Author Topic: New Veer Contributor Agreement Posted (Read 15180 times)

cthoman · « **Reply #1 on:** June 10, 2010, 12:07 »

That's a shame. I liked the end of the year automatic payment idea.

packerguy · « **Reply #2 on:** June 10, 2010, 12:32 »

Quote from: cthoman on June 10, 2010, 12:07

That's a shame. I liked the end of the year automatic payment idea.

+1

donding · « **Reply #3 on:** June 10, 2010, 12:36 »

WHAT?

That's the only reason I went ahead and joined so if it was a slow site, as everyone mentioned, I'd still get my payout without having to wait forever. Those slow site sit in limbo forever when they don't get sales. I guess we can't do any thing to change it.

stormchaser · « **Reply #4 on:** June 10, 2010, 12:44 »

Another relaunch. Things didn't go so well the first time?

Stu99 · « **Reply #5 on:** June 10, 2010, 13:25 »

If we are losing year end payouts, it would be nice if the minimum payout would be dropped to $50 minimum. The more frequent payouts would be evenly spread out over the year so I can't imagine that it would over stress the payments dept. This would help encourage the submitters with smaller portfolios.

lisafx · « **Reply #6 on:** June 10, 2010, 13:47 »

With the term "Marketplace" removed, how will Veer differentiate its microstock offerings from the macro images?

Or will there no longer be any differentiation? If not, will the micro prices be going up or the macro prices be coming down?

melastmohican · « **Reply #7 on:** June 10, 2010, 14:08 »

What exactly does "cash purchase" mean? Are they going to allow to wire money? At least with credit cards there is some identification of buyers. Are they going to start money laundry?

rubyroo · « **Reply #10 on:** June 10, 2010, 14:19 »

Hi Ryan,

Could you explain the amendment to section: IV E a little more please? I've only had a first skim of the 'compare' document, so sorry if I've missed the answer to this, but that section really jumped out at me. My question is:

What sort of difference is involved in a cash vs credit sale price? i.e. is our royalty bumped up or bumped down in this scenario - or have I misinterpreted the wording?

lisafx · « **Reply #11 on:** June 10, 2010, 14:55 »

Quote from: RyanB on June 10, 2010, 14:10

Hi Lisa,

We actually touched upon these questions in an announcement from earlier this year:

http://ideas.veer.com/group/marketplace/discussions/132

We will continue to have a wide variety of images from premium-priced images to value-priced images, all offered under the royalty-free licensing model. Micro prices won't be going up, but the images themselves will be integrated into the broader Veer website

Thanks for the clarification and the link Ryan.

I will check out the discussion for more details.

pancaketom · « **Reply #12 on:** June 10, 2010, 20:36 »

How will the cash price compare to the credit price for images - will they be about the same, or will the cash price be more (but we will still get paid as if it were a credit sale = lower royalty rate?)

--=Tom

click_click · « **Reply #13 on:** June 10, 2010, 22:17 »

Maybe it's too late or maybe it's the beer. Maybe it's because my native tongue isn't English.

What does it mean when you speak of licensing images with cash?

As mentioned before, do the buyers literally walk into your office paying in bills and coins for the image they want?

And how did the buyers pay for the images before? In cows or sheep? Sorry for my sarcasm but I just cannot understand what you mean when you speak of paying licenses with cash. I mean buyers use credit cards, wire transfers or Paypal and other forms of electronic payments so how is this such a significant improvement?

I appreciate any clarification.

Microbius · « **Reply #14 on:** June 11, 2010, 04:53 »

The way I interpret the statements above it just means you can get a cash price for the image and pay for it like you would any other online purchase at checkout without having had to buy credits prior to choosing the image. I think this will help by making impulse purchases more likely and stopping customers worrying about unspent credits in credit packs.

sam100 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 11, 2010, 05:00 »

Quote from: Microbius on June 11, 2010, 04:53

The way I interpret the statements above it just means you can get a cash price for the image and pay for it like you would any other online purchase at checkout without having had to buy credits prior to choosing the image. I think this will help by making impulse purchases more likely and stopping customers worrying about unspent credits in credit packs.

The way I interpret it also...:-)

Patrick.

cathyslife · « **Reply #16 on:** June 11, 2010, 05:39 »

Which might be a good thing because sometimes a buyer only needs a couple of images and doesn't want to tie up more money by buying credits that might not get used immediately. I have been in that situation myself.

I think this is a good idea.

qwerty · « **Reply #17 on:** June 11, 2010, 05:50 »

I think $100 payout figure is too high for veer market place, there just isn't the earnings there to justify it.
Veer presently represents about 2% of my monthly earnings. Not a real big incentive to keep going with them but I have. Dash for cash has sucked me in for a while longer.

As they form only 2% of my earnings to get a monthly payout that would mean I would have to be earning around $60,000 per annum total from all my agencies.

A payout figure of $50 would be more realistic and would be inline with payout values for canstock,bigstock,fotolia etc.

Phil · « **Reply #18 on:** June 11, 2010, 06:20 »

we bought 2 blog sized images at canstock last weekend, purely because I can convert earnings to credits at any amount (basically enough for just for the 2 images). obviously I'm not a big buyer

but who knows how many others are out there who dont want to buy credit packs.

