|
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 - Shelma1
2676
« on: January 25, 2014, 07:15 »
Tell them you are being nice by contacting them directly and if they really want evidence you can instead serve them with a DMCA and notify their ISP. I am sure they dont like their site being taken down over one image.
Really. The image is stolen even if it's not yours. The watermark proves that.
2677
« on: January 21, 2014, 18:55 »
I hope there are a lot more of those in our future. I had a $70 one yesterday. 
2678
« on: January 21, 2014, 12:33 »
I don't think it was the .jpg addition ... I got the same rejection today : 12 out of 20 images rejected for the same "Title should be in English ...." reason. I don't have dots in my titles or the word JPG, just English words. Example : "Young pear trees in Belgium" and "Beagle puppy". And yes, these images were of pear trees and a Beagle puppy.
Rogue photo inspector on the loose!
2679
« on: January 20, 2014, 11:46 »
According to my graph, I had a one-week dip in December with no new image sales, but my December stats show I actually sold at least one new image that I uploaded in November, nearly every day that week, so it seems like it could be a reporting glitch.
Interestingly, I usually have my data set to 3 months, but when I set it to a year, considering images uploaded in the past year as new, it tells a far more encouraging story as to how well my new images are selling. Funny how your definition of "new" can seriously impact the facts that you base your insights on, isn't it?
Yes, I definitely sold a bunch of new content during that time period...in fact a batch of new files made up a large percentage of my sales. So I thought it was odd that the chart suddenly dropped down to zero for a bit.
2680
« on: January 20, 2014, 10:13 »
No, because this is the first time I've ever gotten this rejection reason. Usually it's for "noise" or "rough edges" that don't exist.
2681
« on: January 20, 2014, 10:08 »
I am sure the jpg part is unnecessary and shouldnt be in the title.
Yet thousands of my images have been accepted with jpg in the title.
2682
« on: January 20, 2014, 09:52 »
Got this rejection today for jpg versions of my vectors:
"Title--Titles must be in English, may not contain unnecessary information and must relate to the image."
The title in question: "Funny clown behind a whiteboard. Jpg"
It's a drawing of a funny clown behind a whiteboard. And it's a jpg.
2683
« on: January 19, 2014, 14:27 »
Something strange I noticed about that chart...I also had a steep plunge in earnings from new content with a couple of zero days in January, the same days as Rob. Anyone else? I hope it's just a reporting glitch.
2684
« on: January 19, 2014, 12:16 »
2. When the PP clawback is more than I usually make all month at iS.
2685
« on: January 18, 2014, 20:04 »
I have no doubt that contributors with a larger percentage of older images got hurt more by the search change. I had an image that I shot in 2010 when I first started that had 1,600+ downloads. It was on the top of the search for "child." For almost three years, it generated 5-10 sales a day all by itself. They changed the search and it disappeared into the middle somewhere. So I can imagine that if you had a lot of images that were best sellers in that age range or older, then they lost popularity, which would naturally affect your sales to a large degree. Meanwhile, about two-thirds of my port is less than two years old. While I lost out on a couple of good sellers, the rest are holding up better because they're newer.
Oh, for crying out loud. Why do people always blame 'search engine changes' when one of their images ceases to generate the same level of sales? You know it just might have something to do with the 10M new images that are currently being accepted each year.
When I'd been at SS for a month I think they only had about 60 images corresponding to the keywords 'new zealand' of which about 45 were mine. Back then they sold quite nicely. Nowadays ... not so much. I'm absolutely sure it must be due to a 'search engine change'. It cant possibly be anything to do with the additional 33,150 images of 'new zealand' that have arrived since. It has to be SS conspiring against me and the higher royalty rate they have to pay me.
I think it's a combination of both. Of course, the addition of huge masses of new files makes it harder to compete. But Shutterstock also adjusts their search algorithm to keep fresh content in front of buyers and increase sales. When they did their "site maintenance" in mid July sales of my entire portfolio took a steep plunge literally overnight...and they still haven't quite recovered (although my portfolio's larger).
2686
« on: January 18, 2014, 09:30 »
Well, his "cover" has pretty much been blown. It's now widely known/believed that he's a Getty employee pushing their agenda in the guise of an objective contributor.
You were also convinced at one point that I was part of this conspiracy. Anyhow: widely known/believed by who ? I doubt that more than 10 people in the whole world care.
I think that some people get annoyed and sometimes become quite unfriendly when others have a point of view which contradicts their own. Which is a pity because it discourages free speech.
So let's hope he comes back soon. The site needs posters representing a variety of different perspectives and experiences.
I don't believe that most peeps here discourage alternative opinions at all (what you call free speech), but most of his comments in Istock threads were OBVIOUS block and tackle, anything to mute the problems of Istock/Getty to the point where it became funny to some (me, at least) and annoying to others. Personally I welcome alternative opinions and an open discussion, but members like Tickstock hurt that tone openness for others.
That, and trying to change almost every conversation about what's wrong with iStock to what's wrong with their main competitor, Shutterstock, even though he doesn't submit there.
2687
« on: January 13, 2014, 19:53 »
Ask to see his wallet, take all the money out, hand the wallet back to him and ask him if he feels flattered.
2688
« on: January 12, 2014, 20:33 »
I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
So you'll be OK if I buy your photos and return them for a refund when my project is finished?
Well, you can certainly do that at iStock.
You can on SS, but maybe only for footage (?) as it costs more.
I was making a comment on returning clothes and props after use, not intending a war on agency policy and practice.
I know. I was trying to be funny. Guess it went over like a lead balloon. 
2689
« on: January 12, 2014, 19:17 »
I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
So you'll be OK if I buy your photos and return them for a refund when my project is finished?
Well, you can certainly do that at iStock.
2690
« on: January 12, 2014, 11:15 »
As for the drinks cart Shelma mentioned, you just have to worry about how to get home if you're not on a bus/train route, so bizarre. Or go without, so it's a hollow perk (no treat for me anyway, I don't drink beer or spirits).
Yeah, new York, most people took the subway. But there was a sort of understanding that you took a 20-minute break to have a drink--Friday at 6 p.m., when you were still in the office, of course--and then you went back to work for a few more hours.
That job was the worst. I worked 12-13 hours per day, 7 days a week. Which is why everyone who worked at Kirshenbaum & Bond called it "Kirshenbaum & Bondage."
Hope they just paid accordingly...
Nope! Low pay, relatively speaking. But they were very creative, so you put in a year or two there, built your reel and portfolio, won a few awards, and got a different job. I lasted less than a year.
2691
« on: January 12, 2014, 10:40 »
As for the drinks cart Shelma mentioned, you just have to worry about how to get home if you're not on a bus/train route, so bizarre. Or go without, so it's a hollow perk (no treat for me anyway, I don't drink beer or spirits).
Yeah, new York, most people took the subway. But there was a sort of understanding that you took a 20-minute break to have a drink--Friday at 6 p.m., when you were still in the office, of course--and then you went back to work for a few more hours. That job was the worst. I worked 12-13 hours per day, 7 days a week. Which is why everyone who worked at Kirshenbaum & Bond called it "Kirshenbaum & Bondage."
2692
« on: January 12, 2014, 10:05 »
I also find a bit unfair that Shutterstock employees have all the perks:
We know that the trick to keeping awesome people happy is by creating a fun, comfortable environment. This includes competitive pay for top talent, full medical benefits, plus:
Stocked beverage fridges, free breakfasts & snacks
Lunchtime Yoga
Pizza & Massage Fridays
Happy hours and killer Summer & Holiday parties
And we, photographers (especially the top tier, that has given SS the most) are treated as crowd, not individual employees as we deserve.
