|
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 - Uncle Pete
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 181
1
« on: May 05, 2024, 21:13 »
Just a quick and easy way to profit, from your backlog.
But I won't profit at all if the metadata is crap. 85% of nothing is the same as 100% of nothing. Beleive me, I could do some half-assed metadata myself and FTP the clips myself and not give up any percentage. But why waste my time?
If someone could demonstrate to me they could do excellent metadata I'd gladly give up 25%. But they can't. It takes effort to describe the content correctly and choose the right keywords and exclude unhelpful keywords -- but they won't make the investment in time and attention. Metadata is king!! Most people totally underestimate it's importance. 9 times out of 10 people have asked me to look at their portfolio because they aren't getting sales, it turns out their metadata is crap.
I would be very careful with Wirestock. You also will need to take a monthly subscription in order to get your content distributed to agencies. $14.99 for 200 submissions per month. On top of the 15% commission they take.
I tested them when it was still free, except for the 15% commission, and the keywording done by them was below par. That said, content uploaded through Wirestock gets sold on the agencies.
I got increasingly more dissatisfied with them, as they just do what they like with your content without giving much transparency or control over it. They onboard new agencies as they like, and some of them are agencies you might not want to be affiliated with (bottom of the barrel stuff). Back then, their site was also full of bugs which took forever to fix. In the end, the monthly subscription killed it for me, and now I just take the money from what I uploaded back then.
I would only use them for content you don't really care about, and never plan to upload. So if you have a few thousands of useful clips that are sitting there and you don't plan to upload it you might give it a try. In that case, I would contact them directly, and try to work out a deal. 200 assets/month upload limit is ridiculous and will take you forever.
I think you covered that quite well. I was only making a simple point, which has turned into many side discussions, variations, inspections, and contradictions. Here's what I was trying to point out. If someone has 5,000 videos and is too busy with better ways to make money and more profitable endeavors. They could dump them on a distribution platform, and continue doing the more profitable work.Yes, another negative is, paying for 200 files a month, which is also limiting. Or some annual plan. How long would it take to upload 5,000 files?  You also hit something in that WS makes deals. Someone with 5,000 video files, could probably say, here's what I have, and WS would jump at the volume and quality of someone established. But I can't speak for them or any promises of some hypothetical. I can say that, WS does make special deals, outside of the published. Let me reduce this to minimal math. If I have 500 files, making nothing and I upload them "somewhere" and I make $1. I have $1, and doing nothing, I have NOTHING. Which is more?  Yes I know, there's no incentive to make $1, but $1, $100 or $1,000 is always going to be more than nothing. The only sure thing in this is, if someone does nothing, uploads nothing, I can promise them a sure thing. They will earn nothing.
2
« on: May 02, 2024, 16:06 »
You quoted Marketplace which has nothing at all to do with the distribution. You took something irrelevant and out of context.
That's why I asked. They have a terrible website so, don't blame me for not understanding. Where do they talk about metadata?
As for giving up 15%. Nope. Not gonna do it unless they can show me how good they are at metadata. That is the key to success. Adobe offered to do metadate for me a few years ago and it was a joke. I'd have to see some examples before committing.
They (Wirestock) went from terrible to, allowing us to add our own, to not so really good, and I don't know if they read ours anymore? You can be the best judge by looking at some agencies and files that are submitted by WireStock, because there's another down side. The name on the agencies is theirs, if that matters. I wouldn't claim their metadata is above, basic, obvious, descriptions. I can give them a break, in some ways, because they don't know the details, but sometimes that's what sells a license. I was only half serious, in saying, if you have 5,000 files, and you're too busy, a place like Wirestock is the answer. It still comes down to, give them 15%, let them do the work and make something, vs make nothing. I don't shoot enough to make it worth my while, while you appear to have a backlog of good work. Some people like them, many more people, don't feel there's a value in a paid account, and giving WS 15%. They do their own. So the key to this is, nothing vs something, not about quality or best way to make money. Just a quick and easy way to profit, from your backlog.
3
« on: May 02, 2024, 15:55 »
...
in another attempt to call out these silly 'worst case' scenarios - i'll bet you $100 that DT is still here a year from now
Make it $10 maybe that's low enough that you can collect in a year? DT isn't going away for a long time.
i'm not so much interested in making a few bucks as in exposing how little confidence they has in their claim. made it $100 so they won't lose money when DT goes under!
Oh I see, you'll cover their loss if DT goes under, kind of like a one year insurance policy for the amount of the protection. I wouldn't pay $5,000 in insurance for a $5,000 car.
...
There's a simple confidence tester and it only costs him Ten Bucks.
(If there's any doubt, I'll back you, for half the $100 loss, no charge, that's my level of confidence) $10 vs $100.
but i'm not offering insurance - i'm calling his bluff about DT going under - if they're right they're protected but if DTs still here, maybe they'll forgo silly chicken-little predictions in the future -- and the bet is open for a few others who think DT will be gone
Just trying to help you make some "Free Money" when DT doesn't go out of business. 
4
« on: May 02, 2024, 15:50 »
Here you go, Wirestock, my link. Upload and let them do the work, the data and distribution to all the agencies. You just keep working on what keeps you busy and WS makes you more money. 5000 files should make you far more, on all the agencies, than it does sitting on your hard drive?
It looks like you are giving up 50% of your commissions. Is that correct? If so, what do you get for giving up half your income in perpetuity?
Fifty (50%) percent of the months total revenue generated and actually paid to Wirestock for subscriptions to the Wirestock Marketplace (Marketplace Subscription Revenue) will be paid to contributors of Marketplace Content (the Total Contributor Share). You agree and understand that Wirestock will keep the remaining fifty (50%) percent of each months Marketplace Subscription Revenue. You agree and understand that the monthly amount you earn and the method by which Wirestock determines your earnings each month from the months Total Contributor Share will be determined by Wirestock, in its sole discretion, and Wirestock may change how it calculates your compensation from month to month, without advance notice to you. You agree and understand that the specific method by which Wirestock determines, in its sole discretion, how to compensate you from the months Total Contributor Share will be published in Wirestocks FAQs, found here, and the FAQ related to Marketplace compensation is hereby incorporated by reference into these terms.
Who does the metadata, you or them?
15% they do the metadata they do the uploads, no minimum cash outs by agency, as soon as you reach $30 you get paid, every month. Yes, you are giving them 15% to do the metadata and upload, forever, for all future sales. But 85% of something, is far more than 100% of nothing?  You quoted Marketplace which has nothing at all to do with the distribution. You took something irrelevant and out of context.
5
« on: May 02, 2024, 15:46 »
I have a similar view. The size of a portfolio is of course an important factor from a purely mathematical point of view.
Nevertheless, there have been and still are indications that an extremely fast and extensively growing portfolio does not automatically guarantee that the download figures and revenues will grow in parallel.
Of course, I don't know how the algorithms work. So I can only make assumptions. But I am firmly convinced that an extreme expansion of the portfolio with the pure goal of mass can even be very harmful for the findability of the images. I believe that a small portfolio with well-ranked images can be damaged if countless poor-quality images are added to it. But once again: I can't prove that.
With a similar point, people who say images need to age, to make better sales, are neglecting the math and fact, that you only know what sells, after the fact. So of course, after years, you will see what has sold more, than in weeks or months. The time is the difference, not because images will sell better, but because they HAVE sold better. If we only know whether more images, made more sales, because there are more, or because the popularity of some images, which is hard to predict, is only because the cream rises to the top. I mean in this way. 100 great images and that's it, or 100 great images and 900 maybe, good enough images. If we know what a "great Image" is, then the only advantage would be, from the 900 others, we might have misjudged some, and they will make more total sales, than the just 100 images. Who here knows that this great image they just made is going to be a success, and has never been wrong? Or who here, has uploaded something, not so special, that probably wasn't going to work out, but it took off and unexpectedly sold. Raise Your Hand? Back to the great 100 theory. The other 900 may not be significant, but there could be a sleeper in there, and there could be a dud or two in the best 100. That's the only reason I'd say more is better. Pure math. Otherwise, "Nevertheless, there have been and still are indications that an extremely fast and extensively growing portfolio does not automatically guarantee that the download figures and revenues will grow in parallel."
6
« on: May 02, 2024, 15:34 »
I've got a backlog of about 5000 4K clips that are all edited and graded. Will I ever find time to do the metadata and get them earning some money for me? I don't know. Too busy with other work to even think about it right now. Metadata is the bane of my existence. It takes time to do it well, and if you don't take that time, then why upload at all? Without good metadata it is just a waste of time.
Here you go, Wirestock, my link. Upload and let them do the work, the data and distribution to all the agencies. You just keep working on what keeps you busy and WS makes you more money. 5000 files should make you far more, on all the agencies, than it does sitting on your hard drive? https://wirestock.io?ref=peter.klinger ut I have very small port of 800 clips. Obviously I wont compete with people that has 10k+, and being longer on the market.
The size of another contributor's account does not give them an advantage. Every clip has to stand on its own merits. In other words, if I have 10,000 clips and you have 800, but we both have two clips that are very similar, mine does not have an advantage just because my portfolio is bigger than yours. There is no reason not to submit good content that meets the needs of buyers.
Good Point!
7
« on: May 02, 2024, 15:25 »
...
in another attempt to call out these silly 'worst case' scenarios - i'll bet you $100 that DT is still here a year from now
Make it $10 maybe that's low enough that you can collect in a year? DT isn't going away for a long time.
i'm not so much interested in making a few bucks as in exposing how little confidence they has in their claim. made it $100 so they won't lose money when DT goes under!
Oh I see, you'll cover their loss if DT goes under, kind of like a one year insurance policy for the amount of the protection. I wouldn't pay $5,000 in insurance for a $5,000 car. Here's a plan? You bet blvdone $10 that DT will still be open in a year, and if they shut down, you pay him $100. If they are still open, he pays you $10 for the disaster coverage policy? Make it nice and inviting. $10 covers his loss until July 31st 2025. He gets a couple months free. There's a simple confidence tester and it only costs him Ten Bucks. (If there's any doubt, I'll back you, for half the $100 loss, no charge, that's my level of confidence) $10 vs $100.
8
« on: May 02, 2024, 15:09 »
Weekly and Lifetime positions are simply cached and are updated every hour
Fine theory, hourly updates on position. I'll have to watch some day and check hourly. I'll need to be terribly bored or doing some other tedious project. I thought it was only once a day. Hourly or more often, makes more sense. Problem is... what I quoted and wrote about. Exactly same trend for me I was around position 3000 and in a couple of week I'm down to 4690
About how position is calculated, my opinion is that it counts last seven days and is updated continuously day by day, so if you have a great day you go up even if the day after should be very poor. It's not calculated on fixed week monday/sunday (for example) but it's from today plus six days back downloads
Because on Sunday it resets to zero, so it's not a running 7 day total. Unless the Derby post was about lifetime, but then why mention weeks?
9
« on: May 02, 2024, 14:49 »
That's a surprise. I guess SS really wanted to get into that part of the business.
10
« on: April 30, 2024, 10:50 »
So I reached $100 payout and got paid recently. Now I want to delete my account, but only way to do is to delete all my photos one by one and then they'll allow you to delete account. Meanwhile, if you have sales, anything less than $100 will be donated to Dreamstime when you delete your account. This really sucks.
https://www.dreamstime.com/faq2030-how-can-i-delete-my-account
You only partially read the terms and conditions: Q: I am a contributor, how do I close my account? You can disable all files approved more than six months ago at any time. You are allowed to disable 30% of files uploaded in the recent six months however 70% must be kept online for six months from their approval date. You can disable the remaining 70% after six months pass. Once the files are disabled, nobody is able to view/access them, except for you. The files will remain in our offline database for 12 months until all liabilities (refunds, potential copyright infringements, etc) concerning them are cleared off, then they are automatically deleted. The account cannot be closed until the above requirements of the contract expire. Accounts with activity (license/download) cannot be deleted, as they can be referenced internally in regards to past licensing. However, they can be blocked from public access. More account closure details can be found in our Terms and Conditions. https://www.dreamstime.com/terms#contributorsBut still, if you are making so little, your donation to DT will also be little. Small price to pay, if your goal is to close the account. The alternative is, keep the account, ignore, don't upload and when you make $100, take the money and be happy that you did nothing to earn that?  in another attempt to call out these silly 'worst case' scenarios - i'll bet you $100 that DT is still here a year from now
Make it $10 maybe that's low enough that you can collect in a year? DT isn't going away for a long time.
11
« on: April 30, 2024, 10:30 »
Exactly same trend for me I was around position 3000 and in a couple of week I'm down to 4690
About how position is calculated, my opinion is that it counts last seven days and is updated continuously day by day, so if you have a great day you go up even if the day after should be very poor. It's not calculated on fixed week monday/sunday (for example) but it's from today plus six days back downloads
Odd, my weekly position, resets on Sunday every week.
12
« on: April 30, 2024, 10:26 »
Today I see custom licenses at $0.31 and $1.03 - versus Fridays $0.32 and $1.06
As there is no minimum royalty, the more images are used in these packages, the less we receive
True, and that varies. the unlimited subscriptions are calculated daily, based on total purchase volume The more we sell, the less we make, per image. Of course that's actually, the more someone uses, the lower the per image commission, but the same kind of relationship. Higher volume means lower commissions.
13
« on: April 27, 2024, 11:48 »
You can keep waiting or forget about it, because they will do it again if you open a new account.
Why do we need to go to Discord or use Mat help, i don't get it!
And who said Adobe is ridiculous here! they're thieves or stupid in solving issues, or both, why some keep defending them! i don't get that too, until they block them maybe.
When people keep criticizing, attacking and calling Adobe thieves, but no one has the details, or why the block occurred, not even the OP, how's that for fair and balanced? Are we allowed to defend reason and responsible comments? Yes, we'd all want a better communication and faster response, no argument with that. We're also trusting and assuming the block was unjust, because we trust the OP actually didn't do something wrong, by accident? ps You're not supposed to open a new account!
14
« on: April 27, 2024, 11:42 »
It keeps going down, $0.28 now...
That's not good; I am puzzled that I've seen lots more of the $0.32 custom royalties, but nothing lower. I did note that today's royalty rate on the higher end custom royalties was up to $1.06 (from $1.05 for the last few days). Not back to the $1.37 from January, but still nice to see something going up instead of down
Do you see any of the $1.06 custom royalties?
Mat Hayward had written that the royalty rates for the unlimited subscriptions were calculated daily based on total purchase volume - which I would have expected to be the same worldwide, but perhaps that's not the case. I'm in the US; are. you? (I know people had said this isn't a tax withholding issue).
Interesting, thank you. And no, I'm still seeing $1.05 for the last two weeks, which is nice because it's higher than the $1.03s Also why I don't get worried when I see a .32 or a .38 custom, the last two, because these numbers go up and down, not just down or the negative that some folks dwell on. Goes down 2 cents, everything is falling apart, but goes up 2 cents and there's no comment?
15
« on: April 27, 2024, 11:33 »
Is weekly rank only Downloads?
Does anyone know for sure, for a fact, what the truth is, and how Weekly Rank - which is actually Position, is calculated?
Was that a really tough question and no one really knows? I was working on, maybe it changes at Midnight, but the DLs number changes as they occur? So considering that and some from the past, maybe the variable is WHEN is it calculated as well?
16
« on: April 26, 2024, 11:25 »
Is weekly rank only Downloads?
That's what we've been told and what people have said, for many years.
Because of this thread a small group of people, outside of MSG have been comparing Weekly Rank. Good fun. I was trying to see what the limits are on how low, not just the good news side.
One person has a lower rank than I do, with same same number of downloads. Of course there could be lag in reporting, so I have more invisible DLs or something. But a day later, she has more downloads and he rank is still lower than mine, with the same # of downloads.
Does anyone know for sure, for a fact, what the truth is, and how Weekly Rank - which is actually Position, is calculated? I rely on what we've been told in the past and I trusted that. Now for some reason, the numbers and position, don't match. There could be some other explanation, and the number is intended to be Downloads Only. But I'm just asking, in case there has been a change or the well known fact, isn't a fact?
17
« on: April 26, 2024, 11:11 »
As for the art form dying, true, but the demand for oil paintings is hardly enough for anyone to want to go into that for a living. As a side interest of hobby, sure. Some demand for stock images, won't support anyone's life or equipment investment in the future. Also that won't keep the stock photo agencies in business as they would be selling an obsolete product.
Think of being a blacksmith as a trade? There's still a need, but hardly enough commercial demand. All that's left are specialists and the last trade artisans.
He-he, try to find a good blacksmith! Huge demand! Horses need shoes every 8 weeks. Best have 2 people working for them and do several horses at the same time. 200-250 horses per week in rain, freeze, or heat.
Friend of mine in her 50s decided to take art classes from Stanford, started to paint and now has several exhibitions and galleries rep her. She is an amazing salesman. My guess she makes $20k per year from oil paintings.
Sorry Pete to debunk your post, to each their own, Stock is fast, but painting is slow. I painted for many years, its the same principle as in Stock: only 20% of what you produce sells, where to store other 80% of large paintings? Not for me anymore, but it was fun and there are still droves of people who would love to make extra cash with art. Art will never die, its therapeutic and romantic. It weathered centuries 😉
Not debunked at all. We agree. My point was, if there were 20 blacksmiths or 100 people, locally, making oil paintings, none would be profitable. These are specialty trades. We have horses around here and a couple of Farriers. One is mobile and makes calls on a schedule, the other covers the SE part of the state. I can assume there are others, for different areas. Yes, they can make a living, but they need demand and they need to be good. Same for oils or any other custom art. BUT... I wouldn't say that there's a great potential for making a living at either, since the demand and market is limited. Simple example. I worked as a volunteer at the natural history museum. Archaeological Rescue. In fact, we paid to be volunteers to pay for some of the expenses. I had mentioned to the lead, who had created the group, how archaeology was interesting, I could have added that when I was in college. He's a department head at the local Univ. as well. "You could murder every employed archaeologist in the country, and this years graduation class would fill all the open positions."  Yeah, cool. What do you want to do when you grow up? "I want to be a marine biologist." Lets see, 4-5 years of college, there are 1,000 job openings in the US and they will make around $60,000 a year. There are maybe 700 blacksmiths, professionally, in the US and they make $35,000 a year. I don't know anything about people who paint, for a living. My Sister is retired, she makes and sells pottery. My Brother is retired, he works on pipe organs and building pipes, on contract. All that's left of many jobs, are specialists and the last of the trade artisans. Microstock is headed the same direction. Stock images are an over produced, over abundant commodity. AI will be making that even more common and easy for consumers to produce their own images.
18
« on: April 24, 2024, 12:41 »
In the case of the company my husband works for, the artificial intelligence has killed all the stock agencies, they have stopped paying the annual subscription with one of the biggest agencies and now pay $30 a month to mid journey where he has also discovered that he can download and use images created by others since none of the images created by mid journey are copyrighted.
This is something that would seem to make sense, and should worry us as Microstock artists, more than how much someone sees various formats on stock sites. When someone starts making their own, or has access along with their AI subscription, they don't need us as suppliers anymore. Glad to see a more balance discussion with some more people and broader opinions popping up.
I agree that the artform will never die at least, good analogy to traditional art and paintings. So some demand will always persist.
Yes, open minds and broader views, are more interesting than, just shouting from one extreme side of the issue. As for the art form dying, true, but the demand for oil paintings is hardly enough for anyone to want to go into that for a living. As a side interest of hobby, sure. Some demand for stock images, won't support anyone's life or equipment investment in the future. Also that won't keep the stock photo agencies in business as they would be selling an obsolete product. Think of being a blacksmith as a trade? There's still a need, but hardly enough commercial demand. All that's left are specialists and the last trade artisans.
19
« on: April 24, 2024, 12:27 »
right - "do everything possible." is why we use AI
what makes it real to use a highly automated machine that measures light and turns it into a series of pixels, themselves descrbed by 1 & 0's?
in ultimate terms NO art is 'real' but that's its beauty - an artist's interpretation of the physical world
Photography is different from ALL other arts because it requires a drawing from reality, an imprint of reality.
If it doesn't come from reality it's not photography, it's something else. Call it by another name.
Just a logical point, and I hope you can appreciate this? If photography is different, because "it requires drawing from reality" and the AI Labs used millions of photographs, doesn't AI machine leaning trace back to reality, because it was trained on real photographs?  AI is a direct descendant of real photos. I personally think, any agency, should clearly divide their collections into, photos, illustrations, AI and video. (as an over simple example) and never sell AI created images in the same place as human created art, illustrations, photos or anything else. This could work against us, if someone was looking for something, and only would see the AI collection, but it would surely work in our favor, when someone wanted human works, not machine creations. Instead of being mixed in and questionable, put AI in it's own place, not to be confused with peoples individual work. Where does image retouching fit into this? Should only completely unretouched images be allowed as "natural creations"?
Yes, and how much is too much retouching. Dodging and burning, multiple exposures, of the same scene, composites, to get the highlights and shadows right? Spotting for flaws or taking out the unwanted. Oh wait that's real photos on film negatives, ala the masters of the early 20th Century. We just have better tools and easier ways of doing the same thing. How could we draw a line on art and alterations to say what is a Natural Creation and what's not.
20
« on: April 22, 2024, 11:08 »
In 2009 I use to check my sales every 30 min--- like being addicted to a drug. Than as the years went on I would check hourly. Than only after the day was over. Now I check on the last day of the month and really don't care anymore. My addiction is over sadly....
Good One! I check in the morning when I boot the computer. At this point, right after I check how I did on Draft Kings. But yes, once a day is enough for me now and I should know better than to waste time looking on weekends.
21
« on: April 21, 2024, 13:45 »
Does pushing a "generate" button makes you copyright owner?
Yes US Copyright Office: "Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." Can you register a copyright for protection of an AI image? No. It must be created by a human.
22
« on: April 20, 2024, 12:57 »
There were a couple years when I paid more than $100k in income taxes
You were one of the big guns back than! King of iStock to us mortals --- You and LisaFX even helped me to pass the iStock test.
Oh Yeah, there's something else that changed. Yes, there used to be a test on some sites, reading and understand was part, but then passing the photo standards or illustration standards test. Now you give a fake name, from some third world country and a fake email address, and upload thousands of stolen images, and you're a contributor.  They even required IDs, which is funny for the people that squawked, why do they need my ID and information. Ha, now we see why? But that doesn't matter anymore. No test, sketchy IDs, just upload the files and the agency is happy. Oh wait, I remember the good old days, when the reviewers were humans, not AI. And the bad old days when you could get some reviewer who based on their opinion, our images had no commercial value, so they just rejected everything.
23
« on: April 20, 2024, 12:47 »
as I said,I find it extremely difficult to think that an AI can be trained on the already generated renderings of other AIs,but ok,if Mat said it I can believe it!
Training AI with AI is a slippery slope kind of thing. Adobe has said they used up to 5% AI images, which were individual reviewed and vetted, to train the Firefly lab. There's still debate on this, which I'd agree, that using AI to train AI is wrong. Not ethically wrong, but scientifically and system integrity kind of wrong.
I(we) would NEVER have sold rights to use my(our) photograhies to feed machine learning. Adobe forced me(us) by giving money, to infringe my(our) copyrights on MY(our) own images. It seems to me that no choice was offered to refuse this money. In this way, they can suggest a mutual understanding, in possible legal procedures, and claim to act ethically.
I'm not going to say I support how the agencies did this, but I have to answer, that you signed the contract, that allowed this use and you could have refused the money, but they still had the right to use your images. You made that choice when you agreed to the contract. "I(we) would NEVER have sold rights to use my(our) photograhies to feed machine learning." You Did. If you think that's wrong and disagree, you and all those silent people, who aren't here according to you, should get together and file a claim against Adobe. Class action suit if there is any attorney who will see your side of the arguments, after reading the contract that you signed, when you offered to be a contributor to Adobe or Fotolia. There you are. You signed a contract, now you disagree. Take it up with the courts.
24
« on: April 20, 2024, 12:32 »
Worrying update here from Alamy.
I asked Alamy whether my token damages over some $25 would bring the matter to a close and their reply:
"This matter remains ongoing with the case currently in front of the German courts. As mentioned, legal costs are being incurred by Alamy in defending the claims which as a contributor to you provide Alamy with indemnification against such claims under the terms of our contract. In the event of any further developments in relation to your cost liability under this matter we would provide you with an update to advise of any changes."
To be continued...
It's in the courts. Still seems odd that Alamy would use this clause, and as Sue has pointed out, they all have the same way, to get US to pay for their legal defense.
That is indeed worrying.
As a contributor, you are forced to pay for a court case without having a say in it, where you don't know what it's about, how long it will take and how much it will cost in the end.
Above all, you don't know whether it would have been cheaper to settle the initial claim.
True, but who would settle, when they aren't wrong? How much was the initial claim? If they settled, who would pay? The contributors? Then would people here be saying, they should have fought the case and not settled. I'm repeating... Bild brought a suit against Alamy. Seems this is more difficult to find details than the US cases. For what? How much? What are the specifics. It's a claim, not a conviction. Anyone can claim, but willing and collecting are another issue. And personally, unless the German courts are crazy, Alamy will win the defense and Bild will have to pay for that defense. I'm not so sure, and I'm not part of this, but wouldn't that mean, that everyone who paid for the defense would get their money back? Someone who knows German law will have to tell us, how an incidental photo of a news stand, is infringing. If that's true, you can't take a photo of anything! Not a car, an airplane, a crowd on the street, a store front, nothing, because it would be showing trademarks and logos and service marks or copyrighted materials. The cover of a magazine, is not the subject and isn't protected. Now... if Alamy had accepted something like a cropped, magazine cover, isolated, that kind of thing, yes, they could lose. But then why would everyone else be paying for that error?
25
« on: April 20, 2024, 12:16 »
The unwritten rule --- 1,000 images equaled $200 a month per site. That person said you should get $.20 per image per month.
Cannot remember who said but they were a microstock author (wrote a few books) as well. Their rule was pretty good at the time in the hey day of microstock.
The unwritten rules were for a select few, and most of them are BS. $2 RPI is one of them, that is quoted, but not for all. Yes, for some people, who had really good work and concepts and collections, maybe. But for everyone else, it was just, RPD and not big numbers. Mostly under $1 downloads. Yes, averages, distort that, because for example, I could get one EL a month which was $28. But the bulk of the downloads were more around 50 on average and that was at 33 cents on AS or 36 on SS, less DLs but 50 on IS. It's like saying, look at all the money Elvis, the Stones, or Taylor Swift make on streaming. (dead Elvis estate still make good money) I should become a musician and do streaming music. Not so fast. I have a friend who does that. Records session in Nashville or other major studios, posts to a number of his own sites and promotes and makes CDs and is streaming. His general earnings, he says, could fill the gas tank on his car, sometimes. Microstock is no different. You buy the equipment or in my case already have it. You shoot, edit, upload, and sit back and wait for that commission money to come rolling in. I have many, individual and good images. (the whole how many is also flawed, if I had 20 of every shoot, I'd have 20,000 images!) I usually upload one, maybe two. Number of images does not = # of dollars. 1,000 images, didn't = $2 RPI or any reasonably expected level of earnings. 1,000 really good images, suitable for stock, yes, maybe. Yeah, truth is, everything was better until about 2012. Some people made more on referrals, than selling their images. Agencies, all of them, had levels and a reason to do better and make more. What most people tend to forget is, SS was the last one to give is the crappy, new improved, system. One by one, they dropped levels or adjusted them. They all dropped referrals, or limited the time, which ended all the oldest. All of them changed the searches to feature newer images. If there were things that favored older accounts, that benefit was taken away. I don't mind, fair equal surface for everyone. But, every agency, except Adobe, cut commissions or ways to make more by working harder, and most eliminated just about all incentives. At the same time they introduced API sellers and partners, who got everything for less and we got a lower commission, for a lower value, which means, downloads dropped and value of what we did get, also dropped. Whether they call it connect or something else, we have been farmed out the back door, for pennies. Hell yes, it was different and better.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 181
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
