I never leave my money in Paypal, I just cash it as it goes in, both for this reason (could be nicked or your account suspended for no reason etc.) and because it's pretty pointless having your cash sitting there not earning for you, working for these companies while you gamble on the exchange rate increasing in future.

^^^+++1

Quote from: qwerty on September 09, 2011, 08:08

by sending in this pile of photos they might make something like $2/image per year or so for not much effort for stuff that wouldn't be selling on Getty. There'll be 100,000 on there within another month, obviously there is no reviewing cost so $200K or so extra profit.

Exactly. Most of those images have only just arrived in the last couple of weeks so 1000 sales isn't too bad. With no commissions being paid, at say $8 per average sale, the money is totting up fairly quickly.

Poor lighting & noise = fit with Edstock.  Nice.

Quote from: cclapper on August 26, 2011, 06:53

I like this at the end of the Feast promo:

Quote

And we hope to bring you some kick-ass offline events in the future because sometimes it's nice to hang out with people in real life, away from the internets.

There always seems to be enough money for kick-ass events and istockalypses. 

WOW, they have taken up Bush-speak

And Obama spend

Quote from: idreamphoto on September 02, 2011, 21:53

Hi
can someone tell me the benefit in going exclusive with istock? (besides percentage rate increase)
how do you get a file into vetta? agency collection?   curious ...thanks in advance.
mike

You can keep your photos out of THinkStock if you choose.

^For now

Had my best day of the week at IS again last Friday. Curious, isn't it?

Interesting.  I had a decent day of about 20 dls.  Not too typical for me.

Quote from: lisafx on August 29, 2011, 19:09

I will be staying.  I am not at all happy about the heavy-handedness of this new ASA, but I have been expecting something like this for months.  Can't afford to give up more than 1/3 of my income.

Im surprised they havent done it much earlier!  I knew this was coming well over a year ago, the pattern was all too familiar. Started with the new RM-contract, signing away certain shots to TS, etc.
I will be staying as well!  whats the point of beefing about it? but Im not happy at all. Lets see if they for, just ONCE, can proove us wrong?

best.

I am curious to see if this new PP push deflates sales on Istock, thus affecting our RC levels.  I know that won't happen over night but given a 6-12 month period I think we will be able to make a reasonable inference as to whether the PP program is actually a negative to gross sales.

Hi Caspixel,

This is interesting.  Years ago before Microstock someone may have paid $300-$500 for that image from a traditional stock agency.  I once paid for a picture I saw in Time Magazine that used my products within the picture.  I contacted the photographer and paid $500 for one print.  If that same image was stolen (used) by another person and used on their site, you can be we'd go after them to remove it.  After all that image cost you, say, $500 and the photographer is also out money and probably has copyright protection.  But with the advent of microstock, the image maybe cost you $50 or less for a sub package, and that particular image might have cost you, say, $1.00 and the photographer got .35 cents.  It's because of this deflated value of photography that you are questioning whether you should go after this person or not.  After all, the image cost you peanuts.  But for reasons of principle alone (not to mention what I pointed out above) I would try to have them remove it.  Regardless of the cost of the image and the fact that they aren't reselling it, I would at least concoct a nice email explaining yourself and provide a link to that image at 123.

Just my 2 cents.  Les also brings up a simple approach that will take this off your plate.

They have enough contributors that that can absorb "dead loss" in the millions.  I know of several significant MS contributors who are permanently banned from FT.  And FT could care less. I mean CARE * LESS. If you stop uploading, they skmply don't care.

What?  Use the PS image scale function to resize an image.

But he wants to do it as a batch function with different size images if I understand correctly.  So I believe he wants multiple images of different sizes to "automatically" be brought up to one "global" size with a batch function.

For the most part I like 123.  They are fair and respond to my emails.  I don't make as much there as the big four but it is consistent.  So I rely on them when I do my monthly financials. 

Because people start boozing already on friday lunchtime, so when they get back to work they dont give a toss about business and when finishing they go to the nearest wine-bar and get even more zozzled.

^^Took the words right out of my mouth!!

Quote from: lagereek on August 19, 2011, 08:10

... avoid the stereo-type cliche type of shots, boats, cars, supermarkets, behind counters, you know, commercial everyday life.

You mean the stuff that sells? : )

You seem to "think" you know all God regarding micro...and rarely can you debate nothing more than your own weakness.