|
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.
Topics - Freedom
51
« on: July 02, 2009, 11:59 »
My first batch after the initial approval has been reviewed. A few images were rejected for inappropriate keywords. But I have no clue which keywords are inappropriate. Actually, in most instances, I just cut and pasted keywords provided by Snapvillage's reviewers.
I remember someone suggested earlier that Veer point out the offending keywords (as Istock does) so we can remove them. Is it possible? Brian, do you have any suggestions? Thanks.
52
« on: June 27, 2009, 01:29 »
I am curious if your mood, as a micro stock contributor, is significantly affected by the acceptance and rejections, ups and downs of sales, and changes made by the agencies.
53
« on: June 15, 2009, 17:21 »
First I wish they help improve the contributor relationships.
Second, I wish they improve the sales, and I am certain that is why they are recruited. However, I hope they build a win-win situation for everyone.
54
« on: May 26, 2009, 16:38 »
How many Scout tickets can an exclusive submit per month?
Non-exclusives can only submit three.
55
« on: May 21, 2009, 16:22 »
Does anyone know why IS disambiguations are not in alphabetical order? It is really hard to find the right one when the list is extremely long.
Has anyone raised this before? Is it very difficult to do technically?
56
« on: May 01, 2009, 22:57 »
Do you like the idea of Photos.com and Jupiter Unlimited subscriptions?
57
« on: April 21, 2009, 13:03 »
My sales have come to a virtual stop under the new best match 2.0, after a healthy March and early April.
Is it best match 2.0 or normal ups and downs?
58
« on: March 26, 2009, 12:09 »
Just wonder if anyone has made any sales through Veer yet?
59
« on: March 24, 2009, 14:09 »
Bruce Livingstone's departure from IS signals the end of an era, and could indicate that micro stock industry is entering an age of maturity and mainstream.
What do we know about Jonathan Klein? Is he also behind Flickr and StockXpert? In what capacity?
He could be a black horse. Flickr deal was unconventional and visionary. It departs from IS's technical perfectionist approach and encourages the spirit of artistic creativity and experimental exploration.
Let's hope him well.
60
« on: March 09, 2009, 10:27 »
How are you doing at StockXpert?
It has been sub sales only for me in March, and the income has become the lowest among all my micro sites.
61
« on: February 24, 2009, 13:04 »
I don't really get it why a buyer should care if a RF image is exclusive or not. Given the RF nature, two competing companies can buy the same photo from the same agency even though the photo is exclusive to that agency.
I have asked a few friends in some advertising firms. They said they only wanted to get the most appropriate photos and exclusivity was not a concern for them.
What do you think?
62
« on: December 31, 2008, 11:43 »
Let's give the big 6 a year end review. Some agencies are doing surprisingly well and others going downhill even with many images added to the portfolio. This poll is meant as a comparison of its own performances in the Decembers of 2007 and 2008, and not a comparison with others in other times of the year. Let the truth be out. Happy new year!  Oops, the Poll function does not allow for multiple votes. Then just vote for the agency which has the most decrease in revenue.
63
« on: December 22, 2008, 19:45 »
Personally, I haven't sold any RF photos in Alamy yet, so I tend to have this urge to upload to micro sites. However, since RM sales generate good returns, I am not sure now.
How about you?
P.S. You must vote first and then see the results.
64
« on: December 19, 2008, 14:46 »
Are there still any sites accepting unidentifiable people or body parts as RF photos? Thanks.
65
« on: November 22, 2008, 20:53 »
How many images did you have online when you started to make $100 per month at 123RF (excluding EL sales)?
66
« on: November 08, 2008, 10:36 »
Some photographers were discussing what were selling well in a forum. One photographer said one should shoot the right kind of stock photos, and not just good ones. Out of curiosity, I took a look at that person's portfolio, and found that many images in that person's portfolio were cancelled stamps. They were doing exceptionally well, even the top sellers, for that person.
I must say I was amazed. It was said that cancelled stamps were not protected by any copyright law nor did they need any model or property releases. All you need to do is to get a cheap fixed focal lens (such as Canon 50mm and shoot on a flat surface. Besides, the stamps are usually created by recognized artists so the technical quality should be impeccable. You don't have to incurred travel expenses except a regular trip to the stamp fairs to get a grab bag of cancelled stamps at low costs. The list goes on and on..
I wonder whether or not this is the best kept secret in the stock photo industry.
67
« on: May 27, 2008, 23:23 »
Is it a joke or what?
Someone at StockXpert has been rejecting batches of photos for no reason at all "Rejected - [Thank you but we are not interested in this subject matter or situation]".
No similar photos in the batches. The batches contains model shots, landscapes, conceptual shots, wildlife, pets, etc., many of them have been accepted by other agencies and selling.
Is there a way to ask for a review of the decision? Does anyone have Steve's email?
I am sure it's not just me.
68
« on: April 24, 2008, 00:28 »
Yesterday, I get 0.415 for 1 credit, today I got 0.50 for 1 credit. It looks like that the new price increase is taking effect.
Does anyone else notice that?
69
« on: April 23, 2008, 11:27 »
Don't know if it is just me, but I don't have the regular amount of DLs since IS announced the subscriptions. Have the designers stopped downloading until the sub sales start?
70
« on: April 19, 2008, 11:17 »
Recently there are multiple discussions about stolen images at various sites.
If the guy bought the images from subscription sales, if the subscription user agreement in one of the sites allows the buyer to use the images anyway they like, does it make him a legitimate reseller of the "stolen images"?
71
« on: February 17, 2008, 21:09 »
One of my conceptual shot was rejected by a stock agency. A few weeks later, I saw another photo with shockingly similar concept and arrangement on the front page of the same site. When I looked at the dates, the similar image was submitted on the same day when my photo was refused.
It's a known fact that many reviewers are also contributing photograhers. I have no idea whether or not it was a pure coincidence.
But, it occurs to me that stock agencies should consider the potential conflict of interests. Most reviewers must be persons of high integrity but it remains a possiblity that some reviewers may refuse photos similar to their own or even copy another photographer's idea.
Think about it.
72
« on: February 09, 2008, 20:06 »
I find the notion of exclusivity benefiting stockphoto agencies and buyers interesting. I can see why some photographers are benefiting from the preferential treatment as being exclusive.
As we know, many prominent universities prefer faculty members who had studied and taught at other institutions because of their broader experience and exposure, rather than those whom only had the exclusive experience in one place.
In order to survive at different places, a non-exclusive photographer has to be more adeptable and tougher, and the quality is likely to be higher because of the broader experience.
When a photographer is exclusive to one agency, his photos are still available to all buyers in this agency. So I am not convinced that the buyers will have any problems to see the same photos available in other places. Because the exclusive photographer's photos are never exclusive to one buyer unless the photo is sold through an exclusive buy-out license immediately.
So why will exclusivity benefit stock agencies and buyers?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
