pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: StockFresh - from Peter Hamza and Andras Pfaff  (Read 275786 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #500 on: September 13, 2010, 22:00 »
0
I would have paid for it.

Bingo.

Quote
I don't know why everyone is having a go at weirdvis.  He did not come here asking anyone to give away their images for free.  He came here to support StockFresh and to explain RGBs relationship with them.  He even mentioned that RGB will drive traffic to SF without any catch.  

No catch, except the cash they're being paid ;) .


TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #501 on: September 13, 2010, 22:32 »
0
I would have paid for it.

Bingo.
 

But it wasn't available for sale.  It may have been rejected at IS for lighting issues.  It may have been rejected at DT for similars.  It may have been rejected at FT because it's not what they're looking for etc.  His free image gave him portfolio exposure and it wouldn't have, had it sat on his backup drive doing nothing. 






Quote
Quote
I don't know why everyone is having a go at weirdvis.  He did not come here asking anyone to give away their images for free.  He came here to support StockFresh and to explain RGBs relationship with them.  He even mentioned that RGB will drive traffic to SF without any catch.  

No catch, except the cash they're being paid ;) .

Lol, come on Sean, stop being so hard-headed.  He was talking about there not being a catch for contributors.  What contract, deal or arrangement he has going with SF has nothing to do with us, it's their business.  SF is offerring at least 50% commission so it doesn't matter how they choose to advertise for us.

ap

« Reply #502 on: September 13, 2010, 23:09 »
0
let's not "throw out the baby with the bath water..." i think stockfresh and rgb seem pretty above board. i mean, i'm 100% sure i'm contributing to stockfresh and not rgb and that rgb is benefiting stockfresh because sxc used to have a good relationship with stockexpert. in any case, how is it different from the istock sxc relationship? has anyone ever questioned that? did they purchase the entire sxc operation outright or is it still independent?

as i mentioned in another thread, if we as contributors are only jesters in this microstock world, at least we can be the king maker in our choices of who we support. as far as commission, experience, and performance go, it seems that stockfresh is the obvious choice.

disclaimer: i was just approved today after almost three months and most of my files were approved within 8 hours. just make sure don't use quotes around your keywords, they will be rejected.  ;D

rubyroo

« Reply #503 on: September 13, 2010, 23:13 »
0
Ooh  I like that term 'king maker'. 

I'm gonna put that on my CV:  'Microstock king maker and breaker'  ;)

ap

« Reply #504 on: September 13, 2010, 23:16 »
0
Ooh  I like that term 'king maker'. 

I'm gonna put that on my CV:  'Microstock king maker and breaker'  ;)

hey, i'm all for not being the victims here.  :)

rubyroo

« Reply #505 on: September 13, 2010, 23:17 »
0
Good on you  :)  That term really hit the spot for me   ;D

« Reply #506 on: September 14, 2010, 00:28 »
0
I am wishing StockFresh well.  I actually liked StockXpert and did well there. But lets not lose sight of the fact that SF is a business and they're back because there is money to be made.  They are not philanthropists who are looking out for the best interest of artists (the inability to opt of of subs shows artists interests aren't number one).  So it's best to not have any illusions about them.  They seem like good people with good hearts and intentions, but remember they sold out before, so anything is still possible.

It just seems like their not fully committed to it either...  Why would it take 3 months or more to approve artists?  What's the point of even approving artists if you are still going to review each and every image uploaded?  It seems like they know what they like and don't like and they know what's good and what's not good, so just mass approve everyone and reject the crappy images.  Unless the purpose is to control the number of images being submitted because there isn't enough money behind it to hire reviewers, in which case an approval process makes perfect sense, you don't want the 2 to 4 month image approval times like DT or IS.

Deposit Photos didn't make anyone go through an approval process.  They just accept what they want and reject what they don't like every other agency out there and look how quickly they built up their portfolio (of course, the bounty for referrals and payments for approved images also helped).  Heck, I've got more sales on DP than I do iStock.

Now with this iStock thing SF is probably being flooded with applications and images which is going to make the situation worse for those who haven't been approved yet.

« Reply #507 on: September 14, 2010, 01:24 »
0
It's a big diversion from the topic, but since we moved to this area:

Why should RGB limit image resolution to 800x600?  Because RGB contributors owe you a living? 
No, but because I know the value of a good photo/image, so I don't agree to give it for free just to anyone. I understand your side, having an attractive site will bring you earnings other than the image sales - that's fine, you've invested on the site, but it can be even parasitical if the contributors are not aware of this.

A lot of people give back to the free community they have benefitted from, uploading images of their own to share.  The bulk do it for the kudos, to see their images working and helping people all over the world  It's called magnanimity and co-operation.
They do it for the kudos because they don't realize the value of the images, possibly because they would never think of buying anything at all either. That's why people send photos and videos to online newspapers, they are happy to have their name credited for one day ("Look, Mom, my photo!"), but that may be giving the newspaper a huge traffic and financial return), all from the free and innocent collaboration from their readers.

Listen, I would have no problem letting my church or a NGO I support use one of my images for free, or sharing images with a group of co-workers. We even had a colleague a year ago asking for images to use in support of a friend with cancer and many of us collaborated. This is very different from having IBM or Yahoo or CNN using my images for free.

I posted some small images in Fotopedia and they received low ratings because I added my name unintrusively at the corner of them - what was not prohibited, but still people emailed me to reupload them without my name. I didn't. I would gladly collaborate with them, but not in a way that I may lose control over those images, because people will probably download them without giving any attention to copyright notices.

Even if stock photography is far from being a significant income, I know its value, and it is not because this won't change my financial life that I will simply give images away in a site like SXC or RGB. Sorry, it's a matter of principle.

I beg to differ about your opinion of image worth.  Freestockers do understand the value of their images because many freestockers are also microstockers.  I have galleries on Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Fotalia and am about to begin creating a gallery at Stockfresh.

And I find it a matter of principle to share some of my images.  I've got some bad news for you.  You lose control of your images the moment someone else downloads them.  Putting your name on the images won't stop them being ripped, it just gives a Photoshopper a few seconds of grief to remove it.  In my experience, both as a contributor and an admin, most microstock sites won't accept an image with a name on.  Uploading is a risk we all take.  I've found the benefits outweigh the downside.

« Reply #508 on: September 14, 2010, 01:30 »
0
 Will you be raising concerns if an RGB referral buys one of your images? 

I'd probably be left wondering whether they'd had bought more if free sites like RGB didn't exist.

Well apparently the likes of iStock and StockXpert wouldn't have come into being for you to sell your images.   ;)

LOL

That's right I'd still be earning $300 for each download  ;) ;)

« Reply #509 on: September 14, 2010, 01:32 »
0
Peter, you have your work cut out...   ::)

I really don't appreciate all of the sarcasm and the intonation that I am stupid.

You need to check around a little. Currently, my images, after they reach a certain age, automatically go into the FREE section at IS. There used to be an opt-out for that, but it magically disappeared a while back. I only found out about this after checking the FREE section on my own. Then I had to delete them all. Now, I have to check periodically to make sure there are none there.

You should be ashamed of yourself for making me look like a total idiot for asking those questions after what just happened at IS. If you think I am going to blindly trust ANY agency right now, you're the ignorant ones.

I gotta agree, you didn't understand how things worked and instead of trying to give an explanation of the relationship, he had to be a total ass.

Maybe you should read back into the thread to the point where I explained the relationship several times...?

Clue, it was before cclapper joined the fracas.

« Reply #510 on: September 14, 2010, 01:41 »
0
I would have paid for it.

Bingo.

Quote
I don't know why everyone is having a go at weirdvis.  He did not come here asking anyone to give away their images for free.  He came here to support StockFresh and to explain RGBs relationship with them.  He even mentioned that RGB will drive traffic to SF without any catch.  

No catch, except the cash they're being paid ;) .

I wish someone would tell me where I can find all this cash people are talking about because I need a new Porsche.  The ashtray is jampacked full on the old one...

Microbius

« Reply #511 on: September 14, 2010, 02:50 »
0
I am wishing StockFresh well.  I actually liked StockXpert and did well there. But lets not lose sight of the fact that SF is a business and they're back because there is money to be made.  They are not philanthropists who are looking out for the best interest of artists (the inability to opt of of subs shows artists interests aren't number one).  So it's best to not have any illusions about them.  They seem like good people with good hearts and intentions, but remember they sold out before, so anything is still possible.

It just seems like their not fully committed to it either...  Why would it take 3 months or more to approve artists?  What's the point of even approving artists if you are still going to review each and every image uploaded?  It seems like they know what they like and don't like and they know what's good and what's not good, so just mass approve everyone and reject the crappy images.  Unless the purpose is to control the number of images being submitted because there isn't enough money behind it to hire reviewers, in which case an approval process makes perfect sense, you don't want the 2 to 4 month image approval times like DT or IS.

Deposit Photos didn't make anyone go through an approval process.  They just accept what they want and reject what they don't like every other agency out there and look how quickly they built up their portfolio (of course, the bounty for referrals and payments for approved images also helped).  Heck, I've got more sales on DP than I do iStock.

Now with this iStock thing SF is probably being flooded with applications and images which is going to make the situation worse for those who haven't been approved yet.

This is crazy, they are just starting out so of course they are prioritising uploads. I would guess that they have been fast tracking those who would add most value to the collection. I appreciate that you spend quite a lot of time blogging and commenting on microstock but the size/ success of the image portfolios of those people complaining don't seem to place them in the fast track category.
This just makes good business sense, if you are trying to attract new buyers you don't wont the few files it is possible to review at this stage (because of time involved) to be mediocre.
This is the usual thing that happens where we over-hype a new agency then blame them when they don't live up to our hype. Give them a chance!!
And before you start singing the praises of Depositphotos I suggest you track down the threads on here discussing their links with Depositfiles, FD went out his way to do a lot of research into these companies' backgrounds and what he found was disturbing to say the least  (google "depositphotos depositfiles" as the threads have been archived now)

« Reply #512 on: September 14, 2010, 03:10 »
0
They are taking a big gamble starting a new site when so many have failed in the past few years.  Keeping costs to a minimum is sensible, they could hire a lot of reviewers and IT people to get the site going more quickly but that is going to cost a lot of money.  It might be more sensible to build slowly and hope their loyal StockXpert contributors and buyers will have a bit of patience.

I am pleased with them so far, the site looks great, is easy to use, reminds me of StockXpert and they already have some buyers.  Much better than most new sites that either have badly designed sites or very few buyers.

« Reply #513 on: September 14, 2010, 05:20 »
0
I wish someone would tell me where I can find all this cash people are talking about because I need a new Porsche.  The ashtray is jampacked full on the old one...

Exactly. They get paid for advertising us. That's all there is to it. They earn money which helps them keep their site alive and we get a lot of potential buyers which is good for us. This is how ALL the stock agencies operate.

Did you lose the check?

« Reply #514 on: September 14, 2010, 05:59 »
0
I've got some bad news for you.  You lose control of your images the moment someone else downloads them. 

This is not news to me at all, I've been on this way too long, with my personal webiste running since... hmmm... 1996 I think.

Yes, people can remove watermarks from images, but then they are deliberately doing it. Not having a WM on them (or my name as in Fotopedia case) only makes this easier, people won't even think twice about using the image, uploading them not just to their website, but to Flickr an Photobucket, as we've seen so many times. If I am giving Fotopedia my images, to help them build a vast visual free online encyclopedia, there is nothing wrong about my adding my name (unintrusively, as I said).

I have travel reports online, and I've seen travel agencies using those images in their websites, without giving any credit nor asking me for permission. I have seen online travel sites actually copying the whole content of my travel report into theirs (with credist to me, but without my consent). And the reports actually brought my first selling opportunity, but then it was me putting my own content online, and if someone may benefit from it, other than the reads who get hints about the places I visit, should be myself.

« Reply #515 on: September 14, 2010, 06:12 »
0
Ok, this is my last post in this thread about free images. If anyone wants to keep discussing it, I suggest starting anew thread. 

Let's keep this one about StockFresh.

madelaide, it is up to you whether you want to submit a free image to RGB.  You might not want to do it yourself, but you should open your mind and see why other's would.  It doesn't devalue that photographer's portfolio as a whole, in fact it probably increases it.  
Yes, I think it's detrimental, and I am voicing my opinion.  Microstock was also detrimental to macrostock (and it's funny however how people now see macro as an escape to reducing sales in micro...)

I don't know why everyone is having a go at weirdvis.  He did not come here asking anyone to give away their images for free.
I have no problem with weirdvis, I'm just debating a business model he is defending.

« Reply #516 on: September 14, 2010, 06:31 »
0
Let's get this topic back on track with the excellent post by Microbius below;

This is crazy, they are just starting out so of course they are prioritising uploads. I would guess that they have been fast tracking those who would add most value to the collection. I appreciate that you spend quite a lot of time blogging and commenting on microstock but the size/ success of the image portfolios of those people complaining don't seem to place them in the fast track category.
This just makes good business sense, if you are trying to attract new buyers you don't wont the few files it is possible to review at this stage (because of time involved) to be mediocre.
This is the usual thing that happens where we over-hype a new agency then blame them when they don't live up to our hype. Give them a chance!!
And before you start singing the praises of Depositphotos I suggest you track down the threads on here discussing their links with Depositfiles, FD went out his way to do a lot of research into these companies' backgrounds and what he found was disturbing to say the least  (google "depositphotos depositfiles" as the threads have been archived now)

« Reply #517 on: September 14, 2010, 06:38 »
0
Let's get this topic back on track with the excellent post by Microbius below;

This is crazy, they are just starting out so of course they are prioritising uploads. I would guess that they have been fast tracking those who would add most value to the collection. I appreciate that you spend quite a lot of time blogging and commenting on microstock but the size/ success of the image portfolios of those people complaining don't seem to place them in the fast track category.
This just makes good business sense, if you are trying to attract new buyers you don't wont the few files it is possible to review at this stage (because of time involved) to be mediocre.
This is the usual thing that happens where we over-hype a new agency then blame them when they don't live up to our hype. Give them a chance!!
And before you start singing the praises of Depositphotos I suggest you track down the threads on here discussing their links with Depositfiles, FD went out his way to do a lot of research into these companies' backgrounds and what he found was disturbing to say the least  (google "depositphotos depositfiles" as the threads have been archived now)

Exactly why I was asking for clarification on the StockFresh/RGB relationship. But wait, I am stupid for thinking my images would be given away for free.

OK, I'm done with that whole "fracas".  :)

I agree with what Microbius has said, but when my ap still hadn't been approved, after having been on StockXpert already, I was a little annoyed that it took so long. You must admit, there hasn't been a micro site yet that has taken this long to approve, as far as I know. If I am wrong, please correct me.

« Reply #518 on: September 14, 2010, 07:11 »
0
You must admit, there hasn't been a micro site yet that has taken this long to approve, as far as I know. If I am wrong, please correct me.

Well, that's probably very true, but ... there's never been a micro site open up with so much confidence in the owners ... with so many contributors clammering to join all at once ... and so many available images to inspect ... whoosh! If I were them I would prioritise by concentrating on contributors with proven high-demand portfolios.

Other 'new' micros nowadays have to incentivise contributors to upload by paying them to do so, like Veer, and from what I hear they've been pretty slow too.

« Reply #519 on: September 14, 2010, 07:17 »
0
I wish someone would tell me where I can find all this cash people are talking about because I need a new Porsche.  The ashtray is jampacked full on the old one...

Exactly. They get paid for advertising us. That's all there is to it. They earn money which helps them keep their site alive and we get a lot of potential buyers which is good for us. This is how ALL the stock agencies operate.

Did you lose the check?

Did you forget to send it?

« Reply #520 on: September 14, 2010, 07:21 »
0
Let's get this topic back on track with the excellent post by Microbius below;

This is crazy, they are just starting out so of course they are prioritising uploads. I would guess that they have been fast tracking those who would add most value to the collection. I appreciate that you spend quite a lot of time blogging and commenting on microstock but the size/ success of the image portfolios of those people complaining don't seem to place them in the fast track category.
This just makes good business sense, if you are trying to attract new buyers you don't wont the few files it is possible to review at this stage (because of time involved) to be mediocre.
This is the usual thing that happens where we over-hype a new agency then blame them when they don't live up to our hype. Give them a chance!!
And before you start singing the praises of Depositphotos I suggest you track down the threads on here discussing their links with Depositfiles, FD went out his way to do a lot of research into these companies' backgrounds and what he found was disturbing to say the least  (google "depositphotos depositfiles" as the threads have been archived now)

Exactly why I was asking for clarification on the StockFresh/RGB relationship. But wait, I am stupid for thinking my images would be given away for free.

OK, I'm done with that whole "fracas".  :)

I agree with what Microbius has said, but when my ap still hadn't been approved, after having been on StockXpert already, I was a little annoyed that it took so long. You must admit, there hasn't been a micro site yet that has taken this long to approve, as far as I know. If I am wrong, please correct me.

Don't worry, I've worked with Peter for years and it took them quite a while to approve my ap too.  I have a feeling they are snowed under at the moment because news is getting around that StockXpert has risen from the ashes.  I'm sure they will get around to you as quickly as they can.  :)

« Reply #521 on: September 14, 2010, 10:20 »
0
Prioritize top names is not a problem to me, I only hope our months-old sign-ups-without-approval don't lost ground to former IS-exclusives in exodus from there. It would be a betrayal to former StockXpert supporters who have been waiting for so long if they accept these drifters before accepting us.   :-\

« Reply #522 on: September 14, 2010, 10:48 »
0
Well, any exclusive would have a 30 day period before they would be able to upload anyways, so they wouldn't need to prioritize them *too* much.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #523 on: September 14, 2010, 10:55 »
0
30 days is a very short time compared to how long many of us have been waiting at SF (3+ months for me, and still no answer)

« Reply #524 on: September 14, 2010, 11:02 »
0
3 months seems a bit excessive heh :)

Maybe they don't have the capacity yet to take in a flood of images, so they are approving new members as their server capacity increases to handle the load.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
17474 Views
Last post July 27, 2010, 20:26
by a.k.a.-tom
13 Replies
18438 Views
Last post December 30, 2010, 04:17
by alfonsodetomas
8 Replies
11281 Views
Last post February 18, 2012, 17:41
by Fran
74 Replies
36148 Views
Last post December 20, 2014, 02:26
by Hobostocker
52 Replies
58295 Views
Last post March 02, 2015, 01:13
by Hobostocker

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors