|
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 - alberto
101
« on: April 07, 2013, 07:25 »
Make an Editorial category and put in every phoytography a description and maybe a llink to the agreement about editorial license.
102
« on: April 05, 2013, 14:27 »
Getty continue to act as distributor, the problem can be solved easily: OPT OUT. All these business are made with the promise of more money. But these are false promises, and they know it. With the opt out who trust that the deal is good can accept. Otherwise the answer is only one, Getty in his infinity goodness doesn't allow anyone to lose money, so forces everyone to get rich with these deal. Uhm, if I repeat 1000 times it seems almost true... no.
103
« on: April 01, 2013, 03:51 »
I know poncke, I remember other days when DT fallen but ever for few 0,X point now are 3,9. Probably it's too early to say anything and you are right, and the Easter takes away from the forum many of us. We will see.
104
« on: April 01, 2013, 03:37 »
Wow some change happened!
I don't know if in the coming days DT recovers its previous position, but for the first time the gap is consistent. It is unfortunate that SF and GL do not grow, but something is moving at last. And also yoyo IS continues to lose. Perhaps a new scenario is coming up.
105
« on: March 31, 2013, 05:37 »
But with these rules, for SS is better if they declares we want works from freelancer accredited. Why so many blablabla?
106
« on: March 30, 2013, 10:33 »
OK click_click "Paese che vai, usanze che trovi" or something like: each country has its own rule. We can see things differently, but there is a point in your favor, all the agencies except Fotolia, Zoonar and a few other are based in USA and Canada. So the rules that in Europe are hard to understand for north-american are pretty normal.
Perhaps some more clear statement rules, about refund by agencies is appreciated.
107
« on: March 29, 2013, 21:20 »
I can only speak from the designer's standpoint as it is possible that a possible project got cancelled right after the stage of purchasing the required licenses.
It's definitely a sad situation for us contributors but for the designer as well.
I doubt that designers "professionally" return files to get a freebie. At this point they would do a Google Image search to find the high res versions without providing their personal details to an agency...
From a contributor's standpoint surely it doesn't make any sense.
I get your point click_click but when I buy somethings I can't ask for a refund after few week. If something went wrong it's not our fail. If I buy a pair of jeans of wrong size and come back the day after they change it. But after a month... Seeing the post, the picture and the license were sold on february 28. Also, with subscription, discount promotion etc, who usually buy a certain amount of pictures may face a loss of fifty dollars. Keep the picture and go ahead.
108
« on: March 29, 2013, 14:52 »
IMHO, a lot of words about the refund policy, by the way other agencies do this disgrace. BUT why refund a multi-user license. If someone buy it and download a file, is frankly clear that the same file was viewed by other users; they used the license bought, so why refund it? The customer can say that the picture was a wrong download and don't use the file... but the license..
109
« on: March 21, 2013, 18:41 »
If I'm remember right ok if not correct me. In the Google deal the value per image payed was approximately 60$. Because the 20% is 12$. Next deal now you know what you get if exclusive, while if not... 
110
« on: March 21, 2013, 15:25 »
Oring said that they want cover more assets, in an agency for only invited artists, sort of high-end, I think that the prices are consequential. I aspect here great names, and great prices, for customers with money to spend for high quality images. Perhaps, simple, but ever the big things are simple.
edit: and also as click_click said images exclusive.
111
« on: March 19, 2013, 18:11 »
Regarding DMCA, it has been brought up that only the copyright holder can request a takedown. What if the site were to provide a form that users could fill out and it would provide them with text to copy/paste into their own email? We could also create PDFs for users to download.
What are you thoughts on which would be best?
+1 I think that the site is useful if offer some service like that, no cost at all but service. Probably some link to resource about copyright infringement, how to do the DMCA. We need to educate not only potential buyers but also artists I tought.
112
« on: March 19, 2013, 17:58 »
What would make a difference would be a couple of high-profile cases of buyers getting into legal trouble by using images they got on Google Drive.
What would make a difference also... some big buyers that are paying for years istock, with its rising price, saw that Google in a single deal had got some thousands of images at low price. So what I expect is, someone going istock and tell them, who wants lower prices or they go by other agencies with lower prices. And this is what seems happened. Getty pushed the rock down the hill, it is moving but not as they expected. At the end this deal for istock is worse than they expected.
113
« on: March 18, 2013, 19:12 »
Thanks ShadySue. Yes I read the share cut somewhere in MSG; howewer 50% and 30% for partner sales if I remember correctly; is better than 15% 20% and so on in microstock. In the other hand, 50% of zero is nothing.
114
« on: March 18, 2013, 18:48 »
I was eight months and over 800 files ... (RM, mostly secondary editorial)
[/quote]
ShadySue what is your experience in alamy with editorial and RM? Thanks.
115
« on: March 18, 2013, 18:42 »
I deleted my files two week ago, the account is still active without images. Yes it is a pain there isn't a bulk action.
116
« on: March 17, 2013, 19:44 »
I don't think there is anything in the numbers about his old earnings the 80% is for that month at Istock, not compared to the past. Using his system if Istock is down then all the other numbers should be lower too since they are percentages of his Istock numbers.
[/quote]
I realized that problably you are right
117
« on: March 17, 2013, 19:25 »
What I understood from the table is that in february lucatos earn are 80% of the old earnings in iStock as exclusive. Pros and cons...
Cons: earning dropped
Pros: Not all the eggs in a basket; the money growing mounth by mounth; and 100% stated is refered at the old-gold days from 2010. I think that lucatos is happy, considering the fact that istock earning are dropping for all and at the end of february 2013 the 100% stated as base at the beginning of the series it's quietly impossible to reach at istock nowdays. Probably if lucatos was exclusive now, selling only at istock reach the 50% 60% of the old 100%.
118
« on: March 17, 2013, 19:05 »
picturesafe sosartist copyrightshield
119
« on: March 16, 2013, 14:45 »
I'm interested in this project that seems a good job, kona. Also we need a summary, 14/15 pag are too many to follow...
Kona there is a plugin that can be interesting, the amazon s3, wich allow to put the files in s3 storage and retrieve it.
120
« on: March 15, 2013, 16:21 »
Google stripped the metadata and then say:"Include apprpiate attribution if necessary. It's a joke. At the end Getty exploit the contributors Google shift the blame to the users.
121
« on: March 15, 2013, 16:12 »
Yes gostwyck, and iS want hear what they want to hear; and the consultant say what iS want hear, because they don't want to contradict the cash cow.
122
« on: March 15, 2013, 10:24 »
Pixmac and Stockfresh are good choices IMO.
Another would be individual photographer's sites. Here's a thread with a link exchange to the sites of most of the contributors here that have them: http://www.microstockgroup.com/selling-direct/your-stock-site-link-exchange/. For example, at my site lisafxphotostock.com xs are $2. (sorry for pimping, but it meets your pricing criteria if any of the images are what you need)
Good luck with your project 
+1 for lisa Madeleine I saw that few years ago you was interested in starting a co-op business, so why not? I haven't yet published my link so I'm not promoting myself but the lisa idea. In sell direct section there are the websites of elena, lisa, leaf, cidepix, denispepin the first that come to my mind, a lot of good stuff to choice. Some of us are buyers not only contributor why when we need personal purchases we don't support the other members?
123
« on: March 13, 2013, 17:44 »
Yes Mantis I agree with you and I thought the same things, but at least 50 credit is better than 2. However I deleted some time ago the photos in Fotolia and also don't knew this change of terms. So Fotolia -1; and konrad maybe a day understand that his staff can value more than 50 credit, at least I hope.
124
« on: March 13, 2013, 16:58 »
I saw that he had fixed the price with 50 credit instead 10, so at the end he read the message.
But say thank no?
However Fotolia with this get -1.
125
« on: March 08, 2013, 11:50 »
http://us.fotolia.com/id/48868177
how can they feature a pic at their homepage and then offer EL for 10$, at least tell the contributor NO? 
Caveat venditor! Take the time when doing submissions to change each EL separately by hand. A diabolical trick by FT.
Edit: Dunno if anyone knows how to get in touch with 'Konrad Bak' or whatever his name is but I think that he doesn't realise that he's being 'swindled' in this way. All his work 'pre-ELrobbery' at FT is priced at 100 for an EL. All recent work (594 files) is priced at 10. Methinks it was not his intention to give EL's away for less than the price of an 'M' sized file!
I found konradbak at dreamstime and commented one image with the warning about the EL price. If he read the comment now can fix this mistake.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
