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 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 70
576
« on: October 10, 2010, 20:16 »
Hello,
I am a USC graduate student conducting research on iStockphoto users. If you are an iStockphoto contributor and would like to be entered into a drawing to win a $20 Amazon gift card, please take this survey:
https://usc.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bfq5OXfNAouvDMw
Thank you in advance! I appreciate your participation.
Uhhh am I missing something here?  How can you win a Amazon gift card if no personal data is recorded?  Sounds rather fishy to me. "Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. The following questions are related to crowdsourcing communities and the individuals who participate in crowdsourcing projects and activities. Your participation is entirely voluntary and no personal data will be recorded. The survey should take between 5-10 minutes to complete. "
577
« on: October 10, 2010, 15:39 »
When you are viewing sales as a table, the date is for the most recent sale for each photo.
thanks elvinstar....I wasn't looking at them as table. I had it set as graph.
578
« on: October 09, 2010, 19:57 »
I haven't sold but two photos on Veer, wish it were more and hope it will be more in the future, but what I have sold I can't figure out how to find out what I actually made one just one of them. That statistics page is way to confusing. This new sale has the date of July on the photo. Is that the actual sale date or the upload date because it's way past July for it to be suddenly showing up under sales.
579
« on: October 09, 2010, 18:40 »
I feel for ya Renee. As far as I know I haven't had an image that I have on the stock sites stolen....as far as I know....but I did have one stolen off another site where it wasn't for sell or for free either and it was plastered everywhere and that upset me. Wish I had some advice for you.
580
« on: October 05, 2010, 19:03 »
Thanks Scott for explaining.....you gotta admit it says a lot about a company that will come here and answers our concerns. Thanks
581
« on: October 05, 2010, 17:45 »
It may be on thinkstock via StockXpert. Now the artist got 25 cents instead of a few bucks. Bummer.
It's labeled as iStockphoto on Thinkstock, not Hemera.
Without knowing why the photographer closed their iStock a/c, if they've terminated the agreement, iStock/Getty shouldn't be selling the images anywhere at this point. I understand their intra-site interfaces are broken, but that doesn't alter their legal obligations.
My guess is there are some weasel words in the agreement that says they have some "reasonable" amount of time to remove the files. Given how useless their software is, that could be many months...
Wonder how they would handle the payment for those sales after the contributor closed the account. Of course for 25 cents it wouldn't be nearly enough for a payout, but I would think that the agency is selling them illegally since they are no longer the contributors agent.....if that is the case.
582
« on: October 04, 2010, 19:38 »
I'm referring to who would sign the model release based on the age of the photo. I'm assuming you are related to the individual. I also assume you took the photo. If you did not take the photo then you need a property release as well as a model release.
The cut off period for a model release would be determined by the stock agency. They have the right to request a model release on a photo that is 10 yrs old or 100 yrs old. So I guess the answer to your question would be no there is no cutoff date for a model release.
583
« on: October 04, 2010, 19:03 »
Thanks. Yes I am only asking about model releases.
Not about property releases or copyright issues.
If it is a recent photo and there isn't an estate involved and the person is recognizable in the picture and you are the only child, then you'd sign it as a child or his spouse would if still living. If there are more than one of you then all children or spouse need to sign it. It depends on how old the photo is.
584
« on: October 04, 2010, 18:52 »
But since we are also talking about old photographs - is there some cut off meaning that photographs taken before some date do not need to be model released (or some period of time after a person has died) ? I do see old stuff from various stock sites which is available to licence either RF or RM (apparently released - not editorial) and I cannot believe that all of the surviving relatives have signed.
(Focusing on model releases here if possible rather than property releases or issues of copyright).
Shutterstock and Bigstock will accept them as long as your have a property release showing you are the owner of the pictures. iStock and Dreamstime require both property release as well as model release signed by next of kin. I'm referring to photo's from the 1800's, not recent ones. You can also submit them under editorial at the sites that accept them as such and not have to worry about it.
If they are 100 year old photos the copyright would be expired, but the stock agencies still require a property release and some require model releases if you don't submit as editorial.
585
« on: October 04, 2010, 15:08 »
If you took the photo of grandpa you would need the signature of the heirs all of them with signing rights to use the image. it is more like great great grandpa, so 2-300 signatures; that's just too much work. I think Dondings suggestion about editorial sounds good.
BTW: Who signs the PR? Me? I have no proof of ownership, it is a family heirloom that happened to fall my way. Wills are not common here, we usually split things evenly between all the heirs. No lawyers get involved.
You'd sign the property release since it is in your possession. Really it is out of copyright being over a 100 years old, but they still require that stuff. All they gotta do is look at the photo to tell it is from the 1800's.
586
« on: October 04, 2010, 14:54 »
I have also wondered about this question. I have a lot of 100+ years old pictures of my relatives. As far as I can tell, the photographers rights expire 70 years after his death in my country. But if I have to get written permission from all the living relatives, I can just put the pictures back in the drawer. My ancestors were prolific, I'm sure I have several hundred cousins who are direct ascendents from the people in the pics. (Not counting the ones outside marriages).
Shutterstock and Bigstock will accept them as long as your have a property release showing you are the owner of the pictures. iStock and Dreamstime require both property release as well as model release signed by next of kin. I'm referring to photo's from the 1800's, not recent ones. You can also submit them under editorial at the sites that accept them as such and not have to worry about it.
587
« on: October 04, 2010, 08:47 »
I got it also but didn't fill it out. Like disorderly I don't intend to upload any more so I figured what's the use. It is strange that they would be asking rather you have a studio or not and models ect. It almost makes one wonder if they are scoping out who they want and who they don't based on professional equipment and such under the disguise of a survey. It wouldn't surprise me if they did, knowing the tactics of Getty/iStock.
588
« on: October 03, 2010, 18:55 »
 I just became a diamond contributor at Istock (a few minutes ago). I knew this would happen somewhere in Autumn, and I was looking forward to this milestone for months. Now why am I not celebrating 
errr .... because you still get 20% regardless?
Nope. If you don't make 1.4 million in RC's then you drop below 20%
I think Baldricks Trousers was referring to the current 20%. It still would be 20% regardless of what canister level
589
« on: October 03, 2010, 18:02 »
Simple solution - stop uploading. I wish everyone would just stop uploading to Getty, especially the independents. You keep uploading and what sort of message does that send to Getty - that it's OK to rip-off their loyal contributors? Do you really want to see the other micros follow Getty's greedy example? Because that's where this is leading to we don't don't find an effective means of protesting the commission cut. Ten cents a download anyone?
My sentiments exactly...well said
590
« on: October 03, 2010, 18:00 »
Just noticed the inspection queue is over 79000, the biggest I've ever seen it. Wonder if the inspectors are tied up with getting to grips with Agency requirements or on a go-slow as a protest against the changing royalty structure. Or maybe they're just all on holiday. Don't remember ever seeing the queue that big.
Maybe they all quit....
591
« on: October 02, 2010, 11:59 »
I still believe that they are moving towards making Getty Macro...iStock Mid Stock and Thinkstock as their micro. I also think that the non exclusive is going to be forced to sell only at Thinkstock if they choose not to go exclusive, so iStock will be a mid stock run exclusive agency.
592
« on: October 02, 2010, 10:57 »
Pixart....I don't have the answer you need...but you bring up a good point I never even thought about. I do wear glasses and tried progressive contact lens a few years back...but because of stigmitism I couldn't get use to them. I never tried shooting with them in so I don't know how that would effect it. Let us know what the eye doctor has to say about it. I usually take my glasses off when I shoot and just have to hope the auto focus is doing it's job.
593
« on: September 27, 2010, 19:03 »
Personally if I wasn't familiar with iStock and I was a new buyer looking for images....I wouldn't know anything about Vetta or what all those crowns and canisters below the pictures were for...I would probably look at the prices and move on. I don't think a lot of people understand what Vetta is and therefore are put off by the higher prices..
