...But the thing is that if they want to be an agency that prices like the rest then they should at least ban the 25gb upload limit.
If you want volume and low prices you cant expect people to pay you to upload more than 25gb at a time.

As long as I understand your statement correctly, the 25GB quota applies ONLY if you are not publishing the clips to the marketplace (e.g direct licensing).

I've uploaded far more than 25GB and never paid anything.

I only kept one clip there in case they got bought out by some big player or whatever.

But now it looks like they're completely gone.

The domain expires next month if I see that correctly.

Does anybody have news about them?

This may have been discussed or details posted somewhere before but I missed it.

I had a conversation with a company that uses Fotolia's API to license images for POD products.

The company claims to use the Small size of the images for their products and that the API requires to use credits (and NO subscription) for licensing.

So I tried to do some math on how much I would receive for such an API sale. I'm Emerald and in the best case (2 credits base price) a Small size is listed at 6 credits.
A "big" customer may get 6,400 credits for $5,600 which equals to $0.88 per credit. So in my example, 6 credits = $5.28 (as a high discount example).

According to the company, using the API, they pay between 1 and 3 � per image. Where is this price coming from? Needless to say that in that case my royalties are considerably smaller.

This post is not arguing whether Fotolia's license should not be used for PODs etc.

I just want to know if API prices are generally lower (approx. 50% or more). Why would API prices be lower?

I'd greatly appreciate any information regarding this before I ask Fotolia.

Yes, FTP stopped working for me a few months ago. Support asked me to switch to HTTP upload which was ok for me. Everything worked.

Since a couple days I cannot seem to upload anything anymore via HTTP either.

Writing them now.

Thanks ccbcc, so far I always used Photo-JPG as I never got satisfactory results with h.264 (when rendering computer animated frames as TIFFs).

Stupid question: Would it be recommended to initially render 16-bit TIFFs (instead of 8-bit) from my 3D software in order to create the highest quality Prores video?

I'm on PC using FFMPEG applying the Prores HQ setting with 185 Mbit.

... that is why I have a load of $1 sales for my HD and 4k content there. ...

Pardon me if I missed something during the discussion or if you mentioned anything relating to that statement quoted above in another thread but why would you work with any company that "sells" your content as low as $1 for HD or 4K?

So, there are contributors already uploading both versions AND getting them approved?

Besides being a solution to this search filter issue are there other problems that might reduce sales for example since most buyers do not use the filter and when they see duplicate clips they might unknowingly buy the same clip in HD 50/50 as original and downsized from 4K which reduces the ranking in search results.

I hope I could get this point across. English is not my mother tongue.

Quote from: click_click on December 03, 2015, 17:30

Quote from: op on December 03, 2015, 13:16

On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.

I'm not sure if I should take your comment seriously.

Just because a camera these days may be 4K capable, doesn't mean that it provides "optimal quality" for a buyer who indeed needs 4K footage.

HD cameras have greatly improved in the last couple of years so, yes, they are quite cheap and produce decent quality.

Have you been shooting RAW HD or 4K? Once I saw the difference between RAW recorded footage and compressed footage which 99.9% of the prosumer (DSLR etc.) cameras produce - there are still worlds of difference in terms of color and clarity.

The substantial costs for high end 4K gear cannot be reflected by the insulting footage prices of iStock, not to mention the fact that they price 4K and HD the same.

So I cannot agree that HD and 4K should be offered at the same price as production costs vary heavily.

95% of my work is time lapse shot in RAW 6K 14bits. HD was already $xxxx on GI, how much more do you want them to sell 4K then?.. I agree with that and when a client is willing to pay that price I'd rather see him/her get 4K instead of HD.

Pardon me for not being clear enough: This is not aimed at you but 4K timelapse clips can be shot in RAW at a decent quality starting at $400 or less.

Obviously I didn't include such an example as "high end gear".

I was trying to refer to genuine 4K real time footage shot for example on a RED system. Needless to say that you can easily add two more 0s to that price.

I'm not familiar with the GI footage pricing structure - only with iStock's where I enjoyed selling footage until they changed it to commissions below the double digits.

Adding insult to injury and selling 4K (NOT time lapse) at the same price is delusional. Sure, the buyers will be happy in terms of the money they can save but the question is how many contributors can sustain a business model while delivering top notch content for $8 royalties per sale?

I'm not even selling my HD stuff that low.

On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.

I'm not sure if I should take your comment seriously.

Just because a camera these days may be 4K capable, doesn't mean that it provides "optimal quality" for a buyer who indeed needs 4K footage.

HD cameras have greatly improved in the last couple of years so, yes, they are quite cheap and produce decent quality.

Have you been shooting RAW HD or 4K? Once I saw the difference between RAW recorded footage and compressed footage which 99.9% of the prosumer (DSLR etc.) cameras produce - there are still worlds of difference in terms of color and clarity.

The substantial costs for high end 4K gear cannot be reflected by the insulting footage prices of iStock, not to mention the fact that they price 4K and HD the same.

So I cannot agree that HD and 4K should be offered at the same price as production costs vary heavily.

Mat, can you tell us yet what the 4k pricing will be?

Yes Mat, please push for this information. I assume, as we are not allowed to double upload our clips, each in HD and 4K, to be able to delete 4K later if Adobe decides to keep the price at $79.99 or in that area, I would have to hold back all of my uploads now until pricing for 4K is set.

Otherwise it would be great if we could upload HD files that could be replaced with the 4K versions later to maintain clip IDs.

Thanks.

Yes. Net $191.54 after $7.46 CC fee.

Was wondering about commissions too.I have uploaded some test clips and opted out of DPC and subscriptions (didn't they recently say though that video will not be offered for subs?)
Also they accept 4K but hey have not put a price yet.4K and UHD files show as extended licences for 200credits.What's up with that?

4K pricing right now appears to be 200 credits (the same as the Extended License). Supposedly footage will be included in the Adobe Stock programm (soon?).
Curious to see how this will affect sales.

For the moment the site doesn't seem to be optimized for displaying/selling 4K content (no dedicated search option and pricing information). However they do accept 4K.

Sales that show up on a map aren't reported immediatley on your earnings page. There's a delay, I'd say about 15 minutes or so, for sale to show up as a thumbail on your earnings page and about an hour for a sale to be added to your total earnings.

Yes, that was my previous experience as well. I'm waiting for a footage sale to show up that appeared yesterday.