|
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 - JustAnImage
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15
1
@offisapup
Thank you for sharing
2
« on: Yesterday at 18:58 »
yes, and i concluded if there were only one newspaperrack image then
-> 69k figure for legal costs to date would be devided by 1
= 69,151.50 for the contributor At the end of the day, they don't give a crap - we can all see that clearly. I certainly won't be uploading any more pictures to Alamy and will delete everything as soon as this charade is over. If it had only been one picture, then the amount would probably be a little less because the investigation wouldn't have taken forever - but the person would definitely have been finished. I can certainly get over the 11.43, the thing that really upsets me is how they deal with the very people who ultimately pay their salaries. Another question I ask myself is whether Brexit might even play a role here - my picture was taken at a time when the UK was still in the EU and I may be wrong, but as far as I know I was still allowed to upload the picture at the time. Just a thought... Have a sunny day@all
3
« on: Yesterday at 18:49 »
...now if Adobe would only start accepting editorial videos  That would be great - there are a few thousand videos waiting for the day
4
« on: Yesterday at 12:25 »
@Mat
Thank you for lettings us know - a good improvement to the upload workflow!
5
« on: Yesterday at 12:23 »
Same in my case - this could be due to the fact that this April (March settlement) the 'Price per Image' is missing, which usually always comes in April as a 'big blue bar' in the chart.
(see image attached)
Why would they leave out 'Price per Image'?
I have no idea so far but I already sent a request to their support what happened to the yearly 'price per ..." payments. Lets see when and if there will be an answer to that question :-)
6
« on: April 16, 2024, 16:40 »
Downloads slightly above average, revenue dramatically below average. In my case, the revenue is 40% compared to March 2023.
Same in my case - this could be due to the fact that this April (March settlement) the 'Price per Image' is missing, which usually always comes in April as a 'big blue bar' in the chart. (see image attached)
7
« on: April 16, 2024, 15:36 »
Please let me have a question JustAnImage:
Did you set a checkmark on - i dont yave a signed property release
and checked for edttorial only ? Yes, the ' Sell for editorial only'-checkbox was checked - the image has been deleted long time ago. I always send only "full editorial" or "full commercial" batches to alamy and check the option for all images in a batch, so that no mistakes happen I always double check editorial batches. I just sent an email back and asked about 'the judgment and the file number of the proceedings', so that I can check what they are talking about. I have also requested a comprehensible calculation, including the necessary copies of the calculation documents and I strongly assume that I won't get an answer, but I'm happy to be surprised :-) It's really not about the amount of 11.43 - but the way it's done is really absurd - they checked the picture themselves and approved it (it was a large magazine rack, by the way) and now they want to pay for their own misconduct at the contributors' expense... kind of hits the zeitgeist, but doesn't make it any better.
8
« on: April 16, 2024, 07:22 »
That must be frustrating. I have around 6k files on Alamy and had first sales this month. Didn't knew that they are that bad. In my case, Alamy has been nothing but a "crap show" for some time now. In 2022 I had 129 sales and approx. 4,000 views per month - in July 2023 this changed abruptly to approx. 450 views per month and since then I have sold virtually nothing. 2024 had one sale in total, which is completely pointless. (34.700 images) And now they want to cover their legal costs with images that never had any sales because they sent them through quality control themselves? Whether this is legally tenable remains a different question; that would have to be judged by experts. For me, this puts Alamy on the extremely dubious level of WireStock and Canva, both of which are really below any level ;-)
9
« on: April 16, 2024, 06:57 »
Hello everyone,
I have just received this email from Alamy.
Now you are being charged for pictures that never had a sale - at least in my case.
The pictures were finally accepted by Alamy's Quality Control - I think it's time to delete my account there.
For your entertainment the original email:
Dear ...,
We previously wrote to you concerning Alamys receipt of a claim of infringement of intellectual property rights and injunction in relation to images displayed on Alamy as part of your collection.
This claim originates from Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH, the parent of the BILD newspaper who have filed proceedings against Alamy in the German Courts for infringement of its intellectual property rights.
Alamy are currently defending the claims, and the imposed injunction provisions connected to the alleged infringement for which Alamy have been required to sweep for and remove images from your collection featuring the intellectual property.
We placed you on notice of these claims and demands and are writing to update you that costs are being incurred in defence of the claims.
As you will be aware as a contributor to Alamy you provide Alamy with indemnification against such claims under the terms of our contract. It is Alamys intention to rely on these indemnities to recoup the costs incurred in defending the claims resulting from the submission of these images to our platform.
These costs will be divided by each image involved within this claim so each contributor involved will pay a fair proportion of the costs incurred.
To frame your expectations your liability for costs incurred to date in connection with these claims (1 of the 6050 images removed as part of the injunction compliance to date) stands at 11.43.
Alamy regularly rejects spurious claims regarding copyright infringement, ownership of images and image rights, without incurring any legal expenses. However, in this case we will be deducting funds from your account balance to recover the costs incurred in resolving this claim. You will see this deduction of the indemnified costs reflected as a debit on your Balance of Account page in due course.
Kind regards
Alamy Copyright Team
10
« on: April 09, 2024, 16:20 »
Hey Cobalt Yes, the information that you can make it into the top 100 on your own is really good information. Even if I will never make it there :-) For me it bounces around between 2,700 and 3,500 and the display in the ranking seems to be delayed between 3 and 5 days. So if we are comparing numbers it would be best to all post our data on Sunday evening for example, so we have a fixed point of comparison with which we could then calculate positions, fluctuations, variances and all that stuff. That would probably bring us a little bit closer to the truth of the positioning Have a sunny day@all, Michael
11
« on: April 03, 2024, 17:16 »
What art you sold? Normal photos or Ai? I have around 3000 files, never sold anything 9 of 9 sales were AI images - my portfolio is about 40% Fotos, 60% Ai images (3.712 files here) Motifs were all different: Landscape, Animals, Watercolor Art, Fantasy Landscapes
12
« on: April 03, 2024, 15:37 »
Have you sold anything on photo4me ? Yes, 9 images so far with an average of 6.42 GBP per image. Started uploading in october 2023.
13
« on: April 03, 2024, 14:57 »
Thanks. Last I heard only Adobe, 133RF and Dreamtime (limited ), correct? I am uploading AI to: (in order of sales) - AdobeStock - Vecteezy (the only take really good AI images with people) - 123rf (the didn't review any images within the last 3 month for me -> waste of time) - MotionElements - Dreamstime (no people) - Photo4me (Poster and Print site taking AI too) - PantherMedia - DesignBundles (taking AI, uploading only backgrounds) - Ingram (people and good concepts) Have a sunny day, Michael
14
« on: March 27, 2024, 16:07 »
Same here - low 3 digit value...
15
« on: March 23, 2024, 06:06 »
Here's what Getty/IStock support has to say about the many refunds... if you ask me, not really an explanation, except for their own mistakes in communication.
My support case was also closed immediately after this reply without a chance to respond.
-----------------
Thank you for contacting Getty Images | iStock.
Some contributors have noticed an increase in cancellations on their royalty statement this month.
A large corporate customer who licenses a high volume of content mistakenly selected these uses as royalty-bearing when, in fact, they were for comp / low-resolution image use. It is standard industry practice that comp uses, for client pitches, mock-ups, etc., are not a royalty generating license.
We subsequently met with the customer to reiterate the correct licensing requirements and reversed these transactions. Due to the customer's sizable team, some assets were selected for intended comp use multiple times, necessitating multiple cancellations.
We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience or confusion caused during this process.
-----------------
In summary, for me that means as much as:
"We don't care what you think, the main thing is that the cash register is right and our major customer is satisfied even if he screwed it up himself" ;-)
16
« on: March 21, 2024, 13:26 »
Kelvin said on the forums that there is no need to open a ticket, they are already looking into it. Thanks for the info - I'm very curious to see what comes out of it - if anything :-) I'm "only" in with 7 refunds at $1.83 - all from November and all from Washington (5x editorial, 2x commercial).
17
« on: March 21, 2024, 11:39 »
No reviews here too, not for images and not for videos... maybe they don't want our stuff anymore for good ;-)
18
« on: March 20, 2024, 20:13 »
Unfortunately I can't say the same for myself - in March so far only 1 sale at P5 and the other agencies are also very quiet for videos this month (Adobe 6, Shutter 2).
That's far below my average for videos so far in March.
19
« on: March 17, 2024, 18:28 »
Coming Monday, the 18th. But I thought I'd just jump ahead and start the thread.  Nice one ;-)
20
« on: March 13, 2024, 11:12 »
nope - my MC payments have been steady even with canva doing instantaneous 100% rejects of new uploads -- earnings dropped about 20% a year ago, but have remained at that point since then
funny how so many assume there must be a conspiracy when their individual earnings go down.
I don't find it funny that earnings are going down even though utilisation is going up. That's something to think about, because with more usage, revenues should actually go up and not down. There are of course a few scenarios where this can also happen the other way round, but they are not very likely. It's also not "funny" that some Magic Creator earnings no longer have any display at all and are simply set to "nothing" - that doesn't seem right to me either. So no conspiracy, no assumptions and certainly nothing that would be funny here ;-)
21
« on: March 12, 2024, 19:40 »
Feb 2024 numbers are in...
Applies +10%, Exports +3% -> Earnings -4%
Magic Creator Payment 2nd month in a row at "nothing", not even a number there...
Does anyone else have the impression that we're being screwed over here?
22
« on: March 08, 2024, 16:16 »
I can still offer a couple of $0.33 custom sales I had yesterday - plus some $0.35 from today.
(see image below)
23
« on: March 05, 2024, 06:05 »
and just to confirm for the folks with the ability to provide answers. these were not images that you uploaded 3 months ago but only submitted yesterday right? they've been hanging on the vine for some time waiting to be picked? In my case the images have been sent to the review queue about 2 1/2 month ago.
24
« on: March 04, 2024, 19:16 »
I also experienced this sometime in the last 24 hours.
The last 7 images out of 290 currently in review jumped from "3 months ago" to "one year ago".
Attached is a picture (sry for the german screenshot ^^)
Have a sunny day,
Michael
25
« on: February 26, 2024, 18:16 »
This ranking system is pretty meaningless for video contributors. It's obvious to me when I see people sharing screenshots of their rank on Discord that it is solely based on number of downloads not earnings. You're right - I've been observing this for a while now - the rank rises if you have a lot of downloads in a week, but with few but high downloads the rank still falls. So it seems to be all about the number of downloads without average selling prices (RpD) - which is particularly meaningless for video sellers and high-priced sales.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
