|
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 - YadaYadaYada
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 64
501
« on: October 07, 2017, 11:43 »
did the ios version ever get done?
Clicked the Android version I get not available in your country. Clicked the Apple version I get a bad link, try again. Not very promising is that?
502
« on: October 06, 2017, 09:34 »
I've been thinking about this for a few days.
Would it be possible to encourage clients to use up all their allowance per day/month to help contributors out? From what I've been reading and speaking to some buyers, most don't even use up all their allowance and this hurts us.
I know that SS would never encourage this as they would lose money on this, but any form of campaign contributors can do to persuade buyers?
It's only a few quarters but does add up...any thoughts?
If it worked though they'd put commissions down.....the business model relies on customers not using their quota.
Winner put a box around that Pauws99 quote. We'd make a little bit for a short time and everyone would lose after that.
503
« on: October 06, 2017, 09:24 »
Pretty good for me - almost hit $3000. I've published my blog post as usual at
Steve
What agencies are what color on your graphic? Nice work! I don't do video which makes my numbers much less. Just wondering if I add video next year, where should I be going?
505
« on: October 02, 2017, 11:50 »
As a friend of mine would say: "much ado about nothing"
:-)
Oh, you know Bill too? What a guy!
Good old Billy...
Beware of skinny people. "Yond' Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous."
507
« on: September 28, 2017, 10:58 »
That looks like promising technology
That's where it is. Interesting concept but a little early to be jumping in with the often claimed, will make the DSLR obsolete. Just like the phones haven't made the DSLR obsolete. Although pocket cameras have probably been knocked into history by phones and the quality. Lets see, slow focus, a little grainy, and did anyone notice the tiny flash? Nice idea putting stitching software into the camera, and 50MP images can be downsized to make them appear sharper.
508
« on: September 28, 2017, 10:39 »
I took a look, nothing of mine is being resold, but then I noticed this, People selling downloads direct on Etsy? I didn't look at the costs to see what I could get for something of mine, but doesn't that seem risky since anyone can pay for a download, get a perfect file and start reselling it? Oh right, most of these people are probably just stealing the work to start with.  Anyone selling downloads on Etsy? Downloading a Digital Item If you have an Etsy account, after your purchase youll see a View your files link which goes to the Downloads page. Here, you can download all the files associated with your order. Downloads are available once your payment is confirmed. If you paid with PayPal or a credit card on Etsy, confirmation might take a few minutes. Well also send you a download notification email separate from any transaction notification emails you receive from Etsy and/or PayPal. If you're unsure if you've purchased a Digital Item, you can always go back to the listing page. If it is a digital download, you should see an "Instant Download" message on the images for the item.
509
« on: September 27, 2017, 16:39 »
I've been on assignment for a while... when I came back - I found out iStock is still selling my assets, but there's no communication with my account or the site "ESP"
I sent an email... and they said it would take ten days to figure it out?
Is iStock / Getty stealing content now?
Is it time for a contributor class action lawsuit?
Not sure how you can have an account and at the same time accuse them of stealing your assets? If you uploaded, they can sell them. Or did you close your account like Sue asked you? ESP is nothing but the new access point for contributors, which they did announce a year ago. Is iStock a partner to someplace else? You haven't provided much in the way of details, which makes it difficult to figure out what is wrong? From IS newsletter email last year. ESP There are a ton of benefits coming with ESP all of which add up to faster time to market for your content and more time for you to focus on what you do best: creating new content: You can easily submit content to us in batches, which can maximize your contents salability and placement. Uploading in batch allows you to include all the images from a photo shoot and apply metadata across the entire batch. The success of future Search plans will depend on strong file sistering and similars, which are created with batch submission. Files that may have previously been rejected for Signature+ without the context of an entire shoot can now be considered as a whole. ESP brings better inspection tools so you can expect faster inspection times. The improved feedback loop, which should lead to fewer rejections and more opportunities to revise your submissions.
510
« on: September 27, 2017, 16:24 »
Yeah, the "there will be bigger jobs in the future" line seems to never pan out whenever I've heard it.
That's because it only happens to one in a thousand, the optimistic, glass half full hard workers who get off their arses and collect points.
Better odds doing the lottery then?
But don't forget, you have to buy a ticket. 
511
« on: September 27, 2017, 16:06 »
Let me remind you that I rejected the offer.
These potential $680 + expenses are not tempting enough for me.
But I can imagine others having no problems with it. Some people I know are ready to shoot a whole wedding for similar amounts.
but the only way to get the big money assignments is to collect points on the lesser assignments to increase your Shutterstock Custom Score.
If indeed those big money assignments exist;-)
Like Imagebrief who gets our ideas for free and shows to the people who enter a brief. Ever notice that few are sold and some come back over and over? The clients are using us for ideas and then making their own images. Some do buy, but it's a way to milk us for ideas and pay nothing. I won't work for them. Custom score? I never signed up. Just like many have posted here, we are not forced into this and if I choose to not participate, I'm fine. I won't sell out for low prices like some people will. I'm not so desperate that I'll devalue my better work, for a cheap contract. Of course I'm happy taking Micro money for snapshots that I upload when I have time. My advise to some of the loudest complainers is, if you don't like it, don't apply for the program. I didn't join, but I might change my mind if the reports from people who actually do the work, are finding it's not completely unfair. Seems like some others have made up their mind, without every giving SS a chance?
512
« on: September 26, 2017, 10:43 »
What ss is doing is simple. They are taking another photography vertical, comissioned shoots, and turning that into cheap microstock royalties, effectively destroying another element of our business for personal gain. And the sad part is that photographers will do these shoots for pennies.
Have to agree with you. Next time someone here has a $40,000 shoot why don't they hire one of us? I'd take 10 or $20,000 for the same work
Maybe if you weren't so rude to Creative Directors here you'd be considered. (And maybe not anonymous, too.) Just sayin'. 
Why don't you hire people like Sean or Paulie or others here who are well versed and capable, for lets say, $20,000 or $10,000? Why do you hire someone else for $40,000 for Those prices are absolutely appalling for a custom shoot. And according to SS these are "enterprise clients." Ad agencies/clients pay in the tens of thousands for custom photography. The last shoot I was on (we used one photoshopped image) we paid the photog $40,000, if I remember correctly. And that was a discounted rate we had to haggle over on the client's behalf.
One image? Fly them in, do the photo, have a week.
It's not imaginary. I hate to tell you what clients pay to license music.
I can get you a whole band of studio professionals, for a week, in a practice studio and half a dozen new original songs. What do you pay?
Why don't you hire from here? I think there are many quite capable people.
You need a rep. A real one, not Shutterstock.
Each month reps come in to ad agencies and provide a catered lunch to the creative department to review photographers' portfolios.
Your rep is in touch with the art buyers, who are the poeple who negotiate licensing terms on behalf of the ad agency.
The creative team and creative director review portfolios that meet the needs of a particular concept. They recommend three or four photographers to the client, who has final say over who gets hired for the job (within the client's budget).
Creative people really don't look through stock sites to find photographers. They look for a stock shot that meets their needs. The reason they look for stock is the client's budgetary constraints. If the team has an idea tha requires a custom shoot, and the client has the budget for it, they ask the art buyer to get in touch with reps to send portfolios over.
The reps fight for high pay for the photographer, and the client usually fights to pay less. So some negotiation takes place.
The amount paid depends on many factors...budget, complexity of the shoot, location, the reputation of the photographer, and licensing terms. For example, the $40,000 we paid the photographer I mentioned earlier was for only one print ad in limited distribution for one year. And the client was Arm & Hammer. (That's why I used them as an example of someone who would now be able to go through SS and pay you 50 cents for a box of baking soda.)
Let me rephrase that. You meaning you personally. Why don't you hire from here, professionals that you know and know their work and record. Not anonymous forum people. You could save your company money and help someone who's being under paid by Microstock agencies?
513
« on: September 25, 2017, 21:48 »
Yes, RPD is moving up, but sales are 1/4 of last year. Lets talk money in the bank and dollars? Dismal, dire, disaster, horrible. Don't quote some empty stat when I know my actual earnings are down to almost nothing.
514
« on: September 25, 2017, 21:45 »
Todayis20 is probably the best we have at the moment.
And 2nd is DM3 which has some other good reports and graphs. But nothing much from ESP or online and everything takes months to be reported accurately.
515
« on: September 25, 2017, 21:42 »
Stupid question. Is it just Shutterstock or is it also other MS sites too?
Getty also, and why fish in the little pond when these thieves can go to the biggest and best? iStock and Shutterstock. Who wants to steal from places with nothing to offer like 123RF, DP or DT, when all the same images are everywhere, including SS and IS, plus IS exclusives. Do you think Bigstock has anything better or different from SS or IS? They steal our work from the biggest and best.
516
« on: September 25, 2017, 21:35 »
What ss is doing is simple. They are taking another photography vertical, comissioned shoots, and turning that into cheap microstock royalties, effectively destroying another element of our business for personal gain. And the sad part is that photographers will do these shoots for pennies.
