|
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 - bunhill
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 62
626
« on: May 05, 2014, 17:24 »
Bunhill and Tickstock, the concious police. Dont you have enough other threads to roam?
Why are you always looking for trouble ?
627
« on: May 05, 2014, 16:31 »
^ you've attributed a load of stuff to me which I did not write.
628
« on: May 05, 2014, 15:39 »
I am wondering what their strategy is. I wonder who this is aimed at. Are they really trying to make this pay long term or are they hoping that another company with money will buy them out and shut them down. It seems like a hustle. this new venture is intended to gain market share at the expense of its contributors and the microstock industry as a whole.
Using an aggressive pricing strategy and a low commission structure, contributors are being treated as third-country workers who only get paid a couple of pennies for each image sale
This is exactly analogous to what was said about microstock.
629
« on: May 05, 2014, 15:19 »
Seems shady.
630
« on: May 05, 2014, 15:16 »
Absolutely correct. I was approved 20 min later after payment and used absolutely fake name and surname.
How were you able to pay using a fake name ? Isn't that fraud ?
631
« on: May 05, 2014, 14:08 »
The Fuji XE1 is good value at the moment, especially used, because it is already an older model. Firmware updates have fixed most of the issues users had been moaning about. Fuji are making really great cameras and lenses. The 35mm f/1.4 lens is fantastic. These things are well made with very good attention to detail. The menu system is well designed and tidy and understated - but the camera and lenses have physical controls anyhow. You do not need to be constantly in the menus.
The Sony Nex-6 is good too. The Sigma 30mm f/2.8 is a good sharp standard lens to get for it. Smaller and much less exensive than Zeiss. Both also available used at bargain prices on eBay. Don't bother with the kit zooms. The Nex-6 will be even more of a bargain when a replacement comes out. And it will still be great. Downside is Sony's horribly counter-intuitive Fisher Price / Windows-ish happy-clappy menu system. And you have to do nearly everything via menus.
Both have good EVFs. The XE1 EVF is slightly laggy compared with the Nex-6 but that is unlikely to bother you since these are not the sorts of cameras anyone would be using to shoot sports.
Avoid cameras with lenses you cannot remove. You want to be able to clean the sensor. Google "<insert camera name> sensor dust".
632
« on: May 03, 2014, 15:04 »
Doesn't sound so good now, does it?
Yes it does actually. Because looking at iS on its own and excluding GI, it's the same story. Income is still remarkably stable - slightly up year to date vs 2013. But it's very close - too close to be statistically significant. Jan was slightly down. Feb, March and April were slightly up vs 2013. And 2013 was already in line with my expectations. I include GI because it is part of the whole picture. Suppose, for example, I was only reporting that income was very slightly up at iS whilst failing to mention that it was down on the GI side. BTW - I'm not a "whooyay" kind of person. I never much liked all that on the old forum. What I am saying is completely different - that I am quietly pleased enough and that my experience is roughly in line with what I see as reasonable expectations.
633
« on: May 03, 2014, 11:49 »
With GI sales just added in March was up about 20% on last year.
For me ($): March 2014 GI + iS was slightly up on March 2013 GI + iS Feb 2014 GI+ iS was slightly up on Feb 2013 GI + iS Jan 2014 GI + iS was very slightly down on Jan 2013 GI + iS April 2014 iS only is slightly up on April 2013 iS only. And only 2c different from March 2014 iS only. April GI is not in yet. So far this year is very slightly up on this time last year. But by such a small amount as to be statistically insignificant. It seems remarkable stable - given the growth of the collection, the dreadful economic conditions and the increasing competition from free content and social media. Hope I haven't jinxed it 
634
« on: May 03, 2014, 04:26 »
I wonder whether Stocksy will start securing distribution deals sooner or later. That's been the normal way of things for other boutique collections once they are established.
635
« on: April 30, 2014, 14:57 »
That site also has links to what is apparently malware. ie Genieo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genieo As of April 2014, Genieo for Mac is flagged by Intego (mentioned above)[8][10] and, according to an analysis at VirusTotal, by 20 (out of 50 surveyed) anti-malware solutions, including Ad-Aware, Avast!, Bitdefender, Comodo, Dr. Web, ESET, Fortinet, F-Secure, Kaspersky, Trend Micro Housecall, and Sophos.
636
« on: April 30, 2014, 08:13 »
I have read many times that there are people who assume, that if the majority is silent they are all agreeing.
I suppose that this is addressed to me because you quoted me. And yet I have neither suggested silent majority agreement or disagreement. And I am certainly not opposed to transparency in business. I think you are misunderstanding what I have written. there might be few voices active on the forums, but they tend to reflect the opinions of a huge group of people. This is not my experience of internet forums in general. The old iStock forum was a very good example of community not working. It was often ruined by the same few people throwing their weight around - customers should never have been able to see that because it created a very poor impression which was, largely, not representative. I think that some very poor decisions and compromises were agreed during that era as a result of listening too much to the forum. You must remember those dreadful threads which went around and around in circles for hundreds of pointlessly angry pages. And it was an era which was much too clubby.
637
« on: April 30, 2014, 07:15 »
Going public is the only or little power we have. And you want to silence that as well.
638
« on: April 30, 2014, 07:05 »
Bunhill is always acting as the Devils Advocate regardless of what the topic is. I have never seen him agree with the majority, ever. Which is his right to do so, its his opinion, I just read his comments with the bold in mind.
The majority posting here is largely a self selecting group which over time has fairly aggressively silenced those who do not go along with the largely negative groupthink. There are many 1000s of people actively producing stock photos today. The majority is silent. It is interesting and telling that what I wrote above has been interpreted as anything other than a straightforward statement of fact. Here is the key point again, to be clear: "It does not matter what business you are in: If you are working with a company then it is stupid to start aggressively slating that company in public."
639
« on: April 30, 2014, 05:21 »
I am also continually amazed that people think it is any of their business to speculate on a public forum about some else's contract or how much they earn.
Good job the feminists of the 20th Century didn't think that or they still wouldn't have equal pay.
In this context, I feel that you are making a weak analogy since these are not comparable political or rights issues.
640
« on: April 30, 2014, 04:56 »
people that grew up with the internet and forums are using normal forum communication.
It does not matter what business you are in: If you are working with a company then it is stupid to start aggressively slating that company in public. I have been continually amazed over the past year that people seem to find that difficult to grasp. I believe that most people away from this forum would agree. Also - it is very bizarre to slag-off any company you have worked with in public. That amounts to burning your bridges. It is also something which is going to affect how future business partners might consider you - e.g. in terms of reliability etc. And one day you might be looking for a different contract or a distribution deal. Sounding off on public forums is just not the best way of trying to solve issues to do with business relationships etc. I am also continually amazed that people think it is any of their business to speculate on a public forum about some else's contract or how much they earn.
641
« on: April 28, 2014, 16:44 »
The use of the phrase "disruptive offering" means exactly what it says. Having lost out to SS they are now, quite literally, trying to destroy microstock itself.
Jon Orringer has variously used the term disruptive and / or talked and blogged about disruption. (ETA: as his goal). It's an old silicon valley term which is about promoting your business (or stock price more importantly) by destroying otherwise viable existing business models. It's the business equivalent of scorched earth.
642
« on: April 27, 2014, 14:58 »
ETA: Actually it might be easier to do it as a small person/company because unless you make revenues of more than 50.000, you can get away without charging and accounting for VAT. And if you indeed make more than 50k, I think you should be able to afford a tax advisor/accountant. 
Not only that but - non EU sites are also required to levy TVA/VAT when they sell to EU customers. And there are no thresholds.
....
not true -- see http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/vat/traders/vat_community/vat_in_ec_annexi.pdf
I think, I may be wrong, that you are misunderstanding what I have written. My understanding is non EU sites (e.g. USA) are required to charge VAT on all transactions when selling to EU customers - i.e. that there are no thresholds. AFAIK thresholds only apply to EU countries - i.e. to sellers based in EU countries.
643
« on: April 27, 2014, 13:34 »
ETA: Actually it might be easier to do it as a small person/company because unless you make revenues of more than 50.000, you can get away without charging and accounting for VAT. And if you indeed make more than 50k, I think you should be able to afford a tax advisor/accountant.
Not only that but - non EU sites are also required to levy TVA/VAT when they sell to EU customers. And there are no thresholds. Someone running a site in the US might wonder why they should bother with non-US legislation. The issue however is that this affects the customers since these purchases cannot be properly accounted for unless they are properly conducted. Therefore any purchases from these 'grey' sites are effectively sous la table - which is clearly not an option for anyone buying an image on behalf of a business. The microstocks all levy TVA/VAT. ETA: my feeling is that non EU sites should at least be careful to notify [edit] EU customers of these issues. EU customers would be used to the rate being added at checkout.
