|
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 - Beach Bum
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13
151
« on: October 20, 2012, 07:55 »
The site's never been slow for me. The reason for lack of feedback is it hasn't fully launched yet. Still in beta phase.
152
« on: October 19, 2012, 21:29 »
Already on board!
153
« on: September 15, 2012, 06:12 »
SS contacted me saying someone wanted to buy one of my non-people images under this license and that I should enable sensitive use 'til it sold and then disable. I responded they should allow disabling by model release - which they really should. I enabled my port. After a week with no sale, I disabled. Maybe I was too slow or the buyer found a different image or who knows. It would have been nice to get the big $ boost though.
The exact same thing happened to me a couple of months ago. Was told that the buyer went in another direction. Was also told that SS was considering Sensitive Use on an image by image basis. Hope it happens!
154
« on: July 20, 2012, 07:18 »
Another example of a contributor having to pay for Istock's incompetence. Would definitely drop the crown.
155
« on: July 12, 2012, 20:47 »
It wouldn't bother me if it was legible. I usually have to refresh several times before finding one that I can read.
156
« on: June 12, 2012, 18:50 »
Horrible month for me also. Might not even make payout. That hasn't happened in 5 years.
157
« on: May 29, 2012, 19:14 »
I've had several sales of these enlarged tiffs. I asked 123RF if I can opt out of this and they said no. I suspect the "company" doing the resizing would be a person from the agency, like Alex or someone else.
True. I can't imagine them outsourcing something as simple as upsizing.
158
« on: May 27, 2012, 17:43 »
(snip)
AIUI, if you pay, you get the version on your personal site included, not those from agencies.
Do they have some mega-sophisticated way of blocking out identicals?
The image that is shown is from the agency that it was uploaded to first.
That makes no logical sense. Plus it will punish those who submitted to the easy-to-get-into, low paying sites first.
What is the payback to PicturEngine if someone buys a photo from an agency rather than from a paying user?
Yes, I would like a clear answer to this. I asked on the last page: If you pay the $120/year for advertising, will the only images displayed be the ones from your own website, rather than the agencies? Regardless of where you uploaded first, which sites were indexed first by PicturEngine, etc?
The following is from the Picturengine FAQ page. "I have my own searchable stock photo sales and distribution website, how can I be included? Last Updated: Mar 11, 2012 09:58PM CDT Depending upon your platform, we offer an Advertising Only package, which includes all of your keyworded images within our search results. When a buyer clicks on your image, they are redirected to your website for licensing, as we do for agencies."
159
« on: May 27, 2012, 09:00 »
from the OP:
"To answer customer complaints about finding the same images on multiple sites. To accomplish this they remove all duplicates from every search and only showing each unique image once. "
How do they decide the 'one' source of the image to show (if someone hasn't forked out the big bucks, but is independent and has their pics on several agencies which re apparently being scraped)?
AIUI, if you pay, you get the version on your personal site included, not those from agencies.
Do they have some mega-sophisticated way of blocking out identicals?
The image that is shown is from the agency that it was uploaded to first.
160
« on: May 27, 2012, 08:44 »
I just did a Google searching for keywords on my best selling area. It comes up with a number of my images in the first couple of pages. Interestingly they are all either photos in use or from 123rf or shutterstock. Maybe someone can explain why other agencies don't place as highly.
If the PicturEngine search provides customers with what they want quickly, based on some great best match algorithm that is superior to the search they can do on a site then some people will use it.
I can see that there are issue however with buyers who will be confronted with images at microstock prices, mid level prices and some at much higher. If I was on a budget (or cheap) I wouldn't want to wade through looking at images above my price range. Maybe this is aimed at the higher end of the market.
This site may be of great benefit to some contributors but I can't see it being worth $40+ per month for me at the moment.
I understand that $40 a month seems a little steep for an unproven site, but this is totally different from anything else we've had. We do a lot of complaining about the agencies squeezing the life out of contributors and now we have something new that could revolutionize the industry. For 100% commissions, I'm more than willing to pay $40 a month. Besides, aren't we paying each agency much more than $40 a month? If you make $200 a month at an agency that pays 20% commission, then you are, in essence, paying that agency $800 a month. And that's just one agency!
161
« on: May 26, 2012, 07:46 »
No EL's and income way down. Istock will beat SS this month. First time in a long time.
162
« on: May 18, 2012, 20:18 »
...For more context here, we are regularly seeking ways to increase sales of your images through new agency relationships such as the one we've recently launched with Alamy.
These agencies offer additional exposure and access to different markets beyond that offered thru Veer.com....
In addition to communicating with contributors up front about these things, I would expect that a simple rule that would keep you out of trouble is not to form partnerships with distributors to which Veer contributors can submit directly. Otherwise you're just trying to take a cut out of our income instead of actually increasing the places our images can sell
Exactly! The word "predatory" comes to mind.
163
« on: May 17, 2012, 17:47 »
So why aren't we all uploading everything we've got and screaming at people to buy there?
Probably because everyone figures they'll just get screwed by them eventually too?
True. Microstock contributor = cynic.
164
« on: May 15, 2012, 07:11 »
The attraction for a buyer is a one-stop shop for every image anywhere. Hopefully your images are interesting enough to compete with 20 million images from all the micros.... Although, with a basic agency like interface, it's sort of just more of the same.
But isn't that "every image everywhere (as long as the image owner has paid for the privilege)". If not, won't it mean that buyers are referred to our images without us paying anything? And if everybody has to pay $500 a year for the pleasure of being included, won't it put off 99.9% of us, so there will only be a measly 20,000 rather than 20m images?
Everybody is included, whether they sign up or not. The benefit of signing up is that when your images are viewed, it will be from the Picturengine platform, where you receive 100% royalties. You set your own prices. If you haven't signed up and your image is viewed, it will be from the agency that the image was uploaded to first. There will be no duplicates.
165
« on: May 13, 2012, 10:26 »
http://www.picturengine.com#oid=1006_1 I believe, and hope, this is the future business model of stock photography. Contributors pay a flat subscription rate and receive 100% of the royalties. To me, this is much more preferable than agencies taking 80% or more of the sales. Currently, Picturengine is in beta phase. During this time the rate is $40 a month. If you sign up during beta, that rate is locked in for life. I find the site very user friendly, easy to navigate. They are also very open to suggestions from contributors, something missing from many agencies.
166
« on: May 13, 2012, 00:56 »
as I have said before...
The contributor would win a case when the agency tries to pull off fraud onto the contributor.
it IS their problem, and they should not pass it on to the contributor.
Someone should challenge their business model.
Someone has. I think this is the stock photography model of the future, or at least I hope so. http://www.picturengine.com#oid=1006_1
167
« on: April 07, 2012, 06:44 »
I think it's a cell phone camera. Maximum size is medium.
168
« on: March 18, 2012, 05:06 »
"Hope your link didn't boost your own pizza in the rankings."
It actually did move up a couple of spots. I've removed the link. Thanks.
169
« on: March 17, 2012, 20:44 »
I'm not sure I understand all of your question.
Someone paid for a license, somewhere (you didn't mention if it's for sale on 1 site or 25?) And he's now using it on his food page as an illustration.
Widefood is not "sharing" it, it's being used on the web as an illustration.
So are you asking if the size is illegal use?
What site was it downloaded/licensed from with what license?
Or is someone else sharing it not the site you linked to? I'm lost.
The image is available at 14 sites. There's a button in the bottom left corner of the image with links to share via e mail, Facebook, and Twitter. The usage is not my only concern, though. As I mentioned before, I inquired about his purchase of a license and from where it was purchased. His only response has been to ask for proof of my copyright ownership, which I sent. His lack of response about the license indicates to me that one was not purchased. I do realize that image theft is rampant and I'm certainly not immune to that. What really bothers me about this particular situation is the extremely high Google Images search placement. Page 1, row 1 for my best selling (although not lately) image.
Ah, sometimes you need to point out the specifics. It started out kind of vague and calling it image sharing, when it looked like a recipe site, so I didn't understand that people could "like" the recipe and share the link, which would also show them your image.
At first I thought it was for recipes, not one of those free image or free wallpaper things. But it appears I was wrong and looking at the text and not the actual intentions of the site. Complicated isn't it?
Knowing where you have sold this image might help you, but since the agencies don't tell us anything, don't require attribution and strip all the data, we get screwed?
Hey good news, the pages hardly have any views, most of the images register =0= views. Hope your link didn't boost your own pizza in the rankings.
Good Luck:
Registrant:
achmad triharso
Kalimaya 10 Tlogo mas
Malang, East Java 65411
Indonesia
Yeah. I agree. My original question wasn't exactly worded correctly. Most of the images do register 0 views, but mine has over 5000, another reason for my concern. Thanks for the info.
170
« on: March 17, 2012, 07:08 »
I'm not sure I understand all of your question.
Someone paid for a license, somewhere (you didn't mention if it's for sale on 1 site or 25?) And he's now using it on his food page as an illustration.
Widefood is not "sharing" it, it's being used on the web as an illustration.
So are you asking if the size is illegal use?
What site was it downloaded/licensed from with what license?
Or is someone else sharing it not the site you linked to? I'm lost.
As far as I can work out that site is sharing it, the images are there specifically so people can download them, organised by categories and the like.
Looks like they make their living via Google Adwords, so I would send an email giving them a deadline to respond then DMCA Google.
You can bet that will get it removed
That's exactly my take on the situation.
171
« on: March 17, 2012, 05:58 »
I'm not sure I understand all of your question.
Someone paid for a license, somewhere (you didn't mention if it's for sale on 1 site or 25?) And he's now using it on his food page as an illustration.
Widefood is not "sharing" it, it's being used on the web as an illustration.
So are you asking if the size is illegal use?
What site was it downloaded/licensed from with what license?
Or is someone else sharing it not the site you linked to? I'm lost.
The image is available at 14 sites. There's a button in the bottom left corner of the image with links to share via e mail, Facebook, and Twitter. The usage is not my only concern, though. As I mentioned before, I inquired about his purchase of a license and from where it was purchased. His only response has been to ask for proof of my copyright ownership, which I sent. His lack of response about the license indicates to me that one was not purchased. I do realize that image theft is rampant and I'm certainly not immune to that. What really bothers me about this particular situation is the extremely high Google Images search placement. Page 1, row 1 for my best selling (although not lately) image.
172
« on: March 16, 2012, 20:08 »
After inquiring if a license was purchased for use of this image, their only response was to ask for proof that I owned the copyright. After sending proof, I've heard nothing and the image is still up. If you do a Google Images search for "pepperoni pizza", it's actually listed on the second line. It was the top line until just a few minutes ago. He has over 5,000 views on that image. This is my best selling image. He uploaded it on Oct. 3, 2011. Maybe it's coincidental, but on Istock I had frequent downloads for that image until early October. They have dwindled to just a trickle now.
173
« on: March 16, 2012, 13:52 »
This is the image
Link removed
174
« on: March 16, 2012, 13:24 »
Am I correct in assuming that providing sharing links via Facebook, Twitter, Stumbleupon, etc., is a copyright violation?
175
« on: March 10, 2012, 06:48 »
I'm on 14, but I've recently decided to restrict my future uploads to 3.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
