|
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 - PigsInSpace
151
« on: September 08, 2016, 10:53 »
I've got three clips waiting that will be seven days later today.
152
« on: September 07, 2016, 11:58 »
I know this is an SS thread, but I actually recently had an editorial iStock photo rejected because they said I should submit it as full commercial instead.
153
« on: August 20, 2016, 10:02 »
Hmmm. I had more than three times as many sales as usual today on Fotolia, and 2/3 were sub sales all made at exactly the same time for two keywords. Someone's stocking up.
Wait, you can find out the keywords people search for on Fotolia? Where is that?
154
« on: August 12, 2016, 11:19 »
I'm amazed at the idea that you have successfully met someone on the street and convinced them you were a photographer and not an axe murderer.
155
« on: July 05, 2016, 21:22 »
This is why I assume they've left it as a beta, the bugs in the image count. I have two images that appear out of order. It's weird, but the page is still pretty well setup and easier to use than iStock.
156
« on: July 05, 2016, 21:10 »
I've always suspected resubmit buttons end up back before the same reviewer. It's too late now on this one, because you clearly found the one zealous reviewer in all of micro stock, but in rejections of future images, I'd submit any changes as a brand new image, not linked to the old one.
157
« on: July 04, 2016, 00:45 »
if it were not for this latest incident, a worse tragedy could have happened
ie. the king bot would be taken over the whole company
and bought over all the shares of ss,
and we would have a new AI takeover movie in real life.
and we would all be extras in the movie, without being paid 
Terminator 6: Rise of the Automated Stock Footage Reviewers, Okay, We're Kindof Running Out of Ideas.
158
« on: July 03, 2016, 18:24 »
I've always assumed it's a case of someone needing more uses than a single purchase allows, but they don't want to purchase an extended license.
159
« on: June 14, 2016, 14:15 »
I feel ya. I've also got a couple pictures pending for over two weeks that are time sensitive. IStock moves slowly.
160
« on: June 09, 2016, 23:50 »
. How many video editors sit on an ISDN line with 5GB limited downloads per month?
I have not thought about ISDN lines in years. Thank you for the trip down memory lane. 
161
« on: June 09, 2016, 13:38 »
Ah ha. I thought it was totally based on sales. In this case, the lower sales photo is actually a week older than the other, although it has sold a little bit more recently, but it's helpful just to know more goes into it than sales
162
« on: June 08, 2016, 22:48 »
I have photos that show up out of order in the Popularity ranking for particular search phrase. The photo that has sold more times is further down in the rankings than the photo that's sold less. Thoughts?
163
« on: June 06, 2016, 21:30 »
It's the way Fotolia does rejections. They don't really tell you.
164
« on: May 28, 2016, 12:49 »
Only SS will have the answer their site their rules. I think the whole issue of property and even model releases is a legal minefield but agencies tend to be very cautious
I did reach out to Shutterstock, but have not heard back. I've seen past posts here where a responder had the flash of insight that I'm looking for. However, I'm thinking it's most likely that the reviewer saw the image, noticed there was no property release, and didn't even read the caption pointing out that it was a government building. Unfortunately since the building was built in the 1970s, it's modern looking, and doesn't have marble columns or features that obviously make it look like it's something from the government. Normally in these circumstances I just resubmit, but the photo has been rejected three times in a row for the same reason.
165
« on: May 27, 2016, 20:21 »
I've had a photo of a State Supreme Court building rejected by Shutterstock three times for needing a Property Release. The building isn't a private office building, it's owned by the state.
They've accepted my photos of the building across the street... the Capitol.
Could the fact that the building was built in the 1970's be the issue? That the architecture is copyrighted? They didn't reject it for copyright reasons.
Thoughts?
166
« on: May 22, 2016, 02:05 »
Congratulations Thomas! Whether they came all at once or Fotolia's server just ran them that way, good for you. It's more sales in one day than I've had!
167
« on: May 14, 2016, 18:20 »
Meanwhile, here in my bizarre world, a reviewer just approved one of my photos and increased the price from $5 to $10 dollars and said they thought I'd make more take home pay that way.
Don't get me wrong, I know photos don't sell much on P5, but I'm still tickled that the reviewer took the time to do it.
169
« on: May 03, 2016, 11:25 »
Don't believe the Dreamstime review countdown. The number is based on something, but I've had images go UP in review time before.
170
« on: May 03, 2016, 11:16 »
It used to be that when someone said 30 frames per second, they meant 29.97. The fractional frame has to do with limitations on bandwidth and the speed of light in analog broadcast television.
171
« on: May 02, 2016, 22:26 »
I agree that operationally it's not that big a deal, but they are running programs on a computer. Not knowing what day it is when the code is a simple true/false statement like:
return dateToday.getDayOfMonth() == 1;
is odd to me.
The fact that it happens at random times is completely mind boggling. If something that simple isn't running correctly and hasn't for many months, then missing sales is not surprising.
Running buggy software with no apparent expertise in house to fix it is troubling.
What you don't know is Shutterstock is written in COBOL. They're still busy trying to patch for Y2K. But I kid.
172
« on: May 02, 2016, 22:14 »
I'm baffled by microstockcredit card fraud. I completely believe that it's happening, but what the heck kind of thief steals a credit card number and uses it to buy a digital photo? Where is their ambition!? What happened to brazenly walking into Target and walking out with a flat screen tv?
173
« on: April 30, 2016, 14:47 »
Is theregister.co.uk a better site than it used to be? Some years ago it was the supermarket tabloid equivalent of technology news; a kernel of truth around an acre of silliness.
174
« on: April 29, 2016, 19:18 »
10-15 years ago, PayPal developed a bad reputation for freezing accounts and claiming that the earnings were due to fraud. However, they're reputable these days and I don't have most of the concerns I used to have with them. Being owned by eBay helps. However, I'm still loathe to directly connect my bank account to my PayPal account. It's probably paranoia, but I was able to work around it. After hunting around, I discovered that I could still access my funds directly if I converted my account to a Business Account. Business Accounts receive a PayPal Visa debit card. You might try doing that. https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/personal_vs_business-outside
175
« on: April 27, 2016, 20:35 »
Very sad. At least my photos get viewed there. The same photos on Fotolia have no views but i do have less on Fotolia.
I wouldn't worry too much about view count. I have photos on Fotolia that sold without having any views! I'm not sure their view-ometer works very well.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
