|
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 ... 283 284 285 286 287 [288] 289 290 291
7176
« on: November 03, 2009, 21:26 »
Interesting article. Thanks for posting. A shame whatever site that is can't afford a copy editor  I thought the most interesting part was Blend doing data mining to see what types of things were selling best (they gave the example of an ethnic group eating a meal vs. TV watching, etc.) and then sharing that with their photographers. It'd be very interesting (although I don't see how they could making the sharing part work well) to adapt that to microstock. I bet they have the data, but it never gets back to the contributors...
7177
« on: October 31, 2009, 22:40 »
I'm not directly affected by this any more (although I did go to check that my old DT images were still disabled and hadn't somehow been made freebies behind my back)
Strange. You have deleted-disabled your images over one year ago and they are still there? Theses images should be DELETED now.
Achilles from Dreamstime said:
... we don't touch those files, they are offline. They are permanently deleted after a few months."[/i]
I don't know if I could renable the images - but the button is there if I wanted to push it. I just wanted to be sure I wasn't going to inadvertently end up in violation of my exclusivity arrangement over free RF licenses flogged without my consent at DT. Perhaps they should clean up the old accounts if they want to clean up something
7178
« on: October 31, 2009, 17:12 »
It was said that being a donator would help in search results - in the main collection...
Ok, I get it now. They're offering higher search ranking in exchange for images. Hey why not just accept cash?
actually, not too bad a deal -- let your rejects and non-sellers go in the free pile while your good stuff gets higher search visibility
i agree, of course, that the default should be NOT free, with any donations being voluntary
If they give higher search ranking in exchange for donations, there's nothing voluntary about it. Anyone who "chooses" not to donate will have their search ranking suffer compared to someone who does. I'm not directly affected by this any more (although I did go to check that my old DT images were still disabled and hadn't somehow been made freebies behind my back) but the problem with viewing this as "not too bad a deal" for independents is that you rarely have the same sales patterns across all sites. I would often find an image that took off on one site (and we can speculate about the timings of various search engine changes, a fortunate early sale one place but not another...) didn't do well on another. You'd be insane to let one site give away for free something that was selling OK elsewhere. And if the image is so awful that it isn't selling anywhere, how will someone downloading an awful image free help you sell your portfolio of current and stellar images? It seems to me that if you rank the search results usefully to buyers they aren't in any way hampered by the fact that there are some so-so images on page 4,395 of the results - which they'll likely never get to. And if for whatever reason they don't like any of the high ranking images and find their way to a low-seller towards the end, perhaps it's what they're looking for and it's purchsed. This whole notion of buyers having to wade through mountains of dreck to get to the good stuff - if it is a real issue - isn't solved by moving files to the free section, "voluntarily" or otherwise. It's solved by improving your search engine.
7179
« on: October 24, 2009, 17:24 »
$400 seems like an awful lot. I occasionally get a return here or there on most of the sites, but if it was such a large amount of money that would be alarming!
I've had a sprinkling of returns (bought a different size typically) over 5+ years, but the only place I ever got a chargeback for credit card fraud was FT. It was never $400 thank heavens. I complained about it at the time (and at the beginning they didn't even have any accounting for it in the stats; the money just went away) in part because it was many months old. How on earth can it take them such a long time to uncover these problems. And why is it that they're the only site that makes these chargebacks?
7180
« on: October 23, 2009, 22:00 »
I don't want to leave Fotolia because I actually like the site but there is no way I am going to be paid less and be put further back in the search results than somebody new who's sold less than me, the last ranking fiasco was bad enough.
And there's your conundrum. It's no good saying "there's no way" unless you're prepared to do something to force a change. About the only thing that gets a site's attention (I don't think the regulatory angle will pan out and if it does it'll take years) is halting the flow of uploads. For a site that depends on subscriptions that matters. In the past contributors were able to get changes from a number of sites, including FT when that happened. You'll never get all contributors and generally won't get the top folks as they don't get involved, but you can get a big chunk of the middle tier to halt uploads - if enough people aren't happy. In the absence of something that FT wants from contributors going away, why would they change what they're doing? No one did over the ranking changes; DT and FT managed to pull off a commission cut. They figure contributors will put up with pretty much anything. The only FT-specific issue to consider is that they play hardball - they have threatened to, and have, removed contributor accounts for actions they see as anti FT, even on independent forums. So you need to understand that there's a possibility if you stand up to them you may end up leaving involuntarily.
7181
« on: October 23, 2009, 10:55 »
Fotolia PR say Jim did his press release by himself, but that they knew about it and when it was coming. So it seems it was all planned this way.
Don't you have to give 30 days notice to drop exclusivity? ...
That's correct. It also seems odd to say he did it by himself - did he then make up the quote attributed to a FT executive? I'm assuming not and they gave him the quote. I would guess that they had hoped to be able to target this program only to the people not currently at FT that they wanted to attract - folks at traditional agencies only and exclusives at other micros. Quietly publicizing it in selected arenas. Once it was made known to the pool of existing contributors they needed to do damage control. If they had really planned it, I think the FT release about operation whatever-it-is would have come out at the same time as or before Jim DeLillo's...
7182
« on: October 21, 2009, 00:24 »
I wonder if Fotolia even knows about that press release or if he just made it himself.
From the release on PR Web is the following quote: "Having had the privilege of collaborating with Jim DeLillo in the past, I know his exceptional portfolio will only enhance Fotolia's collection of over seven million images," says Garth Johnson, Fotolia Executive Vice President, North America. "We welcome him to the Fotolia community with open arms." That's a direct quote from a Fotolia employee in the press release and it mentions the photographer's name and welcoming him with open arms. I'd say FT knows about the release (OTOH this is the era of balloon boy and amazing hoaxes for publicity's sake, so one never knows )
7183
« on: October 20, 2009, 16:01 »
... He also appears in the 'Newly Awarded' column as a Gold contributor (with his 2 sales).
...That's not exactly fair to all the others that have supported FT for some years and might be just on the threshold of Gold.
EDIT... sorry starting to sound bitter.. which I'm not....
I read your post prior to the edit - and it sounded pretty reasonable to me It's also easier for me to comment openly as FT removed my account after I became exclusive - there's nothing they can take away at this point. As someone who did live through the early days of FT (before they were officially 1.0) and the absolute fiasco of V2.0 (which at the time I feared might take FT under; kudos to them for keeping things going) I'd be totally @#$'d off at someone with a so-so portfolio getting such a huge leg up. Even more so if I'd been one of those just about to get a new level when FT changed the goalposts for rankings a wee while back. There's more than one way to give contributors a raw deal...
7184
« on: October 20, 2009, 12:34 »
Perhaps the harley example wasn't a good one, but search for cruise ship and see all the protected content in those images - for example.I think if they want to follow through on this, al the luxury cars, cruise ships, teddy bears etc. that IS has been weeding out will have to go at SS too. Or Seattle's Public Market sign... or...
7185
« on: October 20, 2009, 12:24 »
So I looked at this guy's FT portfolio and he has 903 images online, 2 sales and is gold ranking. Was there some kind of deal to make him instant gold? I'm pretty sure I have the right guy as the thermometer image is also in his IS portfolio. I didn't know agencies did deals like this...
7186
« on: October 20, 2009, 11:29 »
^^^ Did he just write a 'news article' about himself?
It seems an odd time to cancel exclusivity at IS as they appear to going from strength to strength over the last few months. I believe the recent guarantee they have included will encourage more big accounts too.
Apparently it wasn't going from strength to strength for him - press releases notwithstanding. (Although I'm happily seeing what you are and IS is doing well for me right now). His IS blog says he made gold April 30th. He currently has >11,000 licenses sold. In six months he's sold less than 2K images, probably closer to 1K as his own press release says he is "...credited with over 11,000 downloads". I'd have said "close to 12,000" if I were over 11.5K Not sure how writing breathlessly about himself is giong to help one way or the other. And as far as the original topic, it's obviously always possible that businesses close, but if the stock photography business goes away (which I doubt it will) the last one to turn out the lights will be Getty. I can understand the issues and risks in considering exclusivity (it took me nearly 4 years to decide on doing it) but I can't imagine considering it anywhere other than IS.
7187
« on: October 15, 2009, 16:04 »
Do you feel your sales level have been affected?
No
7188
« on: October 14, 2009, 16:47 »
rogermexico just posted this additional information:
"Okay, I have some more information:
First: there isn't any malicious content hosted on our site. We are virus free.
However, we have accidentally been put on a phishing blacklist which is making AVG list us as dangerous.
We are working on getting this cleared up.
I'll let you know more as I find it out. Thanks for all the patience everyone."
7190
« on: October 14, 2009, 12:12 »
I still can't understand why any IS exclusive or independent contributor would support this plan. At best they're likely to increase their income by about 1% (because it is only their non-selling rubbish going there) whilst allowing JIU/PC to promote themselves with the IS name __ basically turkeys voting for Christmas.
Neither can I, but then I opted out. I think there's some notion that it's incremental revenue that won't have any impact on the IS revenue - IOW only upside potential. I think that's false - (a) that there's much income to be had from this (b) that it will have no effect on IS revenue. The other argument I heard was that (paraphrasing massively) we're all headed down the toilet with these bargain basement subscriptions, but grabbing as much cash as fast as you can is the best way to deal with this gloomy situation. I think you were too kind in describing the Jupiter wholly owned content as rubbish by today's standards - I guess the fact that StockXpert contributors have been making anything from Jupiter subs at all (given their terrible search results position) is a testament to how much buyers don't want the old dated dreck. I wish IS would fix the dollar bin (two prices; 1 credit for Large and smaller, 2 credits for XL and up) and promote their own subscriptions (which have lower, but still reasonable commissions) instead of pursuing moving content to the other sites.
7191
« on: October 14, 2009, 10:05 »
To IS and FT: What about editorial pictures? Any plans to go into that direction?
IS has already announced that it's going to allow exclusives to submit editorial images (the 'lypse in Istanbul next month to start and then more generally in 2010).
7192
« on: October 13, 2009, 20:55 »
For all three: How do they think they are doing in appealing to non-English speaking buyers? If any barriers remain, what are they and how/when do they plan to address them.
I ask that because from some recent numbers (can't remember where I saw them) it appeared that there was still a huge portion of business coming from the US and UK. Seems a shame to be leaving money on the table elsewhere. I know everyone's doing translated sites and purchases in various currencies, but I wonder what else is needed?
7193
« on: October 12, 2009, 22:08 »
Just tried a couple of searches on Photos.com Plus, to see how the search-order was working, and when I clicked on one of my own images ... this message popped up in bright red type;
Alert: This image will not be available to download or license after November 2.
Looks like the party might be over fairly soon after all. Oh well.
Why is everyone so negative all the time?
Past experiences? The concern is that the agencies are looking for some short term boosts in income but that for contributors this may come at the expense of long term income growth.
7194
« on: October 12, 2009, 16:14 »
I just posted in the IS forums asking for an update. If customers are being told something, seems only right contributors should be kept updated too...
7195
« on: October 08, 2009, 13:22 »
Have you ever tried the IS critique forum?
As long as you don't come in with a rant (the inspectors are all blind; everywhere else these sell like hotcakes so what's wrong with IS...) you'll get a lot of specific and useful advice in spotting issues and how to fix problems.
If you do a lot of raster illustrations, that's an area with which IS has a love/hate relationship and other people have struggled with that too. There was a recent series of posts about some very insteresting fractal techniques that only got approved via Scout.
Each site has its policies, but once you've figured out what flies/doesn't, it shouldn't be too hard to get your work routinely accepted at IS.
7196
« on: October 07, 2009, 18:09 »
His account at StockXpert is now closed, although there are still a couple of stray images showing up in searches. I've contacted IS again to ask that they get that fixed.
As far as BigStock, I didn't have any of my swiped images there so I haven't been working on that. However SS closed this @#$'s account, so I can't see how hard it would be to use SS, DT, IS, StockXpert and FT as examples and point out to BigStock that they are way out at the thin end of a limb all by themselves on this one as everyone else has closed his account.
7197
« on: October 06, 2009, 19:47 »
Eeew!! Even if I weren't married, I think I'd thank you for your kind thoughts and...run! @click_click. IS is making this happen, but they think there is some sort of a lag - they should all be gone (they said StockXpert's systems didn't work the same way theirs did; that's true - the StockXpert systems sometimes didn't record any of the Jupiter sales revenues until contributors hollered loudly enough  I am getting responses from IS HQ.
7198
« on: October 06, 2009, 17:18 »
Some of the images have gone from StockXpert, but not all (one of the three of mine is still up; several of the lady liberty shots are even though one or two have gone). I've contacted IS again about this to let them know and urge them again to work to get StockXpert to pull the whole portfolio.
Submitters who repeatedly and willfully violate the terms of the upload agreement should not be allowed to be submitters, even for the images to which they do own the copyright. Otherwise how to discourage anyone from doing this, taking the money and running when caught?
7199
« on: October 06, 2009, 15:01 »
Also, every single time I reported a thief to 123RF they ONLY removed the stolen images but left the portfolio online.
I got a response from 123RF that the first time this happens the account holder gets a warning.
Now suck on that.
Looks like he's gone at 123rf now too. I contacted them 4 times already about this matter and finally...
Stockxpert seems to have a problem of letting go of him  still online with oodles of stolen pictures.
/~ and the beat goes on...
I asked an iStock staff member to try and hurry StockXpert along in closing his account (as they are now a Getty company too I thought they might be able to speed things up). As far as I know there is no EL that entitles you to offer the image itself for resale - those ELs are for cards, calendars, mugs, prints, etc. where you are reselling an item with the image on it. And yes, I used to be independent, but I don't think how he acquired the image is the issue. Nowhere licenses images so people can upload them as their own. IS is the only site currently entitled to license that image and anyone else who does so is treading on IS's business turf.
7200
« on: October 06, 2009, 10:47 »
His stuff is still at StockXpert http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/19237401http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/21237421I notified them yesterday and told iStock compliance enforcement too (as a Getty company I thought it might be easier to take the guy out there, but perhaps no). The reply I received from 123rf said the offending photos had been removed "...and if you were to do a search on his portfolio, it's no longer there as we've removed it. We are very strict on this matter and such stealing won't be tolerated." To me that said they were going to leave the rest of his portfolio up; I'm glad they didn't. I am also glad to see that FT has finally removed his work. I did eventually get what passes for a response from their support organization which told me to forward the information to copyright at fotolia dot com!! Their own support can't pass the information? Certainly seems to me like those organizations that hope if they keep tossing the ball back in your court you'll go away. I did forward the information and told them they needed to turn over all the revenues from those images to iStock. We'll see what happens iStock has removed his tiny portfolio (14 images) there. Now we just need to make sure he stays out of commission at SS and DT - didn't someone say he'd been suspended before but then allowed back online at both places? I tried to notify Image Trail, but their contact form is broken and generated an error message "System.Net.Sockets.SocketException: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it ::1:25". Not sure what to expect from a site whose help page generates a "not found" error.
Pages: 1 ... 283 284 285 286 287 [288] 289 290 291
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