FD · « **Reply #19 on:** June 11, 2010, 08:20 »

Quote from: Brian O'Shea on June 10, 2010, 11:58

Removal of the automatic end-of-year payout for royalty balances that haven’t yet hit the $100 minimum payout threshold.

I don't care about the cash thing since it's just a smokescreen for this more drastic change. I don't agree with the change of terms that there will be no annual payout any more, just a payout at the 100$ limit. It's clear that many small contributors like myself will never reach payout but Veer will sit on the (our) resting money or spend it, just like what happened with Fotomind.

What should I do? Not acknowledge the changes so the current agreement keeps being in force? Is there some sneaky small print that allows Veer to change these conditions unilaterally? If so, I'll delete my 600 images in the queue and my 100 or so accepted in the current Dash program. No kidding. I don't accept that change.

Pixart · « **Reply #20 on:** June 11, 2010, 14:48 »

Dear Veer,

Seems like a pretty shady move making a big change right after baiting new artists and introducing changes immediately following Dash for Cash. What's it been, 10 days?

Look, at the end of the year I got a payment of $1.75. I had mixed feelings about it as a business person
- on one hand I knew it cost you more than that to make such a small payment and I did have a chuckle over it. On the other hand I applauded Veer for holding up their end of the bargain and I even raved about it on the forums. I wonder how many contributors you got under the guise of being paid out every year end? Classy move on your part.

Jeeze, isn't your minimum payment $100 anyway? What is the point of paying automatically accounts with over a $100 balance on Dec 31st? You and I both know that you are going to be sitting on thousands of dollars of unpaid earnings. I'm not just talking about year end balances, I'm talking about lifelong balances.

Do the right thing. Drop it to a reasonable amount - perhaps a $25 minimum payout at year end.

And if you are not aware, there is another agency that frequently makes major detrimental changes to their contributor agreement. (To be fair, at least Veer gave notice). You won't see see many of us promoting them. They do have customers so we all put up with major BS from them. If you want to be like them with no clients you won't have many artist left.

cathyslife · « **Reply #21 on:** June 11, 2010, 15:32 »

Quote from: Pixart on June 11, 2010, 14:48

Dear Veer,

Seems like a pretty shady move making a big change right after baiting new artists and introducing changes immediately following Dash for Cash. What's it been, 10 days?

Look, at the end of the year I got a payment of $1.75. I had mixed feelings about it as a business person
- on one hand I knew it cost you more than that to make such a small payment and I did have a chuckle over it. On the other hand I applauded Veer for holding up their end of the bargain and I even raved about it on the forums. I wonder how many contributors you got under the guise of being paid out every year end? Classy move on your part.

Jeeze, isn't your minimum payment $100 anyway? What is the point of paying automatically accounts with over a $100 balance on Dec 31st? You and I both know that you are going to be sitting on thousands of dollars of unpaid earnings. I'm not just talking about year end balances, I'm talking about lifelong balances.

Do the right thing. Drop it to a reasonable amount - perhaps a $25 minimum payout at year end.

And if you are not aware, there is another agency that frequently makes major detrimental changes to their contributor agreement. (To be fair, at least Veer gave notice). You won't see see many of us promoting them. They do have customers so we all put up with major BS from them. If you want to be like them with no clients you won't have many artist left.

I was thinking the exact same thing yesterday. Funny how the terms changed AFTER some of us signed up.

Quote

I don't care about the cash thing since it's just a smokescreen for this more drastic change. I don't agree with the change of terms that there will be no annual payout any more, just a payout at the 100$ limit. It's clear that many small contributors like myself will never reach payout but Veer will sit on the (our) resting money or spend it, just like what happened with Fotomind.

Yep.

shiyali · « **Reply #22 on:** June 11, 2010, 17:55 »

I always considered the year end payout an exceptionally fair policy that made Veer stand out from its competitors. To suddenly cancel it and drop a bombshell like that as if it was just a minor adjustment certainly puts Veer back in line with some of its competitors. Welcome to the bottom line.

Perry · « **Reply #23 on:** June 11, 2010, 19:30 »

Quote from: Brian O'Shea on June 10, 2010, 11:58

• Removal of the automatic end-of-year payout for royalty balances that haven’t yet hit the $100 minimum payout threshold.

So this should be just "Removal of the automatic end-of-year payout" ?

ap · « **Reply #24 on:** June 11, 2010, 21:47 »

Quote from: shiyali on June 11, 2010, 17:55

I always considered the year end payout an exceptionally fair policy that made Veer stand out from its competitors. To suddenly cancel it and drop a bombshell like that as if it was just a minor adjustment certainly puts Veer back in line with some of its competitors.

+1

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New Veer Contributor Agreement Posted (Read 15180 times)

Brian O'Shea

cthoman

packerguy

donding

stormchaser

Stu99

lisafx

melastmohican

GrantP

GrantP

rubyroo

lisafx

pancaketom

click_click

Microbius

sam100

cathyslife

qwerty

Phil

FD

Pixart

cathyslife

shiyali

Perry

ap

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors