|
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 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 56
926
« on: May 03, 2011, 18:47 »
They shouldn't ding you for releases that you weren't able to attach before you uploaded. And to my knowledge they don't do this. However, there is one aspect of German law you need to keep in mind. Unlike Shutterstock, and IS you can't submit editorial images as RF. You must submit them as RM. ALL RF must have model and property releases...editorial included.
I don't think that's true. You don't have to have releases at all. It is ultimately the buyer's problem to figure out if a release is required for his usage. Your responsibility is only to make a correct statement as to whether a release exists or not. If you can point me the the aspect of German law you're referring I would be interested to see that. And Zoonar does not require you to upload releases at all, neither do you have to make a choice between editorial or commercial. From their FAQs: "You are not required to add model or property releases at Zoonar. But we reserve the right to ask for a release if your photos are sold for commercial purposes. It is, however, important that you use the correct release settings for your photos or else they cant be sold. If you have a release for one of your photos assign it to the photo in question in the Manage pictures section. Use the drop down menu and select is available. If you dont have a release select is NOT available and if a release is not necessary (only appropriate for photos that neither show people as primary subjects nor copyright protected objects, designs, works of art, buildings and registered trademarks) select not necessary" Essentially this is the best way to deal with the problem, leave it where it belongs (at the buyer).
927
« on: April 18, 2011, 12:27 »
Oh I'll do it, I guess. I isn't quite the thumbscrew that IS's "controlled vocabulary" is, but it's still a lot of work for the dim possibility of a sale. And all those licensing options that have to be set... every time... even though they're the same for all my images...
You can at least set the options once for a complete batch. Makes it a bit easier... (select all, drag them down to the lower pane of the window, click attributes, make your changes, save them and you're done).
928
« on: April 07, 2011, 04:46 »
Chelsey, thanks for providing clarification. This is more or less how I thought it would work. And this is also why I think it is inappropriate that the contributor will not get his cut from this new type of extended license. What you essentially do is selling an insurance product towards your customer and you get paid an insurance premium. In the case that the insurance is needed, you turn back to the contributor (or at least you reserve your right to do so) to pay the damages. But the contributor did not participate in the premium. The real question is relates to this sentence: If we find that there is some defect in a release or image, even after performing our due diligence, we will provide our financial obligation to the customer, and do have the right to come back to the contributor due to a breach of agreement on their part.
Who defines if it is your due diligence that failed (=your responsibility to pay) or the contributors fault (=you will get back to him/her). I can certainly accept responsibility in case I have knowingly provided false information (e.g. a forged release) - which obviously I don't do  But who is responsible in case of a mistake? E.g. no release was provided but the end result is that one would have been required? That should be a case where only you are responsible - you should have rejected the image otherwise. My responsibility should be to clearly provide you with the information if a release is available - not more. The ultimate judgement if a release is required may be a difficult question, and you (and you alone) making money with guaranteeing exactly that judgement towards the customer while at the same time passing responsibility for that onto the contributor is the major problem in my opinion. So what you should do in my mind: - pay the contributor their share of that additional income - provide an opt-out for that kind of EL OR - clearly state in the contributor agreement that you are not entitled to reclaim any damages out of such contract for any case other than the contributor knowingly providing false statements on existing releases / forged releases. Regards, Dirk
929
« on: March 31, 2011, 11:10 »
Does anyone know how to say "PM SUCKS" in German?
"PM ist beschissen" / "PM ist Scheie" / "PM kotzt mich an"... There are certainly a lot more variations... 
930
« on: March 31, 2011, 06:50 »
I've got mine in my account, but the result is nothing to write home about...
It's about a quarter of what I received for my first quarter in the third party program in 2009 and about 50% down from the last payout. 
No offence Dirkr, but are you sure that's the Third party sales and not just a regular sale? That happened to me last time when I got 5euro in my account just before the Third party ones were due -and I was dissapointed as well until I realised it was a (rather good) regular sale. Did you get an email from Jan saying your Third party sales have been posted? No one else is reporting anything yet. Regards, David.
I did not receive any e-mail, but it wasn't a regular sale either. The money appeared (as the did last time) not under sales but under referral income. And as far as I know I do not have anyone referred to the site (at least it doesn't show that). So I assumed that it was the third party sales. It could be referral income, but then the information about having anybody as referral is either wrong or missing.
931
« on: March 31, 2011, 02:42 »
When did Fotolia start selling such plans?
I've never seen or heard about it either.
How is such a plan purchased? When I go through the subscription buying process I cannot see this annual thing...
That's what I would like to know as well. The only reference I have ever seen is the one I posted above. And Lisa's post here is the first time I ever heard of someone actually selling one of those. What bothers me: If those plans pay so much more to the contributor, there must be more behind it, it cannot be just the same type of sale like a regular sub sale. And just calling it "annual subscription" does not say anything, they do have annual options in their regular subs plans.
932
« on: March 30, 2011, 17:30 »
If you look at FT's website and scroll down a bit, there is a paragraph about "Annual limit subscription plans". The royalties for one of those for an emerald contributor (like Lisa) are stated to be 2.5 Credits. I have absolutely no idea what these plans are and neither had any of those sales yet.
