|
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 - tickstock
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 151
201
« on: March 24, 2017, 16:22 »
Sorry but it's my understanding we aren't supposed to be quoting things from the forum so you'll have to go there yourself.
202
« on: March 24, 2017, 16:07 »
The lowest you could get paid is 19c for subs. I wonder why my Feb report has the following 'iStock Subscription' sale entries then?
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.14
0.15
0.15
I guess "minimum" means, "the lowest you can get ... except when it's lower".  Or, maybe all those sales were reported incorrectly?
But what's this? My Jan statement has these sub sales listed:
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.15
I guess those were all a mistake, too.
Are you exclusive? If yes, have you read the forums?
Yes. No. Why should I bother? If 19c is the minimum (I mistakenly thought it was 16c, so there are more that should be listed above), it's the minimum. Apparently there are exceptions; I don't care what they are. It means there IS no minimum in reality.
19c is the lowest for exclusives.
203
« on: March 24, 2017, 16:00 »
The lowest you could get paid is 19c for subs. I wonder why my Feb report has the following 'iStock Subscription' sale entries then?
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.14
0.15
0.15
I guess "minimum" means, "the lowest you can get ... except when it's lower". Or, maybe all those sales were reported incorrectly?
But what's this? My Jan statement has these sub sales listed:
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.15
I guess those were all a mistake, too.
Are you exclusive? If yes, have you read the forums?
204
« on: March 24, 2017, 15:56 »
Not sure the exact questions you have but most have been answered on the forums, it's not always easy to find that answer though.
Seems to me her question is "why are there large numbers of sales below the minimum commission rate iStock announced", saying that you don't know the question she's referring to and then dismissing it with a vague suggestion that it's probable been answered sounds like a corporate fobbing off to me.
It's not that, there are different answers for different things. Lower royalties for subs has a different answer than lower for Premium Access. Both of those have been answered in the forums. Maybe there are specifics of her case that make it different I don't know.
205
« on: March 24, 2017, 15:44 »
Not sure the exact questions you have but most have been answered on the forums, it's not always easy to find that answer though.
206
« on: March 24, 2017, 14:50 »
It's a big mix maybe one day I'll go through and see what the average is.
207
« on: March 24, 2017, 14:46 »
As an exclusive I can say I'm excited about IS for the first time in a long while. Jan. and Feb. earnings were better than almost every month from the past couple years.
Good for you.
For me, Jan and Feb were both far lower than every month last year. And every month in 2016 was the worst Jan, Feb, March since becoming exclusive in 2007. Certainly no reason for me to resume uploading - far too many tiny value sales (sub 10c as an exclusive) which isn't fair trade, but interesting to see at least one person is having a different experience.
The lowest you could get paid is 19c for subs.
you say you are exclusive at istock and that you are happy with 19c per image? btw I got even lower than that...
19c is for the lowest royalty rate, not my rate. That's also the minimum for a sub sale some sub sales get $10 or $15.
208
« on: March 24, 2017, 14:12 »
As an exclusive I can say I'm excited about IS for the first time in a long while. Jan. and Feb. earnings were better than almost every month from the past couple years.
Good for you.
For me, Jan and Feb were both far lower than every month last year. And every month in 2016 was the worst Jan, Feb, March since becoming exclusive in 2007. Certainly no reason for me to resume uploading - far too many tiny value sales (sub 10c as an exclusive) which isn't fair trade, but interesting to see at least one person is having a different experience.
The lowest you could get paid is 19c for subs.
209
« on: March 24, 2017, 13:07 »
As an exclusive I can say I'm excited about IS for the first time in a long while. Jan. and Feb. earnings were better than almost every month from the past couple years.
thanks for popping in Lobo!
Sorry you don't like hearing differing views.
I am happy for you if that is true! Do not forget to take off the December GI sales from the January statement though.
Even taking out some sales from Jan, it was up year on year. Feb. was way up though and that's why I'm optimistic.
You have to see how many more images you have sold compared to last year jan and feb. Now everyone is in the fog because of the new pricing system and I wonder how much more we would get with previous royalties system.
As an exclusive I think I get more per sale under the new system.
210
« on: March 24, 2017, 12:51 »
As an exclusive I can say I'm excited about IS for the first time in a long while. Jan. and Feb. earnings were better than almost every month from the past couple years.
thanks for popping in Lobo!
Sorry you don't like hearing differing views.
I am happy for you if that is true! Do not forget to take off the December GI sales from the January statement though.
Even taking out some sales from Jan, it was up year on year. Feb. was way up though and that's why I'm optimistic.
211
« on: March 24, 2017, 12:24 »
As an exclusive I can say I'm excited about IS for the first time in a long while. Jan. and Feb. earnings were better than almost every month from the past couple years.
thanks for popping in Lobo!
Sorry you don't like hearing differing views.
212
« on: March 24, 2017, 11:37 »
Hi , Long time lurker here . I finally decided to pull the plug on iStock/Getty . I have been a member since 2010 and up to the acquisiton sales were really good .
What do you mean by acquisition? Getty bought iStock in 2006.
213
« on: March 24, 2017, 11:30 »
As an exclusive I can say I'm excited about IS for the first time in a long while. Jan. and Feb. earnings were better than almost every month from the past couple years.
214
« on: March 21, 2017, 14:41 »
Are you shittin me?
