|
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 - dirkr
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 56
901
« on: August 12, 2011, 06:12 »
I find the posts here endlessly interesting. Why, just today I learned the expression " agony-aunts passtime".
I can't wait to use that. I also learned that all the time I thought it was "no pain no gain", in fact the expression is really "no pain no game". Plus, the laundry tips in another thread are invaluable. 
Actually the correct version is "no brain no pain" 
902
« on: August 10, 2011, 06:21 »
Just one more reason not to publish too many private data on the web. I never understood why some people believe it is a good idea to share all of their intimate details on facebook....
903
« on: August 09, 2011, 04:08 »
How low a commission will people accept? I'm sure the sites that currently pay us more will be interested. This is the perfect excuse for them to make more cuts. I know a lot of you think we will all end up on low commissions everywhere but I still don't see the logic in pushing the sites in to doing it.
Fully agree. I will reconsider them once they increase their non-exclusive commission to 50%.
904
« on: July 22, 2011, 09:58 »
What would be very helpful to make full use of that feature would be an easy way to see downloads and return per image. Not by clicking every one, but a simple portfolio list, sortable by views, downloads, royalty per image and indicating which images are faved.
It would be very easy to identify for which image the "faving" is successful and for which not - and thus adapt.
But 123RF unfortunately is one of the few sites that makes it very hard to easily track (for one's own portfolio!) which image has how much downloads / how much royalty earned.
905
« on: July 21, 2011, 09:24 »
Unfortunately, I now discover that I have more than 2,000 photos there. Is there any way of finding out where they have come from and how I can get them removed?
I think Zager is more than happy to make things right and will let you know where exactly your images are coming from. Contact him.
Since he is apparently in the habit of stalking people whose names he knows, I'm not particularly inclined to spell out who I am.
Does Canstock still have an agreement with them?
It could be either 123RF or Yaymicro. With 123RF you can only opt out all resellers at once, though it was announced that that might become more granular in the future. But it seems that this opt out does not work fully, see the thread I linked above (where I'm still waiting for some reply from 123RF).
906
« on: July 21, 2011, 08:37 »
Just to add a little more to the 123RF / Pixmac topic. read here
907
« on: July 20, 2011, 08:00 »
Snip
The good thing is photodune is closer to industry standards than graphicriver for vectors is..
Sorry, but I have to react to that. 25% non-exclusive commission is not close to industry standards. Just because some big players in the industry get away with insulting low rates, it doesn't mean they are setting a standard. @Collis: Start with 50% non-exclusive. That would be a good start.
908
« on: July 20, 2011, 06:39 »
But: although having opted out around two months ago, my photos are still showing on Pixmac. Does the opt out work at all?
We've removed your images at Pixmac just now. From all sources we're reselling.
Well, thanks. A bit trigger happy I'd say. I was not asking you to do so. In fact I was not adressing you at all. I wanted an explanation from 123RF if there opt out works or not. And I opted out because of non-transparency about their distribution program (not giving the full list of partners and full details of our royalty compared to the final sales price). And used Pixmac as an example (because it was easy to find my files there and easy to ensure they come from 123RF). So this is your way of showing us how a "fair" agency works? Very interesting...
909
« on: July 20, 2011, 04:36 »
Hi somethingpretentious,
The commission will always be 50% nett, either on 123RF or partner sites. As for the partner list, we've governed by the non-disclosure agreement thus unable to disclose them. However, I'm able to comment that the partner list on http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/a-list-of-partner-programs/ is quite accurate.
Thanks for your understanding.
Regards,
Anglee
Is this 50% of the sales price or 50% of whatever percentage you receive from the partner? That does make a difference...
And: Why you sign a NDA that does not allow you to tell the copyright holder of an image through which partner you sell his work is beyond me. Sorry, but if you can't tell me where you're selling my images then I choose to opt out.
Just a practical question: If I see some of my pictures somewhere on the internet, am I supposed to assume it is a legit partner of somebody? Or shall I start writing to them, demanding my work taken down, threatening with legal action?
(Yes, I know, there are others who don't tell us and don't let us opt out - but they should not be used as guiding principle...)
As these questions have been unanswered over the last two months, let' revive that thread. And to add: Around that time I opted out of the partner program - because of these unanswered questions. I might opt in back again depending on more detailed information. But: although having opted out around two months ago, my photos are still showing on Pixmac. Does the opt out work at all?
910
« on: July 15, 2011, 10:10 »
1st quarter third party sales have appeared in my account (look under referrals...).
Not much, but at least it's there.
911
« on: July 06, 2011, 02:23 »
Above the design changes I think it's worth to mention that they have raised commissions a bit - if only for XL-subs, but hey, that's certainly a step in the right direction (yes, I would have liked seeing the $0,25 subs rate rising as well, but that's only the logical next step, right Duncan ? ). Give them some praise for that, we need more sites raising commissions!
912
« on: July 05, 2011, 04:37 »
They could even sell your stuff on Zazzle or create their own stock agency.
Could they? It says: "to the extent reasonably necessary for the Service. " In my mind (though I'm not a lawyer) that would exclude any use outside of the service they provide.
913
« on: July 04, 2011, 10:12 »
This thread is a case study in how conversational topics deviate.
I'm just waiting for another twist in the discussion until it turns into a perfect example for Godwin's law.
914
« on: July 03, 2011, 14:35 »
Hi Microbius,
No, I wasn't dragging an image to the bar that sounds so cool. Thank you for explaining it to me I am just sitting down with my Sunday morning coffee and will try what you said. Thanks again for steering and old boat on the right coarse.
Best,
Jonathan
Be prepared for a massive amount of findings. The proportion of images I found which were not at all mentioning any copyright was far bigger than those correctly attributed to me. So if you already found so many hits by using your name...
915
« on: July 03, 2011, 14:33 »
I have a two year old daughter. Like every father, I think she is the cutest girl in the world and she has been my favourite subject for photography these last two years. And - even without the biased viewpoint of a father - there are certainly a good number of shots of her sitting on my harddrive that would make some money in stock. Still I don't upload them, simply because I don't want to see the face of my daughter anywhere where I can't control it. It's just a matter of personal choice. And it helps a lot if you don't do it (photography) for a living...
917
« on: June 27, 2011, 11:03 »
This new google toy is really nice...
I discovered (amongst lots of other usages I hadn't seen before) one of my pictures being offered as products on a website. Because I never sold an EL for that picture, I sent them a short message via their contact form on their website asking (politely) if there has been some kind of error or oversight.
Today they called me and told me they contacted their supplier (looks like they are just a re-seller of products produced by someone else) and would take care of the issue.
Later the day I sold an EL for that file on Shutterstock.
That's how I like to see cases like this resolved....
918
« on: June 21, 2011, 16:49 »
In my mind you are missing one (the) essential part of the "Fair Trade" equation: Royalties.
Why not include a minimum royalty percentage (e.g. 50%) in there? And absolute transparency, i.e. with each transaction clearly state the amount the customer paid and the amount that was paid to the artist, including for transactions via re-sellers?
What is currently in that declaration are minor things that should be absolute standard for every agency (yes, I know, it is currently not).
But starting a "Fair Trade" movement with such minimal demands is not worth it at all.
919
« on: June 01, 2011, 14:59 »
I like the simple pricing system but I wish they would keep the royalties simple and fair as well. For a site like BS with low sales, anything under 50% feels wrong.
This change made me look at their actual credit prices. Here in Germany they are shown in Euro, starting from 2,40 per credit for the smallest pack and going down to 0,77 for the biggest pack. That is with current exchange rates (1 = 1,43$) a royalty of 45% for the biggest pack, but only 14,5% for the smallest pack. That's worse than Istock.
920
« on: May 18, 2011, 06:11 »
Excuse my ignorance if there is already something besides subscription plan.
There is. They do sell PPDs and ELs (I think that's obvious), and (I wonder why nobody already mentioned that) you can opt out of subscriptions and only sell PPDs and ELs. At least that is an option that is offered on Shutterstock. I have no personal experience with it, no idea if that would affect search placement (e.g. because you're just not making enough sales to stay on top of the search), but at least it is (theoretically) possible to sell via Shutterstock but without subscriptions. Now, please sign up with them using my referral link
921
« on: May 15, 2011, 13:58 »
Hi somethingpretentious,
The commission will always be 50% nett, either on 123RF or partner sites. As for the partner list, we've governed by the non-disclosure agreement thus unable to disclose them. However, I'm able to comment that the partner list on http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/a-list-of-partner-programs/ is quite accurate.
Thanks for your understanding.
Regards,
Anglee
Is this 50% of the sales price or 50% of whatever percentage you receive from the partner? That does make a difference... And: Why you sign a NDA that does not allow you to tell the copyright holder of an image through which partner you sell his work is beyond me. Sorry, but if you can't tell me where you're selling my images then I choose to opt out. Just a practical question: If I see some of my pictures somewhere on the internet, am I supposed to assume it is a legit partner of somebody? Or shall I start writing to them, demanding my work taken down, threatening with legal action? (Yes, I know, there are others who don't tell us and don't let us opt out - but they should not be used as guiding principle...)
922
« on: May 07, 2011, 16:13 »
@LisaAnderson I appreciate your replies but due to the fact that I don't to go through the troubles to apply for an ITIN, my money is blocked on 3Dstudio and it stay this way if nothing is done for european contributors:(
+1 If your tax advisors can't find a way to get around that ITIN while ALL other US agencies can, then maybe you should look for a better tax advisor.
923
« on: May 04, 2011, 16:49 »
Carmen then told me that they don't convert large files to TIFFs. I asked her what the maximum should be and she said about 12MPs.
I currently do see my newest 16 MP Uploads being offered as TIFFs, so maybe that maximum value has changed over time.
924
« on: May 04, 2011, 06:29 »
I echo Sharpshot on this issue : ''They still haven't sorted out the withholding tax problem for foreign contributors. I'm still not interested in getting an ITIN number just for one small site''
I have a $ 100 + balance that I cannot withdraw 
+1 (though less of a balance, but the same issue)
925
« on: May 04, 2011, 06:28 »
For RF you need some of the booth release conditions:
model release available
model release not necessary
property release available
property release not necessary
But this is not only for Zoonar. You should NEVER do photos into RF, if you are not sure, that you are not offend some copyrigths like design, logo, trademarks and so far, because RF-Photos can be used for all marketing uses. For example: You have a photo with a jogging man who has adidas sneakers (with the three stripes). Some other sport shops buys this photo and adidias will ligitate that. At the end you the photographer have to pay the amount of loss !!
But: At Zoonar you also can release all RM photos to our partners. So I don`t understand your problem...
This is not how the Zoonar website works. You can enter "release NOT available" and still offer as RF. And I could not find any hint that this is not allowed. And I don't see the reasoning. On Zoonar the difference between RM and RF is only the allowed number of usages (RM is one single usage with limited print run and limited lifetime, RF is unlimited). Nothing is specified on the context of the usage. Therefore it does not make any difference (for sales on Zoonar) if an unreleased image is offered RM or RF - there is no restriction on something like editorial only usage. Granted, images with "release not available" are obviously automatically not distributed to some of the partner agencies. But I don't see the legal problem. From the photographers agreement: "Photographer shall guarantee and must prove that persons featured and/or the owner of the rights to this and/or the owner of rights to featured works [e.g. decoration, stage scenery, costumes, (public) buildings, etc.] of the visual or applied art (paintings) and/or its use for artwork has given the required consent also for use of the picture material at a later date by Picture Agency and/or thirdparties. If pictures of people or works for which consent has not been given or which has been given under certain restrictions is submitted to Picture Agency, they shall be identified accordingly by the photographer in clear written form (e.g. with the words not for advertising or with the Model Release option is not available selected). The photographer is liable for the full amount of damages incurred by Picture Agency as a result of missing and/or insufficient identification." Therefore I conclude, that it is my duty to clearly mark pictures without releases as such. Not more.
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 56
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