933
« on: March 30, 2011, 17:13 »
I've got mine in my account, but the result is nothing to write home about... It's about a quarter of what I received for my first quarter in the third party program in 2009 and about 50% down from the last payout.
934
« on: March 30, 2011, 07:12 »
To add to the confusion, subscriptions are sold at different prices in different currencies (e.g. a one-month subscription here in Germany is sold for 199 which at current exchange rates is about $280).
935
« on: March 23, 2011, 18:52 »
Hi everyone,
We'd like to let you know about a new extended protection plan we're offering to our customers.
Veer customers can now get extra peace of mind when purchasing images. Options to extend licenses are listed on every product page, and the extended protection plan is now included. Veers Customer Protection Plan comes with free coverage up to $10,000. Now, customers can purchase additional protection for 100 credits. With the extended plan, they receive up to $250,000 coverage if a claim is made against their use of Veer content (as long as they stick to the terms of the End User License Agreement). Unlike license extensions, this option has no affect on your royalties Veer assumes all the risk.
This is a great new development in our product offering. If you have any further questions, please dont hesitate to contact us at [email protected].
Cheers,
Chelsey
So, if you assume all the risk, does this mean paragraphs V B (*) and VI (**) of the contributor agreement are void? Because that's what I see as the likely use case for such a legal guarantee: A photo contains some copyrighted content, the copyright holder goes after the end user (and the photographer may have not even known that there is some protected content). So in this case, you would "assume all the risk" meaning you will never come back to the photographer? Or more clearly, whatever I upload to you, my responsibility is to clearly state what release I have or if I have none, after that it is YOUR responsibility to either reject an image (if it may contain critical content) or not license it in a way that might bring up legal problems (e.g. sell as editorial only) or, in the worst case, "assume all the risk" and pay for any damage done. Is this correct? Because if not (and I have still the responsibility to determine IF I need a release, and still will be liable IF I don't have one, it slips through your review, an end user gets into trouble) you would NOT be "assuming all the risk"... I would be interested in an answer.... P.S: (*) V B. You also warrant that for any Content you submit to Veer that contains recognizable persons and/or depicts property with unique intellectual property rights, that you have obtained and have provided Veer with fully-executed, valid and binding model and/or property releases from all parties in substantially the same form as Veer then-current authorized model and/or property release form located on the Site. You will provide to Veer copies of releases for all Content submitted as model and/or property released. You further warrant and represent that model and/or property release information is accurate and complete and that Veer may use such Content without obtaining any additional consents or permissions or the payment of additional fees to third parties. (**) VI. Indemnification You agree to indemnify, save, and hold Veer, its affiliates (and their respective successors, officers, directors, employees, directors and representatives) and authorized partners harmless from any and all claims, demands, costs, losses, penalties, interest and damages (including reasonable attorneys fees, expert witness fees and expenses) arising out of or in connection with any claim by a third party (including Users) to the extent such claim would (i) constitute a breach of the representations, warranties and obligations set forth in this Agreement, or (ii) arise out of the use of the Site or any materials or services provided by Veer and its affiliates by you.
936
« on: March 23, 2011, 16:59 »
That sounds too logical to be true. We're still talking of Istock, aren't we?  I think they will only lower the targets when they are afraid they could lose too much support from their contributors, probably looking only at a very tight selection of (top) contributors. So I think it's a big step to conclude that tells something about overall sales levels. As far as I can tell all those target setting is a big black box nobody outside of Istock knows anything about. Maybe it tells less about how sales numbers developed compared to their projection but more how contributor reactions developed compared to their projection... But of course that could be all wrong as well.
937
« on: March 23, 2011, 16:16 »
Dumb question (not that it would affect me anymore ): Why do you believe Istock's setting of the RC targets tells anything about their sales performance?
938
« on: March 19, 2011, 18:19 »
Are they supposed to trust your word that even though you submit to X sites, this particular image is only on IS?
Yes they are. If I have a business partnership with an agency they are supposed to trust my word when I tell them something. How can you assume that should not be the case?
939
« on: March 19, 2011, 17:41 »
Our approach at Pixmac is to bring higher volume of sales to all YayMicro contributors instantly.
Higher volume of sales instantly? You're very optimistic. That can't be based on your past experience. You had my portfolio up both from DT and FT (yes, duplicates, your duplicate detection did not work) when they still had their partnership with you active. Both of those portfolios sold exactly one file each over several months. I think that says enough.
940
« on: March 18, 2011, 19:17 »
Thanks for answering Linda.
Where I see a benefit in such distribution partnerships is when the partner is an agency I cannot simply submit to myself, i.e. a market / customers I otherwise would possibly not reach.
But if it is an agency like Pixmac, that easily lets me submit my content on my own account (if I wish to do so), it would just mean a reduction of my share of the sales price and makes no sense at all.
That's why I prefer to have full control of where my images go to and full transparency about the conditions. I hope you can provide those two things.
941
« on: March 17, 2011, 17:57 »
BTW - how the heck do you get the little icons at the bottom here showing your ports?
