|
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 - etudiante_rapide
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 79
626
« on: March 24, 2016, 15:56 »
excuse my miscomprehension...
the article is so lengthy and i am a muddle head
as to who is who...
- is the dude Instagram or connected with.
- or is it just someone who used the photographer's work
and then claims it as his or rightful to use ?
-or is this guy who claims fair usage the owner of Instagram?
only thing i get is that someone is saying he can use our photos
and get away with making money with it , right???
the problem is just that...
with the law on their side, who needs the law?
or is it deliberate , so you a famous photographer will have to retain a lawyer
...
another legal conspiracy , no???
627
« on: March 24, 2016, 11:50 »
Itˋ s a common mistake by people who dont understand crowd sourcing, that losing people doesnt matter.
And then they are surprised if half the community leaves in a few weeks or months.
" just a few people whining on a forum of losers" is what they tell investors...but nothing matters more than your reputation.
So many people think being part of the swarm means we are stupid, while it is exactly the opposite. Without input from everyone, it would take a lot longer to see what is really going and how much attention an agency deserves.
it all depends on which side of the board you belong. this age is all about "temporary"-ness, unlike the old age mentality that stability , longevity , ... is the key. much like the modular structure in your office. you , the people, are no different to the CEOs. you make money for us, you stay... tomorrow, we remove your name from the door, and remove everything connected to you... and we escort you to the exit with only a box of your personal effects. everything in business today is just that. telemarketing, publishing,etc... shutterstock today, istock yesterday ,etc.. the common good is not what matters to the investors (not even the whole community of investors, ... just the controlling shareholders). their main interest is to make money ..quickly, and pull out to go elsewhere to do another dirty work... that is the modern era of the old school mining industry. the only thing they mine these days is ... people. the ghost towns they leave behind with pointless pollution are the same...
people, and their homes. consider how many business eg telemarketing... subsidized by your govt, are now empty head offices in your city??? same thing.
628
« on: March 23, 2016, 18:31 »
I would like to see a stocksy-ish site created for us plebs.
I wouldn't join any elite club that would have me as a member
A very appropriate sentiment, given your username. 
When was Groucho Marx a character named Woody? http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/04/18/groucho-resigns/
I think it's a play on the word 'member' and the username of the poster.
yes, Groucho was a man of his word, he could poke you like a woodpecker 
629
« on: March 23, 2016, 15:31 »
Last week I got to know one of those guys and most people seem to think that it is "cool" to live off abusive corporate structures who are simply base upon the exploitation of the productive effort of others.
funny, i heard that phrase before. .. ah yes, now i remember, it was from the australian movie "Plastic"... they were computer geeks or internet geniuses or something, but they ended up dying when the people they con turned out to be more powerful con-men than themselves.
630
« on: March 23, 2016, 13:41 »
The U.S. media wants Trump to be elected; it's the political story of a lifetime. To that end they've given him 10 times the coverage of other candidates - free of charge. And they'll continue playing ball with him until the election - by running soft-pitch stories like "Trump refuses to back down" instead of going after his ridiculous and inconsistent statements.
But if Trump somehow manages to get elected, that all changes and the media sets out to bring him down. That's when they'll start to pull all the skeletons out of the closet, and go for his blood. They'll do their best to push it all the way to impeachment. It won't be pretty. Chaos and conflict is what they want, what they sell, and what they know how to create.
the wisest comment on this topic so far. the real story is not how good trump is, but who brings the most watch-rating. that's all the US media is interested. they are not out to find the w w w w w of journalism but selling ads and making big profit. and yes, after the election, if he wins, they will go for blood... because that will be the news that sells . US media is all about that. that's why those lettermen talk-trash shows go on forever... remember once, the girl who married van halen got an interview and when she said the marriage is going well, the media stopped asking. more recently, same thing with jackson browne... he wanted to talk about the common issues that need to be told, but when the media heard what it was, they told him to forget it.. that's US media for sure.
631
« on: March 23, 2016, 13:25 »
so, is your stocksy earning in proportion to your ss  300/3000
On average on Stocksy I make about 30% of the royalties I make on Shutterstock. So the return per image is much higher on Stocksy. But it's really hard to compare because my portfolio on Stocksy is still so small that the royalties make huge jumps. One month I get only Small and Medium sales for $5 or $12.50 each; another month I get an Extended License for $275. So there is a lot of randomness in the earnings in Stocksy for me.
thx for response. i get it. given that they are entirely different ports, it is difficult to compare apples with oranges. but i take it from you that per sales earning is higher than ss, though ss is more consistent with daily sales. it's good to have that balance you have... so you are not entirely dependent on ss... in case they pull the plug like istock did.
632
« on: March 23, 2016, 12:08 »
as mick used to say, [/color] too .. but the moving ants won't work in color 
633
« on: March 23, 2016, 09:47 »
Not enough people vote for it. Only the sites with numbers have enough votes. If it does end up getting enough votes I wouldn't be surprised if it went straight into the top tier.
if you place your mouse over stocksy you see that their earnings are largely by a chosen few. in another thread, someone points this out alamy is no doubt the same thing, whereas for ss and getty, the spread of the pie is more of a larger distribution... in the same sense as blue chip vs penny stocks...
in the real big money stock market. as mentioned below When will we see Stocksy get out of the low earners section?
I'm not really sure how the Ratings work. I'd assume there is something factored in that considers the average across all voting members of the forum. In this case, I doubt Stocksy will ever show relevant numbers in there considering there are only around 1,000 members and most of them are not active on MSG.
For me personally, Stocksy in most month is the number 2 or 3 earner, way before iStock or Fotolia (I don't submit actively to Alamy, and I'm surprised and wonder how they suddenly made the second place in this ranking). And while Stocksy is far behind Shutterstock for me, I only have 300 images on Stocksy compared to 3,000 on Shutterstock. And I'm a rather small contributor at Stocksy.
So amongst those who submit to Stocksy, I would assume the majority would have Stocksy within the Top Tier.
so, is your stocksy earning in proportion to your ss 300/3000 I've been with Getty, iStock, SS, and Alamy in the past. None came close to the income I've been able to generate at Stocksy.
634
« on: March 22, 2016, 18:54 »
I fully understand your feelings and would feel the same. I'm still in full support of Stocksy but on a very personal level my financial results has been rather poor. People think they miss out big time but if you don't fit naturally in their concept your results will probably not be that great and their rejections will hit you very hard.Shutterstock and the devil (Getty) are still by far my financial backbone. That said I would never promote SS or Getty but do promote Stocksy on all levels on a nearly daily basis, hopefully there will be other fair trade outlets with such a great community like Stocksy so every contributor find a fair site in which he fits naturally style and concept wise.
as an outsider, i sort of expected that (remark in red)... much like an agency that would promote mobile photos as the flavour of the decade. alamy is pretty close to be the non-elitist stocksy, and although their 58.7 outdid istock it is still a handful who makes money with them too, i am sure. love or hate , ss and the big G are the only ones every one makes money... so, i would support these two,
since i am the contrarian of kelly...(to me, money is everything)
and ss and getty talk with money
635
« on: March 22, 2016, 13:08 »
Nice publicity for Stocksy, but it's so closed (so few people are accepted) that I'm not sure how what it does applies to any of the open platforms or marketplaces.
There's clearly some very bad things happening to Uber drivers even as customers love the service; and to neighborhoods when Airbnb is effectively operating hotels in residential neighborhoods. I'm hoping that changes will happen there, but I can't make the connection with the Stocksy model as the way to bring it about
Unfortunately, we need to be protected from each other as well. I don't think there are many other ways to do it than not inviting everyone to the party.
Possibly true, but as someone not invited, I clearly am not much motivated to support approaches that benefit others but leave me out 
once again,at the risk of being called sour grapes by these chosen elitists, i have to agree fully . but these new-age gen seems to enjoy being separatists, it makes them look cool. at best, much like those eunuchs in the forbidden city at worst, much like that dude in ww2 with the charlie chaplin 's moustache with his chosen fewstill, not all grapes are sweet; some of the best wines are made with sour grapes too. whatever turns them on LOL
636
« on: March 22, 2016, 10:35 »
So I wouldn't blame Thompson. He's just the messenger.
He's a messenger that usually doesn't deliver good news. Kind of like the people that deliver eviction notices.
LOL like so timely march 15 once long time ago at a forum, Spurinna the haruspex warns Caesar " "... must pay well to be the grim reaper , huh???
637
« on: March 21, 2016, 20:48 »
It definitely takes a cut out of our profits, to give the photographers 70%! There's no denying that. But we think it's better to tighten our margins and attract world class photographers. We'll make up the difference in volume, because we have the best photographers in the world selling their work.
did i read it wrong or did they mention world-class photographers will go with that???
Yes this is what world class photographers want - crappy commissions
LOL, i guess there will be enough gullible photographers who will believe them when they say " woopy dink!!!... but that only makes you a 2nd best World-class photographer, since the ones who give them photographers away for free ... like those on flickr, fbok,etc.. are the real World-class photographers since more of their photos are used all over the world... and the only thing that is found more than your world-class photographs around the world is ....................garbage
638
« on: March 21, 2016, 19:00 »
It definitely takes a cut out of our profits, to give the photographers 70%! There's no denying that. But we think it's better to tighten our margins and attract world class photographers. We'll make up the difference in volume, because we have the best photographers in the world selling their work.
did i read it wrong or did they mention world-class photographers will go with that???
639
« on: March 21, 2016, 18:48 »
I hope they go out of business.
They will, eventually. Or they'll turn into Flickr and try to cash in on advertising although... there is already a Flickr. It was feeling weird for a while now. Change of management direction may save them in the future, but right now looks like all they are doing is destroying their formerly very loyal artist base.
they were like flickr already, as i mentioned my reason for not joining them in the first place. the things is, to many ppl out there globally, there is an appeal to fb, flickr,... social media and yes, they make money on other ppl's stuff... and they do become millionaires without having to pay a penny for your photos etc i suppose the only way to make money these days is in fact having your own blog. and using ads from google,etc which pays you money if you add their ads in your blog. already there are lots of ppl who quit work and have made alot of money writing their own blog. the news BBC or CBC ... in UK and Canada, did a coverage on that recently, i think it was on yahoo world
640
« on: March 21, 2016, 17:13 »
Getty has nothing to fear from 500px!
Did you ever think Getty has something to fear from 500px? It is partly funded by Visual China Group which has a long standing partnership with Getty Images that was just deepened by the Corbis deal.
Now a former Getty manager is hired by 500px to head the market.
Can't you guess already what the next exciting news will be? Let me write it for you:
"We are excited to announce a partnership with Getty Images that will allow more customers to see and buy your content. Of course you will still receive your usual 30% of the 20% Getty pays us. But you know what? We might drop the weekly upload limit, so you can give us your images faster than ever."
i never went in originally because one look at the site with all those "love your portfolio, please come and see mine"; "great shot, have a look at my photos",etc.. and those thumbs up or whatyamightcallit a la fb , flickr,etc... i left immediately as i take it that 500px does not know whether it wants to be a social-media or a stock agency. i am not familiar with kelly, but i take it the name is as popular/unpopular as bruce selling istock to getty,etc. with such an amazing PR of either personality, one wonders why any agency would like kelly or bruce name attached to it. as they say, or something like that.
641
« on: March 21, 2016, 15:16 »
Not sure why it didn't include that money isn't what would make us happy
From the e-mail "We are changing the photographer royalty rate to ensure the sustained growth of 500px."
There isn't anything specific about how they're going to bring in buyers - beyond cutting prices. But somehow in advance of getting buyers in larger numbers, they need to cut royalty rates to their suppliers?
They also conveniently forgot to note they started out offering a 30% royalty rate and there was an outcry, so they changed it to 70%...
I'm not surprised, but I'm really disappointed that a new entrant with limited track record of selling starts out by scr*wing photographers. I know we typically get to that in the end, but so early?
red --- it all really depends on what backing they get . .. if they get the backing early, they show their true colours sooner. this turncoat is not a strategy mainly with stock photography, of course. many years ago, in the 90s, mp3 the music company started "giving indie musicians a level playing field"... and for a couple of years, only indie musicians were allowed. but as soon as they got named people who were already recording artists, they suddenly informed all the indie artists who made them, that from that day on, "if you want to stay, you must pay". one would be safe to say, musicians got the first lube and now, some one and half decades later, microstock get the next. i am sure the people behind these companies are the same ones... same strategy, different market.
642
« on: March 21, 2016, 10:19 »
Hello anybody uploading to eyeem and colourbox? i have around 33k on the big sites and i am really pleased with the results..so just wanted to know if it is worth the effort on uploading on them. Thanks
I really don't understand this kind of mentality: You are bringing up agencies on both end of the scale - Colourbox is basically a subscription-at-cheapest-prices-only agency. The average return is below 0.30 per download for me. And with EyeEm/Getty you are planning to sell the same images on the high level of prices with up to $500 for the largest version?
I am trying to supply images to all price levels of the market but I keep a huge difference in the images I sell. Sending masses of images to all markets doesn't sound like a promising strategy for me. The kind of images that sell through EyeEm and Getty that I see on social media are not the typical microstock images; and the typical images that sell in premium collections are not the ones that tend to make high returns in microstock.
I would suggest you first find out what market you shoot for before defining the best distribution channels for those images.
well said, as i am sure many photographers were shoot for hire before they joined micro as a sideline. which again, does not make sense when ss tells their contributors not to bother applying for offset since they do not want micro photographers. they do know how to shoot for whatever market defines the best distribution, as we did with IS (rf) and other RM market, before Bruce blew up in our faces
643
« on: March 20, 2016, 14:08 »
You could always start your own forum and implement your own rules.
I have been coming here for 10+ years. I ignore the trolls, pontificators and blowhards, and use (and appreciate) the honest, intelligent information given by those who know their stuff. I am pretty sure everyone here knows the difference.
The great thing about any forum is that you don't have to participate. You can go somewhere else or start your own if it isn't doing what you think it should. I think Leaf does a great job.
I think that's where the old members have gone. Same as the people who complain about the pay and agents all the time. You can always quit and do something else. You don't have to come here and complain about how bad micro is. Same as you don't have to come here for the forum if the people aren't to your liking. I miss the conversations about something else but money, sales, the latest place that's stealing from us. If I want to do something different for a living I will.
I keep in touch with several "old timers" and they are still here under different names and do not participate any longer. The main reason was for speaking up against Fotolia and then getting kicked out. These are people who make their living at stock so they simply do not wish to take any risk. I was kicked out of FT and do not regret it, but I have toned down my dissatisfaction with agencies except for FT. They acted like little spoiled rotten babies - stick and stones - can break their bones but names hurt their puny little feelings more - when we were treated like production robots. Why wouldn't we speak up? Did FT think contributors wouldn't? And their game plan was to toss out any naysayers they deemed disposable.
That's why a handful left and went completely off the grid.
all 3 of you made some fine points, yes. the thing is many , new and old, forget the purpose of a forum. it is a place to openly discuss things, not a fan club. i think someone else pointed out in another thread very well, ie. you don't have to come here if you don't like the tone of the forum, you also, don't have to keep complaining how unfair everything is... you can always delete your port from the agencies which pisses you off. the final point being, we may all agree to disagree, but that does not mean that we are out to strangle or drive someone out of town with a pitch fork. it's the topic we disagree , not the person, ...
644
« on: March 20, 2016, 08:26 »
Of course it's very easy to 'take' images once they're online, and the constant social media 'share' buttons beside photos on many sites certainly give the impression that a photo is free to share, therefore to use, wherever. That's what I'd have assumed before I was in stock, at least as a non-commercial use.
ah yes, social media... theft by small-print authorization!!! eg. fb ... users unknowingly allow fb to use their private photos, and cousins' cousins' cousins unknowingly spread their "authorized" usage with their tagging,etc. the plague is so subtle that before you know it, your family's private album is proliferating all over the internet... and fb flickr,etc... churn in the bucks from ads. i see the agencies going that way too, starting with dt who was the first to use fb "like", and then there is the "donate" button, or you auto-donate by not responding to their email to take down your non-sellers. are we not surprised agencies do nothing about theft. even social media encourages theft by having you authorize them to be able to use your photos you add to fb, flickr,etc.. right??? and then there 500px who is still haven't decided if they want to be a stock agency or a social media,...
645
« on: March 19, 2016, 22:24 »
BTW, although I think that RF was an extremely bad idea from the suppliers' position, RM doesn't guarantee that a file won't be misused.
I have an RM file on Alamy which has been licensed 22 times, but online alone I found over 50 separate uses, and that was up til two months ago, 45 of them different uses from one company over two websites, yet each sale, under the UKNS, was for a 'single article only'. Still waiting for that to be resolved.
could it also be that some of them picked the image up from someone who paid for it??? i was thinking especially for those sites that put the image in a large size. what's there to stop someone else to right click save the image and then insert it in their own site??? i guess there is really no guarantee of who paid and who didn't. .. unless there is some sort of a serial # for usage or whatever. but that would be too troublesome...huh?
646
« on: March 19, 2016, 19:03 »
There is very little apart from buyer honesty which stops any sort of misuse, whether using files bought without ELs in ways which require ELs, giving credit to the author for files used editorially (which some sites require, but is often ignored), or 'sensitive use', which certain agencies forbid and certain others require buyers to pay more for.
Also some sites make it difficult for a buyer to know that they are supposed to buy extended licences for certain purposes.
i think that is the problem ... ie. many users, or even myself... , do not even understand what EL is about. i believe those 28 to 102 dollar commission for single dl are the only honest buyers for such usage. which we all suddenly find vastly missing these days for many months already with ss. back to dt, i once found a book with my image on the front cover, to which i don't even remember getting an EL from dt. it's been years since, and i still have not known of getting an EL and i still see that book cover on amazon. so far as i know, i think i got paid same as a single dl from dt for this. i know it is from dt because it's the only place i have a dl for that image . it all still goes back to the word, "royalty free", which to many still means, "use without paying".
647
« on: March 19, 2016, 12:20 »
The idea that the Gates Foundation had anything to do with the spread of this virus is complete nonsense, as a minute spent Googling the issue - and reading actual news sources - makes clear.
agree. why would gates do such a thing??? i am speaking not from stories, of the man. .. i actually met and work with people who worked for the man, and not one of those people had anything bad to say about bill gates. he was always the one to help someone who wants to succeed, because he was a self-made man himself. if he really wanted to spread some silly virus, he does not have to do it in such a way that it all ends up in your face. bill gates has better things to do. anyway, sorry to get a bit off-topic.
648
« on: March 18, 2016, 10:47 »
Yep, credit card fraud, so its not as uncommon as you make it out to be. Sorry to rain on your parade but fraud is everywhere, no one is excluded and neither is Symbiostock.
no one is immuned from credit card fraud or hacking; banks, govt, military,etc.. only that they do not tell you about it. the problem is these ppl are as large as the banks, govt, military... they have even their own telemarketing, relay,... companies that have another telemarketing company running the scam i once had an IT guy relate to me of how he worked for some nigerian type firm (based in california or texas or some canadian cities, or even central america, etc...) who had a relay company with another company of telemarketing clerks calling moms and pops store to buy lots of things. one anecdote included them calling a cancer society and when told they do not sell encyclopedias, the person on the other end asked, "so what do you sell, we want to give you a lot of business". by the time he realised what was going on, the company had replaced the whole center and went off-shore , to continue the scam elsewhere, ... selling baseball cards, or calculator rolls B2B, etc..no doubt. all this while receiving new foreign startup govt subsidy . needless to say, these companies are no longer in existence in california, texas, canadian cities, central am,etc... it's like that foreign movie , i can't recall the title of it, where this clever bunch ran a credit card scheme in an ideal money-laundering scheme, or something. i am sure there is microstock agency somewhere doing that too. perfect environment. i am sure they come to symbiostock too.. or worse, actually run some microstock agencies to the right... where only their "top sellers" making 6 digit sales monthly... while the rest sell nada in years.
649
« on: March 16, 2016, 20:00 »
to me, a non="american" (ie mexico, usa, cda)...
bill gates is the best person to be president.
he knows what it's like to be a person who works to be great at what he does.
he has track record of philantropy
he can reduce cost by firing all the corrupted politicians
he can run USA with robots
he is already ruling the world with his compute;
why not his own country???
650
« on: March 15, 2016, 18:19 »
i used to be able to find lots of it when i was using my nephew's computer. he used to just drop my photos into the search box and it found me lots.
but now that i am home and using my own computer, and using google i find a lot of shutterstock and only a handful of used photos by clients.
could it be that he was using chrome??? can one of the experts here tell me if chrome makes searching more efficient by dropping it into the box??? is not google the same?
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 79
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
