Author Topic: What about Lucky Oliver? (Read 43487 times)

leaf · « **Reply #25 on:** July 13, 2006, 11:10 »

here is a typo for you

On step three it says
Sit tight and we'll get back to your with the good word when we've had a chance to scrutinize your photos.
perhaps you meant
Sit tight and we'll get back to YOU...

and don't forget about the referral system.

CJPhoto · « **Reply #26 on:** July 13, 2006, 11:10 »

Just jokes - it wouldnt have been a true referral, especially since the guy has been kind enough to be posting on your site.

Erdosain · « **Reply #27 on:** July 13, 2006, 11:15 »

Bryan, rigth now i´m uploading my photos to your site. I like very much the desing of the site and I wish you the best.
One question: can illustrations been submitted as vectors?

leaf · « **Reply #28 on:** July 13, 2006, 11:20 »

Quote from: CJPhoto on July 13, 2006, 11:10

Just jokes - it wouldnt have been a true referral, especially since the guy has been kind enough to be posting on your site.

well do agree it is very nice that he has taken the time to post here.
I don't think it would be wrong however to click on a referral link if it existed.

madelaide · « **Reply #29 on:** July 13, 2006, 18:50 »

Bryan,

On the header of the site you say about vector art. I don't see anything about uploading vector files. Am I missing something?

Regards,
Adelaide

fintastique · « **Reply #30 on:** July 14, 2006, 01:27 »

One small fly in the ointment when uploaded files make sure your IPTC data is in order because if the keywords are missing. You are back to entering them one by one.

Vector illustrations??

CJPhoto · « **Reply #31 on:** July 14, 2006, 01:38 »

Well - I have a total of 17 veiws and more importantly 1 DL - earned myself 0.90. I have no idea what photo though (I assume that feature is coming??).

Not sure if it is a "true" buyer or someone using one of the tokens they get when they start.

fintastique · « **Reply #32 on:** July 14, 2006, 02:02 »

Any chance of making the watermark more central or more prominant, top right hand corner very easy to crop off and the preview is a generous size. The Lucky oliver writing is hardly noticable on some photos.

As a customer suggestions for the programmers

A search box on home page and after the search if you click on a thumbnail hitting back should ideally take you back to the thumbnails not a blank screen to do another search it does this on IE but not on Firefox. Unfortunately IE is still very popular.

Not sure about LO price structure

1 300x 400
2 600 x 800
3 1200 x1600
4 1920 x 2560 not sure what mimimum size is

Expensive for small shots (>2 mp) and a very wide range for larger shots

Standard price structure

1 600 x 800
2 1200 x 1600
3 4 mp
4 8 mp

CJ how big was your photo?

CJPhoto · « **Reply #33 on:** July 14, 2006, 03:34 »

If I knew which photo, i could tell you. Either taken with a 5mp ixus or a 8mp 20D. I rarely crop.

It must have been a 3 token purchase though.

Re watermarks - they have a very fine watermark that I agree hardly shows up sometimes so maybe this needs to be darkened?? I like the skicky in the corner though, nice touch but with the quality of the photos, that isn't enough (can be cropped out) if the watermark is to faint to be scene. Minor gripe only.

madelaide · « **Reply #34 on:** July 14, 2006, 20:31 »

Quote from: fintastique on July 14, 2006, 02:02

A search box on home page and after the search if you click on a thumbnail hitting back should ideally take you back to the thumbnails not a blank screen to do another search it does this on IE but not on Firefox. Unfortunately IE is still very popular.

In Netscape, the back button takes me back to the search page, not to a blank one, but still I agree this is not right and should bring the thumbnail page from the search again.

I also agree that the price structure is a bit exagerated - optimistic, perhaps. I think it's ok that they have such small sizes (400x300), but indeed charging US$2 for a 800x600 that the other sites sell for US$1 doesn't seem very attractive to buyers.

Regards,
Adelaide

ichiro17 · « **Reply #35 on:** July 15, 2006, 19:41 »

I'm not sure where Lucky Oliver gets their copyright information, but a park out in a field is NOT copyrighted, and neither is the word CASINO. That being said, it seems that the site is being VERY picky (even pickier than SS). A toy dog is not copyrighted either.

I'm probably not going to bother submitting to them if they have unreasonable rejections like this in the future (keeping in mind that some of these pictures do not sell on Shutterstock or elsewhere, I'm not caring too much about those)

Hopefully it works out otherwise...but it did take 3 days for my FTP'd photos to show up.

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #36 on:** July 15, 2006, 23:54 »

I hate to say it, but Lucky Oliver is just following the lead of others in this case. I submitted some Easter toy images to Istock, and they rejected them as "copyright problems." When I asked about it, they said they routinely refuse toy photos as potential copyright infringements--no matter how nondescript the toy is. Istock also rejected a photo that had part of the name of a restaurant in it, similar to your "casino" rejection.

It's bizarre, I agree, but unfortunately Lucky Oliver is not being unreasonable--at least by some standards.

Quote from: ichiro17 on July 15, 2006, 19:41

I'm not sure where Lucky Oliver gets their copyright information, but a park out in a field is NOT copyrighted, and neither is the word CASINO. That being said, it seems that the site is being VERY picky (even pickier than SS). A toy dog is not copyrighted either.

I'm probably not going to bother submitting to them if they have unreasonable rejections like this in the future (keeping in mind that some of these pictures do not sell on Shutterstock or elsewhere, I'm not caring too much about those)

Hopefully it works out otherwise...but it did take 3 days for my FTP'd photos to show up.

madelaide · « **Reply #37 on:** July 16, 2006, 13:56 »

I have been lucky (oops!) with my submissions so far, only one rejection and that was in an image that was rejected in many sites, unfortunately.

I also had a toy bunny pic rejected in many sites and SPM was the only one to give a good explanation: images of toys alone get normally rejected for potential copyright infringement; if they are in a composition with other elements, then it's ok. Of course not all sites - iStock especially - follow this reasoning, but I find it acceptable.

Regards,
Adelaide

bryan_luckyoliver · « **Reply #38 on:** July 17, 2006, 17:19 »

Guys, I thought I would follow up on a few of your questions.

Vectors? We got a little ahead of ourselves. It should be coming soon though. We're currently working on search- we know we have some improvements to make here.

Pricing? It's what the market will bear, but we think it's good for our photographers. A ~600x800 pixel image will generate a $.60 payout and has the potential of earning $1.20 as an exclusive photo (part of the first 30,000 images offer). In the end though, it doesn't mean anything unless we get our photographers in front of buyers. Give us some time- we're going to continue to build awareness of LuckyOliver. There's still a lot of room for growth.

Line items? We're also working on the display of payouts and purchases.

Copyright? Boy this one is tough. It's an area that's not black and white. I will say we take borderline photos into consideration- it's not just tossed aside. It's a manual job though, so mistakes will happen.

Thanks for all the suggestions!

fintastique · « **Reply #39 on:** July 17, 2006, 18:50 »

Anybody had any strange rejections so far? I notice no reason is given either by e-mail or on the site

I had over half of my photos of paris rejected all of which were accepted at DT. I though maybe a few people uploaded their entire Paris portfolio but no a search for Paris gave 20 results and 16 were mine.

I was a bit more successful for London 41/66 so I suppose I can't complain.

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #40 on:** July 17, 2006, 19:40 »

All of my rejections have had explanations. In fact, they were some of the politest rejections I've had to date--very complimentary, and with good reasons (such as the reviewer not liking the photo's perspective, or the photo having artifacts at full resolution, etc.).

Was there a lot of redundancy in your Paris submission, with similar images or many photos of the same subject? That might cause them to pick and choose what they considered the best of the batch. But, that's just a guess.