644
« on: April 24, 2014, 07:51 »
The thing about differential rates is that it creates a temptation to favor work from artists on the lower rates. If an agency, any agency, pays some contributors a higher rate than others - then that is going to be an obvious area of focus when, inevitably, there is pressure to increase profits or cut costs.
Ultimately IMO a flat percentage is the best thing for people who are not salaried.
(And given the huge quantity of high quality work uploaded every day I do not believe that any of the significant agencies have any need to create incentives.)
645
« on: April 23, 2014, 15:59 »
Still requiring property releases for residential houses makes no sense to me. I photographed several properties with legit releases signed by the owner (one of them being me) that have been sold to someone else in recent years. Now someone else owns these buildings. Do my releases still stand or not? And if they do, how is this not absurd?
https://contribute.gettyimages.com/producer/help/propertyReleasesA property release records a permission given at the time the picture was taken. Potentially someone selling a property would need to tell a buyer that a property release had been signed. The same as any other legal contract relating to the property would need to be disclosed. Any issue would be between the new owner and the previous owner who signed the release.
646
« on: April 23, 2014, 15:32 »
If you are allowed to use the content commercially, if you can guarantee that a potential buyer anywhere on planet earth could not potentially be hassled for using the image commercially, then why not simply get a release signed by someone with the appropriate authority ?
And that authority would be who, the governor? I'm sure he would love to sign a property release in his spare time. With this thinking, eventually there will be absolutely no stock photography that contains any part of a building unless the photographer has a property release, even though property has no rights. That should only include about two-thirds of the stock photography industry.
The governor of where ? You make it sound as if people are supposed to know what country, regional state or jurisdiction is at issue, what set of normal practices you are even talking about. One-size-fits-all stock sites where thousands of contributors upload millions of pictures annually need a single set of practices which relate to images taken anywhere on the planet and which might potentially be used anywhere on the planet. Anything which does not fit that boiler-plate model should be with a specialist agency and probably RM so that any use is mediated by an actual conversation between the customer and the agent. Or else the potential use should be restricted. To protect the users. Or else there should be releases, at least. From the buyer perspective it certainly is not only about the law. It's about knowing that any questions or hassles about the use of an image will definitely be addressed by the agency. This is something I feel quite strongly about FWIW. It is absolutely essential that the people buying images are able to feel confident that they will not be called out (either legal or socially - on the web) for using an image which raises a complaint or for which the use is out of context.
647
« on: April 23, 2014, 13:40 »
I had two deleted today. Both of them were mansions owned by the state. In other words, they were public property. It was pretty easy to see that from the image, but I'm sure the reviewers are just looking for anything that looks like a house.
But the people looking through millions of images have no certain way of knowing who owns a property. You say it is public property - but in what country is this common knowledge ? And how can a reviewer be expected to know what the rules are in some specific country with respect to the commercial use of unreleased property whether or not it is public ? If you are allowed to use the content commercially, if you can guarantee that a potential buyer anywhere on planet earth could not potentially be hassled for using the image commercially, then why not simply get a release signed by someone with the appropriate authority ?
648
« on: April 23, 2014, 13:11 »
Just had 50 deleted. Doesn't matter - it was only iStock. On the sites that do actually understand the law, they still sell very well. I assume sales on those sites will go up.
Over time buyers will inevitably become more educated re the general potential for hassle associated with the commercial use of unreleased content. Agencies which make sure that their content is hassle free offer buyers a more professional and reliable product.
649
« on: April 23, 2014, 13:05 »
here as well and what a joke!
why don't they ask if I have PR? I do!
They gave you the option to upload PRs when the thing was announced. Both in the email and at the site. And as the article made clear at the time of the announcement .... At anytime after December 20th you can still send us the required releases and we will reactivate the files as soon as we are able to review the documentation. But don't let that get in the way of a good rant.
650
« on: April 22, 2014, 13:49 »
None of the domains listed for sale in the above two posts would be worth spending anything on IMO. They are all much too convoluted and naff. Who wants a dash or a misspelling ? These are also instantly forgettable (e.g. see how many you can remember now exactly without looking).
A good new site today isn't going to be called anythingstock or anything-photo. Because that sort of literalism has been done and would not have nothing to do with building a memorable brand.
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 62
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
