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 - alids

Pages: [1]
1
General Stock Discussion / Re: Help needed - name the fish!
« on: October 13, 2017, 16:38 »
Number four looks like Red Bream

2
Thanks for the advice.

Will request them to go to the agency and retrospectively purchase the EL.

Just to make it clear never requested anything from them and the original email to them was just a general enquiry regarding where the image was obtained from. The matter of payment came from them.

Will also request that they look and see if any other EL's were required as I can see at least one other image in this issue of the magazine that is a ms stock image.

3
General Stock Discussion / Image Infringement - Advice Needed
« on: August 28, 2014, 16:24 »
Recently found one of my images used in a printed magazine with a print run of approx 1.3 million copies.

User of the image is a national organisation in the UK requiring paid membership, of which I am a member.

Image is available on several ms sites that I submit to, but had never had an EL licence on any of them.

I emailed the editor asking where the image was obtained from, adding that I was unable to find any licence purchase applicable for a print run of this quantity.

Got a very quick reply from the editor advising that the image was obtained from a microstock site (name supplied but not included here) using a standard monthly subscription, and added that after checking they now realized that the image was not licensed for the size of the print run.

They have apologized and asked me to let them know how much to compensate for the image misuse and to provide an invoice so that they can arrange payment.

The image is relatively simple isolated object that was used inside of the magazine at half page size.

If the correct EL had been purchased when the image was downloaded it would have cost them approx 80 GB Pounds (approx $120).

So the question is what would a reasonable amount to request be?

Don't want to be unreasonable and ask for too much but also don't want to ask for too less.

Any advice appreciated.



4
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Login error
« on: March 13, 2014, 18:29 »
same here, cant get in.

Glad its just not me.

5
Shutterstock.com / Re: Can't Login - Captcha Not Visible?
« on: January 22, 2014, 20:23 »
Glad it's not just me.

Have been going mad for half an hour trying to get in.

6
Polite email sent to the publisher enquiring where the image was purcahsed from - now to wait and see what happens.

7
Assuming that SS sold the image to this publisher in questions what the "best" thing that could happen?

That after spending 1 hour of research where the image might have been downloaded from and contacting the publisher and Shutterstock, the publisher just has to license it again a second time for another 25-38 cents for the remainder of the print run to be legally covered?

I've given up on these kinds of infringements.

The best thing that could happen is that the publisher is forced to purchase the EL that they should have originally purchased for that sized print run.

The image can only have been purchased from SS or 123RF both with >250,000 needing an EL.

There are a couple of other reasons for me wanting to follow this up as well. I pay a reasonable amount of money to belong to the organisation that publishes this magazine, so why should I allow them to use my image without paying for the correct license.

Its also about educating buyers, giving them the benefit of the doubt that they may not be fully aware of the requirement for an EL. If they are aware of the EL requirements and are purchasing and using images without an EL, the agency needs to make that stop.

The magazine is a regular user of stock images each month - what if all these images were purchased without an EL?

Well these are my reasons for following this up.


8
I would contact the magazine and politely ask if they could tell you which agency sold the image - possibly don't explain why unless they ask. I would make it a simple inquiry - that you want to check with the agency on your royalties for the sale but don't know which agency.

Are you part of the bridge to Bigstock? If the image was there, they only just put in a 250K limit on print run - prior to the e-mail about subscriptions and the nutso royalty scheme, they had no print run limit

Thaks for that, the polite email to the magazine was my first thought, but was hoping to narrow it down to shutterstock as knew it hadn't sold much.

Image is on Bigstock, but has never sold there.

Have also found two other stock images in the magazine that are also on shutterstock, but are probably for sale elsewhere as well.

Will see what reply I get, if my image was purchased from shutterstock, I will also let ss know about the others.

Will update if when get a reply or get resolved.

9
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/comparison-of-standard-rf-license-agreements/


thanks Barry, yes have seen that one and shows 250,000+ for both SS and 123RF as needing EL.

Advice needed now is what is best approach now that cant confirm which of those two agencies it was purchased from.

