|
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 - cybernesco
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 21
326
« on: February 11, 2010, 10:37 »
It's doing exactly what they were waiting for...dieing down. I noticed there hasn't been nearly as much activity about it here on the forum either. Just what they want!
Unfortunately, for something like that to change we would need massive continuous participation from hundreds of members. Just a few of us will never make a dent. Maybe in time.... Denis
327
« on: February 08, 2010, 12:13 »
The concern at the moment is that iStock appears to have gone mad and to be attempting hara-kiri by urging its customers to go away and save money by joining a cheaper sister site. Look at the long Thinkstock thread over there (too long, too many irrelevant posts, but it is important).
Just as exclusivity starts to look alluring, IS shoots itself in the .... head.
What did you expect ?
Only small specialized agencies respect and care about their photographers.
What I didn't expect is that Getty would go out one morning and shoot its prize milch cow. It's nothing to do with respecting photographers, it's about taking a valuable ultra-successful business and adopting a policy that seems designed to wreck it and reduce the parent company's income. It seems irrational, which is not what I expect from Getty.
Your suggestion that Getty wants to flood the micro market with a pile of point and shoot subscription trash gives me some hope that a better-quality midstock market will emerge for those who want something better than rubbish. Of course, if Getty has wiped out istock in the meantime, it won't be them.
I think some of you should stick to shooting photos and stop speculating over what the largest photo industry company is going to do because it seems you guys are all about conspiracy theories ...
Thinkstock is not a theory Denis
328
« on: February 08, 2010, 10:58 »
For the stock photography industry as a whole this type of unfair dealing should not be tolerated. Just closing our accounts would not be sufficient as this type of dealing would be allowed to continue with other image providers anyway. In the long run it would only encourage other agencies to do the same or worst and undermine our industry that we work so hard for. That is why it is important for all members to understand this problem and voice our concern equally. Nobody would gain anything if you close your account or get your account closed and they are still permitted to continue to undermine our industry as a whole. Denis
329
« on: February 07, 2010, 18:52 »
Although I agree the differences in currencies are unfair, it is a totally different problem than the current credit price changes. To begin with, it's been there for ages.
I don't think the problems are that different, it just that we recently took notice because of the price change. Even if the differences in currencies have been there for ages, it is still part of the problem as a whole. It is not just the differences in currencies, it is a fact that the buyer's credit has been on its own from the contributor's credit at first because of the differences in currencies and thereafter when FT took a step further by increasing the buyer's credit without increasing the contributor's one regardless of currencies. We should all share the same piece of pie regardless of currencies. Exchange rates are there to facilitate our own currency if need be. Denis
331
« on: February 07, 2010, 18:03 »
That's a scary thought.
I agree..that reponse to madelaide from them was double talk, I read that over and over.
"For example, contributors still earn 1 credit to the dollar for bulk consumer purchases that put credits at $0.75."
How can $1.00 equal 1 credit which puts that credit at .75 cents. That doesn't even make sense.
seems clear enough -- FT sells images at a price in credits, and pays royalties based on 1 credit = $1
it says that FT is doing the OPPOSITE of what the conspiracy thoerists here are claiming -- they sell credits at a discount to buyers, but contributors still get paid AS IF the buyer paid full price -- FT is absorbing the difference
steve
This is not based on a theory, this is based on fact. Simply go to a FT France site and look at the 20 credit package bottom right of the screen. You will see that each credit averaged 1.14 euro each. However, in this particular case I am paid 31% of $1.00 per credit and not 31% of 1.14 euro per credit if that buyer happens to buy my images. That is a big difference as 1.14 euro is equal to $1.61 and not a $1.00 http://fr.fotolia.com/Member/BuyCreditsChooseAmountDenis
332
« on: February 07, 2010, 17:13 »
I am based in England, but didn't even know I had an option other than the US site when I signed up!
Contributors that would gain the most are the ones that would get paid in pounds or Euros from an European site. How fair is that!!!! Obviously no offence intented to the few lucky Europeans getting paid in European coins. Hello FT...Can I be that lucky person..  ....although I live in Canada. Denis
333
« on: February 07, 2010, 16:16 »
I live in Europe and was directed to the US site when signing up. Thus paid in dollars.
(and ditching FT as soon as payout hits paypal)
This is very interesting. Obviously FT stand to make a lot more by directing European contributors to US sites. Combined with the fact that 75-90% of buyers are buying from European sites, they would definitely achieved the greatest spread between an euro and a dollar or a pound and a dollar. This way a contributor would average 16-25% commission but not 30-34%. As well, it would be interesting if everybody else that were directed to use US sites from Europe would indicate so in this thread. Good thinking on that one gostwyck. Thank you. I think that if we all participate and gradually put in our little "say" in this discussion that we'll become that much more potent in the long run. If we want to win this, it is important that we all share our though on this as equally as possible so that no one gets hurt by standing out too much. From Fotolia we should get a fair and transparent commission structure for all the world to see and certainly not this. Denis
334
« on: February 06, 2010, 14:01 »
I don't know if this helps anyone.
I asked FT:
Hi
I have noticed that the grey box to the left of my contributor account page no longer contains the credit value of which I will my commission is based. Has this changed and will it be displayed in the future? Thanks
FT Replied:
Thank you for your e-mail.
We are currently updating our website. I was told that we will won't display that anymore.
Kind regards,
Fotolia Team U.K.
I asked FT a further question beceause the first reply didn't realy answere the question:
Hi
Thanks for the prompt reply. As the current credit value is no longer displayed in the grey box, please could you let me know where I can find this information. Is the current credit value for contributors commission still 0.75 and will it be changing in the near future. Thanks.
FT Replied:
Thank you for your e-mail. The current value for contributors is the same - 0.75, it never changed so far. I am not certain about any future plans.
Kind regards,
Fotolia Team U.K.
So there you have it, make of it what you will. I still don't know where on the site I can find out how to calculate my commission, does anyone?
Wow..if that ain't a slap in the face I don't know what is!! How the H*** are we suppose to know if they are paying us the correct amount or not...
As FT unusual commission structure becomes more and more widely known and becomes unattractive to serious new recruits, I think that it is inevitable, FT will eventually have to come out with a fair and transparent commission structure to get new fresh smart content. But as we have seen two months ago with their ITIN number requirement, it took a while to make them understand, although they would have found out the hard way anyway later on with massive W7 letter rejections if we had not intervene. I think that FT should now take this opportunity to provide a new fair and transparent commission structure to prevent another unfortunate situation. I think that the reason why they are not communicating about this at the moment is because they are probably working at such a transparent commission structure and probably trying to bridge the gap between the time we did not know about this and the time when the new commission structure will be announced so that this present gap will not look as bad even if it still look bad as it is. I am just guessing. Denis
335
« on: February 05, 2010, 09:46 »
I wont use thinkstock while they only offer $0.25. Just imagine how much better that site would be if they paid us something reasonable, like $0.35. CanStockPhoto have hardly any $0.25 sales, I get nearly as many $20 sales there. I still wish they went to $0.35 though.
I don't think thinkstock will work but if it does and all we have is low subs sites, I will stop using microstock. I already have a plan in place to move to RM, footage and selling from my own site. There is no way I am going to be forced in to low commission subs that earn the sites a lot more than we do.
I am not for Thinkstock either. They have absolutely nothing interesting to offer. How do you guys get those $20 sales from CanStockPhoto? Been there three months now and none of those yet and I get lots of ELs elsewhere and good sales from Alamy. Denis
336
« on: January 26, 2010, 13:56 »
Taking RM and editorial aside, financially speaking, the biggest difference between Alamy and microstock sites in general are SUBSCRIPTIONS hence where the 25c-69c are from. At SS a buyer needs to pay $249.00 a month to subscribe for very limited licenses.
Last month I had a few Alamy RF sales at $8.05 each which I made $4.83 each with a broader license then a $28.00 EL on SS. This month I had one Alamy RF sale at $313.86 and another one at $150.00. This is not a matter of one site selling low and another one selling high, this has become a matter of the same site selling low and high making boundaries grayer.
How long do you think before Alamy start doing subscriptions for their RF collection? I use to like Alamy the way it was, but I think because of economics, evolution and this capitalistic world that it is just a matter of time for the Alamy RF collection to get closer to the microstock sites model. However I do believe that editorial and very specific RM subject matters will still have a place with Alamy for a long time to come.
I think that all their RF collection will eventually become similar to micro sites with subscriptions while editorial and RM become a separate entity within Alamy. This is only a guess. Denis
337
« on: January 23, 2010, 15:52 »
Unless you are exclusive with iStock, you will have a much higher percentage of rejections, especially if your images compete with exclusive contributors. It's the way they operate. I've also noticed the same with Fotolia lately. I used to have the highest acceptance rate at Fotolia and now they seem to be following iStock's pattern. I hope it works for the both of them in the long run, because they are turning down some great images.
I don't believe that for one minute. That would definitely be detrimental for the buyers, the sites, exclusive contributors and ultimately nonexclusive contributors if they were to accept substandard images from their own exclusives. In addition, in the last few months I had near 100% acceptance rate at both sites FT and IS. Denis
338
« on: January 23, 2010, 10:35 »
I think it's so odd a lot of people qualify iStock as being consistent in their inspections!
I have over 90% AR on all sites i submit to (SS, DT, BigStock, FT and even Veer) and find those all very consistent, only with iStock i never can guesstimate whether my files will make it in and only have a mere 54% AR there. I just don't get their reviewers...
I understand your frustration, everywhere else I use to have 95-100% acceptance and something like 70% for iStock. Most of the time, those iStock rejected ones, I would manage to fix them fairly quickly and get them accepted thereafter. But I knew how they were and I knew that some of my images had a 50 50 chance to make it. iStock are very strict on technicalities and they have been consistent on that. I think in the long run this is good for the photographer because it forces you to learn and perfect your skills. Since I got a 5D Mk2 a few months ago, my acceptance with iStock went to almost 100%. I even have 800 ISO images accepted which was unthinkable before for iStock. The 5D Mk2 is very "low light" friendly which make it less difficult to get away from noise and artifact. Denis
339
« on: January 20, 2010, 23:55 »
For the record, PhotoShop is not used by every sentient lifeform in the galaxy. I create my JPGs with the very capable Nikon Capture NX, with JPG quality set to maximum, which is actually a value of 100 in their dialog. . But JPG quality is not the issue here.
I think what is happening is that the reviewer is finding (at 100%) some tiny dark corner of the image where a bit of banding or posterizing has crept in. In an exhaustive search of one of my rejected images, I eventually did find such a defect. But it would have no real impact in any expected use of the image. Even printed full size on a magazine cover, these images would look fine. All the other big sites are happy to sell them. Is IS's allegedly higher quality really impressing buyers? I have no way of knowing. But there is a thing called "the point of diminishing returns", both for contributor and agency.
In another rejected image, I can find nothing wrong. The subject is some glass objects, I think the "artifacts" the reviewer is claiming to see are actually just tiny flaws in the glass.
Basically these images are no better and no worse than all the ones that IS has previously accepted. Same process all the way. I think the unusual subjects just threw off the reviewer.
I honestly believe that if they were hot "business success" shots featuring good looking ethnic models with perfect white teeth in $800 suits, somewhat looser standards would be applied.
That is right, photoshop is not used by every sentient lifeform in the galaxy, however it is used by most professionals and serious amateurs. That is true that bit of banding or posterizing would probably not be seen on a magazine cover. Your argument is a very old one amongst submitters getting rejections. However, that is Istock rules and I dont mind as I rarely get rejections for artefacts anymore as I have learned to do it without. We are competing against each others and if somehow by coincidence you submit the same subject and/or similar composition as mine I would hope that the one kept is the one without those bits of banding and posterizing. We are all competing against each others to get the dollars and there are thousands of us producing millions of images. Istock is only doing it right by accepting only images that are, amongst other things, technically perfect. From my own experience, I really dont believe that looser standards apply to hot "business success" shots featuring good looking ethnic models with perfect white teeth in $800 suits. Denis
340
« on: January 20, 2010, 20:39 »
Hi Lisa,
Some months ago I received an invite from FT to be part of their "crank your rank" program of making available some small images for free on Microsoft, in exchange for a one-off increase in rank.
Me too, a few months ago I did receive a similar email from Chad inviting me in this "crank your rank" program. I responded with a few questions regarding the usage of those images if I agreed. Such as how long and where those images would be used by Microsoft? I never got a reply. I am glad now that I never participated, however, this seems to be totally unfair for the ones that did. Denis
341
« on: January 13, 2010, 19:40 »
got response from support:
All royalties will be transferred to your Paypal or Moneybookers (as you
chose in your account preferences) account this coming Friday, January 15,
2010.
Starting January 15th, all payments will be processed weekly, every Friday.
We apologize for the delay and appreciate your patience during this
transition time.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours,
Darek
iStockphoto Team
This is good news thank you for sharing Mocker Denis
342
« on: January 08, 2010, 09:25 »
I'm from treaty country and my W-8 BEN with out ITIN form already approved by fotolia but I still pay 30% tax?
At SS filling W-8 BEN form with out ITIN you can enjoy tax treaty benefits (if you are from treaty contry), but why fotolia can not to do that? why fotolia asking for ITIN to get tax treaty benefits?
I don't know if I am wrong, but what the treaty does is let you not pay taxes again in your country, as you have already paid in the original one - to whom FT gives the tax money.
In my case, a "non-treaty" country, not only I pay 30% to the US government, but also 27.5% (due to my current tax range) to Brazilian government. So in the end I get half of my already small share. 
From the way I read it, photographers from non-treaty countries will pay 28% on all sales IF they dont fill out W8 tax form. If they fill out a W8 tax form, they will get taxed 30% only on US sales. I guess this is an IRS requirement to show that you are not a US resident. In my case my US sales in 2009 amounted to 14% of my total Fotolia sales. US sales have always been a small percentage with Fotolia...lets hope for your sake it stays that way  . Denis
343
« on: January 08, 2010, 06:58 »
Bravo Dennis! You were relentless and we all thank you!
Linn
Thank you Linn and I thank you as well for your continuous effort! Denis
344
« on: January 07, 2010, 18:23 »
I love the word "review". The UK government seem to start a new one every day. I have another word for it but I don't think I can use it here
Hopefully they will find the way the other sites have set this up. There is no way I am applying for an ITIN/EIN and I really think they should be telling people to wait. Why spend money and time on this when it probably wont be required?
The way I see it, with this new development, Fotolia know that most members will not apply for an ITIN number now that it is no longer necessary, even if they encourage it. And that is the way they probably want it now as they dont want to consume their time in sending us letters. However, what they are doing is that by telling us that the situation could change in the future and encouraging us to get an ITIN, they are telling members that have already paid to get certified documents, nothing is lost as this could be used in the future. I think that if you have not started the process of certifying documents, good economic sense would dictate not to bother with it until it is really necessary as there is not much to gamble or lose by waiting. Denis
345
« on: January 07, 2010, 14:50 »
@Dennis,
there's a sticky now, on the Legal Forum.
Linn has posted there as well. I guess this time her message will be harder to delete
Ok, so we're under review right now.
Until further notice W8 forms from treaty countries do not need an ITIN.
This has nothing at all to do with me, but just like Warren I can't help but thinking of photographers from non-treaty countries. Reading Daniela's message it seems they are forced to pay 28 % on ALL sales.
That's a blow. Can they do anything about it? Are there any other forms they need to fill? And why is it that only Fotolia does that?
I'm not clear.
From the way I read it, photographers from non-treaty countries will pay 28% on all sales IF they dont fill out a particular tax form. If they fill out this tax form, they will get taxed 30% only on US sales. I guess this is an IRS requirement to show that you are not a US resident. Now the reason why other sites dont do it that way? Again, could be because they had special arrangement with the IRS. Denis
346
« on: January 07, 2010, 13:02 »
This is the latest message from Daniela: Fotolia will conduct a review relating to ITIN requirements and tax treaty rates for foreign residents who submit withholding tax forms such as Form W-8BEN. During this period, Fotolia will change the current procedure for foreign contributors when submitting Form W-8BEN. If you are a resident of a country which has a tax treaty with the U.S., an ITIN/EIN will not be required with submission of the W-8BEN to enjoy tax treaty benefits. All other form requirements will remain in effect. Foreign residents in non-tax treaty countries will be subject to withholding at the standard 30% rate on U.S. sales. If an appropriate tax form is not submitted, withholding is applicable on all Fotolia sales at the standard 28% rate. Contributor earnings statistics will be adjusted effective January 1, 2010. We encourage contributors without an ITIN to complete Form W-7 to get an ITIN number . Pending the outcome of this review, ITIN/EIN submission requirements may be revised in the future. Fotolia Team I think what they are doing is that they are carefully covering themselves for all eventualities. Meaning that, at the moment we dont need an ITIN number but they are encouraging us in getting one in case we need it in the future. By doing so, they are covering themselves against members that have already spent the money on certifying documents. But then again an ITIN number might be very useful in the near future . Fotolia is the greatest microstock agency Denis
347
« on: January 06, 2010, 18:54 »
Merci Denis
C'a fait plaisir
348
« on: January 06, 2010, 18:38 »
349
« on: January 06, 2010, 18:00 »
Another message from Daniela:
Hi All,
An official Fotolia announcement regarding the Tax situation will be supplied shortly.
thanks for your patience and apologies for the confusion!
Daniela
Director, Fotolia United Kingdom
350
« on: January 06, 2010, 16:18 »
Thanks for the news Denis. I thought it would only be a matter of time after seeing what shutterstock went through. I hope not many people started to apply for the ITIN. Nice to be getting the money back as well. The first good news I have seen from FT in a long time.
I would like to thank you as well for the very good tax info you came up with. I think it was a matter of time as well. We just made things go a little quicker and save some money. I would like to thank Warren and Princess Zelda as well for their effort. I think this is how a forum should be. Denis
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 21
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
