|
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 - DonLand
26
« on: March 05, 2014, 23:02 »
I can just "hear" the boardroom discussion when this was proposed:
"Let's give away all 35 million images for free to non-profits and non-commercial sites. It won't cost us much except to craft some code - and we'll write that off as promotional expense.
Then we'll get all those millions of bloggers hooked on using our free images - and once we do that, then we'll embed ads and start raking in the ad revenues. And since we won't be selling any photos - we won't have to pay any commissions out to the photographers.
And we'll claim this is a promotional initiative so that we don't breach any contracts we currently have - and we won't allow anyone to opt out. Sure - it will make them mad - but we'll throw them a bone and tell them that we were forced to do this because we can no longer afford to monitor unauthorized usage of Getty photos online.
Remember - we never paid for this content to begin with - so we're monetizing it by turning it from an expense into an asset that we control...."
My guess is that the smart guy or gal who proposed this idea got a fat raise and a promotion. After all - who wouldn't jump at the chance to make money off of other people's efforts if you don't have to pay for all their efforts.
You hit the nail on the head. They'll make lots of money from the ads and the contributors will get zip... Gee I wonder why they don't let people opt out?
27
« on: March 05, 2014, 18:56 »
I don't get this one either. Even if it is for personal work, shouldn't the artist be compensated something? If I mail a personal letter, the post office will no longer charge me because it's personal? Too bad everyone can't be persuaded to do a wholesale move out of anything Getty. Geez...
28
« on: March 05, 2014, 11:53 »
Steve, thanks for the help.
The main culprit was "Related Posts by Taxonomy"
Even after deactivating it, it kept running! I had to go to my FTP program and delete all of the files of it in plugins folder.
After that the next busy plugin was SlimStat. After deactivating that one the site again moves pretty well.
I installed a plugin called P3 (Plugin Performance Profiler) which shows plugin load times for the pages.
I would like to run the Related Posts by Taxonomy to show similar images but can't because of the cost of the slow down.
I'll look into a similar plugin.
29
« on: March 04, 2014, 16:52 »
It's Back
30
« on: March 04, 2014, 10:16 »
Down here too...
31
« on: March 04, 2014, 00:38 »
Wow. I guess they did not understand that if they paid exclusives a decent amount artists would have come flocking to them and dropping everyone else. Instead they keep doing the opposite. They WERE in a position to do that a couple of years ago when they had a duopoly but no longer. One would also think they would at the very LEAST match the $.38 from SS.
32
« on: March 02, 2014, 22:51 »
Thanks for the heads up!!
Wow, just did a search and see what you're saying. They recently moved servers so I'll have to get back in touch with them, maybe it's on their end! Before the switch the search worked very quickly, right now it's hanging for me! BTW its Webhostinghub.com.
33
« on: March 02, 2014, 11:58 »
Just got this e-mail from my hosting company  The only thing I thought was that it is searching my linked databases and that is what is taking so long, and if so wouldn't their servers just be inactive waiting for the results? Any ideas? >>System administration has been tracking higher resource usage on your server and has traced some of these issues to your account having longer running mySQL queries. In a shared environment, most queries should complete in less than a second. Some of the queries related to your account take a lot longer than this to complete and cause latency issues that we are seeing in server response. Here are examples of such queries: | xxxxxx | xxxxxxxxx | localhost | xxxxxxxx | Query | 173 | Copying to tmp table | SELECT wp_posts.* , count(distinct tr.term_taxonomy_id) as termcount FROM wp_posts INNER JOIN wp_term_relationships tr ON (wp_posts.ID = tr.object_id) INNER JOIN wp_term_taxonomy tt ON (tr.term_taxonomy_id = tt.term_taxonomy_id) WHERE post_type = 'image' AND (post_status = 'publish') AND wp_posts.ID NOT IN (1713) AND ( tt.term_id IN (756, 757, 758, 54, 55, 56, 58, 276, 342, 68, 72, 73, 134, 311, 74, 79, 82, 83, 256, 90, 91, 37, 38, 44, 820, 286, 93, 94, 225, 226, 320, 100, 101, 260, 121, 108, 109, 110, 111, 40, 39, 123, 265, 122, 117, 118, 560) ) GROUP BY wp_posts.ID HAVING SUM(CASE WHEN tt.term_id IN (756, 757, 758, 54, 55, 56, 58, 276, 342, 68, 72, 73, 134, 311, 74, 79, 82, 83, 256, 90, 91, 37, 38, 44, 820, 286, 93, 94, 225, 226, 320, 100, 101, 260, 121, 108, 109, 110, 111, 40, 39, 123, 265, 122, 117, 118, 560) THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) > 0 ORDER BY wp_posts.post_date DESC In order to maintain stability and responsiveness our shared environment, you will need to review your site to see if you can make any changes that can increase the efficiency of these queries. If you cannot control your resource usage, we may be forced to suspend your account, and you will need to find alternative hosting. Thank you in advance for your cooperation, and feel free to let us know if you have any further questions or if we can be of assistance.<<
34
« on: February 26, 2014, 18:55 »
Yea, sure technically impossible... I find that hard to believe with the use of computers.
35
« on: February 25, 2014, 19:24 »
Your 1099 from 2014 will show the minus income so you'll show whatever is less then.
Ok, thinking about it, maybe not as I don't know if we receive 1099's from Canada as I just got back and have not gone through the pile of mail to see.
No, if you are in the US we don't get a 1099 from Istock.
Doesn't matter anyway as this year we will simply receive less which will be shown on next years forms. As an example if they grab $1000 back this year from you, your income showing for this year will be $1000 less.
36
« on: February 25, 2014, 19:16 »
I think many folks are missing the fact that if the money wasn't ours it should go back. The crime is IS not providing the detailed data to us. This is an accounting issue and they should be transparent. Say for instance I already did my taxes, and next year I have to report the loss. What happen if I get audited, what proof do I have outside of the letter. Without the data the numbers IS is claiming is arbitrary. Even if it is accurate it is arbitrary until we have the sales data. If I expense something for work and cannot provide a receipt I don't get reimbursed. If I itemize things on my taxes and have no proof when audited, I owe that money back plus interest and penalties. It's bad enough we trust them to report accurately, but not to provide details is criminal. And I'm not talking about details of the error, I am talking about detailed sales data for those months. I get that unexpected errors happen, but they need to due their part in providing accurate data. They are brass for not providing such info and are probably banking on the contributors to muddy this enough to mask the real issue. If they can not furnish this data we all have a legal right to seek council. If they do not provide this data they must be banking that we won't file a class action lawsuit against them.
In short,recouping funds is not illegal, but not varnishing the data is.
Your 1099 from 2014 will show the minus income so you'll show whatever is less then. Ok, thinking about it, maybe not as I don't know if we receive 1099's from Canada as I just got back and have not gone through the pile of mail to see. If they do send some form to the US then we'll see the deduction there next year.
37
« on: February 23, 2014, 23:07 »
I'm relatively new with DP, only had 210 images with them and they owe me $23.
At first I did the e-mail Vicky thing and requested my images be removed from partner and API programs, specifically Shotshop.
Well after reading all of this I decided they are not worthy of supporting in any way and just deactivated all but 1 image. If I can't get the $23 I'll chalk it up to a learning experience.
I just hope every contributor sees what needs to be done and deactivate their images ASAP.
Just watch though, maybe they'll change their TOS and make you wait 6 months...
38
« on: February 20, 2014, 15:52 »
Here's a little nefarious thinking...
If this kind of deal is ok for them to do then what is stopping them from setting up a new agency, sub licensing all of DP images to the new agency and selling the images for whatever price the want (like $99) and just giving the artist their 25 sub license fee?
39
« on: February 20, 2014, 15:04 »
Like others here I have told them to remove my images from all partner and reseller sites including Shotshop.
