pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 15
76
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Freedom of speech and a hint of intimidation
« on: February 18, 2011, 16:09 »
Facts! We don't need no stinking facts! Mob mentality is the rule of the day here on MSG.  ;D

I'll take the mob over the woo-yay-ers over at the istock forums.

Good news!  You don't have to choose!  The Wooyayers have migrated over here ;D

LOL May the combat begin.

77
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Buyers Bailing on Istock
« on: February 09, 2011, 09:02 »
Yeah, they are getting spoken to privately, alright. With a nice message telling them they are banned. LOL

I doubt that many buyers have ever been banned from buying. Obviously presumably excluding fraudsters :)

AFAIK people are sometimes given a cooling off period if they seem to be getting over-heated at the forums. But that is surely just good housekeeping. That happens at most forums. Any forum ultimately needs to be a useful resource not a total free for all.

From what I've seen these "cooling off periods" include a ban from both sitemail and the forums and usually last several months, if they are ever reinstated at all.

78
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Freedom of speech and a hint of intimidation
« on: February 09, 2011, 08:14 »
Day 4 of my ban from the iStock forums and sitemail...just sayin'
I think you're supposed to send a grovelling SM promising to be good in future.

They've managed to separate forums and SM in the banning process?? Used to be an all or nothing gig like the "3rd party Marketing".

79
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Image Thieves targetting IS again?!!
« on: February 05, 2011, 13:55 »
I've had DT refund monies for a small sale when the client meant, and re-paid for, a large. FT has taken back monies for a refund. It's a sale here or there. Not a weeks worth of sales in one hit.

I think the real point here is that agencies like BS were able to stop the fraud in hours while it took IS over a week. BS had minimal losses because of their timeliness, where as IS lost thousands because of their incompetence. We're now on our 3rd suspected case of fraudulent downloads at IS since Dec.

80
And they may not be done taking money from your account.

Quote from the email: "Please note that it may be necessary for us to remove royalties attributable to fraudulent downloads again in the future."

81
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia cuts commissions again
« on: January 24, 2011, 11:16 »
I'm $5 shy of a payout. Guess I'll wait it out and then make a final decision once I hit that.

82
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia cuts commissions again
« on: January 22, 2011, 14:09 »
I haven't had a sale since I got to within $5 of a payout. That was in early Nov.

I don't see your portfolio on FT at all - could be why no sales :)  I tried searching for your user name when the link from the forum didn't work, but that said 0 files found.

Some of the other links in your forum bar no longer go to active portfolios - perhaps it needs an update to remove those no longer applicable?

That's weird. The links all have my user name "azurelaroux" listed. No idea why they wouldn't work.

83
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia cuts commissions again
« on: January 21, 2011, 23:04 »
I haven't had a sale since I got to within $5 of a payout. That was in early Nov.

84
Pixmac / Re: Pixmac no longer a partner?
« on: January 19, 2011, 09:05 »
There was a posting on Twitter about DT and FT dropping Pixmax with this link to their listed affiliates.

http://www.pixmac.de/partneragenturen#utm_source=2279&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=aff3

85
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_25551

From Achilles

As you all know, Dreamstime sells content using a large distribution network, additional to our own site.  From time to time, we audit our distribution partners to ensure that everything is going as it should.

Earlier last week, we have decided to remove the access to one of our distributors for a serious infringement of the terms of our contract with that distributor.  More specifically, we discovered that the distributor has been selling some images at a higher price point than agreed with Dreamstime, with the extra amount not being reported by the distributor.  The added amount per image varied from a few percentage points up to several times the acceptable price.  Furthermore, some of the files were duplicated and used, via a caching system, to allow future downloads from new and previous customers, without any payments sent to Dreamstime or its photographers.  Dreamstime considers this to be a serious violation of its contributors rights one which we intend to see remedied by any and all available means.

We have consequently removed their access to all Dreamstime images, and were currently preparing a legal action towards this company.  I will not name the company here, due to the nature of the legal process.  Once this process ends, and we recover any royalties due, we will add any additional missing royalties due.

We are making this post to publicly advise our distributors and contributors that we will not tolerate any kind of infringements.  Similarly, we will not quietly end an infringement, endorsing suspected instances of fraud this way.  Strong ethics must prevail and should be the very first thing one analyzes before joining a partnership, no matter its type.

We will keep you posted.

86
Adobe Stock / Re: Low (almost none) views
« on: January 14, 2011, 13:20 »
I'm wondering if the site is still running. I've had no downloads since Nov. which is odd. They used to place 4th or 5th each month.

