MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - Susan S.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7
26
iStockPhoto.com / Re: what is up with the Best Match?!?
« on: March 17, 2011, 05:48 »
Try searching for baby foot. You get 400 images of table soccer, presumably some weird CV translation of foosball as none appear to have baby foot as a keyword. To get what you want you have to search for baby and foot, explicitly putting in the "and"

27
I just got a whole series of XL sales in a row at Istock.  How worried should I be?


http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314612&page=1


You gotta be kidding me,...AGAIN....  well at least they get to keep them this time, the Admin said no more clawbacks...


Actually admin said no more Mass clawbacks. Nothing to stop them doing it on an individual basis.

28
This is interesting and I'm surprised it's still up (moderators on a break? close to quitting time?):

Good choices, except for istock's refusal to deal with independents. If the tone of the email I received this morning from contributor relations in response to my outraged email last week is anything to go by, they can expect to meet self defensiveness, statements of the Bleeding Obvious and not a single tiny hint of apology or even regret that our intellectual property was stolen.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=45

Thinking it's going to be yet another iStock Epic Fail.


I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.

Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo  that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.


Really very well stated Liz.  Glad your voice is still part of this discussion :)


I'm really Susan! It's  the other Sue that is Liz...!

29
This is interesting and I'm surprised it's still up (moderators on a break? close to quitting time?):

Good choices, except for istock's refusal to deal with independents. If the tone of the email I received this morning from contributor relations in response to my outraged email last week is anything to go by, they can expect to meet self defensiveness, statements of the Bleeding Obvious and not a single tiny hint of apology or even regret that our intellectual property was stolen.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=45

Thinking it's going to be yet another iStock Epic Fail.


I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.

Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo  that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.

30
This is interesting (via Cogent_Marketing):

I forwarded the NDA to a colleague of mine this evening - he is a sitting District Court Judge in the UK. He was immediately concerned by the contents of the NDA and sent it onto a QC (Queens Counsel) based in a London chambers for comment. She has now responded back, pro bono.

Her feedback is interesting. Without the legalistic jargon - "This NDA is unenforceable under English or international law and is in contradiction to seven specific and identifiable criteria of non-disclosure censure" I quote, "even a very junior counsel could ride a horse and carriage through this NDA in either an English or an international court". It would also be unenforceable.

I'll state in again, only this could happen in Canada. What a bunch of amateurs. They cannot even get the wording of an NDA. What possible hope do they have in stopping the theft of our copyrighted IPR's?


Odd how pretty much everyone else seems to feel it's a pretty standard NDA.

Lawyers write NDAs all the time - but it takes a real expert to  draft one that will actually stick. Most of them are like warning take down letters from lawyers with regard to intellectual property- enough to scare off/ensure good behaviour by those who don't have deep enough pockets (ie most people) to test the things in court.  Many if tested in court would probably be shot down in flames. It's the probably that is the killer as it's a very expensive bet to make.

NB I am not a lawyer - but i have one in the family.

31
I like the idea of requesting an audit (pretty sure some stinking puddles would be opened). Would it really be that expensive if we do it with a couple of peeps? It sounds pretty do-able and about the only thing we can do without having to get very organized in a mass-pull-portfolio action or something alike...

I made a comment about an audit in the angry-thread but I don't actually know how we could even go about doing that.  Is that possible if they're a private company?

It always used to be part of the contract (and i presume it still is) that you could pay for an audit to check sales figures.

32
General Stock Discussion / Re: Thoughts on Travel Location photos
« on: February 19, 2011, 16:37 »
Bog standard picture postcard views are what sells. My second biggest earner is a picture postcard view of the Twelve Apostles. It's taken from the same viewing platform that everyone else takes their views, ans yet I've had four large extended licenses for it (it has been used on both a calendar and a postcard) and for some reason was picked as a Vetta and still sells regularly at large sizes- I've found it on a photography magazine front cover and inside another photo mag as a half page. Weird.

33
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Need stock photograph professionnal view
« on: February 18, 2011, 20:11 »
That was me on the istock forum commenting about vectors as rasters - looking at those vectors it shouldn't be too hard to get them to work in EPS8 - it's a pain faking transparency effects (enough of a pain that I haven't uploaded many illustrations) but perfectly possible. When I was submitting illustrations to istock I ended up just doing things which were really based on brush work and opaque shading like I would use in acrylic or goache painting as it requires a lot less effort than reworking the transparency. Unfortunately it doesn't sell very well - people like the high gloss web 2.0 stuff more and I really can't be bothered producing that in high volume in EPS 8 format. (and I get too many rejections, often for picky stylistic stuff that I don't agree with)

Mark Evans also made a few comments on the illustrations, which I agree with if you are going to get them accepted at istock as vectors - istock are really big on consistency of style - so mixing flat stick men with the 3D boxes in the green one won't fly; and I'm not sure about the retro cartoon figure in front of the  grunge buildings - it looks a bit like random putting together of elements to me: there are also some perspective errors on the tea pot (the vanishing points implied by the handle and spout don't match up).  And the flames and the earth and the truck all are different in style again.  It's all pretty picky stuff but if you don't adhere to their guidelines, like them or not you don't get illustrations accepted.

34
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Fraud going down at IS
« on: December 27, 2010, 17:23 »
Credit card fraud online is absolutely rife, and I'm just not sure who swallows the cost. In the last two years on two different credit cards (both pin and chip - they are no more secure than the ordinary old swipe ones) we've had about 15000$Aus fraudulently charged to various international online stores (avoid using credit cards with Sydney cab drivers, especially if they claim the first card doesn't work and then want to swipe another one and no transactions turn up for the cab fare in the next couple of days - hindsight is a wonderful thing!). We got the money back so I don't know if the bank or the retailers ended up out of pocket.

 

35
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Vetta Sale at iStock
« on: December 10, 2010, 20:54 »
I'm imagining the Walmart portrait photograpers smirking right about now  :o
But I don't have to deal with screaming kids... (or worse still their parents) I've done a little kid portrait photography and you really don't want to do that!
 
Given I uploaded most of my portfolio in 2006 and 2007, and most of my illustrations in 2008, and done stuff-all since, I find that in terms of reward for effort istock exclusivity has been pretty good over time. Not likely to be true in future though!

36
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Vetta Sale at iStock
« on: December 10, 2010, 20:43 »
Yes, it is.
For 20,000 sales?   What is the average $ per sale for exclusives not at diamond?

Over that four years the $ per download has gone up a lot. This year I got over 4$ per download as a silver exclusive (that's about 25% illustrations,the rest photos) -  and I only have one selling Vetta and very few E+ files which increase earnings per sale dramatically. But about 25 per cent of my sales come from vectors which pay better. (That figure will fall come January as I'm not an active contributor).  But in the first couple of years the prices were much lower so over the last four years I'd average around $2.
 

37
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Vetta Sale at iStock
« on: December 08, 2010, 23:17 »
On the other hand it looks like Getty/Istock don't think that some people are hard working enough either.

For those of you not able to follow on the closed forum, istock Getty contributors have just received emails either saying
You can continue to contribute to getty and our editors will decide where your images best fit:
or : you can pay 50$ an image and submit through photograher's choice. 

JRRD categorised the recipients of the last email thusly: "Not for people who truely worked hard and made sure to succeed at Getty Images."
Glad I never took up the offer of a contract.

38
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Vetta Sale at iStock
« on: December 07, 2010, 22:34 »
Okay, Andrew just came on and clarified.  RC targets for 2010 will not be raised.  If you got to a level, you get to keep it, regardless of how many others get the same level.

From Rogermexico:

Whatever target you make by the end of 2010, you will be guaranteed for the duration of 2011.

and

They won't be revised up but they may be revised down. We will be really conservative when we set them to make sure that this is the case.

So that's a big relief! 

I'm sorry, but, you actually believe them?

As I implied in my post in the thread on istock, this guarantee isn't worth the paper it isn't written on, given recent performance. I suspect they will stick to it though -  the fact they are desparate enough to cut Vetta prices indicates to me an overall sales slump, so there would be no need to raise targets for this year, and there's going to be enough fuss and bother come January 1st without trying to do that on top of the rest of the proverbial hitting the fan that will occur.

Come 1st January the Istock forums are going to get really interesting, given the delay in reporting and impenetrability of interpreting and lack of confidence in the RC numbers. I'd hate to be on the borderline of going up a level. The only benefit of being sure to go down in royalty rates is that I don't face any uncertainty!

39
Image Sleuth / Re: Images on Zazzle
« on: September 21, 2010, 04:53 »
Someone is selling photos that I've found on stock sites. As I'm not allowed to name names, you'll need to search the zazzle.com site, particularly if you have wine and drink photos. If you search for: red wine drinks  (as a phrase) - the majority of photos on the first page will be from the person involved.
I've been trying to track people down since Friday, but there are just too many! I've sent a list to IS and am just sending one to SS, contacted a few individuals, and reported dozens to Zazzle, but I really can't spend too much more time on this.
Other search terms (as a phrase) are:
violin music flowers

You may want to check there if you have photos of wine bottles and glasses, vineyards, cocktails, musical instruments, clocks, coffee, roses, alice in wonderland illustrations. There are photos from Flickr and Deviantart as well.

You can sell on zazzle. It is probably the stock artists themselves selling there. That is totally ok.

While it's true some stock artists sell on zazzle, it's rather unlikely that a single legitimate seller will have items from several different stock artists, as seems to be the case here.

40
While it is really upsetting for you to see someone else using your images, at least it looks like they aren't using them commercially - they have just made these plates for their own enjoyment. (On many sites, no extended licence would be required as this isn't for resale - but I don't know what shutterstock's rules are)

A lot of people are simply ignorant of issues like intellectual property and think that using other people's art like this for personal use is OK. I had to give my niece a stern lecture on this as she was basing art for a year 12 project on a photo she'd "found" on the internet. Both she and her mother were totally clueless on the issues of property rights and what is appropriate and what isn't. I'd have thought the art teacher would have been cluey enough but apparently not... Certainly people on craft forums like this should be informed and educated of the issues involved - either through Shutterstock or yourself. But calmly rather than in anger, would probably be more effective And if they start producing stuff commercially or redistributing without appropriate licencing, then by all means throw the book at them.

41
Newbie Discussion / Re: Expectations?
« on: August 12, 2010, 00:23 »
I think these days realistic expectations for a newbie with limited photographic experience is to maybe cover some of the cost of your equipment. Certainly not your time. I make 120 -200 dollars a month as an exclusive on istock with  small portfolio (a bit under 400 images, 1/3 illustrations, 2/3 photos, and I haven't been uploading much for two years). But most of the stuff which makes the bulk of my sales  I uploaded in 2006/2007 and wouldn't be accepted these days. At least with istock images seem to have a relatively long lifespan of sales - despite my laziness/lack of inclination to do the sort of photography or illustration that can be turned out in bulk for microstock, the dollar amounts of my sales still hold up remarkably well. So I'm now starting to see some more sensible returns on the investment of time that I put in three or four years ago.  That is apparently much less true at the subscription sites. And with the mass of images that get uploaded each day now, I suspect that it's much harder to get that sort of longer term return as images just get lost in the search.

 It's hard to generate sales now without investing in props and models and decent lighting. Or have some knowledge of illustration or 3D  and an investment in the appropriate software plus some idea of the  what stock sites will accept and what buyers want.

 

42
back to topic, the dudes who is conducting clinics could always buy images from IS of yours, SJLocke,etc..
and use them in their slide presentation, and no one could be the wiser , though !

One of my bride images is on the cover of a digital wedding photography book.

One of my images was on the front cover of a 'how to improve your snaps in Photoshop' magazine as the "after correction image". The before image was a desaturated/contrast reduced version of the uploaded one (which did in fact look scarily like my out of the camera image!)

43
Actually I am doubting that it's possible for the same people to fairly and objectively review both vector renderings and actual photographs.  My gut feeling is, they no longer really "like" photos of real objects, they'd rather have idealized renderings.    
istock have totally different teams inspecting vectors and photos. Raster artwork (3D and scans/photos of traditional media illustrations) still get lumped in with photos although they do have separate admins in charge of those areas, but they aren't, as far as I know, treated any differently in inspection.

44
Since the beginning of the year when the exclusive payments went up, I'm averaging well over $3 a download.
I had a quick look for March and on IS I had a RPD of 0.67$ (the same RPD as on SS), and on DT with 1.06$ I'm on my way to a record low. Exceptionally, I had a medium size sale on IS yesterday, and that one made me 1.14$. For March, my revenue on SS is 4 times more than on IS, and I didn't even feed the SS beast in over a month.

If your average RPD is 3$+ on IS, you are totally right to stay there.

You don't need too many 14 credit vector sales (around $6 - which is what most of my vectors sell for)  or Large Vetta downloads (up to $17 ) to make up for the XS and smalls (and remember for a silver exclusive even a small pays around $2.00). The higher prices and higher percentages for exclusives makes a huge difference in istock payouts. 

The downside is that the number of downloads has gradually been dropping in response to the increased pricing - but my total income has still gradually risen over the last year, despite only having uploaded about 20 images to istock (most in the last two months) in that time.

