|
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 - michaeldb
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 37
226
« on: March 21, 2013, 21:02 »
SS review times are 'normal' as far as I'm concerned, sometimes very quick (a few hours) and sometimes a bit slow (2-3 days). Only 88K images have been approved in the last 7 days which is on the low side, previously they were regularly approving 110K+ images per week. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that they are 'stressed'.
I respectfully beg to differ, I have two batches (both editorials) sitting there since Feb., 25th and another since March, 8th, respectively. There is also a thread on this in their forums: http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129097
I've been with SS since 2006 and this is the first time I'm waiting longer than seven days for commercial or two days for editorial photos - something is definitely different than it was before...
I just looked at the SS forum "General Shutterstock Submit Discussion" and the top 3 threads are ALL about long review times at SS. One has 81 posts. In the Illustrators Forum, a thread on the subject of long review times has 61 posts, three times as many posts as any other thread on the first page. Personally, I have 4 vectors waiting for review at SS since February 25. I have been at SS since 2005 and nothing remotely like this has happened there as far as I can recall. If this isn't a sign of stress on the SS reviewing system, what would be?
227
« on: March 20, 2013, 11:20 »
I uploaded 5 jpgs to DT on Monday using the multi-uploader and they did not appear in Unfinished until Tuesday. So maybe we will have to be patient sometimes now.
My theory: Both SS and DT are experiencing serious overload problems as the big wave of ex-iS-exclusive newbs swamp SS and DT with submissions of big ports.
228
« on: March 19, 2013, 13:44 »
If you want to see what effect contributor action has had take a look at IStock's Alexa figures. Most non exclusive contributors have stopped sending buyers there, as well as not buying there themselves.
A few other signs of success: -lots of MSG posters are suddenly asking questions about submitting to sites other than iS, some have said that they are newly independent escapees from iS -at SS, review times are longer than they have ever been, and the whole submission/review process seems to show signs of being stressed (I have been there since 2005 and I have never seen anything like it), could be caused by a flood images as ex-iS exclusives submit their whole ports to SS? DT review times are also very long. -iS has hired a consulting group apparently to try to find out what is wrong (they might not have done that if nothing is wrong) -some MSG posts have said that forum participation at iS has fallen dramatically. I wouldn't know, I started at iS in 2005 and am a gold illustrator, but I don't submit there any more or go to the site very often.
229
« on: March 19, 2013, 00:33 »
perhaps they have a lot of ex iS contributors coming over? even a couple with giant ports would slow things down in the short term.
Yes, it looks like the SS input pipes are jammed with a lot of something. The review and acceptance process seems to be behaving badly, almost to the point of breaking down. I've been at SS since 2005 and I have never seen anything like it. Must be those iS newbies.
230
« on: March 17, 2013, 19:14 »
artistprotect.com
ETA first domain that I thought of. It's available.
Sounds very good to me. I would be willing to kick in some $ if it should be useful. And I still think it should be designed with some potential for revenue, in case it is successful and more money is needed to grow and maintain it (and the .com as opposed to .org suggests that it is a business).
231
« on: March 17, 2013, 14:10 »
Im not so good with coding and stuff , but wouldn't it be possible to build a small site where when someone finds something like that just copy-paste the link and the system does reporting automatically or semi-automatically and report the case where it should be reported in shortest possible perod. Or if its strange some moderatr could take a look a decide if its worth reporting.
You Thought We Wouldn't Notice... but we did. No reporting as such, but is this the sort of thing you had in mind?
Another possibility for the idea. Maybe this blogging lawer - or another IP attorney - would subsidize the OP's idea in order to promote his or her practice?
232
« on: March 17, 2013, 13:37 »
Ok you can take the initiative and start a new thread to call this a project.
...
There are a lot of people on this forum who focus on producing images to sell them.
I agree. This idea might be something worth doing. The very fact that microstockers have little spare time means that a site which saves us time dealing with copyright infringement is probably a good idea. And there might be many ways to do this project. Maybe treat it as a lean startup, these are often built in a weekend. Ads could be sold on such a site. Or maybe one of the microstock sites might provide this as a free service.
233
« on: March 15, 2013, 13:51 »
Stock images available in Google Drive are available for personal or commercial use only in Google Drive and must be used in accordance with our program policies. Images may not be offered for sale or used within templates provided to third parties. If you use stock images depicting a person in connection with a sensitive or unflattering subject, you must include this or a similar statement: "for illustrative purposes only; individual is a model."
"Images may not be offered for sale or used within templates provided to third parties." Since these uses are precluded in standard RF stock licenses anyway, this language suggests that Google Drive users are receiving a standard license to, for example, use the images in their website, print ads, etc. This page (intentionally?) only clouds the issue of what rights Google Drive users receive.
234
« on: March 12, 2013, 12:59 »
They rejected me two times. All those images are accepted even by Shutterstock and some of them are my top sellers. Just applied for the third time but I'm wondering if it's worth the trouble...
I have been at Veer a long time, and my advice to you would be this: Don't bother trying to get accepted at Veer. I have about $3,200 lifetime sales at Veer, and I have stopped submitting there. Suddenly a few months ago, they started rejecting all my submissions, both vectors and JPG 3D renders, images accepted everywhere else. And my sales have fallen to a fraction of what they used to be, a drop much worse than the rejections alone would cause. My guess is that Veer is in some kind of downward spiral. Don't waste your time.
235
« on: March 09, 2013, 14:00 »
Does anyone know of a place that sells photoshop related accessories like brushes, etc..?
You might try daz3d or renderosity marketplaces, they sell lots of Photoshop brushes. Also Turbosquid sells a few.
236
« on: March 08, 2013, 13:49 »
We regret to inform you that we cannot accept your submission for addition to the iStockphoto library for the following reasons:
The execution of isolation contains stray areas that are either too feathered or rough.
Probably good enough for all other agencies, though.
Yet another reason not to submit to IS. Very useful tutorial BTW, best I have seen on how to isolate.
237
« on: March 07, 2013, 13:16 »
Perhaphs they are asking for a bit more detail along the east coast with regard to the shapes. I live on Long Island, NY and it protrudes more easterly into the ocean, not slanted upward as in a northeast angle as shown on your map and Cape Cod appears on your map to be thicker and heavier than the narrow hook it is. I think they are nit-picking about the accuracy of the coastline details on the east coast.
I don't think it was copyright since they said the overall outline, specifically the east coast, was the problem. If this inspector was in NY they would have noticed it right away whereas the first inspector may not be all that familiar with the northeast coast and just looked at the general shape.
I think this is right. Remember, SS is located in NY, and when the hurricane hit it slowed down their reviewing, so we know it is not all outsourced to elsewhere.
238
« on: March 04, 2013, 14:27 »
I agree with everyone who said 'Give them a try' or 'Don't give up on them'. GL is a good earner for me, two sales today so far.
239
« on: March 02, 2013, 12:24 »
"...we will accept more similars from a series of good images (i.e. nice authentic-looking models, in good light having fun in a contemporary setup/props, a niche-but-popular subject, etc.)" Achilles
I hope that the same changes in policy will also be applied to illustrations. I have created new images of new concepts using elements from previously submitted images, only to have them rejected as too similar. I never understood this. Are buyers supposed to buy my old image and somehow convert it to something like the new one themselves?
This policy of rejecting images which are accepted on other sites and sell well because they are useful for buyers has cost me money, and cost DT money also. As others here have noted, it should have been changed long ago when we first started complaining about it.
240
« on: March 01, 2013, 13:09 »
Really? In my opinion BS has the worst list of categories. Or should I say the most incomplete list of categories. I can't properly categorize 90% of what I submit there. (Correction.... what I used to submit there. Have held off until I decide if I'm staying).
You're probably right. My images have been submitted automatically to BigStock via the Bridge for so long that I don't remember what their categories are like. I do recall that I dreaded submitting there.
241
« on: March 01, 2013, 12:19 »
categories are useless, who goes there anyway? a buyer, a designer, a contributor when looking/licensing a picture they know what they are going after so they type a few keywords, why going over categories and then over 5 million files 
Categories are quite useful for search as well (in the sense of a controlled vocabulary). Keywords on an image can be mapped into categories which in turn can be mapped back into search terms applied to that image - i.e. searches on synonyms, common misspellings, international aliases, etc. can better pull up an image that has been categorized. Categories are more easily translated into other languages and category keywords can be updated and globally applied to categorized images in the search index.
With that being said, it is a time-consuming process to categorize images and disambiguate keywords, thus probably a bit too much to ask of a contributor to deal with directly. However, internally managed categories can reduce the work burden on the contributor by allowing them to worry less about cramming every possible keyword variant into their metadata.
Some very good points about categories, I had not thought about some of them. It would seem to me that the value of categories depends somewhat on how good the list of categories are. On some sites I struggle to find a category into which I can put my image, and end up miscategorizing it, which has the effect of keyword spamming. FT probably has the worst list of categories.
242
« on: February 27, 2013, 18:12 »
$18,947.37
243
« on: February 18, 2013, 13:53 »
I just want to highlight how great GL is...
Kelly does a great job running the site IMO. The home page is always beautiful. It is good to see it when MSGers go out of their way to support GL - it is one of the good guys.
244
« on: February 15, 2013, 14:09 »
That's interesting. Thanks for the link!
Yes, thanks. Shutterstock is a technology company in the business of finding images, says Wyatt Jenkins, vice president of product. That gives us an edge over competitors who view themselves as being in the content business.Interesting. It's really the search engine business. In the long run, as iStock self-destructs, SS's main competition may be Google. And that's kind of scary.
245
« on: February 15, 2013, 14:00 »
Stocksy. Great name. Memorable, short, easy to say and hard to misspell. If you look at the list of agency names on the right side of this page, stocksy is probably the best one.
Is there room for a new agency startup? One which has learned from the mistakes of others and has some creative ideas about doing microstock licensing in a better way?
246
« on: February 07, 2013, 20:28 »
I for one would not compare this to the Getty/IS/Google atrocities. "For the next six months, well guarantee that every subscription download you receive will generate a royalty of $0.38USD our maximum rate. These terms are being offered to contributors in the Bridge to Bigstock program only."Unless I'm missing something, it's the same as I get at SS. And even if I am subject to the new payment schedule soon or someday, I will be getting .31 per subscription dl. Less than I get at DT, but more than I get a most sites. It's a bad trend that microstock sites are paying us less and less as they earn more and more, and Google attempting to destroy the value of our copyrights is scary, but it may not be the end of the world quite yet. I hope. 
247
« on: February 07, 2013, 13:04 »
Someone's started a petition here:
https://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/google-stop-hotlinking-copyrighted-images-of-web-
publishers
I thought this was interesting, from an email sent today by the guy who started the petition: "...Most of you would have already noticed that Google representative Jessica Schwartz hasn't replied to any of our concerns of Google Forum. (https://twitter.com/JessJoSchwartz, https://plus.google.com/112826759772478123425/posts). Its is strange that a company which depends on publishers and search engine users is so arrogant towards publishers and users. They have turned deaf ears, but we won't leave it like that. We will be heard!!
"It is a request to everyone to share the petition on Facebook, Twitter and online forums. Once we cross 1000 signatures, i plan to get in touch with media people to get this issue covered. If any of you is having friends in media, please do share it with them. Every bit will help in this mission.
"The recent changes done by Google Images will be considered copyright violation in my country (India), in most of Europe, in United States and in Australia as well. Google has played smart by not making these changes in France and Germany as they know that they will be in legal mess. "
248
« on: February 06, 2013, 23:14 »
...the antitrust suits which eventually slam Google will make Microsoft's look like a fun day at the beach.
Sorry. The FTC did launch an anti-trust investigation (similar to those it previously attacked Microsoft and IBM with in decades past) against Google in June, 2011. About a month ago, on January 3, 2012, the FTC dropped the investigation, after supposedly Google agreed to make some minor changes in its search. The real story is that Google paid hundred of millions of dollars to Washington lobbyists to get the investigation dropped. It was a huge win for Google, which will now be immune to slap-downs by US Gov for a long time. This may be why Google has been emboldened to launch new attacks against copyright. When copyright is weakened, Google profits, and Page, Schmidt, et al understand this very well. Google's business model is essentially that of a magazine. It provides access to the works of writers and artists and makes money by selling ads. Except that magazines pay the writers and artists. But Google keeps all the revenues.
249
« on: February 05, 2013, 20:30 »
Getty/iStock has de facto seized our copyrights and made them Getty assets, by re-writing its agreement with contributors. Now Getty/iStock can use its assets in any way it pleases, and pay us little or nothing.
When you are doing business with someone who turns out to be acting in bad faith, who is in effect a thief, you can sue them or whatever, but your first step should be to stop doing business with them. We all have that option. If we don't take it, we are hurting everyone who creates images for microstock.
250
« on: February 05, 2013, 11:34 »
...I wonder if this deal with google was some attempt to garner favour.?
The Google-Drive deal is a business development agreement, very common among corporations these days. It is designed to profit Google and Getty/iStock. How exactly? We do not know, party because Getty/iStock will not reveal to us the terms of the agreement. That should tell us something: -Google profits -Getty/iStock profits -we lose Getty has de facto seized our copyrights and made them Getty assets, by re-writing its agreement with contributors. Now Getty/iStock can use its assets in any way it pleases, and pay us little or nothing. People who continue to submit to iStock are causing this to happen by allowing it to happen. When you are doing business with someone who turns out to be acting in bad faith, who is in effect a thief, you can sue them or whatever, but your first step should be to stop doing business with them. We all have that option. Those of us who fail to take that option are part of the problem.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 37
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
