|
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 - tickstock
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 151
726
« on: June 16, 2015, 07:25 »
Wow!
I am shocked at how many NEGATIVE post have come out of this great news... Maybe that's why I come less often on this forum. All contributors have been stating about the cut in the commissions in Fotolia. Now that we have big increase and receive a 1/3 commission along with a new platform to generate revenue, most of you still find place to complain instead of taking one small moment to say Thank You to Adobe for taking a step forward in fixing a flawed system.
Cheer up everyone! 
Is it a pay raise? 750 images for $199 means you would get something like 8 or 9 cents per sale doesn't it?
727
« on: June 16, 2015, 07:18 »
It's hard to say much about the graph, you could be doing much better than most people even after your decline depending where you started. For SS according to their filings they had an average monthly RPI of about 17 cents, down from about 19 last year. A poll from last year found that 42% of people here had a monthly RPI of less than or equal to 25 cents. Considering that SS is usually 50-65% of most people's total earnings that would bring the average RPI for all sites to less than 40 cents per month or $4-5 year.
Where did SS come into the equation??
It seems obvious doesn't it? He's trying to compare his RPI with what is going on for nonexclusives. Shutterstock tells you exactly what the RPI is for their site and for previous years. You can go onto SS and see that RPI dropped on average by a little more than 10% from last year. You can also infer from the poll results what the average total RPI would be if you contributed to all the sites.
728
« on: June 15, 2015, 22:12 »
It's hard to say much about the graph, you could be doing much better than most people even after your decline depending where you started. For SS according to their filings they had an average monthly RPI of about 17 cents, down from about 19 last year. A poll from last year found that 42% of people here had a monthly RPI of less than or equal to 25 cents. Considering that SS is usually 50-65% of most people's total earnings that would bring the average RPI for all sites to less than 40 cents per month or $4-5 year.
729
« on: June 15, 2015, 11:55 »
You can't police the internet, and you can't control what happens to your images as soon as they hit the web and are downloaded at least once. There is no real control, but there are still at least some honest business people out there. Honest buyers? Now we are talking a totally different topic. Buying a regular license, and using it as if it were an enhanced? Sharing their downloads with their peers? Let's be real. If you're afraid of all of these things, go become a basket weaver instead. They WILL happen. It comes with the territory, just like theft comes along with owning a retail store.
Strange analogy, retailers put all kinds of measures into place to reduce the chances that their products will be stolen. Uploading to shady sites with opaque terms and dodgy partners puts your images at more risk than uploading to more trusted sites. Sure you can't stop ALL violations but that isn't a good argument against stopping many violations.
730
« on: June 12, 2015, 13:44 »
Again your personal double standards are confusing, you have made it clear that it is okay for you Shelma1 to "turn a blind eye" and do business with IS "as long as they make you money" while at the same time you berate tickstock's ethics for contributing to "a company that breaks the law".
I don't think you need to point any of this out it's so blatantly obvious what she is doing. Anyone reading what she's written will quite easily see how hypocritical and unethical she is. There are some big differences between us, she believes they are doing illegal and unethical things and is still contributing as long she can make a buck, I don't believe they doing anything illegal and I don't believe that treating different contributors differently is unethical. I have no respect for her so I've decided to put her back on ignore and trust that everyone will see her opinions for what they are without anymore argument from me. The OP wants to get around the contract he signed so he can get the benefits of exclusivity and nonexclusivity at the same time, that's just wrong and I'm surprised to see anyone arguing for that.
731
« on: June 12, 2015, 13:25 »
I always get a few per month in the $50-100+ range but it might depend what kind of content you submit.
732
« on: June 12, 2015, 12:48 »
More correctly, Getty images can pay more, but not necessarily.
On average I get 2 or 3 times more per sale from GI than iStock.
733
« on: June 12, 2015, 11:57 »
Hey; really - I don't have a problem here - I simply asked if this was the right remuneration for this type of use - I got my answer - which is fine ... thanks.
I thought Getty Image stuff paid more; seems there was a "misunderstanding" and that's that - time for a re-think!
Getty Image stuff does pay more but as a nonexclusive you have very limited access to it and the access you do have is to some of their biggest customers with sometimes large discounts. Your image was not sold on Getty Images it was a subscription sale on iStock which is where a majority of your sales are going to come from so you should expect a majority of your sales to be for that amount.
734
« on: June 12, 2015, 11:35 »
You're right; after buying the camera, lenses, tripod etc. the computer software, hour of processing, keywording, caption and description writing, re-sizing and uploading and the travelling, putting myself in danger to get that shot; they pay me 28 cents and helpfully told me after 8 ticket queries what I'd "made" on the sale.
Yep - it's win / win tickstock - I'm so grateful to them ... very happy with it - who wouldn't be?
You knew that's how much you were going to get for subs which could be used in that way before you signed up. At least you should have known that, it was your responsibility to look at the terms before uploading, they aren't hidden. If you didn't want license your image for 28 cents why did you do it?
735
« on: June 12, 2015, 11:11 »
Looks to me like iStock did a lot for you. They found out where the buyer purchased the image from even though the buyer used a somewhat incorrect credit and gave a very comprehensive answer. What more do you want?
736
« on: June 12, 2015, 10:48 »
You better stop uploading clips to iStock. It's not worth the effort for only 5-7 bucks/DL (probably the lowest rate on the market)
He's exclusive, sales are closer to $30 plus GI sales. jjneff said in another thread that he gets around $50 per sale on average. But back to the problem, it's probably best to look on the forums or sitemail one of the video admins if you are having problems.
737
« on: June 11, 2015, 14:50 »
Yep 28 cents is what you get for sub sales, SS gets you 25-38 cents depending on your level.
738
« on: June 11, 2015, 09:51 »
I think ethics matter. If a stock site treats you unethically, I can see why you'd have the impulse to return the favor. What would bother me more is if someone were to gain an unfair advantage over his/her competitors....us. In this specific case I'm not sure any advantage would be gained, with all the extra work and separate portfolios involved. However, the faux exclusivity iStock gave to some contributors definitely is unfair to the rest of us, since the same images can be licensed elsewhere. I'm sure ticky would argue that it's legal, but legal isn't necessarily ethical.
I would argue it's a private company and has no obligation to treat all contributors equally. Some contributors are more valuable than others, that's a fact and if they have to pay more or give better terms to get them that's their perogative. Sean got a special with DP wasn't it? Shutterstock promotes some contributors for the enterprise sales. They only accept some to offset. That's their right. Instead of being jealous of them and advocating defrauding them you should congratulate the contributors and work harder to become important enough to be worth more.
739
« on: June 10, 2015, 14:57 »
The conversation isn't confusing at all; I'm simply pointing out tickstock's hypocrisy. He's OK with iStock's lack of ethics, and it doesn't bother him if they break the law by claiming a file is exclusive when it is not, but he chastises me for suggesting I feel no pity for a company that acts dishonestly towards its contributors when one of those contributors tries to find what would be a perfectly legal loophole when it comes to exclusivity (which is a malleable concept as far as iStock is concerned).
It's not something I'd try. But I don't feel badly for iStock, because they set an unfair precedent by allowing special contributors to get the financial benefits of both exclusivity and non-exclusivity simultaneously. It's unfair to everyone else, who is either non-exclusive (like me) and gets lower royalties and lousy search placement, or is truly exclusive and forfeits the income from other sources.
Like I said you won't convince me that it's ok to defraud buyers or a company, no matter how bad you see them (obviously it can't be that bad or you wouldn't be paying them 85% to license your work). It's wrong, period.
740
« on: June 10, 2015, 14:45 »
Wow you try to give helpful advice and you negatives. I don't pay attention to this silliness but I bet there are some people out there that do. This is the reason the plus minus system really needs to go. Oh well hopefully the OP found it useful.
741
« on: June 10, 2015, 14:14 »
It's kind of like the gun/owner debate. Do guns kill people or do people kill people? Does the disagree button cause the hostility, or are people just inherently hostile and if they don't have a disagree button, they will find something else to be hostile about?
But it will be a good experiment if Leaf gets rid of it to see if that magically turns everyone into a flower child.
No, I remember before the disagree button and things were a lot less hostile around here, and a lot less people left the forums. Conversations were more constructive.
That is true but I'm not totally convinced it was the hearts thing that did it, maybe accelerated it though.
742
« on: June 10, 2015, 14:09 »
live stock ap from the google ap store or chrome extension in the iStock tools forum "my_uploads and toolbar changes - browser script"
743
« on: June 10, 2015, 13:54 »
We can't forget that Istock is the most ethical company on the planet either. They would never enter into an agreement with you and then reduce your royalties. And they would never enter into an agreement with you to sell your art on their site and then drop the price and sell as subscription elsewhere.
And you can leave whenever you see fit. Defrauding the company and buyers should never be your reaction. I hope you can agree with that.
744
« on: June 10, 2015, 13:17 »
I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.
He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do. If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers. I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.
You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.
I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.
If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.
I read what you said it's quoted above. You said you had no ethical problem with cheating or lying because "istock set a precedent". Personally, that's not the kind of person I want to be. Not because I worry about being caught like you say but because it's wrong.
Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?
If you believe they are breaking the law then file a complaint, doing illegal or immoral things in response isn't the right answer it just makes you an immoral person. iStock can make sweetheart agreements with contributors, it's their business. Jealousy doesn't make it ok to do immoral or illegal things either.
If you're OK with skirting the boundaries of ethics by doing business with a company that offers sweetheart deals and breaks the law, don't chastise others for seeing what they're doing and looking for ways to skirt around things as well.
You've drawn an arbitrary line that stops exactly where you personally feel comfortable with questionable ethics and illegality as long as it makes you money, but still feel entitled to climb up on your high horse.
The line I'm drawing is nowhere near arbitrary. I'm saying committing immoral and illegal actions by a person is wrong, even if you're committing them against someone or some business you see as immoral or doing something illegal. Just because someone might think a company is immoral and doing illegal things doesn't mean they should be excused from stealing from them or defrauding the company. It's a clear bright line and I'm honestly surprised that this a point that needs arguing, it should be clear to everyone here. You aren't going to persuade me that defrauding a company and buyers is ok and I'm not going to persuade you that it's wrong so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
745
« on: June 10, 2015, 12:15 »
I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.
He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do. If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers. I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.
You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.
I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.
If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.
I read what you said it's quoted above. You said you had no ethical problem with cheating or lying because "istock set a precedent". Personally, that's not the kind of person I want to be. Not because I worry about being caught like you say but because it's wrong.
Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?
If you believe they are breaking the law then file a complaint, doing illegal or immoral things in response isn't the right answer it just makes you an immoral person. iStock can make sweetheart agreements with contributors, it's their business. Jealousy doesn't make it ok to do immoral or illegal things either.
746
« on: June 10, 2015, 11:59 »
I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.
He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do. If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers. I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.
You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.
I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.
If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.
I read what you said it's quoted above. You said you had no ethical problem with cheating or lying because "istock set a precedent". Personally, that's not the kind of person I want to be. Not because I worry about being caught like you say but because it's wrong.
747
« on: June 10, 2015, 11:48 »
I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.
He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do. If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers. I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.
You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.
I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.
748
« on: June 10, 2015, 11:23 »
I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.
He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do. If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers. I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.
749
« on: June 10, 2015, 09:21 »
Just go nonexclusive you can go back to exclusive in a few months if you choose. It seems ethically wrong to me to try to cheat and is it worth getting banned altogether?
750
« on: June 10, 2015, 09:13 »
it seems many people take more offense to the agree / disagree buttons than intended. People get worked up for getting a single -
The point of it was to simply give a reader an idea of how popular / unpopular an idea was... if most people agreed or disagreed. Sometimes someone can make a comment and it looks just as valid as every other comment until you see how many people actually agree or disagree with it.
That said - how things are supposed to work and how they work in practice are two different things. The disagree button seems to be spreading more hate than it is help. Perhaps that button should be done away while keeping the agree button.
First post I've agreed (or disagreed) with in probably a year. Get rid of it
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 151
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
