pancakes

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 - TheDrift-

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
General Stock Discussion / Re: Have you ever been sued?
« on: March 22, 2017, 17:46 »
I know in the UK you should not be asked to wipe your card...the logic being..

  • If you haven't done any thing wrong then no one has the right to ask to wipe your card..

    if you had done something wrong then wiping the card is destroying the evidence..

That said if they have guns i wouldn't argue!

2
Basically, I agree with you; I like your post!

I wouldn't go as far as forbidding street photography but people should use common sense with it. If someone is sick, drunk, poor, injured, mourning, I think it is pretty sick and questionable to go take a photo of them.


I am not so sure, I think we have to take intentions into account, if the intent is to make mockery out of them, then I'd agree...but what about this...

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/iconic-images/famine-in-sudan-by-tom-stoddart-iconic-photograph-19922

This image spurred many into action and probably saved thousands of lives....?

TBH the whole thing is less than straight forward which is why there are so many different opinions.

3
A simple...'what budget did you have in mind?'

4
General Stock Discussion / Re: Where are the winners?
« on: March 14, 2017, 19:34 »
In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey.  ;D

Butane in my veins. So I'm out to cut the junkie  ;)

5
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock Royalty Change
« on: October 25, 2016, 12:52 »
Just got the email..

Same old 'exciting news' about royalties.
Same old but it will increase sales and you will all be better off.
Same old it wont happen
Same old pay cut

but $ 0.02 an image is an all new level of taking the P!$$

6
Their statement that this thing doesn't involve enhanced licenses is clearly false, just look at any photo. You can buy it for 1 dollar, even the enhanced (or extended) license.
I am sorry, do they really offer extended licenses for 1 dollar, on top of everything else?? Do they give this information on their site? I cannot find it there :(

Worse. I dropped them when it was discovered by someone on here, that if one of their partner sites got a sale, they only give you a sub....even if the partner site sold an EL, they kept all the and just gave you a sub...When I tried to deactivate my port they got pretty nasty...

7
Image Sleuth / Re: creativecommons.org
« on: August 15, 2016, 02:54 »
You misunderstand.  I'd bet the customer didn't claim to have purchased/licensed the image from Creative Commons.  They more likely said that got it from somewhere that claimed it was subject to the Creative Commons license.  For example, images on Wikipedia have to be made available under a CC license, and one of the least restrictive licenses at that. 

What license to use is a decision a content creator or their agent can make.  None of the stock agencies use CC license terms, since that would take a lot of control away regarding resale and usage terms.  It's possible a customer thought they had licensed your work under CC terms.  They're incorrect about that and need to be straightened out.

The image has never been of flickr and never been selected as CC by me.

The Website with my images on links all their images to this creative commons website. I have looked at a few images and non of them are available on that creative commons website, but I can find all the images for sale at stock sites.

I suspect the website is just claiming they are all CC images when they are not, I have already emailed them, I will also email CC.org and try and confirm with them too.

Thanks for the help :)



8
Image Sleuth / Re: creativecommons.org
« on: August 15, 2016, 02:41 »
You misunderstand.  I'd bet the customer didn't claim to have purchased/licensed the image from Creative Commons.  They more likely said that got it from somewhere that claimed it was subject to the Creative Commons license.  For example, images on Wikipedia have to be made available under a CC license, and one of the least restrictive licenses at that. 

What license to use is a decision a content creator or their agent can make.  None of the stock agencies use CC license terms, since that would take a lot of control away regarding resale and usage terms.  It's possible a customer thought they had licensed your work under CC terms.  They're incorrect about that and need to be straightened out.

The image has never been of flickr and never been selected as CC by me.

They link all their images to this creative commons website. I have looked at a few images and non of them are available on that creative commons website, but I can find all the images for sale at stock sites.

I suspect the website is just claiming they are all CC images when they are not, I have already emailed them, I will also email CC.org and try and confirm with them too.

Thanks for the help :)


9
Image Sleuth / Re: creativecommons.org
« on: August 14, 2016, 16:55 »
They link to sites that host images, but they don't host any themselves. What site is hosting your images?

ah good call, I can't find the image on https://creativecommons.org/

It looks as tho the website have got it from somewhere and are saying they got from this creative commons website

I checked a few other images all marked (c)artist@cc and I couldn't find them on creativecommons.org either....

....but I can find all the pics for sale on stock sites...

10
Image Sleuth / Re: creativecommons.org
« on: August 14, 2016, 13:37 »
Thanks I have only ever had the image on sale, its not marked for creative commons..and never has been...I can only assume someone has contributed it or they have 'acquired' it?

11
Image Sleuth / creativecommons.org
« on: August 14, 2016, 13:20 »
Just come across a website using one of my images and they attributed to these guys...

https://creativecommons.org

I take it they are not linked to any agency?

Thanks

12
I just had one refused for the title not being in English or being too long...it was a picture of the Derbyshire dales....titled Derbyshire dales.

I can only think it was someone who has never heard of Derbyshire...but to tell me Derbyshire is not English.....grrrr

13
^^ +1

I suspect any reasonably large company will be audited

14
I am lucky my wife is a chartered accountant, she has drilled into me to record every penny I get and record all my expenses, and keep every receipt.

She organises on a simple excel spreadsheet one page for income one for expenses and does a summary under each one at the end of the tax year and reports to the tax man.

Any analysis I want to do I do on a separate spreadsheet

15
Photo Critique / Re: Photo rejected multiple times at SS
« on: January 08, 2016, 08:45 »
I think if you look to the left sky above the buildings it does look pretty noisy. (remember they are going to review this at 100%)

Editorial allows for some adjustment, I would check the rules on shutter stock for which adjustments are allowed if you could NR and maybe darken the skies a little, and reduce the file size as much as possible, I would say its good..as others have said maybe a little soft and i am not sure of the market for long exposure editorials..

....but its a nice pic regardless :)

16
DepositPhotos / Re: Changes in royalties
« on: August 31, 2015, 05:01 »
Am I wrong or doesn't DepositPhotos still pay a higher percentage than SS or Adobe and charge more per download?  Seems to me like that's the reason they are changing.

You are missing IS in your list, they pay the lowest royalty rates.
I thought most people here stopped supporting them a while ago.  But if you are still supporting them then you can add iS to the list, if you accept lower rates other places why get mad about this.  It's still better than those sites isn't it.

The idea that you would drop a site that pays a higher royalty rate than another because of the royalty rate seems a bit strange to me.  Shouldn't the site you drop be the one paying the lower royalty rate?

I stopped uploading to DP long ago due to low sales.
Now lowering rates is not improving the situation. So I am considering dropping them.

I accept lower percentages at some sites (including the obvious examples FT and SS) because the make it up with a lot higher volume. I don't like their percentages, but I accept them.
At some sites paying low percentages (123RF, Bigstock) I stopped uploading. Still undecided what to do with them.

I used to accept even the lowest percentage in the industry (IS, when they paid a flat 20%), but after they thought it was a good idea to go even lower I dropped them.

For me it's always a case by case decision, some sites do get away with paying lower percentages than others.

I am in a similar boat I was thinking about dropping due to low sales anyway..what really annoys me is they gave so little notice, I got the email on 26th Aug and have been on holiday...

...Think I am just going to drop them....and I had forgotten about the partner site sale coming in a sub thing from these guys too until somebody reminded me in this thread!

17
I own both the 24 70 f2.8 mk 2 and the 24 105. I also shoot some stock.

If I had to only own one lens it would probably be the 24 105 it's just so much more versatile. If you don't mind spending the money the 24 70 and 70 200 is s great combo.

As other people of said a lack of sharpness is far more likely to be technique. Stock agencies tend to dislike shallow DoF's so from that point of view there is little to gain from the 2.8. For me the big reason for the 2.8 Is lowish light indoor portraiture

18
Alamy.com / Re: Review time
« on: August 19, 2014, 06:42 »
not sure what my longest historical is..but at the moment they seem to be down to a few days for me, so if I got to day 5/6 and not been reviewed I would think myself very lucky to avoid the sin bin..

..thanks for tip on the email I didn't know that, I have just assumed I had missed the email..somehow..

19
Alamy.com / Re: Review time
« on: August 19, 2014, 06:33 »
I have uploaded 6 batches so far this month inspection times have varied from 1 day to 3 days for me

If they are accepted, that is. If they are rejected, you have to wait almost a month, as dbvirago said above. Plus everything you submitted in the meantime will be rejeceted, too.

sorry yes i'd guess that if you have been waiting any more than 5/6 days your in the sin bin :(

20
Alamy.com / Re: Review time
« on: August 19, 2014, 05:25 »
I have uploaded 6 batches so far this month inspection times have varied from 1 day to 3 days for me


21
General Stock Discussion / Re: Going into business UK
« on: August 15, 2014, 04:09 »
Does anyone fromUK especially have any thoughts about at what point its worth treating Mstock as a serious business for Tax purposes etc rather than just declaring the extra income?
You can claim a reasonable amount for using part of your home for work i.e. spare room as an office garage as a studio space etc.

^^ You need to be very careful with this one, if you claim an area of your house is used exclusively for business and take the tax benefits that grants you...if you sell your house that area may now be subject to capital gains tax

22
Great thanks..well not great but you know what I mean :)

23
Cant sign in..anyone else?

Just migrated my info to a new mac and wondering if its that somehow or the site is down?

24
Shutterstock.com / Re: Advice on Credentials at Shutterstock
« on: July 31, 2014, 15:39 »
Hi sorry I think you misunderstood...maybe I wasn't very clear...... just to clarify that is 50 DL's on the few airhow shots I took last year, so thats 50 DL on those 4/5 shots only.

From my overall port I am averaging higher than your weekly figures, ...now if i could just been sean's weekly figures  ;D

i suppose so, 100-400 dl per annum per image of 5 zero cost  isolated images for me. so , u r perharps right, i am doing far less better than you.  i won't speak 4 Mr. Locke, but i am sure his per image dl per annum far exceeds my 100-400dl.
all without having to jump hoops with clueless editorial reviewers.


....It's almost as if I have wandered into room 12a by mistake ...(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkzjBfTDH20)


25
Shutterstock.com / Re: Advice on Credentials at Shutterstock
« on: July 31, 2014, 15:01 »
I'm surprised editorial is worth submitting to SS, with or without hoop-jumping.
Or is it they tend to attract POD?

I always wonder how many "air show" and "parade" images actually sell.  It sure doesn't seem like it would be worth the time to dump the cards.
TheDrift said
Given your talent maybe not worth your time, but probably worth mine I'm afraid, got 50 DL's from a handful of shots last year (that they accepted no probs!)



not to rain on ur parade, 50 dls ... i get in a week, some isolated zero cost images, without having to go out to the airshow. and for Mr.Locke, i am sure he gets 50 dls a day.
SS is not giving you anything much, if it is 50 dl a year.
and i am sure Mr.Locke is not being vicious, nor am i. just that he is saying SS is not the place for such things, and u may be selling urself short, even if u think u lack the experience, which maybe not.

Hi sorry I think you misunderstood...maybe I wasn't very clear...... just to clarify that is 50 DL's on the few airhow shots I took last year, so thats 50 DL on those 4/5 shots only.

From my overall port I am averaging higher than your weekly figures, ...now if i could just beat sean's weekly figures  ;D

Apols for the double post...dangers of trying to multitask!

Pages: [1] 2 3

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle