|
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 - click_click
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 119
251
« on: May 15, 2013, 11:55 »
Just saw this posted on a news site. If you're interested in city time lapse footage, this will be quite impressive:
w w w . vimeo.com/65888557#
This sucker wouldn't post properly... Sorry. Just remove the spaces. Thanks
252
« on: May 14, 2013, 12:54 »
aaaargh - 10 minutes down the sh!tter - had to stop at the 4th level, otherwise I'm not getting any work done.
253
« on: May 14, 2013, 12:16 »
I thought you had to opt in to the Flickr/Getty scheme. I looked at the paperwork which was pages long and wasn't interested. Maybe you have to opt out? Anyway, like you, mine are low-res and watermarked.
I joined Flickr long before Getty was involved and always watermarked my images wherever I uploaded them for "free" - just as some type of "promotion". This now just proves that I don't want changed user terms lead to unwanted distribution.
254
« on: May 14, 2013, 11:45 »
Throwing something else random out here.
FLICKR.
If you upload to Flickr, it's also a place that they can nab them from for Getty. (I only upload small res watermarked images there, so likely not usable).
I already replied to that (top of page 2).
255
« on: May 14, 2013, 08:21 »
I think its wrong to shoot the messenger. Its veer that caused the problem, RyanB has helped us by informing us about what's going on. We have every right to be angry with Veer but I still think it looks bad when we complain about a lack of communications with sites and as soon as an admin posts here I see they have -2. I much preferred this site when we didn't have the +1 -1 nonsense. Should I -1 Leaf for that 
Nobody shot the messenger. Yes it is a privilege to be able to read Veer's "official" responses to our questions. However we are also free to voice our opinion about how we feel about these responses with the means given by this forum. I didn't like or dislike Ryan's post (as in clicking the heart or -1) but rather wrote a response to make a point why I'm not happy about Veer's decision. Just because Ryan is the messenger does not mean that we have to like what he says... Also I'm sure Ryan knows that it's not him we're mad at... Hopefully our posts will clarify that.
256
« on: May 13, 2013, 17:11 »
Can you imagine the amount of care, time and patience it took to achieve this feat? Astounding. Do watch it all the way through to the (significant) end.
http://www.flixxy.com/the-incredible-power-of-concentration-miyoko-shida.htm#.UZFY2MqC2Sp
Saw it a few days ago. I'm not really excited about it. It's very simple physics and somebody who has an awful lot of time at their disposal. I wish I had that time. No idea who pays her to do that... Art show openings?
257
« on: May 13, 2013, 13:31 »
Hi all
We've temporarily deactivated some older content from the Veer UGC collection to bring more stability to our platform as we prepare for the launch of our new site. We'll be reactivating this content once the new site launches.
I'm not always able to check in on this forum, so if anyone needs a quick answer concerning their Veer account, the best way is to send an email over to [email protected].
Thanks!
Thanks RyanB for letting us know what happened. It is much appreciated. I'm still a bit confused though, because I'm sure Veer management didn't come up with the idea to move to a new platform a couple days ago. Such transitions are (hopefully) long planned strategies and I simply cannot understand how Veer would remove content (what does UGC stand for anyway?) without informing its content providers? Not only that, buyers might have bookmarked images that are now gone and cannot be purchased. I cannot tell you or your management how to run Veer but this sure is one messed up launch if content needs to be disabled. Somebody didn't do their homework right if stability of a long standing stock house is at stake... Not happy.
258
« on: May 13, 2013, 11:05 »
Sorry! I did not mean the TS or micro section. I meant the rm or rf areas. Everyone I personally know there earns a small fortune every month.
Count me out on that one. I have not made one cent off those images as of now. I wish I could get a small fortune for those though...
Well thats pretty strange? Everyone I know including myself are earning plenty. I suppose it all depends on content.
Yes my images must stink. Therefore I'm even more puzzled that Getty would pick them...
259
« on: May 13, 2013, 10:11 »
I wish you good luck. I have reservations with your pricing structure and paying 70% to contributors it's going to be nearly impossible to get a foot in the door in today's market. You require quite a lot of initial sales in order to run the back end efficiently. I'm using a 25Mb/s internet connection and your web site appears rather slow. When I click on various different preview thumbnails the site keeps loading endlessly. If you're still around in 3 years, I will be more than happy to upload my footage. Hopefully by that time you're still offering 70% commission... 
260
« on: May 13, 2013, 10:02 »
Hopefully Brian from Veer can give us an update.
Initially Brian did a fantastic job keeping us in the loop of what's happening at Veer but once again it appears that they also started running a tight ship where staff is overwhelmed and communication suffers. It just sucks.
Same story over and over.
261
« on: May 13, 2013, 09:56 »
Sorry! I did not mean the TS or micro section. I meant the rm or rf areas. Everyone I personally know there earns a small fortune every month.
Count me out on that one. I have not made one cent off those images as of now. I wish I could get a small fortune for those though...
262
« on: May 13, 2013, 07:43 »
I sell motion graphics only and I am satisfied of my earnings. I sell on: Shutterstock, Pond5 and editableClips.
Here is a link to my port: http://www.editableclips.com/users/7508.html
Oh man, those prices are way to low on editableclips.com.
263
« on: May 13, 2013, 07:41 »
You should be over the moon of happiness! that is where you will earn the money.
Should I? Are you making a lot of $$$ at Getty? What's your commission % there?
I thought that was sarcasm
I initially thought so too. I just wanted to make sure...
264
« on: May 13, 2013, 07:10 »
You should be over the moon of happiness! that is where you will earn the money.
Should I? Are you making a lot of $$$ at Getty? What's your commission % there?
265
« on: May 12, 2013, 20:44 »
Any chance they could have come over from Flickr?
No, they are not on Flickr either. Also all my Flickr content has a watermark.
266
« on: May 12, 2013, 19:54 »
It's absolutely possible. The transfer process is not reliable in any sense.
I take this as a yes that E+ collection at gettyimages.com means the image came from iStock.
267
« on: May 12, 2013, 19:53 »
... the estimated response time is 7-10 working days. H*ll, what do they do with their 80%? ... They go on vacation for 7-10 working days. Easy.
268
« on: May 12, 2013, 18:15 »
@clickclick: anything is possible. There's a thread just now by someone who has found his E+ pics under someone else's name at Getty, though with his (i.e. the bloke who took the photos') copyright.
He was specifically instructed to contact contributorhelp [at] gettyimages.com.
Yeah, I will contact them to find out what's up. It was just so weird, that I had to ask here first. Thanks for the email address!
269
« on: May 12, 2013, 18:14 »
Interesting. I am on all the above sites except Clipdealer, and I am only recently on Pond5 through Pixmac, but a google search of getty images doesn't turn up any of my images, except the ones on thinkstock.
Ha, I already checked for your images and couldn't find anything either but I didn't say anything as your port is so huge and I have no clue if you're only attributed by your personal name or maybe even through a company etc. The funny part is that I cannot find one image from Thinkstock on gettyimages.com (neither from Stockfresh nor iS's PP). I almost feel like my mind is playing tricks on me...
270
« on: May 12, 2013, 18:00 »
Why don't you tell us where they are submitted to...
Actually Sean, without trying to bring back bad memories but you're a big whiz when it comes to the whole Getty jungle and how files are spread within their network right? Did you ever come across RF images on Getty that stem from a collection called E+ ? It does sound a lot like Exclusive + if I'm not mistaken, wasn't that a collection at iStock? If so, wasn't it also the case that E+ and Photo+ kind of got handled similarly within iStock, well at least the way non-exclusives selected their Photo+ content. If I wanted to add images to the Photo+ collection I had to click on the "Exclusive+" button on the top of my upload list (whoop, there is the link still...). My point I'm trying to make is that, is it possible that Photo+ could get "accidentally" included into the E+ collection at some point? That's just a generic question, I know that you might not know for sure. Anywho, since these images are not at IS in the first place it's impossible they came from the Photo+ regardless. I'm just tossing sh!t around...
271
« on: May 12, 2013, 17:51 »
Do you upload to Zoonar? They have a partnership with Getty!
Nope, never been with Zoonar.
272
« on: May 12, 2013, 17:50 »
Why don't you tell us where they are submitted to...
More than happy to: - Shutterstock - Fotolia - Dreamstime - Canstock - 123RF - Bigstock - Depositphotos - Photodune - Stockfresh - Pond5 - Clipdealer So how can they end up at Getty if I submit them to regular micros?
273
« on: May 12, 2013, 16:24 »
... eta: Did you search for your images on iStock?... Yes I did and those images are not on iStock or Stockxpert (Thinkstock, Photos.com), so technically Getty doesn't have direct access to them.
274
« on: May 12, 2013, 15:32 »
I just searched for mine and thankfully found none, because I would be livid. As it sounds like you are, and should be.
I'm guessing they scraped them from somewhere. 
I'm not too happy about it as they "picked" some really old and simple looking illustrations. The file IDs are unique and don't match up with any agency that could be sending it to them. I assume they would pay 20% (or less) and for the full resolution price of $412 that would be not acceptable. Sure I would like $82 bucks for a single sale but I don't want Getty to receive $330 for an image I never submitted to them in the first place.
275
« on: May 12, 2013, 15:22 »
I also just realized that I lost about 300 images there. Bummer. It's gonna be harder and harder to get payouts there if they keep doing this.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 119
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
