|
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 - dirkr
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 56
126
« on: March 18, 2017, 12:19 »
Since they rolled out their new version of the image manager you can set an "editorial only" flag also for RF images.
127
« on: March 09, 2017, 10:57 »
I got that invitation too, have been discussing with them over e-mail on pricing and licensing terms. Pricing seems low, but at 100% is not too bad... But my first understanding of their licensing terms (not to be found on the site yet) is that a standard license includes some rights that elsewhere require an EL.
I asked them how to understand that, waiting for clarification.
That could be a deal breaker.
128
« on: February 18, 2017, 05:35 »
You can set the default licensing model to RF or RM. In the image manager on the top line right beside your name is a little gear-wheel icon. That's where you can set the default for future submissions to RF or RM.
129
« on: February 13, 2017, 15:25 »
Commissions: http://www.canstockphoto.com/payout_schedule.phpPrices: http://www.canstockphoto.com/about.phpBoth have two sections, "Instant Downloads" and "Credit Downloads". The prices you quoted are those for "Instant Downloads", the royalties those for "Credit Downloads". Credit prices differ depending on the amount of credits you buy, as on most sites. Just one example: the worst percentage in your table is for the medium size. But the 0,75 commission you state is for credit sales, and that size costs 3 credits. The most expensive credits you can buy is 12 credits for $9, so $0,75 per credit. In that example the commission would be 33%. You arrive at 12.5% because you compare the credit commission to the instant price. Taking the correct instant commission ($1,50) you arrive at 25%. As I said, still not good, but not as bad as in your calculation. Taking the extreme opposite example for a medium size photo: The largest credit plan they show on their site is 25.000 credits for $10.000 (price per credit: $0,40). Price for the photo in this plan: $1,20. Commission ($0,75): 62,5%. Looking at your sales you see them marked as "instant" or "regular" (or subscription, distribution, fotosearch subscription), that's where you see what you actually sold. I'm not defending Canstock here, but their commission are not as bad as you calculated. There are worse offenders out there.
130
« on: February 12, 2017, 15:07 »
I have always submitted there because it is easy. CS and DT usually have the highest variance in sales per month, and CS has been quite poor the past few months, with a lot of 25-35-cent subs rather than regular DLs. Lately regular DLs have been better, but I just checked out prices versus returns and am not sure I will continue - they seem to be paying the lowest commission rates in the industry.
Size Price Commission Percent
Small 3.00 0.50 16.7
Medium 6.00 0.75 12.5
Large 7.00 1.00 14.3
X-Large 8.00 1.25 15.6
XX-Large TIFF 12.00 2.50 20.8
These are based on actual sales during the past month and the posted prices on their site. With the commission for a Medium at only 12.5% they are really not treating contributors well - worse than iStock. Are they worth it? At those rates maybe not.
(If I've made any errors in those calculations please let me know)
 ?
What happened to:
50% of images sales (20% via fotosearch), subscription downloads $0.25 (fotosearch tiered starting at $0.30 per download. Nothing extra for exclusive images. Enhanced Licenses $22.00 per download
Wow, is it possible that this change flew under our radar? I was also under the impression that we get 50%!
Well, not contributing there anymore.
Edit: this is funny: (from http://www.canstockphoto.com/payout_schedule.php)
Our contributors are paid some of the highest percentages in the industry.
12.5%-20.8%. Highest percentages. Isn't this false advertising, which is illegal? 
The table with the calculations is simply wrong. Taking "instant" prices and "credit" commissions. Real commissions are better, though still not good and certainly not 50%.
131
« on: February 09, 2017, 08:33 »
Im in - But got about 20% of my port deleted. Guess its fine if that can help up the overall quality
Are you happy that your images will now be available as unlimited downloads for $49 a month?
Nope im not. Im checking up on the prices/terms within the next couple days, and if 49$ gets unlimited downloads were out of there :-)
From their forum: Q: Will inclusion in Elements be mandatory? Selling unlimited subscriptions for $49 / month is insane, that's just undercutting all other markets and will only lead to further erosion of photographers income. A: At this stage, yes. https://forums.envato.com/t/adjusting-our-focus-a-new-approach-for-photos-at-envato/73708/19?u=dirk-r
132
« on: February 08, 2017, 18:10 »
Im in - But got about 20% of my port deleted. Guess its fine if that can help up the overall quality
Are you happy that your images will now be available as unlimited downloads for $49 a month?
133
« on: February 07, 2017, 12:55 »
I also can't figure out how to remove images from sets I don't remember how you used to do it, but I remember you could.
Mark an image in a set, then a trash can icon appears. Click on that.
134
« on: February 07, 2017, 04:54 »
Im out as well, no surprise here.
I didn't upload for years, because their rejections were ridiculous from the start and returns were too small.
Actually I'm happy they will boot me, because as I understand they will force everyone into their "elements" plan, which means unlimited downloads for something like $49 / month. I would have left them about that anyway.
So that's what they want: highest quality and then give it away for next to nothing.
We can just hope that they die quickly.
135
« on: February 04, 2017, 15:13 »
Veer was owned by Corbis. That's all that comes to my mind...
136
« on: January 31, 2017, 04:17 »
How I understand it:
For the US-based agencies we have to fill out a form to get the withholding rate according to the double taxation agreement relevant for our country. If we don't fill it, we will get taxed with 30%.
As Canva is Australia based, things work differently. We don't need to fill out anything, they will withhold the rate corresponding to the correct tax agreement.
And I would expect to get some kind of documentation at year end about the amount of taxes payed, which I can use when doing my tax return.
137
« on: January 04, 2017, 16:19 »
Oh, and I would like FT to use the description field, as what they want / what makes sense to put their is a long description. Some agencies use both title and description.
So title should be title, description should be description.
138
« on: January 04, 2017, 16:17 »
I believe if the Title field is blank, Fotolia will use the Description field.
Right, they do. Since I discovered that, I use short script running ExifTool to just delete the titles before uploading to Fotolia (as I upload to each agency out of a specific folder, that does not affect uploads to other agencies). Put the following line into a script / batch file (don't know how that works on Mac, on windows you can simply create file with the editor and give it the .bat extension, then run it with double clicking on it): C:\Programs\ExifTool\exiftool.exe -L -k -overwrite_original "-IPTC:Headline=" *.jpg where (obviously) the path in the beginning points to your installation of ExifTool. This will delete the title in all jpg files in the current folder.
139
« on: December 16, 2016, 12:43 »
$262,5 (my part) for a single sale on 500px when they were still paying 70%. Other than that a $200 sale ($100 for me) on Alamy.
140
« on: December 11, 2016, 17:38 »
How do you make 38 cents per sale when your total is at $20? Something looks wrong here...
141
« on: November 25, 2016, 11:09 »
Had that with one file (not editorial) yesterday.
Resubmitted, same error.
Then I opened and re-saved in Photoshop, after that it went through without issues.
142
« on: November 23, 2016, 13:42 »
An image uploaded today already has four sales.
... five...
143
« on: November 23, 2016, 13:37 »
What I see is at least that new images are selling again. An image uploaded today already has four sales. Haven't seen that in ages. And other images uploaded this week sell today as well.
How much that impacts total sales numbers is yet to be seen...
144
« on: November 18, 2016, 02:45 »
Hey All,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I just wanted to let you know that we're reading all your comments. We're responding to questions and thoughts from our official post (https://forums.envato.com/t/adjusting-our-focus-a-new-approach-for-photos-at-envato/). We'd love to have your input into the discussion there and we'll do our best to answer any questions you might have.
Thanks,
James.
James, what you have not answered yet: What happens to the money on the accounts of those contributors that don't make the cut (or those who don't want their files to be included in a mandatory unlimited subscription)? Do we get our money if we close our accounts, even if it's below payout limits? Just to make it clear: unlimited subscription for $49 / month is the last thing we need. And as long as there is no opt-out from that, I will close my account (if I am rated as worthy for you at all). Thanks, Dirk
145
« on: November 09, 2016, 02:47 »
I still can't quite believe that so few people made a stand when they cut below 20%. That was the final straw for me, all my best selling images were deactivated and I haven't uploaded anything new for years.
If Getty had the choice of paying us 30% or having no images to sell, what would they choose? If they chose to have no images to sell, that would send buyers to sites that pay us more. Isn't that the worst that could happen if we all decided not to put up with less than 20%? Obviously this is different for exclusives but they don't seem to have as many of them as they used to.
Fully agree. Typical case of Prisoner's Dilemma: "I know we're all better off if we all leave. But if I silently stay while others leave, I will have less competition, so I am better off". Unability to cooperate due to the theoretical possibility to gain by not cooperating...
146
« on: November 09, 2016, 02:25 »
When I logged in to their site today it showed a message that I will receive a verification email and will have to change my password, so that seems to be ok. Did it, worked fine.
147
« on: November 06, 2016, 11:31 »
hi guys....i've just started to upload again in fotolia after 2 years...what is the approval time for images in fotolia at the moment ? just few days or more than a week ? thanks
For me it has been about two to three working days lately.
148
« on: November 04, 2016, 09:21 »
They need to go through quality control first...
149
« on: November 04, 2016, 02:16 »
I think asking them to keep their current royalty rates is by far not enough. 15%? That's why I left them years ago.
A petition asking them to pay 50%, remove all shady partner deals, pay a fair subs rate, introduce real time reporting - that's something I would sign.
But with no expectation of any result...
150
« on: November 04, 2016, 02:00 »
I don't know the Ramper Pro, but have you looked at dslrdashboard as a solution?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 56
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
