pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - loop

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 44
751
General Stock Discussion / Re: Thinkstock is alive?
« on: July 11, 2010, 06:25 »
I don't see any incentive for IS exclusives to fed TS. Sub sales are one of the reasons because many of us are Exckusives at istock; many of us don't like them, except in the istock form. Just one or two XLarge or XXLarge sold at TS instead from istock eats all the possible profit made from subs at TS (I even got and e-mail from a costumer asking me to put one specific photo at TS; I didn't do it at she finally bougth it big at Istock). And PPD sales... getting just 20%, like independants that can upload everywhere else?? I don't get the point, neither I feel motivated to upload anything there. All I would consider would be old and sullen pics that I delete from Istock.

752
iStockPhoto.com / Re: New Images DOA on Istock?
« on: June 14, 2010, 07:28 »
It is not a question of blaming or not blaming. It's just facts. Maybe a matter of sel-esteem, too.

753
iStockPhoto.com / Re: New Images DOA on Istock?
« on: June 14, 2010, 06:15 »

The massive increase in very high quality very similar content from contributors such as lalfor and pixdeluxe, although I notice their new content is suffering the same problems.


Just my two cents.


George

Yes, "factories" have increased, and while Yuri just touched the best selling themes, some of the new ones have gone afeter mid and even low selling themes too. Often, they limit themselves to reshoot what already sells, with more means, equipment and proficiency. Not telling names, of course, but there are some "factory" portfolios where you can't find the tiniest spark of originality.

754
That's a very good stock photo!

But... ONE WHOLE YEAR trying to be accepted at IS? How is this possible???

755
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Exclusive Plus $$
« on: June 10, 2010, 15:31 »
This week is going fine; last was slow. About E+ is difficult to tell: some files seem to have been resurrected by the cross, one new that was selling was instantly killed by the cross, others get more o less the same number of downloads, and, overall, without calculating figures, it seems that the outcome is positive.

756
iStockPhoto.com / Re: tired and stressed reviewing of files!
« on: June 08, 2010, 15:29 »
Not all, but a number of these words suggests things that aren't visible, not even suggested in the photo.

757
Shutterstock.com / Re: Freestock
« on: June 06, 2010, 17:29 »
To subscriptions and to SS, being a subs site, goes the customers very price-oriented, the ones that want spend less... and nothing is less that some cents. So, this peculiar "business move" will probably have inverted effects: they will lose a portion of customers, deligthed to discover that they can spend even less --nothing.

758
Consider this photo of red wine could have been bought XSmall at Istock, and paid as low as $0.16 to the contributor...  ::)

I doubt they downloaded an xsmall version. And the fact is that at istok they could have beensdold for almos 4 dollars o-es comission. At TS there's no such possibility.

759
Image Sleuth / Re: Abusive usage of images
« on: June 03, 2010, 15:23 »
Model aare like actors. Nobody is going to think that Robert De Niro is a gangster or a boxer becauses he has played some, or that Tm Cruise is a psyco. Model play a role for a while, that's all.

760
It's my understanding that you have to buy a new license for each website if you would like to use the same image for more than one project.

I could be wrong though.

Yeah, you're definitely wrong.

According to what I was told when I contacted IS with the same question time ago, he's fully rigth. If a designer wants to use a lettuce image for a restaurant and for a dieting page, different business, he definitely needs two licenses. Another thing is if this kind of infringement can be effectively enforced.

Adding: Of course, this designer can use the same licencese for the same business as many times as he wants.

761
iStockPhoto.com / No POTW this week... I would bet...
« on: May 03, 2010, 15:23 »
...that they are waiting to a certain contributor to reach a certain milstone...

762
Well, as it is known, being exclusivisty anecdotal at other sites, Istock is the only one site were the buyer has access to lots different images, not the same that are everywhere else, a commodity.  On a personal note, I would add my opinion about quality: I think that's superior --as a whole-- at IS, because, besides the conventional work, they favor a more artsy trend --Vetta and Vetta-like. I concede that this trend isn't very "stock stuff", but also has its public. it's different from the endless (and generally excellent) variations on the same themes from "big producers" and, anyway, as I said, it's just a personal opinion.

763
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia exclusives opted out of subs?
« on: April 18, 2010, 16:39 »
These 123RF and Ft discrepacies in numers, can be caused by the fact oh having x files in one site and 10x at ther other. Actually, the only way for measuring the potential of an agency is looking at Return Per Image. Beside that, it's all smoke and mirrors.

764
General Stock Discussion / Re: Copycats
« on: April 17, 2010, 10:56 »
I know a guy who was struggling to be accepted as vector artist at IS. When he finally made it, he started to upload hundreds of his vectors, but IS started to send him warnings that he is gonna be banned from Istock because his vectors were copycats of already existing work at Istock. So, he replied that problematic vectors are actually his original work, copied by other artists and uploaded to IS. He also gave few examples of his vectors, uploaded to StockXpert even before similar vectors from other artists appeared in IS database, but he was finally banned from Istock.
Now, who was right...IS or the artist, I don't know. It's possible they both had right at some degree.

