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 - Video-StockOrg

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14
1
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Video royalty's are worse then images
« on: August 21, 2019, 15:53 »
isuck

2
Shutterstock.com / Re: Mature content - really?
« on: July 23, 2019, 13:46 »
I troll shutterstock because of their stupid rejections

3
Shutterstock.com / Re: A new low: Video Sale for $0.60
« on: July 06, 2019, 12:38 »
Sounds like a typical douchebag client who forces you to work for exposure, because it will get you "better" clients later. Or in other words, more exposure work.

4
Pond5 / Re: Pond5 capping our search results?!
« on: July 02, 2019, 14:01 »
It was in more than just this one missing clip.

5
Pond5 / Re: Pond5 capping our search results?!
« on: July 02, 2019, 12:18 »
They responded that the clips were under "Sensitive use". That * was really vulgar for the curator.  ::)

6
Pond5 / Re: Pond5 capping our search results?!
« on: July 01, 2019, 13:02 »
i searched via filename in contributor uploader. And yes, it has been uploaded about a half a year ago.

7
Pond5 / Pond5 capping our search results?!
« on: July 01, 2019, 12:32 »
What I found today might completely destroy Pond5 reputation...
I was trying to find via public search a specific file from my database, while not finding it I did found it on my harddrive... because I thought they might have rejected it or it wasn't properly uploaded. I also had the metadata for the file from Pond5. Which is kinda strange... so I tried searching the file via the contributor uploader. And there it was marked as ONLINE. But, I'm not able to find it in the public search.

So, is Pond5 capping my search results? Must I go through all 15000 files to confirm that all files are visible to buyers? I crap you not this is very depressing.



I'm sure gonna stress out the support about this crap.

8
Shutterstock.com / Re: Worst month on shutterstock
« on: June 29, 2019, 04:13 »
this month has been the worst with SS. Other sites are decent. But SS... the last time was this bad in December 2016. But the June that was even worse was in 2014, when I had only about 2000 files online (now I have 15000).

Big difference.

9
Off Topic / Re: Break News From Wisconsin
« on: June 22, 2019, 13:00 »
Love cheese. Lactose intolerant. I am doomed!   :-X

there is already lactose-free cheese available...

10
Off Topic / Re: Break News From Wisconsin
« on: June 19, 2019, 10:02 »
My currently favorite cheese is from Pag Island in Croatia, where they make it from sheep milk which eats very salty grass (that island is in the middle of the sea and is mostly made from rocks) and it makes such an interesting cheese. But it is priced very high too...

11
Well I had sometime ago an image rejected as being sexist. It was an image portraying domestic violence.

I complained, it was reviewed by a higher tier inspector and again rejected.

One image of the series had been approved years before and it was a best seller. And believe me, nothing in that image was visually offensive, showing physical violence or anything like that. It wasn't even a sensitive image by any means.

But to the agency it was sexist because it represented a man exercising psychological violence towards a woman. Like that never happens...

The truth is that the agency decided to clearly enforce a political and ideological agenda.

And they are clearly promoting LBGT themes in their latest "what to shoot". It seems they are full supporters of the SJW's. What's next, deleting everything non-complient to far-leftist?

12
Seriously! People why do you continue to support this outfit?

Just delete your portfolios and stop the cycle of abuse!

Because the $600+ earnings are better off in my pocket.

If you would say $6000, then it wouldn't be so bad... but giving away all your hard worked images for $600? You really don't yet respect your work, do you?

13
they don't accept even basic footage like this anymore

14
weapons are abused every day and they are still not forbidden. Some psychopath uses a hand gesture and it is banned everywhere. #GreatNewWorld

15
also, shutterstock has begun rejecting many hand gesture signs and also words.

EDIT: soon they'll reject any white male imagery or footage because the feminists said we are misogynist and we must die.

16
Stock agencies will sue you for copying copyrighted text from their pages. ;D

17
Shutterstock.com / Re: Great News! from Shutterstock
« on: May 04, 2019, 01:14 »
They've been sending wrong data for three months now...

18
General Stock Discussion / Re: 1.22$ clip earning at Pond5
« on: May 04, 2019, 01:13 »
Following the SS $1.50 sales?

19
General - Stock Video / Re: Top Tier - Big 4 Review Time
« on: May 03, 2019, 10:44 »
uploading to istock is suicide.

20
Shutterstock.com / Re: 5 word minimum
« on: May 03, 2019, 03:42 »
it is a dumb idea because no one reads the description when making a decision to purchase an image.

it might not be a big deal for people with small portfolios, but when you have 60,000 photos it is a big deal when you have to go back and retitle 10,000 photos just to comply with a requirement that has no effect on sales.

I have had to do this for bigstock and all it does it lead to stupid titles. "smiling young girl" becomes "smiling young girl with long hair" which has no impact on someone's desire to buy the image. it is just a waste of time.

these companies should be making it easier for people to contribute, not harder.

to say you like this idea is just stupid. why shouldn't someone have the right to make a title with 4 words? seriously you think it is a great idea to force everyone else to increase their title length, when they can do it voluntarily anyway? you are opposed to 4 word titles for other contributors?

what if somebody searches for "girl with long hair"? It will find the "smiling young girl with long hair" photo/video but not the "smiling young girl".

21
Shutterstock.com / Re: Video sale for $1.50?
« on: May 03, 2019, 01:38 »



 >:(

22
Dissolve / Re: Is it worth uploading to disolve?
« on: May 02, 2019, 03:42 »
Dissolve was profitable in 2013/2014/2015, then it all went to hell (in January 2016 I had $473.19, this year only $46). Also, they will lower your prices to the lowest prices you have on the market. And they've become so picky about footage, that I stopped uploading. Screw this crap.

23
General Stock Discussion / Re: pond5 sales plummet to $0?
« on: April 23, 2019, 07:47 »
When did pond5 remove the Web size files?

24
Just looked through my sales for last month and again down to under a quarter what they used to be a couple of years ago, commission rates are abysmal at 15 and 20%.

Essentially I believe it is time too stop paying Getty's loans and the wealthy shareholders with their dividend payments, who with their greed have moved into the MicroStock market.

Microstock was about a Stock imagery sites selling there contributor's photo's for a reasonable commission, it should be for both sides, a win, win, not as it is now, with Getty's turning it into a slave factory.

Yes, I totally agree with you: it is time for you, and many others, to stop with Getty but not for me

Future you: Why is income plummeting????! I don't get any sales elsewhere than Getty, but here there is more sales but less income!!  What is wrong?!?!

25
iStockPhoto.com / Re: $ 0.00077 Lowest Earning on Istock
« on: April 20, 2019, 08:29 »
my old files on istock (stopped uploading 4 years ago) were also finally removed because the per clips sales were crap. I waited if anything would improve, but it didn't. They should go fuck themselves.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results