|
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 - Phil
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 67
101
« on: December 10, 2012, 16:07 »
"That said, the #1 priority for today, as it has been all weekend, is Best Match, which Mary and the engineers are looking at and working on as we speak. Please stay tuned."
What a farce.
An IT/ICT illiterate female announcing that another female (Mary) will take over the Best Match issue aided by their eunuch engineers.
I've seen first hand what kind of disasters females in management can do, you better leave the ship before it sinks like the Titanic.
And she must be really desperate to ask for help in the forum as it's backfiring big time.
I thought "Mary and the engineers" were the latest sensational rock group.
lol
102
« on: December 08, 2012, 18:21 »
once again we have an Istock management post about problems posted on friday afternoon, really? love the irony of it being about poor communication
Where is the irony? She posted on Friday and is there on Saturday responding to posts.
(but not as bad as "we {> you" and by gum - I dont think I could think of a more nauseating, belittling and insincere message
is what you're smoking available freely?
Bad or negative news is traditionally released on friday to allow the weekend to soften the blow on markets / staff / management etc. Positive announcements are made early in the week to maximise benefits. The irony is that the post is supposed to be a positive about improvements in communication, yet is made on Friday afternoon. (I hadn't got through the whole thread to see a post on a Saturday - certainly an improvement - in the past management haven't posted on the weekend). just realised the 'we heart you' by gum went out to buyers so may not have seen (do a search here for "by gum" and you'll find it), maybe its cultural differences but it really was horrid.
103
« on: December 08, 2012, 17:46 »
It's been a long time since I've even looked at the istock forums (from memory about the time of royalty cuts). Wow! what a difference to a year or two ago. With so many locked threads, you have to wonder if it would be better just to say close the forum and be done. once again we have an Istock management post about problems posted on friday afternoon, really? love the irony of it being about poor communication  Think I'll chalk it up with not being here for the money and we wont advertise thinkstock to istock customers... (but not as bad as "we {> you" and by gum - I dont think I could think of a more nauseating, belittling and insincere message ) Maybe they'll makes changes, but for me the lack of integrity shown in the past means that their credibility is so low that I'd struggle to believe anything they said. The post makes me think of that cartoon you see from time to time with the caption "The whippings will continue until morale improves"
104
« on: December 06, 2012, 15:57 »
I'm keeping 50%. Sales have actually been quite good for me on 123 for the past 6 months or so. One of the few sites showing significant growth for me.
me too
105
« on: December 06, 2012, 05:07 »
thanks, You reach next ranking in 62.72 months cant wait
106
« on: November 10, 2012, 10:42 »
Something that strikes me is "why me". Should they not be suing the agencies that have actually sold these images? If the case is to stop the sales of their brand on stock sites, then why are they targeting me? In case they win all I can really do is make sure not to use their Glasses in any images in the future, but I can't demand a take-down on jurisdictions where this brand might not even have a design trademark filling? Makes sense?
Is the right procedure not to contact each of the agencies and demand that images showing their design be taken down?
my guess is that they think you are an individual and less likely to have expensive lawyers and more likely to say 'oh no' and just pay up, rather than fight it I would have thought though that is like any image usage, it comes down to what the final user does with it. I have editorial images, if someone licences one and uses it commercially that isnt (or at least shouldnt) be my problem. I cant see how they can sue the photographer. you could always say they are cheap chinese brands (who ripped off the design 
107
« on: September 14, 2012, 05:39 »
bought the sony rx100 2 weeks ago, 20mp 1" sensor. A lot of fun to have a little camera again (as opposed to a900) and the difference in image quality (in good light) between it and the a900 with zeiss 24-70 is much less than expected (I could submit some as stock without an issue) at $2200 cheaper I'm happy as I am
108
« on: September 01, 2012, 05:33 »
It's FT for me, down to 7th place last month. Really though how relevant is the designation top tier/middle tier/low earners?
109
« on: August 21, 2012, 06:35 »
I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to this but I've been horsing around for years
sorry this really isn't inspiring.
110
« on: August 17, 2012, 16:31 »
Hi Leaf,
For sure we will honor it! We currently have three authors with well over $1M in sales and two who will probably hit the $2M mark early next year. There are also lots hot on their heels.
We have also projected their sales trajectory, using the latest algorithms, to make sure we are there to meet them at the airport when they get to $10M! Only thing left to work out is how to ensure great weather, anybody has any ideas on this front :-)
Aren't you guys based in Melbourne?  (and you want to ensure great weather on any particular day? )
111
« on: August 13, 2012, 04:37 »
I never found an advantage to giving them away (although some people have). Veer gives you the choice and pays you for a set time and use ie 3months, european market etc. I dont see why the others cant do the same.
112
« on: August 10, 2012, 23:17 »
"However, to play devil's advocate... assuming that an extended license royalty is paid out, how is this technically different than other online usages?"
Because they are redistributing for people to use ( use, as in 'derive value from' ).. There is no value in a game icon.
all these images will quickly spread everywhere, they will be used for free on POD sites, downloaded in zip files for free, and finally becoming so popular to be considered public domain, the photographers will never see a dime from all this and considering the zero value of a single image nobody could possibly justify the cost of a lawyer to sue the infringers, just as it is already with micros by the way and with cheap RM images,minimum price needed is for the photo to be sold for 250$ as far as i've read.
being the pessimist today I'd expect them to be under 'promotional use' like the facebook app etc so nothing for the artist
113
« on: August 10, 2012, 23:14 »
IS for me - less than 50% normal weekly sales 
114
« on: August 01, 2012, 16:31 »
racephoto, here's one I got recently. Can you help me with it?
image upload
Simple type in "youtuest". That's all you need. Same with every other captcha request. Just type in the one garbled word and your done. There will never be any symbols, foreign letters, etc. in the garbled word (it's net really a word), just a bunch of English alpha characters.
to me that is "YouTueet"
115
« on: August 01, 2012, 03:55 »
I'll be the odd one out My sales doubled in Jan last year and have sat within +/- $25 ever since. With Fotolias continued decline for me 123rf was about 20% more than FT
116
« on: July 31, 2012, 16:39 »
117
« on: July 29, 2012, 01:53 »
deleted
118
« on: July 21, 2012, 17:03 »
....after all they already don't accept sunsets and other boring stuff.
Isn't that a myth? I just looked on SS and there's a few new really drab sunsets. DT only seem to accept boring stuff that doesn't sell well, as long as it isn't "similar". In theory, they've raised the bar but I think in reality the bar is all over the place, because reviewing is subjective. Every reviewer sees things differently, a lot on SS wont accept any image that has areas out of focus but others don't seem to care about that at all.
This is the reason why I believe the sites should all accept more and then delete images that don't sell after a year. It will reduce the influence of the poorly paid reviewers that are given the impossible task of deciding what buyers want. It will give buyers the chance to see more new images that might be just what they're looking for. There will be a ton of crap but if the search is any good, that shouldn't be a problem. There's already a ton of crap from the images that were uploaded in the early years, why not delete all those that haven't sold? And looking through the new images, some reviewers are letting a lot of crap in anyway and they have a good record of rejecting images that sell well on the other sites.
I'm surprised that none have done it. Reviewing must be one of their major costs. Do like Mostphotos everything accepted and then like you said 1-2 years no sale its gone.
119
« on: July 20, 2012, 16:46 »
first 2 images I added up with excel were fine for me
120
« on: July 12, 2012, 07:54 »
desktops are generally faster, but as you say, laptops are catching fast especially with ssds. I've been looking at the ultralights / ultrabooks for when I'm travelling and seen even that some of them have ips panels http://www.notebookcheck.net puts the colorimeter onto the ones they review and actually give you decent review of the screen.
121
« on: July 06, 2012, 19:18 »
congrats!
122
« on: July 06, 2012, 16:59 »
another for bluehost although I dont have ktools.
On my hosting I have cms account which I havent finished setting up yet (has about 6000 images so far, struggles if I upload more than 25-30 images at once). I also have a coppermine gallery with about 8000 images in it and about 6 other sites one of which gets about 200k pageviews a month. All up using about 85GB of space.
Overall it is not the super fast speeds of your own webserver, but it is respectable and of course you are only paying for shared hosting. the few times I have used support it has been fast and friendly.
123
« on: June 21, 2012, 06:53 »
overall I am earning about the same, but it has been made up from others. FT this year is 50% per month of any month pre december last year.
I had hit overall rank 403, now it is 477 with seven day at 2130 (it has been over 2000 most of this year). Seems like some people are still making money but...
124
« on: June 20, 2012, 04:41 »
Really, I have no issue with selling the .NEF, it's not like there's some magic in there that I need to keep secret. I just wasn't going to even bother uploading it for a sale that might have netted me 25 cents. For 10 dollars, sure. But that wasn't going to happen.
But DT can't be bothered with anything like that - i.e. the basic functions of a real "agency". None of the other micros are any different, of course. They're just vending machines on the web.
Hi, these are the royalties for additional formats (vector or RAW files- NEF in your case):
Additional Format (credits) (vector/RAW): double the royalties for the largest size available for download
Additional Format (subscription) (vector/RAW): standard subscription royalties
So, if the buyer is a credit buyer, you get a lot more than a standard sale for a RAW file. If the buyer has a subscription, well, the price is standard for subscription. You can't know what type of buyer wants your RAW file, and this information can't be provided by the agency, because there are simply too many sales and additional format requests daily.
And the lost is only for the contributor, because buyers usually buy other photos with additional format available from somebody else, instead of waiting for that requested raw to become available or not.
The same with selling the rights of an image: most probably the buyers will choose something already available (there is a search option to search only files available for selling the rights) instead of waiting for the emails and see if the negotiations turn out well.
When I was a buyer, I needed every image in a matter of minutes. Of course, it's your images and your decisions, I just wanted to share from my experience as a buyer.
I think you partly make my point, you need it a matter of minutes. I used to respond to additional format requests (eps etc for illustrations but not raw) and wonder why it then didnt sell. The customer has hit additional format, and then decided I'm not uploading 2 minutes after they hit the request and gone and bought something else. meanwhile I do the work required and dont get a sale at all...
125
« on: June 19, 2012, 04:52 »
Last time I had a request for a raw it was for an illustration (after I finished laughing it made me wonder if you cant see that it is an illustration, do you really need raw?  Anyways I always decline, for a traditional priced $300ish sale on alamy if they wanted the raw, no problem, but not for that price, not worth the time in me reading the email, finding the file and uploading etc for what will probably be a once off sale.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 67
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
