|
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 - obj owl
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25
526
« on: February 06, 2017, 06:41 »
...A lot of discussions end up in some insulting political form. My wife is from an Eastern bloc country thus the majority of your businesses not doing well is entirely her peoples fault...
I think I worked out who this is.
I'm sorry if you've taken offence at some of the comments, but don't you have a country to run?
Do you really think he would go anonymous? 
527
« on: February 05, 2017, 14:02 »
that list shows the op is very short sighted
Is that an observation or a complaint? Just so the op does not take it the wrong way and add it to the list.
528
« on: February 05, 2017, 12:56 »
9. People who go annonymous to complain about complaints.
529
« on: February 02, 2017, 12:49 »
The OD was decreased? When and how? Is that part of this new plan or something that slipped past recently? Mine haven't dropped yet, should I be ready for less income?
After the fotolia and adobe acquisition, shutterstock started being more active in building customers by various means. With lot of images being uploaded (mostly crap ) we still see that earnings are fair, we never saw any dead end.
There are many agencies including istock who do not want their contributors to earn inspite of being in good position.
I still don't know how someone calculated 2 cents and make everyone in panic. This new model is in testing more which clearly states that if this isn't successful it will be removed.
The 2c was put forward by istock as a safety net for commissions that may not reach that sum. Therefore, istock must envisage a scenario in which buyers will be paying much less for their subs packages, discounting. Even so the buyer would need to redeem a good number of their discounted package for the payout to be less than 2c.
530
« on: January 31, 2017, 10:40 »
$0.35-30%=$0.245 in my case, so I'm out of there! This is less than the $0.28 from IS, the absolute bottom I swallowed but for 20 times bigger volume of sales.
I don't contribute to any other agency withholding tax from every single sale!
Not so easy to get out of there as any images that a user has included it in a design prior to the time it is removed will still be available to download indefinitely. For example, two of mine, which were deleted in July 2015, were sold in October 2016.
531
« on: January 27, 2017, 14:37 »
if the new images added are crap, why would that affect your sales if your images are great? in fact your image should stand out even more now and generate more sales
As a buyer (and I am) why would you ask me to dig through 30 feet of chit to find a gold nugget?
The crap buries the good stuff faster than penguin poop in a snow storm.
The appalling keywords being used just add to the pile of dung being layered over the top of the dung heap.
It's boring, terrible quality and totally pointless
You buy the dung before you get to the good stuff, you just take what you see first? That's why sales are down for good stuff? Keywords for dung are better and buyers buy that before they get to the good stuff?
How do you eventually find what you want? That's where we want to be.
By being as detailed as possible in keyword searches and using categories (where available) and perserverence though some agencies appear better positioned with their best match results which helps.
But SS best match tends to throw up the same old stuff from one or two particular image producers page after page after page.
And no buyer would just take what they see first unless it's a quick article write up and they just want a fire and forget image.
So you go someplace else? Which means SS should actually care about the mess they created.
I'm surprised they haven't figured out that they are losing buyers with the terrible search. And I'd agree, place like Alamy has diversity search, not all one person in a row, except when there is only one person that matches.
If we know this, and buyers know, why can't SS figure it out?
Good to hear that buyers don't just buy the first thing they see. Means the spammers don't get any advantage after all.
You have to remember that Shutterstock is now two different places. In one, for the increasing number of Enterprise Customers, they offer a personal service by the Enterprise Team who will even do the searches for them. The other is nothing more than vending machine.
532
« on: January 26, 2017, 16:46 »
Appalling?? It's only 2.5% no worse than banks or anyother financial outfit.
They have to make some money in order to offer a great service like that
Then you should probably switch banks. 2.5% is really high.
My bank has a reasonable 0.5% currency conversion fee. If they could only be sent dollars from PayPal I would save many, many monies.
2.5% can make sense if you're sending $100, but when the numbers go up to $10,000+, the fees become ridiculous. $50 should be the maximum fee at 2.5% and then 0.5% on top of that.
Some banks make money twice, the currency conversion fee and again on a lousy tourist conversion rate.
533
« on: January 23, 2017, 11:18 »
Hello all,
I just discovered that many many of my images in my portfolio are not displayed when i click on it on buyer SS site !
I understand why my sales have dropped ! 
