|
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 - OM
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 36
176
« on: December 10, 2017, 06:12 »
Used to trade used photo gear on eBay until 2006. Up until then it was fine. Then they started charging commission on the postage and later making it so that only buyers could leave negative feedback on sellers but not the other way around.
In the old days eBay was fun and easy now it's so burdenened with rules and regs that coupled with their policy of stealing the cash off your Preypal account and giving it to the buyer if the buyer claims they never received the goods, I never ever sell there now.
Got scammed once by a guy in China who gave an address in France (he bought miniatures of booze in France so it was probably a mate's address). Then he claimed never to have received it but he changed his eBay address to China the next day after I sent it to France. Had a screenshot of the two addresses but it made no difference to eBay/Paypal....they just removed the full payment from my account and gave it to him and then charged me all the fees on top.
Lost more than 200 on that little scam and have never used them to sell anything again.
I will still buy small things on eBay because the whole place is heavily weighted towards the buyer but they definitely don't deserve anyone's business as a vendor.
177
« on: November 26, 2017, 06:09 »
Yup! I thought it strange that even at the weekend I hadn't had a sale for more than 36 hours. I have had some sales yesterday and today but the main monthly total amount hasn't updated since sometime Friday.
178
« on: November 14, 2017, 09:40 »
Haven't uploaded anything for months ......think I'll postpone uploading for another few months now until they get themselves sorted out. Methinks they're on a mission to destroy themselves. Things that need fixing never get fixed and things that worked well for contributors they break. 
179
« on: November 14, 2017, 09:30 »
Substitute real faces for algo-generated faces in stock photos and there's no more need for model releases!
180
« on: November 06, 2017, 09:19 »
So everyone doing well on SS again as it seems. I am still 50% down on the months before my portfolio crashed. All other agencies are insignificant as well. Overall decline. But I am not adding any images, no time, no motivation.
Dreadful Oct for me. Barely scraped payout. Last time it was this bad was 5 years ago, except then it was great because I'd only just started and had around 20% of current port.
181
« on: November 06, 2017, 04:57 »
Two years ago (Nov 2015) I had 446 dls from a SS portfolio of around 500 images. Now with 50% more images my dls have more than halved. Goes to show how things have changed so quickly.
182
« on: November 04, 2017, 08:57 »
You'll be surprised how many will give their stuff away and amateur content these days is very good.
Some of it isn't even amateur and there's method behind some of the madness...Unsplash Brooke Lark 80 food photos of decent quality: https://unsplash.com/@brookelarkBehind the madness of 'free' is getting people and paid commissions to her Instagram account and pro-photo site (client list): http://www.cheekykitchen.com/about/Just another approach from a different angle.
183
« on: October 20, 2017, 10:35 »
I have all my images uploaded and all are now showing an orange spot (minimum requirement for adding to queue). Is there a way to add all the images to the submission queue with one move or do I have to add each image singly? Thanks.
The usual shift or control to add to selection. Also, cntrl-a if one is already selected.
Thanks Sean.
184
« on: October 20, 2017, 08:56 »
Hello
I'm having a hard time uploading my photos to the Stocksy site, there are 2 or 3 that pass and then it crashes. I don't see any ftp server available.
Does anyone have the same problem?
Thank you
Tried to upload 90+ but only 50 got through first time. Went back to check the size and a few were just under the minimum 6Mp....eliminated them and retried the upload of the 40+ first-time failed images. Second time around all were uploaded, so it was maybe some temporary glitch.
185
« on: October 20, 2017, 08:51 »
I have all my images uploaded and all are now showing an orange spot (minimum requirement for adding to queue). Is there a way to add all the images to the submission queue with one move or do I have to add each image singly? Thanks.
186
« on: September 19, 2017, 19:27 »
I notified SS about this site around six weeks ago. They replied 2 weeks later to say thanks and that action was being taken....except that it's not. Same site, still there. All the hype about extra security measures with the author's name in the watermark seems designed to placate the great unwashed and unknowledgeable. SS has to change their system for (not)showing large previews.
No more uploads from me until they actually do tackle THEIR IT problem.
Yes, you will show them! They could care less whether you upload or not. They care about making money, just like you. as long as your portfolio is there, you both have that chance. Not uploading is not the answer.
True. It's a meaningless token!
187
« on: September 19, 2017, 06:02 »
I notified SS about this site around six weeks ago. They replied 2 weeks later to say thanks and that action was being taken....except that it's not. Same site, still there. All the hype about extra security measures with the author's name in the watermark seems designed to placate the great unwashed and unknowledgeable. SS has to change their system for (not)showing large previews.
No more uploads from me until they actually do tackle THEIR IT problem.
188
« on: September 09, 2017, 06:00 »
Dumb thing was to go exclusive with FT from 2008 to 2012. Even dumber was not to join SS until 2012 because I thought my stuff wasn't good enough. Dumbest was not to buy Bitcoin with my miserable earnings from FT, otherwise I'd now be a multi-millionaire ($60 bought 1,000 Bitcoin in 2011 now worth nearly $5 million). 
