|
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 - sharpshot
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 263
801
« on: February 15, 2016, 11:35 »
.
802
« on: February 15, 2016, 11:30 »
I don't think the big sites would risk their business by doing this. The small sites have less to lose but they don't sell much anyway, so I don't see this as a big problem. The tax people would catch them out as well.
803
« on: February 15, 2016, 07:52 »
"No agency should get more than 50% commission and together we can enforce that."
if you knew how many times I said that, You would be amazed.
I would have expected nothing else from you!
The agency commission will decline.
Agencies are becoming less important in the future.
It will be easier in the future to sell images without an agency.
Today agencies grab the largest part of the cake.
In the future sellers and buyers not put up with that longer.
Agencies be replaced by search engines.
I am convinced of that.
So you think Google will pay us and at a better rate than we get now? I hope you're right but not going to hold my breath on that one.
804
« on: February 15, 2016, 05:06 »
The best unified solution that is slowly gaining traction (and would benefit everyone quicker if all the professional yet disgruntled contributors hopped on) is Symzio.
For the first time there is a real option here - so don't keep complaining unless you've done everything you can to free yourself from the yoke of agencies. You control most of your own pricing, control your entire collection, have two new independent platforms to sell your stuff, and most importantly, keep a minimum of 70% of all revenue up to 90%.
No one is going to hand you a solution - you need to work for it. No matter how many posts you put up, no matter how many angry retorts or insults you upvote, and no matter how many programs you opt out of, the only feasible way to create a noticeable impact is to compete..........
I don't want my own site to sell image licenses, tried it with symbiostock and it wasn't a good experience. I still don't understand why thousands of us would want to pay hosting fees for our own sites when that money could be used to market one site? Shared hosting was relatively cheap but then you never know who you are sharing it with and that was an issue. If we never get one site majority owned by contributors, I might go in to selling prints. That gets around the VAT issue for selling digital media online that made me close my symbiostock site. I can do a site to sell prints by myself and wont need to use 3rd party software that I don't really understand or have any control over.
805
« on: February 14, 2016, 17:30 »
How does he stay motivated? Can't be smoking the stuff 
806
« on: February 14, 2016, 16:46 »
Isn't there a way to put a hidden watermark in images? What does PicScout do? If it can't be done with RF, then maybe RM needs to make a comeback. When the sites have finished reducing the amount we make, they will have to think of something else to keep increasing their profits.
807
« on: February 14, 2016, 16:15 »
I don't think they can squeeze us more than Getty have. I hoped the sites would look at the huge amounts of money they lose from image theft and would do something to improve on that, making them and us a lot more money. Perhaps the new space is for a team to do that
808
« on: February 14, 2016, 04:42 »
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.
What the vast majority do is of no interest to the agencies or anyone else. The people creating the vast majority of saleable images on the other hand are a small number, a few hundred, people and they are well aware of everything going on. They have to be to have built sustainable businesses in this highly competitive market. Their opting out makes a big difference as demonstrated numerous times.
SS obviously didn't do much to keep Yuri. Istock kicked out Sean. Most of the few hundred you are talking about didn't join us in deactivation day or most of the other protests we have tried in the past. When the sites had much smaller collections, we did win a few battles but we failed to stop all of the big sites cutting commissions. If it isn't obvious by now that we need to try something more than a few people opting out or stopping uploading, I don't know when it will be.
809
« on: February 13, 2016, 07:04 »
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
810
« on: February 12, 2016, 09:56 »
There's Picscout but I don't really know how we can use them? http://www.picscout.com
811
« on: February 12, 2016, 07:14 »
Freepik, please answer my questions. Why should it be up to us to find the images that are being downloaded thousands of times without the copyright holders consent? By the time these images are found, the person that originally made that image might of already lost a substantial amount of earnings. Please tell us how you are going to go through all your images, identify all the ones that are being used without consent and fully compensate the copyright holder. Then there's the problem with your designers making images that are very similar to other people's work instead of doing their own work. How do you justify that? Why would any sensible person here want to collaborate with a site that is doing that?
Im answering you, sharpshot:
We make an exhaustive analysis of the resources created exclusively for us. It isnt your labor, but ours. We do it, but its inevitable that some go unnoticed. This not only happens in Freepik but in all image banks. We are victims of copy in many occasions.
At the moment the the plagiarism is detected, we delete the content immediately. The affected author can contact us ([email protected] or [email protected]). We deeply investigate the case and compensate the author if necessary.
We dont order similar designs, and if there is any plagiarism is because we have been deceived for the designer.
With other image banks, there is a good chance that the images on the site without consent can be removed before a license has been purchased by a customer. On your site, they have already been downloaded thousands of times, so there's really no comparison. For your model to work, you have to be sure that what you are virtually giving away has the consent of the contributor. You need to stop blaming other people, if your designers are making images that are too similar to other peoples, you are responsible for having that content on your site. Just using Google image search, you can see if they are doing their own work or have been using others for their designs. What will your downloaders do if the copyright holders demand payments for using their images without consent? If they ask for records of who has downloaded their images without their consent, will you give it to them? You might well end up having to compensate people that have downloaded images from your site that shouldn't of been there.
812
« on: February 12, 2016, 05:12 »
Freepik, please answer my questions. Why should it be up to us to find the images that are being downloaded thousands of times without the copyright holders consent? By the time these images are found, the person that originally made that image might of already lost a substantial amount of earnings. Please tell us how you are going to go through all your images, identify all the ones that are being used without consent and fully compensate the copyright holder. Then there's the problem with your designers making images that are very similar to other people's work instead of doing their own work. How do you justify that? Why would any sensible person here want to collaborate with a site that is doing that?
813
« on: February 12, 2016, 05:00 »
No, I think that was about ordinary pricing. I have no idea what's going on with the subs plan, some people in the forum seem to know more about it, so perhaps they were invited? I hope we can all opt in clips when it launches.
814
« on: February 12, 2016, 04:11 »
I just found the survey in my inbox. I could still do it and there was nothing about subscriptions in it.
815
« on: February 12, 2016, 03:47 »
We are trying to explain things with transparency and sincerity, but some words are misinterpreted. The phrase about lawyers referred to specific allegations that a user of the forum has made falsely (we have been accused of copies even in cases where the authors had uploaded them to Freepik).
But we are here to talk with you. We just wanted to personally respond to comments, to meet you, to know how could we collaborate. We have addressed all claims of this user, we have offered her to talk via Hangout or Skype, etc.
If you fully compensate, to their satisfaction, all the people that have had images downloaded thousands of times from your site when they have not uploaded them to Freepik or given you consent to have them on your site, you might be able to have a legitimate business, even if most people here don't like it. You should also stop making near copies of peoples work. Until then, you really are delusional if you think people that have probably lost a lot of money because of your inability to remove images that shouldn't be on your site are going to collaborate with you.
816
« on: February 11, 2016, 17:14 »
I got one of those. Makes me wonder where the transaction did occur. Are they selling our images on street corners now
817
« on: February 11, 2016, 12:38 »
I don't believe in the race to the bottom because Pond5 and alamy are doing really well still paying 50%. Istock is dead for a lot of non-exclusives. Sold my highest priced licence ever with alamy last year. That might of been a one off but generally prices have gone up since I started microstock and the sites that tried undercutting the market haven't succeeded.
818
« on: February 11, 2016, 09:31 »
If you can find another site that will accept RM non-exclusively, then you can use them as well. All my RM photos are only on alamy at the moment. They can go on Fine Art America and Zazzle, as they are selling prints and products but I haven't tried that with RM photos yet.
819
« on: February 11, 2016, 08:25 »
No, that's against their rules.
820
« on: February 11, 2016, 07:33 »
The waybackmachine does have what they've removed https://archive.org/web/I think until a bunch of you get together and seek legal advice on this, they are going to carry on doing it. This is where a private forum would be useful. How much should they compensate you for loss of earnings? Could be quite a lot of money if the image was selling well before it had thousands of downloads without the copyright holders permission. Do you need to be compensated by the site and the people that have downloaded it and used it?
821
« on: February 11, 2016, 06:10 »
... I cannot outshoot the flood, only the stock factories will survive.
I stopped uploading photos and switched to videos.
I am really happy with the results!
That will just encourage more people to switch to video and then we have the same problem
822
« on: February 10, 2016, 09:50 »
I still don't trust the model they use. If they keep increasing their wholly owned content and buyers are buying less of our clips, we lose out. Do I really want to help them achieve that?
823
« on: February 10, 2016, 08:05 »
They've been like that for many years. Seems so obvious that the buyers like extra choice, that's why they use the other sites instead of DT. I can understand not wanting huge bunches of very similar images but when they started rejecting either a vertical or horizontal photo of the same subject, I knew it was a waste of time uploading.
824
« on: February 10, 2016, 05:24 »
The problem with dropping the crown now is that they have to compete with the 800,000 new images being uploaded to SS every week and older images have better search placement. It must be very hard for new people joining SS now.
825
« on: February 09, 2016, 18:28 »
The only good news with istock in the last few years was when they automated the payments. Now I don't have to go there at all. I left them all my low selling images and get a payment once in a while, really can't be bothered deactivating or leaving.
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 263
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
