|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 291
701
« on: January 13, 2022, 13:33 »
...But we don't really know if someone is so stupid that they use 200 images a month and buy the 750 plan or do they actually pay attention and buy the 350 plan? And I ask myself, who uses 750 subscription images a month or who's willing to pay $199 a month for up to 350 images a month? Why? For what?...
As with all the agencies, we don't really know anything about who's downloading what. We have to trust them. However, the very likely source of unused downloads is corporate buyers where the people who handle the budget want to be able to allocate a sum to cover all the needs without any further requests for money from one department or another. During vacation-heavy seasons - spring break, summer, "the holidays" - there will be low usage of the annual subscriptions such organizations probably buy. Shutterstock's VP of Finance pointed out early in the pandemic how well SS did from unused subscriptions - money coming in but no royalties to pay - so it really does happen even now. Way back when, Jon Oringer was direct about wanting to see how download patterns changed after a price increase before increasing our royalty amount per subscription. But that was when it was still 25 a day - which gave them a built-in buffer of weekends with few or no downloads. The other factor to consider is discounts - amounts below the posted price offered to entice a would-be-departing customer to stay or a new one to subscribe. All the agencies do that (look at your Adobe Stock subscription amounts to see discounted royalties from the nominal $3.30, $0.99, $0.66 amounts). Shutterstock can now afford to discount much more heavily than when they had that 38 cent royalty to consider...
702
« on: January 13, 2022, 12:32 »
... I think that an NFT would definitely fall into "primary value of the product is associated with the asset itself."
One would think so, but look at this law firm's view of these transactions, in particular this quote: "With respect to the reproduction right, if the NFT includes a digital copy of the asset, there is potential for this to amount to an unauthorised reproduction that may amount to infringement of copyright. However, in circumstances where there is no reproduction of the underlying asset in the creation of an NFT, there is arguably no infringement. " https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/1a1abb9f/nfts-and-intellectual-property-rightsOn a separate note, given agencies' general lack of vigor in pursuing infringements of other kinds, I can't imagine them going after NFT abuse of license rights. More likely they'll open an NFT marketplace! Associated Press has done it...
703
« on: January 13, 2022, 11:39 »
...It's pretty straight forward if they don't have a license at all (I think? doesn't an NFT "point" people a version of the image which a seller would have no right to display without some kind of license?). It would also be good if I could tell the ones who do have a license to quit it by pointing to a clause in the license forbidding it.
None of the agencies specifically forbid offering a licensed work as part of an NFT, but you see language like (from Adobe's license page) a standard license forbidding: "Create merchandise, templates, or other products for resale or distribution where the primary value of the product is associated with the asset itself." I can't imagine anyone paying for an extended license to sell an NFT - but that would be analogous to selling prints with an extended license, which is allowed. If the NFT was offering a web page with a mix of content - like syndicated articles with an embedded licensed image - I'd think that would meet the license terms. The value would be in the whole collection of content, not just the image. Have you been able to find any specific language for an NFT offer from any of the charlatans who have contacted you? That might help to pin down if they've violated any license terms. Edited to add links to a couple of articles explaining just how little "there" there is in NFTs. You own the record, but that's about it. https://www.theverge.com/22310188/nft-explainer-what-is-blockchain-crypto-art-faqhttps://www.protocol.com/newsletters/protocol-fintech/nft-ip-rights?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1From the above, this quote: "The NFT rights question comes amid a swirling debate over compensating creators.... Its a debate about whether creators should retain rights forever, or whether NFT owners should reap the rewards of participating in and promoting those NFTs for the creators. With NFTs seeping into more of the broader creator world, expect to see these issues heat up." The article below mentions one instance of a DMCA take down notice being sent to a would-be NFT seller who had ripped off the original owner of a work. But as you'll see, this is a really messy area https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/what-are-copyright-implications-nfts-2021-10-29/
704
« on: January 13, 2022, 11:16 »
NFTs can be offered without any ownership implied or required. That's why it's such a useless fad.
The record of the transaction is "secure", but that's it. I could sell as many NFTs of the Brooklyn Bridge as there would be gullible buyers to take me up on the offer.
And if there were detailed promises or terms with a deal, who would enforce that if the seller later reneged?
Anyone who uses one of your images without a license (directly) from you or an agency representing you needs to get a license. Your costs to go after them may be more than you want to pay.
705
« on: January 11, 2022, 17:41 »
Here are two examples from my (soon to be ex) Alamy account. The first is a direct sale for 21 cents gross and the second a distributor sale for 15 cents gross.
706
« on: January 11, 2022, 12:56 »
BTW, (in case you don't know, and if you do know, it might help someone else) you can see what you've netted for each sale on the 'Net Revenue Sales Report', which is downloadable from your homepage via the 'Download Sales Report' button.
Thank you for the pointer. Just as a note for others who want to see or download this table, the default organization of it is by Date Paid (drop down list by the date range). If you want to see the most recent "sales" - like the 15 cent nasties - you need to change that to date invoiced. That way things that haven't yet been paid will be in the list And there are more reports in Alamy's forums of non distributor sales for small amounts - one woman said she had one for (gross)25 cents this week. Opting out of distributor sales will only address part of the problem in other words
707
« on: January 05, 2022, 12:07 »
I sent the "close account" request yesterday - how long till they even respond with the hoops I'll have to jump through?
I received a reply from support this morning. Other than asking if there was anything they could do to persuade me to stay, there were no hoops to jump through 
708
« on: January 04, 2022, 16:22 »
I sent Alamy support email this morning requesting they start the 45-day clock to terminate my account. I got an automated reply that they're back January 5th with some pointers to where I could find various information online. The kicker for me was comparing my 2021 earnings for the whole year and the second half (July 1 to Dec 31). The second half of the year's gross sales revenue was one tenth of the total year's sales. I would have left the account open if they had continued the royalty rate as before, but with the 15 cent and 21 cent sales and the prospect that those would result in my royalty rate dropping to 20% (something I'd never have even thought about from prior years as gross sales were way above that threshold) I've had enough. When my royalty rate is cut because of an agency's inability to sell my content (which I know can sell because it does elsewhere), I will not reward them with an extra large slice of pie
709
« on: January 03, 2022, 10:38 »
Thanks . . . Blushes. . .
710
« on: January 02, 2022, 18:51 »
I'm so glad that was useful! I like to keep my search skills sharp so this was a good way to test them
711
« on: January 02, 2022, 18:05 »
I don't have that camera, so I can't really offer a solution, but several articles I found in a google search were talking about the Digital Lens Optimizer or Dual pixel raw being enabled and resulting in very slow processing and a busy indicator. Is it possible those are turned on? High ISO noise optimization was mentioned in a couple as well. The other thing mentioned was slow cards, but as you were getting decent results with those cards earlier, I doubt that's it. Hope you can figure this out (without a reset to factory settings )
712
« on: January 01, 2022, 20:25 »
No one at Alamy has had anything to say about this?
I'm ready to close my account, thought we'd get some response by now despite the holiday.
They haven't responded on the thread on their forums either. Many contributors claim to be opted out of distribution and still see these 15 cent distributor sales. One user says she saw a 15 cent (gross) sale for an RM image https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/15193-the-lowest-of-the-low/They may be back in the office on Tuesday Jan 4th - Jan 3rd is a bank holiday in the UK
713
« on: January 01, 2022, 20:10 »
It's probably an image that was licensed a long time ago when Thinkstock was still around (it's been shut down for a while now - 2019 I think). I know it seems strange, but RF licenses are forever. I just got a Google alert about a use in the Boston Globe for an image of mine credited to me and iStock. That image was removed from iStock (along with the bulk of my portfolio) in February 2013. Articles on medical billing issues in the US are as "current" now as they have been for decades
714
« on: December 31, 2021, 11:19 »
I am part of this club with 5 15-cent gross (4 cents net) sales sometime yesterday (Dec 30th). And I thought 8 cents royalty on a 21-cent sale was outrageous just last month!
If Alamy keeps this up - small bursts of totally unacceptable royalties with occasional "higher" value sales - it'll make it very easy to leave them. The last $50+ (gross) sale was in September 2021; it's just been nano-royalties since then
715
« on: December 27, 2021, 01:14 »
Someone put this in the Garbage Bin again - I can't see anything offensive or spammy, so I'm moving it back to off topic.
Whoever is doing this should take it up with Tyler or just stop reading if they're not interested...
716
« on: December 25, 2021, 18:02 »
Why did someone move this to garbage? 
I have no clue - I just moved it to Off Topic ('cause I have no idea where it was originally). Merry Christmas (to those who celebrate it) and here's to a happy, healthy and prosperous 2022
717
« on: December 23, 2021, 11:54 »
How was it being exclusive with iStock. I thought about it going exclusive with them but my sales have halved there since I started uploading on iStock.
At the time, it was wonderful. But then a variety of things changed as the contributor deal worsened, investment in the business slowed (courtesy of the private equity cash-siphon that owned Getty) and customers moved to Shutterstock and other sites. In particular, how iStock handled vector illustrations then was excellent and they made really good returns for the contributor. I wouldn't recommend iStock exclusivity today, but there are some who have been exclusive for a while who stay, sometimes only for one medium, because it still works well enough to balance out the work of getting their portfolio keyworded and uploaded elsewhere (if you keyworded your files using Getty's controlled vocabulary, you were at a disadvantage without "normal" words for other agencies).
718
« on: December 22, 2021, 20:14 »
When it was first sale in different agencies for you?
If you're new to selling stock and are wondering why your images aren't selling, finding out how other people's images performed at other agencies doesn't really help answer your question. And as everyone has pointed out, there really is no way to answer that question usefully. If you're not uploading to Shutterstock and Adobe Stock, the two top sales agencies at the moment, then you should. Chasing sales at low volume agencies when you're new is largely pointless. If you are and you're not selling anything/much, look at your keywords and look at your competition (i.e. do searches for the main keywords of a selection of your images and see who else is offering work for those searches). Bear in mind some subjects sell more than others, so if there are only 50 images for some keyword, it may be a great niche, or it may be of little interest to buyers (or it could be misspelled  . 18 results for Knottingley; 51,676 for Edinburgh https://stock.adobe.com/search?dym=1&k=knottingleyhttps://stock.adobe.com/search?dym=1&k=edinburghIn other words, if your Knottingley images aren't selling, it may be lack of buyer interest in the subject. If it's a picture of Edinburgh you interest from buyers, but have a ton of great images as competitors.
719
« on: December 22, 2021, 17:25 »
Has anyone have experience being exclusive on Dreamstime? How it can benefit random photographers? Could it help selling more images?
I don't have experience with Dreamstime exclusivity, although I was an iStock exclusive from 2008-11 (independent from 2004-08 and 2011 on) and IMO it was never a good idea to be a Dreamstime exclusive, not even in the early days. Today, it's a worse idea than it has ever been. They were never better than #3 in the rankings of agency earnings for most people. For a long time, iStock was #1 in earnings generally and had a good exclusive program for a while. Sales today at Dreamstime are slow - earning in a year what a long time ago I'd have earned there in one month - so selling "more" than their current sluggish pace doesn't really amount to much, IMO.
720
« on: December 21, 2021, 20:22 »
...The idea is a rough attempt to estimate the date a photo was accepted, by ID number.
I can add a couple of additional data points. 18829 uploaded Oct 29 2004 71306 uploaded Dec 21 2004 152974 uploaded Feb 15 2005 248541 uploaded Mar 30 2005 537086 uploaded Sep 06 2005 693135 uploaded Nov 05 2005 888312 uploaded Jan 15 2006 1240080 uploaded Apr 24 2006 2128452 uploaded Nov 7 2006 2900019 uploaded Mar 18 2007 5432761 uploaded Sep 18 2007 6157531 uploaded Oct 16 2007 7146277 uploaded Nov 20 2007 I had saved a page showing the Top 50 images that week on November 8, 2005 and at the bottom it said there were: "420,035 photos available for download 12,259 new photos added in the past week" May 2 2006 top 50 images: "727,930 photos available for download 6,839 new photos added in the past week" Nov 15 2006 top 50 images: "1,219,859 photos available for download 15,397 new photos added in the past week"
721
« on: December 17, 2021, 15:42 »
... However, I can't just fly to Morocco again. :-) I have 2 images from Morocco which could do with a sky replacement. Just not sure if I want to give them to microstock after spending hours on re-editing them just to get 10 cents.... They can have a cookie on white but not travel photos.
Couple of thoughts -With contributors nearly worldwide, it's no longer relevant that you had to travel to get somewhere in terms of the value a stock photo has. For many locations, they're local to someone (unless there's special access and you have an opportunity others don't) -Shutterstock has over 340k photos of Morocco; Adobe stock has over 240k. Take a look at what's there, and unless you can really add something that isn't already well represented after you replace a sky, it's just not worth submitting. It could absolutely happen that you have something unusual, but be brutally honest with your image's chances. -Don't think of the return on time edited on the basis of the royalty for one sale; look at the potential for income overall, over time. For many years, I've read comments along the lines of "SS can't expect top quality for only 25 (38/10/...) cents". If an image sells well and keeps going over time it can earn a lot (especially with the higher value SOD royalties, although obviously since June 2020 trends have been down). Microstock isn't about the royalty per license but the income overall given volume. High royalties x low volume can work, but so can low royalties x high volume (as long as the buyer pool is being expanded; if it's just to line Stan Pavlovsky's and shareholder's pockets, not so much )
722
« on: December 16, 2021, 17:53 »
This has been a very good year for me at Adobe Stock - it has already beaten all the other years except 2018 and the year's not yet done. As others have noted, it is missing those very nice high-value SOD sales from Shutterstock, but the market is changing as the flood of free and cheap media continues. I was very concerned about the all-you-can eat Pro subscriptions announced in April, but so far, nothing below 38 cents has shown up. Yea! I remain concerned that Adobe won't commit to any minimum royalty beyond subscriptions (i.e. Pro Edition and Creative Cloud Express) but let's hope that's circumspect lawyers, not an evil genius in its lair plotting our doom
723
« on: December 14, 2021, 10:51 »
...And Adobe could really do it that way (better than the competition) because they can write the costs off as marketing expense for their software...
I'd be OK with flat 38 cent royalties from any CCX uses. However, at $9.99 a month, if a CCX user put 27 of my images into projects, Adobe would owe me $10.26 and be out of pocket (27 x 38 cents) so they'd have to view these royalties as a marketing expense! It still leaves the question Mat refused to answer about what the "attributable amount" could be - what other types of uses beyond what dirkr saw with his example? Is it possible that the Enterprise and Teams version of this - coming in 2022 according to the press release - will pay different royalty amounts than the flat subscription ones? "Creative Cloud Express for Enterprise and Teams is coming in 2022"
724
« on: December 13, 2021, 13:31 »
...If I understand it correctly, nothing should change - looking at their pricing plans - with 10 assets/month plan we get .99 per sale, 40 assets/month plan it's .65 per sale and any plan over 350 assets/month we still get minimum royalty .38
I found it here, updated today: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html
I don't think the standard pricing applies to the custom plans. From the page above, note this: "Adobe Stock also licenses assets through custom agreements and non-standard plans, such as Creative Cloud Express plans and Pro Edition plans for Creative Cloud for teams and enterprise. "
725
« on: December 13, 2021, 13:13 »
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 291
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
