1
General Macrostock / Re: Inmagine Comments?
« on: June 04, 2013, 10:41 »i remember Inmagine won't allow RF images which submit to microstock agencies, is it still the same?sure otherwise they could just mirror their 123rf-content.
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.
Pages: [1] 2
1
General Macrostock / Re: Inmagine Comments?« on: June 04, 2013, 10:41 »i remember Inmagine won't allow RF images which submit to microstock agencies, is it still the same?sure otherwise they could just mirror their 123rf-content. 2
General Macrostock / Re: Inmagine Comments?« on: June 04, 2013, 00:47 »
My small portfolio never performed well over there. But that's just maybe me. I have optioned out for Distribution plans.
3
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Josh Hodge (pixdeluxe) gone from iStock too?« on: June 03, 2013, 08:31 »Yes it would make it also possible to them to submit as an independent with their personal name to other sites while remaining exclusive with their business account, but the other question than is why would iStock allow that and why at the same timing with the Yuri-deal. I think there must be a connection between the Yuri-deal and these two accounts merging together.The question remains why these accounts got merged. Is this a part of the Yuri-deal and these accounts have been sub-accounts of Yuri or did these two contributors joined business together? It's pretty strange IMHO! 4
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Josh Hodge (pixdeluxe) gone from iStock too?« on: June 03, 2013, 06:23 »
The question remains why these accounts got merged. Is this a part of the Yuri-deal and these accounts have been sub-accounts of Yuri or did these two contributors joined business together? It's pretty strange IMHO!
5
Site Related / Re: Confirmed Identities on MSG (trial for a month?)« on: May 29, 2013, 05:22 »
Thanks, but I think it's much easier for a forum like this. 6
Site Related / Re: Confirmed Identities on MSG (trial for a month?)« on: May 29, 2013, 05:05 »What other forum may I ask? 7
Symbiostock / Re: Open Source - What it Means for Symbiostock« on: May 28, 2013, 20:38 »
thank you very much! Symbiostock is so cool and revolutionary.
8
General Stock Discussion / Re: What does it take to make a living from selling stock« on: May 25, 2013, 10:20 »
dedication
9
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Buzz of Istock !!« on: May 24, 2013, 09:33 »lol no but they make nice Ostzonensuppenwrfel over there 10
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Buzz of Istock !!« on: May 24, 2013, 09:04 »Please forgive me. I dont speak German so often anymore.It was not really serious, sorry I just couldn't resist. I'm sure your German is very good. And Oberammergauer Bildbro would be a pretty fancy funny name for an agency. 11
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Buzz of Istock !!« on: May 24, 2013, 08:49 »
It's "Oberammergauer Bildbro" or "Bildbro Oberammergau" feel free to be similar pedantic with my English
12
Shutterstock.com / Re: Offset invitation?« on: May 24, 2013, 06:42 »Any news about the invitation?buyers invitation... 13
iStockPhoto.com / Re: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive« on: May 22, 2013, 14:36 »
yes it's true he moved to Legoland
14
New Sites - General / Re: Exciting Launch!!! Imagesyard.com« on: May 22, 2013, 06:04 »
Good Luck 4$
15
iStockPhoto.com / Re: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive« on: May 22, 2013, 03:01 »I don't like how SS seem to get blamed for low priced subs when they were raising the prices every year until other sites stopped them. Why would SS increase their $0.38 commission when several sites were paying $0.25? I think subs commissions were heading much higher but now were stuck until the sites have decided they can't get any more buyers and see how much they can raise prices. It would be hard for SS to raise prices first when they pay many of us the highest subs commission. There was a tiny commission raise from Thinkstock but $0.28 is still a lot less than $0.38.subs have never been a good idea but they are here and now we have to deal with them. Subs have been introduced on other sites because of the success of SS so one can blame SS but I wouldn't. 16
iStockPhoto.com / Re: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive« on: May 22, 2013, 01:51 »Both yuri and his father. Jacob Wackerhausen and Steen Waskerhousen are real. They can easily be googled.Nobody said they aren't real, it was just about a post in green big letters on the SS forum that led to some uncertainty if the poster is really his father. My personal estimation for him was also 3000-4000 downloads on a working day that leads to around 60.000$ a month and to around 200.000$ overall revenue per month assuming that SS was a little less than a third of his income stream. Who was this? (the Danish microstocker) I see this as a good thing too! 17
iStockPhoto.com / Re: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive« on: May 21, 2013, 14:26 »So he made it all up to get a better deal with Getty? If they were that stupid, he would be just as stupid to go exclusive with themHe didn't make all up, and I haven't said that but he did marketing from time to time. 18
iStockPhoto.com / Re: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive« on: May 21, 2013, 14:15 »That was then this is now:I don't get how Yuri was feeling the pinch earning millions a year? He was doing great, unless he made it all up for that magazine article recently? This is just a way for him to make even more money. That's his choice, I'm sure we all have a price to sell out to GettyLOL, he is staffing 100 people. He said himself micros where not enough compensation for the overhead he has on the books. Its somewhere on page 1-3 of this thread. If you know you have a meeting with Getty what would you do? Telling the interviewer you have problems with overheads and diminishing profits or that you are making millions in profit? 19
iStockPhoto.com / Re: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive« on: May 21, 2013, 13:35 »Don't believe every marketing blub!I put a link on here somewhere not long ago where Yuri was talking in a magazine article about how much he makes, profit, not turnover. I can't remember exactly what it was, I think he was saying several million. That's with all the overheads, he could cut them whenever he wanted but I don't think he's doing this just for the money. I think he wants to see how big he can grow the business and a big cash injection from Getty will help. I can't think of any other reason why he would want to stick all his eggs in one basket.I don't get how Yuri was feeling the pinch earning millions a year? He was doing great, unless he made it all up for that magazine article recently? This is just a way for him to make even more money. That's his choice, I'm sure we all have a price to sell out to GettyLOL, he is staffing 100 people. He said himself micros where not enough compensation for the overhead he has on the books. Its somewhere on page 1-3 of this thread. 20
iStockPhoto.com / Re: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive« on: May 21, 2013, 06:29 »I don't get how Yuri was feeling the pinch earning millions a year? He was doing great, unless he made it all up for that magazine article recently? This is just a way for him to make even more money. That's his choice, I'm sure we all have a price to sell out to Getty I'm sure he did/does well but revenue and profit is not the same, so maybe he did not that wonderful well as we all thought because of his 'good marketing'. 21
iStockPhoto.com / Re: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive« on: May 20, 2013, 06:57 »sure he can but the whole thing is strange especially for a professor...Well Vista/Dhoxax joined SS in June 2005 while Yuri joined SS in Feb 2005 but he is still claiming he introduced Yuri to SS.I could suggest an agency to someone ('introduce' them) without using the agency myself. I did do it once, for someone with a narrow specialism. 22
iStockPhoto.com / Re: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive« on: May 20, 2013, 06:41 »two entries on SS forum from Yuri's fatherWell Vista/Dhoxax joined SS in June 2005 while Yuri joined SS in Feb 2005 but he is still claiming he introduced Yuri to SS. 23
iStockPhoto.com / Re: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive« on: May 20, 2013, 02:51 »Well that is not true.I think everyone is waiting more or less patiently for you to understand what you have read. 24
Veer / Veer deleted several thousand pictures from my port« on: May 12, 2013, 04:32 »
Veer deleted several thousand pictures from my port without notifying me. I'm talking about 4000 pictures most if not all have been ported over from Snapvillage-days. The thing that astounded me most was that some of these pictures had pretty good sales over there and I have uploaded them only because of the higher prices Snapvillage once had (no other microstock-agency ever got them) so absolute no reason to delete them actually it looks not too smart to delete exclusive high-quality content on their part.
Did anybody else got his Snapvillage-images deleted? Personally I will stop now to support them with images they have never been really good (got some decent sales though) and their upload limit is just a pita. 25
Cameras / Lenses / Re: Wideangle for canon« on: May 10, 2013, 12:20 »eclaire would you go for it even if not fullframe? I have a 50dit depends if you are planning to go fullframe anytime in the future I certainly would buy fullframe lenses now. If you are certain that you will stay with the 1.6crop than you shouldn't buy a fullframe lens because they are more expensive, heavier and bigger. I don't have personal experience with crop-lenses but I would recommend the Photozone site to do a research for ww crop-lenses with Canon mount.
Pages: [1] 2
|
|