|
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 - Not Today
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14
26
« on: November 14, 2019, 11:45 »
Why . would a buyer be remotely interested in me?
They might implement an online dating option, don't forget to upload your photo
27
« on: November 14, 2019, 08:06 »
It would be positive if they finally decide to make footage sets public.
28
« on: November 12, 2019, 07:18 »
Like it or not you earn more on BB through SS then you do on SS alone they are just not sharing that! Feel free to ask others as well.
+1. And it feels good to be part of a community that has something to say and some weight against agencies trying to shaft us. Agencies might be more open to listen to an account that has more than 1 million clips rather than listen to a few individuals with a couple thousands clips. I'm not saying that it will happen but if played carefully, this could help slow down the race to the bottom for videos. Also, many BB contributors are also buyers, and are encouraged to look for clips within the BB portfolio first in order to support the community... which technically leads to more sales  By far, they come in number 1 position when it comes to caring about contributors, even if they're not really an agency.
29
« on: November 11, 2019, 08:47 »
I like the revenue share (for co-productions) function. Is there a payout minimum?
The revenue sharing is the only reason I'd use BB. I wish agencies did this themselves.
And no, I got a $4.66 payout from them once.
+1 revenue sharing is great, I'm using BB when I film stuff with friends and colleagues to make it fair for everybody. I'm also using it to do metadata for others when I'm in between shoots. I definitely see BB as an additional agency with good returns, and I keep my own work on my personal portfolios.
30
« on: October 27, 2019, 15:06 »
delete all accounts on unlimited subscription sites or this will end badly
+1
31
« on: October 23, 2019, 12:32 »
When did they cut the commission 20% in the last few months. What did I miss?
I'm still getting 50% on exclusive and 40% on non-exclusive? I was getting 50% since about 2010 if I remember right? That's 10%
Personally I don't care about their charity or board, I'm only interested in what I make.
10 is 20% of 50.
So each indie file sold earns you 20% less that it would have had it been 50%
Oh that modern math again where a 10% cut is a 20% cut? The post should have said, 20% loss in potential earnings then, not 20% cut?
Changing commission from 50% to 40% is a 10% reduction in commission, no matter how anyone wants to slice it.
Blowing on about your charity generosity a few months after cutting commissions by 20% is not a good look.
Note, it uses the word commissions, not income or earnings?
And no I still don't care about their charity, I care about what they pay me! Selfish, aren't I?
Semantics aside*, you are still being paid 20% less on your non-exclusive files, and that's all you care about.
*and no matter how you look at it, it's still a 20% reduction in commission.
If they went from 100% to 90%, that would be a 10% cut.
50% > 40% is a 20% cut.
And what is it from 60% to 40%? I'm trying to grasp at a bold number like 20% but I suppose that's wrong.
From 60% to 40% that would be a reduction of 33.3333...% in potential earnings 
32
« on: October 23, 2019, 07:20 »
Are we still getting DACS payments in October or did these go to charity as well?
33
« on: October 20, 2019, 05:28 »
Sean I have been to all those places. Very high taxes, some have free health care but poor care. Many of those people with money come to America to get great heath care. Even Mic Jagger came to California to get his heart worked on. He is from the UK and they have really poor free health care. Not even sure if Mic would have been cover because of his old age in the UK. Sean it seems you clearly like Socialism in America. That is your right. For me Socialism is just a pre- word for communism. Sean is the world going to come to an end in twelve years for our abuse of the pollution in the world. You don't even need to answer that, AOC says it will come to an end.....We all know AOC is so smart...
Secede. Seriously. Get by on $1 back for $1 paid in tax. New York gets back only 80, yet THAT'S where MicK Jagger went for his heart operation. My mother lay in the hallway on a gurney for 24 hours when she went to the emergency room...in New Jersey. She was seriously injured by subpar medical care...right here in the USA. Right here in the USA, where getting subpar medical care not only injures you but also bankrupts you. These are the countries with the best medical care:
Canada
Qatar
France
Norway
New Zealand
Germany
Hong Kong
The Netherlands
Switzerland
Singapore
Luxembourg
Japan
Sweden
The U.S. ranks #37.