I've written to SS to check what is happening. If only 1 on 5 images of my files are displayed when buyer click on it (I've got 2000 images), then I'll make 5x less income than usually
This is extremely worrying. Are you experiencing the same
Could you check if that 's happening with your port ?
Thx
Glad you mentioned this cause its the same here! I buy and contribute. The same eight or ten pictures are selling every day but when logging in as a buyer I can only see a small fraction of my pictures. Have also written to SS about a possible bug? they replied no bug and that everything was fine. its not. Whats going on?
I believe they now call this Alternative Facts, got to give it to Shutterstock they got into the new regime mode pretty quick.
534
« on: January 05, 2017, 19:56 »
probably lisafx, part of a regular experienced gang here, gostwyck, dj, baldrick, lots of experience left the forum at some point, theyre all greatly missed, although i see baldrick still posting every now and then
Looks like gostwyck was lurking here today. I was having a year off this forum when several regulars left or stopped posting. Some of them may well still be here under different names. I cracked after a year and came back.
I'd be willing to bet you $100 that some are still here from the regular experienced group. Some with two accounts. Some come and go every few months, with a new ID.
I doubt that SS, FT or IS want to waste time going after MSG but some of these recent financial manipulation claims and how artists are being conned or cheated could test the limits of the law. Experts in libel and slander assert that defamation does not have to be widely published, merely said by one party to another and understood by the second party to be fact, when it is not a true fact.
and you are here to save us from ourselves, how gallant, or did someone touch a nerve?
535
« on: January 04, 2017, 11:04 »
SS is not going to love this but Stockastics departure from SS seems to be snowballing. This "factory" I know consisting of a few photographers also wants to leave but how do you delete over 100K files? one of the guys there is an Art Director as well and without upseting anybody but he also believe they are getting cut down on sales in favour of 0.25 contributors. They've experienced a drop of some 60%.
This is a crazy business not for the fainthearted. 
People like yourself keep harking on about a mythical tweak in the search in favour of 0.25 contributors with absolutely no evidence. If it was true every newbie would hit the 0.33 threshold within days. Yes, I agree that Shutterstock has deliberately left a lot of contributors hanging out to dry, but you need to look at what they have done not speculate on what may or may not have been done. Shutterstock creamed of all the top earners and paired them up with the top buyers and provided them with the Enterprise Team and gave them a site of their own called Premier Select, which has been growing quarter by quarter, year by year as reported in their results. It can be no surprise to find that those high earners left out are suffering an increasing loss of downloads.
536
« on: January 03, 2017, 13:00 »
Not really worth your time, trouble and expense in most cases. If you can't put up with the stress don't sell Royalty Free, because when they out in the wild you will not get any involvement from the agencies, unless you upset one of their buyers.
537
« on: January 02, 2017, 11:45 »
Ah yes^but I am still doing very well in comparison and considering. It don't stop me from seeing the mounting problems for this company. You have to be blind not to. SS like all public companies have invested and branched out into a heap of things not involving stock-sales. Think about that one and don't just stare yourself blind at stats and figures.
SS is unfortunately gaining such bad reputation at this moment not just here but in dozens of places open to the public. pretty soon like Istock they will be on the downhill slope to nowhere. Surprises me! Istock is the perfect example of how a great company can just completely and utterly fade away.
As one of the blind could you possible enlighten me as to the trouble Shutterstock are in and what are the heap of investments they have made?
538
« on: December 30, 2016, 12:45 »
539
« on: December 20, 2016, 14:45 »
540
« on: December 19, 2016, 13:55 »
The whole idea of licensing something as 'stock' and reselling it as 'art' is just plain wrong. I don't care if it's legal. It's wrong. Deceptive, misleading, unethical, and just plain shabby.
Just one more thing to check out when choosing agencies, then.
Would this even be in the TOS, in any clear explicit way? Or would you need to be a lawyer just to figure out that it's allowed?
I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like Adobe allow anything you can think of and all things not invented yet. Adobe Stock Contributor Agreement Additional Terms to Adobe.com Terms of Use http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Contributor_Agreement-en_US-20160721_1200.pdf2.1 General License to Our Users. You grant us a license to further sublicense our right to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, publicly perform, and translate the Work on a non -exclusive, worldwide, and perpetual basis in any media or embodiment, subject to any restrictions you have designated at the time of upload via the Website. The license to our end users may include the right to modify and create derivative works based upon the Work, including but not limited to the right to sell or distribute for sale the Work or any reproductions thereof if incorporated or together with or onto any item of merchandise or other work of authorship, in any media or format now or hereafter known, provided that such end users use of the modified Work is limited solely to the same uses permitted with respect to the original Work. We may include your Work in our products and offerings and will pay you pursuant to section 6 below.
541
« on: December 19, 2016, 11:55 »
Nice shot!
It would be very interesting to know how this works - I would think you should get a sub sale at least for the ad and then an EL or something similar if it sells. Bigstock I think allows single-image products where we get less than a dollar - not sure if that includes resale but that might be how they are doing it. If that is the case then their idea if supporting artists is not very much. It would be worthwhile to write them and ask - not fair of them to sell your work like that without your permission.
If they happen to have bought a suitable licence, they don't have to ask permission.
However, it does seem an extremely 'loose' arrangement whereby they can buy an ordinary licence and if they happen to sell, they'll 'remember' to pay, esp if just one sale wouldn't break even. Probably they don't even have to tell the agencies that's their intention.
It works through an API, a lot of sites use Fotolia, they don't download the image from Fotolia until it's sold.
542
« on: December 18, 2016, 18:55 »
543
« on: November 24, 2016, 12:39 »
we accepted micro stock many years ago because it was easy and good money even with poor, for nowadays standard, quality photos.
we accepted 0,2, 0,3 for photo and now complaint that they cut at 0,15.
personally i don't care, micro stock is the lower end of my production, photo that will be buried in hard disk , or i will never use for nothing. i will upload the more i can, micro stock for me is only about quantity, the more images you have the more u earn...
personally i grow all portfolio in any site in the last 4 months, cleaning a massive backlog of more than 150000 files who stupidly i kept in my hard disk without selling them when was the timer making good money. anyway i see a trend of growing. the fact that an agency cut my rates doesn't bother me, i learnt that in micro what counts is the number at the end of months. till it grows i upload.
serious photography goes to offset, and other agency where a customer want buy good quality and pay for them.
I think you will find that 0.15 is what the buyer pays, you get 0.02, that's a game changer.
544
« on: November 23, 2016, 23:09 »
545
« on: November 22, 2016, 00:03 »
Hi,
I found one of my image on a website and it's possible to download it at its original size (20mp) without watermark. Image is credited from Shuttestock. On Shutterstock website I try to find some information about the maximum size allowed for display on a website without success. I remember to have found it last year, did they remove the limitation and full size is now allowed ?
Thank you
It used to read "On web sites, provided that no Image is displayed at a resolution greater than 800 x 600 pixels;" from the 2011 Terms and Conditions here http://www.shutterstock.com/license?date=2011-05-05&type=standardIt all depends on the Terms of Service at the time of purchase, here are some more http://www.shutterstock.com/license-historyThere must have been too many contributors winging about such infringements (I was one of them) causing them to get off their backsides to do something about it. Reporting infringements and getting them to do anything was lengthy and time consuming process, I just gave up in the end. If there is a date on the web page you could chase it up if the corresponding Terms of Service are in your favor, but only if you have nothing else useful to do.
546
« on: November 19, 2016, 15:44 »
I'd like to see changes at Google that make it harder to steal content and bypass paying customers work, if that's important to you then I think you should sign and support this. If there are other solutions those should be supported as well.
Yes, I agree and it is important to me, I have in the past spent many a log hour chasing these issues up with agencies who have been reluctant to help. Will signing and supporting this action help me? Not if the other agencies are not on board.
I think that's the point no one has to be on board, this is about changes at Google like disabling right clicking or when clicking a thumbnail going to the website that has licensed our work for example. Those things are good for us and all the agencies without exception.
To ask Google to do that for all content is absurd, a lot of content from the great libraries and museums of the world allow their high resolutions collections to be downloaded by the public. To separate paid content from those requires the microstock world to act as one and I don't see that happening, because they don't care. Royalty Free images once let into the wild are lost unless you are exclusive, which most of us are not
The great museums of the world in your example probably still want people to come to their website to get the content rather than bypass it altogether (not even knowing it came from a great museum) and right click it directly from google. Museums gather data, have ads, want people to come to their physical location and that is all lost in many cases now.
I also don't believe that it's absurd for google to do more to not enable stealing of images. Disabling right clicking and taking people to the site where the content is hosted does not seem like a burden at all.
No burden, but it would also prevent me from finding misused and stolen images.
547
« on: November 19, 2016, 15:24 »
I'd like to see changes at Google that make it harder to steal content and bypass paying customers work, if that's important to you then I think you should sign and support this. If there are other solutions those should be supported as well.
Yes, I agree and it is important to me, I have in the past spent many a log hour chasing these issues up with agencies who have been reluctant to help. Will signing and supporting this action help me? Not if the other agencies are not on board.
I think that's the point no one has to be on board, this is about changes at Google like disabling right clicking or when clicking a thumbnail going to the website that has licensed our work for example. Those things are good for us and all the agencies without exception.
To ask Google to do that for all content is absurd, a lot of content from the great libraries and museums of the world allow their high resolutions collections to be downloaded by the public. To separate paid content from those requires the microstock world to act as one and I don't see that happening, because they don't care. Royalty Free images once let into the wild are lost unless you are exclusive, which most of us are not
548
« on: November 19, 2016, 15:02 »
I'd like to see changes at Google that make it harder to steal content and bypass paying customers work, if that's important to you then I think you should sign and support this. If there are other solutions those should be supported as well.
Yes, I agree and it is important to me, I have in the past spent many a log hour chasing these issues up with agencies who have been reluctant to help. Will signing and supporting this action help me? Not if the other agencies are not on board.
549
« on: November 19, 2016, 14:47 »
Finally I got over feeling sick to my stomach about this letter and watched this video they created. It seems this Jane girl gets a lot of coins and bills for a web image usage.. I wonder what currency she is paid with, Iranian Rial or Vietnemese Dong or perhaps Indonesian Rupia, otherwise it really gives a false impression that those royalties are pretty high.
Sorry I still feel that I just can not sign this. Maybe in a few days when my anger goes away.
This isn't just about Getty, a change at Google will help Shutterstock contributors equally.
Not necessarily, Google scrapes up all kinds of images from many willing sources, how would they separate these from our content? Using Getty's propriety software maybe? Would our content on other sites be protected?
Now ask yourself why our content is available in high resolution on the web for Google to access? Is it because the agencies do not police web use as well as they should. No content should be sold for web use without the stipulation that the size and resolution is limited, it would not be hard for Getty to police this and they don't even need their sophisticated software to do this, just Google.
There are different ways to change Google that don't involve Getty software. Disable right clicking and when clicking a thumbnail go to the webpage where it came from would be a good start.
Even keeping the files to web allowed resolutions is large enough for people to steal if it's easy. If Getty software could be used to help then other sites could create their own or license it or Google could make their own version. I doubt everyone would be forced to use Getty's software, but this all just speculation I haven't seen them push for it anywhere.
First Google has to identify and separate free content and paid for content, which requires embedding images with identifiable data, this action puts the cart before the horse, unless Getty have already done this. I would have more confidence in Getty's action if they had the support of other industry leaders, why are they not on board? Why are we as individual contributors, for years, having to chase these matters up with agencies when we find abuses and then given no support from them, because they don't give a monkeys, what has changed that Getty need our support now?
550
« on: November 19, 2016, 14:11 »
Finally I got over feeling sick to my stomach about this letter and watched this video they created. It seems this Jane girl gets a lot of coins and bills for a web image usage.. I wonder what currency she is paid with, Iranian Rial or Vietnemese Dong or perhaps Indonesian Rupia, otherwise it really gives a false impression that those royalties are pretty high.
Sorry I still feel that I just can not sign this. Maybe in a few days when my anger goes away.
This isn't just about Getty, a change at Google will help Shutterstock contributors equally.
Not necessarily, Google scrapes up all kinds of images from many willing sources, how would they separate these from our content? Using Getty's propriety software maybe? Would our content on other sites be protected? Now ask yourself why our content is available in high resolution on the web for Google to access? Is it because the agencies do not police web use as well as they should. No content should be sold for web use without the stipulation that the size and resolution is limited, it would not be hard for Getty to police this and they don't even need their sophisticated software to do this, just Google.
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
