|
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 - NancyCWalker
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15
201
« on: November 13, 2009, 21:55 »
Go to "My Files" at the bottom of the list on the right there is a link that says "Show Deleted Files". Click there and the files will appear in the mix with your regular files. They will have a red ball to indicate that they were rejected/deleted.
202
« on: October 25, 2009, 19:23 »
That 1 per cent doen't takes in account what could have went up at istock should you had remained. Righ now I'm more than 25% up from last year at istock. Sure, that include new files, new prices and Vetta (still hasn't upload to Getty), but it is a progress.
On the other had I have legacy files at Vetta that didn't sold almost at all, and now, at Vetta are selling.
Your sales went up 25% but mine have dropped at IS and continue to do so. I need another $700 in sales before Dec. just to stay at the same level I was at last year with IS. If I stayed exclusive with IS that would be $700 less in earnings.
203
« on: October 19, 2009, 08:25 »
Your doing better than I am. The last three times I tried to access the earnings page the site hung and the page never showed. I'm hoping I can't get to it because it's under repair. It's been reporting no sales at all for the last 2 months.
204
« on: October 19, 2009, 08:14 »
Forgot to mention that I used the software all the time until they got in bed with Yahoo and started pushing the Yahoo Toolbar in their updates.
205
« on: October 19, 2009, 08:12 »
AVG is a free use anti-virus software. They have a version that you can purchase as well that will allow you more options. It's very popular amoung people I know.
206
« on: October 09, 2009, 08:20 »
In general the stock sites don't approve things that people would want on their walls. How many times have we, as a group, complained about images being rejected for "not stock" or "over photoshoped / to artsy / to designed"? The stock sites want themes that apply to concepts or isolations that can be manipulated by designers to create what they want.
The other big part of this will come down to marketing. To my knowledge IS never marketed the concept of coming to them for prints. Designers, in general, are creating an advertisement - not looking for a finished art piece to hang on a wall. If they can market this to people who purchase wall art on a regular basis - like interior designers - then it may work out ok.
207
« on: October 05, 2009, 15:56 »
I had steady sales on BigStock until the announcement. I haven't had a sale since then.
208
« on: September 29, 2009, 09:17 »
I know the "free use by Vox bloggers" has been a favorite crusade, but those images are so tiny and have the username and istock clearly watermarked across them, as well as a link back to the user's portfolio with referral bonuses paid if the link results in a sale from any portfolio, that I am not sure what the big deal is or why the subject needs to come up in nearly every single istock thread, regardless of relevance. I haven't heard anyone else mention Vox in years.  Where are all the reports of all the terrible things that have happened as a result of someone having a little ad for their portfolio on someone else's blog?
If your going to sign up for promotional use then you should be aware of all the existing programs that fall under this heading. The Vox program falls under this heading however there is no mention of it in the "Read This First". The Vox deal didn't start out with watermarks or small sizes. Contributors had to fight for these changes to be made. We were supposed to be happy that the images linked back but were not told that it would be a 3 click process just to get to the IS site and even then the viewer still had to purchase credits and license an image before the referral bonus would be applied. It was also quite obvious in the first few weeks that most bloggers didn't bother clicking on the TOS link as there were several reports of IS images showing up in blogs titled "Girls I had sex with last night". These blogs are all now private so they can continue to abuse the TOS but no one can hold them accountable for it. With this program you can't pick which files you want to have included. It's your whole portfolio or nothing. Until recently if you wanted to participate in the partner programs then you were required to be signed up for Promotional Use as well.
209
« on: September 29, 2009, 06:46 »
317 images on line. End of Oct will be a full year on the site. Not a single sale yet.
210
« on: September 29, 2009, 06:35 »
IS does an all or nothing set up. If you opt out of this partner program then your ineligible for all other programs that come down the line. The same works with "promotional use". Either you opt in to all promotional uses - including free use by Vox bloggers (the image has a link back to your image on IS) or you opt out and no longer eligible for any promotions at all (no IOTW, FIOTW, IS ads, Demo DVDs, etc)
211
« on: September 25, 2009, 13:32 »
The forum thread is 72 pages long. I read enough of the thread to know that I'm not the only one asking these questions and that the questions are getting lost in the arguments, woo-yays, and survey answers. As far as I can tell not one of my questions has been answered.
It wouldn't be hard for them to edit the original post to provide contributors with all the information. I guess the next question is why aren't they?
212
« on: September 25, 2009, 11:25 »
There are a lot of questions that need answers in this program.
1. The TOS clearly states that images/vectors etc can not be used as logos. How will a buyer know if they are searching for an Apple logo vs. an Apple image? Will the logos be in a completely separate section of the site to avoid confusion?
2. How does the new guarantee apply? What happens when it's discovered that the logo is using a copyrighted font? Reviewers don't have the time now to properly research possible copyright/trademark issue so they routinely reject perfectly usable images. Will the same thing happen with logos resulting in frustrated contributors?
3. Logos are locked in for 6 months. The introductory offer of 50% commission is also only available 6 months. So what will happen if I upload a logo in month 5 and they change the commission rate in month 6? Will I get the 50% or the new percentage? Will I have the ability to remove my files that are less than 6 months old if I don't agree with the commission change?
4. What does 50% of 100 credits (not dollars) equal out to in dollars? 1 credit ranges from $1.80 to $0.47. According to the IS forum thread logos will be sold for 100 to 700 credits.
For a 100 credit logo contributor will be paid between $28 and $95. (credit value X credits used / 2) You have to remember that IS sells things in "credits" not dollars, and we are not privy to see which credit package the buyer is using.
5. They are offering a $5 bonus if your logo is one of the first 10,000 accepted. Another bonus of $5 if they reach the goal of 10,000 before the program launch in January. This just sounds like a bribe and it may work for some people. Are logo designers really going to stop selling through their normal channels for an extra $5?
6. What about exclusives? The legal terms of exclusivity say that it's all or nothings. Will exclusives who design logos have to choose between selling the logos on IS to keep their exclusivity or dropping exclusivity to keep their private clients? Or is this the first "image exclusive" program and the whole concept of exclusivity will be soon changing to an image based system?
213
« on: September 16, 2009, 11:42 »
The reviewers are not copyright and trademark specialists, they can't be expected to catch every image that has an issue.
I remember a couple of years ago that SS removed all photos of the British currency, I presume SS were requested to remove those photos or one of their buyers had a problem. I checked it out at the time and thought it was right that we are not meant to sell any photos of the British currency as RF. They are still on istock, so how does that work with the content warranty?
But now they have to be. IS is offering a guarentee which states that there will be no infringement issues.
215
« on: September 15, 2009, 16:08 »
Since they are keeping all of the revenue from the sale of this guarentee does that mean that they will change the artist supply agreement to no longer require that contributors foot the bill for all legal action concerning their images?
Section 10 of the Artist Agreement (non-exclusive) a and b
# You agree to indemnify, defend and hold iStockphoto and its affiliates, and their respective directors, officers, employees, shareholders, agents and licensees of Content (collectively, the iStockphoto Parties) harmless from and against any and all claims, liability, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal fees on a solicitor and client basis) incurred by any iStockphoto Party as a result of or in connection with: (i) any use or alleged use of the Site or provision of Content under your Member Name by any person, whether or not authorized by you; (ii) or resulting from any communication made or Content uploaded under your Member Name; (iii) any breach by you of this Agreement; or (iv) any claim threatened or asserted against any iStockphoto Party to the extent such claim is based upon a contention that any of the Content used within the scope of this Agreement infringes any copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks, right of privacy or publicity, or other intellectual property rights of any third party.
# iStockphoto reserves the right, at your expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you, and in such case, you agree to cooperate with iStockphoto's defense of such claim.
216
« on: September 15, 2009, 15:58 »
I was at IS before there was exclusive and non. The whole implementation of the program was the first slap in the face but eventually I thought that if I made it to 500 and became exclusive things would change. I was very naive back then. When I signed on there were promises made - business cards, increased royalties, "additional marketing", faster queue and the inside scoop on changes to the site. "additional marketing" - I have asked for a more specific definition of this - the answer was never given. There is the Vox free use to bloggers deal that has an imbedded link back to your portfolio. Either you sign up (called "promotional use" and "Third Party Use") or you are are not eligible to participate in any other "promotions" like demo discs, tradeshow booth images, IS ads, Image of the Week, Artist of the Week etc. I had asked for specifics because the marketing of my images was no different from the marketing that was done before I was exclusive. Advanced notice of changes never came either. After all the fuss, getting to 500 dls, being hyped as the best of the best and the only true "team players" they didn't trust their exclusive to have any knowledge about changes to the site. No notice of DA, no notice of the sale to Getty, no notice of projects in the works - heck we were finding out about things the same way everyone else was - by reading stuff on non-IS websites. If exclusives are the best of the best and the elite of what IS has to offer then why are they not trusted? There are two multi-image proposals that I know about for Exclusives only. The first was a deal with Microsoft where images were hand picked by the admins and then the company picked the final images they liked. The press release states that buyers can "browse" the exclusive collection but in the exclusive forums we were told that they were looking for certain images (no details as to what) and that images were hand picked by the admin. This was supposed to be phase 1 of several. Press release http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/03/microsoft-offic.htmlForum Thread http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=66678&page=1] [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=66678&page=1[/url] The other project was scrapped but no one knows why. It was supposed to be a partnership with an office supply store so that if their client created a document they could use the images from IS to dress it up. The images were to be integrated into the stores in house systems. After they announced the partnership something happened and everything about it was deleted except this. http://www.microstockgroup.com/microstock-news/istock-pitney-bowes-and-fedex-kinkos/?wap2I wasn't always bitter about IS, in fact I spent years defending them on forums like this. Not any more. I think that if you are considering exclusivity then you need to have all the facts to know what is really best for you. Not just the published "why you should join facts" but the real "this is how it really works" facts.
217
« on: September 15, 2009, 10:00 »
At the time it was said only Diamonds were eligible to apply to Getty which I felt was wrong. Either allow all exclusives the same perks or don't offer them. They later changed it accept some gold canisters with the promise of allowing Silver canisters to apply at a later date.
My disgust at the playing favorites game lead to the other statement as well. Admins have even posted in exclusive forum that certain exclusives have "earned" the right not be scrutinized. This explains why reports of copying and spamming against those particular contributors falls on deaf ears. Between that and noticing that it's only ever the same 10 to 15 exclusives whose images are "hand picked" for special projects made me realize that the only perks I was getting by being exclusive was free business cards and a slight increase in royalties (while downloads were tanking)
I complained about not receiving the same perks and options as other exclusives which irritated the admin. They resented that I was demanding that they provide what was promised to me when I signed up. It's also the same argument that they used to use to justify the 500 dl requirement - you needed to "prove" that you were good enough for the honor of being listed as an exclusive.
218
« on: September 15, 2009, 07:54 »
For me the 1% difference is a positive sign. In my last year as an exclusive I made less money per image then when I was non-exclusive only submitting to IS and struggling to get to 500 dls so that I could be exclusive. In that same year 1/4 of my portfolio was sent to the dollar bin. Some of the images I agreed with, others went on to get flames while in the bin. I was denied the ability to apply for the Getty contract ("not available to Gold - and you'll never make Silver") and I was told by admin that it was a mistake that my exclusive application ever got approved. For me the choice was about more than just the money. It was about being able to get a fair chance to sell my work.
I expected to loose money the first year as I became established on the other sites. I'm pleasantly surprised that I didn't. The lost income from lower royalties at IS was easily replaced by the income from the other sites. In addition to that I am now seeing an increase in my sales on the other sites which means that while IS sales continue to go down I'll not only be able to cover the loss but may also be able to add more revenue through the other sites.
It doesn't take me any more time to upload to the other sites than it does to upload to IS. I use FF tabs and set each site to upload then open DM and upload to IS.
219
« on: September 14, 2009, 10:20 »
Comparing my last 10 months as a true exclusive to the 10 months that I have been a full non-exclusive the difference in royalties is less than 1%.
220
« on: September 14, 2009, 08:58 »
I was exclusive with IS for a number of years. Broken promises, cattiness, and a decline in revenue, despite uploading more images, helped me decide to drop the crown. Last Oct I started submitting to several other sites. My annual sales numbers are just about the same as when I was exclusive with a month left before I hit a full year.
The other upside to this is that while my IS numbers have been relatively flat, other sites have started to have an increase in sales as my portfolio integrates with the search engine and people can find me there.
221
« on: September 14, 2009, 08:28 »
IS tried to implement a similar system but it had several flaws.
1. Groups of contributors would create "ratings rings". Person A (no images - blank account) would flag the word "apple" on an image of an apple on white. This would push the image back in the search results (can't reward "spammers"). Then Person B would upload images of an apple on white which would now come earlier in the search because the other images were pushed back.
2. Relevant keywords were often removed because the reviewer didn't know what they were looking at. The previously mentioned Panthera Leo case is a good example. If I search for "large Cat" I won't find that image because "cat" was deemed to be irrelevant. The door swings both ways on this one. You may have contributors who don't know to use Panthera Leo for a Lion but you also have reviewers who are looking at the image of the lion and saying "It's not the astrological sign 'Leo' so it's an irrelevant keyword".
3. Reviewer overload. Once this catches on - particularly by those trying to dupe the system - the reviewers get so bogged down that it takes months before they can review things. IS had to set up a separate set of reviewers just for flagged keywords. When they get overloaded they stopped having the time to properly research the flag and just make snap decisions. This is part of what leads to number 2 on this list. Long wait times result in frustrated buyers (they just told you that the keyword was irrelevant why is still showing up a day later?) and pissed/panicked contributors (my image was flagged - I can't edit my image - why is it taking so long to realize that the flag is irrelevant - how is this affecting my sales/search placement?)
4. IS didn't pay flaggers. Instead you got a "wiki warrior" icon during a "wiki spree". Several people asked that the icon be removed because they were getting retaliation flags. ie you flagged my apple so I'll flag yours. Others requested that it be removed because they didn't want to be associated with the program when it really started going down hill with all the complaints of invalid flagging and reviewers removing relevant keywords.
5. Language barriers caused multiple issues. Contributors who didn't speak English well felt that they were getting punished for bad keywords (girl instead of woman) because flagging the keyword caused it change location with in the search results. Reviewers who didn't speak the same language as the contributor had a hard time judging subjective keywords. ie removing "knickers" or "bloomers" from a set of girls "panties" because they didn't know that all 3 words mean the same thing.
6. Personal experience. Every time someone wikied one of my images I would write a note to support explaining that the removed keywords were relevant and the words would be reinstated within a day or two. I don't know if DT has a system in place to reinstate keywords that should be there or not but they should. Reviewers don't know everything. It's not physically possible to know everything. And they don't usually have the time to properly research the difference between "wigwam" and "teepee".
222
« on: September 14, 2009, 07:27 »
IS is 42% of sales - SS is 40%. BigStock 7% DT 6% and FT 3%.
CC, 123, and Yay have yet to make a sale. I've been with IS since 2003 with Yay for 1 month. All other sites I've been with for about a year.
223
« on: August 31, 2009, 14:04 »
Can you provide the specific link where this information is spelled out? Specifically I want to see where it says that payments are done a week or more after the request is made. If you click on FAQ at the bottom of the page and then select payment requests and then select Paypal/moneybookers you get this - "Open a PayPal or Moneybookers account and receive your payment within 5 business days. It's fast, and because iStockphoto pays the transfer fee, there are no added charges. Visit www.PayPal.com or www.moneybookers.com to sign up for your free account. " If you select Artist Payment from the FAQ menu you get this - "Paypal, Moneybookers and Payoneer payments are processed on business days only. They are paid every week depending on when your payout request was made. Please see the schedule of cut off times and payment days here. " "here" in the quote is a link to a calendar http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/PayoutSchedule_2009.pdf which shows the paypal cut off as 9am MST on Mondays with payment being made on that Mondays. If you scroll down to Aug it appears that I can submit a payment request on thurs. the 13th (before the cut off date of Aug 17th 9am) and be paid on the 17th. No where does it state that the payments are from requests made the week before.
224
« on: August 27, 2009, 06:44 »
At least they accept a generic style release unlike IS who has more new rules about the MR making it a requirement to have every model sign more than one MR at every shoot.
225
« on: August 27, 2009, 06:36 »
IS and Microsoft had a similar set up with the IS exclusives. Except that IS exclusives were eventually paid if their images were picked. You couldn't donate images - admin would make a lightbox of their favorites and then MS would pick the images they wanted to use.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