Have to agree with you. Next time someone here has a $40,000 shoot why don't they hire one of us? I'd take 10 or $20,000 for the same work
Maybe if you weren't so rude to Creative Directors here you'd be considered. (And maybe not anonymous, too.) Just sayin'.
Why don't you hire people like Sean or Paulie or others here who are well versed and capable, for lets say, $20,000 or $10,000? Why do you hire someone else for $40,000 for Those prices are absolutely appalling for a custom shoot. And according to SS these are "enterprise clients." Ad agencies/clients pay in the tens of thousands for custom photography. The last shoot I was on (we used one photoshopped image) we paid the photog $40,000, if I remember correctly. And that was a discounted rate we had to haggle over on the client's behalf.
One image? Fly them in, do the photo, have a week.
It's not imaginary. I hate to tell you what clients pay to license music.
I can get you a whole band of studio professionals, for a week, in a practice studio and half a dozen new original songs. What do you pay? Why don't you hire from here? I think there are many quite capable people.
517
« on: September 20, 2017, 17:13 »
0.005$
These technically aren't downloads, they're views, but I still don't understand how it works.  (Don't bother trying to explain it; like cryptocurrency, my brain can't cope with it!)
This month, all my Connect 'views' are "Worldwide right to display and use the Metadata in connection with the Pinterest Platform and services." and netted me $0.00108 each (sic)
Precisely.
They are like "pay per view". Still, it's bs.
That's why I didn't list the views or negative numbers. Just real commissions under 10 cents. They are non-us partners except the one from FL and the time limited from Getty. This is wrong.
518
« on: September 20, 2017, 17:03 »
I just don't see how one can survive with this kind of agency's inconsistent behavior. You stop uploading due to horrible ESP system, miserable royalties and lack of transparency, with plummeting revenues,until they fix something. And in the meantime they punish you second time for dumping your portfolio since it wasn't updated in a while,in favor of those who continued uploading new content (and directly agreeing with this whole disgrace).
Wow, people at Getty are probably laughing out loud now seeing all this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Istock is a loss leader to drive customers to the Getty products. Of course we are the head of that loss and taking a loss ourselves. I don't know why people are so intent on reporting when it takes up to two months to show and longer to get paid. What's another day? Don't worry, our pittance will be credited to our accounts soon enough. I no longer upload and the decision will be whether to remove all work before the years end. Problem is, I already worked and I make a small sum each month. I don't need their deplorable small commissions, but I earned that and have a right to make some money back for my work. iStock will get nothing new. I'm watching the sales with DM3 and the stats show a change in what's selling. Those stats are limited of course, but dismal.
519
« on: September 20, 2017, 12:55 »
Anyone can make sense out of this?
The site is legal
Why shutterdowner is legal ? Because it uses Facebook Business Robot to pull images and use them in ads for Facebook ads we dont steal any pictures because its free in facebook and anyone can get the pictures for free and shutterdowner.com create his robot to making it easy for all without facebook account, We are not responsible for any use other than Facebook Ads For [More Information Link].
Sense no, they are using an illogical argument derived from the way Facebook sell their ads. If you take out a Facebook ad you can use an image within that ad which comes from Shutterstock at no extra cost, it is in the price of the ad, this is where the tiny SODs come from. Problem occurs in the way Facebook pushes this as a free stock image for your ad, but the wording is important, see https://www.facebook.com/business/a/carousel-stock-photo. It is specific in saying "Free stock images for your carousel ads" or whatever type of add it is, not as they say " its free in facebook and anyone can get the pictures for free". Yes Facebook would have you believe it's free, but only for use in their ads, effectively a single use licence not an RF licence. By their own addmission shutterdowner are responsible for distributing stock images to non Facebook account holders who therefore cannot be using them in Facebook ads.
What to do about it? Take it up with Facebook or stop supplying Shutterstock and let them know why.
Thank you. But how about the Gettydowner beta version of this thief site? And editorial images, which are not allowed for (Facebook) advertising?
Nice 1024 x 682 images to steal, anything on Getty. I tried an editorial and it said no longer available. Make this Getty Security Issues and more to come.
520
« on: September 20, 2017, 12:45 »
They must pay us more like the old times! This is ridiculous!
What "old" times do you mean?
When I started contributing to iStock twelve years ago, I got 10c for every download. Now I get a lot more.
Then you would be happy with sales like these? Under 10c per download. Why do you defend Getty when it's obvious that they have been lowering our earnings and finding new ways to lower commissions, every year. Regular 2017-07 7/18/2017 0.09450 15% 0.63000 Photo iStock Essentials Premium Access Time Limited Getty US Illinois Regular 2017-04 3/30/2017 0.08480 15% 0.56536 Photo iStock Essentials iStock Subscription iStock non-US France Regular 2017-04 4/10/2017 0.08175 15% 0.54498 Photo iStock Essentials iStock Subscription iStock non-US Germany Regular 2017-04 3/20/2017 0.07950 15% 0.53000 Photo iStock Essentials iStock Subscription iStock non-US Argentina Regular 2017-01 1/17/2017 0.07539 15% 0.50262 Photo iStock Essentials iStock Subscription iStock non-US India Regular 2017-01 1/18/2017 0.07539 15% 0.50262 Photo iStock Essentials iStock Subscription iStock non-US India Regular 2017-02 1/24/2017 0.06300 15% 0.42000 Photo iStock Essentials iStock Subscription iStock non-US Mexico Regular 2017-04 3/18/2017 0.05760 15% 0.38402 Photo iStock Essentials iStock Subscription iStock non-US Netherlands Regular 2017-07 6/26/2017 0.04203 15% 0.28017 Photo iStock Essentials iStock Subscription iStock non-US Italy Regular 2017-04 3/23/2017 0.04050 15% 0.27000 Photo iStock Essentials iStock Subscription iStock US Florida Regular 2017-04 4/8/2017 0.03972 15% 0.26480 Photo iStockphoto RF Image Partner Portal non-US China
522
« on: September 18, 2017, 10:00 »
Leaf, to be sure I'm understand the meaning of the exclusive number (currently 222.1), it is still in a score of 100 = $500 a month?
This means that the score 222.1 = 500 x 2.221 = $1,110.50 reported average income for an exclusive Istocker?
If so then the reported combined non-exclusive total (all the poll results with a number total excluding the exclusive Istock number) is 259.4 which = 500 x 2.594 = $1,297 reported average income for an independent?
correct.
It is a very broad average though. The top limit of $2500 probably limits a lot of people, both on Shutterstock and for iStock exclusives (perhaps Fotolia as well for some). Right now it looks like independents are earning a bit more, but in terms of how accurate the poll results are, they are essentially identical. The poll is just meant to give a rough guide as to how the agencies stack up against each other. The yearly microstock survey will give a better idea of how exclusive/non-exclusive compare.
There's a limit as well as a base value. It's not precise numbers, but intended to give a general idea of the relative return from the sites. Unscientific poll because people answer when they want. Usually I don't bother. I don't shoot video, Pond5 would be a $0 and bring it down. The top three are right in line with what I make from them. I don't shoot the same as you or the next person, my results will not be the same as yours. It's just a poll to show relative numbers, not what anyone should expect. I can only imagine someone new looking and thinking of all the money they can make, when these are only what top people, who choose to take the poll, might make. There's no verification that anyone is telling the truth. Way to make it work better would be, in order to post on the agency section, for example, people would need to take the poll each month. And then forced against our will to take the poll, how reliable would those numbers be? But at least it would be a broader selection, not just people who want to brag how much they made or point out how little. The poll could have fake votes to make them look better and hate votes from people who didn't like a place. It's just for fun, don't take it to serious.
523
« on: September 12, 2017, 11:45 »
So, I had EL sale today at Fotolia. All my prices for ELs are 100 credits. As I am silver contributor I get 25% of a credit sale. So how is it possible, to get 25,08 credits out of 100 with 25% royalties? Not that I'm complaining, just curious.
Yes that's over 25%, I guess you got a bonus because of exchange rate or something?
524
« on: September 12, 2017, 11:41 »
Panthermedia, anybody uploading to this German agency? If yes, is there any income from there?
I stopped uploading in 2013, no sale here.
Hardly a sale in a few years, I left years ago. Slow reviews, poor system, low commissions. Waste of time.
525
« on: September 09, 2017, 21:53 »
Dumb thing was to go exclusive with FT from 2008 to 2012. Even dumber was not to join SS until 2012 because I thought my stuff wasn't good enough. Dumbest was not to buy Bitcoin with my miserable earnings from FT, otherwise I'd now be a multi-millionaire ($60 bought 1,000 Bitcoin in 2011 now worth nearly $5 million). 
Come back when the unsupported bitcoin crashes and is worth nothing. At least our work has a fairly stable, even if low value and continues to produce some earnings. Try these and see? But I say, when the crash hits, and there's blood in the street, no crying. http://www.investopedia.com/tech/6-most-important-cryptocurrencies-other-bitcoin/
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
