|
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 - ouatedeP
51
« on: October 21, 2022, 17:37 »
What's going on??
Getty sent me $1.22???
What???
Did any of you get your payment too? And are the numbers not right there either?
It's bad enough I had the worst month ever there. But they still don't have to screw me!!! Where is my money? I never had that before!
explanation ADAGP Collective Licensing Payback 2022 September
52
« on: October 21, 2022, 17:19 »
What's going on??
Getty sent me $1.22???
What???
Did any of you get your payment too? And are the numbers not right there either?
It's bad enough I had the worst month ever there. But they still don't have to screw me!!! Where is my money? I never had that before!
i received a payment that i was not expecting, having not reached $100 last month. And my ESP has no adjustment for the amount, so no idea what it's about
53
« on: October 07, 2022, 04:55 »
...
If the extended keywords, or complex description are important and the image shows something specific, they are necessary and good. If someone just adds close words and similar meaning words, you're wasting time with words that buyers don't use to find image. If you were searching for your image, what words would you use to find it? If you were describing your image to someone else, what words would you use. That's what good keywords are.
good keywords allow someone who DOESN'T think like you to find & buy your work. (that's why agency claims of LCV were absurd)
a common case would be someone who doesn't care whether a spider is an insect or not - they just want a scary or dangerous or venomous 'insect'
also need to consider maximising chances word will be properly translated in other language searches,
54
« on: September 27, 2022, 15:01 »
also this only seem to happen to RF image with Alamy, so maybe only upload RM there
55
« on: September 27, 2022, 15:00 »
56
« on: September 14, 2022, 16:32 »
These are current news editorial images, yet the whole batch have been rejected for not meeting editorial guidelines.
Adobe does not accept current news editorial image, they only accept illustrative editorials or their very own definition of it I don't understand half of the time.
Me neither. I would say that Illustrative Editorial is defined by content where a brand is the main subject of the shot.
This is confirmed by rejections of architecture which I upload as Editorial, or cityscapes which I upload as editorial due to visible brands and logo's.
Yet, I've had images rejected due to illustrative editorial issues where the brand is the main focus of the shot, e.g. a storefront while some others were accepted.
Same with the definition of recognizable people. Street shots with groups of people in it are often rejected, but I had some accepted too, mainly when shot from the back.
I guess the definition is not clear to all reviewers either.
same here, and on the other hand i had a few clearly News item signs that i uploaded by mistake that were accepted and sold
57
« on: August 21, 2022, 16:50 »
A strange one.
Just like a suspected criminal is questioned in crime movies, who is not supposed to recognize from the question what the strategy of the criminal investigators is.
wouldn't they lock the account of someone the suspect of doing something in breach of the agreement? questions about it would obviously be in that form....
58
« on: July 06, 2022, 07:56 »
There are comments in the Alamy forum that this is a bug - an obsolete storage program that surfaced when they made the changes for the new 20% royalty rate July 1. Several people say they reported it, but perhaps the more reports the better?
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
Yes, this was a bug which has now been corrected. We don't charge submission or storage fees - this is an obsolete bit of code from many many years ago.
Apologies for any confusion this caused.
how was it reinvoked? Why the sudden flury of issues on July 1, 2022?
59
« on: May 20, 2022, 05:11 »
No, there is not even a HINT in the direction of lesbian kissing or pedofile behaviour AT ALL.
Oh, and both people in the pictures are fully dressed.
.[/size][/font]
i understand paedophilia, but why . would you think lesbianism would break internet rule? i guess systemic homophobia is a thing.
60
« on: May 11, 2022, 07:18 »
Thanks to the incompetent idiots in charge, we're on our way to a recession.
I anticipate that many companies with either start downgrading or cancelling their microstock accounts from sites like SS and AS.
My SS sales has dipped in the last few weeks. Less big sales and less daily downloads.
Just brace yourselves for what's to come and stop supporting people who are economically illiterate.
totally misleading everyone knows this is the Ardern recession.... or is it the Trudeau recession... was told clearly it was the Macron recession
61
« on: May 08, 2022, 10:05 »
most of my photos are shoot outdoor with good lighting, and all the photos accepted by other agency except SS.
so focus on other agency then.
62
« on: April 29, 2022, 12:37 »
Uncle Pete says "It does say ...current events and newsworthy topics. This type of content often features images of real brands and products like signs on buildings, soda cans, computers, and cars to convey a story.
It doesn't say, just taking photos of something and calling it Illustrative Editorial."
In my opinion, Uncle Pete hit the nail on the head with this one. Just because you don't have the right to sell an image for commercial use, does not put it into the Illustrative Editorial category. There needs to be a purpose behind the image. The OP posted an image of what in my opinion, appear to be generic homes. Could they be approved for the commercial collection? Possibly. That's up to the moderation team reviewing the file. In my opinion, they homes are generic enough to be accepted for commercial use but that is irrelevant to this conversation. What specifically, would qualify those houses for illustrative editorial? Is there any significance, or mainstream relevance that a potential customer would want to purchase a license to use the image to illustrate their editorial article? Can you imagine someone buying a license to illustrate an article talking about those specific houses? Did something historic happen there? Does someone famous live there? Is it a poorly marked business of some kind? There needs to be a specific story here and I'm not seeing it. No branding, no significant landmark that I can identify. I hear from contributors all the time trying to find a way to submit non-illustrative, editorial content to Adobe Stock. It's not happening any time in the forseeable future so I would encourage you to focus on shooting branded items that specifically meet the Illustrative Editorial requirements.
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
P.S. Take the "Mat" out of the Batman logo and you've got an Illustrative Editorial asset ready to be submitted Uncle Pete.
i understanding the branding part of Illustrative Editorial niche. What i might need clarification is how far is the newsworthy part of interest. Are pure news images, without identifiable people of interest? Let's say a close up of "End War in Ukraine" sign from a protest, or a car crash?
No. Those examples are not representative of the intent of the Illustrative Editorial collection. If there is truly no recognizable people or property, they may be eligible for the commercial collection. Customers that download content from the commercial collection are allowed to use the assets for editorial purposes.
-Mat Hayward
which is why i question using "newsworthy" in the definition. These are all example of News worthy images.
63
« on: April 29, 2022, 06:08 »
Uncle Pete says "It does say ...current events and newsworthy topics. This type of content often features images of real brands and products like signs on buildings, soda cans, computers, and cars to convey a story.
It doesn't say, just taking photos of something and calling it Illustrative Editorial."
In my opinion, Uncle Pete hit the nail on the head with this one. Just because you don't have the right to sell an image for commercial use, does not put it into the Illustrative Editorial category. There needs to be a purpose behind the image. The OP posted an image of what in my opinion, appear to be generic homes. Could they be approved for the commercial collection? Possibly. That's up to the moderation team reviewing the file. In my opinion, they homes are generic enough to be accepted for commercial use but that is irrelevant to this conversation. What specifically, would qualify those houses for illustrative editorial? Is there any significance, or mainstream relevance that a potential customer would want to purchase a license to use the image to illustrate their editorial article? Can you imagine someone buying a license to illustrate an article talking about those specific houses? Did something historic happen there? Does someone famous live there? Is it a poorly marked business of some kind? There needs to be a specific story here and I'm not seeing it. No branding, no significant landmark that I can identify. I hear from contributors all the time trying to find a way to submit non-illustrative, editorial content to Adobe Stock. It's not happening any time in the forseeable future so I would encourage you to focus on shooting branded items that specifically meet the Illustrative Editorial requirements.
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
P.S. Take the "Mat" out of the Batman logo and you've got an Illustrative Editorial asset ready to be submitted Uncle Pete.
i understanding the branding part of Illustrative Editorial niche. What i might need clarification is how far is the newsworthy part of interest. Are pure news images, without identifiable people of interest? Let's say a close up of "End War in Ukraine" sign from a protest, or a car crash?
64
« on: April 27, 2022, 18:08 »
For an abo microstock agency i can't see any reason to take stolen images seriously.
These images (work) could be also available at free images site.
So what ?
because it makes the licence nul and void, and exposes the clients to potential legal hassle, and cost if the have to pull stuff from production.
65
« on: April 20, 2022, 06:54 »
...
The only conclusion I can come to, is they are CROOKS.
just shows how limited your judgment is, that you automatically assume they're crooks - and then start another thread with the same silly conclusion.
As just one example, about eight years ago I had a lot of sales of logos that I had designed, everyday they would sell, many times more than once.
Then without any warning they deleted all of my logo's and everyone else who was selling logo designs, what they had done is, they had bought literally thousands of logo's and would only sell their own.
Every logo that was theirs was completely and utterly rubbish, they were beyond amateurish, after about a year they allowed logo's to be uploaded again, needless to say they had killed this market.
The only reason that I stayed on the site was because I used to get a payout every month; over the last few years this along with the commission rate cuts has changed to every other month.
so you Chose to kept being represented by a company that you considered Crooks?
