|
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 - yingyang0
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30
602
« on: February 09, 2007, 22:11 »
Yes, you can have a file moved to the dollar bin that doesn't have a download. That doesn't mean that every file that had no downloads durning the previous year is moved to the dollar bin. If the file doesn't meet current upload standards and hasn't been downloaded in the last year, then it can be moved to the dollar bin. Otherwise it is left alone. Only files that have been in the dollar bin for a month without a download are deleted. This is all to my knowledge, if I'm wrong feel free to correct me.
603
« on: February 05, 2007, 23:35 »
YingYang - I really don't mind my pics being only available to istockphoto. This is a side hobby for me. I don't have a great deal of time and so keeping them at one place works out well for me.
Each to their own 
What gave you the impression that I disapproved of iStock's exclusivity program? I'm probably going to sign on when I hit 500 for no other reason than it is easier to upload to only one site. The extra bonus programs don't hurt either.
604
« on: February 03, 2007, 22:17 »
The link on that page is to the actual istock page.
I think the "exclusive only" are "clipart" actually in the office program. ie. MS chooses some photos, pays $75 and every MSOffice user can then use them free for personal use without leaving office.
Does anyone one know of the other stock sites that are on that link above?.
If you go to insert -> picture -> clipart in Microsoft Word and then do a search for construction you get the same results as you do when you click on the construction photo that is on the page that I linked to above. It's the same thing. And no, I've never heard of the other stock sites that are listed.
605
« on: February 03, 2007, 13:55 »
... Most businesses will consider internal use as "non-commercial". That is one of the biggest potentials for microstock, since there's such a huge amount of internal presentations and reports produced every day worldwide...when clicking on the istock link at the MS site, and making a search, one of my photos came up, and I'm not exclusive. That means that there's something to gain for all of us at that end of the deal (unless there's some hidden, reduced profit when sold through the MS-link).
All I was saying is that for internal presentations, most people don't buy the photos. They just "steal" them off the internet. I also noticed the link from MS to istock, which is why I wasn't so quick to jump on the "this is horrible" band-wagon.
606
« on: February 03, 2007, 13:04 »
...what is" personal, non commercial use". Obviously we dont have full detail so you cant say for certain but does an internal company powerpoint presentation fall into this. If not, and it is truely only an internal company powerpoint presentation, how is MS or IS going to track it...
You're right that no matter what the license actually ends up saying, there is no way to police how someone uses it in an internal company powerpoint presentation. The service is actually up and running if you want to check it out: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/clipart/default.aspx
607
« on: February 02, 2007, 23:34 »
It is important to remember her, that the "personal, non-commercial use" they are talking about, is a very big chunk of the microstock market. If the personal, non-commercial users don't get or buy the images they need through MS, they would have to buy them directly from IS, FT etc.
I don't quite understand this statement. You really think there are a lot of photos being purchased for personal, non-commercial use on microstock agencies? No one I know purchases photos online for non-commercial uses. If it's not for a commercial use, they just use google image search and take it from there. How did you come up with this conclusion?
608
« on: February 02, 2007, 13:59 »
I don't call $37.50 a big commission for:
a) Allowing Microsoft to use your image in it's products however it wishes and ...
b) All MS customers being able to use this image as they wish and ...
b) Allowing MS to sell it on as one of their 'products' (even if you do receive a cut) and ...
c) You, as an independent photographer, not being allowed to sell any other RF image (even if it is not remotely related) anywhere else, through any other agency or means.
1) It doesn't say that MS customers can use the image as they wish. The terms of use have to be as restrictive or more restrictive than the regular license from iStock. 2)The program only applies to exclusives who already are prohibited from sell RF images anywhere else. So it doesn't apply to you, or any other non-exclusive (including me). 3) Since none of use have actually seen the details of the program, I think it is premature to judge the program.
609
« on: January 31, 2007, 18:17 »
i think he said
"and some images were from exactly the same SHOOT from the day before"
LOL, my mistake.
610
« on: January 31, 2007, 17:53 »
...And some were from exactly the same shoot that had been accepted a few days before...What was even worse was that the pictures that they had accepted previously they now rejected!
What they say at SS is that if you're rejected the first time you should submit completely different photos the second time. At Dreamtime, why where you submiting "exactly the same shot that had been accepted a few days before"?
611
« on: January 29, 2007, 16:35 »
I'd do venice, maybe Swizterland (sp.).
612
« on: January 29, 2007, 16:23 »
you probably could. It might take a contract and some private emails with the sites.. to get all the images transfered over to the purchasers account. Or else you could just sell the images privatly and the new photog. could upload all the images themselves, although getting the images allready on the sites would be worth quite a bit.
or else the purchaser could just take over your account for a fee.
If the price is right, i would be interested.
I would do it the second way, take down all the photos on all the site and then have the other person open up an account and re-upload them. Otherwise you'll run into problems with the sites. As long as you have an attorney write a contract to sell the rights to the photos you should be fine. Just don't expect the sites to help you transfer accounts they have with you.
613
« on: January 29, 2007, 01:25 »
Why would anyone buy a Canon xti or similar? The semi pro market is really up against it with models like Fuji S9600, this Olympus, Pansonic Lumix.
Astounding value for money. would love to see the pics from it.
Sorry but those camera's aren't in the semi-pro market, they're not even close. They're in the "casual photographer" market. Noisy, no raw, only built-in flash, etc. They're good for grandma's photos but that's about it.
614
« on: January 28, 2007, 15:07 »
yes, I hardly think that rating fights are 'an Italian thing'. Perhaps what ying yang meant was that this apparent fight between the three of you was something internal between the three of you for some reason... making it italian.
nonetheless, I also think it must be a problem for istock. Rating fights, cliques giving only 5's to ALL each others images, ...
not sure what the solution would be though.
Sorry, what I meant was that it was a ratings fight between two Italian photographers. It wasn't a a racial thing (I'm an Italian-American). If it had been between two Canadians I would have said it was a "Canadian thing" (is Canadian a race?). Personally I give a 5 or nothing at all. That way no one will come after me.
615
« on: January 27, 2007, 16:11 »
Alfiofer gave 5 times 1 star, and nothing else...
These ratings are all new, they were not there 2 days ago when I first went through Snem's portfolio. Definitely an unscrupulous agenda!
I sitemailed Lobo about Alfiofer because it wasn't just Snem. When I was wiki'ing Italy it looks like he has done this a lot. Edit: It may be an italian thing because I also found this photo that Snem did it to: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/where/scenics/landscapes/95949_a_sea_landscape.php?id=95949It looks like Alfiofer and Snem got into a ratings fight.
616
« on: January 26, 2007, 23:14 »
You're in northern Colorado...you could hit up Rocky Mountain National Park since you can't use your studio.
617
« on: January 26, 2007, 10:07 »
Is IStock down or is just me?
If it's the case sorry for the post.
It's just you.
618
« on: January 25, 2007, 09:20 »
- The more 5s the better. They help in bringing your photo to the top of the Best Match (default) sort order. The first batch of images that show up in the Best Match sort order will have ALL 5 ratings.
I've found that it only takes 1 five rating to get to the front. The things I've seen that they take into account are: 1) If it has at least one rating, and that the rating(s) is a 5. 2) Downloads/Month. For the first month they artifically put this number high. 3) Exclusivity and of course you're keyword has to map to the same CV term that the search is for.
619
« on: January 24, 2007, 08:42 »
I never got any EL on my former Free Image of the week, but I think it increased the number of dls.
I think it depends on the type of photo. Mine didn't have a whole lot of uses other than as a postcard.
620
« on: January 24, 2007, 08:40 »
I don't have a CN... who wants to join?
sure, my username here is the same as at istock, just send an invite.
621
« on: January 23, 2007, 20:21 »
I would say that is not conclusive, since November is the best month for most submitters (because of the holiday season rush). My best month was also November and I never had a free image at any of the sites.
Ok, how about the daily downloads for November? And remember that the ELs from that image made me $45, plus I don't have any holiday images in my portfolio so I doubt there was a holiday rush for me. 
622
« on: January 23, 2007, 19:40 »
4) My CN rate each other now and then when we see photos that we like in each other's portfolio
7) When one of my CN gave his photo as "Free Photo", he informed us and I was able to track and see whether this had impact on his sales and whether I wanted to do that as well. I discovered that sales did not improve at all although many people downloaded his photo in that one week. So I decided eventually never to give "Free Photos" to any stock sites.
The first one (number 4) is the main reason I see. People use the CN to help eachother out by rating their CN's photos since rating effects the position in the best match search, and therefore sales. I disaggree with the second one (number 7). I had a free photo and my sales went up. Yes, many people got that photo free, but I've also had 3 ELs on that "free" photo. It had no downloads for several months of being up, and now it has 9 downloads not including the 3 ELs. I'm happy with my decision to let them use it. P.S. That person in your CN was me, Mr. peilin75. Edit: Here is my sales for last year, can you guess which month I had a free photo of the week? 
623
« on: January 22, 2007, 16:37 »
In the mean while I was studying hard (I'm a student) with no much free time, until summer comes along and I checked up on how my images were doing and added some new ones illustrations from my school projects in graphic design.
I wrote back saying that I had searched the internet for inspiration for some of my designs, and I was working from some of them and had in fact uploaded those files in error and was happy for them to be removed.
I was wondering if anyone has any advice because contacting istock is very slow! Does this mean I am banned forever? I had $100 dollars in my account, is that lost? Could I open another account with them?
So what you're saying is that you stole other people's designs, and pawned them off as your own at school. Then you turned around and sold them on two different sites. You're claim that you uploaded those files in error is questionable since you did it at two different sites with three or more images. My advice, give up trying to get back on to iStock and be thankful that you didn't get sued!
624
« on: January 19, 2007, 21:08 »
No, you don't download it. It's a XML/HTTP API. I think you should expect some great apps coming from this because of the extra access that previously wasn't possible. For instance, you should be have to get better stats like a more accurate average earnings per photo, etc. Someone could even write a plug-in for Adobe Bridge to upload straight from there.
625
« on: January 17, 2007, 16:56 »
I'm fairly new to Alamy. One thing I find alarming (and maybe I'm alarming myself for no reason at all) is that I'm finding a ton of RM and RF images that are not model released or property released and are not restricted to just editorial distribution when they should be. I'm even finding RF images with brand names being the central focus of the image!?
Is this a matter of contributors not following the rules, and Alamy
not policing the matter? Should I not concern myself in that the
buyers will know better? I'm a bit confused by the whole thing.
One point to note is that no matter what site you're on, the legal libilities are always on the photographer. Some sites like to collect the Model/Property Releases for extra legal protection. I'd be interested to see a RF image with brand names that isn't model release, do you have a link?
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