10
Thanks for the replies so far.

Have narrowed it down and can exclude the following agencies:

Dreamstime, Fotolia and Istock - image not uploaded.

Canstock, Bigstock, Photodune - no sales of image.

That only leaves shutterstock and 123RF - has sold once on shutterstock (sub sale), but cannot find if it ever sold on 123RF as deleted most of my port in January when they cut commissions.

So that leaves only SS and 123RF which as far as I can tell both need an EL for 250,000+ print run.

What is the best option now that I cant exclude 123RF?




11
Just found one of my images in a printed leisure magazine in the UK.

Initially quite pleased to find an image in print, especially when it is in a magazine for a club I belong to and the copy is posted out to members, and was delivered and posted through the letterbox.

Wasnt quite so pleased when I noticed that the magazine distribution is 375,000+ copies. The image is a low selling one and I can only recall ever selling once on shutterstock as a sub sale. Will be going off to check the other agencies that the image is on shortly, but cant recall it selling anywhere else, but not 100% sure.

Bit of advice needed as to next steps - had thought about sending a polite email to magazine thanking them for buying the image and asking where they purchased it from.

Next option would to be contact shutterstock direct and ask them to look into it, but think I need to be quite sure it came from Shutterstock first.

Any help and advice appreciated.

Edit Update: Have now excluded all agencies except Shutterstock and 123Rf - see updated post below.

12
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Image Deactivation Tally for iStockPhoto
« on: February 02, 2013, 05:58 »
252 just deactivated for me (originally only pledged 200 for deactivation, but got a bit carried away - may do a few more later today - recommend seans script to anyone who is not sure how to easily deactivate)

13
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 19, 2013, 21:36 »
You can count me in for deactivating 200 on Feb 2nd.

Only got a small port of just over 400, so will delete half initially and if no drastic improvements are made to the IS / Getty / Google mess by the end of Feb, will deactivate the remainder.

Will miss the money, but cant sit there and do nothing, and unless a significant amount of contributors take action, it will only get worse with more images being added to Googledrive.

14
123RF / Re: Is there a better way?
« on: January 01, 2013, 14:16 »
Yeah, not sure what to do.  I was thinking I shouldn't delete the account until I get paid on the 13th but don't want to make any sales between now and then.

Deleted all my images except one lcv one, as also wanted to keep account active.

Manually deleted images which took about 30 minutes for about 600. Had to tick box for each image but could do 20 on a page.

15
123RF / Re: They are their rules, why don't they apply them?
« on: January 01, 2013, 14:11 »
now I am with 3 sales for 2.16$ but on the bottom stats I have 3 sales for 1.84$, is that the cut from 50% to 45%?

Thats so 123RF can remind you what you would have been paid before they cut your royalty rate

16
123RF / Re: They are their rules, why don't they apply them?
« on: January 01, 2013, 06:58 »
Another earnings glitch.

Two small sales today so far, showing as 0.35 cents each (level 2) in the monthly and daily earnings summary pages.

However go to the individual stats (Sell Images / Download Stats of your images) and both images are showing individual earnings of 0.5 cents each. Until this has been fixed, as soon as more than one image has been sold each day it will be very hard to see how much is actually being paid for each image sale.

17
123RF / Re: 2013 is here - how about the promisses?
« on: December 23, 2012, 07:20 »
Quite a bit has been said lately about the actual commission paid per credit by 123RF due to the selling of discounted credits, with many people claiming that a large quantity of their credit sales are discounted to some degree or other.

Based on my last couple of hundered of credit sales at 123RF, I have received 200.53 in commissions from 508 credits. This is from 195 actual credit image sales, which should represent an acceptable sample size to base some calculations on.

This equates to an actual average price paid by the buyer of $0.79 per credit (however I have seen much larger discounts on individual sales - many in the 50% plus discount range).

Using the average credit price paid by the buyer we can come up with a $ royalty commision for each image size for each of the proposed new levels at 123RF, something which has been hard to do in the past due to the wide range in actual dollar commissions recived due to the dicounted credits.

The following tabel shows the $amounts paid for the new levels, based on $0.79 per credit purchase price.

123RF                         Small   Medium   Large   XLarge   XXLarge
Image                         400x    881x      2607x   3600x    2800x
Dimensions                  247      544       1609     2221     4214
Level 1 (30%)              $0.24    $0.47    $0.71   $0.95    $1.18
Level 2 (35%)              $0.28    $0.55    $0.83   $1.11    $1.38
Level 3 (40%)              $0.32    $0.63    $0.95   $1.26    $1.58
Level 4 (45%)              $0.36    $0.71    $1.07   $1.42    $1.78
Level 5 (50%)              $0.39    $0.79    $1.18   $1.58    $1.97

This can then be compared to Fotolia and Depositphotos:

Fotolia                       XSmall   Small   Medium   Large   XLarge
Image                        485x     850x    1691x     2360x   4214x
Dimensions                 282      565      1124       1568    2800
White Level (20%)      $0.20    $0.60   $1.00      $1.40   $1.60
Bronze Level (23%)    $0.23    $0.69   $1.15      $1.61   $1.84
Silver Level (25%)      $0.25    $0.75   $1.25      $1.75    $2.00


Deposit Photos           XSmall   Small   Medium   Large   XLarge
Image                       425x     867x    1735x      2454x   4214x
Dimensions                282       576     1153       1630     2800
Green Level (44%)     $0.35   $0.66    $1.32      $1.76   $2.64
Bronze 46%               $0.46   $0.92   $1.84       $2.76   $3.68
Silver 48%                 $0.48   $0.96   $1.92      $2.88   $3.84
Gold 50%                  $0.50    $1.00   $2.00      $3.00   $4.00

One thing that people do need to take into account is the actual images sizes sold, eg 123RF does not have XS and therefore a 123RF small equates to a Fotolia / DP XSmall. However Large is comparable across all 3 of the sites.

If we take Large as an example even a lowly White Level contributor at Fotolia would earn $1.40, a Green Level contributor at DP would earn $1.76, whereas a Level 1 contributor at 123RF would earn $0.71 (next year), with even a Level 5 Contributor at 50% (next year) only earning $1.18.

123Rf seems to compare better at the small/medium sizes but pays much less from large image size upwards.

Hopefully this goes some way to showing the levels of actual $royalties paid and clearly shows that the actual %commission isn't the be all and end all in determining whether a site pay a good or bad commission.

123Rf has been seen as paying a high commission % up till now, however 50% of a low credit price (especially when discounted further for buyers) equates to a lower royalty payment in $ than many sites paying a lower %.

Food for thought and some discussion.


Andy, great effort putting that together.  I'm guessing your intention was to compare the three cheapest micro sites that are leading the race to the bottom? 

I appreciate your effort because apart from them ripping us off in the other ways, you've just highlighted another reason for me to leave.  Considering DP will give a better return than 123rf will next year, and that I've left DP because they're too cheap and their commissions are too low, what does that say about 123rf?

123 may compare better than FT at the lower levels but we have to remember that not too long ago FT didn't look like that.  They've had two commission cuts in the same year and have changed their levels, moving the goalposts for everyone which resulted in many contributors turning against them.  So showing that 123rf who is a low volume, relative new site is not much better than FT, who has been around, is a high volume site and a top earner doesn't say much for them apart from saying that 123 has a real nerve thinking they can get away with acting as bad as the big boys without seeing any consequences.

Thanks again.

The main reason for comparing against Fotolia and DP was due to the previous cuts at FT and the previous concerns over low  prices and commissions at DP.

However when 123RF plan to drop their commissions for most, with even a large download for a level 5 contributor paying less than an entry level contributor would receive at both Fotolia and DP, then the comparisons should be made and people should take note. Plus anyone below level 5 is going to get shafted even more.

With the comparisons put side by side, each individual contributor can make a personal decison based on their port size, sales, level next year and expectations for 123RF. Until I carried out the comparison I had assumed that DP would be lower, but it seems that 123Rf are lower now and will be even lower for the majority next year.

My port (although small - only 600 images) will be getting deleted in the new year. With their low image credit prices, discounted credit pack prices I think they are heading the race to the bottom more so than others and dont really have the volume of sales to pull stunts like this.

18
123RF / Re: 2013 is here - how about the promisses?
« on: December 23, 2012, 03:23 »
What is missing from that analysis is that 123RF gives massive discounts on our backs. In that regard, your L size sale will rarely earn you $1.18. The average is MUCH smaller and they will never tell you how much smaller in fact. You will never be certain about the money you'll get from them at the end of the month.
I'm at level 5 after this month but that doesn't make them less shady or their business practices easier to accept.

For example, four L sales from my yesterday's income are like this: 1.335, 0.870, 1.320, 0.935.
Yep.

Tabimura, just to clarify:

The analysis took account of the discounts (based on my last couple of hundred credit sales), the $1.18 per large file at 50% is after the average discount. Large file with no discount should be $1.50.

Looking at your last four large sales, similar credit discounts applied, giving an average of $1.11  for each of your last four.

Thats one of the problems with sites like 123Rf and IS that widely offer discounted credits - makes it very hard for the contributors to see what the actual royalties paid by image size really is, and one of the things I dislike most at 123RF is that the contributors bear the brunt of the discounted credits.

Even though they pay 50%, the discounted credits bring the actual amount paid to the contributor down considerably.

Andy

19
123RF / Re: 2013 is here - how about the promisses?
« on: December 23, 2012, 02:19 »
Quite a bit has been said lately about the actual commission paid per credit by 123RF due to the selling of discounted credits, with many people claiming that a large quantity of their credit sales are discounted to some degree or other.

Based on my last couple of hundered of credit sales at 123RF, I have received 200.53 in commissions from 508 credits. This is from 195 actual credit image sales, which should represent an acceptable sample size to base some calculations on.

This equates to an actual average price paid by the buyer of $0.79 per credit (however I have seen much larger discounts on individual sales - many in the 50% plus discount range).

Using the average credit price paid by the buyer we can come up with a $ royalty commision for each image size for each of the proposed new levels at 123RF, something which has been hard to do in the past due to the wide range in actual dollar commissions recived due to the dicounted credits.

The following tabel shows the $amounts paid for the new levels, based on $0.79 per credit purchase price.

123RF                         Small   Medium   Large   XLarge   XXLarge
Image                         400x    881x      2607x   3600x    2800x
Dimensions                  247      544       1609     2221     4214
Level 1 (30%)              $0.24    $0.47    $0.71   $0.95    $1.18
Level 2 (35%)              $0.28    $0.55    $0.83   $1.11    $1.38
Level 3 (40%)              $0.32    $0.63    $0.95   $1.26    $1.58
Level 4 (45%)              $0.36    $0.71    $1.07   $1.42    $1.78
Level 5 (50%)              $0.39    $0.79    $1.18   $1.58    $1.97

This can then be compared to Fotolia and Depositphotos:

Fotolia                       XSmall   Small   Medium   Large   XLarge
Image                        485x     850x    1691x     2360x   4214x
Dimensions                 282      565      1124       1568    2800
White Level (20%)      $0.20    $0.60   $1.00      $1.40   $1.60
Bronze Level (23%)    $0.23    $0.69   $1.15      $1.61   $1.84
Silver Level (25%)      $0.25    $0.75   $1.25      $1.75    $2.00


Deposit Photos           XSmall   Small   Medium   Large   XLarge
Image                       425x     867x    1735x      2454x   4214x
Dimensions                282       576     1153       1630     2800
Green Level (44%)     $0.35   $0.66    $1.32      $1.76   $2.64
Bronze 46%               $0.46   $0.92   $1.84       $2.76   $3.68
Silver 48%                 $0.48   $0.96   $1.92      $2.88   $3.84
Gold 50%                  $0.50    $1.00   $2.00      $3.00   $4.00

One thing that people do need to take into account is the actual images sizes sold, eg 123RF does not have XS and therefore a 123RF small equates to a Fotolia / DP XSmall. However Large is comparable across all 3 of the sites.

