Quote from: andy_arden on February 08, 2016, 09:02
Are you uploading clips on istock?

Absolutely not! Terrible royalty model for contributors.

If video is being sold on a subscription I'll have to stop uploading.  That's why I stopped uploading video to fotolia years ago.

Another concern is an extended license is being included at the $199 price! Shutterstock sold a clip for me last month where my take was $180! You don't have to give all the additional rights away. Extended rights should be an added cost on top of the $199 price.

Giving extended rights along with the price of a 4k clip is essentially a price cut! Please don't do it.

Quote from: cflorinc on January 23, 2016, 11:55

Quote from: stockmn on January 22, 2016, 19:02

Quote from: cflorinc on January 22, 2016, 14:56
... you can upload pictures from your smartphone, your Google drive account or Dropbox to your favorite agencies via ftp.

How can I upload pictures from my Dropbox to agencies via ftp using this app? I can't see a way to do this.

Also, will it work for video?

Upload from dropbox works on Android only. If you use Android follow this:
1. Open Pixendr app, tap the "+" button to add a new image. The picture selection screen will appear
2. Tap on the menu icon in the top left (three horizontal lines). A menu will show up and here you can select different sources like Google drive or Dropbox.

This is how it looks on my phone. As about video, not yet. This will probably be a premium feature added later.

Thanks for the dropbox explanation unfortunately I'm on an iphone so that's why I wasn't seeing a way to do this. If you can create something that allows me to upload a video once and submit to several agencies via ftp I'm totally onboard

I got hit with this too. Dozens of video sales for pennies each. Not very happy about it!

I don't see anything about it on the getty artists forum but I did notice that the forum is a ghost town.

Quote from: cflorinc on January 22, 2016, 14:56
... you can upload pictures from your smartphone, your Google drive account or Dropbox to your favorite agencies via ftp.

How can I upload pictures from my Dropbox to agencies via ftp using this app? I can't see a way to do this.

Also, will it work for video?

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on January 12, 2016, 08:52

Quote from: stockmn on January 11, 2016, 20:05
Just uploaded a few. Their uploader doesn't read caption or keywords making this a very labor intensive process. Jeeez!

If you are focused on stock uploads, you can make it easy for yourself. The caption and "albums" you enter haven't been transferred to Getty. Instead, the selected images are keyworded externally as it appears. So spending too much effort on this step yourself seems a waste of time.

Not sure if/how this would change with the addition of Alamy now. But considering that EyeEm is sourcing mainly from their community members who have no idea about keywording for stock, I would expect they keep that part to themselves.

That's a great suggestion! In fact, from a stock perspective, entering minimal keywords would make your work harder to find on the community side of things which could help minimize theft. Especially considering their non-existent watermarks.

Just uploaded a few. Their uploader doesn't read caption or keywords making this a very labor intensive process. Jeeez!

I just wrote to them and their reply states that images accepted to the getty collection are now non-exclusive. The wording on the site however still shows that the images are exclusive.

Hmm, didn't get that email and if I'm on my Eyeem page to approve the images they selected for getty, it still says the images sent to getty must be exclusive.

Quote from: Micro4 on December 12, 2015, 22:58

Quote from: stockmn on December 12, 2015, 18:42

Quote from: click_click on December 12, 2015, 08:58
So, there are contributors already uploading both versions AND getting them approved?

Besides being a solution to this search filter issue are there other problems that might reduce sales for example since most buyers do not use the filter and when they see duplicate clips they might unknowingly buy the same clip in HD 50/50 as original and downsized from 4K which reduces the ranking in search results.

I hope I could get this point across. English is not my mother tongue.

Yes, if you're uploading duplicate versions you're going to negatively effect the rankings for both resolutions.

What 'rankings' are you referring to?

I'm referring to the rankings of the individual clips. Each agency has there own secret algorithm that determine what order they show the clips when a search is performed. While we may not know all the specifics of the algorithm it's generally agreed upon that the more times a clip is downloaded for a given keyword the higher up that clip appears in the results when someone searches for that keyword.

Theoretically, if you have separate HD and 4k versions of a clip and they each get downloaded 5 times, each clip will have 5 downloads instead of the 10 downloads the single clip would have had. Over time a clip with 10 downloads is going to appear higher in the search results than a clip with 5 downloads for a given search term.

If the search term has very few results then it really doesn't matter but if it is a competitive term it may make the difference between your clip ever being seen or not.

Quote from: click_click on December 12, 2015, 08:58
So, there are contributors already uploading both versions AND getting them approved?

Besides being a solution to this search filter issue are there other problems that might reduce sales for example since most buyers do not use the filter and when they see duplicate clips they might unknowingly buy the same clip in HD 50/50 as original and downsized from 4K which reduces the ranking in search results.

I hope I could get this point across. English is not my mother tongue.

Yes, if you're uploading duplicate versions you're going to negatively effect the rankings for both resolutions. I don't think that uploading multiple clips is the solution. Although, if the collection becomes more of a mess because people are doing this it might encourage SS to fix the problem.

Quote from: Rinderart on December 05, 2015, 22:00

"It sends out a clear message that they are not interested in pro photographers at all. iStock seem to be coming to the same conclusion that pro's will migrate to Macro and the rest can be sold off cheap."

