|
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 - weirdvis
1
« on: September 14, 2010, 07:21 »
Let's get this topic back on track with the excellent post by Microbius below;
This is crazy, they are just starting out so of course they are prioritising uploads. I would guess that they have been fast tracking those who would add most value to the collection. I appreciate that you spend quite a lot of time blogging and commenting on microstock but the size/ success of the image portfolios of those people complaining don't seem to place them in the fast track category.
This just makes good business sense, if you are trying to attract new buyers you don't wont the few files it is possible to review at this stage (because of time involved) to be mediocre.
This is the usual thing that happens where we over-hype a new agency then blame them when they don't live up to our hype. Give them a chance!!
And before you start singing the praises of Depositphotos I suggest you track down the threads on here discussing their links with Depositfiles, FD went out his way to do a lot of research into these companies' backgrounds and what he found was disturbing to say the least (google "depositphotos depositfiles" as the threads have been archived now)
Exactly why I was asking for clarification on the StockFresh/RGB relationship. But wait, I am stupid for thinking my images would be given away for free.
OK, I'm done with that whole "fracas". 
I agree with what Microbius has said, but when my ap still hadn't been approved, after having been on StockXpert already, I was a little annoyed that it took so long. You must admit, there hasn't been a micro site yet that has taken this long to approve, as far as I know. If I am wrong, please correct me.
Don't worry, I've worked with Peter for years and it took them quite a while to approve my ap too. I have a feeling they are snowed under at the moment because news is getting around that StockXpert has risen from the ashes. I'm sure they will get around to you as quickly as they can.
2
« on: September 14, 2010, 07:17 »
I wish someone would tell me where I can find all this cash people are talking about because I need a new Porsche. The ashtray is jampacked full on the old one...
Exactly. They get paid for advertising us. That's all there is to it. They earn money which helps them keep their site alive and we get a lot of potential buyers which is good for us. This is how ALL the stock agencies operate.
Did you lose the check?
Did you forget to send it?
3
« on: September 14, 2010, 01:41 »
I would have paid for it.
Bingo.
I don't know why everyone is having a go at weirdvis. He did not come here asking anyone to give away their images for free. He came here to support StockFresh and to explain RGBs relationship with them. He even mentioned that RGB will drive traffic to SF without any catch.
No catch, except the cash they're being paid  .
I wish someone would tell me where I can find all this cash people are talking about because I need a new Porsche. The ashtray is jampacked full on the old one...
4
« on: September 14, 2010, 01:32 »
Peter, you have your work cut out... 
I really don't appreciate all of the sarcasm and the intonation that I am stupid.
You need to check around a little. Currently, my images, after they reach a certain age, automatically go into the FREE section at IS. There used to be an opt-out for that, but it magically disappeared a while back. I only found out about this after checking the FREE section on my own. Then I had to delete them all. Now, I have to check periodically to make sure there are none there.
You should be ashamed of yourself for making me look like a total idiot for asking those questions after what just happened at IS. If you think I am going to blindly trust ANY agency right now, you're the ignorant ones.
I gotta agree, you didn't understand how things worked and instead of trying to give an explanation of the relationship, he had to be a total ass.
Maybe you should read back into the thread to the point where I explained the relationship several times...? Clue, it was before cclapper joined the fracas.
6
« on: September 14, 2010, 01:24 »
It's a big diversion from the topic, but since we moved to this area:
Why should RGB limit image resolution to 800x600? Because RGB contributors owe you a living? No, but because I know the value of a good photo/image, so I don't agree to give it for free just to anyone. I understand your side, having an attractive site will bring you earnings other than the image sales - that's fine, you've invested on the site, but it can be even parasitical if the contributors are not aware of this.
A lot of people give back to the free community they have benefitted from, uploading images of their own to share. The bulk do it for the kudos, to see their images working and helping people all over the world It's called magnanimity and co-operation. They do it for the kudos because they don't realize the value of the images, possibly because they would never think of buying anything at all either. That's why people send photos and videos to online newspapers, they are happy to have their name credited for one day ("Look, Mom, my photo!"), but that may be giving the newspaper a huge traffic and financial return), all from the free and innocent collaboration from their readers.
Listen, I would have no problem letting my church or a NGO I support use one of my images for free, or sharing images with a group of co-workers. We even had a colleague a year ago asking for images to use in support of a friend with cancer and many of us collaborated. This is very different from having IBM or Yahoo or CNN using my images for free.