Coincidentally enough, Texas ranks #37 in health care in the U.S. Maybe that's why Jagger didn't go to Texas for his operation.
Why didn't he get his operation in the UK if the care is better there and free?
The care is terrible with long waiting times if you go for the 'free' option. Also, it isn't free for people who actually work as a contribution is deducted from income.
34
« on: August 13, 2019, 10:59 »
Would be fun to get Getty involved as theyre losing sales to shutterstock because of that. It might speed up the process if lawsuits are involved.
35
« on: August 08, 2019, 12:38 »
Do you have a link to your portfolio on another website so we can check if similar videos come up? Also, it's a bit strange that it was your first post here after 6 years of hard work.
36
« on: August 08, 2019, 08:13 »
Blackbox has a feature that allows contributors to split or assign royalty percentages among multiple parties on a per shot basis. An interesting concept for productions involving (short term) photo/film making teams. Will that be possible at Wirestock?
Also, the FAQ says Wirestock will add video.. (and become a competitor to Blackbox). Other than having photos, what will make Wirestock better than Blackbox for video contributors?
Possibly. We are considering adding revenue sharing options between models and photographers or video producers in the future. Do you think it will help in incentivizing models to take part in stock photo shoots?
That would definitely speed up my workflow to share revenue with a retoucher or someone doing metadata, or both. At the moment that would be my only reason to upload, unless you can negotiate better commissions from agencies and be transparent about it all. Any ETA on the sharing model? 
37
« on: August 06, 2019, 00:21 »
Shutterstock has discovered that you are submitting images that were previously submitted to Shutterstock.
That is crazy. I don't recall reading that rule when signing up initially. And maybe it is there but I had forgotten. Nevertheless, submitting content that has previously been submitted is common practise among contributors at SS. For example, if a particular image is submitted but rejected by a reviewer, many contributors will submit the same again a number of days later where often, it will be accepted the second time around. And with images that have been accepted into the collection, many contributors will delete the image from their port if they're not happy with the post processing and will reupload an improved version of the same image.
And yea I know that SS are not happy about contributors submitting content that is already in their port but this is the first time Ive heard of them disabling an account because of that (though I'm not saying that you did this, Op.) In the past, I have resubmitted images that I just recently disabled from my port and SS simply says that this photo is already in my port and doesn't accept it. No disabling of my account or anything like that.
There is an option to tick under 'more options> note to reviewer> previously submitted' before submitting so if people resubmit without using this option it might be considered duplicate, and SS can do what they want.
38
« on: August 05, 2019, 16:32 »
I think youll have to wait for a reply from infringement claims email address mentioned in the email.
Other than that, could it be that youve submitted the same content to blackbox, or youve submitted public domain content?
39
« on: August 02, 2019, 05:59 »
Sean it is obvious that the big customers will generally don't touch places like Unsplash but more and more smaller users and those take the risk and it is probably not worth suing if a model without release appears on a blog small magazine etc. And with studio shots or landscapes that problem disappears completely.
I doubt also that there are fake accounts uploading others content as in micro as there is no benefit for them. I don't say it is the end for micro but the dent to it is growing as their collection are maturing.......
Amazing stuff for free.
Not so free once you get sued.
*facepalm* https://unsplash.com/search/photos/walt-disney'License All photos published on Unsplash can be used for free. You can use them for commercial and noncommercial purposes. You do not need to ask permission from or provide credit to the photographer or Unsplash, although it is appreciated when possible. More precisely, Unsplash grants you an irrevocable, nonexclusive, worldwide copyright license to download, copy, modify, distribute, perform, and use photos from Unsplash for free, including for commercial purposes, without permission from or attributing the photographer or Unsplash. This license does not include the right to compile photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service.'
