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.

Topics - ShadySue

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
General Stock Discussion / Percentage revisited
« on: September 04, 2020, 12:02 »
I've been looking at ways of getting an online language tutor, and in looking at reviews, the most recommended site is one called italki. This is NOT an ad, I signed up, paid up and have had one lesson so far which was fine. So far, the 'system' is very impressive indeed (to me).

But in looking at the reviews, a number of reviewers felt that the site was ripping off the tutors. So I looked into it, and apparently they take 15% of the price of the lesson. The tutors set their own prices. Also there's a fixed 'admin' fee of IIRC $4.44 to users, which is (apparently, from what I've read) the same whether you pay $10 in advance or several hundred $$. Certainly I started off with $100 and paid $4.44.

So if they can (presumably) make loads of money with such 'relatively' small fees, why do stock agencies feel they 'have to' take such a huge proportion of our sales value? OK, they're not storing millions of images/clips, but they do have short videos from each of thousands of tutors, and as well as Skype, there's an option to have the lessons within their own 'video-conferencing' system, which AFAICS they don't charge extra for (I did my first-and-only lesson in Skype so I can't vouch for that).

Off Topic / Quite funny, and not completely Off Topic
« on: July 24, 2020, 17:49 »
Dave Gorman: the trouble with stock modelling:


iStockPhoto.com / Feb stats are in
« on: March 17, 2020, 20:13 »
So, compared to Jan 2020: dls +35%, $$ +50%
Compared to Feb 2019: dls +20%, $$ -21% (rpd -35%)
Still, better $$ than eight months of last year, and $$ +22% on Feb 2018.

This topic has been moved to the Shutterstock board, because you might get more help there.

General Stock Discussion / NOT AT ALL (Misuse in high places?!)
« on: January 15, 2020, 11:15 »
Sorry, that was me stupidly passing on a link without engaging brain.  :-[
Is there I way I can delete the thread?
Let's hope this is just a simple error and they forgot to replace e a placeholder when they sent the page live:

Site Related / Site Speed
« on: December 29, 2019, 10:52 »
Is it only me or has this site been running like treacle on and off this past week? I'm finding it to be very slow at times (not all times) across three devices, two wi-fi services and 4G, and where I don't see other sites being any slower than normal, including photo-heavy sites and YouTube videos.

iStockPhoto.com / June Royalties are in
« on: July 19, 2019, 15:33 »

Off Topic / The CV
« on: March 19, 2019, 12:27 »
NB, this is the Off-topic forum, before anyone complains!

Last night I was at my choir and 'blue sky' featured in one of our songs, and without thinking my brain disambiguated it to 'clear sky' and I sang it.  :-[ :-[ :-[
Luckily, it was only a practice.
Why does getty have 'clear sky' rather than 'blue sky' (which surely most people say) anyway? Hypothetical question!!!

iStockPhoto.com / November stats in
« on: December 19, 2018, 18:49 »
For me, worst Nov ever (started Dec 2006).
True, I haven't uploaded for over 2.5 years, so it's all passive income: but OTOH, I still see lots of reports about recent uploads not selling - for at least a year now.

I see they have made a DACS claim, and presumably my share was 30%. I don't remember them doing that before, and I have for a few years now claimed any relevant found in-uses along with my Alamy claim. I guess I'll have to sort that out with DACS.  :(


Someone smarter than me can tease out the import of this, and the likely impact, if any.
If it's bad news, don't shoot the messenger.  8)

Newbie Discussion / MOVED: oxguddgb
« on: April 06, 2018, 08:54 »

Newbie Discussion / MOVED: yfhldcnn
« on: April 03, 2018, 05:41 »
This topic has been moved to garbage bin


Just posting for info.
I can't get my head round any possible implications; we clearly need to know more.

Shutterstock.com / Curious - enhanced licences
« on: August 29, 2017, 06:59 »
A UK newspaper called the Daily M*il (Yuck, a right-wing tabloid) used to buy RM editorial pics from Alamy. They were notorious for not reporting re-uses and had regularly to be chased for payment, and indeed yesterday I received payment for 21 unreported usages online, going back two years, of one particular image which had been used over 40 times in total. Low payment per image under the UKNS (but still 10x each what I'd have got from SS just once), but yay for RM.

Anyway, they now buy from SS rather than Alamy. I see that their print run in Dec 2015 was nearly 1.5 million. SS require an enhanced licence for print runs over 500K. So, are people seeing loads of enhanced images from sales there and on their sister free publication The M*tro (1.3 print run daily)? Or have they got a 'special deal' which doesn't require them?

Found one of my pics on http://animalia-life.club being offered as a free download.
It's not like they don't know, it's actually got iStock as part of the URI! (Unwatermarked).

You can't search the site as such, you go onto pages via links and at the bottom of each page are some photos to freely download. Getting from page to page is random, I found my file via a Google reverse search. I'm imagining a fair number of these images are stock files.

I have reported my file to iStock. (not holding my breath).
Gotta luvvit: on the first page of that site, they say: "Any reproduction or publication of information from our website without permission - is prohibited".  ::)

Image Sleuth / lookanimals.com
« on: November 29, 2016, 16:22 »
Trying to reverse search a file I recently sold on Alamy, I didn't find that use, but I did find the file on a site called www.lookanimals.com - my file, watermarked from FAA.
There were other files on the page with the FAA watermark and several with the DT watermark, some with Science Photo Library w/m; as well as those with watermarks by the authors and plenty with no watermarks, quite possibly from legit websites.

The disclaimer beggars belief:
"LookAnimals.com does not host any of the images embedded here. All images are uploaded by people / animals fans to websites like National Geographic or Others. Our mission here, is to organize those images and to make your search for the latest animals picture easier. We simply link to the images that is already hosted on other web sites. If you are concerned about copyrighted material appearing in this website, we suggest that you contact the web site that is hosting the video (sic) and have it removed from there. Once the content is removed from the website hosting your content, it will automatically be removed from LookAnimals.com."

I'm just going out so have only skimmed the longish list of changes to the Alamy contract, but this one jumped out at me:
"29: "Promotional/Marketing Material" means promotional and marketing material that shall include, but not be limited to ... ... ...  supply of Images to third parties for use in Image galleries (Images unaccompanied by copy) and editorial pieces (Images accompanied by copy), websites and blogs in return for publicity, specific ad-hoc marketing campaigns, supply of Images to third parties for use in conferences/presentations/keynote speeches in exchange for publicity, and other uses by third parties in return for publicity.",

a definition  applying to:
15:1 "You agree that the Images may be used worldwide at Alamy's option without charge and without prior consent or approval from you in Promotional/Marketing Material or in any other manner at the sole discretion of Alamy designed to promote sales of Images and/or to enhance awareness of the Alamy name/brand or that of the individual Contributor,"

Apart from the 'no free images for publicity' mantra, how would they ensure that the 'publicity' was more than a tiny credit in the corner, and in that case, why wouldn't just about everyone do that to get free images?

Ha, a few days ago I have my first FAA sale in months.

Today I had a look at another image there and underneath it and all other images is a really stupid auto-populated text which reads:

Title is a piece of digital artwork by author which was uploaded on Month, date, year.   The digital art has colors ranging from e.g. ghost white to dim gray and incorporates your first keyword, your second keyword, and your third keyword design themes.

Well, the image concerned had many colours outwith the range of "ghost white to dim grey", e.g. red, yellow and brown (etc).
And the original pic I clicked on apparently  has colors ranging from gainsboro to bole . To how many people will that mean anything at all?

I want MY description to be there (it's still tiny low down the right hand column), and no 'gainsboro' or 'bole' (I didn't even know these were colours!)

The auto text looks so incredibly amateur. They seem be trying to do everything possible to 'downmarket' their site. I bet they think they're "improving SEO". Well look what happened when iS tried that, but at least they only messed up those who had opted in.

Photoshop Discussion / Photoshop tools down left hand side
« on: April 02, 2016, 13:34 »
Just curious:
A couple of months back, I moved all the PS tools to the right hand side (as I'm right handed). After a bit of 'protest' from muscle memory, I'm now doing it intuitively, and wonder if there is some reason I can't think of why the tools are down the left hand side by default. ( I don't have a great memory for all the keyboard shortcuts, so I actually 'go for' a lot of the tools). Surely as a 'rightie', having them down the right hand side makes a lot more sense. But I've never seen any tutorials which suggest that, or which show the tutor having the tools down the right hand side.
Am I missing something obvious about why the tools are usually down the left?
Or do most people have all the shortcuts right at the front of their mind, so it's not an issue?

Some people may find this interesting:

Photoshop Discussion / PSCC and NVIDIA GeForce drivers
« on: November 07, 2015, 09:28 »
Since PS CC2015, I seem to be having a lot of problems with my Nvidia GeForce driver which seem to be related to Photoshop, even though I'm not always actively using PS when the problem happens (but PS and/or Bridge is nearly always open). I am upgrading my driver about twice a week, but the problems seem to change ...
Anyone else?
(Please don't waste your valuable time giving me technical instructions, I'm just trying to find out whether I need to get some other sort of graphics driver. I wouldn't actually be installing that myself.)
(I didn't have any of these problems before PS CC2015.)

iStockPhoto.com / Any iS exclusives in TS?
« on: July 02, 2015, 14:26 »
If there are any iS exclusives in TS, can you explain all of the bizarre and out of order percentage rates in the rate schedule for the Partner Program? The table doesn't work arithmetically, but where do all of these extra percentage rate points come from?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle