pancakes

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 - Beach Bum

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13
126
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 14, 2013, 20:09 »
This isn't about Istock or Getty taking notice. This is about taking a stand and saving the industry. If my images stay at IS and they wind up for free on Google or elsewhere not only do I lose but so does every other contributor who is trying to sell a similar image. Even if your image is better and perhaps more appropriate why would they pay for your image when mine is available for free. 6000 free images may kill the value of 60K images still for sale. I have only 20% of my port on IS and none in the Google deal but this move scares the h*ll out of me. I already have enough issues with legitimate theft. I don't need the agencies speeding the process along.

Furthermore this needs to stop with this one deal. Right now there are other ways to sell your images and still make money. If this precedence isn't squashed right now- soon there won't be any other outlets. At least not any that work well enough to justify the work involved.

Exactly!  Every agency should be concerned about Istock's actions.  This affects every contributor and every agency, regardless of their inclusion in this initial deal. 

127
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 14, 2013, 16:50 »
If nothing improves before then, I'm in !

128
Could anyone who's going the route of sending a DMCA notice to Google report back here what the response was when you get one? 

Also if anyone hears back from any media outlets, lawyers, or others they have contacted please post. 

I am going to be joining the deactivation crowd on Feb 2, if not sooner, but would like to hear if there's any progress on other fronts as well.

If Feb. 2nd is going to be the agreed upon date for deactivation, I'll try to wait until then.

It was too much for me, LOL.  Wanted to test out Sean's script, and it was so easy I got carried away and deleted 203 images ;D

I will try and old off until Feb 2 to do the rest, or at least my best sellers...

They really had better watch out though.  Deleting them starts to get sort of addictive...

Wow!  Sounds like fun.  Looking forward to Feb. 2nd now.  A deactivating orgy. 

129
Could anyone who's going the route of sending a DMCA notice to Google report back here what the response was when you get one? 

Also if anyone hears back from any media outlets, lawyers, or others they have contacted please post. 

I am going to be joining the deactivation crowd on Feb 2, if not sooner, but would like to hear if there's any progress on other fronts as well.

If Feb. 2nd is going to be the agreed upon date for deactivation, I'll try to wait until then.

130
Another thought, is Getty just devaluing their competitors collections so strengthening their grip on the market?
First non exclusives are forced to give their work to TS if they want to stay on IS, then they give away everything on TS and all of a sudden all that content, that is also on their competitors' sites, is worthless. Other sites go out of business, Getty back on top with their wholly owned and exclusive stuff intact.

Very plausible theory.  Also very worrisome.  I don't want to do anything rash and I want to give Istock a chance to make things right.  If there's no improvement in the situation by this weekend, I'll start the process of deactivating.  Really sad what Istock has become.

131
Maybe pulling out all of our images would be a hard pill to swallow, however, what about if we could all stop submitting instead.....while other agencies get new images..

That's exactly what I started doing 13 months ago.

132
Thanks a lot Sean.  That helps in finding the images.  One of mine and I'm not impressed. 

I was thinking of trying to fill up all my upload slots to iStock this year, not sure I want any more of this.

I have uploaded exactly 0 images to Istock in the last 13 months.  I'm concentrating my efforts elsewhere.

133
I bet Picturengine is looking pretty good right now, huh?

134
But court cases and lawyers are so expensive, it also takes up a great amount of your time.

The beauty of microstock is many of us (not me) are lawyers... eliminating one of the expenses.  The microsotck companies just need to rub the right person the wrong way.

Exactly!  Most of them do whatever they can get away with, and they've been allowed to get away with a lot of garbage lately.  It will only continue and worsen until, as you said, Leaf, they hit the "right person the wrong way".

135
General Stock Discussion / Re: Why do WE get paid commission?
« on: January 08, 2013, 15:34 »
Agencies are no longer agents, they are service providers and contributors are just users of the service that happen to upload things to the service, buyers are users that download from the service.
Both users pay for the service.

Most service providers charge a fee, not a percentage (and a huge one) of your earnings.

Read the terms of service of 'Agencies'. It's all in the wording of the agreement you accept when creating an account to use the service. They offer a service they are not contributor's agents.

I wonder if anyone would accept the agreement if it was written in a way that made it clear that contributors must pay 70%-85% of the earnings as a fee. Would anyone accept such agreement in other service sites involving sales of goods like ebay, itunes or any other shop service.



The Ebay reference is an excellent one.  Ebay offers a platform for the sale of goods on their website.  They are providing a service that brings sellers and buyers together, much like stock photo agencies.  Why is it that Ebay can be hugely successful while charging a 9% sales fee when companies like Istock claim that an 80% fee for sellers is "unsustainable"?

136
General Stock Discussion / Re: Why do WE get paid commission?
« on: January 08, 2013, 07:47 »
Agencies are no longer agents, they are service providers and contributors are just users of the service that happen to upload things to the service, buyers are users that download from the service.
Both users pay for the service.

Most service providers charge a fee, not a percentage (and a huge one) of your earnings.

137
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Note from Rebecca Rockafellar
« on: December 08, 2012, 16:24 »
She is completely out of touch. She talks as if their lack of communication skills are my main concern. Seriously? No my main concern is my bottom line. And iStock is hurting my bottom line the way they are treating us contributors. No, Rebecca, paying contributors 15-19% on iStock, moving and promoting content on thinkstock for less than 30 cent pr download are my two main concerns when it comes to iStock.

Exactly!  So, I guess now they'll be effectively communicating how they're screwing us over.  Don't know about everyone else, but I'm happy.

138
iStockPhoto.com / Re: So who's going to miss their RC targets?
« on: November 29, 2012, 18:48 »
When this year started, I vowed not to upload any more images to Istock unless there was a considerable improvement in commission rates.  So, in sticking with the promise, I haven't uploaded anything the whole year.  I'm concentrating on more productive and fair opportunities.  Haven't gotten the courage yet to pull my port completely, but that might come at a later date.

139
iStockPhoto.com / Re: So who's going to miss their RC targets?
« on: November 28, 2012, 21:55 »
Won't even come close.

140
General Stock Discussion / Re: Check Out PicturEngine
« on: November 28, 2012, 07:25 »
I don't understand the obsession with Paypal fees.  The buyer should know that there are fees associated with a Paypal transaction, as there are with credit card transactions.  He should also know that he's paying those fees, one way or another.  Simply a business expense passed on to the customer.  No big deal.

141
Made it on the 2nd try.

142
Isnt paying 500 dollar for a service to get 100% of the sales price, the same as submitting to an agency and get a % commission?

Not really. The hope would be to convert them to return or regular customers for your site. It's really not much different than running an advertisement.

Well it is, up to some level.

If I make 750 dollars and pay 500 dollars, I only get 33.3%

That's a least twice what you would make at Istock.

143
Isnt paying 500 dollar for a service to get 100% of the sales price, the same as submitting to an agency and get a % commission?

I like the fact that it's a flat rate.  They're not taking a percentage (and a huge one) of every sale.  The $480 might seem like a lot, but if you're receiving 100% of the sales, it shouldn't take long to break even. 

144
Off Topic / Happy Thanksgiving!
« on: November 22, 2012, 09:26 »
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.  I have many things for which to be thankful.  But, regarding stock photography, I'm thankful for the glimmer of hope that Picturengine brings to an industry with increasingly downward commission rates.

145
Veer / Re: Not getting paid?
« on: November 21, 2012, 17:23 »
Finally!

146
Veer / Re: Not getting paid?
« on: November 21, 2012, 14:57 »
And no explanation from Veer on this site.

147
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy cutting all commissions by 10%
« on: November 21, 2012, 10:25 »
Really looking forward to the full launch of Picturengine!

148
Veer / Re: Not getting paid?
« on: November 20, 2012, 20:13 »
They should change their scheduled payout for the 1st of the month.  Maybe then will it be actually paid on the 15th.

149
Veer / Re: Not getting paid?
« on: November 19, 2012, 18:17 »
Well, I guess we'll get paid next month.  Veer is the slowest agency that I deal with regarding payouts.

150
Veer / Re: Not getting paid?
« on: November 19, 2012, 11:17 »
Same story every month.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results