If we take Large as an example even a lowly White Level contributor at Fotolia would earn $1.40, a Green Level contributor at DP would earn $1.76, whereas a Level 1 contributor at 123RF would earn $0.71 (next year), with even a Level 5 Contributor at 50% (next year) only earning $1.18.

123Rf seems to compare better at the small/medium sizes but pays much less from large image size upwards.

Hopefully this goes some way to showing the levels of actual $royalties paid and clearly shows that the actual %commission isn't the be all and end all in determining whether a site pay a good or bad commission.

123Rf has been seen as paying a high commission % up till now, however 50% of a low credit price (especially when discounted further for buyers) equates to a lower royalty payment in $ than many sites paying a lower %.

Food for thought and some discussion.

20
123RF / Re: 2013 is here - how about the promisses?
« on: December 21, 2012, 12:05 »
Just posted the following on 123RF facebook page, probably wont stay their long, based on the removal of yesterdays posts, but sure feels better after writing it.

My dreams fo the future are that 123RF reconsider their massive royalty cuts for the majority of contributors in 2013. Based on 123Rf's DREAM statment thsi is how I feel:

D for Dedication - completely lacking now I am facing a 30% commission cut.

R for Responsibility - what 123RF is lacking for treating its loyal contributors so badly by slashing their royalty commisions.

E fo Education - hoping that this post will educate buyers as to how badly 123RF is treating its image contributors.

A for Attitude - Extremely bad attitude of 123RF for treating contributors in this way.

M for Motivation - complete lack of motivation for me to continue supplying 123RF with images due to their massive commission cuts.


21
123RF / Re: 2013 is here - how about the promisses?
« on: December 20, 2012, 15:21 »
Added my thoughts on 123RF page - good for buyers to see how contributors are going to be treated.

For me enough is enough - a 30 % pay cut down to level 2 for me is just too much.

Port being deleted early next year unless 123RF reconsider.

22
General Stock Discussion / Re: Deposit Photos- Down for Uploads
« on: November 24, 2012, 05:04 »
Couldn't get FTP or online uploader to work yesterday.

FTP - transferred keywords and titles okay but just red cross where image should be.

Online Uploader - got undefined title error after uploading

Will try again today

23
Another unhappy contributor here.

One thing that hasn't been touched on much is that the 123RF commission % is based on the price the buyer paid for the credits and not based on 1 credit = $1.

It appears that 123RF seems to quite heavily discount their credit packages.

From a quick review of my last 100 credit sales, 308 credits were required for their purchase.

One would assume that at a 50% royalty that the commission would be close to $154, however the actual commission received was actually $126.

This represents an average credit discount of 18% given by 123RF to its buyers, which takes a substantial chunk out of our commission earnings.

I have had some XXL and XXL TIFF sales where the discount that 123RF must have given to the buyer is close to 60%.

Based on an average discount of 18% (from review of my last 100 credit sales) our sales are currently already being sold at what is effectively a percentage much lower than 50%, by hiding it behind buyer credit discounts.

If 123Rf are planning to increase sales dramatically as Alex says, how much of that is going to be at the cost of the contributor, by large credit discounts to buyers, even before they cut the commissions.

The proposed cut in commissions coupled with the fact that our dollars received are often based on substantial buyer credit discounts is just one step too far.

Alex if you are out there, I would like to here your reply to this.

24
Shutterstock.com / Re: Top Sellers
« on: November 05, 2011, 05:55 »
There's a thread over in the SS forum - looks like the vast, vast majority of the 300,000 have 0 images and most of the rest are pretty small time.


The thread over in shutterstock forum links to website with shutterstock portfolio sizes (website is in russian, so will need to google translate), quick look through shows:

Just over 16000 contributors with over 100 images on shutterstock.

and only about 33000 contributors with one or more images on shuttertsock.

Link to shutterstock forum thread is:

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=114136

Some intersteing facts on portfolio sizes and images added in last week / month,but no indication of sales.

Pages: [1]

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results