|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 291
926
« on: October 14, 2020, 10:59 »
I was busy searching the free collection to see what the competition is for those of us who hope to continue licensing our work.
A couple of observations:
-Every agency which has started a free collection has said it would drive traffic to the agency and thus boost sales. I've never seen any evidence that it worked out like that.
-The Adobe Stock free collection - conveniently there's a drop-down so. you can search only that image type - is less helpful than the free agencies which Adobe Stock, Shutterstock & others have affiliate links with. At least there, there's a line of images top and bottom for the paid content with the free stuff in the middle. There is nothing directing users to paid content while searching the free content
- Connected to the above, the free section has content from Wavebreak media (~14,200 images in WavebreakMediaMicro and wavebreak3), Rawpixel.com (over 10,000), Wirestock (~5,300), Gstudio (~4,000), Jeremy Bishop (~4,000), Good Studio (~3,000), Artinspiring (~4,000), Caia Image (~4,000), Jacob Lund (~7,000), Visual Generation (~4,000) Hero Images (~7,000), Morgan (111). This is all high quality content, largely indistinguishable from the paid content.
- When a search in the free section turns up one or two results, there's a blank page underneath. Wouldn't offering content from the paid section to fill up the page make sense? Isn't offering your paid license content a reasonable option when there is not much in the free section?
- When there's nothing in the free section for a search, content from paid sections is shown, as is a line of totally unrelated images from the free section! Why continue to promote the free section with random images?
About the only good news from a purely personal point of view is that most of the type of content I offer isn't covered in the free section, but I can't see how contributors (other than those who got paid to create this collection) will benefit, short term or long.
927
« on: October 09, 2020, 13:59 »
I had a small portfolio with Pond5 for several years and sold photos for $12 (full size) and PSDs (only a few; they're more template-like) for $25. In June I uploaded most of the rest of my portfolio there and changed all the photo prices to $10 (full size).
I have opted out of the various partner deals -which is possibly why, after 2 sales in July, it's been nothing since. Given that Pond5 will reduce prices if they want to, I don't see any reason to lower mine further.
As far as the $449 - $795, there are distribution agencies such as Westend61, Mint Images, Blend Images and a host of others who license via Getty and the high price collections at 123rf, Shutterstock, Adobe, etc. Their prices are the same everywhere. I don't honestly see how it works to mix all these prices together, and Pond5's price slider in searches has such a tiny space for lower prices, it's hard to say you only want to look at images $25 and below.
928
« on: October 09, 2020, 11:37 »
I saved the URL for my image - that gives a 404 error today For the portfolio link I see this amusing suggestion that I should check for spelling errors or typos to see results  And no reply yet from support at iStock...
929
« on: October 07, 2020, 15:56 »
Today his portfolio is still visible but clicking on individual images brings up a - 404 error page
I saw that when checking just now. However, I have not heard squat from iStock support, in spite of their message saying they'd respond within 24 "business hours"...
930
« on: October 04, 2020, 18:53 »
I catch it.
Did i still need the property release if i totally photoshop the background of the pic??
If you can't see the property in question - either because of a shallow depth of field, how you framed the photo or because you replaced the background, then no, you don't need a property release. The release relates to what's shown in the image and if it's not shown, then there's nothing to need a release. This photo, as an example, could have been shot anywhere, so I didn't provide a property release and no agency has ever asked for one https://stock.adobe.com/images/joys-of-gardening-pruning-the-azaleas/131420021This one was on private property I didn't have a release for, but was framed so it didn't become an issue https://stock.adobe.com/images/young-girl-enjoying-a-boat-ride-leaning-out-for-a-better-view/131610755This one needed and has a property release as well as model releases, but if the fire and wall were photoshopped in, then you'd be fine with just the model releases https://stock.adobe.com/images/family-by-the-fire/130685183Does that make it more clear?
931
« on: October 04, 2020, 11:53 »
I found one of mine too - I just reported it.
Thanks for posting the link. It's depressing that agencies don't do more work to verify the first number of uploads of new contributors; they could catch most thieves that way...
932
« on: October 01, 2020, 15:20 »
That is good news. Thanks for posting updates here.
Peter, if you're reading, thank you for thinking more about it and changing your mind. It's much appreciated.
I'm fine leaving my work there until after the 17th and then requesting the $39.95 (or whatever it is then).
933
« on: September 25, 2020, 15:19 »
There are a few other threads here like yours. I think you can use the email [email protected] to contact them via email to ask for assistance Is this you? https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/200745242/gunnar3000If so, you might have a balance awaiting you In other words the portfolio migrated from Fotolia even though you weren't able to log in & check on things
934
« on: September 24, 2020, 18:29 »
Thanks for following up with Peter.
So customers get a refund of balances but unpaid contributors are left out? Not sure why contributors are the group selected to take the losses.
I have a new rule for my "fair agency" list: All contributor balances are to be kept in an escrow account, separated from general funds.
It also makes it clear how important it is for new/small/low sales agencies to have a low payment threshold...
I'd also add Peter and his partner to the "never again" list - never deal with any agency they're associated with. Honeyed words up front; stab in the back on the way out
935
« on: September 24, 2020, 16:14 »
A short update to my site's status. It's no longer a Symbiostock site.
I received email a week or so ago that in mid October, Bluehost (my hosting company) will be requiring an update to PhP as 5.x is considered a security risk.
Up till now, I've been editing the htaccess file to keep the PhP version at 5.x but as that will no longer be an option, my Symbiostock site's done.
I have a placeholder for now so the blogs are still available, and for fun, I added FAA's cart widget to the home page so a visitor can get an idea of my work. I'm working on bringing licensing back - not a high volume proposition, I know, but I want to have a place to license work where I don't have to (a) share with agencies and (b) can upload something in real time should the need arise.
936
« on: September 24, 2020, 13:24 »
...Ones reached the payout limit, I will not yet ask for the money! I wait until I reached the double and will ask to pay me the half of it. ...
In general, I would advise against leaving money with any agency once you can collect it. There's only one place the money is within your control and that's when it's in your bank account. Interest rates are at the moment at historic lows, but more typically, someone will earn money on the balance in your account; I'd rather it be me and not the agency.
937
« on: September 24, 2020, 11:09 »
I received the same email this morning.
It's very disappointing that an agency with an emphasis of being fair to the contributors has decided to take this path. Even if money is tight, offering a percentage (as bankrupt companies do) would be better than nothing.
I completely understand that the normal course of business imposes a wait for $50 before payment, but when they decide to wind up the business - effectively removing the option for contributors of waiting for the next payout - I think the only right course of action is to pay contributors any balance.
An ignominious end for the creators of StockXpert...
938
« on: September 23, 2020, 14:50 »
Bizarrely, if you search Lise Gagne on SS, you get over 57k images..
Literal English translation of her name = Lise Wins I think the connection to the search results is having win or winner in the description or keywords
939
« on: September 23, 2020, 13:27 »
My earnings are stuck at 49.40 at Stockfresh. Is it allowable for me to have my son purchase a photo to put me over the 50.00 limit
I have asked support (no answer yet) about whether contributors with a balance lower than $50 at the time they close (Oct 17) will be paid. The email about closing said that we had until Nov 1 to request payment and made it sound as though that would be regardless of the balance. Mine is $39.95 now, but other than one sale after the closure announcement, I haven't seen other activity (I had hoped perhaps buyers with credits to use up might bring a little boost to the balance). Perhaps wait just a bit - you have until October 17th to have your son make a purchase (and I can't imagine there'd be any blowback - after all, what would they do? Close your account? )
940
« on: September 23, 2020, 10:59 »
What's happened?
If you mean to Lauren Rinder, he closed his account and left. He's been around microstock almost from the beginning, and is a very talented photographer, but is very impatient & volatile. Periodic blow-ups and walk-outs are part of the scenery. If you were wondering if it was something you said, no worries
941
« on: September 23, 2020, 10:55 »
...Their practice are almost scam-like.
This is just to inform guys in similar situation, not to expect any human considerations from Dreamstime.
It's a shame that things weren't working out for you with Dreamstime, but I strongly disagree that their practices are "almost scam-like". I still have my account open with them - and in May I did a catch-up upload of recent files when they behaved in a very thoughtful way and increased contributor royalties by 10% because of the Covid-19 pandemic. I had no illusions that suddenly sales would go back to where they had once been, but as they were the only agency behaving with consideration for contributors hurt by the pandemic, it seemed I should update my portfolio to give them more to sell. It is absolutely true that whereas I could once make payout multiple times a month, it now takes months to reach $100. Dreamstime has always paid me in a timely way (I've been there since 2004 with a gap from 2008-11). If you argued that given their current level of sales, Dreamstime should cut payout to $50, I'd agree wholeheartedly. However I can wait to reach $100 (and you could have too if you just let files sit - what harm would that have caused?).
942
« on: September 21, 2020, 17:11 »
How this can happen (my theory):
They buy many different pics like this. Then they open model release and add these pics to ads, which will see people in area from model release. For example you are 25 y.o. man from texas and they show their ad with your photo to all texas people in that age range (20-30s).
But it's too tricky 🙂
Most likely they just show it to many people like someone mentioned before.
None of the agencies make model releases available to buyers. They will confirm that there is one on file, but anything more would be totally unprofessional.
943
« on: September 20, 2020, 21:24 »
The way Facebook's ad placement works, the person who licensed your images isn't the one who picks which specific FB users see an ad. They can set general criteria (people in a certain country or area, people of a certain age group, male vs female, etc.) but not who. It's likely that you and your friends are in the demographic the ad is targeting and it's no more complicated that that. I hope your friends are savvy enough to ignore ads like this, even with your picture in it You should read what a royalty free license is - a purchaser can use the licensed image as many times as they like."Shutterstock hereby grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use, modify (except as expressly prohibited herein) and reproduce Visual Content worldwide, in perpetuity," https://www.shutterstock.com/license
944
« on: September 19, 2020, 14:46 »
The $30 fee is still there https://fineartamerica.com/membershipplans.htmlI stopped paying for several years (I didn't upload). I kept all the uploads I already had and received my payment on sales (just not the accessory commission you get if you're a "premium" member). I wanted to add some more work there, so I re-upped my fee to allow me to upload again.
945
« on: September 18, 2020, 19:21 »
I have to print the photos and send them, or someone else will do it in the Fine Art America web page give print service?
Fine Art America does all the printing and shipping. You just collect your share from them - they pay out on the 15th of each month automatically.
946
« on: September 18, 2020, 16:08 »
I don't know Fine Arts America, but it sell for good price? Can i sell landscape photos i have in microstock there? People from Venezuela can sell there?
Thanks!
You can sell prints or print-on-demand items (tote bags, greetings cards, etc.) via Fine Art America and you get to set the markup. In other words, if their cost to print an item on canvas is $25, you get to set your markup (let's say $10) and the resulting price for the buyer is $35. You can use microstock images - nothing is exclusive - but bear in mind what sells is something people want to look at (versus some of the useful shots that do well for stock agencies). I don't know of any reason they couldn't allow a contributor from Venezuela, but you have to be able to receive payments via PayPal. https://fineartamerica.com/termsofuse.html?document=contributortermsofuseIf you start with a free account, you can only upload 25 items and see how things go. If you want to upload more, you need the premium account at $30 per year.
947
« on: September 17, 2020, 21:41 »
Not many takers so far...
I honestly think that asking for uploads when you haven't decided on pricing is a huge mistake. How would anyone know what sort of content to give you when you won't say much more than "cheap-ish" vs "expensive-ish" regarding pricing?
948
« on: September 17, 2020, 09:11 »
I am at 47$ and they will not pay me and will hold my money?
Or am I missing something?
They say they will make a payout in the last paragraph.
I wrote to support to clarify. In the last paragraph, they don't explicitly say that they'll make payout under $50, although that's what I think is likely. I'll post an answer here.
949
« on: September 16, 2020, 15:39 »
After a very long hiatus, I've been uploading there today. So far (other than the clunky UI) everything is working as expected). Mac OS, Chrome Browser
950
« on: September 13, 2020, 11:48 »
Weird how on the Stock Coalition Facebook page under his Calling for Entries post the option to comment is turned off.
And there is no reaction from the OP.
If you read all the comments, you'll see one from me - I turned off comments. The Coalition group isn't a place to advertise your business. I posted a link in that comment to this thread so anyone who was interested could read the discussion here.
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 291
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