40
« on: August 02, 2019, 05:44 »
Didn't you get the memo? Soon, no-one will be using archaic traditional exposure. We have invested heavily in crypto-exposure to make sure you maximise the value of your work.
Yeah but let's give it a cool name so it's more appealing to new contributors. Introducing a new exciting feature... Cryptosure!
41
« on: July 06, 2019, 11:06 »
Its only helpful if you plan on selling them on canvas and products.
But yeah the average user will not buy digital stock photos. What would they do with it?
42
« on: July 06, 2019, 11:04 »
Be happy you got a search engine boost  So more people will be able to find this clip now and higher sales will follow.
43
« on: July 06, 2019, 10:57 »
Honestly the one from Dreamstime link looks a bit choppy as if there werent enough frames. Try using frame blending if you didnt.
44
« on: July 03, 2019, 08:08 »
I think lots of them have good potential.
However descriptions are terrible overall, and you're getting penalised in rankings because of non relevant words in both description and keywords...
45
« on: June 28, 2019, 15:03 »
True I also dont find it very sustainable for their business, theyll get really busy very fast unless they plan on using one of these automatic keywording tool which is terrible.
After looking at their website faq, it seems they dont do it for editorial, only for commercial photos. Contributors will have to do their own editorials.
46
« on: June 28, 2019, 10:08 »
They might have an agreement with them directly, it's basically the same concept as Blackbox.
How much does the lazy service of description, keywords, title, category cost? I'm interested 
is that to pay upfront or deducted from sales?
Yeah, I guess.
"In addition, for inexperienced contributors (or the lazy ones) we provide a free service"
whoops my bad. I've missed this word Thanks Not used to see anything free in this world
47
« on: June 28, 2019, 09:57 »
They might have an agreement with them directly, it's basically the same concept as Blackbox. How much does the lazy service of description, keywords, title, category cost? I'm interested is that to pay upfront or deducted from sales?
48
« on: June 21, 2019, 04:53 »
I do animated videos and vectors.
My earnings are roughly the same at Istock or more than at adobe/fotolia. (this month almost double)
But I have only 2 videos on Istock (got scared off from a ridiculously low sale) and I've got over 250 videos on adobe, and more vectors too than at istock. Shutterstock is my main earner by miles.
I am torn between my dignity and my bank balance on uploading videos to istock. Would a few low video sales include high ones or is it a slippery slope?
I know istock has a terrible reputation but then at the end of the day I need to pay bills and they earn me more.
I have to deal with clients that sometimes can be a real PITA in my day job and I rarely turn them away.
I'm still undecided!
Every little bit helps... but if buyers shop around and see your videos at a cheaper price on iStock (and for a lower commission), you might lose those sales on SS and AS... and end up with less money. That's a big 'If' and nobody will know for sure before they try and measure, but that's a risk to consider. If you're comfortable with iStock prices and commission, go for it, but if you're not then you should focus on other agencies like Pond5, VimeoStock, Storyblocks and Dissolve who have decent prices and commissions for videos. Or focus on SS and AS as you're doing now and spend your extra time on creating more content
49
« on: June 19, 2019, 06:41 »
Love their contributor sign up page.
" Friendly & Fair
Transparency and fairness are important Photocase values. Here you find a fair marketplace where you can put your works up for sale and get a fair share of 20-50 percent of the net sales price. This is the amount we receive after deducting discounts and taxes on image sales."
Don't forget that you also still need to pay [your country] income tax, although they have already deducted all of it for themselves by paying you a share of the net price. Feels like double taxation.
50
« on: June 14, 2019, 13:50 »
Have you used a different person as witness or yourself? Could be one of the reasons...
Yeah, because loads of people sue themselves for false signatures on releases of self-portraits.
It can happen with twins and triplets Anyway, just stating the rules, not saying they make sense.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
