|
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 - wordplanet
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 46
651
« on: March 12, 2015, 13:47 »
Glad they reinstated you. Couldn't you have just had them re-labeled as editorial?
Property releases and when you need them is much trickier than model releases, and while they are often not necessary, many of the sites don't want to take a chance. I had a skyline where they made me take all the building names off for fear of trademark violations, but they were explicit about what they wanted me to do and I did it. I didn't think SS would just trash your entire account for a few iffy photos, they are a lot more reasonable than that. Glad it worked out.
I've done some cemetery shots - the police showed up one night while I was shooting a full moon over graves at midnight - fortunately it was okay but a little scary to see lights flaring and realize that two police cars were coming for me - I was on assignment and never thought to contact the caretaker - they expected drunk kids, so were nicer to me with my tripod though they did have to check with my editor- I usually make gravestones into illustrations to avoid the issues with names, etc, but have received rejections saying I should upload the originals. So, it's always a bit of a challenge. They do nicely at Halloween
652
« on: March 05, 2015, 02:41 »
Selling enough prints to make the $30 worthwhile each year since I started there in December 2010, but no experience with licensing - like others I felt the terms weren't set up correctly. I sell prints - framed, metal, acrylic - some cards, and most recently a bunch of pillows and even an iPhone case, but sales last year were less than in 2013. I do a lot of marketing via twitter and g+ and assume that may drive traffic there or it may be just luck. I usually make back enough to pay for several years with my first sale, though this year it took a card, an iPhone case, and a couple of pillows.
Like the micros, there are just so many images so it's harder to get seen, but one print sale will often earn me more than I make on SS in a month - sometimes several times more, so I'm sticking with them for now, but not for licensing.
653
« on: March 05, 2015, 02:29 »
My understanding is that google searches descriptions, and that the keywords are only searched once a client is on a stock site, so both are important, one to potentially bring someone into the site, and the other once they are there.
No clue what SEO experiments iStock is doing, but I'd be surprised if there's even room to write a 50-word description, though I could see the benefit for garnering google hits.
654
« on: March 02, 2015, 13:53 »
I believe most of the distributors require exclusivity. It's a big commitment but may be worth it. My only concern is that I wonder how much you make once all the partners take their cut? I have one in Germany that approached me a few years back - my returns are so tiny there, all through European distributors, but they are a small player - those with large distribution networks may be better. I'm preparing work for another one but no track record yet so can't really share anything of use.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained I guess. Good luck!
655
« on: March 02, 2015, 13:42 »
Got a bunch of credit sales in February and they were more than double what I earned on SS - DT is usually not very consistent for me but they've been trending up since late last year for me. Not happy with the google deal - they seem to have nabbed a lot of my images in Jan and Feb assuming they're the $2 subs - even without those sales google sales though (which I'm guessing are a one-time deal?), DT would still beat out SS this month by a mile. DT has beat SS before but never by more that $5-10, this time the difference is huge.
While I'm glad that DT is trending up, I'm concerned that SS earnings are starting to swing widely from one month to the next, where I used to be able to count on a a certain minimum there, last month was my worst month there in years - not just because it was mostly subs, but the number of DLs dropped drastically too. I had almost as many DLs on DT as I did on SS last month and that has never happened before.
656
« on: March 02, 2015, 13:13 »
SS was 1/3rd of last February - fewer DLs than I've had in a couple of years, but DT was very strong.
Alamy and FAA were okay and on Alamy my zooms are way up so that bodes well for a good spring. Also got a big payout from Crated.
My own site was strong, as were direct stock sales initiated via queries to publishers.
Have been uploading more to SS, but it's trending downward, though DT made up the slack - got a bunch of those $2 google sales, and several *high value (*for microstock - $8-15) credit sales along with a general increase in DLs. Traditional stock and print sales seem to be picking up, so feeling hopeful at the moment.
657
« on: February 28, 2015, 16:30 »
It seems like the new contract is just codifying practices they've been using for years (see below**), but it is troubling that it trashes our right to choose to sue for violations by, in effect, letting Alamy settle the dispute by allowing a retroactive license.
The hold over any image previously licensed is also troubling. If an image is on Alamy and you are asked for an exclusive by someone else, you can set restrictions that would protect against its use during the exclusive period, but if your image has been removed, you now have no way to ever license it for an exclusive term since Alamy is free to do what it wants with an image once it is removed.
