|
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 - Brasilnut
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 61
51
« on: July 18, 2023, 05:26 »
There is an (big) error in your logic. Plus, the headline is EXTREMELY click-baity in this case.
The BIG answer is NO.
a) Wirestock/pic fair are not "agencies", nor does TWO website constitute a "trend".
b) For ACTUAL agencies, you "pay" for the hosting via the commission the agencies take. In some cases extreme (i.e., shitterstock 0.25 cent downloads for videos).
c) Cost of storage/download/etc is VERY small. ESPECIALLY for images. Videos, also extremely low.
d) Using the royal "we" in the article is very misleading. Not everyone is experiencing "diminishing returns". "Inflation" is manufactured by the govts through MASSIVE money printing, and totally unrelated to "microstock".
So, no. It's not a "trend".
Usually your articles are interesting - this one - didn't like the clickbait article.
Did read it anyways, a couple key things you are missing:
a) SUPER easy to get rid of "thieving" accounts. Some agencies (i.e., shitterstock) just choose not do, or pretend they are dumb. While there actually is a different agenda with the "upload your id" (massive push for digital id/survellience state, NOT for your "protection" nor your "safety") - you don't actually even need 'ids' to 'verify' accounts (its just lazy companies choosing not to do some simple code checks for duplicate content - literally in some cases 5 lines of code). So no - the "agencies" that allow that are just lazy/pushing a certain agenda. It's easy to prevent.
b) If there is (perceived) "easy" money to be made - no - won't get rid of "amateurish" accounts. After all - you even published an article where you gave some of your stuff to a free site (forget which one) - just to see if you could make 'easy' money. Some of your stuff is good - but - you did want to go the 'easy' way there, and many are like that.
c) The "algorithms" already push "high selling" content, and "discard" junk.
d) "AI" is what the media has been pushing the for 2023 to "scare" people. It has already been possible to do a lot of what "AI" tools are doing now for the last 30 years, it is just a lot faster. You've ALWAYS had to deal with that kind of thing.
e) I suppose if you did do they $10/month thing - would get rid of the massive # of eastindian swipe & upload accounts. But unlikely shitterstock would do that.
EXTREMELY clickbaity article.
Most of your articles have been interesting, please continue to write interesting ones in the future. Thanks.
Hi SuperPhoto, I give brutally honest so it's only normal that I should take some  I'll reply with each of the points with my thoughts: A) Clients can purchase licenses directly from both WS and PF, although sure they make more money from distributing. Anyway, most agencies distribute as it reaches more potential buyers. B) Agreed C) Agreed, but it doesn't stop companies from charging, for instance Outlook and Gmail now charge for "premium" storage even if they're still earning from the free account by other means. The basic package is quite basic and an average user should quickly find their storage capacity limited. D) True, not everybody is experiencing diminishing returns, although I'd say that on average it's the case. You're right that I shouldn't generalise. As for inflation, I would say that it's directly related to microstock since our earnings have less spending power once it reaches into our bank account/paypal. In other words, our microstock earnings have not been corrected for inflation (it's actually dropped, on average). This is a global business so inflation vastly depends on where you live, but the latest data is easy to find on any legitimate source. From the second part: A) Agreed. Much more can and should be done. They're professionally negligent imo. B) My argument and I think it's a sound one, is that if an agency "forced" contributors to pay a $10 fee (I thought the logical use of words would be for storage but can be framed as any sort of administration fee), most amateur accounts wouldn't bother...plus most don't even earn $10 a month anyway so in theory they would be working for free. The free-give away experiment is unrelated imo...small update: so far 78,000 downloads and $0 earned from a combined 182 images and 4 videos on Pixabay and Pexels. The experiment is set to expire in January and I'm looking forward to deleting my accounts on there unless something magical happens. C) Agreed. Don't know for sure whether the junk makes it more difficult for buyers to find what they want. It certainly diminishes the overall quality of a collection. D) I'm by no means an Ai expert on the matter. Some of the tools available now seem like real game-changers. Not just the text-prompt from Dalle2 and Midjourney but the the generative fill in Adobe Firefly...and we're still in the early days. E) That would be great to eliminate those thieving accounts or at least make them pay. As for it being a click-baity article, fair enough it's your opinion. It's a question that is posed instead of a statement enticing readers to find out more...and the fact that you clicked on it and read it thoroughly means it achieved its aims, even if you don't agree with most of what was written I don't have ads up on the blog so I don't earn for more views...sure, I promote some courses and products but that's normal in return for the content. I'll keep writing interesting ones, no doubt! This industry fascinates/frustrates me more and more each day! All the best - Alex
52
« on: July 17, 2023, 11:21 »
All the reasons you wrote seem to benefit serious contributors: less competition, discouraging theft, etc.
But what advantages over other agencies will an agency get from doing that? I think having less images is not it unless it is an exclusive agency. But even then, what advantages over other exclusive agencies will it get?
One advantage would be to immediately improve their cash-flow. Even a modest sum of $10/month times let's say 200,000 opted-in contributors (is that how many SS have, I'm estimating now) is $2million per month. They would be wise to remove this fee from the earnings every month so it hurts less. Perhaps those earning less than $10/month can be excluded until they do earn enough. So many ways to spin this.
Do you really think 200,000 contributors would opt in? I mean, let's take a poll on how many people pay wirestock for their premium service here. I think you might get the answer. Not many.
The agencies know this and so would never do something like this. Anyway, the game has moved on to getting as many images as possible in the database for the AI to learn and getting that many images for data use would be impossible if they begin charging contributors for uploading.
Most of the 200,000 (?) would not opt-in, but what choice would they have if the agency in an "Exciting News" kind of way gives notice that it's either pay up or deleted. I also think it's unlikely (although not impossible) that the major players (SS, AS, iStock and Alamy) would do this but I can see if happening with the smaller outfits. Yes, Ai is a game-changer and lots of data training going on behind the scenes, while the contributors get breadcrumbs.
53
« on: July 16, 2023, 07:56 »
All the reasons you wrote seem to benefit serious contributors: less competition, discouraging theft, etc.
But what advantages over other agencies will an agency get from doing that? I think having less images is not it unless it is an exclusive agency. But even then, what advantages over other exclusive agencies will it get?
One advantage would be to immediately improve their cash-flow. Even a modest sum of $10/month times let's say 200,000 opted-in contributors (is that how many SS have, I'm estimating now) is $2million per month. They would be wise to remove this fee from the earnings every month so it hurts less. Perhaps those earning less than $10/month can be excluded until they do earn enough. So many ways to spin this.
54
« on: July 14, 2023, 06:50 »
Interesting discussion.
Here are the results of the poll so far.
55
« on: July 13, 2023, 11:07 »
Dear colleagues, I've just published this blog post on a trend that I potentially see occurring soon (hope I'm not giving these agency decision-makers any ideas): During the past six months, most notably, Wirestock and Picfair have dropped their respective statuses as free to upload stock agencies in what is a potentially significant trend for contributors. In this blog post Ill discuss whether this business model will become more commonplace and if it may present itself as a threat to contributors income in a time when were already experiencing diminishing returns coupled with rising inflation. Or perhaps, this fee will be an opportunity! https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2023/07/13/will-contributors-soon-have-to-pay-microstock-agencies-to-host-their-content/Alex
56
« on: July 09, 2023, 04:59 »
There's nothing fair about PicFair, flushed those turds down the toilet long ago with no regrets.
They had a weird views counter that reached something like 200,000 views in my portfolio of 4,000 images even though sales were pitiful. Weird agency.
57
« on: July 05, 2023, 07:24 »
Anyway, happy to report that today I had my best-ever sale at micros which coincidentally was at SS and not Alamy or Robert Harding.
Probably just got lucky here but there appears to be some life left in this industry.
58
« on: July 02, 2023, 19:00 »
59
« on: June 29, 2023, 07:05 »
I interviewed Doug Jensen, veteran stock footage contributor, with a portfolio of 9,187. Question: In terms of sales volumes and revenue, have you experienced a decrease in the past two years since our last interview? Answer: "If you define sales volume as being the total number of clips that are sold, then that number has remained fairly consistent since we last spoke. Unfortunately, my revenue, which is ultimately the metric that matters most, has dropped by more than 50% during that same time period. I attribute this to two things: First, Shutterstock made a lot of changes to their commission structure that have hurt contributors. And second, Shutterstock is really pushing customers towards a subscription-based sales model which results in overall lower pricing per clip thus lower revenue for the contributors who created those clips. Heres how I see it: If a customer pays an agency $50, does it really matter to the agency whether that $50 covers a single download or a hundred downloads? $50 is $50 of income to the agency no matter how you slice it. But the agency didnt put any effort whatsoever into shooting, editing, uploading, or creating the metadata, so they dont really care whether that $50 covers one download or a hundred downloads. Its still $50 of income (minus the commission) to their bottom line. But to the average contributor, it is devastating because we only get a very small slice of that $50 if the customer is downloading multiple files. The way the subscription model works, the more clips a customer downloads, the less money any individual contributor will get for their slice of the pie. The bottom line is that when you have agencies that are offering customers unlimited 4K and HD downloads for as little as $50 per month, who do you think loses? The contributor." Link to full interview: https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2023/06/28/interview-with-doug-jensen-stock-footage-expert-fresh-insight-after-2-years/
60
« on: June 16, 2023, 07:11 »
The most frustrating part is that should you spot one of your images and send in a DCMA notice their legal team will remove those images and keep the remaining thieving port intact. Pointless.
Further to my depressing Pixabay / Pexels free-download experiment, I've spotted some of my pics pathetically trying to be licensed by thieves. Too bored to send in the notices for the reasons stated above.
It is indeed out of control.
61
« on: June 08, 2023, 10:23 »
I got 2 clips nominated for free earning me $16. Two clips that have barely sold I'm happy.
62
« on: June 04, 2023, 07:54 »
You said you like sharpening with Topaz AI.
I must say that I am also impressed with the SuperSharp AI "extra" from Luminar AI.
It is inventing blurry details with surprising precision, without destroying the image with those ugly contour artifacts specific to the old-school sharpening methods from LR or PS.
Topaz is amazing, should have invested on it long ago. Speaking of long ago, I've been looking at some of pics from 10 years ago that I can "fix" with Topaz to upload for book covers. It's like digging to find hidden treasure  Here's an example...
64
« on: May 16, 2023, 06:00 »
65
« on: May 01, 2023, 07:00 »
Oh I don't intend to hijack the thread with my book cover stuff @stroker I've been rejected twice at Trevillion and have never had an opportunity to ask an existing contributor there about their experience. So can't really compare. They are much much smaller than AC and seem to do more "finished product" type work, whereas AC works more with designers on a more generic book cover. Trevillion contributors also appear to work more with models. No idea about difference in license prices. @SuperPhoto I don't have a property release for the pool and house. The house is barely noticeable.
67
« on: April 27, 2023, 09:24 »
^^ I was accepted back in 2016 but didn't upload much until around 2021. Back then it was different (submitted a batch of 40 images, similar to Stocksy), nowadays need to include a link to a portfolio. I published an interview with Nash Mascaro, Sales Director for my blog and he gives a lot of tips on getting accepted -> sales. He insists that successful applicants possess already a style and upload images that include "quality, saleability, and relevance" https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2023/04/23/interview-with-ignacio-mascaro-sales-director-at-arcangel-images/
68
« on: April 27, 2023, 06:34 »
- Book cover: $1000
What is a book cover? How did you know it was a Book cover? This photo or video from a drone was bought from you, and where?
Was for this cover taken from my drone, licensed via Arcangel.
Do you only shoot photos with a drone? Are you filming a video?
This site is Arcangel, do you upload only exclusive photos?
I also shoot footage that goes everywhere. AC are Rights-Managed exclusive.
69
« on: April 27, 2023, 06:11 »
- Book cover: $1000
What is a book cover? How did you know it was a Book cover? This photo or video from a drone was bought from you, and where?
Was for this cover taken from my drone, licensed via Arcangel.
70
« on: April 26, 2023, 11:52 »
Invested in a drone. Letting the machine do the legwork for me!
What do you think your return on investiment on the drone is? $/ hour spent with it? (not so much the learning to fly, but actual set up, flight, processing time). You got some good stuff - but I don't know if the return is there anymore.
That's a good question and would make for a good blog post. Since I started I've had 65 hours of actual flight time. Then supposing that for every hour flying I have another 3 hours of post-processing, so that's around 200 hours. Then let's add the time of studying for the courses, which let's say was about 20 and another 15 watching videos/reading/research. Comes to around 300 hours. How much I've earned in the past year with only drone stuff (roughly)? - Commissioned jobs: $300 - Book cover: $1000 - Stock photos: $110 - Stock videos: $155 Total: $1,565 Divided by 300 hours = $5.21/hour. Is it worth it? I still think so.
71
« on: April 26, 2023, 06:48 »
Invested in a drone. Letting the machine do the legwork for me!
72
« on: April 25, 2023, 12:29 »
Locally, better agents and higher agencies will pay for photographers. The just starting and clueless (IMHO) take their own photos with cell phones. Somehow they want to sell a $500,000 house, which is a common value now, with a gloomy or poorly composed snapshot.
This is the standard penny wise, pound foolish approach as they are not marketing or promoting to their best ability.
One client that I did two jobs for after the last payment told me that their estate agency's policy is only to pay photographers on a contingency basis upon the sale of the property on subsequent jobs.
How does that work? Is that meaning, if they personally sell the house, but others are also selling the same property. You only get paid if they, their agency, makes the sale? Odd as someone with better pictures is more likely to attract a better buyer.
Or are they the listing agency, in which case, there should be sales eventually.
Not sure exactly. I suppose this agency had exclusivity with all buyers. It's another gimmick for them to try to save money. Even if the sale does eventually happen it can take months/years and the photographer will long be forgotten. Reminds me of that wedding client who asked the photographer for a refund after the couple divorced a few years later. https://petapixel.com/2023/04/12/divorced-woman-demands-refund-from-wedding-photographer-4-years-later/ps: I charged very little when I first started as I was still learning and that was a mistake. Clients will be equally demanding whether you charge very little or normal.
73
« on: April 25, 2023, 11:56 »
Hi RDU,
I can relate. I've been shooting real estate photography on and off in Portugal for about 3 years. By no means top of the game when it comes to real estate stuff but pretty OK and clients are happy.
It's more standard in the business to charge per square metre but not a big deal if you want to charge per room. My prices start at 60 euros (plus VAT) for under 50 square metres (studio) all the way up to 160 Euros (plus VAT) for anything above 200 square metres (villas). I also offer video walkthroughs and drone services as an extra. So my prices are lower but it's Portugal and has a weaker economy than the south of France. I think in fact you're undercharging for your region which indeed has a lot of expensive properties particularly in Cote d'Azur. Plus, taxes there are super high.
Lately I've been having the same issue. Clients contact me and ask for my portfolio and prices and don't contact again. They don't say I'm too expensive but I'm sure they found someone cheaper and that's fine! Real estate, when done properly, needs to be charged accordingly and good clients will appreciate good work.
One client that I did two jobs for after the last payment told me that their estate agency's policy is only to pay photographers on a contingency basis upon the sale of the property on subsequent jobs. I nearly told that client to fk off but politely replied that I don't work on this basis and if I did I would charge five times more to offset the risk. No surprise that I wasn't called back which is OK for me!
Lots of real estate agents are self-employed and the media cost come out of their pocket (even before a sale), so they really want to save on this cost. I've seen multi-million Euro homes being advertised with old smartphone pics...it's disappointing.
Anyway, if and when I do get back on this business I will contact super high-end businesses only to offer my services. The cheap ones just aren't worth the trouble.
74
« on: April 24, 2023, 06:26 »
Overall, super disappointing if they're not shutting down whole accounts. One theft/infringement should be enough to constitute a material breach of the contributor agreement. I'll try to reach out to AS on Twitter about this...can't on SS as they blocked me on there.
Yeah, probably all images are stolen. I was too lazy to search for all images, just found bicycle on Pixabay: https://pixabay.com/vectors/bike-bicycle-motorcycle-cycling-7342379/
and butterfly: https://pixabay.com/illustrations/moth-butterfly-insect-wings-7725211/
Indeed, all stolen. So, small update is that both AS and SS have removed the stolen images from four different accounts, but have unfortunately/frustratingly left the accounts intact with the remaining images (all stolen presumably). Some of these accounts have 200+ images. I've requested for the fraudulent accounts to be shut down on the DCMA email thread but have not received a reply. Also radio-silence on my tweet to AS. Dead end it seems and wasting my time. @Mat Hayward: If you're reading this, could you please clarify what is AS's official policy on finding an account with stolen images, in particular whether a full account can be closed upon discovery of at least one stolen image via a DCMA complaint of a copyright holder.
75
« on: April 21, 2023, 05:57 »
DCMA updates Adobe Stock: Spotted two thieves at AS who were trying to re-sell the red lighthouse. Their legal team acted quickly and took down the images but left their accounts intact. Here's one of them: https://stock.adobe.com/ca/contributor/211377677/abdul?load_type=author&prev_url=detailSS: No update. Very slow to act and they will also most likely just remove the lighthouse images and keep the thieving account active. ---- Overall, super disappointing if they're not shutting down whole accounts. One theft/infringement should be enough to constitute a material breach of the contributor agreement. I'll try to reach out to AS on Twitter about this...can't on SS as they blocked me on there.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 61
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