189
« on: August 27, 2017, 07:45 »
I once tried to get in touch with him to let him know that his EL's on Fotolia were going for the bargain minimum price of $10. I'm sure it wasn't intentional and there must have been some buyers who profited greatly from that rate. His work is really far better than microstock rates give him.
190
« on: August 25, 2017, 12:52 »
The latest development:
The ShutterDowner site now displays Shutterstock favicon on the page tab. They've hacked that too. People who don't know better BELIEVE that they are actually on the legit Shutterstock site!
Below:
By using shutterdowner you are ACCEPTING our Terms & Policies | Credit By Facebook Business
DMCA Protected | Powered By ShutterStock
Coded By MrZaghar
See for yourself. This thief is one step ahead of SS. SS needs to take serious action, their added security measures do not help. It's a cat and mouse game with this hacker, this site needs to be taken down.
Shutterstock may take action but it seems to take them forever. I reported this site through their correct email address to them around 10 days ago and had a reply from them a couple of days ago to say that they were taking action. When I reported the site 10 days ago, it was already using the SS favicon.
191
« on: August 23, 2017, 06:01 »
Good that Shutterstock came up with the solution for images on their site. But people can easily find and steal just about any agency image from a client who has downloaded it and used the unwatermarked version online. Until there's a better solution for tracking and enforcing licensing this is a bandaid on a leaking dam.
That's what I thought too until I tested one of mine on a pirate site (not going to post which one as I reported it to SS and they are taking action). Complete with author's handle included, it removed all the watermarking to give a completely clean image. I reckon that site relied on Google views for income as it wouldn't work with my ad blocker on. All social networking sites were shown at the bottom of their landing page and they encouraged you to share their service. So.....SS had not solved the problem at all (at time of testing ~10 days ago) by adding the author's name to their watermark. They just gave the impressive of defeating the pirates. Edit: Just checked that site. No longer accepts that my adblocker is disabled (when it definitely is) and requires an email address as well as the SS url of the image. Maybe it has been closed down after all.
192
« on: August 16, 2017, 15:05 »
The thing I don't get is why would SS pacify us a month or so ago with some change to their watermark when their own IT people must have known that pirates remove the watermarks by messing with the code that adds the watermarks. If this problem is insoluble for the agencies then none of our copyrighted material is safe against piracy until they revise their procedures to make the material safe.
Whilst it already seemed pointless to upload new work because of it getting buried under the weekly 1.2 million accepted pile, it now seems doubly pointless because anything you do upload can also be stolen.
It's a strange business really. If our copyrighted work were instead a physical product which we sold via a middleman/wholesaler and at the end of a month the wholesaler turned round and told us that there was only a little revenue for our products (sold) that month because the wholesaler had seen fit to give most of our products away for free or left the doors to his storage open so that thieves could come and take what they wanted for free....do you think you would still supply that wholesaler in future? By continuing to supply our wholesalers, we're effectively saying that we don't mind them giving a load of our work away for free.
193
« on: August 16, 2017, 08:36 »
SS took down many sites reported at this thread in June - July: https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/91181-stealing-ss-images-big-time
Maybe it would be a better place to report this one too at the same thread. I don't think they are reading this forum.
I don't think that they are reading this forum either, but the above thread on Shutterstock forum is old and long. They may not bother with it any more. Of course you can report it on that thread, and start a new thread, and email them... you don't have to limit reporting this stealing site in just one way! Many reports is better than one. HOWEVER it's probably not a good idea to put this in social media where people can find about this site.
I encourage everyone to go to this site and try one of your images. I inserted a SS link and the result was a flawless 1843X1229 photo without watermark, perfect to use in many projects and web. You don't need a larger image for web, blog or some small prints even. Imagine when knowledge of this site spreads online, (and it does on social share, on forums, etc).
It's safe to use this site, because no one will know anyway whether the end user has purchased a license or not.
This is our work at stake. I already emailed SS but that's not enough. Contributors, please report this site!
Indeed. Tried one of my images with NEW watermark....makes no difference...perfect watermark-free image. Not only that but the little SS red logo appears alongside that site in my history column!
I did have to turn off my AdBlock Plus before it would work and guess what popped up as ad on their site page.........Adobe Stock! It would almost be comical if it weren't so serious.
Yes. This sick site destroys our work.
This site needs to be stopped. The next thing they will do is to create a stealware to steal watermarked images from ANY site. And I bet they will be larger in size, too.
Contributors, don't be lulled into a false sense of security that YOUR images won't be stolen. They will be, as long as this site is up.
Not just that site. This one was supposedly reported to SS more than one month ago and yet is still up and running. It claims to download from any of the major agencies. See list on left-hand side of page. In the instructio, it only shows downloading from SS but they claim it can be any major agency.