Mexico 100.00% iStock 0.42 15.00% 0.06
6 f-u-c-k-ing-cents? I think this is the end, they are driving all independents out with the insulting and repulsive commission. Two months to report that they just screwed us?
And exclusives as well!
I haven't looked at individual sales but the first two months are well above last year. Maybe my best ever Feb.
215
« on: January 28, 2017, 16:04 »
Hey y'all,
I've been using a third-party app to track my balance on iStock and today noticed that $90 dollars has suddenly disappeared. I have no email informing me that I'm being sent a a payment and there's nothing in the payouts report. Is this anything anyone else has experienced?
Thanks
Third party apps aren't accurate from my understanding.
It's showing the same missing balance on two third-party apps, one of which is Deep Meta, endorsed and encouraged to use for keeping track of financials by iStock.
You may be getting some data, it just might not be accurate. I think you'll have to check the forum or wait till next month.
216
« on: January 27, 2017, 23:41 »
Hey y'all,
I've been using a third-party app to track my balance on iStock and today noticed that $90 dollars has suddenly disappeared. I have no email informing me that I'm being sent a a payment and there's nothing in the payouts report. Is this anything anyone else has experienced?
Thanks
Third party apps aren't accurate from my understanding.
217
« on: January 27, 2017, 15:13 »
I just got my 1099 and had a better year than last. Thought I'd be down about 10% but looks like I'm up close to that.
218
« on: January 05, 2017, 14:07 »
If you have permission why would they be opposed to signing a document saying you have permission?
He didn't like the wording of the SS property release. I didn't quite understand why but I know he won't sign it.
Sounds a lot like he doesn't want to give you the necessary permissions. If your question is: "Can I do whatever I want and hope Shutterstock never finds out?" then no can stop you but you will open yourself up to being sued and having your account terminated. If your question is: "What should I do if I want to sell someone else's images?" then the answer is get him to sign a release or transfer the copyright to you.
219
« on: January 05, 2017, 11:49 »
If he won't sign a release I wouldn't even think about it, move on. You risk getting sued and having your account closed.
Who is likely to sue me? I have permission to use the images, they're available for editorial use only and I explained the nature and source of the images very clearly to the agency.
I'm not trying to be awkward, this is an area that I'm not particularly knowledgeable in so would like to know if there's something else I should be aware of.
If you have permission why would they be opposed to signing a document saying you have permission?
220
« on: January 05, 2017, 10:44 »
The OP knows the terms they were bought under, as he knows the file was bought from iS.
He also said he contacted iS and they said they wouldn't take it any further as he isn't exclusive .
I posted the link to iS's licence information in reply #12, though like everything iS, it's not "interpretation-free'.
IS have in the past said that contributors should not be contacting buyers and that they would take a dim view of any so doing.
I'm not saying the present case is clearly an abuse of the licensing terms - it seems to me to fall into the "grey area" unless you can establish the aggregate print run of all the paper publications which ran the advert. (Also, probably, your photo in their photo could also have been used in print articles reviewing the phone).
Possibly if the OP confirmed that the file was bought from iS by a pleasant enquiry to the buyer, iS would then take action, based on their reply, "As we have no way to confirm that this file has been attained" (!) "from our site, since you are a non-exclusive contributor"
I don't see anything about a print run from the OP. He says it's used as a wallpaper on a phone and in thousands of TV ads.
221
« on: January 05, 2017, 03:14 »
Your issues with Shutterstock aren't relevant. It's against the terms you agreed with to bother buyers and if they are using the image legally (which it appears they are) then you make us all look bad.
222
« on: January 05, 2017, 02:54 »
OK so if we think an image has been misused we just lie back and take it ...fine
You can do what you want but bothering a company makes us all look unprofessional and could result in your account being terminated, but hey do what you want.
223
« on: January 05, 2017, 02:47 »
I don't disagree with that...maybe I should have said research the terms of licencing if you are still concerned contact them. You have a very low threshold of what you consider "harassing" I don't consider asking a question harassing...not our call anyway
That's also bad advice. Besides making them talk to their lawyers, marketers, and the stock photo agency you are probably violating the terms of agreement with the agency who licensed the image. This is what Shutterstock's terms are: "In the event that you believe Content has been misused, you shall take no action without providing notice of such misuse to Shutterstock and receiving Shutterstock's prior written consent to such action."
224
« on: January 05, 2017, 02:34 »
You can be polite about it as I say you and I don't know the facts I haven't checked the licence it may have been purchased under nor exactly how it has been used in detail. So I don't know whether he has a case or not.
The first step should be to research the terms. They said it was from iStock. If you haven't even checked the license why would you recommend harassing a company?
225
« on: January 05, 2017, 02:20 »
I'd just contact the company and try to get an EL out of them. There's no use wasting much time or resources trying to battle those big brands ... at the very least you get "exposure" and at best you get the cost of the license that I'd imagine they thought they were getting to begin with.
At least, I can hope that this world has some decency left and that they would try to be honest :/ it's an odd world though.
Which part of the license did they violate? I haven't found it and I don't see any post on here pointing to it. Trying to "get an EL out of them" for using the image legally is crazy and very unprofessional.
Yes you don't know so I don't see the harm in contacting them and asking them the terms they purchased the image under
Seriously? What's the harm in accusing a buyer of doing something they could be sued for without any evidence or reason? You'll be very busy annoying a lot of companies if you go after every site that probably purchased a license and is using it correctly but you don't have proof they did. Which sites even require an EL for this kind of use?
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 151
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
