|
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 - fotoVoyager
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 22
151
« on: February 11, 2016, 18:24 »
Yes, I got a long list of them too.
No notification about image pack sub royalty adjustment though, nor a response to the support ticket I put in about the missing email.
152
« on: February 06, 2016, 04:35 »
If you're a travel photographer you can claim all of your travel expenses. So by the tie you subtract your expenses from your income there is often no tax to pay at all.
You're not making any money then are you?
153
« on: December 22, 2015, 11:02 »
It's not communism, it's capitalism run for the benefit of society, rather than society run for the benefit of capitalism, which is how the money-mad psychopaths who have been allowed to grind our market economy into the greatest depression for a century prefer it.
But I guess we're never going to agree on this one!
154
« on: December 22, 2015, 07:27 »
there is a fool born every minute who believes the Union and all such
things are there to work for your benefit 
That's what you get for swallowing 30 years of Chicago School economics and neoliberal propaganda - a refusal to accept that we're better off together, rather than as atomised serfs receiving barely 20% of the royalties earned on our creative output from mega-corps and private equity owned money funds. No improvement in working conditions in the past 100 years has come about without collective action, and no improvement in our royalty share or treatment by agencies will happen unless we work together, just as unions have been doing for generations. Only a fool would dismiss the importance of unions in today's economic climate and degenerating working conditions. /rant over, must get back to my xmas shopping...
155
« on: November 30, 2015, 09:57 »
They have artists contributing to both, either directly or via agencies like blend,westend etc...
Ah, I did not know that, sorry.
156
« on: November 30, 2015, 08:45 »
I think they think it would somehow pollute the purity of Offset if they allowed the same photographers to contribute to both, even if there was series exclusivity.
I don't think buyers would care, they just want great images.
157
« on: November 30, 2015, 06:25 »
158
« on: November 29, 2015, 13:57 »
DM is working fine for me,no hiccups. I resisted using it for years, but am now fully convinced of its merit - once you get familiar with it, it really is the quickest way to upload to iS.
If you're stuck using the browser interface, I recommend you open 10 tabs a time and add a different image to each one then set them all uploading at once.
159
« on: November 09, 2015, 13:26 »
Can you use this application to 'stamp' metadata like title, description and keywords back into the exif/iptc fields of the image itself? When I save the image from within Xpiks it puts a .xpks file next to it - presumably this is some kind of sidecar file that contains the metadata I added?
160
« on: October 30, 2015, 05:54 »
Seems pretty simple to me, you used to get 28c per download for non-exclusive images with the new 'subs' pack, now you'll get $1. Real subs rates remain unchanged.
Still a massive pay cut for exclusive contributors - my average credit payout is about $10 but will drop 70% to $3 as this system replaces credits.
It's a pity because I was just beginning to see some signs of life in the credit system this month.
Ah well, back to business as usual - the slow death of viable exclusivity.
161
« on: October 13, 2015, 05:43 »
Wouldnt you like to have this third option on istock? Or a maximum of 60% for full artist exclusivity?
Yep, and I think image exclusivity is going be necessary if iStock want professional exclusive RF images - it's getting financially unsustainable to produce content for them that costs money now.
162
« on: October 13, 2015, 05:21 »
Great analysis, though I think your optimistic faith in Adobe might end in disappointment given most agency's attitude to their artists. Didn't Stocksy use to give 100% of EL fees to the artist, or have I misremembered that fact? I think we give Yuri too much of hard time, given he does actually engage here occasionally and nothing he does is detrimental to us, even if special rules for some are annoying. I agree, Yuri simply ISN`T exclusive with Getty.
He has his own company peopleimages and scoopshot and can happily rely on that income if Getty goes Titanic. He absolutely does not share the risk of the single, fully exclusive istock artist who is feeding his family from his fulltime istock stock income.
Adobe/Fotolia offers fully exclusive artist up to 60%, for partial exclusivity (exclusive images) up to 46%, for non exclusive content also up to 46%. Much better deal.
You can give them exclusive images and still work with anyone else.
500pix offers 70%, stocksy 50% for normal sales, 75% for extended licenses plus a share of future profits.
Why would anyone consider istock today, especially if you know how to create sellable content?
The contract Yuri has is unique, has nothing to do with what istock offers the rest of the industry. It is good for him, but it is a one time special deal, not comparable to anyone else.
Their normal offer is simply not competitive, not even if you keep in mind that they are overburdenended with debt, their last CEO came across as very condescending in his communications and that Getty never made me feel that they take me seriously as an independent business owner and entrepreneur. "Getty doesnt get it" is the reputation they have built themselves and which is why Shutterstock and Fotolia are so successful.
Adobe definitely knows how to work with small time business owners, they are their best customers after all. If anyone understands that we are customers, and producers/suppliers running a business, it is them.
We dont get excited over "grant money" we can apply for or happily jump up and down if a Getty admin "notices" us. We want a reliable marketplace, reliable royalty structure, a bug free site, admins that take us seriously not look down on us.
SS and Adobe can give us a reliable work environment with a clear royalty structure without backdoor deals. And then there are many niche and specialised agencies to choose from to balance your overall income even more.
So yes, Adobe still has a lot of work to do, but they have the most important in this industry: the right attitude in working with people.
I was hoping the new CEO could maybe breathe some life into istock/Getty, but if her first newsletter is an indication of the direction she wants to go, we will just get more of what Jonathan Klein did. Which unfortunately means: Shutterstock and Adobe have nothing to fear.
I am surprised the Carlyle group is allowing them to do the same old, same old.
http://app.e.gettyimages.com/e/es?s=2768&e=1545367&elq=3f8c08765c17453db4c9b3ac3b313883&elqaid=23015&elqat=1&elqTrackId=e26a337a7bfa45e49c2e376e748508e1
163
« on: October 05, 2015, 04:05 »
Nice interview, great images!
164
« on: September 09, 2015, 10:16 »
Make sure you've completed the tax interview and chosen your payment provider.
165
« on: August 21, 2015, 10:26 »
166
« on: August 16, 2015, 11:43 »
- reestablish the old public lightbox system and encourage people to "collect" files across their favorite theme and post these galleries to social media and sharing. Think of an intelligent system to reward those that do this and drive sales and traffic to istock. Use the crowd intelligently to curate millions of files. Discover and promote the editing talents in the community.
I've never understood why the agencies don't consider this kind of editing a priority - every buyer I talk to values their time more than any savings they can make by shopping around. Finding the image you want in the libraries of tens of millions of images that the agencies feel they have to accumulate is going to be the biggest problem from now on. They should make micro payments to crowd-sourced editors for creating useful collections that buyers use.
167
« on: August 12, 2015, 11:43 »
Not a big issue, though. It takes only about six weeks to get 250 regular downloads if you upload 20,000 good stock images.
Ha!
168
« on: August 11, 2015, 12:41 »
On the other hand, that 2007-08 collapse happened because of too much government intervention in the free market.
That is the worst analysis of this event that I've ever read.
169
« on: August 11, 2015, 12:32 »
I'm pretty sure the only party that benefits from that payment is Image Brief.
Paying someone $500 to show your images to clients is a mug's game.
170
« on: August 01, 2015, 04:59 »
Don't judge your exposures by the results on the camera screen.
Get the exposure right by learning how to meter correctly for each scene, then check your results using the histogram (bearing in mind that it's a graph of the jpeg, not the raw file which has greater latitude).
171
« on: July 25, 2015, 02:00 »
Either one will give excellent results.
Go to a camera store and play with both and just choose the one you prefer in your hands.
I use Nikon myself, but any modern DSLR is fantastic and the differences between the brands minimal, despite what the review sites say.
Biggest problem with upgrading will be file storage and handling.
Enjoy your new tool!
172
« on: July 14, 2015, 08:23 »
Lifestyle images sell best.
You need a niche, and as you're in Pakistan I suggest positive Muslim lifestyle images might be a winner for you. I'll bet there aren't many studios doing that, and I'm sure there's a need waiting to be filled.
173
« on: July 06, 2015, 16:17 »
Another aspect of a number of deals between agencies and platforms is whether there are any deal-related payments - money that contributors don't share in - between the two parties. When there's no transparency at all over the general terms of the deal (and this isn't just a beef with Getty; Shutterstock wouldn't disclose details on a number of their arrangements either) there's the potential for our images to the bait on the hook and other people eat the fish caught.
This is where the real rub is with deals like this. I don't mind them using my images for what is effectively advertising (though in a different form than we're used to), but there's often too little information about how any money that is involved is going to make it's way back to the content provider (me) in any significant amount. The pennies that some schemes produce are just not worth the use the image gets for the photographer even if collectively they make considerable sums for the agent. There needs to be more accountability, communication and sharing of the dividends of these new projects if this is the way image distribution is going. The App store model of 70/30 in favour of the producer is a more realistic model nowadays if they want stuff to sell / share / use to collect data with that they haven't produced themselves.
174
« on: June 27, 2015, 15:42 »
Can new photographer collections go directly through Adobe or do you still have to contribute via Fotolia?
175
« on: June 26, 2015, 06:35 »
That is why I ask people to try to imagine what it would be like to provide stock to an all chinese website, if you have no knowlegde of chinese. Even if you take fantastic pictures and keep hearing you can earn a lot of money there, if you just do a lot of stock on the side, even if you do photography full time, chances are you will never upload there and just stick to a company that is local.
Actually iStock/Getty have sort of addressed the Chinese problem with fotomore.com Can't tell you whether it's successful or not of course because their sales reporting outside of iStock is so poor.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 22
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