87
Bigstock.com / Re: ftp problem?
« on: January 10, 2011, 10:50 »
Same issue as Sue. I uploaded over the weekend but there is nothing in my pending edit.

88
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock Watch 2011
« on: January 10, 2011, 10:46 »
Just to clear up the SS payment scheme. Here's a link to the chart. http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

89
I'm not changing. But then again I was never in the favored group either.

90
The whole "fraud" fiasco reminds me of the "ratings rings" that were around a few years ago. Back in the day ratings were a big part of the best match. Then these "rings" started to make deals to rate each others images. Back then getting just a 4 out of 5 on an image could send it to the back of a search so you needed every "5" you could get. Eventually 2 or 3 people were kicked off the site for it but all the ratings they, and the others, made were not changed. Thus, continuing to give certain people an advantage in the searches.

Now we have this "fraudulent" credit card purchase that lasted for over a week, and almost exclusively purchased Vetta images. While the money from the purchases will have to be returned to IS, the RC's will be allowed to stay - giving many of those people the boost they needed to either remain or raise their 2010 royalty rate.

It's being an MO for IS. If the choosen few aren't going to be able to make it then we'll pull something to make sure they do.

91
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Grass is NOT greener at the others!!
« on: January 02, 2011, 12:03 »
(Fotolia) percentages work out to 25% - 46% (non-exclusive) across 8 levels for regular downloads. Subscribtions are .30 cents to .46 cents depending on your color level.


Neither of those statements is accurate. As I stated above, the percentages at Fotolia are not based on the purchase costs of credits, so they mean absolutely nothing.

Also, I have plenty of recent subscription sales there for 22c, so the minimum is not 30c.


Numbers are according to FT's stated chart of percentages in the contributors section. http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors (scroll down for charts)

92
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Grass is NOT greener at the others!!
« on: January 02, 2011, 08:46 »
So from what I understand some of the other sites not only pay less then IS but also have no transparency what so ever...
Why does everybody flame IS night and day but not the others ???

FT and IS are both regularly mentioned for not having systems that can be verified by the contributors. SS and DT are almost never mentioned as having this issue because their process is simple and straightforward, allowing contributors to easily verify their numbers.

93
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Grass is NOT greener at the others!!
« on: January 02, 2011, 08:42 »
SS is money based. 25 cents for a subscription download and $1.88 for an "on demand". Regardless of cost of credits.

DT is 30% - 50% based on image performance level. The more the image is downloaded the higher the commission you get per download.
FT has a system based on your color level (like IS canisters) and size of the image licensed. The percentages work out to 25% - 46% (non-exclusive) across 8 levels for regular downloads. Subscribtions are .30 cents to .46 cents depending on your color level.

94
Adobe Stock / Re: Issue with IPTC data
« on: December 31, 2010, 09:56 »
I uploaded yesterday, discovered the problem, left it and tried again this morning. I just deleted the pending files. It's not worth this amount of hassle for the $14 a year I get from them.

95
Adobe Stock / Issue with IPTC data
« on: December 31, 2010, 09:08 »
The issue is that my keywords are listed (IPTC) in the box but when I click "Add", nothing happens. Is this an issue only for me or are others having the same problem? Even if I delete all the keywords and then paste/type them in the "Add" button still does not function.

96
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock F5 epic fail
« on: December 28, 2010, 15:56 »
If you read through the thread about the Main collection you'll see that it's only available on certain browsers. It either wasn't supposed to be released yet or the re-design of the search isn't finished and they will be adding an Exclusive button as well. Either way it's another fail on IS's part.

97
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Fraud going down at IS
« on: December 28, 2010, 10:42 »
They have always sent me an email stating that the money would be deducted and why. I've had both "suspicious transaction" and "returned file". This was back when I was exclusive.

98
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Fraud going down at IS
« on: December 28, 2010, 09:48 »
Whenever there has been fraud or a return by the buyer IS has always deducted the royalty amount from the contributor. It happened to me a few years. It's common, though controversial, practice amoung most of the micro sites.

99
Another question..

I accepted all the partners but after i upload, i seem to have to manually select all my photos and then select the partner again "pending partner approval" icon for the partners to show.  Is there a way to have this happen automatically?  As well the choosing the Microstock option?

Go to the image edit page. At the bottom there is a checkbox for each partner. Select the partners that you want your images to show up at automatically.

100
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStockphoto to offer "Editorial Use" license
« on: December 13, 2010, 15:59 »
DT does Editorial. Alamy does Editorial, RM and RF

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 15

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors