|
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 - sharpshot
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 263
951
« on: November 13, 2015, 06:16 »
The person at the BBC that got that wrong should wear a dunces hat. Doesn't take a lot of research to see that doesn't look like the KKK. But I'm not a big fan of any of the weird outfits religions wear, did Jesus ever feel the need to dress up like that? Most religions seem to move a long way from their roots and pick and choose what parts of the original teachings they should follow. That's one of the many reasons why I dislike all religions.
952
« on: November 12, 2015, 11:13 »
i heard that you get paid very well on every sale on Stockimo , is that right?
No, I read someone got paid an insignificant amount for a stockimo sale on their forum. Its probably like any other sale with alamy, some are good, some aren't.
953
« on: November 12, 2015, 06:43 »
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.
955
« on: November 10, 2015, 04:01 »
It worked so well the last time Getty was saddled with a huge debt. Not for us but for the hedge fund that sold them to another hedge fund. I really wouldn't want to be exclusive with all this going on.
956
« on: November 10, 2015, 03:54 »
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 
How much have Led Zeppelin paid out in settlements? The family of Marvin Gaye recently won a big legal case, and Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne are now co-writers of "Stay with me". Two of the writers of "The air that I breathe" were made co-writers of "Creep" by Radiohead. George Harrison lost three-quarters of the royalty revenue raised in North America from "My Sweet Lord", as well as a significant proportion from the All Things Must Pass album. So I think if you want to compare images to music, people making images that are obviously based on another persons work and wouldn't of been made if they hadn't seen them first, should pay a price.
957
« on: November 09, 2015, 11:26 »
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.
958
« on: November 09, 2015, 05:09 »
I have your image on my HD at 1500 x 1100 with a very weak watermark I can erase in maybe 40 secs. There ya go.
Isn't that the old watermark? Until every image has the new watermark, I'm not going to judge it. No idea why its taking them so long to change them all. I have no problem with big preview images with a good watermark, like alamy has.
959
« on: November 08, 2015, 05:03 »
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.
960
« on: November 08, 2015, 04:48 »
Moving back on topic a bit...
My only macro experience is with Alamy and Getty.
Alamy so far I'm on the fence about. I got four images accepted a couple months ago and just had a $100 sale. But they just rejected a submission of a few hundred images and gave me a timeout for a month from submitting which I think is pretty lame. From what I've seen most people say they earn $1 per image year with them. So if I had 5,000 images I'd expect $5,000 in a year. Not real good. And with this goofy one-bad-image-everything-gets-rejected model I'm leaning toward pass. I just did another smaller submission and if they fail it again I'm probably done.
Getty is kind of difficult to give an opinion on for me because I never really fully committed to them. I hear some people there make big bucks while others make micro money. My experience was a little of both. One thing to note is once you submit images there about the only way to deactivate any of them is to cancel your contract. So Getty still seems to be the macro leader and you'd probably need to try them to see if it's right for you.
Alamy are very lenient with reviews. I've had 1 rejection in around 2,500 images. Maybe they check new contributors more thoroughly, I did small batches at first because getting them all rejected for 1 image not being accepted would be annoying.
961
« on: November 07, 2015, 14:40 »
4k TV that I've seen looks amazing and they sell a 4k TV for around the same price HD TV's were a few years ago in my local Tesco now. If the internet is going to be too slow, I wonder if there will be 4K rentals like the old VHS and DVD days? Would be easy to put a film on a USB stick in the post.
USB stick so everyone can just make a copy? Probably never, but Ultra HD Bluray players and discs are expected to get released in a few months. Once the porn industry adopts it and they will, it's going to give some momentum to the entire market.
USB sticks can be protected as well as any other medium. Michael Jackson "This Is It" was sold on a hard drive, no difference to a USB.
962
« on: November 07, 2015, 07:09 »
I did upload some to them but gave up when I realised they have very low sales volume. To only get $5 if you get very lucky and sell something doesn't motivate me.
963
« on: November 07, 2015, 07:05 »
4k TV that I've seen looks amazing and they sell a 4k TV for around the same price HD TV's were a few years ago in my local Tesco now. If the internet is going to be too slow, I wonder if there will be 4K rentals like the old VHS and DVD days? Would be easy to put a film on a USB stick in the post.
964
« on: November 05, 2015, 06:22 »
Wow, those are big unprotected images. They might as well call it free unstock. Another crazy idea that's bad for contributors. I knew they didn't care about us but this will cost them as well, what are they thinking?
965
« on: November 04, 2015, 20:20 »
VB has a different model, you have to compete with their wholly owned content that they get 100% from. Why not compare Pond5 to similar sites like SS, istock, FT? Who else pays us 50% and has good sales volume? It might be a fluke that they are in the big 4 but its still something that sites like ClipCanvas and Revostock never came close to achieving. I'm definitely hitting the ignore button now, had enough of reading your drivel.
966
« on: November 04, 2015, 19:39 »
It has been while but they are humans and busy humans and with a ton of uploads and them having to go through each file I can see how things can get bogged down at times...
Yes they are humans, but NOT busy humans!!! They have been around 10 years and they still didn't establish the basics. They are on an eternal vacation while living of our 50%!
Sorry to repeat myself so many times. But it's worth saying it again and again, in hope they might wake up.
Although, I doubt they even visit MSG these days.
So we better complain on their own forums, I think.
Although, better be careful because of this - http://www.microstockgroup.com/canva/after-a-hiatus-they're-deleting-approved-files-again/msg434982/#msg434982
They haven't spent any of my 50% and unless you send yours back, they haven't spent any of yours either. If they can get in to the big 4 in the earnings poll here, I doubt they are on eternal vacation.
967
« on: November 04, 2015, 04:20 »
There's no way I am going to apply again if they aren't giving people the courtesy of a response. I don't like waiting for news that never comes. There's so many other places to sell my images, if they can't treat people that have taken the time to apply with a bit of respect, I wont waste time on them.
I've no idea if they received my first application, I presume they did and they didn't want me but with no communication, its impossible to know that for sure. That doesn't give me any motivation to go through the process again. Even the old agencies used to send out a generic rejection letter, that wasn't nice but was much better than nothing.
968
« on: November 03, 2015, 17:33 »
I really don't care about review times. If they spend more on reviewers, guess who ends up paying for them? If it puts contributors off uploading, that's less competition for me. Some sites do faster reviews but my uploads don't appear in the search for a long time, so that doesn't help.
969
« on: November 02, 2015, 18:10 »
Their video standards aren't that high, they accept all of mine  Sold a few images last month but they would be down in low earners for images only.
970
« on: November 02, 2015, 18:05 »
October was good with SS but I rely on a few big SODS and they don't happen every month. The subs have fallen but that's no surprise as there are so many subs sites now.
971
« on: November 02, 2015, 05:59 »
I'm surprised people were making so much money with Revostock. It looks like they were selling more than I thought. Can't help thinking why did people let them carry on selling their clips if they weren't paying out?
972
« on: November 02, 2015, 05:39 »
Just to show how bad it is for me, with 2,725 images, I sold 5 last week. My best was 87 in a week in 2009. Will try some new uploads but that's not helped in the last few years.
973
« on: November 01, 2015, 19:02 »
I like the way alamy have done it, big preview but with a clear watermark. There's no reason why SS can't get this right. They have been my favourite microstock site from day 1 but this makes them look incompetent. Reminds me so much of how istock started to ruin their reputation, I still hope SS don't make the same mistakes but the most basic of things, a watermark, should be easy to get right.
974
« on: October 31, 2015, 07:32 »
So is it just me that has seen no improvement? Starting to get paranoid
975
« on: October 30, 2015, 19:10 »
FT is still almost dead for me.
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 263
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
