|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
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 - tundraphoto
1
« on: March 24, 2024, 15:15 »
How was my February? Worst month in 15 years. Ive gone from making a couple of thousand a month on the late 2010s, to a few hundred a month in the early 2020s, to $90 in February 2024!! I just dont get it. I havent been below $250 since like 2012 (and that was back when I got paid weekly!!) and January this year was close to $500. I seem to have fallen off the cliff and wont even get paid this month. Pretty discouraging. Maybe time to throw in the towel. That averages less than 1 cent per file uploaded!!
2
« on: May 10, 2011, 11:28 »
So iStock wants contributors that contribute to multiple sites to increase their prices? That seems like a great way to drive off customers. Sure makes me wonder if the value of Exclusiveness has further decreased as I think this will decrease the number of customers that use iStock, regardless of the types of images they buy. JMHO
3
« on: April 22, 2011, 21:21 »
Yes well hang on a minute! Louis Vuittone, is a REALLY copyrighted brandname, the lot in fact, the letters LV, stand for trouble, unless you check it out, editorial or not, check it out.
Some 10 years back I was very lucky not to get into trouble with a stupid Gucci bag, I did get into trouble but bailed my way out of it by offering a dozen free shots.
can be VERY costly. So find out about it.
I'm very confused now. Please check the photo (not full size)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/23976648/IMG_5537-2drop.jpg
It's a simple bag photo but who knows i don't want to get in to trouble..
Thats NOT editorial!! thats a product shot and pure advertising. Gotswyck is right! no one is going to buy that. Dump it.
iStock has asked for product shots isolated on white. To be used for illustrative purposes, not advertising. And actually, so far sales on product/brand stuff have been pretty good.
The bag in itself might be OK, as long as you dont use the LV initials or the brand name showing. Sure if it was an RM sale for thousands I might take a chance but for the peanuts of a Micro sale, no way.
besides how can you own the copy of something that is already copyrighted? why dont you just try and use Coca-cola or Apple or Shell and see how long it takes before you have a law- suit on your hands.
Editorial would have been if a woman in a crowd or something just happend to carry the bag.
It's apparent you don't undersrand the rules for editorial. Any product shot is allowed - so long as it's not obviously taken on someone else's private property (that's the Disney issue). Editorial images cannot be used for advertising. Also, staged images involving people with products are not allowed. There are no limits on staged product-only images, including those with the LV logo.
4
« on: March 20, 2011, 11:52 »
Most card companies charge the merchant around 3% or so simply for transferring the funds. So, even if you pay off your bill each month, the card company has already made 3% off you.
I don't hear iS going after the card companies. Apparently, it was all spelled out in the agreement that iS agreed to when they started banking with that card company. Otherwise, we'd be hearing of lawsuits. Also, the contributor agreement does not forbid take backs. So, we can complain all day, but it's business. As contributors, we need to complain to get iS to change their policy to absorb such costs or buy the necessary insurance to prevent future events.
5
« on: March 10, 2011, 21:14 »
I was curious if every person at iStock received the same percentage of take back as me, what would be the real severity of the fraud that occurred. Here is how that calculation works out: $$$ * 1000/MS where MS is my MarketShare from http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/This gives the total amount of royalties, assuming everyone had the same percentage of refund as me, that iStock will take back next week. If we divide this by the average royalty rate in decimal form (e.g. 0.25 for 25%), it gives us the total fraud amount charged on those credit cards. In my case, that calculation worked out to almost $400,000. I suspect if one were to do this on other portfolios, we would find the total fraud is actually much more than that. For example, Mr. sjlocke has an MS of 1.29. Given his $5000 refund, that gives: $5000*1000/1.26 = $3.97M Then, assuming that average royalty rate of 0.25 gives a grand total of just under $16 million dollars in fraud. I realize that doing such exercises is futile. Still, I think these numbers are telling of the scale of the problem.
6
« on: March 10, 2011, 20:41 »
How are you able to tell who has been uploading a lot? Are you using the Istockcharts?
Go to: http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/and then sort by "New Files 30 Days." If you look down the list to "Blend Images," (currently #8) that contributor is a Bronze yet uploaded 433 images in the last 30 days. That seems quite suspicious. Then #17, "justme_yo" has 326 new images. Those are very high numbers, particularly for Bronze contributors.
7
« on: March 10, 2011, 20:37 »
Got the deductions as well. Only my best sellers were downloaded...
Last time was $10, this time over $30. My best sellers as well. Isn't that comforting, to know that someone has illegal and free copies of your best selling images? Granted, they could probably steal them elsewhere (i.e. somewhere they are being used), but still.
8
« on: March 09, 2011, 20:49 »
Apparently it's too much trouble for them to get to it today. Looks like it's going to be tomorrow according to mr. mexico.
9
« on: March 06, 2011, 07:17 »
... many of us having got random rejections while they change the rules at a whim, the next 'privilege' is going to relate to acceptance rate.
That would indicate that there are rules. It seems that they are making them up as they go.
10
« on: March 02, 2011, 22:25 »
Has anyone seen the new My Uploads page format? You have GOT to be kidding me!! We have a single column that has images with text interspersed. Apparently nobody at IS has ever used Excel or any other table software.
11
« on: March 02, 2011, 11:13 »
I had one Editorial file accepted this morning. I still have about 60 files+ in the queue just sitting there, most from around the same submission date.
Apparently iStock is constipated!
12
« on: March 01, 2011, 10:52 »
Wanted to bump this as I still have several images in the que that go back as far as 2/16 (editorial and RF). I have not had a file reviewed since perhaps mid-week last. Anyone having files approved?
13
« on: February 17, 2011, 16:21 »
Apparently they flipped the switch sometime earlier today.
14
« on: February 17, 2011, 10:36 »
That is the million-dollar question. If I didn't have to account for Vetta, Agency, and E+, it might be easier to quantify. ...
I am guessing that if you have a good number of vetta and E+ at IS and they sell, then exclusive is your best option. If you can't crack those clubs or the images you do get in just don't see many sales then being all over is probably a better option. That is just my guess though.
I'm in the other boat with just a few Vetta images that rarely sell. I do get about one extended license on average each month from a file in the regular collection, which accounts for a nice chunk of change. With over 3,000 images, though, I think it would take me quite a bit of time uploading to other sites to make up the loss by dropping Exclusivity. My royalty rate would drop by almost exactly 50%! I am little weary having all my eggs in one basket - but I have a day job and this whole experiment has been taken with little risk anyway. So, I think I'll stick with it at least a little longer to see how the year works out.
15
« on: February 11, 2011, 17:05 »
Uh oh! According to one of our own - this doesn't look good at all! http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=299222&messageid=5831392"I just received a CR reply to a ticket I opened (on or around 1/12) questioning a weird per credit price on a bunch of images I suspected were fraudulent. The reply said that they were on one of the fraudulent accounts, so I would suspect there will be another email coming."
16
« on: February 09, 2011, 15:50 »
So I'm going to guess that the editorial stuff is different inspectors, although they could have moved some inspectors from one section to there and now have a shortage of inspectors for the regular queue. but who knows.
My understanding from reading a post on an iS forum was that inspectors were pulled from the regular pool and trained specifically for Editorial. It made no mention of hiring new inspectors, which would explain the slow down.
17
« on: February 09, 2011, 13:00 »
I haven't been banned and I've certainly posted many things pointing out the flaws, problems, greed, inconsistency, etc. with various aspects of the site or company policy.
I have gotten ticked off via site mail a couple of times, but not for every post. Things are not good over there, and I find the "thank you for fixing this piece of code you broke months ago" pretty gag inducing, but I do think it's possible to hold their toes to the fire as long as you don't rant or make personal attacks.
Once, I really think there was some attention paid to contributor concerns and speaking out in the forum made a difference. I don't think that any more, but until I give up on the site altogether, I will continue to complain constructively about things that need attention.
It's pretty easy to get yourself banned by bluntly and angrily telling them the truth about how they have effed up one of the best stock sites out there. It's also reasonably easy to avoid getting banned if you want to temper what you say a little and word things carefully (harder to do for non-native English speakers, I realize).
+1
18
« on: February 09, 2011, 11:56 »
Has the addition of the Editorial workload just completely swamped the reviewers? I have something like 80 images in the que and some since the 30th that are just sitting there. Perhaps someone should have hired more reviewers...
Has anyone had any files reviewed lately?
19
« on: February 08, 2011, 09:41 »
.... got a "I don't like you and I'm in charge" email from little lobo. I backed off before getting banned, but still. How silly is that? I sent an email about his lack of respect towards us, the contributors. Haven't heard back. ....
You know, I came real close yesterday to sending an e-mail to Contributor Relations regarding his unprofessional remarks in the forum. Some of the remarks verge on being down right disrespectful. You would think iS would realize that this portrays a bad image of the company - as moderators represent the company, whether they are paid are not! I wonder if enough of us sent e-mails someone would straighten him out?
20
« on: February 07, 2011, 15:23 »
What do you mean? I just had a bunch of editorial images rejected for not having the country in the caption title - though it was in the caption. So, I guess the buyers wouldn't know that "Tupelo, Mississippi" was in the U.S and not India. Of course, if I just put "Tupelo, USA", that would be OK. How dumb is that?
21
« on: February 06, 2011, 21:21 »
I have been with iStock for several years and made them and myself a lot of money. I understand it is their site, but we arent just a bunch of ranting quacks, we have a vested interest in what happens ...
Yeah, when you put it that way, it does sound a little ridiculous. I for one have made enough for them over the last few years to probably pay someone's salary - perhaps even Lobo's salary. In those terms, it seems I should be able to say more in a less restrictive manner. Oh, well. I suppose they will continue to delete posts and just blow off the folks that are paying their salaries. Hope it doesn't eventually come back to bit them in the ....
22
« on: February 06, 2011, 16:29 »
Oh h*ll, I haven't got a colon, I guess they'll all come bouncing back again. My acceptance rate will be shot to pieces, and doubling up on submissions means I'll be out of upload spots. Sh*t and h*ll.
I think it's really, really ridiculous that the 'hint' at the caption field says:
"The caption is where you need to supply the 4 W's. Who is in the photo (if a person is present), What is happening in the photo, When was the image taken and Where was the image taken?", but that's not the order they want you to write the caption in.
Again, poor writing and poor quality control.
Nothing new here.
And, again, we get punished (by having to re-upload, by losing upload spaces, by our acceptance rate going down) because of their ineptitude.
Thanks! That statement above about the colon made my day. They don't realize that when interfacing with tens of thousands of contributors you have to make everything idiot proof. Otherwise, you will get 10,000 versions of what folks "think" you want, which is likely not going to be what you want. I hope they are completely bombarded with bad captions - serves them right. Of course, the only one that really gets the shaft is the contributor. I also don't like the fact that the editorial upload page and the royalty free upload page look identical. I personally think they should look different - IMHO.
23
« on: February 05, 2011, 17:42 »
Update:
I'm assuming the editorial pics are being fast tracked over the 'normal' queue. I've got all my rejections in (for having date and title reversed) from the 2nd, but my 'main collection' files from the 1st are still pending.
Likewise, Sue, all mine from Feb 2nd reviewed today but older non-editorial files still waiting. Oh, and yes mine were all rejected! Somehow I had managed to miss that the caption info had to be in an exact format (as with SS and 123). The format is on their Editorial use forum BTW for anyone else who hasn't seen it. No problem now I know that -and all the images were invited for re-submission once the caption is sorted. Regards, David.
I am curious. Is it simply a matter of fixing the Caption and then hitting a resubmit button - or do you have to re-upload the image and go through the whole process again? I just noticed I left the colon out of some of mine, although the format is otherwise as required. If I have to resubmit 20 files for a missed colon, I am going to be quite peeved! I personally think that locking the caption field prior to the file being accepted is just dumb! If they want to lock it after acceptance, that's fine. But why lock before that?
24
« on: February 05, 2011, 10:17 »
In my opinion Lobo's personal vendetta's and frustrations should not interfere with normal iStock operation and currently he is denying me access to client questions via sitemail and the forums i need for criticism, help and support.
And it makes folks like me that are usually quick to report bugs/issues decide to not bother with it. I am not going to provide my free troubleshooting efforts if I can't have the freedom to say what I want. It is a two way street.
25
« on: February 05, 2011, 09:22 »
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
