|
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 - PixelBytes
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 74
76
« on: April 02, 2017, 16:09 »
BMY, but it usually is. Still down on last year, but with the huge drops on IS and not uploading it's to be expected. Fortunately my expenses are also down.
77
« on: April 02, 2017, 16:06 »
I figured it should be taxed as royalties, since I stopped uploading a couple years ago, but my accountant says it still counts as a business. I'm a sole proprietor, BTW. I'm still making a living wage tho, so maybe that's why?
78
« on: March 29, 2017, 11:39 »
I can see my earnings from this year compared to the last few and they are much better now.
Maybe because you're so exceptional 
Very flattering but I doubt that's why.
Well, there must be something special about you because you are literally the only person reporting gains and optimism with istock now. Old posts from the past where the royalty structure was totally different don't count.
79
« on: March 28, 2017, 19:18 »
Interesting what you guys keep digging up.
A friend of mine with a 9k portfolio is giving up exclusivity this week.
Looks like there is a new wave of exclusives leaving the sinking ship and this means lots of good content coming to the other sites.
I dont think Getty itself will die, it will eventually be sold again for a very low price, so that the owners can get at least some money back. They might have to file for bankrupcy first, but the vultures will be ready.
Adobe and SS might split Getty between themselves, Adobe does not have an editorial division, but they already have macrostock. SS has editorial, but only a small macro collection with offset.
They are the two biggest companies with money, I really dont see anyone else getting in.
They have fooled too many people too many times, so I doubt they can find an outside investor again.
But you never know, maybe the reality distortion field of Klein will work one last time.
Wasn't there a hypothesis that Getty/Istock wanted to eliminate exclusivity? Push out exclusives to the point where they could kill the exclusivity program? Because there is no way Getty will keep paying them more than 15%? Something along those lines.
Yeah, I remember that idea being floated awhile back. Makes sense. If that's their plan, it's another short sighted one IMO. Once their exclusive little birds have been out of the cages and seen how well they can do elsewhere, they may just fly the coop altogether.
80
« on: March 27, 2017, 21:35 »
That Easter set is obviously ripped off. I would report it. If they don't do anything about it, at least you tried. But they might remove them, so you have nothing to lose.
81
« on: March 26, 2017, 01:08 »
Hi , Long time lurker here . I finally decided to pull the plug on iStock/Getty . I have been a member since 2010 and up to the acquisiton sales were really good .
What do you mean by acquisition? Getty bought iStock in 2006.
He means the aquisition of Getty by the Carlyle Group (AKA Bushes and Clintons) for $3.3B in 2012. Read here article and comments as well, so that you know who is your master: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/aug/15/getty-images-bought-carlyle-group
Yes, and before that it was bought by another venture capital firm, Hellman & Friedman. Both firms leveraged Getty to the hilt with nothing much leftover.
82
« on: March 25, 2017, 18:42 »
Reading the rates exclusives are getting is really shocking. Not just the above numbers, but the stated minimum of .19, and even the slightly higher. These are all lower than you would get as an indie ANYWHERE! Why would anyone stay exclusive now? You can make up for any nominal losses at istock instantly by uploading to just a couple sites, like SS and Adobe. Even Tickstock with his optimistic posts cant possibly make exclusivity look good now.
As for the OP, do NOT allow yourself to get sucked into istock. As bad as they are now, history has shown they consistently roll out worse and worse deals for contributors every year, so as pathetic as their current royalties are, by the end of the year they will announce another cut. Now there are three things you can count on in life. Death, taxes, and Getty will f**k their contributors worse each year.
Those are minimums (for the lowest royalty rate). Where else do you get $15+ for a sub sale? Sure a few low sales are no good but if the first couple months of the year are any indication of the new normal, I'm very excited. I'm only being optimistic because the payouts have been very good.
If I get a $15 sale, who cares if its a sub or not. I get those and much higher sales on other sites. The question isn't where is the ceiling, but where is the floor, and at Getty the floor is 0, with a whole lot of <.10. That is an insult to anyone selling a product that has value and is useful. But it is a downright disgrace to do this to exclusives who have gone all in with your company, and provide you a collection other sites don't have. I can't imagine why anybody would stay exclusive at Getty /iStockphoto when the benefits of exclusivity are virtually nil over independence, and going indie offers the chance to double or more your stock income. They can even leave their stuff on istock earning those pennies until they have a steady and much better income stream elsewhere, or even forever if they want.
83
« on: March 25, 2017, 13:11 »
The lowest you could get paid is 19c for subs. I wonder why my Feb report has the following 'iStock Subscription' sale entries then?
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.14
0.15
0.15
I guess "minimum" means, "the lowest you can get ... except when it's lower".  Or, maybe all those sales were reported incorrectly?
But what's this? My Jan statement has these sub sales listed:
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.15
I guess those were all a mistake, too.
Are you exclusive? If yes, have you read the forums?
Yes. No. Why should I bother? If 19c is the minimum (I mistakenly thought it was 16c, so there are more that should be listed above), it's the minimum. Apparently there are exceptions; I don't care what they are. It means there IS no minimum in reality.
Reading the rates exclusives are getting is really shocking. Not just the above numbers, but the stated minimum of .19, and even the slightly higher. These are all lower than you would get as an indie ANYWHERE! Why would anyone stay exclusive now? You can make up for any nominal losses at istock instantly by uploading to just a couple sites, like SS and Adobe. Even Tickstock with his optimistic posts cant possibly make exclusivity look good now. As for the OP, do NOT allow yourself to get sucked into istock. As bad as they are now, history has shown they consistently roll out worse and worse deals for contributors every year, so as pathetic as their current royalties are, by the end of the year they will announce another cut. Now there are three things you can count on in life. Death, taxes, and Getty will f**k their contributors worse each year.
84
« on: March 22, 2017, 15:40 »
Wow, my earnings down 34% over Jan. A sh!t load of .08 centers. Volume is up though, which means they are either attracting more sub buyers or converting existing credit buyers to subs and they are downloading more freely.
I haven't checked my individual sales. Not up for the kick in the teeth. But my total is exactly 35% down on January too. Wonder if this is coincidence or the average loss for indies.
85
« on: March 22, 2017, 15:36 »
Better complai. Than tell lie around a forum behind a nick name))
If i were cohere t i would close all my account in microstock, but cause i sell only my garbage stuff, i don't care what they do, i care if those diles sell. Actually istock even with some 0,04 cent, very few, is delivering a good payout. So complaini g about their choiche is eidicolous, 0,30 is much better and ethically good?
If they can geow like this, i have 450% more revenue in february than january, and 150% compared to dicember, i dont care what they do.
Dude, w.t.f. is it your fingers or your keyboard that's the problem? You need to see a doctor or get your computer repaired ASAP
Your comment really made my day! 
Yeah, we all make typos, and English is not everyone's first language, but jonbull, many of your posts are borderline unintelligible. I'd like to be able to follow the conversation. Maybe proofread before you post?
86
« on: March 20, 2017, 21:52 »
Pretty much they can avoid penalties if they send before March 31st:
Businesses, including tax-exempt and government entities, must send Copy A of Form 1099-MISC to the IRS by:
January 31 of the following year when youre reporting non-employee compensation payments in Box 7;
February 28 if filing by paper when youre NOT reporting non-employee compensation in Box 7; or
March 31 if filing electronically when youre NOT reporting non-employee compensation in Box 7.
Royalties are in Box 2.
Thanks for the info. Considering I have to file by April 15 (or is it 18 this year?) 123RF providing 1099 by March 31 is unacceptable. If they ever produce one, which I doubt, we are covered because the income was reported.
87
« on: March 20, 2017, 13:09 »
Won't this approach backfire for SS? Buyers arent going to wade thru this dreck when they can go to Adobe, DT, etc. and save time looking at a leaner, more curated collection. Presumably?
88
« on: March 20, 2017, 13:00 »
I posted on Jon's FB feed, and he said "We are working on it.". So, I guess it isn't going unnoticed.
I hope they really are working on it, but it sounds more like a canned response. Something Sean Spicer says 20 times at every press conference.
89
« on: March 18, 2017, 23:24 »
Has anyone noticed discrepancies between the 1099 from Adobe/Fotolia and their actual Paypal payments?
I have a couple of hundreds more received through Paypal, than what they specified in their 1099. I also remember that, last year, I also had a small discrepancy and my accountant advised me to follow the 1099, instead of Paypal reports.
All other agencies I got a 1099 from are accurate to the cent (DP, DT, Getty, P5 and SS)
I'm meeting tomorrow my account without having 1099 from Alamy, 123RF, 500px, FAA (FAA is the only one below $600).
I keep my own records and at least three sites reported paying me slightly more than my records indicate. FT was one of them. Since they were small amounts - under $100 in each case - I just went with what was on the 1099. Probably the discrepancy, in my case, is I record what I earned in a month and they report what they paid out.
90
« on: March 16, 2017, 23:22 »
So lets take action:
Inform there buyers.
Click Gettys Adsense advertisment away.
Start a social media shitstorm.
Flood there support with emails.
We are so many lets give them a 24/7 contributor support worldwide.
What great ideas. Too bad nobody tried them all before, many times.
there was never a swarm that tried that. Only a few do that.
The contributor scene has no power that is the problem.
Remember the Fotolia/Dollarphotoclub action. It is possible to punish greedy Agencies.
But if you only post, crying and unmotivated you will change nothing.
Sometimes i think the contributors have lost all her creativity by producing new images.
Never is a big word for someone who has been at this for just about 3 years. I'm guessing you weren't here for istock D day (deactivation day). It was a big deal. All your suggestions were tried at once by a large organized group of contributors. Many thousands of images were deactivated and a lot of people closed their accounts altogether. Buyers were contacted, tweets went out, bloggers wrote articles about Getty mistreatment of contributors, the works.
Yet here we are a few years later Things are way worse on istock than ever. The only good to come from it is that the people who closed their accounts are free of the abuse.
You're welcome for the history lesson. 
I do think istock has lost a lot of buyers because they were competitive with SS in the earnings poll here for non-exclusives at one time. Would be good if they lost more and I think if that will happen over time.
Agreed. They have lost a ton of buyers. Some because of contributors efforts and some because they treat buyers almost as bad as contributors. We'll never know how many we persuaded to leave but I hope it was a lot!
91
« on: March 16, 2017, 23:20 »
What if we pooled some money and requested a full audit? I bet they would cra...p their drawers.
Sign me up. This is better than petitions, unions and all the other waste of time ideas. Demand a full audit for refunds, for all, class action suit. I won't get 28 cents but I'd like to see Getty stuck for their arrogant attitude and mysterious undocumented refunds.
Fund Me
Yeah. Me too. Would be worth the money just to see WtheF they've been up to. I get the idea their bookkeeping is so bad an audit might wind up putting them out of business.
92
« on: March 16, 2017, 15:23 »
So lets take action:
Inform there buyers.
Click Gettys Adsense advertisment away.
Start a social media shitstorm.
Flood there support with emails.
We are so many lets give them a 24/7 contributor support worldwide.
What great ideas. Too bad nobody tried them all before, many times.
there was never a swarm that tried that. Only a few do that.
The contributor scene has no power that is the problem.
Remember the Fotolia/Dollarphotoclub action. It is possible to punish greedy Agencies.
But if you only post, crying and unmotivated you will change nothing.
Sometimes i think the contributors have lost all her creativity by producing new images.
Never is a big word for someone who has been at this for just about 3 years. I'm guessing you weren't here for istock D day (deactivation day). It was a big deal. All your suggestions were tried at once by a large organized group of contributors. Many thousands of images were deactivated and a lot of people closed their accounts altogether. Buyers were contacted, tweets went out, bloggers wrote articles about Getty mistreatment of contributors, the works. Yet here we are a few years later Things are way worse on istock than ever. The only good to come from it is that the people who closed their accounts are free of the abuse. You're welcome for the history lesson.
93
« on: March 15, 2017, 22:02 »
So lets take action:
Inform there buyers.
Click Gettys Adsense advertisment away.
Start a social media shitstorm.
Flood there support with emails.
We are so many lets give them a 24/7 contributor support worldwide.
What great ideas. Too bad nobody tried them all before, many times.
94
« on: March 15, 2017, 03:40 »
I used to have to issue 1099 forms to people I hired.
I seem to recall they have to be sent by Jan 31 of every year if the person made more than $600 for the year. There are exceptions whereby you do not have to send the 1099 but I do not remember what they are.
Exactly! They were supposed to go out by 1/31. That's why this is so ridiculous. If they are not sending 1099s they should just say so, so the rest of us can move on with our lives. FWIW, last year 123RF screwed up and sent me a 1042-S for people living outside the US instead of the correct form, 1099, even though they had my w-9 information on the site. Not geniuses these guys.
95
« on: March 14, 2017, 21:34 »
I never said slave of anything! No it is not even close I have great respect for those to fought and died for freedom of all men. I may live in the south but
could not be happier the North won the battle and I will never fly the Dixie flag as to others it offends. I can leave Getty anytime and I am not alone in being
treated like this. I just want to give others a heads up in case they also run into the same issue. They have not responded to my latest e-mail for more documentation and my history of refunds!
No you definitely weren't one of the ones making that comparison. What Istock did in your case was terrible. I doubt many of us could afford to lose more than a grand overnight. The fact there is no credible proof of why they took it away makes it even worse. I hope you are able to recover it, but knowing istock I doubt it. Might be worth starting to upload to other sites so your ports can go live if or when you drop exclusivity. A lot of former exclusives say they are making more after a year of being independent. Best of luck whatever you do.
96
« on: March 14, 2017, 21:24 »
Is 123RF's 1099 ready for anyone yet? Mine is still 2015.
I hope they get it ready for this early this week. This delay is ridiculous.
I'm starting to wonder if it is a delay or if they just aren't doing them this year.
It's completely unacceptable. 1 month away from tax day and they still don't have it available. I took the 2016 total from the website and added it to the yearly total in my 8829 and sent all the forms to my accountant. I think that's the only thing I can do at this point.
That's a good idea. Thanks! Last year their total and the one from my own records were different. I had forgotten I could get the total on their site. On the off chance they ever send the 1099 I want the numbers to be consistent.
97
« on: March 14, 2017, 18:37 »
Is 123RF's 1099 ready for anyone yet? Mine is still 2015.
I hope they get it ready for this early this week. This delay is ridiculous.
I'm starting to wonder if it is a delay or if they just aren't doing them this year.
98
« on: March 14, 2017, 18:34 »
Not surprised... really. I wonder if all the Exclusive even have a tiny clue what kinda company they are supporting. Almost the same as if you would support slavery and been proud of it.
Please stop the slavery analogies bad as Getty might be its offensive to compare it with slavery in my opinion.
Offensive ? offensive ? woooooooaaaaaaw, reaaaaaaaly ? Offensive is the way getty treats his contributors like s*it. I for example have not been able to log in to ESP for more than a month and after writing mail after mail and receiving the same dumb answer : we are sorry, try again, we are sorry, try again, It looks like you are stuppid, try again . I have no access to my statistics. JJNEFF just lost 1000 dollars, wake up people !!!!
He's not saying what istock did to JJNEFF is okay, and he's not saying the way they treat contributors is okay. Just that it is ridiculous to compare it to slavery, which was an atrocity and major human rights violation. Such comparisons minimize the suffering of generations of people. Get a grip on yourself Vladdy old boy.
99
« on: March 13, 2017, 21:52 »
I had no response to a ticket for about 5 weeks, emailed them here and my account was closed in a few days [email protected]
Thanks for that. Bookmarked
100
« on: March 13, 2017, 21:45 »
As I think about it when I look at the Istock site I think about about my great grandparents who were african american slaves who kept a diary of the daily day to day activities on the plantation. As slaves they were not allowed to learn how to read and were called boy and girl even though they were grown and had to answer without looking at the Massa eyes directly. In the process of clearing out their house after the death of both I discovered these documents and have kept them in a safe deposit box for years.
As a stock photographer for Istock for many years, I felt like I was stupid for accepting this "in the dark" punishment. I have a choice now to leave without being taken in the backyard and whipped, but Istock is trying to whip me mentally.
I will not accept this! Thanks for listening.
Your great grandparents must have been exceptionally smart and brave to not only learn to read and write when it was forbidden, but to have kept diaries that, if discovered, could have gotten them killed. Bad as istock is, it is a looooong way off from the suffering of slavery. That said, they dont deserve to profit off our work while we struggle to stay in business. Good for you for leaving.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
