7401
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Can inspections become more inane?
« on: November 10, 2008, 13:30 »
Makes me think "How much does he make on Alamy with that %100"...
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. 7401
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Can inspections become more inane?« on: November 10, 2008, 13:30 »
Makes me think "How much does he make on Alamy with that %100"...
7402
iStockPhoto.com / Re: The New best match and the 80/20 Rule« on: November 10, 2008, 12:56 »
Cmon lagereek, spill the beans. The only place I'd be surprised to find her is alamy, since quality and search are tough there.
7403
Alamy.com / Re: Yuri Arcurs selling same photos RF and licensed.« on: November 10, 2008, 01:03 »
So, you're saying his intent was to upload the micro concert series as "L", under his name, and the RF version is what is not supposed to be there, under Shoosh? That makes even less sense having it listed RM there and RF micro.
That can't be correct at all. 7404
Alamy.com / Re: Yuri Arcurs selling same photos RF and licensed.« on: November 09, 2008, 21:21 »
I think he is pointing out that Arcurs is trying to keep the Alamy images unassociated with his name by putting them all under the psuedonym "Shoosh":
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography-search-results.asp?qt=shoosh&ns=1&nu=0&lic=6&lic=1&archive=1&size=0xFF Possibly so people wouldn't be able to search for them at a lower price elsewhere under his name? Maybe that's what lobby is trying to say? 7405
iStockPhoto.com / Re: The New best match and the 80/20 Rule« on: November 09, 2008, 19:59 »
It may just be me, but there are just certain things that say to me "this should command a high price", and I'm talking about individual sales, and not volume.
7406
Alamy.com / Re: Yuri Arcurs selling same photos RF and licensed.« on: November 09, 2008, 19:56 »
Yeah, I'm not specifically saying Getty has to allow it or anything, but you could certainly sell them on your own site if you wanted.
7407
Alamy.com / Re: Yuri Arcurs selling same photos RF and licensed.« on: November 09, 2008, 18:34 »
It must be so clear as to be transparent on their "How to choose a license type" page:
http://www.alamy.com/licensing.asp ![]() 7408
iStockPhoto.com / Re: The New best match and the 80/20 Rule« on: November 09, 2008, 18:19 »
I don't think this is the type of group that should be selling micro. True high end stuff should be kept for higher priced collections.
7409
Alamy.com / Re: Yuri Arcurs selling same photos RF and licensed.« on: November 09, 2008, 18:16 »And once an image is licensed as RF it can never be licensed as RM, even if it is taken off the RF sites. Pssst.... sure you can. You just can't sell exclusivity or history data with the image. http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/rm-vs-rf/ To the OP, guess it pays to keep a tighter reign on what you're putting out there. 7410
iStockPhoto.com / Re: What gives ?« on: November 09, 2008, 10:35 »
Alexa changed measurement stats:
http://www.alexa.com/site/company/announcement 7411
iStockPhoto.com / Re: The New best match and the 80/20 Rule« on: November 07, 2008, 17:03 »
Yeah, you can also sell your expensive equipment!
![]() 7412
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Can inspections become more inane?« on: November 06, 2008, 22:26 »
Because, if they delete your poor words, you don't learn the lesson on how to keyword. An xray is an xray, not every disease on the planet.
7413
iStockPhoto.com / Re: The New best match and the 80/20 Rule« on: November 06, 2008, 22:25 »Mom always said, don't play ball in the house! 7414
iStockPhoto.com / Re: The New best match and the 80/20 Rule« on: November 06, 2008, 22:16 »![]() Yuri, yuri, yuri ! 7415
Microstock News / Re: new site for finding keywords for photos« on: November 06, 2008, 18:31 »
Nice work!
7416
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Same Old, Same Old« on: November 06, 2008, 08:30 »
Here's a good, though not too active forum, for modeling:
http://cube.phlatt.net/forums/spiraloid//index.php The guy who modelled gollum runs it. I think your eyes are too small and high. Are you working from image planes? Eyes should be around halfway up the face. 7417
iStockPhoto.com / Re: The New best match and the 80/20 Rule« on: November 06, 2008, 00:12 »I think what he was trying to say is: that if new files (from old or new contributor) are not allowed to climb up the best match, the collection would eventually start looking a little stale. Ok, guess I wasn't reading it that way. Thanks... 7418
iStockPhoto.com / Re: The New best match and the 80/20 Rule« on: November 05, 2008, 23:46 »
Why does everyone seem to assume that only new contributors can provide "newer, fresher" images?
7419
General Stock Discussion / Re: The Next Step« on: November 05, 2008, 16:22 »yeah, I wonder how many more 'big shooters' are going to enter the microstock arena in the next few years. Maybe a few less, if everyone would stop blogging about their month by month money stream and how to succeed in microstock, and all that. 7420
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Submitting RM While Exclusive at IS« on: November 05, 2008, 06:30 »
Maybe I'll have time to make a video on the subject
![]() 7422
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Submitting RM While Exclusive at IS« on: November 04, 2008, 17:09 »
Because iStock markets their _exclusive_ collection as being a set of images that are _exclusively_ available on iStock. Putting the same image or similars on RM sites dilutes that campaign.
7423
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Submitting RM While Exclusive at IS« on: November 04, 2008, 15:44 »besides upsetting them it won't matter a diddle if a similar happened to be sold else where. Well, let us know how that works for you. 7424
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Submitting RM While Exclusive at IS« on: November 04, 2008, 14:09 »
No, I'm saying that it is probably not in your best interests to submit similar work to both. Like I said, there are no written rules, but I can't imagine TPTB being happy seeing their (and your) exclusive collection similars spread about.
7425
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Submitting RM While Exclusive at IS« on: November 04, 2008, 12:01 »
Because there's a difference between "similar" and "completely different".
|
|