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 - BaldricksTrousers
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 206
101
« on: September 22, 2018, 14:07 »
Well...over the years, istockphoto has paid for my camera equipment, the high end laptop I bought 2 months ago, my camper, and all of my vacations. Best of all, because of istockphoto, I've developed skills in photography, Photoshop, Lightroom, had adventures and gone to places I never would have gone without looking for that next photoshoot location. It has been a great ride.
Somehow, I just don't feel like a fool.
Oh, it was much the same for me. But that was the past. Today my earnings are down something like 90% on the heyday and with all the minuscule value sales I don't see the point any longer. The fact they've made it incredibly hard to track what has happened sales-wise (even if it's possible at all) doesn't give me any confidence at all. Of course, if you are an exclusive your situation might be different.
102
« on: September 22, 2018, 06:41 »
Imagine, if they had just kept it in the family, spent all the energy focussing on the market instead of playing with investor groups and loading the company with debt.
IIRC Getty was already going down the tubes, with a disintegrating share price, when they sold it. That was their way of milking the dying cow. But the vultures who bought/resold it seem to be able to milk cows even after they're dead.
103
« on: September 22, 2018, 04:18 »
Received the announcement in my email, but DeepMeta still not updating.
One good thing this month, a number of recently uploaded images sold and they are different subject matter from my usual. That's encouraging me to keep on truckin'...
Good attitude!
Whether it is a good attitude or just being played for a fool rather depends on what the return on effort was.
104
« on: August 28, 2018, 02:44 »
I'm really past caring about that ship of fools they rearrange deck chairs while the Shutterstock slips quietly beneath the waves
Yeah, but don't forget that we're part of the orchestra on the SS titanic.
105
« on: August 24, 2018, 04:27 »
It's been an absolute disaster for me this month, down more than 50% on any month in the last few years (and down something like 95% on my best-ever months.)
106
« on: August 22, 2018, 04:48 »
It sounds as if it is the free image from approved content rather than the rejects they like to put on the free section permanently, so it probably isn't related to the don't-give-this-away-if-its-rejected tick box. Short term give-away (free image of the week, or whatever) have been seen as a tool to promote good portfolios. If you've given approval for images to be used for promotional reasons they would probably think that is good enough. But they should still ask you for permission. Writing to support - or Serban - is really your only route forward.
107
« on: August 22, 2018, 04:38 »
Well, we were all saying 10 or 12 years ago that it couldn't last forever. It's had a longer run than I expected so I really can't complain. if I want to make money I'll just have to use the skills and resources I've acquired over the years in another direction.
With your port I would go for one of the trad agencies, the smaller boutique agencies. Not much left in micro I'm afraid.
if you had any clue bout rm and especially boutique agency, as you say, I'm taking about gallery stock and other top small agency, you know that that portfolio won't have any chance to be admitted.
I have to agree, unfortunately (since it's my portfolio). It was shot purely for microstock and is entirely devoid of the sophistication/processing a boutique agency would want. I wouldn't even bother trying to get it on Stocksy.
108
« on: August 21, 2018, 04:31 »
Well, we were all saying 10 or 12 years ago that it couldn't last forever. It's had a longer run than I expected so I really can't complain. if I want to make money I'll just have to use the skills and resources I've acquired over the years in another direction.
109
« on: August 21, 2018, 02:00 »
Since April SS have nosedived for me. Appallingly diabolical and every consecutive month gets worse. Uploading more work makes absolutely no difference.
It's collapsed for me, too, with this month's sales down by half on other months this year and big SODs going extinct. SS was the last agency delivering a decent return for me and now that seems to be over. I've sold something like 400,000 licences over the last 14 years (on all agencies) so I used to be a fairly significant player but yesterday nothing on SS for the third time this year.
Thats because we belong to that group that joined early and took upp all the space and all the sales and with gazillions of new members we had to sort of " give way" to new members to get a fair chance of selling as time went by they are selling but we are still stuck in that category of " has beens" hehe!.....I spoke to another dear friend of ours. extremely eloquent (you know who it is), he stopped uploading over a year back and his content was truly unique, nothing like it, few months back he even removed his portfolio!
New files dont seem to sell either so any uploading is just a total waste of time they will never see the light of day! although I'm sure there are other groups of members where new files do sell frequently and like they used to.
Yeah, I know all about the dilution effect (I've felt it like everyone else) but now I'm looking at a 60% decline in sales compared with my previous worst month of the last decade (which was June). It's down more than 90% from my hey-day, but during the long slide I've never experienced such a massive percentage drop from one month to the next.
110
« on: August 21, 2018, 01:49 »
This a good source to see what is protected----------
https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-resources/legal/stock-photo-restrictions
So if I understand you correctly, if the specific building is not on this list (and it's not) it should be allowed for commercial use? Aren't shutterstock reviewers supposed to be aware of this list???
You might think that....but I'm not so sure. I have experienced a lot of rejections for stuff that would have sailed through. Its a confusing inconsistent mess really.
So maybe I should stick to a method that some people have recommended here before : keep submitting these clips over and over again until some reviewer meets them on the end of his night shift, and lets them through...
If they catch you doing that then things might turn nasty.
111
« on: August 19, 2018, 05:08 »
Since April SS have nosedived for me. Appallingly diabolical and every consecutive month gets worse. Uploading more work makes absolutely no difference.
It's collapsed for me, too, with this month's sales down by half on other months this year and big SODs going extinct. SS was the last agency delivering a decent return for me and now that seems to be over. I've sold something like 400,000 licences over the last 14 years (on all agencies) so I used to be a fairly significant player but yesterday nothing on SS for the third time this year.
112
« on: July 27, 2018, 11:11 »
They should only withhold tax for sales made to US customers, not to sales made to non-US customers. That's what IS, SS, DT etc. do. There's a big difference.
113
« on: July 24, 2018, 00:23 »
For the first time this year my iS income is higher than it was for the same month last year... but I'll have to wait to see if one swallow makes a summer.
114
« on: July 15, 2018, 01:28 »
After a long downward slither, my sales have suddenly slumped by about 80% over the last 6 weeks. I have no idea what's happening. Everywhere else is pretty grim too. Which in cash terms translates into about a 99% fall compared with the peak, a decade ago.
115
« on: July 15, 2018, 01:00 »
Well, I got two unrelated sales from files uploaded in the summer of 2005 on Friday, and there's nothing unusual about that.
116
« on: May 25, 2018, 10:34 »
The bigger the file the more storage space you need for it, the more chance there is of a logo or face being visible and the longer you spend checking it for any unwanted blemishes. It all costs you money, time and effort on top of the cost of the camera. And 99% of the images will be used for something where a 6MP file would be quite sufficient. I still regularly sell files I shot 14 years ago on a 6mp Canon 300D ... if the shot is good it will sell (well, might sell), if it's bad it won't.
Oh, and the bigger the sensor the greater the risk of rejections for focus or camera-shake.
I'd advise you to stick to what is good enough, which in my opinion is 12 to 20MP range, rather than wasting a lot of time and money on 25-50MP.
117
« on: May 25, 2018, 10:22 »
And once you get one bunch rejected they keep a close eye on you for some time.
118
« on: May 13, 2018, 11:05 »
There's such a simple solution. Close your account with istock. I've never regretted it. If more of us did that, they would either have to get their act together or they would become about as popular with buyers as YayMicro is.
If I quit iS I don't want them to get their act together.
Yup, better to let other people quit and so you might benefit from their sacrifice,
It would be crazy to quit in the belief it is a personal sacrifice and the hope that it will make other people do better at your own expense. The reason (or a reason) to quit would be that you believe being on iStock is likely to cost you more in lost sales elsewhere than you gain from remaining. I stopped uploading there a long time ago, when I concluded that the return wasn't worth the effort.
119
« on: May 13, 2018, 01:59 »
A good theory, except I didn't say anything about "numerous returns". I think I've had maybe 2 over the years.
Good lord, has my reading comprehension gone to pot? I've had considerably more than that. I don't understand what leads you to your theory about them "renting" out images via refunds if you're not suffering from returns yourself.
120
« on: May 12, 2018, 08:10 »
There's such a simple solution. Close your account with istock. I've never regretted it. If more of us did that, they would either have to get their act together or they would become about as popular with buyers as YayMicro is.
If I quit iS I don't want them to get their act together.
121
« on: May 08, 2018, 02:08 »
No doubt the TOS would allow this, because it's not a 'sale'. I don't necessarily think Alamy set out to cheat us by turning 'sales' into 'rentals' - maybe it's something they just sort of slid into by going overboard to please customers. And over time, they found out it was a source of revenue, so they loosened things up even more.
I don't know the details, I'm just guessing that the customer pays Alamy something for these 'returned' images, and if so, we obviously don't get a cut.
So you don't actually have a single shred of evidence that any such thing is happening, outside of what goes on in your vivid imagination?
I notice that you ignored my point about the risk that news of such a scheme would be bound to leak out eventually.
Which part of "I'm just guessing" wasn't sufficiently clear?
I was just rephrasing it, wasn't I? I'm sorry, but I'm just getting a bit tired of all the ridiculous conspiracy theories people keep manufacturing out of thin air. There are plenty of real examples of the micros abusing us without people confusing matters with imaginary ones. A more credible theory about why you seem to be troubled more than others with numerous returns might be that your work has technical faults that clients won't put up with as they paid out a reasonable sum for an image. If someone pays $50 or $100 to Alamy they're likely to be less willing to swallow the loss than someone paying a micro $4 for a download or even getting an image for pennies on subscription.
122
« on: May 07, 2018, 01:22 »
No doubt the TOS would allow this, because it's not a 'sale'. I don't necessarily think Alamy set out to cheat us by turning 'sales' into 'rentals' - maybe it's something they just sort of slid into by going overboard to please customers. And over time, they found out it was a source of revenue, so they loosened things up even more.
I don't know the details, I'm just guessing that the customer pays Alamy something for these 'returned' images, and if so, we obviously don't get a cut.
So you don't actually have a single shred of evidence that any such thing is happening, outside of what goes on in your vivid imagination? I notice that you ignored my point about the risk that news of such a scheme would be bound to leak out eventually.
123
« on: May 04, 2018, 08:32 »
I think what they're doing is basically "renting" images without paying royalties. The client uses the photo for internal purposes - design mockups, presentations, sales pitches for ad campaigns, or just to develop ideas - in exchange for a sort of "restocking fee" from which we get nothing.
Wouldn't that be blatantly illegal - which would be very stupid of them because somewhere along the way a "renter" would also be a contributor. And remember, Alamy's profits fund cancer research, it's not run by some Wall Street shyster who's trying to rip everyone off for personal gain.
124
« on: May 03, 2018, 06:37 »
Bad almost everywhere and the latest iS figures are absolutely dreadful (back to the income level of summer 2004). CanStockPhoto actually did much better than usual, but it's still not much.
125
« on: May 03, 2018, 06:33 »
New wave of refunds! Never ever i can believe that refunded image will not be used by a client. Downloads should be in the list of "no return" products.
There can be genuine returns if a client rejects an image or the quality is not as expected. I've also seen accidental double downloads where one gets refunded, or a photo sold on one set of license conditions, then relicensed on slightly different terms and the first sale cancelled.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 206
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|