|
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 - Sean Locke Photography
6851
« on: June 06, 2009, 15:31 »
I enjoyed my daily dose of motivation/incentive and am sorry to see it go.
Ouch! Looks like you need more motivation! Feb and March looked painful.
6852
« on: June 06, 2009, 12:23 »
6853
« on: June 06, 2009, 06:28 »
6854
« on: June 05, 2009, 11:02 »
Well, if the main point was to stop Jim Pickerell and others from using the charts data for profit or whatever reason, that is now accomplished.
6855
« on: June 04, 2009, 21:15 »
No, I was saying the site won't work anymore after today with iStock's new numbers display.
6856
« on: June 04, 2009, 19:29 »
to the op. considering you where mostly interested in istock go to http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/ and it gives you ranking for istock contributors
Not anymore ....
6857
« on: June 04, 2009, 16:19 »
So, then you're not posting your crappy food shots to SS?
6858
« on: June 03, 2009, 06:59 »
yes, i'll keep you posted. if it works out, I won't be saying I told you so. I'll simply be glad it worked out. if it doesn't work out, let's hope we're not worse off. I think opting out is a misguided decision, but an understandable one given the uncertainty and the as yet unproven differentiation of buyers between istock and photos.com
in any case, I'm not evangelizing my decision. it is a tough call for all of us. no one here wants to contribute to the end of iStock. so we all have to do what we think is best. I personally believe they know what they are doing and they have every interest in protecting iStock's business, so that being said, I want in on the ground floor of this program. hope I'm not wrong.
How does this protect iStock's business?
6859
« on: June 02, 2009, 21:14 »
The difference I think is photos.com will pay iStock and not contributors. So as long as iStock has their paperwork in order with the IRS, I don't see why Photos.com would withold tax on them.
Funny system, all this...
6860
« on: June 02, 2009, 15:39 »
6861
« on: June 02, 2009, 08:06 »
istock admins have confirmed that all payments for Photos.com come via istock and won't be subject to withholding tax.
I don't think that's relevant. If what triggers this tax is a US company paying royalties to foreign contributors, than if photos.com is a US company owned by a US company, I don't see the difference. Shunting the payments through iStock shouldn't change anything.
6862
« on: June 02, 2009, 08:03 »
A rethink on my part seems to be needed if it is worth it to me to add micro to my mix.
Yes, you do have to work at it a bit harder to compete.
6863
« on: June 02, 2009, 07:12 »
If iStock suddenly started withdrawing 30% to give to the Canadian government on my work with no way for me to adjust for that here, you can bet I'd be upset and looking too. I wouldn't understand why the place that I live couldn't benefit from the income I'm making.
6864
« on: May 31, 2009, 07:13 »
You can point at the license all you want, but I would expect and plan for any nude image to be used inappropriately, and have the model be ok with that. ie., don't be suprised when sexy nude images appear in ads for escort services or on porn dvds. I had one show up on a dvd cover. I had purposefully shot the series not showing the model's face, because I knew they would basically be uncontrollable. It's not like you're dealing with the best of society in these cases.
Stick them somewhere as RM, and you'll have better luck. I don't know how all those Russian guys with portfolios of naked women do it. I guess the girls don't care.
6865
« on: May 30, 2009, 22:37 »
Guys, wasn't GeoPappas just ironic? 
Yeah, I thought he was being funny as well.
6866
« on: May 30, 2009, 13:12 »
I think the outbursts were understandable. Here is everything, business as usual, when suddenly, SS drops this thing on them. It isn't like some new law was enacted. It's having to deal with something that wasn't there the day before, just because SS out of the blue suddenly thinks they might have some issue with it.
6867
« on: May 29, 2009, 17:45 »
Of course, I'm not involved with all this, but I saw this post:
"So this is where it ends. After 3 years, I think is time to close my SS, account or at least I will delete my images, since I am not going to pay taxes to a country where I do not live. Taxes are paid to pay roads, public services, hospitals etc., and since I don't live in the US I DO NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THOSE."
It does make sense to me. How (in the big picture) does the US justify a claim on income earned by someone who does not live in this country?
6868
« on: May 28, 2009, 22:01 »
Just curious why you've decided to chase the cheapest part of the market?
6869
« on: May 28, 2009, 13:35 »
By 'serious' I meant it doesn't look like he's messing around and is prepared to delete contributor accounts if necessary.
Shows how much SS values its contributors, I guess...
Sorry but you are biased.
I'm not biased. If he's willing to run about deleting people's accounts because they are trying to express their frustration, that doesn't seem to value those contributors (contributors, by the way, without whom he is just a guy with a couple of servers).
6870
« on: May 28, 2009, 08:22 »
By 'serious' I meant it doesn't look like he's messing around and is prepared to delete contributor accounts if necessary.
Shows how much SS values its contributors, I guess...
6871
« on: May 28, 2009, 08:20 »
Very rude.
6872
« on: May 28, 2009, 06:13 »
Says it right in the first post:
"US tax law imposes a 30% withholding tax on US source passive income, such as royalties, that are paid to persons who are not citizens or residents of the United States. US tax law requires the person paying the royalties to withhold the tax and pay it to the US Internal Revenue Service."
6873
« on: May 28, 2009, 06:05 »
Wow, what a mess. I don't understand why the IRS wants 30% just because it flows through an American site. Sorry for you foreigners (to the US).
6874
« on: May 27, 2009, 10:31 »
I don't think anyone here takes posts from anonymous posters very seriously.
6875
« on: May 27, 2009, 08:33 »
'bout time!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
probably a friend of yours saw it... yes yes, sure 
