|
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 - pro@stockphotos
51
« on: February 22, 2013, 12:20 »
Why would increase contibutor payout if contributors are praising you beyond reproach and the inspection queues are humming. I would be tempted to do the opposite. There is a strong need to reward shareholders.
52
« on: February 21, 2013, 17:30 »
I don't think anyone should take a non-acceptance as an indication you didn't have enough nights out with someone.
It would be nice to believe this, but I know how cliquish istock was at its fouding. What is the reason for not accepting a world class stock photographer at this stage.
With a smaller team, it may be easier to use the contributor level as a gatekeeper, then trying to pick through images to find what fits, if you know what I mean.
Really, that is why I have to go with the clique on this one!!
53
« on: February 21, 2013, 12:14 »
I don't think anyone should take a non-acceptance as an indication you didn't have enough nights out with someone.
It would be nice to believe this, but I know how cliquish istock was at its founding. What is the reason for not accepting a world class stock photographer at this stage.
54
« on: February 21, 2013, 10:23 »
How is the invite sent? From other photographers or from the Stocksy only?
I think I'm not qualified for their wish levels, I didn't even get an invite. :0(
If your name is not on their radar, then you will not get a response. It really goes back to your relationship to the founder and the small group that has been formed. Very few will be "founding photographers". As far as an artsy type place that is not in line with Sean's great commercial work.
55
« on: February 20, 2013, 12:44 »
At least you heard back. Sorry it was a no. Your work is great IMO, but maybe they plan to go for a particular niche or market?
I haven't heard back, but hadn't expected to until they are a bit further along.
You are not alone. It looks like this is animal farm "co-op" situation for now where "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". The key phrase is "founding photographers". You can be way above black diamond IS and be told "no thanks" from what I hear. Which means the "founding photographers" will be given certain advantages.
56
« on: February 16, 2013, 13:37 »
Maybe the Getty managers have recently bought SSTK stock? Seems to me that SS shareholders will be amongst the major beneficiaries of their actions.
Only if the presumed major defection of exclusives (which has yet to be proven) leads to a similar defection by buyers. I think that istock's prices and a growing awareness of cheaper alternatives is more likely to be the factor that shifts buyers, not the movement of files out of exclusivity. Let's face it, most exclusive files already have counterpards on SS and on average exclusives are no better than independents on any site with tough inspections.
If there is no difference between IS exclusives and independents on other sites, then why is there a price difference? If everyone is selling Mercedes or Fords, then why would other sites leave so much money on the table?
57
« on: February 09, 2013, 15:02 »
You can set up a separate account in another name and legally remain exclusive with IS while you move over to another exclusive arrangement (from now on) with newly created images. IS has agreed to this when asked.
If this was correct at any point in the past, I would not expect it now, in the current environment.
It was asked and approved 3 months ago by a big fish
58
« on: February 09, 2013, 09:53 »
I don't feel that comfortable as a non-exclusive. Several sites are almost as bad as istock. SS is so dominant that they hold most of my eggs. I hoped there would be a few years before SS started cutting commissions but having seen the BigStock announcement, I have no confidence in that anymore. So I'm not going to be critical of an exclusive that earns more than 99% of the people who post here. We're all in a difficult situation at the moment and I hope things will improve for everyone but its hard to be optimistic at the moment.
Exactly, I know five IS exclusives ranging in downloads from 60K to past black diamond who have stopped uploading because of the loss of faith in IS. I was warned of what getty does to contributors before the changes. With their desire to find out how to cash out with paying the artist I am hoping for their demise in microstock. But you cannot have your images competing against each other lowering the price with a click away. I believe Yuri's problem is he has 60K awesome images floating around out their available for pennies on the dollar compared to his site. If he removed all his images from the competition, then he would have a great chance to become a giant. The other sites must be starved of content. You can set up a separate account in another name and legally remain exclusive with IS while you move over to another exclusive arrangement (from now on) with newly created images. IS has agreed to this when asked. A co-op would reward fairly and capture the community feel sucked out by 1 owner getting very rich off the the contributors like Jon and Getty. That is not a community no matter what rebecca tells you.
59
« on: February 08, 2013, 19:09 »
Well, we know very little details on this one and it's a long way to your first payout. Forgive me if I'm intrigued but nothing else at this stage. Click of the fingers and everyone wants to send in all the images they have spent years creating. Fair enough it may promise a better deal than some of the bad news at the moment, but it's going to take a huge effort to compete with what is out there.
Back to working for the less equitable agencies who are in a position to pay me my slim percentage of something....Knights died out in the Middle Ages...
Yah seeing files sold to google for $60 and contributors getting a whopping $12 on 2 million+ downloads makes me feeling like running for the exits of the getty properties. And no $.38 subs is not good enough. SO, when a guy who slayed the getty monster speaks, I get excited. What would your thoughts of his chances of creating istock been in 1999?
60
« on: February 07, 2013, 13:12 »
This is what I said a while back.
"We need a community owned "co-op" Sean lead with large input from leading contributors. Why Sean, he is smarter than istock lawyer for starters. Now that istock was gutted there is no reason to be exclusive anymore. But the other sites are not a good option for low payout. Many istock exclusives are not producing images for the greedy losers at getty.
I know of a few top exclusives who would be interested. A co-op would eliminate one entity selling the whole thing in five years and only them getting rich of others work. It would make selling images worth more than selling the website.
The contributors who build the site need to be protected. This is the only real way!!"
*************************************
Hopefully it is coming true. Otherwise the same thing that happened to singers will happen to us. As soon as digitial was available it was a reduction of payments to the singers. They went from selling a whole record to singles to itunes to pandora. One musician said they were paid $2000 for 1.8 million plays on spotify. And spotify owners get billions!! That sounds about as bad as the getty google deal. Especially since they want to monetize the views. This would funnel all the money to one entity or getty. NO 40% payout not even 15%.
Bruce also probably worried getty would crush istock if he said no to the buyout. Stocksy appears to be another great opportunity for us contributors.
61
« on: February 07, 2013, 12:06 »
PHP Zend Developer for Stocksy.com (Victoria, BC)
Job Description :
Stocksy, a new photography cooperative based in downtown Victoria, BC, is looking for an experienced web developer to enhance, develop and maintain our web application.
Roles and Responsibility
We are looking for an intermediate to senior developer to lead development initiatives within Stocksy. The successful candidate will enjoy the opportunity of working with a small, dynamic development team using agile methodologies and utilizing the latest web technologies. The successful candidate will work closely with the team and our site membership to lead and develop innovative and elegant software solutions.
Essential Skills and Experience:
- Extensive knowledge and experience in PHP web development
- Strong skills in HTML, Javascript and CSS
- Experience and knowledge with MySQL or other database platforms.
- Comprehensive understanding of software design concepts, preferably in a team environment
- Working knowledge of unit testing and bug management
- Willing to take bottom line responsibility for their work and deliver high quality output
- Problem solver mentality
Desired Skills and Experience
- Experience working with agile methodologies
- Experience implementing projects with Zend Framework or other MVC frameworks
- Experience with Javascript frameworks (Dojo or jQuery)
Send resum or CV to bruce(at)stocksy.com. Candidates will be contacted for an interview.
Location: Victoria, BC
Compensation: $80,000/yr to scale based on experience
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
***********************************
Here is an ad posted on craigslist jan 14 2013. So it looks like the real deal to me and they are moving on it!
62
« on: February 07, 2013, 08:45 »
Look, I would leave istock for this project. Istock is looking to pay pennies to its contributors and doesn't even like the 80/20 split.
A co-op is what I mentioned as the only saving grace for the contributors. It can't be sold by one owner. Bruce lost 1 billion dollars selling when he did and I doubt he would do it again if he had the chance.
Something needs to challenge getty and it's not SS or the lot.
I would jump ship today!!
64
« on: January 25, 2013, 09:44 »
For me, January 2013 is the worst month since I began working for iS more seriously. It's not just the regular best match changes that used to happen and shift the numbers. This was something so much worse and very very odd. I almost stopped selling my backbone bestsellers and E+ files.
But, if we look at alexa rankings  it does look that iS is slightly improving in terms of traffic, reach and pageviews. At one point we can see that iS & SS touched. While that's kind of pathetic (highest point of iS touching lowest of SS), it is improving.
Switch the Alexa graph to show max and you'll see that is just the recovery after the Dec end Jan start slump that happens every year
The recent increase in traffic is partly because of the interest in the google screw over by contributors. Sales this month are down. The site is dying.
65
« on: January 23, 2013, 12:39 »
I don't think the realization of the google deal has set in just yet. If I was a buyer, I would not pay for what now is free. It looks like the word of this incredible free portfolio is spreading in the design circles.
All sites are showing bad traffic results. This will get ugly.
66
« on: January 19, 2013, 10:12 »
liliboas just added a comment on the shutterstock blog asking for help if she moves her portfolio. Good for her! I am surprised so many others are so quiet.
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock?utm_source=microstock.info&utm_medium=microstock,+photos,+stock,+photography
This is such a serious issue, I am surprised how many voices are missing. And istock is stalling, no comments at all.
Maybe this is indeed their way of dissolving the exclusive program without announcing it.
eta
no comments from istock and more files moving to google. I think I really have to start deactivations. It seems nothing their admins say has a real meaning. Or it has a hidden double meaning. But I don't live my life in doublespeak.
This is a great example of a meaty portfolio. If she pulls her content THAT would be like throwing a pie into the pieman's face.
I knew liliboas when she had more uploads than downloads at over 1500 uploads. She blew up with 60K xmas downloads at the peak a couple of years back. Last xmas her great new images did not sell. It is a no brainer Istock is dead. They wanted it this way, getty that is.
67
« on: January 18, 2013, 13:25 »
So google paid $60 per image?? Is that listed somewhere on istock forums?
We get %20 per RF license. Assuming this is paid at that rate, that makes $60.
Holy cow, I should have negotiated for them. They should have "googled" this question "google cash on hand 2012". I can tell them it is $50,000,000,000. I can't believe they would sell this type of portfolio for $300,000 for unlimited downloads to the #1 used website. Paying the contributors $60,000. Considering how much damage this portfolio is going to due to getty's stock sites. It's hard to believe the getty guys who absolutely stole istock from bruce for 50mil when it was worth at least 1 billion would not get a great deal. Must be back end hidden money to getty. This must have done to boost their balance sheets before their latest sale to caryle. Who expected the sale to be higher considering the loss of getty stock sales to the competition. not me! We are not being told the real details here.
68
« on: January 18, 2013, 09:31 »
I have no ill will towards Google over this deal. They did nothing wrong. They probably didn't know that Getty was orchestrating a shady and potentially illegal arrangement in terms of how this would affect the contributors whose images were included in the deal, but Google really wouldn't have had any way of knowing that.
It's none of their concern what sort of arrangement (or lack there of) Getty had worked out with us. Google needs images, Getty has lots of them, a deal is made. And Google would have no reason to suspect that the images were acquired in any underhanded way.
Google knows what they paid per image - $60 for the first round and with the $6 royalties showing up, I guess some cost them $30 each. Given they get the right to offer these images for free to millions of Google Drive users, they have to know that $60 is dirt cheap even if Getty gave us all the money - and they have to know Getty won't give us all the money.
You don't buy those kinds of rights for that amount of cash - not legitimately anyway.
So google paid $60 per image?? Is that listed somewhere on istock forums?
69
« on: January 17, 2013, 21:28 »
The Getty/Google deal is probably a massive mistake.
So at first glance it looks like 1-0 to Google. But you have to wonder... Isn't Getty playing a pusher to a potential junkie? The deal is so clearly underpriced. Getty would have known the reaction of iStockers would be severe, a negotiating tactic they can plausibly deny, but that can only drive prices higher in the future. Getty took an "own goal" in the first round for a bigger prize later on.
Wait, were we told how much getty made from this deal??? I know the $12 to contributors
70
« on: January 14, 2013, 09:47 »
I am afraid Feb 2nd is quite late. They might have other, possibly even bigger scams in the pipeline, and might speed them up. I am continuing to deactivate.
Fortunately, nobody is forcing anyone to do anything they don't want. Personally, I think a coordinated effort sends more of a message. You are of course free to do what pleases you. 
We need a community owned "co-op" Sean lead with large input from leading contributors. Why Sean, he is smarter than istock lawyer for starters. Now that istock was gutted there is no reason to be exclusive anymore. But the other sites are not a good option for low payout. Many istock exclusives are not producing images for the greedy losers at getty. I know of a few top exclusives who would be interested. A co-op would eliminate the bruce, jon, getty selling the whole thing in five years and only them getting rich of others work. It would make selling images worth more than selling the website. The contributors who build the site need to be protected. This is the only real way!!
71
« on: January 14, 2013, 09:33 »
Where is Yuri? Are you reading this? Tell us what you think?
Seriously. Nothing from Yuri, Andres, etc. Possibly they are pursuing this through legal channels already. If there is a pending suit their lawyers would have probably advised them not to speak publicly.
Hey, How about crowd sourcing an attorney for a class action lawsuit. No one contributor would get much but getty could be hit harder. 500 artist were subjected to this ruse. There is no way it's legally okay.
72
« on: January 09, 2013, 18:52 »
Pugh! 10 pages of this nonsense. I think we are getting hard up for topics?
Right, The fall of the site that created microstock is non-topic on microstockgroup. We should talk more about RM. After all istock only had 75% market share as of 2010. Istock going from top 200 site to outside the top 1000 is not an important topic. If you weren't exclusive from 2003-2011 you were crazy. Now you are crazy if you are exclusive from 2012- ??. The only problem is the "not all my eggs in one basket" is going to collapse pricing. And the only differentiating factor will be pricing. Look out below!!!!!
73
« on: January 09, 2013, 09:42 »
It's crazy to see the traffic rank go from 200 to 1000 in the last year. It is over!!!! Look at the reach dropped from .04 to .01 that is half as much buyers in that time. Shutterstock has replaced IS in a total arse kicking. I can't say I blame buyers. Istock owners did get 4 billion in cash out of the place. The carylse group must be pooping their pants about now. FT and DT will also pass them along with Yuris site.
RIP Istock!!!!!!!
74
« on: December 27, 2012, 09:29 »
I think Klein figures that as long as he has the market sewn up, all roads will lead to one Getty property or another (and he doesn't care which). If there aren't enough other outlets, suppliers will come around (in his view) as they have no choice. I don't think he's right, but I think that's why they just don't care about unhappy iStock contributors much
Seems likely that this is his thinking, but as you point out, he is wrong. These "amateurs" who were able to turn pro thanks to micro, all had other jobs or income sources before. Many of us will most likely go back to what we were doing and stop producing stock professionally altogether, or else go back to submitting occasional snapshots rather than expensive shoots.
I know I am not going to be investing a lot in upcoming shoots until I see the returns start to go back up.
It seems you are right here. I know some to top istock exclusives who are in the bargaining phase of loss. Some think they can make up their lost istock income (2010) on other sites... wrong!!. Some think they can run their own stock sites ... wrong!! except maybe yuri. Many will have to get their old jobs back. The resentment of the loss of huge earnings and future income possibilities at istock from their greedy moves will make a lot of people bail on the whole micro stock experiment. Think about some contributors were making 100K+ a year for what was very little time and effort compared to normal jobs that pay that much. There will be no investment in future shoots, equipment and etc. Knowing that 60% of your effort is not enough and it stated as unsustainable was the start of the fall.
75
« on: December 23, 2012, 20:39 »
I think it's interesting that Getty folks are seeing income fall. As with iStock contributors, Getty shooters are looking around for something to blame for this decline and latching on to ingestion of micro images and the fact the Getty contributors aren't complaining enough.
Possibly Getty's traffic as well as iStock's is on a downward trend? If they're busy pushing Thinkstock perhaps it's a migration from one part of the Getty empire to another and the Getty Images contributors want even less to do with Thinkstock than they do with the disliked iStock.
I'm guessing he does certain searches to see how his images are faring and is seeing a lot of E+ stufff. Sean, you only have 344 E+ images out of over 12K. A number of contributors have talked about maxing out their E+ slots as a way to maintain income as downloads fell.
I didn't see the recent charade in the iStock forums as the blogger did. I didn't see people getting what they wanted, although a few crumbs were offered (I liked Rob Sylvan's thanks for shaking loose change from the sofa cushions). The Getty shooters perhaps saw that differently as they couldn't really see the massive gap between what people were asking for and what Getty "gave".
What I do think would be good is for more Getty contributors and iStock contributors to exchange notes about what they see going on. Not sure if they'd be able to change more things, but more information would have to be better than less as Getty continues to try and keep its profits up.
I think you are right about the panic. It is the getty products that were manipulated for short term profit to boost the sale price two times in four years. It worked. Oh no! But it also tanked the exclusive model and top ten exclusives are bailing out. The problem for us stock photographers is the * is broken and watch out for the falling prices and horrible increase in competition. If you don't think that istock isolated the competition while avoiding a price war you are crazy. It is out there and coming in 2013.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
