|
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 - robhainer
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 18
51
« on: July 29, 2015, 19:00 »
I expect your right about SS sales decreasing, but even if they decrease by 50% they will still be much higher than my istock sales are now. And istock will be hit by the same issue so expect your IS sales to drop too.
iStock exclusives probably aren't going to be contributing to Adobe. I'm already doing all I can to stay away from there. It's nonexclusives who have to decide if they would rather have sales at SS or Adobe. I'd stay away from Adobe as a SS contributor, it's easy to see what will happen if people don't.
It doesn't really work that way. Pulling my images off Fotolia is not going to equal more sales on Shutterstock. People aren't shopping on one site or another because my images are there. They're choosing a site based on the content of the entire library, the quality of the search engine and the price.
The most important thing for buyers is finding images that will do the job they want. They will go to the site that makes that happen most often. I need to have my images in both places to hedge my bets, but I think Shutterstock still has Fotolia beat on search and content. For the time being, anyway.
Sounds like a contradiction to me. Your images are part the entire library and our images are the entirety of it. If your images are on one site and not the other and they are the ones buyers need then buyers will go to that site. If you produce copycat images then you're right it doesn't matter which sites you're on. Maybe it won't matter if one or two unique portfolios go to SS and don't go to Adobe but if a lot of contributors do then it will make a difference. I think we should as individuals take responsibility for what we do.
It's not a contradiction when you consider my portfolio is just a drop in the bucket on any of these sites. I'm just riding the wave. I make the decision where to put my images based on the libraries that are already there. I can't change that fact on my own. It would take more than "a lot" of contributors to move. It would take almost all of them. It's not going to happen. We're talking about tens of thousands of people, and for many of them, just $25,000 a year is a good living wage. They'll happily undercut you because they don't need the same amount of income.
52
« on: July 29, 2015, 18:19 »
I expect your right about SS sales decreasing, but even if they decrease by 50% they will still be much higher than my istock sales are now. And istock will be hit by the same issue so expect your IS sales to drop too.
iStock exclusives probably aren't going to be contributing to Adobe. I'm already doing all I can to stay away from there. It's nonexclusives who have to decide if they would rather have sales at SS or Adobe. I'd stay away from Adobe as a SS contributor, it's easy to see what will happen if people don't.
It doesn't really work that way. Pulling my images off Fotolia is not going to equal more sales on Shutterstock. People aren't shopping on one site or another because my images are there. They're choosing a site based on the content of the entire library, the quality of the search engine and the price. The most important thing for buyers is finding images that will do the job they want. They will go to the site that makes that happen most often. I need to have my images in both places to hedge my bets, but I think Shutterstock still has Fotolia beat on search and content. For the time being, anyway.
53
« on: July 28, 2015, 22:04 »
Yep, $2.85 I rounded for simplicity. I just saw SS changed their earnings schedule page. Custom Images are new aren't they?
No. They've had them for a few years now. They post under the SOD column.
54
« on: July 28, 2015, 20:19 »
I still sell more licenses before noon on Shutterstock than I do on Fotolia for the whole week. So I'm not sure where this big threat is coming from. It hasn't panned out.
55
« on: July 28, 2015, 16:28 »
Shutterstock still sales 10 times the volume of Istock, so you make more there regardless. Also, I don't remember Istock ever paying me $75-$150 for a single license like Shutterstock does on a regular basis. I also get way more EL sales on Shutterstock than Istock or any other site.
If you don't like what you get from Shutterstock, don't contribute there. No point in insulting others who do, especially when you don't seem to get it. It isn't about a single sale. It's about thousands of sales every month that no other site delivers like Shutterstock does.
56
« on: July 27, 2015, 15:34 »
The 810 does seem like a beast of a camera! Look at me spending thousands of dollars to continue doing microstock while the monthly earnings are declining (badly too).
What is going on with 123! They use to be one of my best and now sinking and sinking...
I'm still going to buy the 750 though. Microstock is a strange addiction for me...
I have the D800 with the 24-70 2.8 Tamron, Nikon 70-200 F4 (this lens is awesome, sharp, sharp), and Tamron 90 mm macro. My requirement for a lens is that it must give images that will pass the Shutterstock sharpness test with aperture anywhere from wide open 2.8 to f11 (f16 on macro). It's a good kit for microstock, if a little overkill. But, if I did not have to occasionally shoot things in motion and need good continuous autofocus, I would drop the whole thing for the Fuji XT-1. So I don't know what you shoot, but if you don't have to do any action photos at all, I would look at that. The quality of the Fuji camera and lenses are second to none and cheaper than the Nikon kit by a large degree.
57
« on: July 25, 2015, 19:41 »
I would go with the Nikon, but that lens you picked isn't going to cut it. It's not a very good lens.
Both the Nikon 24-70 2.8 and the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC are superior lenses and more capable of handling the additional resolution that the 24-120 can't really handle. There's not much point in getting the 810 and pairing it with a lens that can't resolve it. The Tamron is about the same price as the Nikon 24-120, has stabilization and resolves better. I use it with my D800.
If money is an issue, the D750 is pretty good and that leaves enough for a better lens.
58
« on: July 07, 2015, 16:30 »
This monolithic, centralized, bureaucratic, opaque and anti-democratic organization that the EU has become is killing all of this and that is the reason why we are falling behind. It's blindly creating normalized rules and general impositions based on a couple of countries values, to others with totally different "personalities" and social and economic conditions, steamrolling everything that doesn't fit these few countries view of the world.
That's what happened to the U.S. We were supposed to have a de-centralized government where people in individual sovereign states would have greater controls over their own destinies, but now we're dictated to by a corrupt central authority of leftists that are destroying our country financially and culturally.
59
« on: July 06, 2015, 08:23 »
"The EU plan dies.
that's not the problem, currencies come and go.
but Nato is here to stay and there's no way to exit, once you're in it's forever.
and Greece cannot join russia's custom union as long as she's a Nato member.
best scenario is Greece signing further new deals with russia for oil/gas pipelines, but that's it.
very lucrative, but not enough to feed the whole country with it.
France left NATO for something like 40 years. It can be done. It would give Greece less say in the defense of Europe, but it could do it. On the topic, it seems to me that the whole experiment of a joint currency was a bad idea from the start. How can a nation and people have sovereignty over an economy without being able to control the nation's currency? It's just not possible. At the same time, I don't understand how Greeks can expect to receive a loan without making the systemic changes to pay it back. Do they really want a loan or just a gift of money from other nations? Even if it were a gift without systemic changes, it would only be a matter of time before the Greeks stood at the EU street corner with their hands out again. The only solution is for the Greeks to stand alone with their own currency so that they can live with their choices.
60
« on: July 03, 2015, 07:56 »
You have to ask yourself, would a proud gay model be able to object to his image being used in a ad promoting a straight agenda? I don't think so.
If I took a photo of a gay couple and put it on a website advertising services that supposedly cure homosexuality with church-based counseling and said that couple was now happily straight, I'm pretty those proud gay models would be very upset and they would do everything in their power to get their photos off at website.
61
« on: June 25, 2015, 19:42 »
I got 80 ea. 38 cent ones today, including 34 of one image. It's odd. I've seen them come in bunches before, but nothing like this.
62
« on: June 21, 2015, 14:43 »
Wonder what the hangup on editorial Is?...mat?
a legal wasp nest they don't want to get in to. Too much cost involved to train reviewers and review editorial images. Same goes for CanStockPhoto
Maybe. But smaller sites like 123RF, DepositPhotos and Dreams time seem to manage it. It would seem to me that if Fotolia is serious about taking on Shutterstock and Getty, then they need to step it up and get into editorial.
63
« on: June 20, 2015, 09:24 »
I am in EU but paid in USD. Just for less. They have to do standard for all and move up if they want attract higher quality content
Why is that?
Those of us who signed up when Fotolia started (or happened to be on the english US site when we signed up) had our accounts set up with the US currency (even though we wer based in Europe). People who signed up later, and happened upon the EU site when they signed up, got the EU currency. 1 credit = 1 USD = 1 EUR
Those who get to cash out in EUR get a much better deal than those who have to cash out in USD.
Many people based in europe who have USD accounts have asked Fotolia to switch their accounts over to EUR currency but Fotolia hasn't been willing to do so.
With all that is happening in Greece, the UK and now Denmark, you might want to keep getting paid in dollars.
64
« on: June 19, 2015, 08:52 »
This a moment I wish the disagree button was back. Couldnt disagree more. You need to educate yourself on what Europe has enabled.
Free travel, one currency, freedom of movement, freedom of work, reduced loads of price fixing such as the mobile providers, constantly fining big US conglomerates trying to push their illegalities on the good people of the union. etc etc Europe is a better place for it. Not all is good, I dont like Europe messing with local laws, but its not all as bad as you make it out to be.
In your theory, all US states need to be separate countries too.
The U.S. states were originally intended to be like separate countries with a federal government getting certain limited powers. Then we had a large Civil War and the side that wanted to keep it that way for the wrong issue lost. I personally would rather keep things decentralized for the reasons the EU is now facing but sometimes local governments can be very wrong just as easily as big distant ones.
65
« on: June 19, 2015, 08:40 »
positions are inherited from their family members from the past that have started the project in the first place.
same for US presidents ... Bill Clinton and now Hillary Clinton, the Bush Sr and Junior and now Jeb Bush, the Kennedy dinasty, etc etc
Even if they are related, the positions aren't inherited. They still have to get elected. And it's nothing new. Benjamin Harrison was the grandson of William Henry Harrison, both presidents, and FDR was a nephew of Theodore Roosevelt, with lots of different presidents in-between. They all still have to get elected on their own merits. In fact, Jeb probably should have been the only other Bush to get elected instead of W.
66
« on: June 18, 2015, 18:30 »
I doubt it's going to hurt Shutterstock all that much. Shutterstock has a larger library -- especially in editorials --- a better search and a loyal customer base. It has also expanded its reach into direct sales that we see show up as SODs, which have increased my earnings 25-30 percent. Three or four decent-size SODs a month has made a big difference.
Smaller sites like 123RF or Canstock and struggling sites like Istock would probably be hit much harder. I think you'll see the number of sites get squeezed down until it's Adobe and Shutterstock.
Fotolia needs to rethink editorial acceptance. It will always be an incomplete stock agency without it. Regular editorials and illustrative editorials are important categories.
67
« on: June 17, 2015, 08:50 »
Another thing I've noticed lately is that I've gotten the payout really fast the last two times I requested it. It used to take about three weeks. The last request I made took three hours. I made the request in the morning and got paid for it three hours later. I hope this is a permanent change. It used to be really frustrating to not be able to make another request for payout because I had one pending.
68
« on: June 11, 2015, 12:29 »
Possible to support a family decently on $30K in the US???
In some places. Small towns, rural areas. And you'd get some government assistance with health care, food and so on with that amount. It really depends on where you live. Cost of living varies as much from one state to another as it does from the USA to Eastern Europe. For example, it costs about twice as much to live in some areas in California compared to where I live in Georgia. I live in the suburbs of a major city in the Southeast. I can get a nice, 3,000 square foot house in a good school district for about $260,000. (We're supposed to close on it at the end of the month). The same house in suburban San Francisco or Los Angeles would cost $750,000 or more. So, I would say you'd need $4,000 to $5,000 a month in cheaper areas (Southeast, Midwest) of the US to support a family, unless you can live in a small town far from an urban area where the housing prices are rock bottom. To live in the Northeast or Pacific area, I'd say you'd need $7,000 to $8,000 a month. To live in New York City and San Fran, even more. I couldn't even speculate.
69
« on: June 11, 2015, 08:12 »
Wow this has certainly been a very spirited debate! While my question was dealing primarily with the legal end i was just and interested at hearing the ethical discussions that would ensue. I really appreciate everyone sharing their thoughts concerning both issues
iStock exclusivity has really been a double edged sword. When I went exclusive iStock promised a great royalty rate, marketing and better protection for my work. Back in the Bruce Livingstone days, they made good on the promise. I had 45% royalty rate, my work was posted all over the place and getting lots of views and iStock even chased down copyright infringers working up a very sizable settlement for me at times. Now however my royalty rate has dropped to 30%, iStock's marketing power and visibility has dropped significantly (see alexa.com) and iStock won't even follow up on my infringers.
I want to leave but the exclusive royalty rate is the thing keeping me. I'm the only one in my house that's working and I have a family to support. Losing exclusivity with nothing to immediately supplement it would be taking food out of mouths. Also afraid that if I was brave enough to drop exclusive and come back that my work would lose it's priority in searches on iStock and Getty. I was merely wanting to explore ideas that would minimize immediate financial risk test the waters legally so I can ween myself from iStock exclusivity.
The way I see it, ethics are secondary to survival. I don't see an issue with building a second portfolio as another entity or doing so in a spouse's name as long as they aren't the same files. I would never consider being exclusive with one of these sites. They make changes unilaterally with little consideration for how they affect you. All they care about is their bottom line, so I don't think we should be any different. As far as other contributors, they are actually your competition. Your needs should come before theirs. The only thing is that I doubt doing a second portfolio will make you more money right now. It takes time to build up a portfolio to decent earnings on places like Shutterstock. You'd be diverting work from your primary source and investing it somewhere else, so there would be some risk. I think you'd benefit over the long run. The question is whether you can afford the time for that to happen while your family relies on you to put food on the table.
70
« on: June 07, 2015, 11:20 »
I think Bigstock and Canstock are. Personally, I don't know why Bigstock is under low earners. I do better than than Istock, Dreamstime and 123RF. It's No. 3 for me behind Shutterstock and Fotolia.
71
« on: May 28, 2015, 08:41 »
I had something similar happen. A group that supports families of gay people wanted to use one of my stock photos for an event. But they were nice enough to ask for permission first. I had to say no because the model wasn't gay, and I didn't want that coming back on me.
72
« on: May 21, 2015, 08:35 »
Do people pay tax in the US on all their income? We don't pay income tax in the UK until we earn 10,000. Why isn't their an earnings threshold for withholding tax?
It's kinda complicated. You don't have to file a return unless you earn a certain amount based on your filing status (single, married, head of household), but people who get pay checks pay income tax out of their checks regardless. If they're income is low and they paid some tax out of their checks, they're likely to get all of the income back when they do their return. You can even get back more than what you paid if you qualify for certain credits. And this does not account for Social Security and Medicare tax, which is a separate issue. So even if you make a little, you should file a return anyway. If you register with some of these stock sites as a sole proprietor and give them your personal social security number, they will withhold tax just like you were getting a standard check. The better option is to do an LLC, get a federal employer tax ID and apply that way. If you do that, you won't pay income taxes up front, and it will help with other taxes as well.
73
« on: May 20, 2015, 09:41 »
Well, I made the mistake of not redoing the tax interview to make sure they had the taxpayer ID for my LLC, and they took the money out one month. I'm not going to bother worrying about it. I'll just collect it when I do my taxes next year.
If you're overseas, I think the money will probably be gone. You will not be able to get through to the IRS. I would just call it a loss unless it's a lot of money.
74
« on: May 19, 2015, 15:42 »
Think it's luck. I had a lot last month and fewer this month.
75
« on: May 14, 2015, 16:24 »
I said mine have been landscapes, travel, artsy stuff.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
