|
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 - Dodie
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27
626
« on: July 04, 2015, 02:14 »
The search engine is a mess that is true but not new. Most contributors keyword their images in some software, before uploading. Nobody has the time to add extra (spammy) keywords just for FT. Once uploaded, you can not add, delete or change keywords at FT but you can do that at SS and others. So what's your problem? Low sales? Patience my friend, taking it out on your fellow contributors won't change a thing. As for "hospital icon" search, it looks okay for me when using filters like vector and illustrations. The word icon, by definition, excludes photos.
627
« on: July 02, 2015, 07:35 »
Last 4 months about 100 per month on average. My weekly rank jumps mostly between 3000-4000, sometimes below 3000 and sometimes above 4000. Depends on how good or bad days are.
That means that the range of 3000-4000 weekly rank is very broad. I am 3000-4000 too and my July earnings are 62 euros, BME. Also, I see huge drop in last week's earnings but it can be just normal fluctuation. Mt ranking is 4500 and I make around 140
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
Is this weekly or overall rank?
628
« on: June 30, 2015, 17:11 »
Thank you all for the input. Hopefully we will find out more details in the upcoming day, from the horse's mouth.
629
« on: June 30, 2015, 16:11 »
I sell thru 12 sites. How do I even confirm if a misuse was DL thru SS?
Do other agencies sell editorials as commercial, as well?
630
« on: June 30, 2015, 16:05 »
well editorial license is very limited
it is up to the customer to use whatever image they purchase within the scope of said license
can customers screw up or just plain misuse / abuse a license? nothing is impossible and this is where the agency selling the license has to step in
You are right, nothing is impossible and I don't trust that any agency will step in if we screw up.
Getty has a system whereby they offer to 'work with the buyer' to obtain any necessary releases (presumably for a fee [?]).
Maybe if it was a well-known person, they'd be contactable by the buyer to ask if they'd be willing (for a fee [?]) to sign a release for a specific purpose; more difficult tracking down random people in secondary editorial.
Now, you two, really scare the pants off of me. The images were shot on public events e.g. "The Color Run". Thousands of people run on the main streets of the town in all funny costumes and hundreds of others take pictures. No well-known person to my knowledge but than again, I have no idea who they were. On such an event participants want to show off and it is not so hard to make them sign a release but I didn't want to complicate things. Not one image was sold so far but if someone dressed in tutu will see his/her image in some ad, it could get nasty. What now? There is no opt in/out button. Shall I start deleting images?
631
« on: June 30, 2015, 13:50 »
Thank you Noodle.
So, it doesn't refer to images with people? I have some editorials taken on sport events and I don't want trouble.
632
« on: June 30, 2015, 13:18 »
What does clearance mean in this case? Clearance from who?
633
« on: June 30, 2015, 03:04 »
Has this anything to do with Rex Features? Shutterstocks customers have been asking for an end to end solution including both commercial and editorial content. The acquisition of Rex is a decisive move into the editorial category and underscores our mission to provide the worlds storytellers with all of the content and tools they need to bring their ideas to life. By adding a more robust editorial offering, including entertainment, news and sports imagery, Shutterstock is expanding to serve the full breadth of imagery needed by media companies and advertisers around the world.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt144581.html
634
« on: June 30, 2015, 02:24 »
2. Using editorial as commercial with no additional liability to the photographer. If they promise to defend any lawsuit filed against us, then it's good, but saying we're not incurring any new liability doesn't stop someone from suing us and then we have to defend ourselves if SS doesn't step in (the way an insurer would). I would look at the details of the Terms of Service except that they haven't posted them.
You are right but I don't think they will promise to defend us. Can't wait to see the changes when the page comes back.
635
« on: June 25, 2015, 06:52 »
@Dodie, I'm not sure I understand the issue. Can you provide me with the image number for the file that changed "knuckle" into "long legs." I have never heard of keywords being changed in the system other than translations. Please email me directly so we can dig into this: [email protected]
-Mat
Thank you Mat. Email sent.
636
« on: June 24, 2015, 05:00 »
Mat,
Please try to get an answer from support for this question:
How can I keyword my images that they will be accepted by FT and not changed to something else.
I already addressed this question, maybe not clearly enough or not polite enough to get an answer;
e.g. knuckle means a lot of things but together with pork, ham, smoked, I always get the same images on Google search. Why does FT change the keyword knuckle to long legs?
I would really like to do this thing right (keywording). I reduced the no. of keywords to the most relevant ones but if even those are changed than some images will only be found accidentally.
Please, do you have some advice on how to cope with this?
Thanks.
637
« on: June 23, 2015, 15:14 »
I notice in the submission requirements for FT that they want "standard aspect ratio images." What exactly does this mean? I crop and recompose my images all the time to no particular height/width ratio. No problem with other agencies and they all sell fine. Does this mean all images must meet certain predefined ratios or they will not be considered? If so, is there a list somewhere with these acceptable ratios?
The aspect ratio of an image describes the proportional relationship between its width and its height. (Wikipedia) The two most common aspect ratios are 4:3 and 3:2 (also turned the other way). You can also crop to 1:1 (square) photos and 16:9 ("widescreen") images. Your camera has a native aspect ratio, find out what it is by opening an image in any graphic software and see image properties. After that, you can change the crop's aspect ratio ("recompose") to another one mentioned above. Don't just arbitrarily crop the image, that is what FT means.
638
« on: June 23, 2015, 14:51 »
So I guess Shutterstock Premier is a separate thing now. Will it only be available to Enterprise customers or are they going to launch a more expensive collection at SS?
ETA:http://info.shutterstock.com/premier-business/
That's my guess too after reading this: ".......through Premier we offer custom license packages, additional indemnification, and help with researching the collection.
To add more value to the experience of these large customers, we are currently testing a new collection Premier Select. During this test, we are working with a small group of contributors. If customers respond well to this test, we will look to expand to additional contributors based on lifetime earnings, giving you the opportunity to consider participation in this collection."http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/what-premier-select-means-for-shutterstock-contributors (Mar 16, 2015) However at the link you provided above they offer a selection of 40 million images + Offset. That seams to be more than just a "small group of contributors". "Many of you regularly see downloads from Premier customers and you will continue to see those payouts. Premier Select will not change the exposure of your content currently available to our Premier customers.
Ultimately, the goals for this initiative are to meet more of our customers needs, while providing additional, premium licensing opportunities to more contributors". That sounds very promising. Has anyone seen some of these payouts?
639
« on: June 22, 2015, 14:06 »
As I understand from this article, it means only more competition for simple contributors like myself. Maybe is good news for the Red Carpet.
http://wwd.com/media-news/digital/wwd-pmc-penske-shutterstock-deal-10161065/
Does the Red Carpet program still require years of exclusivity?
I don't know, I never aimed so high. Editorial images or footage from showbiz with worldwide interest sure generates revenue but the ones that I could produce (and many others) are only of local interest unless with very generic, adaptable subject.
641
« on: June 19, 2015, 05:43 »
I explained my position to them, they are making changes, and I made a business decision based upon the changes they have made. The end.
You said, the end, that's why I added no text earlier. If you just want to have the last word you have no luck with me. Be aware that English is not my first language, so the easiest way to express myself is to be straightforward, without the intention of being rude. Here you have what you asked for: I don't need to justify my opinion, free speech is for everyone not just for you. Denigration and instigation instead is against the law worldwide (I think). Many people raised their voices back than for the DPC thing. Some were simply agitators and manipulators, not even FT contributors, others left FT in a decent manner, good for them. Don't speak in the name of those people and try to drag them in you denigrating champagne from two weeks ago when though compensated for the mistake, you continued with your accusations and asked for more. There are a whole lot of people who won't do that, even if they could, financially. But I really doubt that that had anything to do with FT making changes. I think this Adobe/Fotolia deal has been in the works and planning stages for quite a long time, long before you took a stand.
That's right, nothing has changed at FT since than except the money and FT/Adobe changes are definitely not the victory of forum agitators. So please do tell us, Dod and Dum, what exactly you guys did to try and bring about some change?
DO TELL US What? Who do you think you are? And who is us? Those who dare not to agree with you are others and you are us? What did I do? Sure not furor. Photography is a dear hobby of mine and the money is welcome, still I don't think any agency or business can be influenced by the revolt of forum members. Just for the record, I have nothing against you, just against your big mouth. In fact I'm glad for anyone who came back to FT. Now it is the end.
642
« on: June 18, 2015, 10:30 »
A few days ago, you were ranting all over fotolia, and now you're crawling back. Heh.
+10 
643
« on: June 18, 2015, 03:02 »
I had the same problem recently at 123rf and they highlighted the problem for me. Try this: 8. Reference number(s) (optional) (see instructions)Instructions - http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/iw8ben.pdfLine 8.
If you are providing this Form W-8BEN to
document yourself with respect to a financial account that
you hold with a U.S. office of a financial institution, provide
your date of birth. Use the following format to input your
information MM-DD-YYYY. For example, if you were born
on April 15, 1956, you would enter 04-15-1956. Good luck!
644
« on: June 16, 2015, 07:42 »
Though jumped to silver, I don't see any revenue changes in today's downloads.
same here
I see it. Was getting 1.84 credits for L sale, today it was 2.0. Subs also, 0,29 instead of 0.27 that was yesterday.
1.84 is a 8 credit L sale, it is not new, it was changed in March - http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/credits-price-change/msg411547/?topicseen#new
I had in May: sub L=3.13; sub M = 2.50; sub M = 1.07; sub M = 0.8 and others. I have no idea where are they coming from but they are not new.
I am happy too for the extra exposure but I don't remember Adobe being a charitable org. Let's wait up.
Yes it's 8 credit sale. I'm talking about level change, not price change. Yesterday I got 1.84 commission, and today I got 2.00 commission.
I am talking about the same thing, those values mentioned above are commissions (revenues), money in hand.
I have no idea what level change is.
645
« on: June 16, 2015, 06:48 »
Considering that all everyone will get 33% maybe the accounts stepping up to Silver have something to do with that and it is easier just to bump a ranking than changing anything else?
Though jumped to silver, I don't see any revenue changes in today's downloads.
same here
I see it. Was getting 1.84 credits for L sale, today it was 2.0. Subs also, 0,29 instead of 0.27 that was yesterday.
1.84 is a 8 credit L sale, it is not new, it was changed in March - http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/credits-price-change/msg411547/?topicseen#newI had in May: sub L=3.13; sub M = 2.50; sub M = 1.07; sub M = 0.8 and others. I have no idea where are they coming from but they are not new. I am happy too for the extra exposure but I don't remember Adobe being a charitable org. Let's wait up.
646
« on: June 16, 2015, 05:50 »
Considering that all everyone will get 33% maybe the accounts stepping up to Silver have something to do with that and it is easier just to bump a ranking than changing anything else?
Though jumped to silver, I don't see any revenue changes in today's downloads.
647
« on: June 16, 2015, 05:11 »
Why am I not allowed to convert all my credits? As I see I can only convert my earnings in 50 credits installment.
When I try to convert a second portion of 50 credits, it doesn't let me: "You can't make a new conversion until the previous one has been processed." Sometimes processing takes several weeks and even so, what is >50< cannot be converted (say 135 credits).
If I want to withdraw my money I have to pay PayPal fees for each portion of 50 euros. That is not good.
648
« on: June 16, 2015, 03:33 »
i dont see any improvment Me neither yet but let us hope. 10 images on shutter we get 28,5$, here we will get 10$ for you maybe but not for all of us. No of dl on FT are much higher than on SS for many contributors, they are just not so vocal as SS partisans. Shutterstock should go exclusive i'll close all other accounts That would be a huge mistake in my opinion but nobody stops you.
649
« on: June 16, 2015, 02:55 »
Did anyone else's ranking position changed? I had a "bronze" medal, for "658" downloads. Now I just checked, and apparently I have silver medal, despite having less than 1000 downloads. And when I go with a mouse on silver medal icon, it says only 9,342 more sales needed for next (gold) level.
Same here, I had bronze too and now it is silver. As I understand Mat's post, all sales from Adobe Stock will count for the Fotolia rank.
That is very possible as portfolios on Adobe site mirror the ones on Fotolia. Anyway, I was excited to see my port on Adobe, nice feeling (for now) but I am sure we will have many surprises yet. It appears that they may retroactively recalculate the number of downloads which will bump many to higher levels. This would be the only explanation for the rank change, still I would like to see the new commission rates based on contributors ranks.
650
« on: June 16, 2015, 01:46 »
Fotolia subscription payouts have been raised, from 20-25% to 33% for all contributors! I can't see anything like this on Fotolia site yet. All it says in the note is: "All other products - 33% of the sale price" In addition, all subscription sales at Fotolia and Adobe Stock will be equal to one full download towards your rank.
Is there something you are not telling us? Is contributors' ranking changed too? I'm bronze but when mouseover my rank, it shows that I need 9,xxx downloads to reach the next rank which is gold. It seams that silver (1,000-9,000) is gone though I still see it here: https://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Conditions. Is this a bug or if not, where can I see the new ranking system?
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
