|
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 - wysiwyg_foto
1
« on: February 15, 2008, 16:13 »
I think - again I will be doing my taxes shortly - if you do not generate a profit a minimum number of years than you will have to depreciate over the 7 years. If you are profitable than you can either choose the 100% first year or 7 year time period. If you do not opperate profitable sufficiently and you did claim the 100% depreciation you might be in for a pay back to the Government.
Again not a tax professional but I choose the 7 year route just in case I can not generate enough profits.
Take home message:
Hobby with income - maybe profit - maybe not -- 7 year depreciation
Business income - your choice 1 or 7 years.
BTW. I use TaxAct.
You don't have to show a profit - you have to prove certain conditions...there is a test and this relates to the active/passive activity rules in the pamphlet I linked to above. Guys - I work in the tax profession - been doing it for the past 15 years - I don't specialize in income tax anymore and I'm not going to give advice (that's what a hired professional is for) but if you don't want to hire someone, then at least read the regulations I linked to above.
2
« on: February 15, 2008, 16:11 »
Here's where it gets tricky. You might think, I bought $2100 lens this year, while I made $2100, so you expect that you netted $0. No you didn't. You need to depreciate your equipment. Photography equipment depreciates over 7 years, so that's a $2100/7 or $300 a year you can deduct as a loss. So you really made $2100 - $300 or $1800 a year.
There are also options to depreciate all in one year, but I'm not sure how that goes. It's a bad idea if you're making a profit every year, so I don't generally do that.
I write off all my purchases each year under that part of the code. I don't know why you'd want to worry about tracking those things over time.
Take a look at the depreciation link I attached above. 179 Deductions (what you describe) are limited based on income. Also, depreciation is usually done on a MACRS basis - not straight line as is calculated.
3
« on: February 15, 2008, 14:13 »
Maybe I'm off in thinking, but it is my understanding that once a certain threshold in earnings is passed ($400?) by law they are required to provide a 1099 as technically they are employing you, though you are a freelance employee.
I have another question about taxes. It should be possible to write off all of your equipment expenses on your taxes. What needs to be done to do this? Obviously save all receipts, but does one need to make themselves a buisiness to write it off as a buisiness expense, or is it possible to prove income via photography with a 1099 form, and that be all that is needed for an allowable write off? As this year at least I plan on putting 100% of my earnings back into equipment, I want to be sure that my earnings are completely non-taxed and that I take the steps now to ensure that is the case. If you have to itemize all deductions to do so, that is not an issue, I do it already.
first piece of advice is hire a CPA that knows what they are doing (don't trust H & R Block). With relation to deducting income - it all depends on whether your income is classified (or could be classified) as "passive" or "active" and whether or not you "materially participate". Here's links to IRS publications covering the topic.... http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p925.pdfYou also need to read up on rules relating to depreciation 179 deductions, etc. with relation to learning how much equipment you can deduct and what you need to depreciate, and what length of time.... http://www.irs.gov/publications/p946/index.htmlIf you don't work under a registered company, you can report your income and deductions on Schedule C of the 1040. iStock may or may not be required to issue you a W-9 depending on whether they have sufficient nexus in the United States - it doesn't matter where the company is based. Good luck!
4
« on: February 12, 2008, 09:22 »
Thanks Ron for helping all of us out!
5
« on: February 06, 2008, 10:58 »
...and it's only $99,000USD (used). I paid $73,900 for my house!
6
« on: February 03, 2008, 13:51 »
Anyone that invests in Getty should do some research with relation to the SEC charges against them relating to poor accounting practices over the past few years. Financials will be re-stated in the future and it's going to be a while before the price stabilizes and the company gains confidence from the rest of the market.
7
« on: January 31, 2008, 14:31 »
at almost 35lbs, certainly not your everyday walk-a-round lens (at least it has a handle) 
Yeah, but it's image stabilized! 
8
« on: January 31, 2008, 11:56 »
I want one.
I could sell the 24 - 105 and the 100 - 400 and stick with my 24-70, 70-200, and now 200 - 500. Nothing like faster glass!
9
« on: January 29, 2008, 23:13 »
You obviously haven't been a contributor, or a viewer of that forum for a long time. You need to consider the source. For what it's worth, this was my response....
The 6 month rule with relation to DT relates to the last date you uploaded the image. This was a compromise that they came up with in case someone decided to buy the rights to an image at a different agency - they made it convenient for the contributer (which is something other agencies have not done).
The reason for the 6 month rule (and this was posted in their forums) is because a buyer would find an image, put it in a lightbox, then when they would go to download it, it had been deleted by the contributer. Too many buyers were complaining to the agency that this was happening so they decided to provide some customer service (imagine that!).
Knowing Serban personally, and having worked with him, I will tell you straight out that he is extremely honest and genuine. If you have any questions about his integrity, or the integrity of the company, feel free to drop him an email or leave a message on one of his images.
10
« on: January 29, 2008, 16:48 »
Guys - do a Google search on his name - you'll see where else he contributes and you'll run across a couple of his own sites. Then do another internet search on his userid. The internet makes things relatively transparent - believe what you want but it does add up.
11
« on: January 29, 2008, 15:33 »
I believe him.
2 1/2 years ago when I started to get into this (summer of 2005), I ran across his work at various agencies - some where you have to pay to have your images listed. I've seen his work improve over time - and it has improved DRASTICALLY. He's been doing this a bit longer than 18 months.
Naturally, he isn't giving you all the details (and honestly, I don't think he should).
He works hard, and he's getting a good return. It's as simple as that.
13
« on: December 31, 2007, 21:06 »
Hate to say this but he's just at least doubled his processing time and increased his overhead. I have a 1Ds Mark II shooting at 16.7 mp. I have to downsize my images for certain agencies (like BigStock and Canstock) because the file size is too big sometimes (they only allow files of 10mb or less in any format). He will have to do the same.
Additionally, did you notice in his post on Shutterstock how his computer processing time has increased? Along with that camera, he's going to have to upgrade his computer's processing speeds - either new computers or more memory.
Upload time is another issue as upload time increases with file size.
I think his heart is in the right place, but I have to question the business decision if he continues to follow his practice of only submitting to micros. I upgraded in size to get to 48mb tiff files for macros in an easier way - not to satisfy the microstock agencies.
I hope, for his sake, that he starts contributing to traditional agencies in order to expand his business. The decision to upgrade to that level is a little premature IMO for microstock.
14
« on: December 31, 2007, 20:57 »
If you want the entire story, here is Chase speaking at a Town Hall meeting relating to Photoshelter earlier this year (it's still 2007 in Denver, Colorado). The entire video is worth the watch and he takes you through a couple of his shoots and gives you a better perspective on how he feels about the industry. http://blog.photoshelter.com/2007/09/chase_jarvis_turning_frowns_up.html
15
« on: December 11, 2007, 13:39 »
Had a sale last week with a $7 commission (my images are priced from $10 to $350).
Nothing constant like Shutterstock, but much better than the "low earning" sites.
16
« on: November 27, 2007, 14:03 »
I heard a rumor they delayed the release of the 1Ds Mark III because prototypes had the same issue. As with the 1D Mark III, I'll wait until the kinks are worked out.
17
« on: November 16, 2007, 11:14 »
Leaf - are these loans interest free? I couldn't see anything on the site that talks about interest rates paid to contributors or terms relating to the loans.
Thanks.
18
« on: November 12, 2007, 13:23 »
Moodboard only accepts images exclusive to that agency...I would be interested in a year or five to hear how many more times that image is licensed for or if in fact, it ends up being "exclusive" to that one buyer.
19
« on: November 12, 2007, 12:37 »
moodboard announces today that they have sold their most expensive RF image to-date. The image sold for over $1000.00 and they believe it is the most expensive single image sale in the royalty free industry. Sorry guys....a microstock (Dreamstime) beat you to it. http://tinyurl.com/3yxapz
20
« on: November 09, 2007, 00:26 »
Oh well, every 2-3 months or so, I have my period  and get quite depressive about stock. Then I swear I only do editorial, snapshots, artsy things for Flickr and Deviantart, and never again worry about distorted pixels, noise, tags and stop beging a Photoshop slave.
And then, when crying like Job on his heap, there is a sudden EL sale somewhere, and I guess I wait a bit longer to stock-kill myself
You aren't alone - and it has nothing to do with DT. There's a reason my macro portfolio is much bigger than my micro portfolio. It does get frustrating after a few months - but the income on the micros is still more regular (albeit smaller) with a smaller portfolio...why the macro portfolio keeps growing 
21
« on: November 05, 2007, 23:57 »
You could always use the rule of "sunny 16" http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=30235...or the rule of "f/8 and be there" (f/8 and a shutter speed faster than 1/500 for hand held shots). In the end though, the best f-stop is the right f-stop for the situation.
22
« on: October 27, 2007, 18:45 »
I agree with Leaf - I think it has to do with how many are in the database as opposed to your own portfolio. On multiple occasions I've had a buyer download similars from my portfolio at once - with a subscription based model, it makes it easier for the buyer to just get the download over with, then decide which image to use.
23
« on: October 27, 2007, 15:02 »
I'll give it a try. Thanks.
24
« on: October 27, 2007, 13:06 »
Well, it's been almost two weeks. Dreamstime got back to me and took care of the problem....Alex at 123RF got back to me and took care of the problem...and my inquiry at iStock has gone ignored. The images are still there - here's couple with pirated vector illustrations http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/set?id=302190http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/set?id=298854So I'm at a loss - how do you convince your agent to protect it's digital assets and it's contributers?
25
« on: October 18, 2007, 18:36 »
I hope we can opt out. Every company that I've worked with that does something like this ends up eating up my money - from an annual fee on the card, to the fact that I can't withdraw any of it in less than $20 intervals from a cash machine. If my payout is $103.42 then I want it all, not just the round $100 that you withdraw from a cash machine.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
