|
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 - MichaelJayFoto
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27
601
« on: February 03, 2013, 02:47 »
I deactivated 26 yesterday, bringing my total up to 200.
Though I do it for different reasons than many here, I think it's important to show a coordinated effort of contributors is possible.
602
« on: February 03, 2013, 02:44 »
Does the Istock/Google deal also affect vector contributors, i.e. are vector contributors at risk too? That are two different questions. Images already in the Getty/Google deal or images being at risk. The Google Drive images are fact, not risks. If you consider a potential cheap mass license deal a risk, any kind of content anywhere is at risk, yes. No one can know which deal is coming up next.
603
« on: February 03, 2013, 02:25 »
12 Dollars divided over 425 users would be 2.8 cents per license.
12 Dollars divided over 425 MILLION users is...0.00000028 USD per user for the license. Well, the difference in our assessment comes from our judgment what "users" means. To me, "users" don't pay me any money, only "image buyers" do. And in addition the 425 million you mention is just "potential users" because they have Gmail - probably 90% never used Google Drive, of the rest probably 90% never use an image, of the rest 90% are using images they find on Google Images etc. And of the tiny rest of them, how many would choose my image among the 12,000 available... If you follow up your route of argumentation, then please take the amount of royalties you made with one of your images and divide that by 9 million because that's the number of iStock accounts. If there was any agency out there able to find 425 million image buyers, we wouldn't be discussing here because we were too busy uploading all our pics to them.
604
« on: February 02, 2013, 14:12 »
As it was announced as a deal with Thinkstock in Google's August blog post, I would have thought the images were coming from Thinkstock as well.
With any of my images on Thinkstock (one or more) I wouldn't have had a problem with the deal. Compared to what I get for a Thinkstock download, the $12 would have made up for 30-40 downloads which most images don't reach on Thinkstock.
Obviously I'm also judging the issues of this deal less critical than others, I just don't think their way of image selection was well done, especially with regards to iStock content.
605
« on: February 02, 2013, 05:22 »
I deactivated 26 today (as I had already removed about 200 a few weeks ago).
607
« on: January 30, 2013, 16:07 »
The Graphic Design Forum has had a little bit of discussion about the Getty / Google deal. That discussion has since turned into questions about what happens to usage rights for RM files if they get deactivated. It looks like there are some open questions that someone knowledgeable in this area might be able to address. #1 No existing license - no RM nor RF - can be revoked by removing an image. Only future licenses can be avoided. Actually even if there was an RM license outstanding, it would be the photographer's duty to make sure the image is not licensed in violation e.g. of exclusivity agreements for the use until the license term ends. #2 No RM image (as far as I know) was involved in this deal anyways as that would not allow further sales with usage history.
608
« on: January 29, 2013, 05:52 »
Okay. I just noticed you are probably only talking about people who are already non-exclusive and have their images on other agencies. If that's what you mean, sorry if my reply doesn't really match your point. 
609
« on: January 29, 2013, 05:46 »
I still think that people with good portfolios will lose much less than they think if they remove images from istock. Depends on what you mean with "good" portfolios. If you have a good microstock portfolio, you probably could make a lot of money back by quickly getting the same images up at other microstock agencies. However, there are lots of people who produce "good" images that just don't sell often. They are not generic enough, so the number of downloads is lower than the "apple isolated on white" that can be used thousands of times. iStock has managed to charge higher prices and it was quite successful for that kind of images. You won't be able to make the same amount of money that you get for a good selling Vetta image by selling it for $0.25 per download on subscription sales. We're talking about images that achieve RPD of $20 or more on iStock. For those images, the contributor will have to find a better home, somewhere in the middle to top price tiers. Assuming someone with a strong Vetta / Agency portfolio will make a similar amount of money in microstock alone sounds like a very, very risky assumption to me.
610
« on: January 29, 2013, 02:29 »
So... which of files was on Google? Where is it coming from? It can't be coming from Vetta/Agency through iStock as a non-exclusive. So why don't you ask where you actually submitted the image instead of the iStock forums?
611
« on: January 28, 2013, 12:19 »
Okay... alexmk almost said word for word what I was just typing. I would apply with both. Different standard, different things to learn from. And you'll see if you feel comfortable with either of them or both. iStock exclusivity would only be an option when you reach 250 downloads, until then test all you can.
612
« on: January 28, 2013, 01:25 »
In general, the images look like you indeed did a lot of photography, so you more or less know what you are doing. However, stock requires a bit different thinking, images don't have to be "great to look at" but useful and usable. The images you show look technically sound, though you will always find little things to improve. But the usability is limited in several ways:
You should avoid cropping elements out of the frame:
- In the third image (guy listening to music), the left shoulder is cropped while there is enough (too much) white space on the other side
- In the city night shot the top of the skyscraper in the center is cropped out (also the horizon is tilted)
- In the last shot the guy on the telephone is cropped as well
You need to learn to clean up images - there is lots of dust on the black suit and the graduate.
In general, "bright" is more useful for advertising than "dark". The business man would be more usable on a lighter background, like a rows of windows or white walls in the back.
For the two animal shots: I like them but it looks they were shot in a zoo which would raise the question of property rights. Probably you couldn't upload them to the main collection without proving you were allowed to shoot for commercial use in the zoo. I can't say for sure if they are looking for that in the application phase already.
All in all, from those pics I would only go with the music guy on white; the graduate could be okay but it somehow doesn't make me say "this is a great stock pic"; I'd rather go with a different image and subject matter like a tabletop concept or a (daylight) landscape. A variety of subjects is asked for, so try three completely different topics. Avoid technically challenging subjects like night shots and dark backgrounds. Only use what you can shoot on ISO 100, and before submitting, downsize your images to about half the size (like 2400x1600) for the application to cover potential minor issues.
613
« on: January 27, 2013, 15:34 »
A thought I had, also someone else just brought it up on another forum is this:
What if a user/s of google drive downloads some of these "free images" of some Istock/Getty contributors and uploads them as their own to stock agencies. How in hell's name would those stock agencies have any idea that those images do not belong to the uploader, especially if whoever these images belong to don't upload to those particular agencies. This means anyone could start making money from your images 
It doesn't bear thinking about 
I wouldn't be worried about that. Cases like that have happened in the past. Some agencies might fall for it for a short time but most of them have measures in place to find out quickly. And many others have an active enough community that will point it out quickly if they ever make it live.
614
« on: January 27, 2013, 13:30 »
Claudette asked me to SEND THEM LINKS to my images, because that's the only way to locate them! The easiest way to do that for your whole portfolio is to search for your copyright name (your username, your real name or your business name) at Thinkstock. You can then send the URL to iStock support. Helped me last fall when a few images were not removed properly from the PP.
615
« on: January 27, 2013, 12:40 »
Yes, if you close your account you will be paid even if the balance is below $100... I was always wondering how that is going to work with PP payments that usually are following a month later. Say if you request closure of your account on Feb 2 and they get to your support ticket maybe on Feb 6, they will probably pay out the account balance as of Feb 6. But considering that it can take up to 30 days to get your images removed from the PP sites according to the ASA (and for technical reasons it might take even longer), you might pick up additional PP sales in February which won't be added to your account before March 20... What's happening with that money? Did you get an additional payout weeks later?
616
« on: January 27, 2013, 12:05 »
I highlighted a few important bits in the response you have received: At this time we regret to inform you that we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto. Please take some time to review training materials, resources and articles provided through iStockphoto. The photographs provided in your application should be diverse in subject matter, technical ability and should be your best work. Think conceptual, creative and most important think Stock photography. I am not even going to look at the images closely because discussion of technical issues is mute if the selected images you started with won't make the cut. That's why they didn't even provide specific reasons for the single images as they would if they reject for technical reasons. Those images you submitted could end up in the collection once you are accepted but at the application you should show a bit more diversity in what you (can) do. Try to find three different types of image: Landscapes, cityscapes, people portraits, concepts, night shots, whatever you do. I think submitting three concept shots won't make the cut, no matter how good or bad they might be. Also have a look at each of those images and tell yourself: What's the product this image could be used for in advertising? Don't bother thinking "well, it might illustrate an article about..." Commercial thinking is an important part of stock photography, show them you have understood. I don't see any use in the third image and hardly any for the first one. Can you imagine how your image would look on a product package? Or in a full-page ad? The middle one is best because it has a main color (companies like their colors) and a commercial topic. Though I would expect the brush (or however you call that in English) would be much cleaner in an advertising, wouldn't you? I hope this helps you get an idea of what iStock is looking for.
617
« on: January 26, 2013, 06:13 »
Mmmm The files will go through the normal inspection process and will be subject to all the usual contributor rules such as the weekly upload limits. This way the files won't spam Best Match. from Bortonia's post in the forum. Quite honestly: I like this approach. I wish they would have done the same for all the Agency collections, CSA Images and Hulton Archive. I know right now opinions about iStock/Getty tend to be negative right away (for good reasons) but I think this could actually be a result of people thinking "we have to do it but how can we do this smarter instead of pissing off contributors nor buyers by just adding thousands of images at once".