If they banned him, tey had to be pretty sure that he was the copycat, no matter what he said. While is true that IS has answered to complains sometimes removing copycat images, it is also true that if the plagiarized work it isn't  too obvius, they tend to overlook the complaint. I'm talking of my own experiencie.

765
Actually, if you read the threads in the Help forums relating to recent site problems there are plenty of people complaining of low sales. If you only have an odd sale here and there you're not going to notice changes, if you're a high seller and the site is down for an hour or two, you may well notice the effect more.

Sales this week great here, even with the technical problems. Only thing that has slowed seems to be suscriptions sales, around a third of what they were, although they always were a tiny percentage of total sales. At this moment, I would say that susbcribers are the only customers that have probably switched to TS.

766
Yes, quite down, maybe 20%. But I've noted every year the wicked effects of spring break.

767
It will be good. My Vetta files are selling at a noticeable better rate  (number of vetta files/number of daily Vetta downloads) than normal ones. I hope the same will be valid for E+, although I don't plan to fulfill my allowed 20% nominations.

If it wasn't for moves like TS or Photos.com, or canister changes, I think IS exclusivity could have easily wiped out rival agencies of solid contributors and get, at the long term, a vast majority of microstock great content.

768
Adobe Stock / Re: Is FT giving us a very poor deal?
« on: April 08, 2010, 16:38 »
To me, even if I can't contribute there, an agency that pays 50% and plays fair, deserves respect, no matter the volume of sales.
But what happens some times if that this behaviour is used to attract contributors. When a great numbers of contributors have been attracted and they have a great number of costumers, things can change.

769
General Stock Discussion / Re: ASMP joins suit against Google
« on: April 07, 2010, 18:18 »
Even if the book is out of copyright, you can't scan what has been typed, composed, formated, etc by others as if t was done by you. Go and type the book yourself.

770
Adobe Stock / Re: Is FT ramming us from Behind ?????
« on: April 07, 2010, 18:12 »
Think global, act local, it's the only way.

771
123RF / Re: 123RF Image Enlargement Services & Your Earnings
« on: April 06, 2010, 19:36 »
Agree with jsnover.

Then:
If I have understood well, the TIFF file is made from a JPG. That's rubbish. Should be done by the contributor from the RAW file and be paid accordingly.

Then

I don't understand this 25- 13= 11%.

Then

This sentence "13.3% of something is always better than 100% (or 50% or 33.3%) of N-O-T-H-I-N-G!"

also works with "0.01% of something is always better than 100% (or 50% or 33.3%) of N-O-T-H-I-N-G!"

Maybe this is the future. But I won't be there.

772
Some years ago (two? three?) 123rf had to cancel a susbscription offer, admitting that people downloaded almost their full share and they were losing money every time a subscription was sold.

773
General Stock Discussion / Re: Microstock?
« on: March 23, 2010, 07:16 »
I can imagine many uses for this photo. For instance, the kind of ads: "Begin your own little business". The image grabs the attention, and has humor in it; that's valued in publicity.

774
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Getty says "Don't buy at istock"
« on: March 21, 2010, 19:01 »
Very regular users need cheap content.
I need a Cessna since I'm tired of all this local transport here at 25km/h over mud roads. I really honestly do need it. And I need it very cheaply, let's say for 8 DT credits. Got the point? A regular user can ask what he wants, but nobody is forced to offer or to produce it for the price that user wants to or can spend. If the images are too expensive, he can always go out and shoot them himself.

A difference would be that nobody is going to give you that but plenty of people are already offering free content. And plenty of others are already offering cheap subscriptions. It's always going to be down to whether you want some of that business which will inevitably grow whether or not you are in it. Then it is about volume. These are roughly equivalent to the arguments which already took place around microstock in general.

I'm not advocating any of this but rather noting that it is an inevitable tide or trend since if someone does not serve a market at a particular price then someone else will. And in some ways I think it is possibly more interesting to see how any shifts affect prices, volumes and percentages at the other end of any market.

Free content is legally hazardous, hardly searchable and with an average poor quality.  Even if you were determined to do do it, producing free content with acceptable standarts would cost you a lot of money, and because of that, if not the hobby of a bored billionarie, free content never will be able to replace paid content. An the same will happen, in the near future ,with too-,much-cheap content (basically subs)... in the point when producers discover that they spent  more than what they get.

775
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Getty says "Don't buy at istock"
« on: March 19, 2010, 19:51 »
It's easy to see that there are very few, and these ones with very few photos, in some cases deleted from istock, in others just old and so-so photos. You can search by name or alias, "xxxx", as you know.

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 44

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors