|
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 - Noedelhap
Pages: 1 ... 79 80 81 82 83 [84] 85 86 87 88 89
2076
« on: May 08, 2012, 10:20 »
Thank you both for your replies. I have taken this up with Dreamstime as well. I can't see how someone would want to trademark an image that is not exclusive. But to each his own. He said my initial price (for exclusive user rights, plus removal from all agencies) was too high. If he wants it non-exclusive, I might do one third of that price. I certainly won't do it for $10, no 
2077
« on: May 08, 2012, 10:02 »
I might just upload if it wasn't Dropbox-only. I like the site and the commission.
2078
« on: May 08, 2012, 08:36 »
Some guy e-mailed me about how he downloaded one of my images from Dreamstime (regular license), to use on packaging for the electronic devices he sells (notebooks, epads). The regular DT license allows up to 500.000 copies, but not use for redistribution. See excerpt below from the Dreamstime Terms of Use:
"What Royalty-Free means is that you pay for the image only once and then you can use it as many times as you like, with just a few restrictions. In other words, there are no license fees except the initial fee and no other royalties to be paid except those included in the initial cost. Note that the maximum number of copies for printed materials is 500,000 copies.
(...) Web templates, greeting cards or postcards especially designed for sale, similar print-on-demand services, canvas, t-shirts, mugs, calendars, postcards, mouse pads or any other items incorporating the image in an essential manner, intended to be sold are considered redistribution (if the image is used in an essential manner). "
My question is, does 'use for packaging' means he needs an extended license, or is it sufficient for him to have a regular license?
Secondly, he wants to trademark this image for his business. He slightly altered the image (which is allowed). He says he doesn't require exclusivity (so I don't have to remove the image). I thought Dreamstime does not allow image use as a logo (at least not without selling the rights). So is it even legally possible for him to use an altered version of my image as a logo?
Please let me know what you think of it, and what YOU would do (or charge him) if you were me.
2079
« on: May 03, 2012, 16:27 »
How are sales going for you nowadays?
And what do you consider the optimal price for your vectors?
2080
« on: April 06, 2012, 08:50 »
I've had 4 sales in 1 year. Great that I can set my own price, but if it results in a minimum amount of sales, it's useless. The owner is nice and supportive, but the site looks unprofessional and not really targeted towards a large customer base.
I really hope the site gets more buying customers someday, because the RPD is high.
2081
« on: March 26, 2012, 15:14 »
Some of my files have migrated, but the thumbnail previews only show a small part of the illustration  
2082
« on: March 07, 2012, 10:34 »
So, I got an email saying that subscriptions are are going to be launched. I'm not yet sure what to make of it. $0,50 per subscription download is relatively high, but it is nothing compared to an actual sale.
2083
« on: March 02, 2012, 11:11 »
So I passed QC with my first batch of images, added keywords and descriptions. Now their status is 'ready', but do I need to tick a checkbox somewhere to make them available for sale, or does that happen automatically?
2084
« on: February 20, 2012, 12:25 »
Cutcaster is completely dead for me. No sales whatsoever.
2085
« on: February 17, 2012, 09:14 »
What a bullcrap, Alex. This is 'money isn't going to be what makes you happy' all over again.
YOU are expecting growth, but at our expense. We will only get a cut, yet we are to believe that that's good for us? If you'd really be growing steadily, a paycut wouldn't be necessary. I will sit out the year, then remove my portfolio. Screw you and your greedy crap.
2086
« on: February 17, 2012, 08:23 »
You mean, that it is better on other website ?
15% on Istock, 25% on Shutter...
Is there any Microstock that propose you to earn 50% on a sale for a non exclusive clipart ?
well, explain me.
Istock pays lower commissions, but charges more to its customers, so the contributor earns more per sale. Shutterstocks low subscription prices and commissions are compensated by the amount of sales. I don't expect the same number of sales from a relatively new agency. GL Stock Images pays 52%. 123RF pays 50% at the moment.
2087
« on: February 16, 2012, 11:19 »
Buyers have probably realized that Istock is very overpriced.
It's not overpriced, the others are underpriced. $18 for a quality vector image is not a whole lot of money, especially compared to a custom vector design.
2088
« on: February 16, 2012, 10:48 »
- Weird site dimensions. On my 1920x1200 resolution it takes up the upper 2/3 of my screen.
- Lots of spelling and grammatical errors.
- The prices are too low. $0,75 (25% of $3) for an elaborate vector, standard license and $7,50 (50% of $15) for an extended license.
2089
« on: February 15, 2012, 08:15 »
Seriously though I am a total news junkie but had never heard of ACTA until your post.
Contradictio in terminis
2090
« on: February 09, 2012, 20:13 »
I got my first XS JPEG sale. So they're TAKING OFF LIKE CRAZY. Nah, but at least they're alive. As I said before, I'd rather have 4 JPEG sales than 1 vector, so hopefully, it's gonna live up there.
2091
« on: February 01, 2012, 11:53 »
Prices are indeed too low, but so is Shutterstock. I had my first $100 payout last month. Took me about a year and a half. But due to more regular sales lately, I haven't given up on them yet. I have seen no effect of diluting sales on other sites. They really should up their prices to become a decent site, but they're very hesitant. 
2092
« on: January 28, 2012, 21:20 »
43% OD/EL and 57% subs
2093
« on: January 28, 2012, 16:42 »
Checking sales daily is really bad time management, time that could be spent creating new images.
I don't agree at all, that. That to me is like saying time spent chatting to friends or watching tv is bad time management as it could be spent creating new images.
I'm talking business, not what you do in your spare time. Yes, chatting with friends and watching TV during work hours would also be terrible time-management.
So is posting on a forum, discussing irrelevant things.
2094
« on: January 27, 2012, 00:13 »
Downright SAD.
2095
« on: January 25, 2012, 16:31 »
Shouldn't GL Stock Images get its own subforum?
2096
« on: January 25, 2012, 13:02 »
Looking good.
Only things that bugs me a little is that the $20 price is no longer available, meaning my biggest vectors are now 'downgraded' to $15. But with these 52%(?) commissions, I can live with that. I hope the image sales will spark some more life in GL; after all, I rather have 4 medium jpg sales than 1 vector sale.
And I'm missing search filters! Customers should be able to sort by Number of downloads, File Age or Price.
2097
« on: January 22, 2012, 11:18 »
Does anyone else see that we as contributors are at least partly to blame for this?
123RF gives us a very fair commission of 50%, they perform pretty well for us, and in the meantime new agencies pop up offering lower commissions and prices and we stand in line to join.
It's the Fotolia story all over again. How can we expect the larger players that sell at higher prices and offer decent commissions to maintain those prices and commissions if we keep adding to the "race to the bottom" pressure? It's simple economics, and we're a big part of the equation.
Prices are not the only thing that drives customers to your site. You need a good reputation, a good company image, something unique to sell and please your customers. That is difficult, but not impossible. If you can't do that, despite good prices, customers will leave. If you can't compete in the world of microstock (as an agency), then you're doing something wrong, and it's not the contributors who are to blame. Lowering commissions is simply a move of desperation. That being said, it would be good for us contributors to not join the cheapest agencies, or sell yourself cheap, but there are so many individual contributors that it's impossible to direct them. It's the way the market works, and to maximize your profit, it's best to play along.
2098
« on: January 20, 2012, 19:35 »
So, what's the cut exactly? From 50% to....?
2099
« on: January 19, 2012, 20:24 »
I haven't been following the updates and problems threads on iStock, but is there a new fix coming up or something? Or is everything bugged beyond recognition again? Sales for january were going okay-ish, I must say.
2100
« on: January 19, 2012, 20:01 »
Istock is down again. And ofcourse, the dreaded webpage has returned...
English Franais Deutsch Espaol 日本語
Thanks for visiting the 1979 version iStockphoto. Were working to get the site back to the future as quickly as we can. In the meantime, check out the coupon code below and be sure to come back soon.
Pages: 1 ... 79 80 81 82 83 [84] 85 86 87 88 89
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