594
« on: September 27, 2010, 16:44 »
Sounds like another act of deceit and unkept promises by a forked tongued serpent with the name of iStock.!
595
« on: September 27, 2010, 12:28 »
admin note: A rather untasteful (politically incorrect etc.) image has been removed along with comments responding to that image
Thank you Leaf
596
« on: September 26, 2010, 20:20 »
I've wondered if there was much of a market for portraits. I've done a few for friends and family and looking into more commercial work. Found that I am competing with the Targets and Walmart photo studios which charge peanuts. Most folks are happy with those generic studios with their lame backgrounds and cheap set prices. And there are established portrait studios for high schools that get the entire contract and run students through like cattle.
I've talked to a few photographers that do a more customized type of portrait photography. They don't have a big expensive studio so they go to the customer. Their shots are different because they do the shots in a more natural setting...meaning parks....outdoor shots. The customer chooses where they want to go and they go there. I don't do this but have considered it. A lot of people prefer a natural setting rather than the staged studio shot so that may be an option for you.
597
« on: September 26, 2010, 18:27 »
More confusion......I give up. I don't really know why I'm worried about it cause come the first of January I'll be out of there..good luck to everyone else
598
« on: September 26, 2010, 16:36 »
Amazing, all these months and never reached the limit yet. So here's a bump for all the people who have posted links here. Thanks if you can use the free storage, for sharing and giving one of us, some more storage.
https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg3NTUwMjA5
Thanks for bumping up the thread....I wondered how in the world someone joined through me when I only posted it that one time on here which was back in July. Hope you reach yours soon.
599
« on: September 26, 2010, 16:07 »
...so if I'm understanding right....the most you can make being an independent is 20% correct? The canister's are pretty much tossed out the window because the future pay structure based on sales $$$ and the credits and not the canister level. Correct me if I'm wrong because the way those figures look...there would be no reason for anyone to stay as an independent.
Donding,
From your question, it sounds like you believe that independents could increase our royalty percentage with canister changes. That's not the case; independents got 20%, no matter the level. The only significance of canisters was and continues to be our upload limit.
Thanks disorderly. I thought that was the way it was or would be but wasn't 100% certain.
600
« on: September 26, 2010, 15:51 »
I'll take it one step further. If we know the value of a redeemed credit at each level, you can work out the royalties needed in order to maintain your commission level. You can calculate what royalties you'll need to jump up a level, too. Here's another handy dandy chart:
Level Commission Redeemed Royalties Needed Royalties Needed Credits Req'd to Maintain to Promote IndyBase 15% - - $398 IndyBronze 16% 2,000 $424 $2,650 IndySilver 17% 12,500 $2,816 $9,010 IndyGold 18% 40,000 $9,540 $35,775 IndyDiamond 19% 150,000 $37,763 $352,450 IndyBlackDiamond 20% 1,400,000 $371,000 -
Bronze 25% 2,000 - $4,141 Silver 30% 12,500 $4,969 $15,900 Gold 35% 40,000 $18,550 $69,563 Diamond 40% 150,000 $79,500 $742,000 Black Diamond 45% 1,400,000 $834,750 -
So if you're currently at Gold level, you'll need to earn $18,550 per year to maintain that commission rate - if you earn $69,553 you'll jump up to Diamond level. If you're an independent and iStock comprises 40% of your total microstock revenue, then you'll have to be earning about $94k to "earn" a 19% commission, and about 928k to get 20%.
Thanks Sharply_Done for that chart, that really puts a better perspective on things....so if I'm understanding right....the most you can make being an independent is 20% correct? The canister's are pretty much tossed out the window because the future pay structure based on sales $$$ and the credits and not the canister level. Correct me if I'm wrong because the way those figures look...there would be no reason for anyone to stay as an independent. Oh and no need for anyone to point out I've only had 483 downloads in 4 years....I'm already very aware of that. I do have somewhat of a life outside of microstock.
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 70
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|