|
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
7426
« on: November 04, 2008, 11:00 »
Seems quite clear to me that IS do not require exclusivity for RM images: IS allow you to sell ANY photo on RM site.
Since the point of exclusivity is to create a collection with a value due to the limited access of that exclusive content, putting similar images, even at an RM site, would devalue your work as an exclusive.
7427
« on: November 04, 2008, 06:13 »
No, there aren't really any posted rules. Common sense would say to keep images with similar subjects separate, to keep up the value of the exclusive collection.
7428
« on: November 03, 2008, 18:00 »
Let me check my pay-stub...
Oh heck, the boss showed up...
7429
« on: November 02, 2008, 19:00 »
SJlocke, haven't you been saying the best match will change and does change often? It hasn't really been my experience in the last 2 years but I'll think positive and when it changes I will have all those files that would have been lost to compete on a more level playing field. I think you exclusives are doing pretty well right now regardless of what most of us nonexclusives do, its so tilted now.
Eh?
7430
« on: November 02, 2008, 17:28 »
Sounds like a great plan, eh? 
I'm all for everyone else uploading their marginal files. Hope they follow through on that one... 
7431
« on: November 02, 2008, 07:27 »
Wow, going to have to read that some more, later.
7432
« on: November 01, 2008, 14:50 »
When you only get one download every other day or so, that's pretty close to no downloads at all, so there really isn't any conspiracy. Just the way things move in the great macro world of sales.
Hey Sean,
Are videos getting any better placement than when this monster was first unveiled? I'm seeing a smattering of vectors in the results, but they are all red and blue flames, and if what got them those slots doesn't change, it doesn't look like there will be any other vectors showing up before the middle of the pack. I didn't really compare video at first, so I am curious how things are progressing on that front.
I don't know - I don't really pay too much attention to where my videos come up in searches, especially a mixed best match sort. I figure someone who's going to pay $100 for a video is smart enough to click off the photo, vector and flash buttons 
7433
« on: November 01, 2008, 10:45 »
When you only get one download every other day or so, that's pretty close to no downloads at all, so there really isn't any conspiracy. Just the way things move in the great macro world of sales.
7434
« on: October 30, 2008, 21:17 »
I have already thought of using people in my photos, and I thought of paying them a % of earnings in a couple of sites - those that are easier to track earnings per image (FT is not one of them). I would do that for a period of time, after which no further payment for that series would be required.
Regards,
Adelaide
I doubt you want to get into the trouble of royalty tracking for X number of models. Yuck!
7435
« on: October 28, 2008, 20:07 »
What?
7436
« on: October 27, 2008, 06:29 »
Helen, can I get the discount on my back ordered MK2?
7437
« on: October 23, 2008, 19:53 »
Maybe it mean that exclusive could upload to jupiter. Then it maybe mean even more images online there... even more than on getty with all the StockXpert (non exclusive) images. But it would be hard to set the prices, because I don't think the IS exclusive would like to sell on subscriptions.
I don't want to waste time uploading to multiple sites. That's a reason I'm exclusive.
7439
« on: October 23, 2008, 14:00 »
They state that they don't want edited images, but if you look at their top sellers many of them are heavily edited. This also shows that some reviewers at IS are ignoring their own rules and allowing specific images that have been heavily edited to get through their inspection process.
Right. They're selective. One great edited file doesn't mean that all edited files should get in or are great.
7440
« on: October 22, 2008, 21:23 »
7441
« on: October 21, 2008, 20:06 »
Sounds interesting.
I hope its worth it.
Doubt it. Sounds too complicated.
7442
« on: October 21, 2008, 18:36 »
I really can't see any use for either of them, and that's along the lines of the iStock thinking, imo.
7443
« on: October 20, 2008, 09:05 »
Not that it is my image, or any of my business:-), but couldn't help myself...
I'm sorry, I must have missed where I asked you for a critique of anything. I was trying to point the poster in the direction that might help their Illustration work accepted at iStock.
7444
« on: October 20, 2008, 07:58 »
I wish Istock realized how bad they are hurting themselves with their policies. By rejecting good stock images or severely limiting non-exclusive submissions they are losing millions of dollars. I have a backlog to submit to them of about 3000 images that would have earned THEM at least 10,000 a month. By allowing me to sumbit 30 a week (and I am a diamond member) and rejecting half of it they are robbing themselves of profit.
I'm always surprised that so many people are concerned for the welfare of iStock. It's nice to hear.
7445
« on: October 20, 2008, 06:09 »
If you want a critique of that TV, I'd say you need to work on it more. It looks like a black rectangle with a blue rectangle, a curvy line, and oval and another square underneath. Too simplistic. I know the other sites will accept almost any illustration, but iStock likes their submissions to look like you spent a little more time on the design.
Same for that universe/earth picture. The styles of the background and the planet just don't mesh at all. You've got this somewhat realistic background, and then the shiny plastic earth with no clouds.
I don't think those rejections are at all surprising. Discouraging to you though, yes.
7446
« on: October 19, 2008, 05:18 »
If we already have the Mk2 on backorder, can we get the discount applied?
7447
« on: October 18, 2008, 15:24 »
Because coffee beans on a search for cappuccino fills up the search pages unnecessarily and makes the buyer page forward and forward looking, when they shouldn't have to. Also, "cappuccino" is a noun. "Coffee beans" is a noun. It's not like that is a grey area. Either it is there, or it isn't.
7448
« on: October 18, 2008, 06:06 »
My point is, if you have been active for a long time, but didn't sell a lot in your early days, your number would be a lot lower than someone who comes steaming on right from the start, even if you both sell the currently same amount. So that number is just your total time/total downloads, which is only indicitive of anything if you know the history of the person.
7449
« on: October 16, 2008, 20:09 »
Don't forget, that's over the lifetime of the contributor. Like when you made 1-2 downloads a day 4 years ago.
7450
« on: October 16, 2008, 14:36 »
Ive said before that I'd like download information to be kept private. It's one of those "fun" things from the early days that needs to go away.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
