|
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 - loop
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 44
851
« on: October 26, 2009, 10:37 »
cidepix:
The most important downside of exclusivity is they won't let you sell from your own personal website if you are exclusive. That's a big issue because I think everyone must have a personal store. I don't use my portfolio site for this purpose yet, but you just can't give up that possibility, because once you drive traffic to your site there is no way agencies and their worsening conditions will be better for us. Driving traffic is not as difficult as people believe. Some people are just not brave enough and that's why they hand their destiny in the hands of X agency as an exclusive.
Maybe, if your only goal in life and photography is to shoot microstock, and if you don't mind being converted in an human uploading machine.
852
« on: October 25, 2009, 15:24 »
For me the 1% difference is a positive sign. In my last year as an exclusive I made less money per image then when I was non-exclusive only submitting to IS and struggling to get to 500 dls so that I could be exclusive. In that same year 1/4 of my portfolio was sent to the dollar bin. Some of the images I agreed with, others went on to get flames while in the bin. I was denied the ability to apply for the Getty contract ("not available to Gold - and you'll never make Silver") and I was told by admin that it was a mistake that my exclusive application ever got approved. For me the choice was about more than just the money. It was about being able to get a fair chance to sell my work.
I expected to loose money the first year as I became established on the other sites. I'm pleasantly surprised that I didn't. The lost income from lower royalties at IS was easily replaced by the income from the other sites. In addition to that I am now seeing an increase in my sales on the other sites which means that while IS sales continue to go down I'll not only be able to cover the loss but may also be able to add more revenue through the other sites.
It doesn't take me any more time to upload to the other sites than it does to upload to IS. I use FF tabs and set each site to upload then open DM and upload to IS.
That 1 per cent doen't takes in account what could have went up at istock should you had remained. Righ now I'm more than 25% up from last year at istock. Sure, that include new files, new prices and Vetta (still hasn't upload to Getty), but it is a progress. On the other had I have legacy files at Vetta that didn't sold almost at all, and now, at Vetta are selling.
853
« on: October 22, 2009, 04:00 »
I wonder if we forced their hand with that post about Jim yesterday (whoops!).
I don't think so. If they are looking to attract istock exclusives, they needed to make the offering public, to let them now about it.
854
« on: October 21, 2009, 09:48 »
Why couldn't they do that? Private supply agreement dosn't garantee that any other contributor wil come in by the same standard door. Afer all, it's a business.
855
« on: October 15, 2009, 11:54 »
They should sue AVG, because is harming their business.
856
« on: October 06, 2009, 18:45 »
Seeing in top one agency that sells suscriptions and pays 30-40 cents for any size always shock me. But we,, so it's democracy...
857
« on: October 06, 2009, 18:43 »
There are clich concepts, but also, now and then, new and original, even rare, concepts. If one of those is succesful, you can bet it will be copied. Sometimes, you even can guess who will rip it off.
858
« on: October 05, 2009, 12:17 »
Life would be so much easier if all the agencies would take advantage of Tineye's API to check for duplicates right during the review process.
But that's just an impossible thing to ask...
Maybe they do, I don't know... but I've discovered links to stolen images of mine, with its thumbail (At tin eye), and when opening these links the image was already deleted.
859
« on: October 05, 2009, 10:51 »
Do yo mean stolen or plagiarazed?
860
« on: October 05, 2009, 05:11 »
Actually, IS offered ELs years before, although the process wasn't automatic, it was through a call to the commercial department.
At least, this time FT don't suggest that they invented the microstock idea...
861
« on: September 24, 2009, 09:50 »
Maybe is the old problem... when they have lots of customers the servers resent... I also was selling big today...
862
« on: September 22, 2009, 19:08 »
I'm happy uploading just to one microstock site: my RPI is very healthy and it comes with the to upload to other well known macro sites..
863
« on: September 02, 2009, 19:47 »
I've often wondered about it this way...
for the sake of argument, a 33 cent buy gives you 500k prints... so to reach a million legitimately, they spend another 33 cents...
it's happened to everyone... a certain picture at the same agency sells 3 or 4 times a day. I've always suspected the above senario.. a cheap way to avoid paying for and EL... spend 33 cents four times and make 2 million prints in four legitimate batches....
or am i wrong? set me straight.  =tom
I doubt this works legally this way. In my opinion, you coul buy two o three rf licenses instead of a multiseat license, but not two rf ordinary licenses for an one million run. That's, at least what I understand reading the TOS.
864
« on: September 01, 2009, 17:19 »
If its an advertisment, there's no limit on the number of copies. The can print ten million if they want. It's in the TOS.
The limitation at istock --500.000-- is for other uses (mostly editorial, I think)
865
« on: August 18, 2009, 10:28 »
I wonder how long its going to take the folks over at IS HQ to get wind of Rinder's publicly posted 'experiment' that, though I'm not 100% sure and its not worth me going through, is probably in violation of a bunch of rules that you agree to.
As for the completely off-topic rant by some unknown weirdo, well, I got nothing to contribute to that.
Yes, sending images from which you don't own the copyright is the clumsiest move someone who wants to stay and grow in microstock can do, at istock or at any other site.
866
« on: August 07, 2009, 03:02 »
What about anoter tiny agency releasing "Betta than Betta than Vetta"?
867
« on: August 04, 2009, 21:49 »
Wow, how pathetic.
868
« on: July 31, 2009, 06:21 »
Answering to cidepix last post:
It seems that, for some, the world stops at RF and microstock. That they wouldn't be able to do anything different in the photography market. We are just exclusive for RF, that's it. And besides of that, we even have a lot of opportunities at different Getty brands and, for those who could miss selling at Shutterstock for 0.30 cents, they have photos.com. Who knows if maybe we'll be uble to upload to Stockexpert too. We lose something not being able to upload at shutter or Dreamstime, yes, but we have almost unreachable upload limits at IS.
869
« on: July 16, 2009, 04:14 »
With tens of thousands photos sold at Istockphoto I never have had one single "credit card fraud" redund there. Zero.
870
« on: July 10, 2009, 10:00 »
I don't donate images, I would never use yhem as a designer, with the excepcion of those which came from established agencies. "Free-images" pages are like an inverse lottery, you can easily grab a robbed image, an image without appropiate releases etc. And if that causes a problem, go then and try to explain it to your employer or customer.
871
« on: July 07, 2009, 20:09 »
Yes, you can sell RM wherever you want. Or donate as RM. But not the same image you are selling as RF at istock; that would cheat istock and the customer who bought this image as RM as well. Once one image is sold as RF it can't never be RM.
872
« on: July 07, 2009, 18:47 »
As I said many times, I like IS and thinking about becoming exclusive a lot. However, being called "Freedom", I highly dislike the IS exclusive term which provides that you cannot give away your photos to family and frieds for free. I am not clear whether or not you can sell rejected photos as RM either. So it's too bad that I still haven't made the switch.
That is not true. You can give the pics to your family and friends for personal use. What you can't is to give away them for public licensed use. It's very different,
873
« on: July 06, 2009, 09:40 »
Copyrigth infringmenteis something that have to be dealt with by inspectors. Contributot can't know if the Eiffel tower Eiffel can'y be shot by nigth or if the Taj Majal can't be shot at five past noon. The file is rejected and that's all. If the file sneaks, it's the inspector's guilt, and the contributor can't be blamed.
874
« on: July 05, 2009, 08:35 »
Well, the fact is that the collection is working well, I have less than 100 files there and I'm selling vetta files on almost a daily basis... sometimes more than one in a day. Let's hope it lasts!
875
« on: July 04, 2009, 08:07 »
Not really a big slow down, except fot yesterday and today, at "american hours".
But holydays have a role. Why if not July and August have been for me the months with less downloads for years?
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