These perks are there to keep employees working longer hours. Especially Friday perks. People won't be in as big a hurry to get home if they know their free pizza or massage is coming up. It's much less expensive to give one employee a free slice of pizza every week and get 10 extra hours out of her than to hire more employees to work the hours current employees are covering in unpaid overtime. I've worked for many years in "fun" environments where we get basketball courts, pool tables, on-site gyms and showers, free drinks (heck, we even had "drinks cart" every Friday at 6 p.m. at one ad agency, where we were served beer and hard liquor). The trade off is that you dedicate your life to your job, working 60+ hours per week and hardly ever taking a vacation because there's always an "emergency'" I look forward to leaving that behind for the freedom to do illustrations at home. Freedom is the world's biggest perk, IMO.
2693
« on: January 10, 2014, 15:46 »
At least with Shutterstock you get a "raise" after you sell a certain number of images (though I do wish there were more/higher tiers for those of us who reach new levels).
On iStock I'm at the one and only vector rate (recently raised to 20%), and my earnings per DL are dropping each month, as more non-exclusive images are shifted to PP purchases rather than iStock purchases. It's sort of the opposite at Shutterstock, where my earnings per DL are rising thanks to ELs, etc. They're close to neck and neck now, but SS will soon outpace iS.
So my earnings stay pretty much level (except for Amazing Mistaken October) at iStock despite adding new files, while they continue to rise at SS.
Keeping all my fingers and toes crossed for Symbiostock.
2694
« on: January 08, 2014, 13:52 »
Slightly off-topic...did they let tickstock go? No rah-rahs from him? her? in quite a while.
2695
« on: January 06, 2014, 20:31 »
At that time it was reported that 70% of all iStock sales were for exclusive images. After the end of the 3rd quarter there were reports that 75% of all downloads were for exclusive images.
While lowering the price of non-exclusive images did not seem to increase sales overall, gross revenue for iStock may not have declined due to the higher percentage of exclusive sales.
Hard to say. If DLs dropped by 12% overall, the relative percentage of exclusive DLs vs. indie DLs may have risen, but the real number of DLs in both categories may have fallen. So it's possible iStock's gross revenue fell as well. That might also explain why, though the percentage of exclusive DLs rose, so many exclusives are reporting a drop in their sales. It's possible for both things to happen simultaneously.
2696
« on: January 06, 2014, 12:53 »
One of the problems I have with Lobo is that he isn't straightforward. He misleads and obfuscates (euphemisms), and he's usually initially quite sarcastically dismissive when someone first brings up an issue or irregularity. It takes more than a dozen questions about the same thing from different people before he accepts that it's really a serious issue; then he makes promises and sets deadlines that are almost never reached...and avoids that thread when people asked what's going on, deadline's passed.
All it takes is a "sorry, guys, we're really trying but it looks like it'll take longer," but instead he offers more sarcasm when people complain when deadlines go zipping by. And unfortunately for him, with the state of things at iStock there are going to be lots of people complaining.
2697
« on: January 06, 2014, 12:05 »
Even if you shoot with a phone, you'd still need the technical skill, the experience, the subject matter and the lighting to have a good result. I take tons of shots with my iPhone that are complete [email protected] I'm not a photographer. (Photography was the only course I failed in college.)
2698
« on: January 04, 2014, 12:24 »
I honestly don't know what to think. I really don't know if October was big because they made a mistake, or October was big because that's what they actually should be paying us and they under-report all the other months.
And it's sad I feel that way, because it shows the level of distrust I have for iStock.
2699
« on: January 04, 2014, 12:10 »
I went back over the past year and took screenshots of all my DLS and earnings. I see the average amount I earn per DL bounces around from month to month, sometimes almost double in one month what I average in another. October is off the chart.
1. It's sad and disgusting that I feel I need to take screenshots of my earnings and sit and figure out anomalies on my own, because the large corporation that represents me and has a staff of IT "experts" and professional accountants is incapable of doing so.
2. I trust the IT experts and accountants at iStock as far as I can throw them.
2700
« on: January 03, 2014, 20:57 »
Well, you could see that coming. This should be fun. 
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