My only question to DP would be did they receive compensation from Shotshop for the access to all of DP's images. My guess would be yes.
40
« on: February 13, 2014, 20:51 »
FYI payout can be made at 50$, but you forfeit any balance if you close your account before that.
That sucks... I need to hear what they say about opting out and if that includes out of this stinking deal. If not, I'm out of there and they get to keep my $20 they owe me.... I'll not stick around to meet $50.
41
« on: February 13, 2014, 13:03 »
This thing could become a case for a lawyer!
Oooh yes! There is many things to do for lawyer, and not even one lawyer ready to go for it... Strange... And I mean all stock agencies, all market is full of surprises, not only DP, CanStockPhoto or IS....
Before you guys close your accounts, what about talk to them about changes? Maybe they'll be interested in sharing good % of re-sell price? Lets say image was sold for 69$, so you (author) get 40%, and they share the rest - DP and PP site? 
After getting "the letter" this morning I emailed them back and told them to remove me from all Partner Programs and specifically Shotshop. I'll have to see if there is any fancy footwork involved stating that Shotshop is not a partner but a buyer. If so I'll remove my entire (small) portfolio. I am afraid as someone else stated that this may be a case of a contract between DP and Shotshop whereas as Shotshop paid DP a sum to have access to DP's images under a subscription license. So DP gets a large sum upfront which they do not have to share with artists because it is not a licensing contract but simply a contract that allows them access to the images at a set price. This is the only reason why I would think DP would do such a deal. I obviously do not know if any of this is true, but it certainly is food for thought.
42
« on: January 13, 2014, 13:28 »
Pretty sure I need to be manually added to the draw also! Thanks!
43
« on: December 19, 2013, 17:14 »
I agree it would be great if everyone linked to the global searches, but even though I host one of them, I'd oppose making it a requirement.
the whole point is symbiosis and that can't be considered as a zero sum game. some sites will do better than others, but the only thing that's certain is that if you don't participate in the network, you won't get views sent by other sites.
some people seem to think that unless they make more, it's not worth helping others; my view is that if I don't make a sale, I'd rather direct the buyer to another independent. the symbiosis idea was prevalent in the shareware movement in the late 90s, resulting in formation of groups like the Educational Software Cooperative (ESC)
it's called 'pay it forward' and has a long history....
wiki quotes Ben Franklin
I do not pretend to give such a deed; I only lend it to you. When you [...] meet with another honest Man in similar Distress, you must pay me by lending this Sum to him; enjoining him to discharge the Debt by a like operation, when he shall be able, and shall meet with another opportunity. I hope it may thus go thro' many hands, before it meets with a Knave that will stop its Progress. This is a trick of mine for doing a deal of good with a little money.
+1 
44
« on: December 18, 2013, 21:35 »
Same here but Symbiostock is still in it's infancy and hopefully will succeed and be able to compete in the future.
45
« on: December 18, 2013, 19:23 »
I've included the global link for the simple reason I want buyers to find what THEY want on the Symbiostock network and not have to venture outside or worse yet not come back! I want a buyer to feel they are on a large professional site where they can get what they need.
If I were a buyer and searched for New York and came up with only a handful of images, same for London, Yellowstone, Japan etc., you can be pretty sure I'd not come back.
As a matter of fact I'd prefer all of the linked SymbioStock images to come in as a single large group rather than splitting them up individually! I want clients to come in and explore, look around and be able to bounce back and forth between Symbiostock sites without being forced into a dead end. As far as I'm concerned the more seamless the user experience the better.
46
« on: December 13, 2013, 22:41 »
The $50 per image will cease to exist, it is being replaced by the 20 RM images per quarter.
47
« on: December 13, 2013, 13:38 »
There are limits though. 50 images per quarter RF and 20 image per quarter RM.
48
« on: December 05, 2013, 18:23 »
I'd say the single most important thing to keeping organized is to give every image a unique name. Renaming images is a topic in and of itself though!
And part of renaming images is your image file system. Matt Kloskowski ignited a firestorm on his Lightroom Killer Tips blog when he tried to cover it. http://lightroomkillertips.com/?p=4974 Warning: while the discussion is quite civil, your brain will turn to mush trying to make sense of the (123 and still counting) comments. But feel free to join in 
OMG, LOL. I see where that went. Again Lightroom lets you organize how you want to be organized. Personally I'd have a problem organizing by anything other than shoot date. If I need images organized by location or whatever I'd simply give them a keyword and create a smart collection to find that keyword. I also always include my initials in the beginning of the image file so a client knows it came from me if they deal with other photographers. I tried a simple numbering scheme but kept making mistakes and duplicating numbers. By using DLYYMMDD-xxx.NEF if I forget to rename a batch I can go back any time and rename them without messing up my numbering scheme. I also use YYYY/YYMMDD Name of Project/DLYYMMDD-xxx.NEF as the folder organization scheme. This works for me but I'm sure different schemes work for others. For me one other key thing I do in Lightroom is I ALWAYS output using the COPYNAME. The reason being if I create versions of the same RAW file I need a way to differentiate it from the first version. I use John Beardsworth "Search Replace Transfer" to keep the COPYNAME up to date. I simply append the original filename with the letter "a" into the COPYNAME. This also works with TIFS or PSD files made from the original RAW file that were worked on in Photoshop, so I could have any combination of RAW, Versions, Tif or PSD files of the original RAW file all with a unique name. The Tiffs or PSD files actually get the letters appended to the file name as well. For clarity's sake if the original RAW is DL131204-100.NEF. I make a version, the file name remains the same but the COPYNAME becomes DL131204-100a. I now make a TIF file from either of the previous images. I save it as DL131204-100b and in Lightroom it is named DL131204.100b.TIF and the COPYNAME is DL131204-100b. Hopefully this is still on subject for the OP.
49
« on: December 05, 2013, 15:45 »
There are many different ways to get the job done in LR, and it honestly is to each their own. What works for one of us may or may not work for someone else. You just need to figure out what works for you. I would guess the most people use a combination of labels, collections, smart collections and keywords.
I'd say the single most important thing to keeping organized is to give every image a unique name. Renaming images is a topic in and of itself though!
50
« on: December 04, 2013, 22:18 »
I basically do what you say but instead of keywords I use specific abbreviated collections to get around the search parameters. As an example. My main stock collection is called 000 MS Images I then set up Stock Site Specific Folders/Subfolders with abbreviated names so I can use those in Smart Collections. Take SS for example. You can make a Smart Collection called SS.1 Images. You would have it match all of the following. Collection contains all words 000 MS Images Collection does not contain SS. For me I use "SS.8 Rejects" for SS rejects and "SS.9 Online" as SS images online with a bunch of "SS.x" (where x=different numbers) collections for various images along the uploading process. As you can see the only images that will appear in the "SS.1 Images" collection are selected "000 MS Images" that are not in any of the SS. collections. I do the above for each agency. I have also made what I call "duplicate check" smart collections that show images that are in more than one folder at a time so I know if I have any conflicts or if I forgot to remove an image from one of the step folders or if an image is in rejects and online at the same time. You can keep it simple or more complicated as needed for your requirements. Finally I also Color Label tag all images in the "000 MS Images" collection a single color so while looking at any folder I can easily tell if an image has already been selected for stock. uhm... well I found out that this wasn't working as I expected. I wasn't testing case when one image has been approved to SS and rejected to DS. In that case it would have been _accepted, _shutterstock, _rejected, _dreamstime. So filter would not be effective.
Then I tried to do hierarchical keywords. Like in image.
Now I face another issue: I can not apply filter for a smart collection in order to take only a hierarchical keyword.
Could anybody help me on this?
I tried like this: keword contains: _dreamstime < _accepted but this returns also those that have _shutterstock < _accepted.
:-?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