Go to your profile (link in the header row of the site), click on "forum profile information", fill in the details per site. Can't tell you nothing about vectors, I only do photos...
942
« on: March 17, 2011, 17:53 »
Will the opt-out be specific per Partner? There are lengthy discussions about Pixmac (as a - former - distributor of DT, FT, 123RF) in this forum, much of that not really positive...
Some more points:
You say "The commission is as it is on our site - you get 50% of what we get on all single image sales! "
But what do you get? The full sale price? or is the photographer cut in the end 50% of 50% or less? What are the price points of the partners? Is further distribution allowed (if the partner has further partnerships)?
If all these points are made transparent and an opt-out option per partner is available that would be great.
943
« on: March 08, 2011, 17:04 »
I wonder if it makes any difference except when the sun light is pointing directly towards the lens.
That is the only time when lens hood does NOT help.
But every time any light gets in the lens from the sides it's bad for the contrast.
Decent lens hoods is one of the reasons why I shoot with primes (zooms doesn't have very effective lens hoods due to obvious reasons)
See the difference?
The second one is technically ok, but I'd still say LCV On topic: I always use the lens hood.
944
« on: March 08, 2011, 09:29 »
Sales a rare and long in between. But today (only three days after I got the one of the Telekom deal mentioned above for 20 Euros) I had another sale, via APIS, 21 Euros my cut. For a file that is on the site in the Microstock price range. Not bad...
That got me my second payout, still a low performing site, but better than some of the low earners for me.
945
« on: March 08, 2011, 07:59 »
That was a special deal they made (and obviously Deutsche Telekom was the buyer). You should have gotten an e-mail in advance indicating what picture they intend to buy and for what usage, and you had to agree.
That's how it worked for me. It's been a while ago that they asked, and now the deal seems to have settled.
946
« on: March 01, 2011, 16:12 »
I have changing numbers from month to month.
Jan 2010: 0,65
Feb 2010: 1,22
2010 monthly average: 0,85
Jan 2011: 1,47
Feb 2011: 1,13
All in Euros. For me Fotolia is still one of the best agencies (with shutterstock).
947
« on: February 25, 2011, 14:43 »
Cool. Just requested a payout, was sitting between $30 and $50 
948
« on: February 23, 2011, 11:59 »
Smaller firms or individuals are price sensitive and like to shop around and might have more time to look for their images. Larger firms have the budget or have one main account (which i believe is istock) where time is more important. I dont think a big firm would have two micro accounts but i might be wrong.
What if out of 100 buyers, 70 are price sensitive while the other 30 are not. The 30 buyers as a whole, outspends the price sensitive buyers by more than 2-8 times. I would like to showcase my stuff to these 30 buyers. These numbers are just made up but highly plausible to me.
By showing your work to the 70 price sensitive buyers you are not taking it away from the other 30. On the other hand, you reach those of the 30 that only have one account, but not at the agency of your choice. That's how I see it: Those that stay with one agency you can only reach when you are represented on that agency. Those who shop around you can only reach when you are broadly represented. The beauty of non-exlcusivity. The exclusive bonus at any given agency has to make up the loss of both those buyers that stick to one (other) agency and those that shop around. My own figures have never indicated that exclusivity would be better, but it's hard to know if my assumptions are right.
949
« on: February 23, 2011, 09:29 »
Question: Are we cannibalizing our own sales?
Answer: If WE don't cannibalize our own sales, someone else will. Or, a little less drastic: I am sure that the advantage to have an image available at many different outlets (with many different customers) dramatically outweighs the disadvantage of sometimes selling an image at a lower price point due to a customer specifically shopping for the lowest price of a specific image. That said, for me personally there are some limits to this sales model. And these are where I feel that I am getting a bad deal. TS was such an example, as they a) set out to sell at very low rate (25c) and b) this move was a direct commission cut (as the same images sold for 30c before the StockXpert closure. The next example was IS, where I felt that just accepting the commission cut was not something I wanted to do, so I pulled my port. These two actions (not opting in to TS, pulling out from IS) may even be economical nonsense given what I said above, but luckily I am in no way depending on money made from stock so I have the freedom to make emotional decisions...
950
« on: February 17, 2011, 10:29 »
As an independant I must say this, IS and Fotolia and Shutterstock, are STILL producing good sales, lots of ELs, etc. So why on earth would anybody want to divert trafic away??
might as well put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. Its cheaper.
Maybe because it's not diverting traffic "away" but diverting traffic "somewhere else, somewhere where the pay is better"? Does this make more sense to you? As to the whole talk about RPD: I think that's the wrong metric when thinking about where to direct buyers. Assuming everything else equal (i.e. well established site where buyers may already have accounts etc) I would (if I could) direct buyers to the site with the highest commission percentage. Why? Using RPD implicitely assumes that the number of images bought is a constant - it measures your revenue "per download". Commission percentage measures your revenue "per budget spent". And I would assume the majority of buyers works on a limited budget - higher prices may mean higher RPD, but also lower download numbers. So in the long run we are better of if buyers go to sites with a higher share for us, even if these may have a lower RPD.
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 56
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
