|
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 - yingyang0
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 30
126
« on: August 27, 2008, 18:21 »
But in the case of a top artist like Andres, who reported istock earnings in April represented 13% of his total microstock earnings, even if he employed a staff (which I don't believe he does but someone correct me if I'm wrong), and paying that staff took up half of his revenues (a very liberal estimate), it would still be more profitable for him to stay non-exclusive. Hypothetically, if he was making let's say $20,000 a month from microstock, his istock cut would be $2,600. If he were exclusive, that would be $5,200. Even if you add in some extra for better search results and Best Match as an exclusive, plus higher upload limits and shorter review wait times, at best I think you could estimate that he would still come in with maybe $7,000-$8,000 as an exclusive istock artist. Compared to the $20,000 he could make non-exclusively, even if he had to spend $10,000 a month on a few staff members (probably pert-time), he'd still be better off staying non-exclusive and paying for help.
The most likely reason for the low current percentage (13%) is that Andres hasn't been able to upload all of what he produces to IS given the upload limits. If Andres went exclusive the upload limits go up dramatically. I'd be willing to bet that if Andres had as many images on IS as on the other sites then IS would make up a large percentage of revenue.
127
« on: August 27, 2008, 16:08 »
I don't recall hearing of any others, and if there are others I bet that there are very few of them. So the idea that being a top non-exclusive requires so much extra time and cost is a bit silly.
Comparing any of the top most successful microstock people to each other or anyone else really says very little about the business. To get any sense of which path is more likely to lead to the highest profit margin, you would need to sample contributors at some other levels of income and profit. Let's say those who earn around $100,000 from microstock annually. In that category, I doubt you'd see much difference in production costs between exclusives and non-exclusives, and percentage of profit would likely be similar. Just a guess, of course, but I think it makes more sense than the notion that exclusives are more profitable.
I've hear of many others that do have a staff (and none of them are exclusive), but they're not as high profile. You make a good point about it being hard to compare the most successful microstockers and the need for a better sample size, but I disagree with you on the extra time and cost. The large portfolios require a lot of time to get uploaded, and time cost money. That time spent by non-exclusives uploading at other sites could be used to produce more photographs. It's about allocation of capital and resources. I do think that if you're a top performing, high volume, non-exclusive than your costs are going to be higher because you would need a staff to keyword and upload to the multiple sites.
128
« on: August 27, 2008, 15:18 »
So I checked Yuri, Andres and Iofoto. Well... more than 1.000, each one of them. In a few days. That's only from DT. Imagine adding the sales from the other sites and tell me how would be possible to make the same amount of money in IS only, net.
I think sjlocke was also making the point about how much it cost to produce those 1,000 downloads. From what I've seen the top selling IS exclusives don't have huge payroll costs and tend to be more frugal so that their net profits are most likely higher than some of the top microstock photographers that have $25,000 large format cameras and $100,000+ payrolls.
129
« on: August 27, 2008, 13:34 »
I believe if you use the iStock model release and remove all references to iStock (including the one at the very bottom) then all the site will accept it.
130
« on: August 27, 2008, 09:30 »
Are you sure? Sales, maybe. Net, maybe not.
What others? Downloads? Pretty easy to get a lot when you're spread across subscription sites where the cost per image is almost nothing.
I'm just saying, don't judge your situation by comparing yourself to anyone else.
Ah, superman and his arch enemy lex lutharcurs. Personally I'd rather have more profits than more sales and considering the production costs of the "most successful photographer" I'm guessing that Lisa (exclusive at iStock) has made more of a profit over the years.
131
« on: August 27, 2008, 08:21 »
With over 500 downloads and 70% approval rate I'm qualified to become exclusive on IS.
Im currently registered on all big 6 sites, but most of my income comes from SS 6700 downloads since February (from only 300 images)
510 downloads from IS in 5 months, but only 70 images.
I'm exclusive and if I was in your shoes I wouldn't go exclusive yet. With those numbers it wouldn't make since until you're gold or at least silver. I'd be working on building up your portfolio at IS so you can better compare them with the others.
132
« on: August 26, 2008, 22:33 »
So what size at IS will these images sell under, XL or XLL?
133
« on: August 26, 2008, 22:03 »
Maybe this will bring it down to a level you can understand. THere are pictures and everything
http://www.amerilawyer.com/trademark/tm_tradedress.htm#1
Since you continue to be condescending lets play a game. Blink if you have a law degree. Me:  If you actually knew what you're talking about you'd know that LegoGroup's patent expired in 1978 and has been using its trademark and trade dress claims to protect its brand. And if you actually had a law degree you'd know that a design patent doesn't apply. Since I teach intellectual property law let me direct you to a few good sources. The book I teach from: Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age. The leading case on design patent infringement: Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White. The standard for infringement of a design patent is " if in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other." You were right above when you cited iPods as a prime example but you didn't understand why. If you manufacture a product that looks like an iPod then you are infringing the design patent. Taking a photograph of the iPod isn't an infringement of the design patent. You'd know that if you were an attorney.
134
« on: August 26, 2008, 12:34 »
The short story is you have the copyright when you click the shutter. If you are infringed, you will need to register within 90 days to get more damages, if you do not register you will get less damages.
It's the difference between getting actual damages (which would most likely be low) and statutory damages (which is where the real money is).
135
« on: August 26, 2008, 12:30 »
Actually Trade Dress refers to product packaging and appearance, and can even extend to the look of building facades, such as a certain awning design being characteristic to a restaurant chain.
The Lego bricks are protected by Design Rights, and it falls under Patent Law. Also protected are all Samsung phone cases, most other brands of newly styled phones, PDAs etc, iPods, most new stylish video game controllers. cars, such as the grille of a Rolls Royce. Just pulling out a few examples here. The list goes on.
It is wise to actually have a law degree before correcting someone about the law. Design Patents only protect a product from other people making similar products, not the visual representation of the product. Again it is trade dress and trademark law that protects the visual depiction of the product.
136
« on: August 25, 2008, 22:18 »
OK, so where is the infringement ?
Two words, trade dress. The distinctive look of lego bricks is protected by trademarks in most major countries and therefore you can't sell images of them under a royalty-free license.
137
« on: August 25, 2008, 21:40 »
The part everyone is looking for, from the above link.
The really important part was were it says:
"We also believe that designs, company names and trademarks should not be used in unrelated settings without the owner's consent. Each year, our legal department handles hundreds of incidents involving infringement of our rights, keeps track of developments worldwide and regularly brings infringers to court."
139
« on: August 25, 2008, 18:52 »
Does that mean that soon we will have to ask manufacturers of our clothing to give us "product release" before we take photo of any person (unless that person is naked - which presents quite different set of problems) ?
Too late. You have to look out for people's shoes because the Adidas three stripes will get you rejections. 
140
« on: August 25, 2008, 10:54 »
I tried to get into a Casino a few years ago, but here in Missouri, they won't let you in with a camera (unless it's their marketing) for any cost.
True sjlocke. The best way I've seen people get photos of casinos is to go to the casino supply stores in vegas, or even the dealing schools. They're normally willing to work something out.
141
« on: August 20, 2008, 00:39 »
You've already made an impact on Dreamstime, don't dillute it by spreading those images everywhere else.
If you're going to upload to more than one site, then it makes no sense to keep some images exclusive unless you're obligated to. The $0.20 bonus for that image being exclusive at dreamstime doesn't offset the lost income from not having it on all of the sites. jmich, I think you should try as many of the big names as possible and see how your images sell. Each site has different clients and what works on some doesn't on others. You can always go back to being exclusive, and who knows, it might be at a different site. Also, it doesn't take two much extra time if you make sure to keyword the images using a metadata tool (I use Adobe Bridge to keyword) that all the sites can read.
142
« on: August 19, 2008, 22:12 »
The [wiki]RPI [/wiki]is also very dependant on your images. if you shoot lots of travel and stuff you have around the house then the $.50 - $1.00 is accurate. If you are a pro who shoots high quality stock and nothing else then you can expect $1.00-$10.00 as an [wiki]RPI[/wiki]
I don't mean to sidetrack the discussion but nice wiki superscript linking. I haven't seen it done like that and I like it. Nice job leaf.
143
« on: August 07, 2008, 14:05 »
I wouldn't discount SS over this or any of their other little quirks. I don't think there's a single micro site that has it completely together when it comes to the treatment of contributors. SS is one of the better ones actually. Dreamstime would probably be the next in line.
Either you've never actually had any encounter with SS "customer/contributor service" or you're joking. They just trashed the OP's portfolio when their site has hundreds of the exact same infringing logo and didn't tell the OP about it. They've done it dozens, if not hundreds of times. They don't respond to either emails or phone calls. Say what you want about the other sites but at least they have customer service that actually does respond.
144
« on: July 29, 2008, 21:07 »
Honestly, you think the US government is going to track you down and take you to Cuba because you filed a tax form?
Some of the people currently or previously incarcerated in Cuba might have a different opinion.
I am going to assume you are a US citizen. It's my opinion that Americans and Rest of the World (ROtW) have different views on US government activities.
Yes I'm a US citizen, and I think you assume wrong. I hate the activities of the US government under the Bush administration, and I think what has been done in Cuba is morally and legally wrong. However, this is a discussion of taxes and the US government doesn't track you down for not filling in a form (especially when by not filling the form out you give free money to the IRS). It's my opinion that the "ROtW" sometimes doesn't realize that there is a difference between the actions of former drug addict elected officials and the views of normal Americans.
145
« on: July 28, 2008, 18:27 »
sharpshot...you're sort of right.. but you are not required to be registered within the US tax system if they are not withholding any tax.
If you don't want them to withhold taxes then you should fill out the form. W-8BEN is used to declare that you are not a resident of the United States. If you don't file and they are willing to pay you, then they will likely withhold 30% as taxes (the IRS's recommended amount in this situation) even though you don't own them. Because I am concerned by the way in which the US authorities are gathering data about individuals, worldwide. Will information about me stay purely withing the tax system ... or will it be sent elsewhere? There is no statement on the form that it will only be used for tax purposes.
I'm not a terrorist or a criminal either, and many people will say, "If you've got nothing to hide you've not nothing to worry about."
Unfortunately, as a number of innocent but unfortunate individuals will attest, this isn't always true.
There are no guarantees in this post-9/11 world that info provided to the US government won't be shared. HOWEVER, the IRS functions as a separate entity within the US government and general refuses to share information about taxpayers. I'll give you an example. Every year millions of illegal aliens file tax returns in the US in order to get a return. The IRS issues special ITIN numbers specifically for this purpose. Even though the IRS has the addresses of all these illegal aliens (and they're known to be illegal by the IRS), the IRS has refused to provide that information to the immigration and naturalization service (INS). Honestly, you think the US government is going to track you down and take you to Cuba because you filed a tax form?
146
« on: July 26, 2008, 19:23 »
Maybe it's a catchall rejection for reviewers who just don't like the image.
Maybe, or since most other sites (especially SS) prefer saturated colors,
it's a blanket method to eliminate most images coming from SS.
Understandly, being number 2 is an awful place, to look under No. 1
and looking out for No. 3
whitechild solution is probably easiest - turn off some layers for your IS submissions.
Sure, except SS is number 2, and IS is number one. (Just maybe not for you)
147
« on: July 25, 2008, 16:13 »
I believe that if you're bronze, you're eligible to become an exclusive.
Yes, but there is also an acceptance rate requirement if you have between 250 and 500 downloads. Once you get over the 500 then they drop the acceptance rate requirement (I don't remember what it was).
148
« on: July 22, 2008, 08:46 »
I understand a model release is necessary if a person has their face turned to the camera, but if their back is turned to the camera.. how on earth is anyone going to know it's them???
"Oh yeah.. that's my derriere all right... "
Yes I wold recognize my fat ass in a photo.
149
« on: July 13, 2008, 22:12 »
What about lending to freddie and fannie mac (in the US), they need it more. 
150
« on: July 11, 2008, 11:07 »
I take your point, but why bother posting on every thread he starts saying he's a troll? Why not either ignore it or post a specific rebuke?
Every thread? By "every thread" you mean one, this one. Edited to note that other people have called Miz a troll, but I'm pretty sure this is the first time for me. I've just gotten sick of having to see so many pointless threads being propagated every day. Now I have to get back to trying to get my iPhone * functioning (note: don't hit the update button on the day apple sends out a major upgrade).
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 30
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