194
« on: August 16, 2017, 07:37 »
SS took down many sites reported at this thread in June - July: https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/91181-stealing-ss-images-big-time
Maybe it would be a better place to report this one too at the same thread. I don't think they are reading this forum.
I don't think that they are reading this forum either, but the above thread on Shutterstock forum is old and long. They may not bother with it any more. Of course you can report it on that thread, and start a new thread, and email them... you don't have to limit reporting this stealing site in just one way! Many reports is better than one. HOWEVER it's probably not a good idea to put this in social media where people can find about this site.
I encourage everyone to go to this site and try one of your images. I inserted a SS link and the result was a flawless 1843X1229 photo without watermark, perfect to use in many projects and web. You don't need a larger image for web, blog or some small prints even. Imagine when knowledge of this site spreads online, (and it does on social share, on forums, etc).
It's safe to use this site, because no one will know anyway whether the end user has purchased a license or not.
This is our work at stake. I already emailed SS but that's not enough. Contributors, please report this site!
Indeed. Tried one of my images with NEW watermark....makes no difference...perfect watermark-free image. Not only that but the little SS red logo appears alongside that site in my history column! I did have to turn off my AdBlock Plus before it would work and guess what popped up as ad on their site page.........Adobe Stock! It would almost be comical if it weren't so serious.
195
« on: August 07, 2017, 11:47 »
Did he buy those or did he get those awarded? Not the same thing. He is paid $1 a year but has stock options and rewards for company performance.
Why does Warren Buffet keep running his company and investing? He's a billionaire? Just like the others on that list, they like what they do, it's not for more money, they have all that a small country could need to survive.
Being awarded stock options is not the same as being awarded stock.
The options allow you to buy shares at a predetermined price (which is usually well below the price on the open market).
You don't have to take up the options. But if you do, you have to spend money and so you buy the shares.
Sometimes people take up the options, buy the shares at a big discount, and then sell the shares for full price on the open market.
But the insider trades page on Nasdaq does not show that Mr Oringer has sold any shares yet.
You can also elect to cash out the options if they're in the money. Cash settlement (aka free money) instead of buying stock.
196
« on: August 01, 2017, 08:54 »
If something new sells, it sells for a couple of times and then usually disappears; never to sell again. That's not the reason I'm in microstock so I''ve stopped uploading as it seems pointless. I have sales of 2,000+ of a couple of images I uploaded in 2012 and around 30 images that sold 100+ all of which were uploaded years ago. I don't think I have anything uploaded in the past 2 years that managed above 25 sales so why bother.
Incentive to shoot is tied to outcome and with MS going into the toilet I'm really focusing elsewhere, video and POD.
Absolutely. I recently finished a well-paid 2-week commission but can't motivate myself to pick up the camera again for stock. Don't know which direction I'll go in future but there's certainly no incentive to upload to SS as things are going now. Probably let the ole port wither on the vine and try to find better opportunities somewhere else.
197
« on: August 01, 2017, 08:48 »
You know, it's funny but SS seems to be presenting a lot of 'Additional Resources' written by wannabe curators or film/video buffs. Many of those shots illustrating the article have that 'wow' factor (fabulous landscapes etc) but when I view the contributor's portfolio, the particular shot is nowhere to be found on the first 2 pages of popular which indicates to me that it may be a 'I wish I'd taken that' shot but it just doesn't put any money in the bank @38 cents for a sub.
I find Alamy's 'Additional Resources' much more helpful and relevant to the business of stock photography.
198
« on: August 01, 2017, 08:37 »
If something new sells, it sells for a couple of times and then usually disappears; never to sell again. That's not the reason I'm in microstock so I''ve stopped uploading as it seems pointless. I have sales of 2,000+ of a couple of images I uploaded in 2012 and around 30 images that sold 100+ all of which were uploaded years ago. I don't think I have anything uploaded in the past 2 years that managed above 25 sales so why bother.
199
« on: July 01, 2017, 05:23 »
Seriously poor. $$$ back to levels of 2013 when I had only been at SS 12 months and had 20% of the images I have now. Downloads 40% down on 2013 levels. Complete disaster averted by one medium large SOD mid-month.
200
« on: June 29, 2017, 07:40 »
Clearly with a payment of $65 million for Flashstock, SS doesn't appear to apply the same criteria of valuation to the company as might be done in Shark Tank or Dragon's Den!
Let me see now....the site shows 24 examples of projects completed. From this site's members' information on payment, they hand over $50-$100 to the shooter. Lets just say that Flashstock has had 1,000X the completed commissions they are prepared to highlight on the 'cases' page (24,000).
At 24,000 jobs @$100 payment = $2.4 million payout (and I reckon these assumptions are wildly optimistic) they must be selling the commissioned photos for 10X what they pay for them to come anywhere close to that $65 million valuation (3 years @20 million profit/year).
Anyway, whatever.....yet another race to the bottom now in commissioned photography.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 36
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
