|
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 - ruxpriencdiam
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 42
26
« on: April 21, 2015, 06:51 »
The answers are too far apart. The difference between making 2000 or 24000 per year is huge yet it's in the same bracket.
If anyone is only making $2000 a year then how are they living?
27
« on: April 20, 2015, 18:54 »
This is just to see how broad of a spectrum the microstockers are coming from.
Are we poor or are we rich or is it evenly spread between all?
Results will be posted after the poll expires in 30 days.
28
« on: April 14, 2015, 20:55 »
Yeah saw that on the news.
Guess where those employees are going to stay for work?
29
« on: April 13, 2015, 12:01 »
ERROR 404 - Page not found.
30
« on: April 08, 2015, 08:53 »
You have to downsize images, I have panoramas wont go through because they are too big.
Everyone is downsizing, even cropping is downsizing. I dont know many people submitting full size 36mp images. They all downsize.
Its a guideline, not a requirement.
Upsizing is different ballgame, I never upsize.
In the Submission Guidelines of SS there is this written "Do send full-sized images. Don't upsize or downsize images."
No size limit for photos, have told people this before. Jeff,
Were these jpegs rejected for being too large or couldn't you upload them because of the size? There is no size limitation for photos, but larger images can have issues uploading due to their size (depending on ISP, connection, time, etc.)
Vincent
Shutterstock
31
« on: April 06, 2015, 16:09 »
Peace and quiet over here! Yeah right! Pfffffffttttttttttttttttt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
32
« on: April 05, 2015, 21:36 »
33
« on: April 03, 2015, 16:48 »
......................
34
« on: March 31, 2015, 22:11 »
While true, it's not that easy. But private property is protected. You can't sell or use images commercially.If you are taking the images from public property you allowed to sell them as long as they are not of people with a reasonable expectation of privacy
However if you are standing on public property (not window peeping or invading privacy) you can take photos into private property like Cemeteries - In the US.True, same for most anywhere else.
There are so many complications and nuances, where are you = what country, Etc. no simple answer is right.One federal law covers pretty much all of the US.
But down to the original question which is bringing back a thread from the dead from 2012. If there's a sign and it says something to the effect that you are not allowed to take photographs in that enclosed area, and it's private property. You Can't sell the photographs commercially. You can take all you want.No you cant any sign on private property telling you you cant take images then no photographing allowed or selling them, the owner of the property can set the rules and you must abide by them.
Fine point but they can't prevent the taking of photos. But they can control the use or distribution.Yes they can prevent you from taking photos while on private property.
No cameras allowed is a different statement.
Anything that is not government funded is private property.
35
« on: March 31, 2015, 20:36 »
Anything that is not government funded is private property.
36
« on: March 31, 2015, 08:09 »
Sounds like time to drop them.
37
« on: March 30, 2015, 19:37 »
...
38
« on: March 30, 2015, 16:53 »
I now see that 500,000 is for a standard license not an EL!!!! So now we are right up the alley with all the other sites. So how much we get for an EL now? 500,000 for .38 cents!!!!! WOW IMAGE LICENSES
A STANDARD IMAGE LICENSE grants you the right to use Images:
As a digital reproduction, including on websites, in online advertising, in social media, in mobile advertising, mobile "apps", software, e-cards, e-publications (e-books, e-magazines, blogs, etc.), and in online media (including on video-sharing services such as YouTube, Dailymotion, Vimeo, etc., subject to the budget limitations set forth in sub-paragraph I.a.i.4 below);
Printed in physical form as part of product packaging and labeling, letterhead and business cards, point of sale advertising, billboards, CD and DVD cover art, or in the advertising and copy of tangible media, including magazines, newspapers, and books provided no Image is reproduced more than 500,000 times in the aggregate;
39
« on: March 30, 2015, 16:34 »
Some if the changes look better for the contributor.
If someone needed 400,000 copies and an EL didn't cover it the buyer would go elsewhere and now they wont.
But yes it is a loss but at the same time a win.
40
« on: March 30, 2015, 10:05 »
Current openings. http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs/listingsWork From Home Image Reviewer
Headquartered in New York, Shutterstock is an innovative e-commerce company and a leading provider of royalty-free videos, photos, and illustrations. With over 30 million images and videos, Shutterstock sources content from a contributor community of thousands of photographers, videographers, artists and illustrators from around the world. We consider our contributor community, supply chain and operational capability to be among our greatest assets.
We are hiring Image Reviewers located in the USA to evaluate images for their overall quality, technical execution, commercial suitability, and adherence to our image acceptance standards.
This is a freelance work-from-home position using the reviewer's own equipment and based around the reviewers available schedule.
Responsibilities:
Efficiently evaluate and approve images based on defined acceptance standards.
Operate as an authority for technical standards, trademark exceptions, fraud detection, copyright and release requirements; review images for adherence to content standards and suitability for inclusion in our commercial image catalog.
Perform exceptionable and consistent image evaluations in a high volume, fast-paced, and super detail-oriented manner.
Apply metadata standards, with light metadata editing and a keen eye for keyword and title relevance to drive accurate search engine results.
Provide consistent, objective, efficient, concise and accurate feedback to contributors.
Requirements:
Mandatory: Domain expertise and passionate enthusiasm for photography with 2+ years of professional photography experience, preferably as a photographer, contributor to stock agencies, photo editor, or photo researcher.
Must be available to work 25-30 hours per week including 5-8 hours per weekend.
Must have high-speed wired broadband Internet access [at least 25mbps download speed to test: http://www.speedtest.net/], own a PC or Mac, and own a sufficient and accurate color display for viewing high-resolution images.
Adept at photo editing, image resolution, and metadata evaluation, along with a basic foundation of best practices in post-production processes.
Understanding of evolving image industry trends, styles, and commercial value.
Comfortable and enthusiastic about making many detailed judgments repetitively.
Highly organized, super analytical and extremely detail-oriented.
Strong command of English; ability to read/write and participate in operations and business meetings.
Software: Knowledge of Adobe Photoshop, Google Docs and Microsoft Office Suite.
In addition to applying, please complete the following questionnaire to be considered for this position -- http://goo.gl/YXv868
Equal Opportunity Employer, M/F/D/V
41
« on: March 30, 2015, 09:59 »
If I remember right at SS you have to have at least 500 images and an established port?
42
« on: March 29, 2015, 19:55 »
It must cover over 30% of the image therefore making it useless as a print or fine art. ^^ How both ways?
Buyers can make a print for themselves, e.g. to put on their own wall, but can't sell prints from files.
Section F looks like it says you can make prints (including artwork and posters) incorporated into merchandise for sale. I guess you could read that it can't just be the full image but I don't see how you couldn't add a fancy quotation overlay and say you conform.
On Jo Ann's link it pretty clearly says you can't make POD but that doesn't exclude printing up a batch of posters and selling them (at a farmer's market or something).
Nope.
provided that such merchandise: a) combines the Image with words and/or other graphics or images; or b) the Image is not the primary factor driving the sale of such merchandise.
Yup. Like I said (if you had actually read what I said), if you put a quote on it (combine the image with words) you have the right to use it on items for resale.
43
« on: March 29, 2015, 13:19 »
These are all of the so called top of the crop on SS that are the ones that are complaining. If they are not one of the tops and are not complaining they are not on that list. And it also goes back to what they shoot that designers are no longer looking for and what they refuse to shoot that designers are looking for. The drop in sales for the older contributors can come back to it being their own fault I went and checked on a bunch of their ports and here is what I found.
IPYU is Images per year uploaded average
IPW is Images per week
4365 images
545.625 IPYU
Member since 2006
10.49 IPW
1588 images
226.857 IPYU
Member since 2007
4.362 IPW
2938 images
419.714 IPYU
Member since 2007
8.07 IPW
445 images
49.444 IPYU
Member since 2005
.9508 IPW
2526 images
280.666 IPYU
Member since 2005
5.397 IPW
2271 images
283.875 IPYU
Member since 2006
5.45 IPW
840 images
93.333 IPYU
Member since 2005
1.79 IPW
1907 images
272.428 IPYU
Member since 2007
5.239 IPW
1415 images
176.875 IPYU
Member since 2006
3.401 IPW
5162 images
573.555 IPYU
Member since 2005
11.02 IPW
4615 images
576.875 IPYU
Member since 2006
11.09 IPW
718 images
89.75 IPYU
Member since 2006
1.72 IPW
391 images
43.444 IPYU
Member since 2005
.835 IPW
So you have contributors from back in 2005 that have been and are hardly uploading anything, yet there are other newer contributors one being from 2009 with over 18,000 images compared to the older contributors so what is wrong with that picture?
Everyone seems to like talking numbers so there they are and they speak volumes for what is happening to the old contributors, not forgetting to mention what was in high demand is no more because designers are looking for new stuff like filtered images that old timers consider stupid old out of focus faded Polaroids, so they want nothing to do with the trend and the BUS has run over them.
Ok, then.
I didn't really want to debate the definition of success. It's a relative term.
Nevertheless PB said that his friend is "worried" about the drop in sales, in the context of this topic.
This topic talks about alleged actions against older contributors (like PB's friend), taken by the agencies. Moreover, these actions are claimed to be the reason for not selling new content like in the old days.
Either PB shouldn't be using an off-topic example, or his example is on-topic.
Only PB can clarify, if he or his friend belive that the drop in some of older contributors' sales is caused by specific actions taken by the agencies against them.
So you went back and picked a bunch of older contributors and you are erroneously representing them as representative of all older contributors who are seeing drops on shutterstock.
How do you explain drops for older contributors who have superb quality and upload regularly and in good volume.
The denial in this industry is rich and the sites love to see posts like these because it keeps new contributors in the harness.
Keep thinking it can never happen to you, work harder and ramp up the quality of your work significantly! You are being deluged by ports from IS and their work is at least on par with most images at shutterstock and in some cases much better. To top it off new ports are being given priority in the search.
44
« on: March 29, 2015, 12:13 »
^^ How both ways?
Buyers can make a print for themselves, e.g. to put on their own wall, but can't sell prints from files.
Section F looks like it says you can make prints (including artwork and posters) incorporated into merchandise for sale. I guess you could read that it can't just be the full image but I don't see how you couldn't add a fancy quotation overlay and say you conform.
On Jo Ann's link it pretty clearly says you can't make POD but that doesn't exclude printing up a batch of posters and selling them (at a farmer's market or something).
Nope. provided that such merchandise: a) combines the Image with words and/or other graphics or images; or b) the Image is not the primary factor driving the sale of such merchandise.
45
« on: March 29, 2015, 09:52 »
The drop in sales for the older contributors can come back to it being their own fault I went and checked on a bunch of their ports and here is what I found. IPYU is Images per year uploaded average IPW is Images per week 4365 images 545.625 IPYU Member since 2006 10.49 IPW 1588 images 226.857 IPYU Member since 2007 4.362 IPW 2938 images 419.714 IPYU Member since 2007 8.07 IPW 445 images 49.444 IPYU Member since 2005 .9508 IPW 2526 images 280.666 IPYU Member since 2005 5.397 IPW 2271 images 283.875 IPYU Member since 2006 5.45 IPW 840 images 93.333 IPYU Member since 2005 1.79 IPW 1907 images 272.428 IPYU Member since 2007 5.239 IPW 1415 images 176.875 IPYU Member since 2006 3.401 IPW 5162 images 573.555 IPYU Member since 2005 11.02 IPW 4615 images 576.875 IPYU Member since 2006 11.09 IPW 718 images 89.75 IPYU Member since 2006 1.72 IPW 391 images 43.444 IPYU Member since 2005 .835 IPW So you have contributors from back in 2005 that have been and are hardly uploading anything, yet there are other newer contributors one being from 2009 with over 18,000 images compared to the older contributors so what is wrong with that picture? Everyone seems to like talking numbers so there they are and they speak volumes for what is happening to the old contributors, not forgetting to mention what was in high demand is no more because designers are looking for new stuff like filtered images that old timers consider stupid old out of focus faded Polaroids, so they want nothing to do with the trend and the BUS has run over them. Ok, then.
I didn't really want to debate the definition of success. It's a relative term.
Nevertheless PB said that his friend is "worried" about the drop in sales, in the context of this topic.
This topic talks about alleged actions against older contributors (like PB's friend), taken by the agencies. Moreover, these actions are claimed to be the reason for not selling new content like in the old days.
Either PB shouldn't be using an off-topic example, or his example is on-topic.
Only PB can clarify, if he or his friend belive that the drop in some of older contributors' sales is caused by specific actions taken by the agencies against them.
46
« on: March 29, 2015, 07:15 »
Looks like it is food? Isolated Flowers Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art (876,241) Isolated Christmas Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art (557,071) Christmas Isolations Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art (557,071) Isolated Food Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art (2,365,425) A few things:
1) Raw vegetable was one of the trending items.
but
2) Look at the most popular again. Some of the top 15 are the same shots, three years later. I thought all the top photos got push off the front pages?
No I don't think I have any sliced vegetables isolated on white. I did do a pumpkin once. (not that way, stop it) Isolated on white... 
3) 150,000? When is enough = enough?
just wondering... what is the most oversupplied isolated item??? animal veg mineral ...
prophylactic included 
47
« on: March 28, 2015, 11:27 »
No weekend help, no immediate help and sometimes no help.
48
« on: March 28, 2015, 08:35 »
There are never enough. A few things:
1) Raw vegetable was one of the trending items.
but
2) Look at the most popular again. Some of the top 15 are the same shots, three years later. I thought all the top photos got push off the front pages?
No I don't think I have any sliced vegetables isolated on white. I did do a pumpkin once. (not that way, stop it) Isolated on white...
3) 150,000? When is enough = enough?
Uncle Pete's point is well noted. I did a photo session of a front view of a home and was told to forget it! There are like 2.4 million images of the home shots on Fotolia. Well, my home is now in the top 10 and has made thousands of sales and dollars on FT along with the other companies. And the funny part is that while taking out the garbage I noticed the lighting was perfect at 6am on a lovely summer day so I grabbed my cheap rebel canon and put it on a tripod - took just a few images- less than 5 minutes work! 
49
« on: March 27, 2015, 16:28 »
So before I eat this years crop I guess I now know what to do!
I have some cherry from last years that I skinned and froze so there is another as well!
OH MY!
HERE WE GO AGAIN!
50
« on: March 26, 2015, 14:51 »
Hundreds of way to do isolation's.
Metedata EXIF info and more in many ways depending on camera.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 42
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
