the camera there, and not so many here! There's a thread discussing the teleconverters, but not with the OM-D specifically http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=40364505&changemode=1. Olympus gives out conflicting information about whether the teleconverter works with the micro43 adapters - officially using them is "not recommended" but in some other documentation it says they work. I think the problem you're running into is that the lens you're using is pretty slow and isn't one that is really intended to use with teleconverter in the first place, even if its technically possible on the original 4/3 format. In practice, the image quality you'll get from using the teleconverter on a consumer grade lens isn't really going to be much better than using the 70-300 and cropping it digitally in any case.
64
« on: May 11, 2012, 01:29 »
Just wanted to add: apprently Shutterstock has a bug, the ftp upload is broken for many.
Hope they fix it soon.
FTP works fine with Cyberduck, but not with Filezilla.
65
« on: May 04, 2012, 00:48 »
Yuri might of thought you meant microstock only. I think there's several people earning more in the traditional market. It isn't as easy to get in to but I think the top Getty stock photographers that have been doing stock for decades are probably making more than anyone doing just microstock. Doesn't Yuri just claim he licenses the most images? Its not the same as making the most money.
Exactly - how do you judge any of this? Most downloads? Most income? Highest profit? Most downloads or income per "team" member? For me, my download numbers peaked as an independent in 2008, but my average RPD was something like 65c. As an exclusive my DL numbers are much more modest, but my total income is more than 3 times what it was then, and my average revenue per download is more than 10 times that now. Does that mean I'm now less successful than I was in 2008?
66
« on: May 02, 2012, 23:04 »
What I think is happening is that iStock is tweaking their mid-tier pricing model once again with the intent of determining the acceptance threshold of the buyers. In doing so they further optimize, define and mature their product offering. I would assume Getty has significant statical analysis in place to monitor sales and download trends that reflect these pricing model changes.
This time of year is their window for such research - pre summer and no major holidays.
Numbers don't lie and Getty knows this. If the results of this change reveals a drop in sales, one can assume Getty will respond accordingly.
I am NOT a fan of Getty for many reasons, but give them credit for being a shrewd business and a leader in the industry.
The concept that they are radically and carelessly squeezing profits which would jeopardize the health of the business, is not one I readily accept. My bold.
I'm really surprised that you hold to this view. When even Sean and others are reporting year-on year sales down 30% and earnings down 20% then it makes me think that Istock are desperately chasing profits today at whatever the cost to the business tomorrow.
It's notable that FT has become aware that buyers are price-sensitive in that they are always devising new way of limiting how much their top-ranking contributors can price their own images. It seems obvious that they know that too many high-priced images damages their business.
SS are hardly slouches when it comes to doing business but they are not chasing short-term profits by increasing prices __ not even when they are lining themselves up for an IPO.
Not all buyers are that price sensitive. The Getty strategy is to pitch products like TS and Photos.com at the buyers which aren't going to pay the higher prices & to market IS at a market which isn't as price-sensitive, and partly on the basis that you can't get the images anywhere else. At the moment we're seeing lots of shifts in the best match sort order. It looks like they're trying to work out what formula extracts the maximum return. In the short term, the gains & losses of sales will be more from these changes than buyers coming or going. Fotolia has always been aggressive on price, so its natural that along the way they've picked up many of the buyers that are most price sensitive.
67
« on: May 02, 2012, 12:27 »
Well with the latest price rise, I just got an E+ XS sale for $5.60 and a S for $10.60. Are these prices still considered micro?
68
« on: May 01, 2012, 01:27 »
Not a great month overall for me - down about 20% from March.
IS:
Compared to March 12
-25%
Compared to April 11
+22%
Video:
SS: BME for video (though these stats are still pretty meaningless since I added about 55 of the 77 clips I have there at the end of March).
Pond 5: Worst month this year (but also based on really low numbers)
69
« on: May 01, 2012, 00:55 »
Maybe the 3.5M includes the shoot costs for creating images that aren't available elsewhere?
I like the "Late Extended License": "Got your Image Illegally? Get a license now"
70
« on: April 29, 2012, 20:17 »
'What my phone can do that your dSLR can't'.
Besides fit in a shirt pocket? Nothing.
Take photos in certain concerts, and some other places where they don't seem to bother if you shoot with a camera but you'd soon find yourself outside if you pulled out your dSLR - soem they don't even let you in if you're carrying one (the FedEx Forum in Memphis springs to mind).
There's also times when the size of the lens optics on a smaller camera allow you to get a shot that you wouldn't with a big DSLR such as when shooting through fences, gates etc. or when you can hold the phone flush up against glass etc. and avoid reflections that way.
71
« on: April 29, 2012, 20:12 »
He's finally going exclusive - that is big news!
72
« on: April 02, 2012, 23:49 »
BME for me at IS for $$, but download numbers are down. Also, BME at Pond 5 and SS for video sales (but still both very low numbers).
73
« on: April 01, 2012, 00:48 »
Like title today is impossible for me and not only , to purchase credits on istockphoto.
I have searched also in twitter and it seems that i' not the only unlucky, at least other 3 buyer have tweeted about the no possibility to buy credits with different credit card.
any others have the same experience ?
Haven't tried to buy credits, but your bad luck is our bad luck! Hope it gets sorted out quickly!
74
« on: March 29, 2012, 08:57 »
Hi,
On april ill be traveling to Switzerland. Ill be staying in Laussane. What you reccomend me to photograph there for Microstock?
Thanks for your help.
David.
For stock, the best thing to shoot would be model released lifestyle or business imagery with local backdrops. Not sure how well that's going to fit in to the travel plans though.
75
« on: March 28, 2012, 23:53 »
Well this line from the link should help out:
"You can however specify a small period of time if a shoot is stretched over a few days. Certainly think days here, not several weeks or months. This period should be explicitly specified in the shoot date e.g. January 28th to 31st, 2012."
Why not sort through the "snaps" highlight the images you actually want releases for and and get her to sign a release for them - just remember to keep it to a few days (eg. release for Cape Town vacation shots, 5,6,8, 10 Feb) per model release, so you might still need more than 1 release, but probably a lot less than 30.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 40
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
