|
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 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... 263
976
« on: October 29, 2015, 05:51 »
I agree EmberMike. There's so many other agencies to sell that don't make life complicated for us. I deactivated my portfolio at the start of the year and I don't regret it.
977
« on: October 29, 2015, 05:37 »
I think they probably thought that a lot of their video buyers would be interested in stills. They obviously spent money bringing in the video buyers, as they sell such a lot. Hopefully they will get more image buyers, if they start using video more, Pond5 is the ideal site to buy both. I'm sure many of us have bigger video portfolios with Pond5 than the micros because they have 50% commission, easier reviews, our own pricing and lots of buyers.
978
« on: October 29, 2015, 05:26 »
They aren't interested in adjustments to contrast and saturation. You only need to tick digitally altered if you have removed or added something to the photo that makes it an unrealistic representation. I think you can clone out a bird or use HDR but can't remove a building or anything that is permanently in the scene. The question has been asked a few times in their forum and they have given replies, so worth a search there.
979
« on: October 28, 2015, 19:36 »
Sales might increase a bit the longer they are there but they aren't completive with the top sites for stills. I still upload to them because I can set my own price and get 50%, so when they do sell, I get more than with most of the micros.
980
« on: October 28, 2015, 12:03 »
Signed it. There's no reason why they can't do this properly, to give their buyers a good preview but stop people just taking large images for free. Sites much smaller than SS have achieved this. If they can't sort something as basic as this out, I really do wonder about the future of SS.
981
« on: October 26, 2015, 13:31 »
No change for me, SS is doing great while FT is almost dead.
982
« on: October 26, 2015, 09:22 »
Most contributors would declare and pay tax if they received their earnings, so if they spent that money instead of paying out, isn't the tax man losing out as well?
983
« on: October 26, 2015, 08:23 »
Well, the owner frequently posted "excuse" posts saying he couldn't pay, because they needed the money for marketing and other costs. So yes, they spent OUR money, which, if not illegal, at least is a breach of contract.
If they have spent all the money, I'm not sure how they will explain it to the tax man. I'm not a legal expert but I wouldn't like to of spent money that should of had tax paid on it. Hopefully they haven't been that reckless.
984
« on: October 26, 2015, 04:46 »
Does the money owed to people belong to Revostock or the contributors? I presume it isn't Revostocks money. Some sites might get away with not paying out below a payment threshold but how can they do this when its a much larger amount of money? Where have Revostock said that they have spent the money owed to contributors? Aren't their laws against that?
985
« on: October 25, 2015, 16:19 »
I think it's pretty obvious at what's going on. They are slowly removing contributor content so they don't have to pay contributors.
They got about $7 million in funding in May but the CEO won't disclose how many people are paying. And even if they are, the contributors are getting a nice cut and they can't live with cut. With the growing number of contributor submissions, their server bill is getting massive and that $7 Million isn't going to last very long if they keep hiring people.
I don't think so because even though I have less images, they are making me more money. Its like the opposite of what normally happens when a site becomes popular and gets millions of images and the sales are diluted. I'm still not sure how it works for buyers though, aren't they going to find it hard to find what they want on Canva?
986
« on: October 24, 2015, 14:02 »
They have a lot of video buyers, not many stills buyers yet. Hopefully they will get more stills buyers. I presume the poll results are mostly from video contributors. Quite impressive to be almost in the big 4. No idea why KnowYourOnions hates them so much, Pond5 are one of the few that have kept 50% commission and decent sales, that's all that matters to me. If you aren't selling stills with them, try video clips. Sales take a while to get going but its worth it.
987
« on: October 23, 2015, 18:27 »
That's sad Jo Ann. Its nice to be able to vent a little bit here sometimes. Most sites let us say almost whatever we want about them because they aren't that concerned about an individuals opinion. If someone goes too far over a period of time, they are asking to have their account closed but this doesn't seem like that situation.
Funny how the pattern of sites having good communications and being nice to their contributors until they get established but then turning on them keeps repeating. I'm going to concentrate even more on the few sites that have been good to work with all along.
988
« on: October 23, 2015, 05:39 »
Did he sell a lot of shares at a higher price? Would be great if he took it private again, I just don't feel comfortable having seen what happens when a hedge fund takes over.
989
« on: October 22, 2015, 08:34 »
I dont like image theft any more than anyone else. But I need to ask how this is going to hurt me? Legitimate SS customers are high volume consumers. They are not going to cancel their accounts and start pirating images. The criminals who do this are not our customers. No I dont want them stealing my work, but I see it as a risk of doing business. I would rather a buyer see my work in full size and look for more of my content risking some theft. Just another opinion.
If you don't mind seeing your images being sold on DVD's on ebay or being uploaded to sites by theives as if they created them or any of the other ways image thieves make money then fine but I think it should be possible to have a large preview that still has a visible watermark on all images.
990
« on: October 22, 2015, 06:33 »
I saw this reply from SS in their forum vincent shutterstock
Admin/Moderator
Administrators
1,558 posts
LocationShutterstock Mothership
Posted Today, 12:00 AM
As always we appreciate feedback from our contributor community on changes we make in our marketplace. To drive more download opportunities, we are implementing a new watermark design. The new design, which we collaborated on with members of our contributor community, provides additional protection for your images that have an off-center focal point and for vector images overall.
While weve found that the new watermark provides additional protection weve also identified a small sub-set of images where the watermark could be more pronounced. We are adjusting the watermark on these images.
Our goal is to protect your content and drive value in our marketplace. We will keep you updated on progress as we continue to implement this change No idea why the members of the contributor community or themselves didn't see that some images are unprotected by this watermark but hopefully they will fix it quick.
991
« on: October 22, 2015, 05:00 »
Still can't quite believe they didn't test this and see how useless it is for a lot of images. And not withdrawing it when they now know for sure that a lot of images are unprotected makes this worse. At a time when so many contributors are quitting microstock, this just isn't good enough.
992
« on: October 21, 2015, 12:43 »
993
« on: October 21, 2015, 09:42 »
It's no joke. I really quit. I'm busy working on more dignified and lucrative pursuits. Believe it or not.
You came to a forum about microstrock with people who work microstock to say, you don't do this. Makes no sense.
It does if they're a troll. They must get fed well here because they keep coming back.
994
« on: October 18, 2015, 03:45 »
I can't help thinking that at one time Yuri could of opened a site for everyone and it would probably be bigger than SS and istcok by now. It would of been a huge gamble but I think it would of worked. Maybe that's one reason why he isn't popular here? There was something he could of done to help most of us and I don't blame him for going exclusive but can't help but think we could all be much better off if he had taken full advantage when he was at his peak of popularity with contributors and buyers.
Going exclusive wiped out that popularity with a lot of non-exclusives who see Getty/istock as a greedy site that has to keep its investors happy at their expense.
995
« on: October 14, 2015, 05:50 »
Dear Ladies and Gents.
While we are all entitled to our own opinion, please lets tone down the swearing and name calling. I would love to continue this discussion in a positive manner in the comments section of the post on my site. Don't just sit around with your complaint buddies and shoulder pat each other on this forum. If you mean the things you say, put it in a good argument, and I will happily respond.
http://arcurs.com/2015/10/a-closer-look-at-adobe-stock/
He can't of read this thread and then he patronises us and asks us to visit his website. I don't think so. No need to read the thoughts of someone who I have lost all respect for.
996
« on: October 06, 2015, 06:14 »
Perhaps the only way to defeat the gun lobby is to let them have their way in a few of the more conservative states? Tourists and more sensible US citizens could stay away until they realise that arming almost everyone is just going to make it even worse. It baffles me why people would want to give guns to more lunatics but the only way to defeat the argument might be to let them see what will happen. How else can this endless argument about guns in the US be resolved.
997
« on: October 03, 2015, 03:37 »
If something like google glass took off, I think it would kill most use of vertical video. Are we really going to be walking around looking at a small screens and bumping in to things in 10 years time? Then there's VR, vertical isn't going to be much use when people are using thinkg like the oculus rift. So I'm not sure the vertical market can ever get much bigger than it is now and there's a good chance it will shrink substantially. 360 video interests me a lot more.
998
« on: September 30, 2015, 04:34 »
Pond5 is the best for me. SS are quite a way behind and the others I use only have the occasional sale.
999
« on: September 25, 2015, 03:24 »
Fun fact, I deactivated my portfolio months ago, looks like I am not the only one, as they have sunk in the earnings poll. Until they go back to being what they really are, an agency, they wont be selling any of my images. They failed to understand the implications of selling direct for lots of contributors that make them a potential nightmare since the European VAT rules changed.
1000
« on: September 19, 2015, 16:17 »
I use a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 but if you want to use your canon glass, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 with an adapter is probably the best option. Lots of interesting reading here and in their forum if you want more options. http://www.eoshd.com/
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... 263
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
