|
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 - Konstantin Sutyagin
76
« on: January 10, 2010, 05:05 »
ну чо, как ваще? 
77
« on: January 05, 2010, 06:47 »
DT is slowing down a little for me too. Not too much though. But the downwards trend for the past three months is worrying, especially considering that it was during autumn.
78
« on: January 04, 2010, 19:27 »
Got 2
79
« on: January 01, 2010, 20:07 »
80
« on: December 31, 2009, 01:09 »
Thank you, Jonathan. I fully understand the absolute need for insurance when the numbers are big. Although for small volume shooters the motivation might be less clear. It seems from your example that the probability does not exceed that of winning a lottery.
81
« on: December 30, 2009, 18:25 »
Hi All,
Here is the best by far insurance coverage for Photographers and very reasonable. They have been involved in the professional photography business for years. Here is the link www.tcpinsurance.com/ Look into E&O ( Errors and Omissions ) insurance added to your package. We have a one million dollar coverage for our location shoots just in case of injury or damages. Actually it might be 2 mil. I will have to check with my wife, the boss : )
Best,
Jonathan
Jonathan, it would be interesting to know if the liability insurance ever came in handy to defend from a lawsuit during you career in stock? How many times?
82
« on: November 04, 2009, 21:58 »
I haven't had any images de-activated yet, but I fully expect it will happen soon enough.
What I don't understand is why they don't simply allow a title change and swap it to editorial use? Why delete already approved and selling images from the collection? Many of them, surely, would be useful for editorial purposes.
I agree!
My thoughts exactly... Why not change to editorial?
83
« on: August 27, 2009, 17:25 »
Constantly complaining, because the shot they really want is at Corbis or Getty or that illusive phootshoot, but instead they are forced to settle for less, because the end client doesn't care anyways. Vetta solves this, because now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget.
Yea, like those images weren't there before Vetta. Most of the Vetta images were uploaded to istock long before introduction of Vetta. Now they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement.
And you'd prefer your best images to have a lower price tag and poorer search placement?
No, why? I'm all for Vetta. I love when micros raise prices, even though I'm not exclusive to IS.
OK, I misunderstood - it's just that your post "they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement" read like you didn't approve!
Anyway, as iStock mentioned in a forum post somewhere, they have to start someplace. Going forward, Vetta will be populated by new images not previously available in the rest of the collection, and hopefully originally conceived with the awareness that putting extra effort and cost into the concept will be repaid by the higher price point.
Of course, whether or not it will work remains to be seen, but many contributors are reporting Vetta sales so it's promising.
I was actually kinda making fun of those emo designers. But their behavior is what all microstocks actually should take into account more. Designers were unhappy about microstock images and didn't value them. Now they are happy with essentially the same images. All it took to raise images value is to bump the price.
84
« on: August 27, 2009, 17:14 »
I'm not sure if any of the new photo's are even showing up yet.
Me too )
85
« on: August 27, 2009, 15:33 »
I was in on this originally and had just one photo in the collection. There is so much traffic that while the pic was probably downloaded thousands of times for free I ended up selling what would have in my opinion been a very unproductive pic (based on similar shots of similar looking girls in my portfolio's sales) and it sold over 100 times. Not a crazy number of sales, but again..more than it would have had under normal circumstances I am sure. Including multiple EL's. Here is a link to the photo originally used... http://us.fotolia.com/id/3029748
I've added more pics this time around and have received a bump in rank to Emerald (I was at 9950 sales when the criteria got changed from 10,000) so I am very happy about the increase in commission and believe the added sales from the increased visibility on some of my best pics plus the extra % should work out to be a lucrative deal for me.
Mat
Wow, so it has sold over 100 times in a month or so? I have also accepted this offer too but I didn't notice any significant changes in sales.
86
« on: August 27, 2009, 05:02 »
Constantly complaining, because the shot they really want is at Corbis or Getty or that illusive phootshoot, but instead they are forced to settle for less, because the end client doesn't care anyways. Vetta solves this, because now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget.
Yea, like those images weren't there before Vetta. Most of the Vetta images were uploaded to istock long before introduction of Vetta. Now they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement.
And you'd prefer your best images to have a lower price tag and poorer search placement?
No, why? I'm all for Vetta. I love when micros raise prices, even though I'm not exclusive to IS.
87
« on: August 27, 2009, 00:55 »
Constantly complaining, because the shot they really want is at Corbis or Getty or that illusive phootshoot, but instead they are forced to settle for less, because the end client doesn't care anyways. Vetta solves this, because now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget.
Yea, like those images weren't there before Vetta. Most of the Vetta images were uploaded to istock long before introduction of Vetta. Now they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement.
88
« on: August 27, 2009, 00:47 »
Lisa, you should be able to use Getty's new release which is good for all micros anyway. This should save you some time.
Thanks Zeus 
For anyone interested, it can be downloaded here:
http://contributors.gettyimages.com/img/articles/downloads/SAMPLE_Model_Release_-_English_-_Dec_2008.pdf
Nice! But what about this: I agree that this release is irrevocable, worldwide and perpetual, and will be governed by the laws (excluding the law of conflicts) of the country/state from the following list that is nearest to the address of the Model (or Parent*) given opposite: New York, Alberta, England, Australia and New Zealand. Is it okay?
89
« on: August 13, 2009, 17:17 »
Way to go, Shutterstock!
90
« on: August 13, 2009, 00:38 »
91
« on: August 02, 2009, 02:49 »
Great job, Denis! And I love the positive attitude
92
« on: July 30, 2009, 01:15 »
Overall rank 202
7 days rank 54
93
« on: July 27, 2009, 21:40 »
Overall rank 203
7 days rank 57
94
« on: July 27, 2009, 00:56 »
Overall rank 203
7 days rank 68
95
« on: July 24, 2009, 01:24 »
I wouldn't separate "branding shots" from "boring shots". Every image should be treated as a proud manifestation of artist's brand.
96
« on: July 17, 2009, 02:45 »
I'm waiting since 07-04-2009
97
« on: July 02, 2009, 19:45 »
Great game, I like it.
98
« on: July 01, 2009, 05:15 »
Standard license should have some limitation (e.g. 250.000 copies) and ELs should be at $50, better $100.
Note, that at last some leading agencies start offering unlimited run, e..g. Fotolia. Thus, the limited run would not attract the buyer.
Just because ONE other agency does it, does not mean that all other agencies should immediately race to the bottom. Almost all of the other agencies differentiate between a standard sale and an EL sale.
It has been shown time and again that buyers are not that sensitive to prices. The fact that you seem to be racing to the bottom on price, just shows me that you really don't understand the industry and are trying to make a quick buck off of other people's work.
This type of attitude really concerns me and has left a very sour taste in my mouth in regards to your agency.
I second what GeoPappas said. I don't need another Fotolia.
99
« on: June 29, 2009, 17:46 »
1. I was naive
2. I was duped
3. Mike Slonecker was right, possibly about everything (oldies might understand that, but the StockXpert crew will for sure)
Wow... I remember Mike Slonecker!! HA.
Who is Mike Slonecker? What did he said?
100
« on: June 27, 2009, 02:02 »
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