Quote from: fintastique on July 17, 2006, 18:50

Anybody had any strange rejections so far? I notice no reason is given either by e-mail or on the site

I had over half of my photos of paris rejected all of which were accepted at DT. I though maybe a few people uploaded their entire Paris portfolio but no a search for Paris gave 20 results and 16 were mine.

I was a bit more successful for London 41/66 so I suppose I can't complain.

leaf · « **Reply #41 on:** July 18, 2006, 03:06 »

ok, i'll post this sudjestion in a more civil manner this time.

Hey Brian, a question for Lucky Oliver.

What are the chances of you having a referral system in the future? I think it would be a really great idea and would encourage me to advertise and recruit for Lucky Oliver (if it was a good one.. ie 10% of my referer's sales)

fintastique · « **Reply #42 on:** July 18, 2006, 03:17 »

OK Notre Dame had 7 photos but different angles east, west, south, close up BUT it is the most popular tourist attraction in Paris receiving 10 million visitors a year so I think it merits more than one photo.

For those of you who are REALLY interested

OK 42 photos at DT

Dreamstime Link

16 photos at LO and 7 of those were generic modern architecture ones taken at La Defence

http://www.luckyoliver.com/search

you will have to type in Paris

Just a bit miffed as I went to trouble of filling in the IPTC data as they were old photos just checked and only 17 were rejected so mustn't have uploaded the other 5.

Professorgb who many did you upload?

Referrals are good

bryan_luckyoliver · « **Reply #43 on:** July 18, 2006, 07:05 »

Leaf-
We are in the process of working on some issues with search. Right now it is built with AJAX- which is causing some issues- but longer term it will enable some interesting features. A referral system is definitely a priority for marketing the site. We haven't started expanding our efforts beyond photographers until we feel the site will be useful to buyers. Hang in there!

As far as reviews, we comment on every photo that is not accepted. Spam blockers might have filtered our bouncer emails. We're looking into putting the response directly in the site.

leaf · « **Reply #44 on:** July 18, 2006, 07:37 »

Quote from: bryan_luckyoliver on July 18, 2006, 07:05

Leaf-
We haven't started expanding our efforts beyond photographers until we feel the site will be useful to buyers. Hang in there!

It is photographers I want to refer to the site. There are a few good micro sites that let you refer photographers. I receive 10% on whatever images that refered photographer sells... it is a great solution and makes people want to refer other photographers... bringing many images to the site.

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #45 on:** July 18, 2006, 17:13 »

I think it's been 131, but I may be forgetting a few. They rejected something like 5.

Quote from: fintastique on July 18, 2006, 03:17

Professorgb who many did you upload?

Referrals are good

IRCrockett · « **Reply #46 on:** July 24, 2006, 11:57 »

So Lucky Oliver is down now for the second day. Wonder what's going on with them.

Striker77s · « **Reply #47 on:** July 24, 2006, 12:28 »

Well I checked out their site again today and noticed that they are giving 60% royalties to the first 30,000 images. I don't know if I just missed it the first time or what but I think I'm ready to bite and start uploading. Easy uploading and 60% royalties is worth a chance.

Mark

Erdosain · « **Reply #48 on:** July 24, 2006, 13:05 »

Mark, they only give the 60% to exclusive images.
I´m submitting and got 3 sales. The site still needs a lot of work but I like the people and the feedback

fintastique · « **Reply #49 on:** July 24, 2006, 15:14 »

Hats off to you having 3 sales I have 260 photos and have 50 views though of course I don't know which of all these photos have been looked at.

We should organize a sweepstake and we use our 3 credits to buy from the winners portfolio to see if they payout.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What about Lucky Oliver? (Read 43487 times)

leaf

CJPhoto

Erdosain

leaf

madelaide

fintastique

CJPhoto

fintastique

CJPhoto

madelaide

ichiro17

Greg Boiarsky

madelaide

bryan_luckyoliver

fintastique

Greg Boiarsky

leaf

fintastique

bryan_luckyoliver

leaf

Greg Boiarsky

IRCrockett

Striker77s

Erdosain

fintastique

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors