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 - xst

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
iStockPhoto.com / Re: 100+ Files Deactivation by IStock for Nudity
« on: September 27, 2015, 12:29 »
Well, their site, their choice.  I don't see anything wrong with that image.  Maybe they're being forced to be PC.

Maybe models threaten to sue when those images are used for escort services, porn sites, or other things they don't like.


That's a violation of Getty's own release (pornography or defamation), which is the one I use with all the agencies.  I've had it happen twice in ten years and was able to have the images taken down immediately with a DMCA request.  So no, whatever the reason for iStock's change in policy, I'm confident that you haven't identified it.

Some of those images look like they could only be used for those kinds of things, if they can't legally be used per the terms then it makes sense to cull them.


there is market for those images - "covers of romance stories".
There are a lot of self-published books of this kind (even on Amazon)
www.amazon.com/Their-Stepsister-Alexa-Riley-ebook/dp/B00U02FK12
And (wearing my designer hat now) sometimes it is more convenient to have nude image even when final product won't show any private parts. Covering them by texts, etc makes it visually more pleasing then have it covered by clothes. Illusion sells...

I guess romance novelists will have to go elsewhere to get nude images that they want to crop or cover up so there is no nudity in the final copy.  Seems like a very limited set of buyers though at least.  BTW it looks like the image you used for an example would still be allowed wouldn't it?
I also don't think they should get rid of requiring releases for commercial work just because a buyer could crop, blur or cover the parts of the image to make it ok.


BTW it looks like the image you used for an example would still be allowed wouldn't it? - Nop. Deactivated.


2
iStockPhoto.com / Re: 100+ Files Deactivation by IStock for Nudity
« on: September 18, 2015, 14:11 »
Well, their site, their choice.  I don't see anything wrong with that image.  Maybe they're being forced to be PC.

Maybe models threaten to sue when those images are used for escort services, porn sites, or other things they don't like.


That's a violation of Getty's own release (pornography or defamation), which is the one I use with all the agencies.  I've had it happen twice in ten years and was able to have the images taken down immediately with a DMCA request.  So no, whatever the reason for iStock's change in policy, I'm confident that you haven't identified it.

Some of those images look like they could only be used for those kinds of things, if they can't legally be used per the terms then it makes sense to cull them.


there is market for those images - "covers of romance stories".
There are a lot of self-published books of this kind (even on Amazon)
www.amazon.com/Their-Stepsister-Alexa-Riley-ebook/dp/B00U02FK12
And (wearing my designer hat now) sometimes it is more convenient to have nude image even when final product won't show any private parts. Covering them by texts, etc makes it visually more pleasing then have it covered by clothes. Illusion sells...

3
iStockPhoto.com / Re: 100+ Files Deactivation by IStock for Nudity
« on: September 17, 2015, 16:03 »
this is iStock/Getty's site and they make the rules.

I guess we should now charge more when people contact us directly for this kind of images.

4
iStockPhoto.com / Re: 100+ Files Deactivation by IStock for Nudity
« on: September 17, 2015, 13:05 »
I got over 300 deactivated.
They are apparently getting read of anything sensual

BTW notice one of the reasons they mention "or represents gender roles in a sexist manner"

As far as I heard, there are complains from big clients that their employees are using corporate accounts to download this kind of images for "personal use".



 

5
the same here,
waiting since august  >:(
complete nonsense

6
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy distributor commision
« on: December 19, 2014, 17:10 »
According to Alamy the distributor does most of the work, hence the bigger cut. They also reason, without the distributor your images would not get maximum exposure, hence you get more sales if you opt in. Sales you otherwise wouldnt have had.

I don't argue about 40% of distributor cut,
I think that if image was sold for $100 and distributor got $40 - Alamy should get commission from $60, since that's what they received.

7
Alamy.com / Alamy distributor commision
« on: December 19, 2014, 16:05 »
Alamy way of calculation commission is realty creative  >:(

When they sell through distributor,
distributor gets 40% and Alamy 30%, so you left with 30%.

In usual distribution business of normal goods you usually get % of whatever money you delivered to next entity in the food chain, not form end price.

