MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - Perry

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 57
951
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Strike proposal
« on: September 08, 2010, 06:42 »
1st January: delete all photos

I would never delete my photos from IS. I have too much time invested in uploading and keywording etc.

It would be much better to inform the clients about other sites where photographers are treated more fairly.

952
I have already started on this by posting in a couple of designer's forums about how Getty/iStock treats their photographers and recommended them to go shop elsewhere (SS, DT, FT, Veer) if they want to be more ethical and fair.

A written letter would be a very effective way to make some changes.

953
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 17:13 »
Diversify! I have mentioned this more than several times. If you keep all your eggs in one basket you better hold on tight.

I have my "eggs" in many "baskets". The problem is that iStock is my best "basket"...

955
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 16:51 »
The misery will not stop here: Remember, they can tinker with their royalty targets every year, just to keep us from earning too much. Who knows, the base royalty could be 10% for 2012...

956
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 16:18 »
I just got an urge to upload some images to Alamy...

957
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 15:52 »
Unless I'm misunderstanding this, I'll be earning 17% next year at istock.

20% was pretty low in the industry. Less than that is just a joke.

That's what I calculated mine out as too. Applied to my monthly earnings that 3% drop is a pretty serious hit. I just don't get this.

It's not a "3% drop", it's a 15% drop.

958
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 15:43 »
What does this mean? :
"You will retain the royalty rate from the end of the previous year "

959
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 15:22 »
-- /Double post/ --

960
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 15:17 »
I just started a thread in a local designer's forum about the pay cut for non-exclusives and told them that if they want the photographer to get a more fair payment they should shop their images elsewhere; I also gave links to SS, DT and FT. (I wish SX would still exist...)
I Also mentioned Veer because I think they would like their attitude.

I wish some of you did the same, just to get people to understand that iStock/Getty are greedy *insult removed* that don't care if the photographer will be able to pay his/her bills.

961
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 14:49 »
And yet they dare to say:
"With that overriding objective, we wanted to produce a solution that:
- would not change most contributors' total compensation (except for the better)"

I think for most of the contributors this sucks big time.

15% must be the crappiest compensation ever, anywhere. it's so close to giving images for free.

This new royalty-bullcrap-structure was a great dissappointment...when I started to read the thing I thought I would get MORE than 20%...

962
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 14:45 »
I just started to hate iStock.

They are a bunch of greedy a**holes.

963
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 14:42 »
If I understand this correctly, this will be very VERY BAD NEWS to non-exclusives.

Their new royalty base level will be 15%!!!

For the current crappy 20% you should sell files for 1,400,000 credit (yes, over a million credits)

Please tell me this is just a bad dream... :(

964
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Partner Program Delayed Earnings
« on: September 02, 2010, 09:12 »
If you are really going to do some comparison, why not compare SS to IS+PP, that would be more fair because then both have "pay per downloads" and subscriptions.

Because PP is a separate agency ... and a direct competitor to IS (although of course both are owned by Getty). Would you prefer all your IS commissions to be on the PP instead? If so then carry on supporting the PP.

So you think it's fair to compare the earnings per sale between a subscription site and a (partly) pay-per-download site?

In June, my average payout per download at IS+PP was $1.09

What would it have been if all your sales had been on the PP? Just 25c or a little bit more?

I think only a small portion of clients could switch from a pay-per-download site to a subscription site, and vice versa. Therefore I think your argument is invalid. You should compare a subscription site to another subscription site: At PP you make $0.25, at SS the average is propably something like $0.30-ish. It's still just peanuts.

And no, I don't like the $0.25 at PP, I'd rather get $0.40, but it isn't up to me. I just get a 10% boost on my IS earnings by just ticking a box. I think Oldhand earlier in this thread has the same philosophy as me.
I just want my tiny slice of the PP cake.

965
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Partner Program Delayed Earnings
« on: September 02, 2010, 09:00 »
There's a world of difference. I wish people wouldn't keep quoting 'SS pay 25c' or even 38c when the average payout I receive on SS is actually 57c.

If you are really going to do some comparison, why not compare SS to IS+PP, that would be more fair because then both have "pay per downloads" and subscriptions.

In June, my average payout per download at IS+PP was $1.09

966
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Partner Program Delayed Earnings
« on: September 01, 2010, 11:35 »
I would guess that they bothered because it's extra income... Just a guess.

I would guess it's on a similar level to prostitution then. Less tangible or immediate concepts like self-worth, legitimacy/transparency or long-term health/business can just be ignored ... because it's extra income. Figuratively speaking they knew they were likely to be screwed ... and that's what happened. Heigh-ho.

I don't see the difference between $0.25 sales at Thinkstock and $0.25 sale at - let's say - Shutterstock. I don't think it's fair to call other people prostitutes here, because in a way we are all prostitutes in micro business...

I put my images on IS partner sites because I get about 10% more money from IS that way, without doing anything special, just clicking some boxes... But I'm still dissappointed that it takes weeks to give us the money, I think they either just want to get some interest on our money OR they have suddenly run out of money.

967
Microstock News / Re: The Most Dangerous Thing Invented
« on: August 31, 2010, 17:39 »
Odd how that is, because the people I know have found that they don't need a record company or agent and they can produce and distribute their own CD on the internet, without all the complexities of a studio recording, pressing and record stores to make the album. They can also print the CDs and the covers at home without expensive exuipment.

Are they making a living doing it?

968
Lighting / Re: Isolated photos setup
« on: August 30, 2010, 09:15 »
I use this method, crude but effective and have never had an isolated on white image rejected by istock.
Shoot subject on a white board, outside on a still day, with light cloud.
Take it into Capture NX2, sample the white board with the white picker and set it to 1000% white.
Job done.

Yor method doesn't work if the subject has white parts, or some glossy metallic parts or...
And with your method you don't get crispy textures (as with careful studio lighting). The technical quality could be enough for IS, but carefully lit photos sell much better, I have noticed.

969
Lighting / Re: Isolated photos setup
« on: August 29, 2010, 15:10 »
There is no easy way of doing isolated shots of every object. Everything depends on the object.

If you want quality photographs, you cannot just put a light under the object because it will look just like that: object on a light table. For example if you look at Lastolite's example photo with a tractor, you can see from the tires that the tractor is lit in a bad way.

970
Shutterstock.com / Re: Feeding the beast
« on: August 27, 2010, 06:24 »
If all my photos sold like that, I would have been able to retire by now.

I just did some maths, just for fun. If my all photos sold as my top seller, I would be a multi-millionaire. I don't know if I should cry or laugh when I think about this :)

971
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy gives to charity
« on: August 26, 2010, 17:08 »
The fact that their profits goes to charity is propably also the reason why they don't keep bying smaller stock agencies like Getty does.

972
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy gives to charity
« on: August 26, 2010, 17:03 »
If they're taking this from their share, it's ok.  But doesn't 89% of the profits sound a lot?

They are not taking it from "their share", they are taking it from their profit.
Let's say the photographer gets 60%. Alamy gets 40%. Alamy has to cover their costs, let's say 30% goes to the expenses of running the business, that leaves 10% profit. And if 90% of that goes to charity, that would be 9% of the total cost of an image.

973
Alamy.com / Alamy gives to charity
« on: August 26, 2010, 13:26 »
This fact amazed me... : According to their web page, Alamy gives over 89% of its profits to medical research!
http://www.alamy.com/medical-research.asp

Essentially it's the photographers' money that is given away, but I still don't feel too angry about this :)

974
they are horrifically cliched and lacking sublety. But that's simply the market speaking because contributors tend to produce what is proven to sell and the default search orders reflect the buying habits.

And it's partly also becayuse "shiny happy images" gets more easily accepted...

975
General Midstock / Re: Rodeo doing summer cleaning?
« on: August 24, 2010, 12:41 »
^ Anyka is totally right.

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 57

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors