|
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 - willie
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28]
676
« on: May 12, 2009, 18:57 »
Ouch! How was C-h-r-i-s-t's name substituted by "creepeers"?
leaf programmed it so 
677
« on: May 12, 2009, 18:44 »
they don't sell as much, but i am glad they don't pay 30 cents a dl. for that alone, if i were elsewhere i would have to had sold 100 subs, to earn the same $$$
678
« on: May 12, 2009, 16:18 »
You did explain well. Thanks so much. That is definitely an added bonus.
We aren't in the category of having big assets at the moment, but who knows about the future. Maybe stock will make us rich one day!! 
live well & prosper !
679
« on: May 12, 2009, 16:09 »
edited
Perseus, what you are saying about the Canadian corporation sounds very similar to what I have been told about an S corp. That is why I won't be subject to the Social Security taxes on the income, as it is considered investment income. I will still have to pay the income taxes at my and my husband's personal rate, but saving on the SS tax is going to help out so much.
Not being an accountant I am a bit fuzzy on the details but I have talked to several tax pros and they seem to agree this is the way to go.
I figured I wasn't the only one in this boat. The good news: lots of us are earning money in microstock. The bad news: wow those taxes come at you out of left field!!
lisa, the advantages of incorporation outweights the dis. you lisafx and the corporation are 2 separate entities. we'll say lisacorp , is not ms. lisa xxx the person. so, the property you own as a person ,etc... is not part of the company. only your capital is liable. what i mean is, say XXX sues lisacorp, and you and your husband are shareholders of lisacorp. mr. and mrs xxx also owns a boat, house, etc.. if i sue you, i cannot claim your boat, house, etc.. i can only claim to the limit of lisacorp's capital. that alone is enough to make anyone with a substantial income incorporate. i hope i explained it well.
680
« on: May 12, 2009, 14:39 »
This guy? Good grief. He was asking for trouble! He's on private property shooting an opened ATM
.................
Dumb a$$ wannabe. Makes it harder for those who are legitimate photojournalists.
We as photographers may have rights, but we also have a responsibility to not escalate a situation when asked to stop photographing something, like this guy did.
rofl, right on. just because you carry a camera doesn't make you a pro. publishing your stupidity on www only confirms you are not a pro photog and more a real twit.
681
« on: May 12, 2009, 14:23 »
Hey Lisa,
On the money that you pay yourself, do you have to deduct taxes and so on like a company would pay and employee from each check you make out to yourself?
Presumably so. I have to get with the accountant to find out if I have to withhold from each paycheck or can tally it all up at the end of the year.
speaking from an accounting standpoint, limited company makes you not an employee but more an owner of the separate entity that is your company. when you pay yourself , it comes out as Drawings in your balance sheet, not as salary. You pay yourself as a shareholder, not an employee. i speak from Canada standpoint or UK tax experience. Maybe US is different, but it probably is quite similar as Corporate Law is based on English Law.
682
« on: May 12, 2009, 08:09 »
sometimes we forget that Veer existed before SV was acquired, and we think SV is Veer. we have to objectively understand this is not so. the transfer process isn't blanket BECAUSE Veer is NOT SV. but when our ego's in place, it's difficult to be critical at our own port, esp. in cases when we "already so many dls in IS, DT, StockXpert, BigStock," etc.. i think when we use this hackneyed mentality, it's destructive against our own judgement. and leaf's right : Well you can still try and apply in June again, so all is not lost.
683
« on: May 12, 2009, 07:49 »
with the new UL limit in place, we know they are looking to clean up excessive trash , so they could be house cleaning too.
684
« on: May 12, 2009, 07:36 »
photographers have to understand the local laws . they cannot send you to jail for taking photographs, nor can they confiscate your equipment. innocent until proven guilty, remember.
but they do have every right to eject you off their property. malls, restaurants, underground, buses, etc.. because you are trespassing . they can also banned you from those places .
they could, if you started being violent and hit the security guard,etc.. which in some places that's what they try to instigate you to do, so they can call the cops on you. the offense NOT because you were photographing, but A&B.
having worked journalism, i can understand why some places abhor photographers. they don't know your intent. you could be trying to publish an article of how stale their food or fish is, or how dirty their kitchen . easier to eject you there on the spot, then have to see you in court . retaining a lawyer cost time and money.
in some places, such as Madame Tussard Waxworks , and other musuems, there are signs not permitting flashes, or even photography. Other musuems around the world even sell permits to take photos. As a photographer you have to be aware.
But usually, if you are presentable and is legitimate a professional photographer, it is not uncommon to have the owner or manager allow you to take photos. it's how you approach them that makes the difference.
685
« on: May 12, 2009, 07:28 »
The standard is quite high now - anyone can get illustrations accepted on SS - suggest if you try again to find a subject not covered much - doesn't have to be complex but if its unique you will do better.
I second this advice. A common misconception seems to be that if you upload something similar to what's on the best seller list, you're sure to get through. At iStock, it's exactly the opposite. They have plenty of that stuff, so you need to show them you have the potential to add something of value to the collection that they do not already have oodles of. Impress them with your drawing skills, unique perspective, and/or interesting subject matter, in addition to adherence to their strict technical standards, and you will get accepted.
Then, and only then, can you begin to upload those dime a dozen hot sellers, if you are so inclined.
Good luck!!
good point Noodles. whatalife too . and then after you submit your unique idea, others copy you and then eventually your ideas become one of those that create the rejection notice, "sorry, we already of too many of this".  it's a viscious circle isn't it?
686
« on: May 11, 2009, 22:28 »
oops sorry , it wasn't meant to be. many years ago, i saw a shot like that in one of those Geographic publications, of gorillas. so i thought it was one of those. it wasn't meant as an insult. but i guess it's difficult to see from this size.
No worries. I wasn't really offended, just amused at the comparison.
Sorry to be off topic... but I always think your avatar is a Sasquatch. Makes me think of this pic:
no offense... just funny what people see
wow lori, great minds think alike. that's the image i was referring to. wow, been like doggone years that i saw it. thx for putting it here.
687
« on: May 11, 2009, 17:55 »
i'll third that , Aaron. i was just about to say. I just finished discussing this to one of my friends who wanted to model for me, and she shied off the idea with a big "WHY?, forget it then!".
this could be difficult for us.
i would say, the age of a minor could be relevant , in order to necessitate the signature of a parent.
but the birthdate are quite taboo, actually. even for contributors, esp, when records are prone to hacking.
please check with Brian and those who make the rules to see if you can get this idea waived.
Not to mention I photograph a lot of middle-agers and seniors and they are pretty tight lipped about their ages 
No kidding!!! once in French class many years ago, someone asked the teacher her age and she glared, "Monsieur, you know it's not polite to ask a lady her age once she survives 35 ?" Furthermore, some people don't look their age, especially certain race groups. I would think better for a broad category such as: child / infant youth adult senior in the sense of what the model is portraying, rather than her/his actual age, as i've shot some models who easily look a 35 years and then in the next session a 17 year old with the help of a makeover artist. thus, asking those models actual age would be quite misleading for the buyer's purpose in the search of those images.
688
« on: May 11, 2009, 17:41 »
I agree with Lisa. Exact birth date is no way relevant for a model release form. Some models might consider it as an invasion of privacy too, and rightfully so.
i'll third that , Aaron. i was just about to say. I just finished discussing this to one of my friends who wanted to model for me, and she shied off the idea with a big "WHY?, forget it then!". this could be difficult for us. i would say, the age of a minor could be relevant , in order to necessitate the signature of a parent. but the birthdate are quite taboo, actually. even for contributors, esp, when records are prone to hacking. please check with Brian and those who make the rules to see if you can get this idea waived.
689
« on: May 11, 2009, 17:26 »
Ha!ha! That's funny ! Partly related topic to elephants, you have a curious-looking avatar, disorderly. Are those gorillas?
Gorillas? I think I've been insulted! No, that's a self-portrait. I was on a ski lift coming down from one of the Andes Mountains near Bariloche, Argentina when I saw my shadow in the lupins growing on the mountainside. Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to capture the moment.
oops sorry , it wasn't meant to be. many years ago, i saw a shot like that in one of those Geographic publications, of gorillas. so i thought it was one of those. it wasn't meant as an insult. but i guess it's difficult to see from this size.
690
« on: May 11, 2009, 15:43 »
Congrats!
I am hopping for similar... But, I am starting from scratch there... Didn't ever uploaded to SnapVillage due to their low position on the site list...
But, Now with CS, VS and soon iStock with no my vector images I think Veer Marketplace will be fine place to host them and sell...
It's nothing personal - Strictly business ;-)
if you do have a SV account, i suggest you do your housecleaning there. i don't know what the cutoff point is, as i am done housecleaning. now i am just selecting and editing new images for Veer. i did housecleaning as soon Veer mentioned the transfer in process. i got rid of all my old and dead stuff, kept only the downloads, and sent my best works there. and this morning i got their notice i was selected. so i guess my critical housecleaning paid off. good luck Milinz.
691
« on: May 11, 2009, 15:14 »
Based on the people contributing to this thread, there seems to be little or no interest from significant/successful photographers, and you will not succeed unless you can attract at least some of these people.
Yes, to steal a quote from an article on Waterkeeper's Alliance Bobby Kennedy fundraiser, "if you're going to go head to head with corporations with deep pockets, don't show up to the event with nobodies". Good point sharply_done.
692
« on: May 11, 2009, 14:54 »
just received an email from Veer to say that i have been selected to be transferred to Veer marketplace.
i like to extend blanket congratulations to Veer and all here who received the same awesome notice.
congratulations Veer ! congralutions to all here who got the email too.
693
« on: May 11, 2009, 13:30 »
That's sort of a weird gauge of success. Learning to produce what sells for peanuts doesn't seem very sensible.
Depends on how many peanuts, doesn't it? Collect enough peanuts and even elephants won't go hungry.
Ha!ha! That's funny ! Partly related topic to elephants, you have a curious-looking avatar, disorderly. Are those gorillas?
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