They really should charge 30% not from original price, but from whatever was left after distributor got paid.
so in more fair world it should be 40%*30% = 12% of original price and our cut should be 100%- 40%-12% = 48%.
almost 1.5 times higher

8
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia D-Day (Deactivation Day) - May,1
« on: May 13, 2014, 09:48 »
If everyone who opted put, would go and start tweeting there at DollarPhotoClub, it may get more visible. But it also may be promotion of them

Customers are noticing the "missing" images - more than a few tweets like these over the last 10 days:

https://twitter.com/DollarPhotoClub/status/465744399767707648

https://twitter.com/DollarPhotoClub/status/465770470558937088

Love it  8) https://twitter.com/bilalhouri/status/461699072261234688

9
Shutterstock.com / Re: Whole batch random rejection, twice.
« on: January 15, 2014, 18:54 »
n/a

10
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia - Unsold contents (ANNOUNCEMENT)
« on: July 29, 2013, 14:59 »
even more arguments for me to delayed uploading.

Currently I delay fro them 6-9 months

11
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Changes to Main Collection pricing
« on: June 27, 2013, 17:07 »
with 15%-17% commission - XL images will pay $1.5
SS is paying up to $2.85 on single image purchase. (non- susbs) and get quite a bit of those
In word, even if I'm going to submit anything new to iStock - it will be with 6-10 months delayed comparing to other sites


I actually like the price change. I think it's a little extreme, they should have aimed to get the XL images in the $10 price point (at current credit rates they're in the $7-9 range). But the sentiment is reasonable. Other companies are charging similar prices, and the years of price increases at istock have certainly cut down on the sales volume we used to see.

But why the heck not not try something. Things aren't exactly going well at istock lately. Desperate times, desperate measures.

12
General Stock Discussion / shutterpoint is infected
« on: May 12, 2013, 19:45 »
shutterpoint is infected with "Exploit Blackhat SEO".
Unfortunately even page with contact form is infected.
does anybody know their e-mail to let them know?

13
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Image Deactivation Tally for iStockPhoto
« on: January 18, 2013, 15:38 »
I think it would be good idea to each of us send a e-mail using iStock contributor relations form and inform them about our readiness to protest and deactivate images.

If somebody could compile a standard text it would be good.

Anther thing - I don't really read iStock forums, so I was unaware about this issue.
However if I get iStock site-mail - I always read it.
Again,
maybe somebody can compile a simple message alerting about this issue. And then each one of us could send this message to our "Creative network" on IS site???

14
I bet 99% won't know about all this and won't opt-out

I'm not sure how imminent and serious a threat this proposal is - sometimes governments talk a lot, and commission blue ribbon panels to debate for years, write reports and do nothing. There are a couple of other blog posts about this issue that I read after reading your link - see here and here.

But if I understand this proposal correctly, it seems that I might have virtually all rights to decide where, to whom, for what price and under what licensing terms my copyrighted work is sold taken away - unless I know enough to opt out, in another country, under whatever laws that country cares to pass? And if they do license my works for a pittance, I'm to know who to contact to collect my share of that pittance?

Any requirement for a user of copyrighted material to do a diligent search for me, the rights holder is removed and this extended collective licensing (ECL) takes its place? This is just mind boggling. Poor publisher/Google/other buyer who has to do work to find out who owns the thing they want to use. Boo hoo - let them get off their lazy backsides and find out who to pay for what they use.

Am I missing something here, or is this very bad news for producers of copyrighted works?

16
Veer / Re: Your Veer portfolio on Alamy
« on: May 30, 2012, 17:23 »
Last reply from Ryan, 5 days ago:

Quote
"I havent received an update as to the details of the Alamy situation as of yet, sorry for the delay."

17
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Partner program sales list
« on: May 24, 2012, 17:28 »
I've talked to a lawyer informally.
He says that there can be legal recourse for some of our requests.
(it would require some organization work and money to hire a lawyer.)

however he says that even if we have lawyer the first step would be to have very solid documented proof about every specific request and pattern of IS ignoring those requests.
The bottom line  is that we can save money and organize this step ourselves.

the next step would be requesting audit. (this would require money. We would probably need to get 400-500 contributors on board for this. The number isn't small, but not out of reach.)
Audit should reveal discrepancies between what they sell and what they report to us (and according to him it's almost guaranteed.  At least from his experience there was no audit that wouldn't find at least something)

And then if are able to classify this as "class action suite" then they would settle, because at this point it would be much more expensive for them to go for actual trail.

What's important is, that although this issue isn't big - it can help us to form some sort of organizational representational structure, which later can be leveraged to renegotiate our standard contracts 

That's may long term plan.

I agree with you that reporting is so hard to gather as to be useless, but I don't think it would make a difference to IS if every contributor e-mailed them hourly. This request can go on the list (which by now is scarily long) of all the things, promised or desired, that aren't being done.

Doing work on contributor tools represents a cost to them. They are busy trying to maximize their profit and control (minimize) costs. They no longer care what contributors think and I believe assume that for every disgruntled contributor who leaves, there are more out there who will contribute.

Sounds defeatist and disgruntled? Perhaps. I've been a contributor with IS since Fall 2004 and I'd say I'm just being realistic about the current situation.

As the old saying goes, save your breath to cool your porridge.

18
iStockPhoto.com / Partner program sales list
« on: May 24, 2012, 16:08 »
for a while I'm pressing Istock to provide us with reports of what files were sold through Thinkstock and Photos on monthly basis.
Currently they only provide lifetime stats.
So dynamic of what they sale is pretty much concealed.

They are playing games trying to persuade me that this information is already available (since I can go and see it for each particular image).
Obviously that's completely impractical to go through thousand of images of portfolio and do it.

I encourage everyone who cares about this, send messages to support and bombard them with this requests regularly, week after week.

19
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock IPO (or actually Getty)
« on: May 22, 2012, 15:22 »
KKR - is the one that buying 50% of fotolia.

If they concentrate IS and Fotolia in one business, taking the worst if both - it will be perfect abomination

20
Veer / Re: Your Veer portfolio on Alamy
« on: May 17, 2012, 13:55 »
Same here. That's mess!
And BTW Collection : Stock Budget (Most likely 123rf) - all my images there listed as "No release" ???
 
I just found my photos on agency www.profimedia.com.
I do not contribute to them, but I do contribute to Alamy and Veer etc.
I found most of my images in 3 copies for 3 different prices on Profimedia.
Same photos from Alamy + same photos from Veer + same photos from - dont know.  :-\

5M photos from Alamy : Collection: Alamy
web 170px      5
web 280px      15
web 400px      49
web 800+px   90
A6 (300 dpi)   180
A5 (300 dpi)   235
A4 (300 dpi)   305
A3 (300 dpi)   360
http://www.profimedia.com/creative/search/archiv/2

2M photos from - Veer : Collection: MS Value
web 400px      2
web 800+px   4
web 1600px   7
A5 (300 dpi)   12
A4 (300 dpi)   17
A3 (300 dpi)   24
http://www.profimedia.com/creative/search/archiv/618


10M photos from - dont know Collection : Stock Budget
web 400px      2
web 800+px   3
web 1600px   4
A5 (300 dpi)   6
A4 (300 dpi)   7
A3 (300 dpi)   8
http://www.profimedia.com/creative/search/archiv/622

21
Veer / Re: Your Veer portfolio on Alamy
« on: May 16, 2012, 16:41 »
everybody has to send e-mail to Veer.
They have to know the extent of dissatisfaction.


Unlike other sites - we do have more leverage with Veer because Veer is relatively low-earner. And for most of us it won't be big financial damage to drop them.

22
Dreamstime.com / Re: New DT 2012 Pricing Structure
« on: April 26, 2012, 18:01 »
My calculations were wrong.
My apologies to DT.

There is no lowering of our share
for example if you had image of level 1. It got 30%. Now this image become Level 2.
You are getting 30% for level 2 under new system.

The only share cut is for images that haven't sold for 24 months. and images with over 25 downloads


23
Dreamstime.com / Re: New DT 2012 Pricing Structure
« on: April 26, 2012, 13:49 »
numbers: Pay attention to contributors commissions change vs. Agency commissions change.

Basically for level 1 and 2 they shared some, although agency raise was much bigger.

For level 3 and 4 (especially L and XL) they took almost all price increase to themselves
 

Interesting. Thanks for the info. I would say this doesn't account for level jumps though. My level 1 images became level 2 images and my level 3 and above images tripled in quantity. I think some of the people that were most hurt by this were their successful contributors with lots of level 5 images. Strange that successful contributors have been targets lately by many agencies.

Please pay attention,
That table takes account all this

24
Dreamstime.com / Re: New DT 2012 Pricing Structure
« on: April 26, 2012, 12:50 »
^^What about L5?

Also level 5

25
Dreamstime.com / Re: New DT 2012 Pricing Structure
« on: April 26, 2012, 12:32 »
.
 

Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results