45
Having a quick look at your istock port and the stuff you upload - the 3D stuff is perfectly fine stock, but there are a million people doing similar stuff - you are likely to get images lost in the big subscription sites (as I understand it) unless you increase your productivity dramatically. One of the main reasons I've never gone independent is my slow rate of uploading - it just isn't worth it when already uploaded images on istock keep on paying with so little effort.

46
FD, what do you mean "A less favorable position in the best match, so you will have less sales."?

BTW, I did it! I canceled my exclusivity contract. It is a bit scary, but I think it will be better in the long run. It takes 30 days for my contract to be terminated. However, once it is terminated, I plan to submit to Shutterstock and to Dreamtime.

Wish me luck!

While istock don't publicise their best match sort it is widely supposed that exclusives get some favoritism in the search - and  exclusive larger files are much more highly priced than the same sized files for a non exclusive.  And you lose the ability to take part in the Vetta program (while I've only got a couple of Vetta images, you have to love the Vetta large download payments!).

Since the beginning of the year when the exclusive payments went up, I'm averaging well over $3 a download. I'd have to do extraordinarily well elsewhere (especially as I only have a small portfolio and this is only a hobby for me) on other sites to make anything like that with so little effort.

47
My guess is they didnt pay much or anything at all.  They would not link back to Istock so heavily if that was the case.

Would like to hear what Istocks say about this.  No need to crash the house before they can defend themself...
Given the linkback is to the individual portfolio of the image uploader as well as to istock as a whole, I'd like for one of my images to be chosen! Similar deals with microsoft for non-commercial use in the Office Suite have resulted in hefty extended licences for the participants, and I'd expect that to be the case here.

48
Looks like it's a selection of pretty-pretty istock images used for backgrounds in the web template (I just gave it a whirl on the Google blog site). It's not free image downloads. And there's lots of cross promotion back to the istock site if you want to buy something different. No pitch forks here. I presume the images have been purchased for the purpose with the appropriate extended licence for template use .

49
iStockPhoto.com / Re: istock has roughly 85k contributors
« on: March 12, 2010, 18:00 »
Status symbol?  I am amazed how many "soccer moms" have better cameras than me when I there working.  LOL, they never have better lenses though :)

My rich-ish friend has a DLSR and man she abuses that thing.  Always shattering a lens or a filtre.  I gave her one of those sticky dot things that you stick on the lens cap that has an elastic to attach it the lens because at least once a month she was asking me to pick her up a lens cap next time I was collecting my prints.  She finally bought a new P&S and is a lot happier using it for the most part!
The reason that soccer mums and dads have DSLRs is that its next to impossible to shoot soccer or other kids sports with a point and shoot, no matter how good the point and shoot is. They don't focus fast enough. Or low light available light shots like kids concerts. I bought my DSLR and 70-200L to shoot swimming carnivals in outdoor pools and school sports days, and the 50mm and 85 1.8 to shoot dance.  Once I had the gear then I started shooting for stock.

I still think it's a status symbol.

Most soccer mums & dads just want to be seen with their expensive gear. They just point and shoot and whatever the result is, they think it's a piece of art!  ;D

If I was interested in recognisable status symbols I wouldn't be buying camera gear, as my average rivals on sports day wouldn't know a 1DmkIV from a point a shoot (in fact I've had more comments about why don't I get a modern small digital camera from other parents than admiring glances, when they see my DSLR!). They would however be impressed by a BMW or an expensive SUV.  Until this year my camera bag contents were worth more than my car!

50
iStockPhoto.com / Re: istock has roughly 85k contributors
« on: March 12, 2010, 16:50 »
Status symbol?  I am amazed how many "soccer moms" have better cameras than me when I there working.  LOL, they never have better lenses though :)

My rich-ish friend has a DLSR and man she abuses that thing.  Always shattering a lens or a filtre.  I gave her one of those sticky dot things that you stick on the lens cap that has an elastic to attach it the lens because at least once a month she was asking me to pick her up a lens cap next time I was collecting my prints.  She finally bought a new P&S and is a lot happier using it for the most part!
The reason that soccer mums and dads have DSLRs is that its next to impossible to shoot soccer or other kids sports with a point and shoot, no matter how good the point and shoot is. They don't focus fast enough. Or low light available light shots like kids concerts. I bought my DSLR and 70-200L to shoot swimming carnivals in outdoor pools and school sports days, and the 50mm and 85 1.8 to shoot dance.  Once I had the gear then I started shooting for stock.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors