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 - RT

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 77
801
Come on, tell me... coz what you don't know, is that I just might be able to do something about it!

So you own Gettyimages?

802
Cameras / Lenses / Re: P&S for stock !?
« on: April 09, 2010, 04:46 »
I recently purchased a Panasonic GH1 to use for taking family photos/video, the results are certainly of a quality level to use for stock, although not strictly a P&S I had the same experiences as gostwyck and wanted something smaller than my usual set up (I use a 5dmk2 normally) but decent quality.
I'm also now looking at a Sony HX5 or TX7 to get for a slip in the pocket camera, they are the only P&S's I've seen where the results at full size don't look horrendous, plus they shoot 1080i video.
FTR I've also got a Canon G9 + G10 plus a Lumix TZ7  none of which I'd consider for stock and even for family shots they're not great, but I am ultra critical, I've given these cameras to my wife and children and they're more than happy with them.

803
If you hear 'traditional' stock shooters referring to the good old days they mean anytime prior to 7th April 2000

804
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Congratulations, Ivan (WhiteChild)!!!
« on: April 07, 2010, 12:22 »
This is also the first I have heard of a non-exclusive winning anything at IS.

Maybe he's on the six month list  ;)

But well done anyway, I entered this morning because I thought the woman in the photo I landed on was hot (at least I'm honest)

805
General Stock Discussion / Re: RPD on Various Sites
« on: April 07, 2010, 12:12 »
Of course that's why Serban keeps banging on about it, as if it is really important __ but really it isn't. What is far more important is revenue/image/month (RIM?!) i.e. how much income will said agency generate from a given portfolio per month. DT may be leading on RPD but is way behind the Top 3 on RIM.

Um, that's RPI.
And yeah, RPDL is almost meaningless without mentioning sales volume.

What he means is that if you have 1000 images at every agency the important thing is how much that agency brings you each month total, RPD is pointless if you only sell a few images on that site per month.

For microstock sites the most important factor as far as I'm concerned is the total nett amount I get from the agency in any given month, on macro agencies RPI is more relevant because you're selling less volume, microstock is a volume game so I consider RPI & RPD figures on microstock agencies to be less important that the MPR - Monthly Portfolio Return (sorry everyone else is making one up so I wanted my turn  ;D)

Edited to add: I'm only referring to the figures I use to assess the viability of which agencies to spend time uploading to, the worth of RPI has a completely different meaning when it comes to research statistics, although factoring in whether or not you should go onto certain site forums and make "positive" comments is making true RPI assessment even harder  ::)

806
123RF / Re: 123RF Image Enlargement Services & Your Earnings
« on: April 07, 2010, 04:47 »
@Alex

Who is the 'external party' that you're using to resize and touch up the photos?

Saying the buyer gets the extra benefit of having the photo touched up is all well and good, but I've yet to see any 'touch up' service that's any good, most are India based and the results I've seen are absolute cr*p, so to try and gain some confidence from your contributors please post a link to this companies site so we can see the quality of their work.

When you employ a company to retouch my work I want to make sure the end result is not something that could damage my reputation with buyers, I would also like to see a statement alongside the purchase button telling potential buyers that the 100mb + files will be a resized version of the original file and may be retouched by an external source for which the contributor has no quality control.

And as I mentioned earlier if you do allow this company to distribute images you have a legal obligation to inform contributors who they are.

I'm sure I'm not the only person sitting on the fence considering whether it's worth uploading new images to 123RF because of the lack of sales increase, I'm sure you don't want to give folk a reason to pull their existing images from the site for the lack of transparency in how our images are being sold.

807
General Photography Discussion / Re: Insurance?
« on: April 06, 2010, 10:34 »
Re insurance, if you don't need insurance for commercial work or shooting models I'd consider what the others have said about actually needing it based on your own circumstances. But if you do need insurance the best company I found in the UK is Morgan Richardson who do a photographic policy that pretty much covers everything, sorry if you're not in the UK but you haven't mentioned where you are based.

808
iStockPhoto.com / Re: I can't describe??????????
« on: April 06, 2010, 09:06 »
Remember to stich the appropriate releases together, e.g. in Photoshop, before sending.

Or use Deepmeta which does it all for you

809
iStockPhoto.com / Re: I can't describe??????????
« on: April 06, 2010, 08:25 »
In fact it can limit the release because if you take images of a 2 year old in a green dress and then the same child in a red dress you technically need 2 releases for that shoot.

Ummm no, just add "various outfits" in the description, one person - one release.

The same would be true if you have 3 people in a shoot. One release for when you have all 3 in a shot, one for when only 2 are in the image and one for when the person is alone.

Ummm no (again) - 3 people 3 seperate releases is all you need, when all 3 are in the shot you send a copy of all 3 releases, when there's 2 in the shot you send a copy of the 2 relevant releases etc etc - in description add "incl. group shots"

810
123RF / Re: 123RF Image Enlargement Services & Your Earnings
« on: April 06, 2010, 08:12 »
So you're going to charge $445 to run a $5 image through software like Genuine Fractals, buyers could save themselves some money and buy the software themselves for $160.

As for "Don't worry about your original images, we do make sure that we keep everything cataloged and our external service provider will not distribute this version without first consulting 123RF."

Yeah and 123RF had better consult me before allowing anyone else to distribute my images, to do so without my prior knowledge is against the T&C's.

811
Off Topic / Re: Google changes name to Topeka
« on: April 01, 2010, 17:16 »
I don't think it's much of an Aprils fool, the town did actually change it's name, Google are always changing their graphics so to change it to Topeka for a day isn't much of a prank, I wonder how many people just carried on using it without being 'fooled' especially considering that by the time it appeared April fools day was pretty much officially finished over this side of the water. I know for a fact that it was still showing 'Google'  this morning our time so if I had seen it this afternoon I wouldn't have paid much attention to it.

Now this is a much better effort by them:
http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/landing/translateforanimals/

and this is relevant for us:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/192650/aceshot_xr7000_the_smallest_dslr_camera_ever.html

812
Adobe Stock / Re: payment delay
« on: April 01, 2010, 16:51 »
Not insolvency, probably a decision made by some bean counter to hang onto the cash for longer. He probably got a bonus for the idea.

Without knowing the specific details of FT's banking arrangements it's worth pointing out that they might not make any money by hanging onto the 'cash for longer', not all banks pay interest to corporations in fact a lot of business accounts cost corporations money to run so I'm not sure your theory is correct.

I tend to think it's nothing more than they pay when the person in charge of paying gets round to doing it amongst their other duties, certainly that seems to be the case in my own experience, there's no pattern to my payments at all - different days, different times and different gaps between payments. One thing that does always happens though is that I get paid and I'm confident that'll continue if my own sales growth is anything to go by.

813
Microstock News / Re: Getty Images to aquire 123RF!!
« on: April 01, 2010, 15:25 »
This post might just be an insight into the future!

814
I used to assume that adverts/websites that feature a pretty girl wearing a headset , usually with the tagline "Phone us on ... " was actually who I was going to speak to.

Stop reading the adverts on cards in phone boxes  :D

815
Sorry I was editing my reply above when you typed your last post (my wife shouted dinner was ready  ;D)

For all the hassle involved maybe move onto another design ;)

816
@click click

I just checked for you, FIFA (Switzerland) registered a class 25 trademark for "World Cup" on 12th March 1999 which expires on 19th January 2020. The important bit it's a class 25 registration which applies to using the term "World Cup" on the following goods or services: Football boots, football shirts, football shorts, football socks & football clothing.

They also have worldwide multiple class registrations on "FIFA World Cup" and "2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa" and "South Africa 2010" on certain classes.

The term "World Cup" alone is not able to be registered as an all class trademark.

There are literally hundreds and hundreds of registered trademarks that feature "world cup" as part of the trademark.

In summary what this means is that:

- nobody can trademark just the term "World Cup" so that nobody else can use it.

- having just looked at Zazzle (sorry I thought they were a stock site) they print clothing and herein lies your problem, if your design also features a football related theme it could be viewed as being 'football clothing' as listed under the class 25 registration if printed on some of Zazzle's clothing and I'd imagine that's why they removed it. Although they are still wrong to tell you "world cup" can't be used in a design.

- You can however still do your design and use "world cup" and a football theme and you can sell it on a stock site, the problem would arise if somebody then used it on one off the items as listed in the class 25 registration, selling it as RF might be a problem because a buyer doesn't get any specific usage restrictions with the license when they purchase it, but then again strictly speaking that's their problem not yours, most stock sites however tend to lean towards caution.

817
Well without seeing your design it's hard to make an absolute judgement, however if this purely involves your design featuring the term "world cup" then ask Zazzle who the "copyright holder" is, they won't be able to because a) there isn't one and as I explained above there can't be one and b) 'copyright' isn't the correct legal term for protecting the usage of a word or phrase anyway.

818
Much confusion will and has been associated with this including the blog you referred to above, I very much doubt FIFA won a court case and had that pub change it's signage solely because it used the phrase "world cup 2010" it would have involved offer factors to support the case to stop anybody to be lead into believing the pub was officially associated or endorsed with the FIFA world cup. Using that phrase would have formed part of the evidence for the case presented by FIFA lawyers, along with things like the location of the pub, the flags and other signage or promotional material.

In 2010 there is a cricket, hockey, basketball, women's baseball, gymnastics events that are all using the term "world cup 2010" and I doubt hundreds more if you can be bothered to look on google.

There are, have been and will be "world cup" events for nearly every single sport imaginable that all will be officially and legally using the term "world cup" in their promotional material.

If Zazzle removed your design then that's their right they can decide what appears on their site, but I'd say they are very wrong to tell you that you cannot use the term "world cup", and as you've pointed out above iStock agree.

819
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Puzzled with commission
« on: April 01, 2010, 12:05 »
Somebody using 'old credits' I'd guess, same thing happens on Dreamstime from time to time

820
Let me get back to you on this one, you cant use "World Cup 2010", that's 120% certain.

Where did you get this information, because it is 120% incorrect.  Having read your two posts I think you'll find that you're getting confused with the situation in which your bookmakers are using the term for, and I'm guessing they've stumbled on legal ground because they are using it in marketing/promotional material directly connected with the FIFA world cup 2010, but I can assure you to use the words "world cup" or "world cup 2010" as keywords for a stock photo is no problem whatsoever even if you also have the word "football" as well. Trademarks are just that a trademark and have nothing to do with keywords.

821
I remember about three or four years ago an employee from a small site was uploading our pictures on other sites claiming them as his own. I cannot remember the name of the site, they didn't last long once he was rumbled. It was an Eastern European site I think.

But I wonder how much the guy made off those images before he was rumbled, whether anything happened to him (I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that) and whether he's a reviewer on another site now?

822
I completely disagree with that article, it's just a marketing spin to sell subscriptions to his "Selling Stock" website.
Not to mention he's more famous about what he writes about the stock industry rather than the photos he's
actually selling.
Unfortunately there seems to be more and more people every day that are trying to make money by selling their "expertise" rather than actually doing it.

And some of the people selling expertise don't really have that great of a track record with selling stock images. Why would I buy their expertise? It's like hiring an investment advisor who's broke.

Because you can write whatever you like about yourself on the internet, and the internet attracts lots of very stupid people who believe anything they read.

823
Yeah it's tricky, I mean we are also trusting the sites and their employees are legit.
I think I worry more about the wholesale theft of images on sites like SS where thieves will use a stolen credit card .By the time they are discovered they have already downloaded the months allowance and the files are on rapidshare.
I'm sure we're losing more that way then through direct monetary theft on any single site.

I was chatting to someone from a macro site the other week and the legitimacy of the microstock sites employees was something that came up, not so much the ones that work at the company but more the ones that review from home, as he pointed out these people get to view our images at 100% with no watermark, what's to stop them keeping a copy, we have no idea who they are, what their background is or which country they reside in.

I think the top 3 sites require their reviewers to be established contributors so there's some safeguard in that knowledge, but I'd like to know what precautions other sites do to protect our work when selecting reviewers.

824

Eight hours a week __ are you sure? You must be knocking out your illustrations (and uploading them to several sites) at the rate of 3 per hour which is amazing. I do basic photography but even so I reckon each image, from the planning, preparation, shooting, processing and uploading averages out at least one hour per image.

Dude you are under-productive... You should think about how to speed up your production. My average was 5-10 a day for macro... Nowdays it is 20-40 a day... But I am not producing so much lately... I am cracking my earnings on a bit of joy ;-)

I guess I am under-productive too.  I average more like 30 images a week.  I usually end up adding between 1,000 and 1,200 images a year to my port. 

From Gostwycks post it appears he is quite rightly including the research and prep work in his estimate (cooking and presenting food, storyboarding concepts, buying buying props, scouting and preparing locations or creating studio "sets", hiring and posing models, etc.) as well as the shooting, editing and uploading time.  If you treat this as a business you need to include those things in your calculations of time spent. 

If you are doing mostly shots of found objects or landscapes and nature, then obviously you will have little to no prep work other than minor editing, keywording, and uploading. 

However,  if you are doing this for a FT job you need to produce consistently, week in and week out.  I know a lot of people that will upload large bursts of hundreds of images one week, but then not upload anything else for weeks or months. 

To each their own, but the workflow that has been best for me is one I can sustain week in, week out, over time.  I am a lot more comfortable being the tortoise than the hare ;)

Taking all things into consideration I'd say a return of one image per hour based on an average single person 40hr working week is about the sort of production numbers most people who make a living in stock aim for, I'm averaging 25-30 and I work a lot longer than 40hrs per week. I do know of some on macro agencies that take the 'machine gun' approach to stock shooting, a lot of them have to shoot weddings and portraits at the weekend - wonder why!

825
I completely disagree with that article, it's just a marketing spin to sell subscriptions to his "Selling Stock" website.
Not to mention he's more famous about what he writes about the stock industry rather than the photos he's
actually selling.

Unfortunately there seems to be more and more people every day that are trying to make money by selling their "expertise" rather than actually doing it.

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 77

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors