|
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 - donding
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 70
551
« on: October 30, 2010, 17:49 »
^^ couldnt agencies ban you for doing this? I wonder if they give you a warning or not
Why? They all invite re-submission.
Not on istock. Some files cant be resubmitted once rejected which i think is absurd. i only know of istock since im exclusive there.
You can if you change the file name. I use to do this rather than go through the resubmit process. I'm sure you can so the same with the ones they say don't resubmit. How are they going to know the difference.
552
« on: October 30, 2010, 17:45 »
^^ couldnt agencies ban you for doing this? I wonder if they give you a warning or not
Why? They all invite re-submission.
they all invite resubmission after all issues have been fixed, not just waiting some time and retrying
Bad reviewer... Waited a few months, re-submit to different reviewer. Issue fixed. 
Also, I do change the description and keywords. Semantics, but...
I wait awhile and change the file name...usually ending with a RS...for resubmit.
553
« on: October 29, 2010, 21:21 »
I used to have pretty regular sales there before the takeover...but now I get one every now and then. Their review process takes longer than any other site...besides Veer..
554
« on: October 29, 2010, 20:14 »
I see the "thumbnail" watermark from Pixmac on both of those images. What are you guys talking about?
Oh I see it now....I didn't even notice it because of the texture of the clock. I didn't even notice that on the other one from colossus...all I noticed on it was "copyright protected" written all over it. My mistake... 
555
« on: October 29, 2010, 19:35 »
For example...
My image on Pixmac from the Dreamstime database.
http://www.pixmac.co.uk/picture/time/000000146212
clealry states my name and the originating API website.
My image from Pixmac but under the name of colossus
http://www.pixmac.co.uk/picture/close+up+of+an+old+looking+clock+face/000050805451
Apparently someone elses portfolio.
What is odd is the massive size of the colossus portfolio and all seem to have been uploaded in September 2010. I've emailed Pixmac but no reply yet.
hey I noticed the one picture under your name Paul has no watermark while the other one that is shown under colossus has "copyright protected" all over it. What's the deal with that??
556
« on: October 27, 2010, 18:09 »
Getty.....macro
iStock....mid stock
Thinkstock......micro
non exclusives go exclusive or go to Thinkstock
Just my opinion. Well see what other surprises are still in the bag....
557
« on: October 27, 2010, 17:53 »
I've finally completed all the steps and uploaded several templates. Now, waiting for the sales!
http://www.printbusinesscards.com/ordering/Maria-Adelaide-Silva-Business-Cards.php
Those are great looking templates. You ought to get a lot of sales with those. This is still my favorite site and I always get sales there. I've got 500+ templates and am still uploading. I have to admit, the way microstock is going now I'd sure rather get $5.00 per download and $20.00 per art file than get the buck or two with microstock. And the good thing is you don't have to ask for your money....it's sent out the third Wednesday of every month no matter the amount. Tim's a really nice guy and is easy to work with.
558
« on: October 26, 2010, 17:52 »
+1, I tried to ask him a question through sitemail about the changes (since I am not really involved in stock photography) and he was an complete tool and an ass to me. Then, he baited me (and I bit) resulting in my ban.
In another locked thread, he claims it wasn't locked for any other reason that it was turning into a circus.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=268031&page=1#post5071751
Interestingly, in defending the decision to close the thread (because HQ thought it was a circus) he makes the comment that, '...many people didn't see it as a discussion...' Well of course they didn't, because istock leadership refused to answer questions or engage in any dialogue. Quite the straw man argument. And apparently it wasn't critiques of istock that they didn't like, they just felt people were being too emotional.
I suspect they closed it to minimize the negative contributor feedback for the loopholes that agency collection is exploiting.
I have learned an incredible amount from here (and istock forum) in the last few months. Back to lurker status now...
"There are plenty of places for people to spit fire about iStock outside of these forums. Peoole are free to participate without fear of being censored or banned on other message boards. " If that isn't a slap in the face I don't know what is....
559
« on: October 25, 2010, 16:57 »
I'm not being critical here, but I've noticed all the agencies...other than iStock...quit uploading there....have been taking forever to inspect. Even more so than when the sh*t hit the fan at iStock. It makes sense now that I'm hearing about the exclusives who's 30 days is up and are uploading elsewhere.
Anyone else notice this??
560
« on: October 23, 2010, 17:05 »
Alright!!!!!! They finally got it where you know your unpaid earning and gross earnings Thanks Brian or whoever did it... 
561
« on: October 23, 2010, 16:52 »
Mine too...it initially said my cookies were disabled...then when I tried again it keep taking me back to the main page...so it's not just you
562
« on: October 23, 2010, 16:12 »
Sounds like Lobo is trigger happy these days....LOCK...LOCK...LOCK....just like the inspectors that go....REJECT....REJECT.....REJECT.... 
563
« on: October 20, 2010, 19:45 »
Goodness ... I'm in a very small group ... just me. 
That means you are the wisest of us all.....
565
« on: October 20, 2010, 11:50 »
Can someone explain to me why so many of the mug shots of people's heads are Vetta? Shots like this: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7922437-young-boy-smiling.php.
Something about this shot is creeps me out. He's 8 or 9, where are his clothes? Why is he shirtless in a studio shot?
It looks like a kid's mug shot in juvenile detention with this grin on his face saying"Heh they can't try me as adult...I'm to young...."... 
566
« on: October 20, 2010, 07:40 »
Will hit the 50 mark in December... I guess you can say I'm 26 with 25 years experience...lol
568
« on: October 19, 2010, 09:12 »
I posted this under the" Istock changing royality structure" and thought I'd post it here as well since it does really have to do with buyers
I noticed an ad on my opening e-mail page for Istock....it says:
"WE MISS YOU...you know you want royalty-free images and videos for $1.....get 10% off and 10 free images"
Recon they really MISS their buyers..
569
« on: October 19, 2010, 09:02 »
I noticed an ad on my opening e-mail page for Istock....it says: "WE MISS YOU...you know you want royalty-free images and videos for $1.....get 10% off and 10 free images" Recon they really MISS their buyers...
570
« on: October 18, 2010, 20:38 »
I think the shock has worn off and a lot of contributors are now accepting whatever damage is being done. There's not much chatter about it here in the forum anymore. I really hope it doesn't turn out like Fotolia....yelling and screaming threatening to leave then accepting it and staying. The screwing never stops rather it be iStock or Fotolia.
571
« on: October 12, 2010, 17:58 »
572
« on: October 12, 2010, 16:27 »
They would already have the photo and they can't very well return it.
It's not really about the photo though. What they are buying is a licence to use it. If they decide not to then it makes sense they should get a refund. That just good customer relations.
I think we all like to deal with companies which trust us as customers
Yes I guess you have a good point there. There's just so much thievery out there, I guess you have to learn to trust them.
573
« on: October 12, 2010, 15:49 »
I'm just surprised they would give them a refund. It's not like they are bringing back a pair of blue jeans for a refund. A digital image can't really be returned and you have to rely on the word of the buyer...even though they sworn the deleted the file. iStock must be really kissing a** of the buyers.
574
« on: October 12, 2010, 15:39 »
Why in the world would they give them a refund because they decided not to use it? That doesn't make sense. They would already have the photo and they can't very well return it.
575
« on: October 12, 2010, 15:36 »
Both those links show "Server not found" on my computer. I sometimes have a match on tineye and then go to look and can't even find the photo on the link.
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 70
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
