|
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 - Eco
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13
51
« on: July 22, 2015, 01:22 »
Just wanted to let everyone know that if you requested payment from StockXpert before July 17th and wanted it sent to Paypal, it was mistakenly sent to Skrill.  I've sent two support tickets (one before, one after discovering the error) and will let you know what I find out.
Isn't StockXpert owned by Getty? Getty announced awhile back on Istock that they would be discontinuing paypal as a payment option and going forward it would be skrill, payoneer, or check. At the time I had to change my payment info on IS to my skrill account. Perhaps this is also true of StockXpert payouts now too. I don't remember when they said this would kick in, but perhaps its now?
No, they discontinued skrill/moneybookers as payment option, not paypal. I know, because I had to switched from skrill (preferred) to paypal. I am not on StockExpert, but strange that they now sent to skrill instead of paypal.
52
« on: July 17, 2015, 12:06 »
Eco, We're discussing internally how we can make the payment process smoother. I'll take any feedback here into consideration. We want this to be as painless and efficient as possible for everyone.
Thank you Adam. Here are my suggestions: 1) If VideoBlocks adopt the principle that it is NOT ACCEPTABLE to delay the earnings of contributors for months, regardless of the reason(s), it will be an excellent starting point. 2) Simplify the tax forms. VideoBlocks are the first agency that I know of that require contributors to fill in the clause according to which they are claiming treaty benefits. What contributor will know that they are claiming benefits according to Section 12(1) of some IRS regulation? That type of information should be part of the form. 3) Review tax forms within a week to allow ample time to make corrects before payments are due. 4) Be very specific what the problems are. Vague statements are not helping anybody. 5) Prioritize review of second submissions of the tax forms and notify contributors in a timely manner. 6) Improve your verification procedures to prevent contributors already approved not receiving their payment.
53
« on: July 17, 2015, 01:46 »
I've had payouts two months in a row with no problems. The people not getting paid...are you sure your tax info is correct?
Its now about whether the tax info is correct or not, but about the fact that they wait a month before they review the tax info and only notify you about a problem just before payment is due. When a new tax for is submitted the whole process started again and payments are missed, month after month.
54
« on: July 17, 2015, 01:33 »
If VideoBlocks is really serious about resolving these payment issues as they publicly stated here they will have to make a more serious effort to resolve any problems IN A TIMELY MANNER and not wait a whole month to review tax forms and only notify contributors of a problem a few days before payment is due. I just get the idea they are quite happy to let non-payments drag on for months and that they don't consider payments as something of importance to contributors. We all remember the famous quote: "you are not in this for the money". 
55
« on: July 16, 2015, 04:34 »
For those interested, my payment issues still not resolved and July's payment carried over to August (yet again).
56
« on: July 15, 2015, 01:41 »
As much as I liked them and wanted them to to succeed, my logic tell me the chances of them surviving is very slim. Any agency that today operate on a shoestring budget is likely to fail in this competitive industry. Honestly, what can they offer a buyer? Why would serious buyers skip the other big agencies that offer a vast selection of images at very competitive prices and buy from GL?
57
« on: July 11, 2015, 01:11 »
I also had to complete the W-8BEN form for the third time today. They might have some trouble in their signing system.
I'm waiting the first payment on July the 15th. I'll let you know
This is exactly how they operate. You submit the new W-8BEN 5 days before payment is due. By the 15th of the month the new tax submission is not verified yet and your payment is carried over to the next month. You hear nothing from them until the next month. Five days before the payment is due you receive a message that there is a problem with your tax form and you need to complete it again. The whole cycle repeats itself month after month. I just find it very suspicious that they cannot verify you tax form in good time. Why wait a whole month and only notify you of a problem just before the next payment date?
58
« on: July 10, 2015, 12:13 »
Beware of VideoBlocks. Did any of you receive payments from them?
I am from South Africa with a 0% tax treaty with the USA. I am familiar with the tax requirements and have completed numerous W-8BEN forms for all the US agencies that require them (doing this since 2006). In all cases it was a straightforward process and all accepted my details with no problems. However, on VideoBlocks I have now completed the W-8BEN form several times and after weeks of pending they notify me that there is a problem with only a very vague indication of what exactly is the problem. My monthly payments are now delayed for several months.
I am not going to attempt this obscure process again, just to wait weeks before I will know if I will ever receive payment. I cannot continue to sell my videos on an agency where I dont know if I will ever receive payment. I just today requested them to delete my videos and close my account.
59
« on: July 08, 2015, 12:42 »
I was curious and looked at the guidelines of Pond5. This is what they say:
Exporting to .MOV
We prefer HD footage to be saved ProRes 422 or in the photo-jpeg format, which is a low-impact, high-quality quicktime container and can be exported from most editing and conversion programs. If you're not sure how to export photo-jpeg files from your editing programs, just export a full-quality uncompressed .mov, then run it through the Mpeg Streamclip workflow to make a file for our collection.
No mention of Motion Jpeg. It is not even listed in their list of accepted codecs.
60
« on: July 08, 2015, 12:05 »
My appologies. It should be Photo Jpeg vs Motion Jpeg.
From Shutterstock:
PhotoJPEG - Non-DV progressive scanned video. Use the 75% / high quality level.
MotionJPEG - Non-DV interlaced video. Use the 75% / high quality level.
61
« on: July 08, 2015, 01:20 »
Why mjpeg and not ajpeg? I always though mjpeg is best for interlaced video and ajpeg for progressive video. Most videos these days are progressive, certainly those from a DSLR are progressive.
62
« on: May 12, 2015, 03:20 »
" Thank you for your submission, but due to an oversupply of images of this subject we limit the acceptance of such images to more unique images, even though your image may be technically correct".
If honest, that would mean that for every submission, the inspectors would need to look at the collection and compare the new image's subject with what's already there. That would be pretty time-consuming, thereby costly either for the inspector or the agency.
They are already rejecting images based on criteria other than the reported reasons. All I want to see is a valid reason rather than something that not only agitate contributors but also contribute nothing towards the improvement of future submission.
63
« on: May 12, 2015, 02:44 »
Not at all justifying the rejections and reviewers,
but lets' look at the numbers:
At present, SS is accepting presently 400,000 images a week.
If they are rejecting about half, that would be another 400,000,
the current practice discourages photographers from resubmitting 200,000 images and dissuades them from submitting another 200,000 - adding all these numbers to the present 400,000 would bring it to a total 1,200,000 images a week or 62 million new images every year. Where it will end?
Good point, Les.
I can understand that they felt the need to limit the acceptance of the massive influx of images, but why question our intelligence with ridiculous reasons such as "focus" and "noise" when that is clearly incorrect. Why not provide a valid and honest reason such as" Thank you for your submission, but due to an oversupply of images of this subject we limit the acceptance of such images to more unique images, even though your image may be technically correct".
64
« on: March 23, 2015, 01:25 »
But panthermedia offers an opt out function for subsription sales.
That is good to know. I will opt out of subscription sales and leave my images there, but based on my sales history I will now have zero sales.
65
« on: March 23, 2015, 00:30 »
Sales volume was always low, but there used to be sales for good money. These sales disappeared for all practical reasons to be replaced by subscription sales of EUR 0.23. On top of that they deduct 15% from your payment due to some obscure German legislation. At the current exchange rate this effectively renders subscription sales of US $ 0.21. Avoid them - not worth the effort.
66
« on: March 13, 2015, 01:07 »
Fotolia is the only agency where I have to regularly submit a ticket to support asking why my payment is late (again). Lately it got worse - so no improvement there with Adobe. If there is one thing any agency should not mess with it is payments. Timely payments are the least that they can do. Late payments are such a regular occurrence on Fotolia that I have a standard message on my computer which I simply copy and paste.
67
« on: October 12, 2014, 10:14 »
The G1X Mark II should not be confused with the other G-series cameras with small sensors. The sensor in the G1XmkII (18.7 x 12.4 mm) is almost the same size as an APS-C sensor found in many crop body DLSR's from Canon. For this reason and also the quality of the lens, the G1XmkII should be more than adequate for stock if you can deal with the ergonomics of the camera.
68
« on: September 30, 2014, 04:06 »
Excellent news. My oldest (of several) pending payments date back to November 2013. Now lets see if they can pay me before the year laps.
69
« on: September 02, 2014, 01:27 »
I really hope this complexity of calculation is not intended to be used it in future to hide something from us? I can see no other benefit of confusing the calculation of our royalty.
70
« on: August 01, 2014, 15:13 »
I also don't have a problem with SS or any other agency for that matter, even Envato before the last two batches. Running at an average acceptance rate of 95% on all agencies.
I am doing this since 2006 and all I am sayings is don't over react by a sudden high rejection rate. I have experiences spells like these on most of the other agencies at some point in time. In most cases the problem will resolve itself. The biggest cause of this is often a few individual reviewers that are over critical and they will eventually align themselves with the norm of accurate reviewing or they are being replaced.
71
« on: August 01, 2014, 08:52 »
I generally don't have a problem with rejections, but suddenly a large number of totally irrational rejections in the last two batches. I guess some new (inexperienced) reviewers were appointed. I usually can't be bothered to query the rejections. In my experience these types of problems are temporary and will resolve itself over time. When that happens I will simply re-submit those rejected images.
72
« on: July 16, 2014, 03:14 »
- Subscription plan = Daily Limit
- Download Pack = Total Download Limit
In other words another attempt to disguise a credit package as a "subscription" in order to pay us a lower royalty. Is it a coincidence that I see a drastic reduction in my "credit sales" in favor of "subscription" sales?
73
« on: June 16, 2014, 01:48 »
Anglee
I just submitted yet another ticket to support with the following message:
"I submit images on a weekly basis, primarily to ensure a constant, evenly spaced addition of images to my portfolio. It is thus a concern to me to notice that once again none of my EVO submissions were reviewed for the last 50 days. I have several batches of EVO images pending since 27 April. This is an on-going problem, always with the same excuse as to why they were not reviewed. The EVO collection is the premium collection and I feel this must be treated as such by 123RF, especially with regard to reviewing. Can you please look into the problem."
Why do 123RF ONLY review EVO submissions after a request to do so? This is an ongoing problem for a long, long time. Please this needs to be resolved.
74
« on: June 15, 2014, 12:41 »
Same here. The owes me more than 260.
75
« on: June 09, 2014, 15:16 »
Trying to close my account for more than a year now. Absolutely no response from them and no way to delete my images. Those that are not with Vivozoom - stay away from them as far as you can.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