+1

Maybe that's the way it should be? In my opinion, microstock should never have been anything other than low to medium quality images. Using thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment to make pennies per sale has always been unsustainable for photographers. It's reality time.

Mat, can you tell us yet what the 4k pricing will be?

Go to your "manage photos" page, click on the symbol on the upper right hand corner of a thumbnail image and it will take you to the licensing page. If the page has a red banner on it like the one in this image it means it hasn't been reviewed yet.

Quote from: stockmn on November 23, 2015, 18:07

Quote from: jjneff on November 23, 2015, 11:27
To be fair the $6 is a promotion of some kind not all 4k or HD is that low. That being said 18 out of my 28 Dl's in Oct. were below $20.00. I have a few at really good prices but those 1 and 6 dollar sales kill me.

It's called Premium Access. It's where large companies pay getty $$$ upfront every year to be able to license a large quantity of images or footage at highly reduced rates. G keeps all the money upfront and pays the contributor their contractual royalty percentage on very small dollar amount sales. They've been doing this for years and it blows.

Quote from: jjneff on November 23, 2015, 11:27
To be fair the $6 is a promotion of some kind not all 4k or HD is that low. That being said 18 out of my 28 Dl's in Oct. were below $20.00. I have a few at really good prices but those 1 and 6 dollar sales kill me.

It's called Premium Access. It's where large companies pay getty $$$ upfront every year to be able to license a large quantity of images or footage at highly reduced rates. G keeps all the money upfront and pays the contributor their contractual royalty percentage on very small dollar amount sales. They've been doing this for years and it blows. It's just a way to payout less to contributors.

Revo owes me about $900.

Yeah, saw this today and it sounded like terrible news. I was just getting excited about 500px and then they hired this guy to run the marketplace...

Not me either.

Quote from: ajfile on November 13, 2015, 12:55
No more exclusivity ?!?
Copy from email correspondence...

---

ME: One question.. If I have two similar photos, on one models have big smile on other just little smile. One is accepted on Getty via EyeEm. Can I send other on other stock sites?

Eyyem: Thanks for your reply. We had a recent update to our Getty agreements. Any images that you add to the Getty Collection that are considered royalty free are non-exclusive and can be used and sold in other places and platforms.

Me: I'm sorry but can you repeat that.
Because where ever I look (on site, help, faq, etc) it say photos on Eyeem x Getty are exclusive?

Eyeem: Thank you for your email. We are in the process of updating site to say these terms about the non-exclusive agreement, however the agreement with Getty is already in place and your any images that you approve for the Getty collection that are considered Royalty Free can be sold and used anywhere else.

---

I'm confused 

I just wrote to EyeEm support about the exclusivity question and this was there reply:

"Thanks for getting in touch with us. We're happy to help you out here. Currently, per our distribution agreements images are exclusive to Getty Images, however images that you put up on EyeEm Market only are non-exclusive and can be used elsewhere. "

This is reply is in line with what is said on their site regarding exclusivity. If the image is accepted by getty then it is considered exclusive.

UPDATE: I just got another email telling me basically that the deal isn't done and as of right now all images distributed through eyeem by getty are considered exclusive.

What I'm seeing at eyeem is a bunch of really big, unwatermarked images selling for just $20. What's the motivation to actually buy them?

I know from my direct contributions to getty that the majority of the sales will be from their premium access customers and will result in mostly pennies to the contributor.

For those contributing to eyeem, am I missing something?

Same here. A couple dozen sales last month and only 2 so far this month. Glad to know it's not just me.

I noticed last month that they started reporting my sales a day after they happened and a whole bunch of sales came in the last couple days of the month. Maybe they're trying to get a handle on returns by not reporting sales until they've cleared.

Quote from: Ignatus on November 11, 2015, 17:41
Nuno, maybe you can answer this question:
Are the pulse, the number of likes, favorites of the images etc. are taken into account in the search ranking for the market? It was cleary the case at the beginning (it was a marketing argument) but it less obvious today.
I like the fact that the community side matters for the market side, it is a specificity of 500px. Most pro microstocker will not share my opinion I think. I guess it is a question of position for 500px.

Nuno, could you please answer the question above?

I hope that likes and favorites don't play a part in the marketplace search results because I've found it to be a very fickle thing. I can upload an image and get no "likes" or "favorites" then delete the image and upload it again a couple hours later and get a bunch of "likes" within a few minutes. With likes/favorites timing is everything and I'd hate to think some of my best images fall through the cracks in the marketplace because I'd uploaded them at the wrong time.

Thanks!

At this point I think the only thing they can do with that money that might make any difference would be to drastically increase contributor royalty rates and get photographers back in the game. Photographers word of mouth campaigns and happy contributors that are also buyers were their greatest asset at one time. Of course they didn't realize it then and there's no reason to believe they "get it" now either.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on November 07, 2015, 23:54
I also have a Photoshelter website which in my opinion isn't very user friendly and I just got a $250 RM license sale. It's the strategy behind the direct selling model that matters most.

Was that sale a direct result of your own promotion or a sale that came through their "Lattice" site (http://www.photoshelter.com/lattice/search/)?