Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 28, 2016, 18:37

Quote from: cobalt on December 27, 2016, 22:34
whatever you want to do will be very welcome.

the industry needs a good self publishing solution.

something specifically designed for stock artists.

You are reading my mind. I want it Leo, looks good, and I don't care about uploading to DP. Just need a good self publishing site, raster and vector. Also yes to selling video would be a good match for most of us.

Make the basic good working site first, add the tricks and fancy parts later.

me too -- I LOVE it, and the idea of having a way of handling video in the future makes it even better! The lack of video solutions has bugged me for some time now.

Thanks @Leo, it seems you're reading my mind, too

Quote from: spudgun on November 17, 2016, 23:49
You're correct. Go-Pro image quality isn't that good but the VIDEO quality certainly isn't bad and I know of quite a bit of footage shot with this camera being sold on Stock sites.

totally where I come down, too: considering today's profits (or lack thereof) on microsotck agencies, I would not waste too much on specialty equipment either. Got myself a "No-pro" -- that is, a no-name GoPro clone -- for these types of shots, and I am quite pleased with them (accepted at both Shutterstock and Videoblocks so far in HD1080 and even 4K, and without any hassle, in case you're wondering)... Actually spent like $52 for this http://www.banggood.com/EKEN-H9-WiFi-Sport-Action-Camera-DV-Car-DVR-Ultra-HD-4K-SPCA6350-HDMI-2-Inch-LCD-p-994488.html?p=TW02092032782201508Q very usable piece of kit. Totally complements my "real" cameras, in a good way...

Quote from: Chichikov on November 24, 2015, 13:57
I have just sold an image (extra small) for $ 0.11 - Something new for me.

What is the next step?
1) pay for upload
2) pay the customers for downloading our work

congrats on your $.11 sale :)))

But seriously, you are spot on, @Chichikov: you are one of the only guys out there who already got the entire concept of NIRP (negative interest rate policy -- by central banks, or other microstock agencies).

With your attitude and examples 1) and 2) above (I like it, don't get me wrong), you should be an economist -- preferably a central banker in (what used to be) the "West"!

It's the state of the dollar-based world economy (on its way out, though), and it's symptomatic...

Quote from: Suliman Razvan on May 27, 2015, 14:06
With the latest update to its Penguin algorithm, Google has sunk the entire stock market.
(...)
Most agencies are trying a new look more friendly for their "daddy" google , others have already operated a sum of changes and
(...)
What do you think?

Google has not sunk just the stock image market but these b*stards sink everything they get their bloody hands on. And while they're at it, they kind-of dictate how websites ought to look: "responsive" being the latest craze right now. Arrrrrgh. As if people started to, all of a sudden, ditch their comfortable desktops and workplace PCs and workstations just in order to jerk it on a "smartphone" or equally "smart" tablet or the like.

The degree of market dominance and ability of cornering the market Google is enjoying -- and abusing -- is never a good thing. In so far, a market rebound is definitely desirable (and needed)!

You are spot on @Suliman Razvan, this sssucks beyond belief, and being the user-unfriendly greedy corporation they are, Google are in bed with the US govt at the same time feeding "Big Brother" in a way George Orwell would never have thought possible (particularly the NSA and DHS, just read the horror stories of SWAT teams barging through your door after "googling" this or that)...

At the same time, Google are doing a very mediocre job at their supposed*) core business (search), if you look at it more closely -- or is anyone here satisfied with the "results" they serve when you search for some "image of xyz"?!

It seems about time the market demands a replacement for this exploitative corporation and their "services". Yes, there are Alexa (with their own problems) or Duck-Duck-Go and Yandex, but a nicer layout and certain novel features are what's also needed. What do you guys think?
---
*) because they are actually an Advertising agency, I know, but...

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 27, 2015, 15:55

Quote from: rimglow on May 27, 2015, 15:40
   I think there is a flaw in your theory. Most serious microstock buyers don't use Google to search for an image to buy. They use their favorite agency. In fact, most of the big advertising agencies have contracts with Shutterstock, iStock, Dreamstime, etc. The search results for an image within the agency, doesn't involve Google.

That's what I've always thought.  I don't imagine many serious buyers use google to find an image.

@Sean, you're spot on. It may hurt that overall appearance in the world of search engine results and rankings though and make microstock hits less visible to the broader Google-clicking public.

As for "duplicates", it should be noted though that "Daddy" (googlebot) cannot see (yet) -- thank God! -- and knows very little about all our great photos out there, except for the ALT tags, descriptions etc -- meaning we can still control good ranking by not duplicating those bits of  information. Might destroy the advantage of some of the auto uploading tools though.

At the end of the day, this might be good-news-in-disguise, in fact: for why would one not want to have an edge using one's own gallery over microstock agencies from now on out?!

Quote from: Lizard on May 26, 2015, 14:49

Quote from: Semmick Photo on May 26, 2015, 14:06
There's a fantastic positive buzz in this thread.  ???

Ok someone has to spoil the party first ,

thank you for "spoiling" that childish party, after so much "empathy" on the part of all these  "politically-correct" out there, it is good to see that at least some grown-ups are still around as well -- do we all have to part with the rests of reason and promote LGBT and turn right and wrong on their heads these days worldwide, just to please the crowds?!

And what the f*** (or, more appropriately here, f***-in-the.a**) does it have to do with Microstock? Is it just me? Am I missing something here? :) Seriously, folks.

Decriminalising should have been enough -- and it would even have been a good thing, had it not been for the misconception caused by it that now that it is not "a crime" anymore everyone needed to support it...

I have shared a flat with two gays for many years (because I am, or used to be, a naive and open person when I was young and stupid). These clowns are the most intolerant bunch of people you can find on the planet, not interested in anything but their little "special interest" there. -- Just like communists and the usual do-gooder politicians are, in fact, the most greedy on the planet.

Often, things are a bit different from what they seem to be at first sight...

Quote from: PZF on May 25, 2015, 17:06
Or even why they STILL want MORE contributors....if that is indeed what they are talking about....
Now more CUSTOMERS may be interesting.....
???

LOL

I was hoping on the latter to start disappearing altogether (and soon) and not waste their time wading through 50m+ of those common "multi-racial office high-fives" ;)

I know MANY editors who won't have the time for working their way through these loads of pictures (but maybe SS are already preferring the stupid masses over the former)...

Quote from: iFlop on May 24, 2015, 12:52
(...) So I'm just offering buyers low quality photos for low prices when what most of them really want is high quality stuff and would still be willing to pay more for it.

But are the buyers really unhappy knowing that there isn't much new high quality stock being created now? Probably they can't really tell the difference just yet because there is still so much good quality older stuff online that they can choose from at these lower prices. So they are having a field day for now and are the true winners in all of this. Neither the artists or the photo resellers are benefiting at all from this when they should be in some way. And for the photo buyers themselves, this just means more money left (...)

you're spot on, a great many valid points you made there.

As for the photo buyers, there is one aspect not really making them the overall "winners" of all of this: the onus of sifting through 50m or so photos. This is **time-consuming** for them, this costs more (in time lost) than it saves (in dollars spent). I would hate to be in their shoes, I would prefer someone providing quality to me without the hassle of wading through tons of garbage or yet-more-of-the-same (I am talking multi-racial office high-fives and stuff here).

So what I hope to see is a market re-balancing itself to a point where, indeed, all those ridiculous discount-agencies (IS, SS you're talking about plus all others following the same idiotic path) have made themselves fully superfluous -- and good chances and business come back to those who pitch good quality selections to targeted audiences directly.

It would be nice to see that happening fast.

Quote from: ShadySue on May 17, 2015, 19:53

Quote from: lex-icon on May 17, 2015, 18:46

Quote from: createstock on April 07, 2015, 16:38
Note. Authors footage. We have to pay licenses for MPEG.LA? We got a response from the MPEG.LA.

We sent an email to MPEG.LA got the answer:

That I understand if I send videos encoded in AVC / H264 (Nikon, Sony) on page www.videohive.net or www.pond5.com and gets a commission of 50% of that I am exempt from the license fees for MPEG.LA ?

Licenses MPEG.LA final purchaser pays the client and Web www.videohive.net or www.pond5.com?

Your understanding is correct That our AVC License covers the end Seller of AVC / H.264 video (for example, the content provider who has a relationship with the End User) and the Seller is Responsible for paying the applicable royalties. The Therefore, if you upload AVC Video is either Envato Pty Ltd's website or Pond5 Inc.'s website, and dry AVC Video is delivered Directly to End Users for Remuneration through Their respective websites, then Envato Pty Ltd or Pond5 Inc. would need to be licensed and would be Responsible for any royalties associated with the AVC video they distribute.

With That said, both parties offering the video services you have not taken Mentioned a License or paid the applicable royalties. As a result, video Their services are not licensed. The Therefore, the suggest that you 'choose a video service from a licensed supplier (or insist That the suppliers you use to become licensed paying royalties applicable). For That purpose, in Maintain a letter of AVC Licensees in Good Standing at http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx.

I understand that we have to pay licenses for filming by codecs MPEG.LA SLR? if you sell movies pond5, Envato...

please proof-read before publishing (or copying), I cannot understand one sentence here!

Neither can I (what bizarre random capitalisation), but editing it 'for sense'#would  mean making one's own interpretation calls. The fact that we can't understand it means it is ambiguous, so making that call would be risking providing misinformation.
Createstock did the right thing in quoting verbatim.

sorry, may have gotten this wrong. My bad -- if THAT garbage came out of MPEG-LA (which would make total sense), then THEY are tho ones who ought to proof-read.

What a mess, and they suppose that anyone will follow their "directions" like that? Gimme a break :)

Quote from: createstock on April 07, 2015, 16:38
Note. Authors footage. We have to pay licenses for MPEG.LA? We got a response from the MPEG.LA.

We sent an email to MPEG.LA got the answer:

That I understand if I send videos encoded in AVC / H264 (Nikon, Sony) on page www.videohive.net or www.pond5.com and gets a commission of 50% of that I am exempt from the license fees for MPEG.LA ?

Licenses MPEG.LA final purchaser pays the client and Web www.videohive.net or www.pond5.com?

Your understanding is correct That our AVC License covers the end Seller of AVC / H.264 video (for example, the content provider who has a relationship with the End User) and the Seller is Responsible for paying the applicable royalties. The Therefore, if you upload AVC Video is either Envato Pty Ltd's website or Pond5 Inc.'s website, and dry AVC Video is delivered Directly to End Users for Remuneration through Their respective websites, then Envato Pty Ltd or Pond5 Inc. would need to be licensed and would be Responsible for any royalties associated with the AVC video they distribute.

With That said, both parties offering the video services you have not taken Mentioned a License or paid the applicable royalties. As a result, video Their services are not licensed. The Therefore, the suggest that you 'choose a video service from a licensed supplier (or insist That the suppliers you use to become licensed paying royalties applicable). For That purpose, in Maintain a letter of AVC Licensees in Good Standing at http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx.

I understand that we have to pay licenses for filming by codecs MPEG.LA SLR? if you sell movies pond5, Envato...

please proof-read before publishing (or copying), I cannot understand one sentence here!

Quote from: Mantis on November 23, 2014, 20:54

Quote from: Jeremyfootage on November 23, 2014, 20:43
Would anyone be able to explain how the review process for stock footage works in detail based on experience as a reviewer for a footage site? I'm happy to pay a bit to learn about how it works!

Thanks!!
Jeremy

Basically I find video is way more forgiving than stills.  A lot of junk gets in. If you want to do it right to ensure acceptance it's best to shoot with a tripod so there's no camera shake.  Make sure it's sharp.  Of the 250 videos I have submitted none have been rejected and I am not an experienced videographer.

Why are you concerned about how they inspect? I would submit some test batches, follow the basic rule of what I stated, apply basic photographic lighting principles and you should be fine.

similar to what I can say after I "tested" footage submission some time ago!

Quote from: NatalyaRoz on May 17, 2015, 01:17
I'd like to know the opinion  http://www.pond5.com/ru/artist/Maestrovideo, Please

very good work, nice "humaninterest" subjects too, and very nicely done.

While I understand that "price testing" can be intimidating, unless you try the higher price ranges you'll never know if the would have worked as well -- and in your case, Natalya, the definitely would...!

Have to agree with the others here: do raise your prices to significantly higher levels -- if it does not work over an EXTENDED period of time, then you can gradually go lower from there to find out if PRICE is, indeed, problematic there.

Quote from: leaf on February 16, 2006, 13:03
Wow, I was uploading pictures to dreamstime, filled in my keywords and catagories... and clicked submit.... and what came up.

The new dreamstime site.

What do you think of the new layout???

still like this one, i e DT, even so many updates later...

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on November 25, 2014, 18:08
Hi All,

I got a message from Facebook yesterday that they would like to offer me the opportunity to sell my stock content through Facebook. They have also partnered with Shutterstock to be able to use SS content in adds. I disregarded the message and now wish I had copied it as many are asking me what is going on. I was wondering who else might have gotten the same message and what do you think about their offer? Here is a link I found on Google explaining some of the news. http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/22/facebook-shutterstock/

Thanks,
J

may still be worth a try -- if not for the direct selling portion then at least for adding some social media "momentum" to overall SEO and marketing efforts elsewhere.

Quote from: cathyslife on May 16, 2015, 18:04
I just researched woocommerce yesterday for digital downloads for microstock. I have used woocommerce for selling products, and it is a very good plugin for that. But it isn't set up for multi-sized digital downloads, that I could see, (yet). There isn't any way, that I could see, to serve up to the customer the size they order. In other words, woocommerce doesn't have a separate protected folder where the original sized images are uploaded to, then when the customer orders a different size, it doesnt auto size the image and serve up that size to the customer, like the Sell Media plugin does.

It IS, on the other hand, set up for photographers selling digital downloads of a certain size. And you can impose a download limit or time expiration on allowing downloads.

Here is a link to the documentation:
http://docs.woothemes.com/document/digitaldownloadable-product-handling/

I was hopeful when I started reading, and even installed the plugin and played around with it, but no dice.

Here is a link to more documentation. If you scroll down under the tshirt photos, it even says this:
"Please note: This extension does not help with selling digital photo downloads." I took that to mean no stock images with multiple sizes.

http://www.woothemes.com/products/woocommerce-photography/

If I am wrong about any of that, please say so. I would love to use it for microstock out of the box.

And no, I will NOT get involved with the whole symbios/grfx/leo/robin mess. Been there. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. 

those Plugins seem to be handling different sizes though as needed (have been looking for something like that for quite some time myself)... Sellmedia has added benefits of it own though (like sub-agency functions & compatibility with non-WooCommerce themes etc.

Quote from: mimadeo on June 19, 2014, 15:58
The link of my fan page:

https://www.facebook.com/mimadeofoto

wanted to provide you a Like there but link appears to be broken (?) or Page removed...

Quote from: ComfortEagle2095 on June 20, 2014, 23:25
Cool page -

I just started mine.  I'm mixing it up with the art of the business and the business of the art.   Hope you give it a look and a like :)

https://www.facebook.com/ChrisCurtisPhotography

nice one -- liked what I saw ;)

Quote from: cthoman on May 16, 2015, 21:10

Quote from: cascoly on May 16, 2015, 19:26

Quote from: cthoman on May 16, 2015, 17:14

robin has already declared he WILL NOT support legacy sites beyond providing a way to migrate to his proprietary, as yet untested 

Abandonware seems to be a big issue with self-hosted solutions.

yes, that is an issue, but AFAIK that only goes for the non-supportive part Robin is playing with the new-Plugin Symbiostock but not for the legacy-Theme nor for the up and coming grfx Plugin for WP brought forward by Leo!

Quote from: leaf on November 11, 2008, 21:29
Firstly, welcome to the forum.

If you want to connect to other new users, you can check out the *newbies only* forum area here
http://www.microstockgroup.com/**newbies-only**/

In regards to starting threads, members who are 'lurkers' (those who have less than one post) are not able to start new threads.  This is an effort to cut down on spambots.

Once you have made one post, your status is upgraded to 'Newbie' and you can start your own threads.

Also:  when you do start a new thread, please give the thread a descriptive subject.  If you are going to ask a question, put the question in the subject.  A thread that is titled 'a question for you' or 'I am having problems' is not helpful and will probably not get a very good response.  Instead try 'I am having problems with my ftp program Filezilla' or 'What is the best FTP software?'

understood, totally -- I mean, for the spambots portion of which we have more than enough ourselves on our own (significantly smaller-than-Microstockgroup) websites out there...