|
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 - etudiante_rapide
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 79
901
« on: November 14, 2015, 08:53 »
902
« on: November 13, 2015, 22:21 »
You must mean "Dreamstime has sunken below Pond5" ?
Not sure which, what was DT in time before P5 passed them? Shows that video is growing while photo is dying.
overtaking a comatose agency really isn't much to cheer about... 1 point is "growing"  
903
« on: November 13, 2015, 21:59 »
i know .... istock, would pay you when you close your account
No they wouldn't. Read my previous post.
iStock is Getty and after closing my account, Getty still owes me about 45 bucks.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
maybe u r right. it must have been one of those which i wrote, "and you can kept my xx bucks that you owe me; use it to st*ck it up you know where"... or something like that. all i remember was i was mad at one of these sites and i did write a nasty email. it must have this istock thx 4 correcting me.
904
« on: November 13, 2015, 21:19 »
"During the third quarter we added more content than ever before, growing our library by nearly 6.6 million images, that's 67% more than we added in Q3 of 2014."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3651626-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-on-q3-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-widget
"The backbone of that user experience is ensuring we have both the highest quality and the most diverse selection of content to meet the creative needs of our clients. Product matters."
When does the marijuana leaf spam stop? If they are making false reasons for rejections for common subjects, somebody needs to end this bad bud storm.
it's not just marijuana. there is a lot of phone-type shots in tons of concerts, open air festivals in europe, usa, etc which look like they approved en-masse some of their buddies mob-shots of their attendance at woodstock type open-air concerts. lots of them washedout highlights and just plain bad exposure,like the sort you see on facebook. yes, i wonder how those got in by the hundreds.
905
« on: November 13, 2015, 19:06 »
I get paid a lot more for some of the "Single & Other" sales with SS than I have ever received from istock as a non-exclusive. I get sick of all the race to the bottom posts here, SS pay much more per download now than when I started or when I reached the top tier for subs. As a non-exclusive, I can also sell on higher paying sites like alamy. I got almost $600 for one sale there this year.
Sharpshoot, why? What may be working for you is not necessarily working for the masses. The industry HAS gone down the toilet, with Shutterstock being the exception for the most part. I will admit I am happy about the occasional big sale but without those (and I believe many contributors, though I don't want to speak for everyone) I am way down on subs, general OD's and almost never anymore $28 EL's. So I would say SS is, to a degree, contributing to the race to the bottom. They also lowered 4K from $399 to $299. They were the first to do it.
But, I am glad you are seeing some good sales. And it is nice to know that in some capacities SS is still fighting for some juicy sales.
well said. someone else here said the same thing a while back on another thread... stockastic i think... that our single sales are the only thing that rescue us from a really bad performance compared to other years. i think that is so true. also, the single sales of large 80 to 102 are less than when it started and even if you take the 28 bucks singles, i used to get it more often than the past year(s). but thanks to one client who paid 80+ to 100+ my month have been rescued this way. so yes, mantis you are +100% correct
906
« on: November 13, 2015, 17:31 »
i got mine as quickly as ss paid me.
but really, i don't even wait for my email from them. if ever i want money,
i just go directly to paypal.
907
« on: November 13, 2015, 17:29 »
they really don't have to pay you just because you delete your account. read the agreement .
this is how agencies rip you off , if you do not reach payout. you can actually get rich if you have a million contributors owing you one dollar each.
some are honest. i know istock did. perharps, it was just plain courtesy and decency .i know fotolia, istock, would pay you when you close your account because i did and they paid me without me asking.
but really, if you ask me, or ask even your grand dad or any common decent person,
they will say, whether it's 1 dollar or 10,000, you pay back what you owe. it's just plain common
decency.
but then, who is common decent these days???
908
« on: November 13, 2015, 14:33 »
no surprise. just look at the silly mistakes on yahoo, msn, google,etc.. news. you can tell there is no editor in charge, just some kid using a spellcheck.
re: sharpshot and shadysue -
keyword or not, any journalism 101 person would have notice the difference immediately.
you do all these things in research as a student. eg. you know the swastika has been used not just by the nazi... you know the difference between the rabbi, priest, monk, the difference between a hindu and a buddhist,etc.
this is typical, as i am sure the beeb is using freelancers rather than full-time qualified journalist
and yes, i repeat, no editor in charge.
909
« on: November 13, 2015, 13:34 »
SS at least speaks with some respect.
"Your image is worth as little as 25c - 38c."
I see no respect for artists, or their work, there.
lmao they respect us so much they give a super large preview so you can actually download to print a 5by7 print for free; you sound like that comedian who says " what respect???" only it's the reverse, "... i am a well-respected ss contributor... they literally give my work away!!..hip hip hooray!!!" 
910
« on: November 12, 2015, 17:25 »
So...the writer removed the image rather than paying for it. I wonder if she stole all the other, unwatermarked, images in her article.
Sounds like she did. Not replacing one watermarked image could be a mistake. Not replacing many sounds intentional. People, I tell ya.
not surprised really. the things is most "freelancers" are actually ppl with money who does things "for fun". so they never think that most ppl do things for a living. i found it to be the same with photo-clubs where most members use hasselblads, and hold regular champagne and snacks exhibitions to sell their framed artsy photos (full of noise, the size of golfballs and poor exposure).. and if you attend those, you will find that no one does photography for a living. and when you tell them you're a working stiff or a stock photographer, they look at you "pitiful thing, you !"
911
« on: November 12, 2015, 14:01 »
the irony is even more ironic when you look at the source of the word freelance.
some sort of a bounty hunter or mercenary who sells his her service to anyone who pays.
..not attached to any idealogy or king.
..for personal interest ,private gain only.
the freelance does not swear to a king or lord or pope or whatever...
but he also does not work for free.
free lance , royalty free, ... i think that should be change because as it says,
we do not work for free, nor is our work given away for nothing.
i think self-employed is a better work than free lance.
and maybe uncontrolled-artwork is a better work than royalty-free.
912
« on: November 12, 2015, 11:14 »
...DT has a good solution but low sales..
What solution is that? DT offers the same size (1300 pixels on the long edge) as 123rf and that's not a lot smaller than SS's 1500 pixels. DT's watermark is decent, but still fails on isolated images in many cases.
I agree about DT sales though - have dropped off a lot and I'm not assuming a connection with the previews.
awhile ago, or more , when i first started microstock, i spoke to myfriends' grand-dad who was a retired business man. when i told him how much we get paid per download, he thought 25 dollars, not 25 cents. his prophesy to me was , if you let them keep going like this, they will give your work away for free. if i run my shop like you do, i won't be sitting here comfortable and retired.
you don't give away your merchandise for free...
when you do, your customers will go elsewhere because they feel your products no longer have any value.
913
« on: November 11, 2015, 19:45 »
Google is helpful .... Search ' how to remove watermark photo ' and you come up with plenty of results and there are even software for this thieving. Knowledge of Photoshop tools isn't necessary.
There are sites that sell stolen images. Check out Fiverr."I will give you x amount of stock photos for 5$.
while googling for a certain photos of an actress, i actually found more fake nudes of her than the dressed photos of her. she's never done nude, not even in a bikini. but there are lots of her nude. one site even has a series of "his photo session" of her nude. amazing , isn't it. this one blog called it his "series" and even has his copyright on the nude poses she "did" with him. i guess we are not the only ones with problems of infringement .
914
« on: November 11, 2015, 11:57 »
The issue with the first SS watermark was that it was all white and sparse, so it disappeared on white areas completely and also didn't cover enough of the image when the image was complex, like a pattern for example. They've now added a few black areas (the square background behind the SS logo) and more coverage. You need to have a combination of both transparent black and white in enough coverage to show up against different tints and tones.
rimglow's illustration is a good idea. but even if there is black or white, on clear space like in rimglow's foto, it does not take much to remove the wm. the x x lines are effective too, but once again, on a foto like this one , it does not take much to remove all the wm black white grey or x'ed. maybe there is no solution. not even if our camera's embedded exif to prevent theft. but i would think, for most cases , theft would be more likely in tourist attraction images like travel, more than say rimglow's image of a cup isolation. in general i think most commercial work will not be stolen by a customer as you and i , as business ppl will not have that sort of mentality to steal. but more likely the teen wanting something for his/her blog would do that... although not deliberately thinking it is theft, due to misinformation of the word "royalty-free". but the problem is mainly those sites that outrightly steal full portfolio "for a cup of coffee" and traffic , getting paid from ads and traffic to their site. am i right to think this way???
915
« on: November 10, 2015, 23:22 »
So big previews are in...