I posted some small images in Fotopedia and they received low ratings because I added my name unintrusively at the corner of them - what was not prohibited, but still people emailed me to reupload them without my name. I didn't. I would gladly collaborate with them, but not in a way that I may lose control over those images, because people will probably download them without giving any attention to copyright notices.
Even if stock photography is far from being a significant income, I know its value, and it is not because this won't change my financial life that I will simply give images away in a site like SXC or RGB. Sorry, it's a matter of principle.
I beg to differ about your opinion of image worth. Freestockers do understand the value of their images because many freestockers are also microstockers. I have galleries on Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Fotalia and am about to begin creating a gallery at Stockfresh. And I find it a matter of principle to share some of my images. I've got some bad news for you. You lose control of your images the moment someone else downloads them. Putting your name on the images won't stop them being ripped, it just gives a Photoshopper a few seconds of grief to remove it. In my experience, both as a contributor and an admin, most microstock sites won't accept an image with a name on. Uploading is a risk we all take. I've found the benefits outweigh the downside.
7
« on: September 13, 2010, 14:06 »
Will you be raising concerns if an RGB referral buys one of your images?
I'd probably be left wondering whether they'd had bought more if free sites like RGB didn't exist.
Well apparently the likes of iStock and StockXpert wouldn't have come into being for you to sell your images.
8
« on: September 13, 2010, 14:02 »
Surely if - as Peter says - all the agencies (including iStock since fairly recent acquisition of SXC) are using some kind of free model to bring traffic to their sites, then it's not so much 'going backwards' as 'the way things are done'. (?)
Perhaps. The "going backwards" bit, is more a comment on the assumption that creators of said "free" sites have greater ambitions than providing pro bono coding and other people's content for no charge, and that it would end up being a stepping stone to something fairly profitable for both parties. Thus, "going backwards" to start in the first steps of IS and progress forwards.
Maybe it's time you quit judging people by iStock standards. Even if RGB harnesses the Dark Forces and grows bigger than a demonically enhanced Stay Puft Marshmallow Man and actually turns a profit whereby RGB Towers relocates to it's own tropical island, what business is it of yours? Your speculation and scare tactics seem designed to drive a wedge between Stockfresh and RGB. It's strange that you appear to see RGB as a threat but not Stockfresh. How come?
9
« on: September 13, 2010, 13:24 »
cclapper,
On a side note, I think RGB images should be limited to a very small res, no more than 800x600, which would already suffice for most applications, not only web but folders and flyers. In fact. I don't know why give good images for free anyway, but...
Sigh... Why should RGB limit image resolution to 800x600? Because RGB contributors owe you a living? Why give away good images at all? Because not everyone shoots photos or creates graphics for profit. A lot of people give back to the free community they have benefitted from, uploading images of their own to share. The bulk do it for the kudos, to see their images working and helping people all over the world It's called magnanimity and co-operation. Flikr and SXC are bigger than RGB by several magnitudes yet neither site have put any successful microstock site out of business, nor will they. Human nature and vested interest will ensure that pay sites will always prevail. Will you be raising concerns if an RGB referral buys one of your images? Paying and free stock sites are not mutually exclusive. A lot of stock contributors have their feet in both camps. I'm one of them, having my images hosted on several pay sites as well as the freebies available via RGB. Perhaps you should try it and then maybe you'll understand?
10
« on: September 13, 2010, 10:16 »
Good post but may I point out a flaw in your Point 2 reasoning? Sites like RGB need to host good quality images otherwise people would not use the site. No people means no traffic.
Basically agree. I think the key is balance: a free site must have good pictures but still take care not to completely replace pay sites.
I don't think that will ever happen. Talent should be rewarded.
11
« on: September 13, 2010, 10:13 »
Ive just read through the second half of this thread and emotions seem to be running high over nothing. Let me recap...
Cclappers question to weirdvis came across a little hostile and almost as if it was an accusation. Shes probably paranoid over the IS caning and it seems she has lost trust in management on all agencies altogether.
Weirdvis, who has diligently been explaining RGBs relationship to SF became frustrated and took offence to cclappers paranoia worrying that her question will instil unnecessary fear into contributors who currently have confidence in, or high hopes for SF. Cclappers paranoia went a step further and falsly accused weirdvis if calling her stupid which he did not.
Sean then stepped in and made a mountain out of a molehill over the term not-for-profit. Perhaps that term should not have been used but what weirdvis meant is that they are not making a profit from RGB, not that theyre registered as an NPO. Having said that though, even NPOs need money to operate their organisation, regardless if no or a marginal profit is made. Id say Sean is feeling the effects of IS and is a little touchy at the moment. Im also sure that he'd prefer IS exclusives to remain put for the time-being rather than taking their business away and heading towards SF, because lets face it, SF sure sounds appealing, doesnt it?
I think everyone should take a deep breath in and remember who the bad guy is here. Its not SF, its IS.
As for my opinion on free sites, I think they are necessary. Without them, people will be downloading your images illegally from other websites anyway. A free site gives these types somewhere to go without hurting those who opt to make money from their images. The other bonus is that RGB will direct traffic to SF so its a win:win situation. There are many reasons why some contributors want their photos on free sites. Portfolio exposure is one of them. Many times a photographer will submit their best images from a group and submit the rest for free. Theres no real loss here because those images wouldnt have made him money anyway and theres a chance his revenue-generating images will sell if a buyer is directed from the free site.
Who knows why RGB is interested in running the free site for peanuts while advertising for SF. Perhaps management at RGB has some personal vested interest in SF, perhaps they too are gaining exposure and experience? Who knows? Does it matter really? The animal were all interested here is SF and if RGB helps them succeed in anyway, they have my thumbs up!
What you said with knobs on, pseudonymous! And thank you for understanding my frustration.
12
« on: September 13, 2010, 10:07 »
Thanks for choosing to link to a site that supports its contributors with a fair commission. I for one wish both RGB and Stockfresh both every success.
Likewise. ^^
I do have a question about RGB. Maybe it has been answered above and I missed it?
If someone donates an image to RGB, would it have visible links to images in that same person's SF portfolio? In other words could donated images directly impact sales for the donating contributor, in addition to general sales for the SF site?
Lisa, if you have a gallery at RGB there are no problems with using the accompanying profile or image information to link back to Stockfresh. SXCers with images on paying sites linked back to those sites routinely. :0)
13
« on: September 13, 2010, 10:02 »
You seem well boned on the subject. I'm sure you know where you can go. To find out that is...
One would think if you were really a "not for profit", you'd have that legal information on your about page. So, you're not really an NPO. You just say that because it's currently convenient.
RGB is an organisation of graphic designers, photographers and programmers that operates on a voluntary, non-profit basis. That makes us a not for profit organisation but not one of those official, government funded fake charities. We will be feeding traffic to Stockfresh. If that worries certain people (not you cclapper) then I won't be losing sleep over it.
14
« on: September 13, 2010, 09:15 »
Free sites to redirect traffic are good in my opinion as long as:
1. contribution to free site is completely voluntary;
2. there aren't too many good pictures for free to distract buyers from paying for pictures;
StockFresh has now explained point 1 perfectly, so no concerns for me.
Point 2 is partly up to contributors (not to upload their best pictures for free), and partly up to buyers (how much time they can lose to search for good pictures among many not so good, and how much quality they're going to sacrifice in order to use a free picture). We must be careful about this.
E.g., if a certain amount of potential buyers are intercepted through a free site, some will be transferred to the linked payed for site, and some will just be happy with the free offer. This is completely positive for the linked site (more buyers) but possibily negative for contributors (less buyers on other sites).
I wouldn't like sites using their free counterpart to damage competitors more than to advantage contributors.
Good post but may I point out a flaw in your Point 2 reasoning? Sites like RGB need to host good quality images otherwise people would not use the site. No people means no traffic. A bit of a Catch 22 situation from your point of view I'm sure you agree. However, the system works which is why SXC still exists. iStock would probably have destroyed the site if SXC was a threat rather than an asset. There has been a contraction in the size of SXC's database which iStock is in no hurry to reverse. They don't need to because SXC enjoys annual seven figure visitors/downloads which produces the traffic. A lot of RGBers, myself included, have galleries on pay sites other than Stockfresh. Quite a few of us have also been accepted as Stockfresh contributors (I'm not listed as weirdvis so please don't bother looking) so, with one possible exception (I don't mean you, cclapper), we are all Stockfreshers here.
15
« on: September 13, 2010, 08:41 »
Peter, I'm not taking sjlocke's bait because he/she/it is obviously a troll.
Yeah, that's me. I'm a troll. I've never posted here before. Just started today to respond to your posts.
By the way, any info on your NPO registration?
You seem well boned on the subject. I'm sure you know where you can go. To find out that is...
16
« on: September 13, 2010, 08:39 »
cclapper - I really don't appreciate all of the sarcasm and the intonation that I am stupid.
You were the one who brought up the "s" word. I don't think you are stupid but I do think you are obfuscatory.
17
« on: September 13, 2010, 08:29 »
Peter, I'm not taking sjlocke's bait because he/she/it is obviously a troll.
18
« on: September 13, 2010, 07:45 »
cclapper- Feeding traffic to Stockfresh is a pretty vague statement. Please clarify. Where do I get paid for my image
face/palm
You upload your images to Stockfresh. Stockfresh pays you. We stupid beggars at RGB are trying to help you to sell your images out of the kindness of our deluded hearts for no remuneration. What is so vague about that?
You must be making money of of your free site somehow. Don't treat me like I'm some stupid ass that just fell off the turnip truck. You know, like how Kelly Thompson is treating all of IS's contributors right now?
EDITED, sorry I mispoke. The dollar bin. You're all right, I am stupid. I don't know this RGB site and I don't know this weirdvis, this is the first time I've seen him post here. But I am really surprised at you, Peter. All I did was ask some questions and ask for an explanation.
Got my answer, done.
RGB is a not-for-profit site. We make a microscopic income from adverts and everything else, including server and programming, is provided by a dedicated team of volunteers. We do it because we like giving instead of taking. It's the old SXC ethos. Peter understands where we're coming from. How's that turnip truck doing? Better mind those speed bumps...
19
« on: September 13, 2010, 07:40 »
cclapper- Feeding traffic to Stockfresh is a pretty vague statement. Please clarify. Where do I get paid for my image
face/palm
You upload your images to Stockfresh. Stockfresh pays you. We stupid beggars at RGB are trying to help you to sell your images out of the kindness of our deluded hearts for no remuneration. What is so vague about that?
You must be making money of of your free site somehow. Don't treat me like I'm some stupid ass that just fell off the turnip truck. You know, like how Kelly Thompson is treating all of IS's contributors right now?
EDITED, sorry I mispoke. The dollar bin. You're all right, I am stupid. I don't know this RGB site and I don't know this weirdvis, this is the first time I've seen him post here. But I am really surprised at you, Peter. All I did was ask some questions and ask for an explanation.
Got my answer, done.
20
« on: September 13, 2010, 07:35 »
clapper - You should be ashamed of yourself for making me look like a total idiot for asking those questions after what just happened at IS. If you think I am going to blindly trust ANY agency right now, you're the ignorant ones.
Believe me, you didn't need any help from me. BTW I'm not a clairvoyant nor am I party to your former dealings with agencies. Perhaps you should make your position clearer in future so that I can make a more informed reply.
21
« on: September 13, 2010, 07:31 »
Rubyroo - I couldn't have put it better myself. It's the reason why other microstock sites are keen to have us affiliate with them. We prefer to support an independent instead. From longstanding association we know and respect Peter so directing traffic to Stockfresh is a natural choice for us to make.
22
« on: September 13, 2010, 07:23 »
Peter, you have your work cut out...
23
« on: September 13, 2010, 07:09 »
cclapper- Feeding traffic to Stockfresh is a pretty vague statement. Please clarify. Where do I get paid for my image
face/palm
You upload your images to Stockfresh. Stockfresh pays you. We stupid beggars at RGB are trying to help you to sell your images out of the kindness of our deluded hearts for no remuneration. What is so vague about that?
24
« on: September 13, 2010, 07:04 »
Please be assured that Stockfresh images WILL NOT be given away free on RGB. We intend to feed traffic to Stockfresh in the way that SXC fed traffic to StockXpert. The main difference is that under the SXC umbrella we worked for Peter while RGB, a breakaway group from SXC, is autonomous.
25
« on: September 13, 2010, 06:47 »
Wait a minute...I just want to be sure I'm understanding...
If my photos are placed on StockFresh, are they automatically going to RGB?
Why would they go to RGB? It's a completely separate site.
For the same reason they go to subs with no opt out? Explain then why a big point is being made about how you and RGB are having a good relationship just like StockXpert and SXC did. I am going to go back and reread the threat...maybe I missed something.
What isn't there to understand? RGB will be feeding traffic to Stockfresh. That's it. End of story. No catches. If you don't want us to do that then please say so and we'll take our affiliation somewhere else...
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