66
« on: April 13, 2022, 17:01 »
issue will be if infringer don't know which agency they actually stole image from. If they stole it from a licensed use, they probably don't know the origin. If they pay they will now have a licence, but what makes it valid?
Legit client downloads image available across all MS from SS
Organisation "steals" image and makes a use it
DT comes in, says do you have a license? No, bad bad person, here we can issue you one.
OK fine, i'll be honest, here is money.
Is this valid license? What if SS gets in game later, and has a way of knowing it was Their original download that was stolen....
67
« on: March 29, 2022, 09:46 »
I am 99% sure I opted out of sales from China last April (don't know where to look it up as I can never find these settings in my account and have to rely on someone giving me a link) and still got a lot of 0.15 cent sales in December from China.
December dump was speculated for 12 months, so sale may have been prior to opt-out
68
« on: March 25, 2022, 08:49 »
However, my personal opinion is that microstock just doesn't earn enough to justify the extra time it would take to create different sets of keywords for the same image for every agencies, even if I fully understood how each of their algoirthms worked. I add my kewords to the metadata and that's it.
agreed. My only difference, is once in a while i'll add all the recommended other keywords on SS, since they obviously know better than i do about their algorithm
69
« on: March 16, 2022, 07:59 »
sold once for $2500 OR 25 times. Not really equal, as for UK News image the 25 times could easily be under $100 in revenue.
It could even be under $10.
haven't seen any UK News for that low. Lowest i had was $1.14. but yes there is report of lower
70
« on: March 16, 2022, 07:10 »
Alamy sent out an email featuring "Top Selling Content Of 2021" at the end of last week. Been waiting for a discussion about the best selling images, but when I just checked out the lightbox, it was empty.
Any ideas what this is all about?
Did you check out the images? Strikingly many bestsellers were historic images.
it was such a weird definition sold once for $2500 OR 25 times. Not really equal, as for UK News image the 25 times could easily be under $100 in revenue. Maybe this is why to killed it,
71
« on: March 16, 2022, 05:09 »
Didn't think this was possible anymore
It must be some sort of mistake? If not, thank you Alamy. This, even if rare, is what separates you from everyone else
What is the image that sold for almost 2 grand? Nothing special - Iron Mountain trailhead in Poway, California
one thing, the image is special in being one of only 6 in the whole databank, and clearly the better one. also so much for the Alamy purist that having your image across various Stock telling you that client will go search it also on SS and go and buy it for 10 cents (sic!) there.
72
« on: March 16, 2022, 05:00 »
congratulations. that's Alamy for you, every time you want to dump them you see a report like this
hope it sticks
73
« on: March 12, 2022, 14:00 »
The world needs shots of green tomatoes. Stay away from the red ones.
Oh I'll need to do some shopping, great idea. Sliced green tomato, isolated on white, cropped for social media, with copy space. Yeah, that's the ticket. 
and then do some fried ones, i hear they are a speciality
74
« on: March 11, 2022, 17:03 »
So here's another way to shoot ourselves in the foot?
I don't know if I have had any Russia sales ever, but I won't ask my work to be boycotted.
Edited to add: Much prefer Dreamstime's take on this.
you prefer a take where you do not have a choice? Alamy gave people a choice what to do, you still want to sell to Russia, No Problem, You don't fine we will limit it. In fact this is the opposite of #CancelCulture, this is Freedom of Choice.
Check out their site. Dreamstime informs that ..."Dreamstime .... will donate 5% of our revenue," meaning they don't take it from us. So it is THEIR share, THEIR choice.
so if you sell at DT you are forced to sell in Russia, no choice...
75
« on: March 11, 2022, 17:01 »
No, and you know it.
Even if, as I said above, I don't want any blood money from Russia.
Chill down a bit Zero. I am just asking you a question because you state literally that you won't see it but it doesn't say it's not being sold. So what is it they do actually at Alamy's?
And do you know, that you are almost hijacking these whole site with your Ukraine frustration, right?
They restrict sales based on geography as explained by the OP.
You can't see things that don't exist.
I also said that you have no reason to laugh out loud because even if I alone don't get money from Russia, I don't care because I don't want to have anything to do with Russian blood money.
I also suggested that you better do some good, instead of laughing:
https://novaukraine.org/
Btw, donations to Ukrainian charities were also suggested on the same forum and topic indicated by the OP. They proposed to donate to: https://www.dec.org.uk/
This is no hijacking, but strictly on topic.
How low IQ a man get get... You are just perfect example of childish person with full of anger. And since you brainwashed people around here helping Ukraine, I'll help Russians. The ones who were killed during 8 year war.
i appreciate your IQAnon
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