I guess the only protection would be to contact Alamy and put them on notice that they may not re-license an image, because it will conflict with your new license terms, but we should not be forced to step through so many hoops for images that have been withdrawn.
**I've had many instances where I found an image being used and Alamy chased down their client who failed to report the use and paid me for a retroactive license. In the old days, the rate was punitive and I figured it was far easier than suing someone for copyright violation and trying to collect from someone in a different country. Lately though, they would issue a license at the new lower rate which really annoyed me, but again seemed easier in the long run that suing for copyright violation and trying to collect from an international source (all the unreported images were used by British and Canadian sources and I'm in the US).
I've also had them issue licenses (albeit on very favorable terms) for images that I had deleted from Alamy. In that case, it was actually to my benefit, but it could have been a disaster if they'd done this with an RM image and it contradicted an territory, use or image exclusive license.
They do have a good record for backpedaling and trying to work with contributors when they make a poor decision, so let's hope they do so in this case.
658
« on: February 05, 2015, 02:00 »
I certainly hope it's a sign of a shift back toward more traditional stock photo pricing - though I think the market is fractured and that micro pricing is also here to stay. For clients with normal budgets, I imagine it's worth it to pay traditional stock photo prices and have the photographers do the "searching" for you - I get the feeling some people will even shoot a brief on spec hoping for the best so it's a real win for buyers and hopefully for this reason they will continue to grow.
I got shortlisted a couple of times but nothing came of it - there do seem to be a lot not completed so conceivably some "buyers" could be trolling for comp photos for mockups and to get ideas, but the just found something elsewhere too. They have some top clients and decent to very good prices for the briefs that do go through.
They are fairly new and I imagine it takes time to build up their clientele - I hope they stick around and grow since they are fair to photographers and I like the concept. It's a great deal for their clients and reasonable prices for photographers with a deep RM portfolio.
If I recall correctly, there was a fairly recent brouhaha there over their starting to accept briefs looking for RF photos rather than RM - or maybe I just read about it recently - in any case, a lot of people on there are traditional RM shooters and some were against ever submitting any work as RF - and their response was that clients were asking for it - so they seem to be trying to expand their client base. The big push for contributors to pay to play can be seen as worrying - are they undercapitalized? -or it may be just smart business on their part. Too early to tell.
I pop in occasionally and submit stuff when I have something. I know a few photographers who've had some good sales there which is how I heard about them.
If it got you a couple of decent licenses, you'd make your $500 back with 1-3 sales. I'm not jumping on the pay to play bandwagon, but it's really not that costly if they can deliver on sales.
Like all the newbies on the block, time will tell.
659
« on: February 04, 2015, 18:27 »
It makes sense IMHO - I have done similar licenses for clients who just want a specific one-time use for a year and don't care if the image I'm licensing them is available elsewhere as RF or RM. Alamy's been licensing more for me lately - mostly in the $30-75 range but these days I'm happy to see those licenses rather than disappointed. They're obviously doing this to keep clients happy and that should benefit us.
660
« on: February 04, 2015, 18:12 »
...
It was this quote "and have to be sent up to someone higher on the review chain to determine whether in fact these are photos of birds or naked women." which was the giveaway. Either they have blind and/or stupid reviewers or it's machine-driven.
Maybe they could look at the photo as well as the keywords? LOL I'm not with them but you gave me a good giggle for the day.
661
« on: February 03, 2015, 00:10 »
Left FT - they still owe me $ and promised to send it but never did - I'll be really bummed if they outdo SS because they are terrible to deal with. Just my opinion. It will be interesting to watch now that they're aligned with Adobe but I hate that people can license through DPC and use them in images for resale - I just can't wrap my head around allowing that. When I got $4 for my first extended license there, I knew I'd made a mistake signing up with them. If you're at a higher level though if I recall you can set your EL prices higher and if you opt out of DPC I would imagine it's a viable alternative for some.
Best of luck to the OP - hope you keep doing well there. Everyone's portfolio is different. I have a tiny port at DT (<200 images) and beat the average here every month - even in bad months. That's why all these places are still in business - they must be licensing someone's work.
662
« on: February 02, 2015, 23:39 »
Should be naughty weight watchers ... thought this kind of use was prohibited or did you opt in at SS to the sensitive uses?
663
« on: February 02, 2015, 16:28 »
When you upload the same picture on the same moment on SS and DT chances are that it already sold a dozen time on SS before it gets approved on DT
So true - they finally approved Valentine's Day images and others I uploaded at least three weeks ago; they seem to get slower all the time, meantime they've sold on many times on SS and have even sold on FAA already! They're caught in some strange time loop where 156 hours = 3-4 weeks. I didn't even bother uploading my newer holiday stuff there figuring that they'd be approved so far after the fact that it wasn't worth the trouble. Sales are steady though at least.
664
« on: January 20, 2015, 01:18 »
I license RM stock directly - in fact I just got a box full of products with my photos on them from a client today, but I wouldn't remove my photos from the various stock agencies since many buyers don't look beyond the agencies.
You could license RM images and still stay with IS so you don't lose your base.
I license photos via people finding them on my site, but I license the most by sending out queries to publishers who license stock and getting on their photo request lists - it's a lot more work than licensing via an agency. Though you don't need the volume of microstock, you still need a lot of volume licensing RM to make it worthwhile, at micro price points I can't imagine you could get the volume - even Yuri couldn't do it on his own.
Good luck!
665
« on: January 16, 2015, 14:11 »
I liked the old layout better too but am seeing a bunch of $2.00 subs this month which should add up a lot faster than $0.35 - About neck and neck with SS for me this month but both are down from a strong December. After sitting in the queue for weeks, they just rejected a bunch of illustrations as "over processed" which makes no sense. Better than "too simple" I guess which is their other favorite. They are selling on SS so I figure it's DT's loss. And I have a bunch selling on DT that SS rejected.
Starting to trend up again. I don't think they're dying but I'm not rushing to add new images either.
666
« on: January 15, 2015, 18:57 »
667
« on: January 15, 2015, 13:04 »
I'm certainly eager to learn more since in addition to some news, I shoot a lot of general editorial (travel, famous people) which I mostly license directly or via Alamy and a small agency in Germany. I've put a handful of editorial shots on SS over the years and they've done okay so this could be good news if it means that it will be attracting more editorial buyers there, especially newspapers and websites which have an insatiable appetite for images and pay peanuts these days anyway.
The fact that Rex images is RM is confusing, so please give us more info Paul from Shutterstock - thanks!
668
« on: January 12, 2015, 00:11 »
A friend ordered one of my prints on metal there and it was beautiful and I've sold many framed prints and acrylic prints there and none were ever returned - I've had no complaints. Those other sales were all to strangers but none were returned and no one ever contacted me with a problem. You don't have to license images there - it's your choice - their licensing isn't set up well so I just sell prints, some pillows, iPhone cases and cards. You have to sell all kinds of prints if you choose prints, but you don't have to sell products if you choose not to. I have some editorial images that I sell as prints only, since they aren't model released and so are inappropriate for products other than prints. A lot of people sell images on iPhone cases and other products that IMHO they shouldn't without releases - trademarked stuff and unreleased people - not to mention all the photoshopped images of celebrities. It's a free for all like many other POD sites. I ordered cards when I first joined to check the quality and they were lovely but pricey. I've heard people complain the cards are dark but mine were spot-on. My husband also ordered a couple of pillows with my work and they were lovely, though one had the zipper on top which was annoying - Customer Service was bad and I gave up though I've heard from others that returns are fine. Have you considered Crated? I sold a framed print there and have heard their quality is excellent. Haven't bought my own work yet but they have a wholesale program for artists. My gallery is here if you want to check them out: https://crated.com/mariannecampolongo
669
« on: January 11, 2015, 23:46 »
Dozens of sales on SS while the images sit in the queue on DT - Mine all seem to be at 142-145 hours for days on end. But they do get approved eventually. Uploading my Christmas 2015 & New Years 2016 images in July this year for sure!
670
« on: January 09, 2015, 01:32 »
DT has greater ups and downs for me than any other site save Alamy - but after a WME in October, November and December were strong & doing okay this month too, but won't know for sure 'til the end of the month.. The one really frustrating thing lately is it's taking weeks for them to review images.
If you're making sales, I wouldn't pull your port.
671
« on: January 05, 2015, 09:27 »
Micro:
SS up 23%; only increased my portfolio by 17%
DT down 4.7%; iStock down 25%, haven't added much to either site
Total microstock income up 8%
Macro/Midstock:
Alamy down 25%, portfolio size stayed the same since I deleted a some images and added very few new ones. Handful of sales at other boutique macros. Direct licensing via contacts through my Photoshelter site continues to grow.
Despite the drop on Alamy, total macro/midstock earnings up 17% over 2013.
POD:
POD print sales up including a nice sale on Crated Christmas day, FAA up from last year, though did not keep pace with my increased portfolio size, Redbubble slightly up on same size port.
Illness kept me from doing much to increase my marketing and portfolio size in 2014. Encouraged that I saw some growth despite this, and hopeful that I'll be able to grow my stock income significantly this year; hoping to see continued POD sales growth too.
672
« on: January 01, 2015, 22:59 »
BMY for me there in December - and a flurry of sales today - a holiday - hope this is a trend we'll see more of.
2014 ended up 23% over 2013 at SS and I only increased my portfolio by 17%; new stuff has been selling lately so hopeful this is a trend that will keep going.
673
« on: December 29, 2014, 19:47 »
November was my WMY on SS but December has been good - my handful of new images are all selling, regular sales are rising to normal levels and ELs and a big SOD have made this a good month, without them it would be a decent average month. The number of DLs is back to normal, which is even more heartening than a few large sales since it bodes well for the future.
My large sales were typical travel images and not seasonal, though much of the volume in subs and smaller SODS, ODDs were seasonal images - mostly New Years - old ones from last year and some new ones uploaded in November and earlier this month - so after this week they're gone. January will be the real test. Hope sales keep rising. I shot a bunch of new stuff just for the micros so I'll see how it goes.
I understand the question, why upload to Alamy when SS does better? For me, the reason is that I license a lot of RM and some RF directly for $200-300 a use, so even if those would do well on SS and the other micros, I won't upload even the RF files there.
If someone looked at my iStock portfolio to gauge my sales on SS, it would be ludicrous since I have more sales in an average day on SS than I do in an entire month on iStock.
My port is small but sales are generally pretty consistent for me and I'm really encouraged by how well my new images did, even if they are just seasonal, they still had a lot of competition and my New Years stuff from last year did nicely too. (For me 20+DLs of new images in a month is good - - I know that's small potatoes to the big guys - my best of the seasonal bunch has 60+ DLs - 7-8 DLs in a day is a "good" one for me - just so you know what "good" means to me in the micro context).
674
« on: December 29, 2014, 18:41 »
Feeling very happy with Crated at the moment. Had a nice sale on Christmas Day of a medium framed print. Didn't think it was one I'd promoted but found it today on the first page of the "photography" collection, so they promoted it for me. Am seeing some of my other work in collections there too - and it seems like these collections are pretty fluid so it's nice to have my work recognized. If you want to see the one I sold, it's here: https://crated.com/art/123600/castle-hill-lighthouse-i-by-mariannecampolongo?product=FP&size=26|19&frame=BF&edge=250MAIt seems like they curate and collect a wide spectrum of art. Their SM buttons let the photo show up and you can still add hashtags to the end without losing the image, making it easier to promote your own work as well. For a new site, they seem to be doing nicely. I joined when they opened so it was several months before making a sale, but given their newness and my small portfolio, I am happy with how they are doing. It took me all month on SS to earn around the same as that one sale. Anyone else have sales there recently? Hoping it's a harbinger of good things to come 
675
« on: December 29, 2014, 18:23 »
It's a big part of why I have so few images there - I had travel images from Newport Rhode Island that I could not upload because "Newport" is a forbidden term and was constantly rejected, and my ticket to scout went nowhere. I have images from Muir Woods in California where the trees are not properly identified because they narrowed my choices. Again, my suggestions for additions to the controlled vocabulary were ignored.
It's so time consuming and annoying to upload there though the software plug in helps.
Fun Fact:
It takes just as much time to post here to whine and complain and improve nothing at all and not have your images show up on a search as it does to suggest keywords of which they most likely will approve then add to their CV to have your images found and make more sales.
I suggest keywords whenever this happens to me, and almost 100% of the time they add the keyword to the CV.
So quite whining here and do something constructive and suggest a keyword "Newport - Rhode Island" with this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport,_Rhode_Island and I am 100% certain it will be added, then your images will be found.
"Newport - Rhode Island" is already in the CV
It's been so long since I've uploaded there. Good to know, I'll try again. Thanks!
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 46
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