618
« on: January 24, 2013, 01:49 »
I was also speaking to another person that said " to survive today you must deversify outside of your own business " and I completely agree with his statement. Interestingly enough this is exactly what I think made iStock successful: Yes, it certainly did take away some business from traditional image buyers but it was mainly growing because it found a way to make imagery available to millions of people who could or would not afford three digits for an image they wanted to use in a local brochure or on their website. They brought image licensing outside of the traditional business into an SMB or even consumer market. Just like Apple is making a fortune by selling 99 cent songs. The potential consumer market for imagery certainly isn't as big as the market for music but it definitely adds up to a huge amount. The reason I am disappointed with iStock - or actually Getty because things went down only since they decided to become more involved in decisions made at iStock after letting it successfully run almost independent for four or five years - is that Getty still does not understand this part of the market. It knows the customers it used to deal with for a decade or two with personal relationships between a sales person and an image editor or an art buyer. When giving out images for almost free to Google Drive, it did not just make a big single sale for themselves which I believe was celebrated internally, it also gave away images for free to the people iStock had proved are willing to pay a dollar or two for each of these uses. It did not understand that 400 million users of which maybe 10% would be willing to buy a few images per year spending $10 or $20 would add up to a market that is actually bigger than all ad agencies combined. I think this is one of the biggest frustrations for people coming from microstock that none of the macro people will ever understand because their lack of vision that there could be a huge market out there if they for once were able to think outside their tiny box.
619
« on: January 24, 2013, 01:12 »
As I have only started distributing my images through different agencies last week, I can say that I like GL so far for several reasons:
- Easy submission process
- Personal and friendly support
- Choice of price level for contributor plus high royalty rate
- Interface clean and current (like 5 years ahead of Fotolia and iStock and 10 years ahead of Dreamstime, Deposit, Canstock)
If there are sales (and I had a first one already), I think GL will be on the top of my preferred agency list, along with Shutterstock.
I have no plans of keeping content from any agency but some are making it easy to supply and those will get future uploads first. Others are complicated, so they will have to wait until I take the time...
With regards to some comments in this thread: I submitted people images without problems; and I have a very high acceptance rate on my iStock-accepted files - actually not (or almost not) getting any rejections at all like I did on Deposit and Canstock makes me doubt about their seriousness on quality. I am totally fine with getting a few rejected because they don't fit into an agency - or because they just tell me "hey, if iStock approved these it was probably because the inspector had to go through 500 flower images before and was just happy to see something different".
620
« on: January 23, 2013, 08:48 »
Guenter, when you hand in the crown all your portfolio goes back into the PP! thats why we need an opt out option. When you hand in the crown, it doesn't make sense to stop the files from the PP. Handing in the crown without taking files to Shutterstock doesn't make sense, and when you have them at Shutterstock, Thinkstock is not a problem either. At least that's my opinion. It doesn't help in "protecting" your files to remove them from the PP as well. It doesn't make a big difference if they are on the GI site, on a PP site or on iStock's site. The rules are the same everywhere and they can use your images for deals like this. Just because in this specific case they haven't chosen images from the iStock site directly doesn't say anything about what might be coming up next week or next month or next year. The other point would be: Do you have images that you think shouldn't be sold through subscription sites at all? Then I think you only have two options: Stay exclusive at iStock; or look for a different venue outside of the microstock world for those images. Just make sure that you know where your agency is going to distribute your images because at many agencies you will find out they are distributing through Getty as well - as can be seen from the images in the Google Drive deal.
621
« on: January 23, 2013, 08:40 »
Thanks a lot! I ran across this topic as I am searching for a software to do it the other way around (get Metadata from a text file into the JPGs) and the demo version of PM is doing it just fine.  It's just not quite cheap as I'm looking for that bit only but it still might be worth it instead of keywords thousands of files manually.
622
« on: January 22, 2013, 15:47 »
Istock told me as an independent, it will take up to 30 days to remove my content.
I guess you asked support for termination of your account? In that case, it is written in the ASA that termination can take up to 30 days (Article 12 a). You can however deactivate your own images yourself anytime, image by image (or easier with Sean's script), which takes effect immediately.
623
« on: January 22, 2013, 12:53 »
I'm going to drop my crown. That's about all I can do. I've started an Angry Istockers Facebook page if anyone wants to join.
https://www.facebook.com/AngryIstockers?
I'd be more than happy to add some admin.
Sorry I won't be part for this for two reasons: 1) A "page" is not the right thing for something like this, a group would be better. Pages are One-To-Many communication, if I post on your wall it gets lost in a small box. In groups all members' posts are equal. 2) There are a couple of groups going on already. Some invite-only to control they are out of access for officials, some are public... contact your fellow iStocker's on Facebook to see who is a member and can invite you.
624
« on: January 22, 2013, 04:22 »
Interesting - I have just seen the attached ad on Facebook on D-Day, promoting "The World of Pictures", a small new agency focused on social media & mobile images.
625
« on: January 21, 2013, 13:38 »
Michael Utech posted some interesting stats in iStock's Discussion forum - http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350403&page=2#post6825629No exclusive exodus yet (2 diamonds and 5 gold members returned their crown so far in January, only one gold member became exclusive), however it takes 30 days until the status change becomes visible so we might see a few more. Downloads still as low as the whole final quarter of last year, absolutely no upswing visible.
A little more interesting - About 140 members deleted 7300 files the last week (week before was 4600, already much more than usual). In addition upload numbers are about 30% lower than between summer and Christmas. These 7300 are more than what gets uploaded on a regular day. Let's see what happens when the Feb 2nd plans of a group of contributors become reality here...
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
