|
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 - Sadstock
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24
551
« on: December 18, 2010, 21:15 »
I was wondering - IS gives option to resubmit some rejected works. BUT you basically have to do everything again. Answer silly copyright questions, mark the keywords, add categories...
So what's the point? Beside giving moderator a clue that it was once rejected so maybe there are still some flaws on the photo.  Or maybe it's just a clever link to normal procedure of submitting the photo? And there's absolutely no meaning in this 'resubmitting' feature? Maybe at least the time of processing photo is shorter?
Cheers,
Paula
---------------------- I never resubmit for the very reason you suggest as it alerts the inspector that the image had a problem before. I submit again instead. Does resubmitting it affect your approval percentage? If it was rejected initially but approved on resubmission maybe it no longer counts as a rejection?
552
« on: December 13, 2010, 16:44 »
I see that the editorial pictures must have the same acceptance standards as the general collection.
That'll rule out a lot of genuine natural light images, then.
--------------------------- I agree and it does not make any sense. Since technical standards need to be the same and they won't take news/sports/celebs, it seems their version of "editorial" is commercial stock with the logos not cloned out. Everybody rush to shoot your favorite toys/Iphone on white background!!!
553
« on: December 13, 2010, 16:40 »
The search is not looking too good at the moment. Tried to do a couple and got no results. Lots of complaints from buyers in the forum, meaning lots of free/low cost credits being given away, meaning we get less royalties for Istock's poor execution.
555
« on: November 29, 2010, 20:49 »
@ Difydave - I'm in the UK too. Strange isn't it? Every time we get bad weather here, it's as though no-one ever experienced it before. So different in the States, where they're so well-prepared for it (I have a brother over there and was amazed to see how well-prepared they are for all weather threats).
Stay warm! 
---------------------------------------- .
556
« on: November 28, 2010, 12:23 »
Way to go! Enjoy the 40 while it lasts 
557
« on: November 23, 2010, 23:17 »
From the IRS "The law provides for two types of awards. If the taxes, penalties, interest and other amounts in dispute exceed $2 million, and a few other qualifications are met, the IRS will pay 15 percent to 30 percent of the amount collected. If the case deals with an individual, his or her annual gross income must be more than $200,000. If the whistleblower disagrees with the outcome of the claim, he or she can appeal to the Tax Court. These rules are found at Internal Revenue Code IRC Section 7623(b) - Whistleblower Rules. The IRS also has an award program for other whistleblowers - generally those who do not meet the dollar thresholds of $2 million in dispute or cases involving individual taxpayers with gross income of less that $200,000. The awards through this program are less, with a maximum award of 15 percent up to $10 million. In addition, the awards are discretionary and the informant cannot dispute the outcome of the claim in Tax Court. The rules for these cases are found at Internal Revenue Code IRC Section 7623(a) - Informant Claims Program, and some of the rules are different from those that apply to cases involving more than $2 million." http://www.irs.gov/compliance/article/0,,id=180171,00.htmlNo idea what Canadian tax whistle blowing pays :-)
558
« on: November 20, 2010, 08:59 »
Hello: I was going to start a new post on exactly the same subject here.
In my case they have deactivated 20 images, one of them being my most downloaded with 584 DL and a DLs/mo rate of 40.4, withc means the image was downloaded several times a day. Thay have just kill my projections of income there. Other have more than 100 Dl also.
This images were all 3D models of design chairs like the barcelona chair. This images are in all my portafolios in others agencys and as mentioned have been selling for long time in IS also. This was another BIG disapointment on IS for me.
Even if they are right about the copyright, being a 3d model not identical to the real object, wouldnt that be allowed? Isnt this a similar case to all the mobilephones photos were people just clone out the logo or brand and then they can use it?
So sad right now :'(
-------------- Sorry to hear about this. In your case, I imagine that the designer of the chair demanded that Istock take down the image or they would sue Istock. Even if Istock is likely to win such a case, the costs of hiring lawyers to defend themselves will far outweigh their potential profits from future licenses of an image, so they deactivate rather then fight. Istock has previously indicated that since they are the highest profile micro RF company they are frequently the first target for these things. I think they were first for cars, cruise ships, and guitars. I would not be surprised if other sites also begin to deactivate similar chair images. On phones, in the technical wiki they do call out Samsung phones as being prohibited http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_copyright_list.php presumably because Samsung has complained. Why not other mobile phones? I guess they've not received complaints from those designers.
559
« on: November 20, 2010, 08:46 »
It's actually 70 years in Europe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Duration_Directive
Whatever the case they must have thought there was a risk.
Can you clone the item out?
70 years after the death of the artist.
iStock always errs on the side of caution.
Once when I Scouted an image which had been rejected as copyright though well out of the 70 years pma, the image was accepted but with the cryptic note from Scout that the 70 years rule wasn't the only one they considered, but with no further information.
------------------------------- I've run into these issues as well. For images of illustrations (say from a book), Istock's policy according to Scout is that "illustrations and engravings such as these post 1884 may still be protected by copyright, as we prefer to err on the side of caution, we cannot accept it." My take is that while an would be well into public domain in most jurisdictions, its 1) possible there were some jurisdictions that way back when gave longer copyright durations. If as a copyright holder, you 2) registered your copyright in one of those jurisdictions, you could still potentially be under copyright 3) even if you created your work in the U.S. or a European country you were permitted to register your work in other jurisdictions. 4) the contributor and Istock have no way of knowing if the individual image was registered that way, even though its highly unlikely, so they reject it. The thing that kills me is that since this is the policy, why not make it public?
560
« on: November 19, 2010, 11:51 »
My support ticket did get closed - very politely and empathetically but still closed.
So I had a read of the artist supply agreement to see what it said about payment timing. The exclusive agreement (which I think is the same in this respect as the general one) says:
In response to a written request, iStockphoto will endeavor to make payment of fees in respect of purchased downloads of Accepted Exclusive Content on a monthly basis on or about the 15th day of the month following the purchase of Accepted Exclusive Content, except when sales reporting from a distribution partner is delayed, in which case payments will be made in the month following the date such sale is reported, provided such fees aggregate a minimum of US$100, failing which fees owing will be retained until they exceed such minimum.
Seems pretty loosey-goosey in that it doesn't even include the word "reasonable" with endeavor and says nothing about what happens if they blow the deadline.
All iStock's 'commitments' to its contributers are very loosely worded with words like 'reasonable' which have no legal definition. Yet our obligations to them are cast iron, (if not always crystal-clear).
------------------------------ Even if Istock were clearly in violation of its agreement there is this "Any and all disputes arising out of, under or in connection with this Agreement, including without limitation, its validity, interpretation, performance and breach, shall be submitted to arbitration in Calgary, Alberta, pursuant to the rules of the Arbitration Act (Alberta) in effect at the time arbitration is demanded." and also "You agree to waive any right you may have to (i) trial by jury; and (ii) to commence or participate in any class action against iStockphoto related to the Site, this Agreement or any agreements contemplated hereby." Not to mention if somebody did take any legal action, Istock would no doubt drop the contributor from Istock entirely.
561
« on: November 11, 2010, 22:04 »
Do you believe this is still going? Istock is still taking an extra 10% and has not indicated when they will fix the problem! I can't believe it could take this long to fix it, so I guess it really is about something else like perhaps padding the bottom line. Makes me think of this quote from JJRD in late September "Let me add the following, however: if one day I do not believe in iStockphoto anymore, I will be out of here in a snap. Faster than a speeding bullet. It is not the case at the very moment. I still believe in this place, just as on day one. I am in it for the long haul & for the well being of the entire community." http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=257202&page=3#post4869221Are we at that point yet JJRD?
562
« on: November 10, 2010, 17:11 »
Hahaha!
No Sadstock
God, I wish I was that good
I meant custom work - individual buyers contact you to request custom work and they do it via the site's mail. They send you private messages.
You get those from time to time, not only at IStock and not only for vector artists
Unfortunately for me, IStock couldn't care less if I keep on uploading or not.
But hey, that's life.
-------------------- Sorry, should have read a bit closer  Here's hoping they do start to call
563
« on: November 10, 2010, 15:16 »
Well, I for one, have certainly stopped uploading.
I even ignored private requests received via IStock - mail.
It's the 15% commission - I can't wrap my mind around it. It hurts.
I believe there are a few other artists, (very successful), who have done the same - Anja Kaiser, Thomas Amby, 9 Lives, Cory, to name just a few.
But I'm not sure, it's not my business, so let's just wait for them to come visit themselves and tell you their story.
-------------------------- Wow! You were actually personally contacted by Istock to keep uploading? I'm not a vector person, so I'm looking at this more from an overall state of Istock view, but it seems a bit desperate for Istock to contact individual contributors asking for their content. (Not a comment at all on your work Eireann!) Sounds like submission volume is seriously down and somebody at Istock is concerned.
564
« on: November 10, 2010, 09:56 »
Hard to believe that a company with this much revenue can be so completely useless at the fundamental task of running their website.
Seriously. There's not much that iStock can manage to do right these days.
---------------- They can apparently throw kick-ass parties in Japan
565
« on: November 09, 2010, 20:13 »
Similar mixed feelings about your wonderful greasemonkey scripts - it seems a bit like enabling. There's a risk that it'll slow IS down even further in doing what they need to to get the site running well. "Oh, not to worry about breaking ........(fill in the blank)......... Sean'll write a script to work around the problem."
Yeah, I know. I'm sure I'll get bored with this new toy soon .
---------------------------- Maybe this could be a new income stream? Every time somebody installs one of your scripts Istock gives you a nickle?
566
« on: November 07, 2010, 15:06 »
What dates were the ELs not being paid correctly for? I have 3 or 4 that seem low recently, one a few days ago. I would guess the issue is resolved but who knows, I haven't gotten any extra money or an email about this. Would it be sent to site mail? My one week ban has now turned into 2 months with no explanation yet and I have 3 sitemails that I can't read.
------------------------ September 27 http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=270252&page=3
567
« on: November 07, 2010, 15:00 »
That's a shame. Maybe we should get another appropriate image up there. I'm thinking this one sums up IStock at the moment:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-2386660-where-are-my-keys.php
-----------------------
OMG This is the saddest rating ever! It was done by an Istock admin DoctorEvidence, who gave it a 1/5 cameras. http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=862744
So some admin is pissed off about this image being so popular, so he gives it a bogus rating while hiding behind a screen name. How old are we now?
Usually Lobo eliminates such BS ratings and blocks the offending member's ability to so in the future.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The 1/5 rating seems to be gone now; at least I can't see it.
------------------------------- Shockingly its still there. You have to click "view 20 more" about 6 or 7 times and it will then appear. I feel so let down that Istock has not addressed this travesty of ratings :-)
568
« on: November 05, 2010, 14:51 »
If the 'Stockys' are genuinely awarded by true popular vote, it'll be interesting to see what 'the community' goes for.
At Participate / Contributor Lounge / Trends, the second highest rated file is a six year close-up of a screw, the only image left by Umbris after he removed the rest of his portfolio in disgust. 196 ratings in the last three months. 
An appropriate image to be second highest, it really should be first. That will be funny if some similar type of image wins this year. 
Incidentally, the 'Screw' image (#308048) has been screwed itself. An admin obviously decided to get rid of the embarrassment by giving it a somewhat harsh 1 / 5 review.
That's a shame. Maybe we should get another appropriate image up there. I'm thinking this one sums up IStock at the moment:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-2386660-where-are-my-keys.php
----------------------- OMG This is the saddest rating ever! It was done by an Istock admin DoctorEvidence, who gave it a 1/5 cameras. http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=862744So some admin is pissed off about this image being so popular, so he gives it a bogus rating while hiding behind a screen name. How old are we now? Usually Lobo eliminates such BS ratings and blocks the offending member's ability to so in the future. Pieman, will you step up to the plate?
569
« on: October 31, 2010, 11:56 »
Maybe the reason people are buying the Vettas and E+ files is that they appear higher up in the search, as we see best match is populated almost exclusively by Vetta and Agency these days? So people never see the cheaper priced images in the same series unless they really go looking for them. Dunno. As a really low budget buyer, though I look. Well, I used to look. I only have one credit left at iStock with no plans to buy more.
I've got a Vetta which has sold a few times, but is really low for its main keyword. I can't actually find it at the moment on that keyword, but at one point it was on the last page of a 2000+ image search. However, I did check out another of my Vettas and there are non-exclusive images with no sales ahead of it in a best match search. I found another Vetta with the same main keyword, which has sold >30 times, on the last page of that search.
Actually, I can't work out the current best match at all - except that new uploads drop like stones after about 24 hours (maybe even before that, but not much more after that first slump).
I don't believe all this stuff about buyers only looking at a page or two. On Alamy, I can see that buyers can easily search over 4000 files on the more popular search terms. I guess some Micro buyers might just buy the 'most popular', weird as that seems to me.
However, I do agree that the high prices being rammed to the front might scare off buyers, especially as so many of the brought-in Agency files in particular are 'very average'. (I'm glad I don't compete in the lifestyle sector.
--------------------------------------- One thing I've noticed with a few of my better selling files is that when they hit a milestone like 100 or 500 DL's they get bumped to the back of the best match, at least for a time. I guess this is to minimize the best match feedback loop? Maybe that is what was happening to your one Vetta image?
570
« on: October 31, 2010, 08:15 »
Unfortunately, there's no way to find 'em.
Any scope for another of your fancy Greasemonkey scripts perhaps?
This week I'll add a button to show last EL downloads next to the other columns I added before. It will at least help spot if one sold if you check at the right time.
--------------------------------------- Much appreciated, but its such a shame that it takes contributors building stuff like this on their own to get the data. Back in the day, Istock's ongoing technical issues were annoying but (maybe just a little) charming. Today, given the lack of trust, it is frightening to me. We depend on them to honestly report our sales data to us and pay us accurately. I don't believe the accounting folks at Istock would seek to screw us, but do we know how the back end works? Can we request an audit? Probably tin foil hat talk.
571
« on: October 30, 2010, 19:38 »
I think most micro contributors have a hard time realizing just how much some people are willing to pay for an image. In fact some buyers prefer to pay more. Especially if it's not their money.
Right. Which is why microstock, with it's low prices, never really took off.
-------------------------
572
« on: October 29, 2010, 10:46 »
Leads me to wondering how much else they change on the site on a regular basis without anyone noticing... Maybe this was a test of the communities observation skills? 
573
« on: October 28, 2010, 10:56 »
I noticed that even after opting out 3 times from the PP that the system continued to mark me as in the program. I posted in their forums and was told it was a glitch. However, looking at thinkstock's website I came across this...
http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/search/#boy%20superhero%20blond/f=PIHV
The isolated boy with the blue cape are all my images. Really not happy about there decision to put all images on thinkstock regardless of our opting out.
Maybe you need to give them a DMCA notice
574
« on: October 27, 2010, 11:51 »
Agreed the agency placement in the results is obscene and agree that long term this is bad for Istock and its contributors.
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