DT and 123rf which have had their larger previews for years
is that so for dt? i dont know about 123, but if they had larger previews for years, that explains why my dls have been comatose in dls for years
Back in Jan - Mar 2014 I was doing a lot of test searches to see how images from my own site fared versus my images on agency sites. 123rf and DT had some of their images using their new larger previews then, but not all of them. Not sure when prior to that they were introduced, but I seem to recall these things were new around the end of 2013
well that explains it. it took me 2 years to reach payout , while it takes me a month to reach payout with ss. now, let's hope something is done before ss go the way of comatose like dt with this large preview. well, it's good to know the kill date is 2 years. it gives me some time to take up a new skill... maybe learn how to use a squeegee 
916
« on: November 10, 2015, 19:57 »
So big previews are in...
DT and 123rf which have had their larger previews for years
is that so for dt? i dont know about 123, but if they had larger previews for years, that explains why my dls have been comatose in dls for years
917
« on: November 10, 2015, 18:12 »
The thumbnail images on iStock's pages just grew by 50%, and the large preview is gigantic. Looks like a preview war is on.
or let's see which agency is better at scr*wing our contributors???
918
« on: November 10, 2015, 16:01 »
And NO HUGE PREVIEWS. I think were losing this fight guys. They really do Just Ignore and we just go away. The reality Is. we can be replaced in a week and probably are anyway. By Folks that simply don't care or have no clue what this is about. wish it wasn't so...But, Im getting the vibe thats the way it is. wish it wasn't.
by the red line of your statement... i have to agree with you that maybe the 500 signers are the only ones with a clue. i too was clueless what the fuss is all about until joanne showed me the problem. so the question is how do you inform the other x,000, 000 of the clueless ones??? if you let it out of the problem, you also give the potential thieves the key to steal more. losing proposition.
919
« on: November 10, 2015, 13:40 »
I pray we get a new site that is fresh and has a system of 50/50 split. across the board. That site will win the hearts and minds in 30 Days. Jon Walks away with a Billion and swears thats the best commission he could have paid. Are we really that stupid? I guess so.
We've had many new 50/50 sites and some that pay us more. The problem is us, not the sites. The only way for us to get a better deal would be if we all only uploaded to sites that pay 50/50 or better but that's not going to happen. So it will make absolutely no difference if we get a fresh new 50/50 site because the vast majority of people will carry on uploading to the established sites and the vast majority of buyers will carry on using them.
I would be quite happy only uploading to alamy and Pond5 if everyone else did the same but unfortunately that's never going to happen. It would be even better if contributors owned a majority share in a site with a 50/50 split but it seems like that's another impossibility.
well said both. sharpshot, i cannot speak for the others here, and don't intend to but the problem is not just us. ask anyone who's been here long time, they will tell you we all started joining almost all the sites to the right of this page giving leaf our affliate credit. but after giving all the work we have, and supporting them, some with excellent CR eg who? elena, john griffith, douglas, linda ... i think .. but cannot remember the agencies, only the names of the good ppl. but they did not produce any sales. in fact, i still have some i fotgot to delete my port from them. and i still have zero to 10 dls since their inception here on msg. so it is not our unwillingness to support them. it's not getting the results. and some, like dt , thinkstock, BigStock, just go belly up after a great start. i can tell you we all want a new site, ...but not canva or offset or whatever artsy site... just the old ss , old is, ... once-reputable sites.
920
« on: November 10, 2015, 12:42 »
I am wondering if the larger preview is maybe a necessary step to work on their rejection policies.
For instance if SS was to introduce a real mobile stock collection, they would have to accept all these things they now dont like: brutal lighting, out of focus, bad compositions, "creative" overfiltering and visible artifacts...all these things that make a mobilestock image look like an "authentic" mobile stock image.
If they have much larger previews, the customer can look more closely and decide for themselves if the quality is good enough for them.
Or maybe I am just hoping that they will find a solution to their photo rejections and I can start uploading again 
if that is true, that is even more proof that the lower management decision makers are all bloody stoned smoking too much of that weeds that is spamming allowably in ss. because it is putting all the good work at risk to being stolen for free just to placate for their totally effed-up reviewing system caused no doubt by one or a handful of f****up reviewers.. at the expense of the majority good reviewers that once made ss the enviable site to contribute to. it would be like saying, "ok, because our neighbourhood is so full of dope fiends and drug addicts we will legalize drugs and needles and let you decide if you want to live in this neighbourhood with all this and make it a dive... if you don't like it, you can move out of this neighbourhood because we declare it open season for all kinds of deviant and undesirable . what kind of logic is that???
921
« on: November 09, 2015, 16:15 »
If you're up for it, perhaps contact him and ask him to remove it or do something to make it more his own and then upload. He might just have skated too close to the line when trying out something new rather than being a blatant leach ripping off other people's hard work.
again, as a contributor i agree with joanne. but again as someone who at the beginning also thought others were copying me, i can see the other side too. the thing is, even the great bob dylan was said to rip off the great japanese ancient poetry in his work. so really, no one is ripping anybody off unless you have proof. actual proof. because if i were that person and you actually wrote to me to take off certain works you think i stole from you... i would outrightly tell you to go m*sturb*te in a corner because who do you think you are? yuri arcurs, sj locke, dolgachov??? or even rembrandt, da vinci, ... ansel adams, etc??? we all copied someone sometime. unless you are one of those i mentioned , or in the calibre of those ppl, i wouldn't assume someone is copying you. why would they? if i wanted to copy anyone, i would copy the top sellers.
922
« on: November 09, 2015, 13:57 »
They paid out of their own pockets for printing of the canvas, and frames, and possibly placement in the shop. The only thing they didn't pay for was the art itself. Why is the art free until they sell something?
And btw, how will anyone ever know if the art sells? They're trusting someone who didn't pay upfront to come back and pay after the fact. I'm sure the printer didn't allow that.
I'm just amazed at how our work is ok to use for free, but not everyone else's. I don't agree with those terms and conditions, honestly. If they have the money to pay for printing up front, they have the money to pay a lot less for licensing the image.
i am on your side on that freebie statement too. but let's say it's either that or be clueless that some franchise of canva is selling our stuff on the other side of the world, or even in the next state without our knowing, and when they do, we get a few pennies to 102 bucks from ss or we could go indie as stockastic mentioned, locally. i say locally because this is the only way i can have control. even then, i don't even know how i have control even locally as the city is large. but yes, as stockastic go, perharps with what is happening here with ss .. large preview easy to steal.. and canva shops using our work not paying until it sells, maybe just maybe, we go find a canva shop in our city and even in our state, and make this same deal with them. ie. they make the canvas with our work, and sign an agreement like using my work on consignment. i get paid IN FULL when they sell. this way, i don't get pennies to 102 from ss, i get paid IN FULL. and how do you control it not being stolen with the large preview on ss? you don't give those images to ss.
923
« on: November 09, 2015, 11:51 »
He could of made this more his own. I don't know if the sites will say this is different enough but it would annoy me. Not even changing the time on the clock is just taking the p. I saw someone copying some of my photos but was told that they were different enough and wouldn't be removed. So I don't do anything like that now, total waste of time coming up with something the sites don't have only to find it gets copied to death.
agree too. but here's something , once again said during a songwriting convention, .." it is actually more difficult to outrightly copy someone else's work than create your own". ... "so why would anyone with grey matter between their ears want to do such a self-degrading thing so as to copy someone else?" at that time, someone in the audience said, " led zeppelin and 90% of the british blues bands will disagree with you". same thing here in microstock. who in the right mind prefers to copy??? so really, take it as their loss, not yours because you can always roll your own (weed) and still look different
924
« on: November 09, 2015, 11:12 »
Usually, this use would need an EL of some sort.
However, I've read that some agencies have a sort of honour system whereby the buyer doesn't have to pay for an EL unless they actually sell the goods with our image on it. Ludicrous at micro prices, and almost impossible to police unless like you, we happen to find the goods being sold.
interesting (red) .. i see your point too. the shop have spent money transforming it into canvas, but have not sold anything . so really, they paid out of their own pocket to make those inventory and after selling it, apply for EL. much like we do for consignment goods. i suppose you can say that's fair, in good faith. and we have nothing to lose .. i rather have it this way.
or the shop can now go to ss amazing new to serve customers better
and just download the large previews and get everything for free
925
« on: November 09, 2015, 11:05 »
like in music, no one owns the rights to rhythm changes , even melody,...
or else beethoven , gershwin, elmore james, etc would be suing 80% of jazz blues and pop.
and yuri and jslocke etc would be suing 80% of business microstock images
it's different if they took your work and transform it into illustration,
as a derivative or whatever they call it. you could have been getting your ideas
from the same source as the other person(s).
as they say in songwriter seminar, nothing is new , so don't claim to be original
furthermore, not everyone is a stylist . even gershwin has certain songs in the repertoire
that is not in his style. a person can be a generalist, as it is more likely to succeed
in microstock these days.
back to music... many music of today are being churned out by computers.
they may not be worth listening as they lack soul , but they are not illegal
much in the way chick corea ripped off rodrigo aranjuez. he didn't steal it
illegally.
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 79
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
