|
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 - noodle
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 37
326
« on: November 01, 2016, 14:20 »
I can smell the burn....
Nothing spells Loser , than a " ya, I meant that..." lol
327
« on: November 01, 2016, 08:10 »
The issue doesnt lie with the fact thats your car and you provided the property release
The issue is the design of the car, tires,etc are property of the manufacturer, and as such you can only submit as editorial
328
« on: October 29, 2016, 16:12 »
that is discouraging to hear
if someone has a legitimate claim, this can put a real damper on earnings
i think every stocksite should have an exclusive email or phone # where a member can get in touch easily to resolve these kind of problems, and only in these situations
329
« on: October 29, 2016, 13:38 »
Any links to your portfolio on other sites? Maybe we can figure out why.
assuming FT has valid grounds for terminating the acct, that would possibly lead to terminating other accts
330
« on: October 29, 2016, 07:21 »
This sounds like an interesting case, i am curious how it will be resolved
Hopefully it turns out well for you
331
« on: October 19, 2016, 18:19 »
If its your first time, they want you to submit 4 images for approval before they willa cct you as a contributer
332
« on: October 14, 2016, 20:34 »
That cant be right
Gawd look at how beautiful is spelled lol
333
« on: October 08, 2016, 15:21 »
Well, they lowered the payout threshold for a reason.
Looking long term more and more contributers will experience a downward decline in earnings as the library balloons and the number of contributers continues to increase. Look at long tome contributers that were , not making a living, but were pulling in severeal hundred $a month easy peasy. Their earnings have been drastically reduced and will stagnat at best or continue slowly downwards.
This is the reality of this business, and confributers are the losers/su kers here.
334
« on: September 30, 2016, 05:19 »
Look where they are now on the list to the right.
They have been noticably better ever since
335
« on: September 30, 2016, 05:08 »
They are all rats, even ss for for being complacent
336
« on: September 29, 2016, 20:06 »
Why would they pay $ when they can just steal it again?
They suffer no penalty or consequences for doing so.
337
« on: September 29, 2016, 20:01 »
Question - Are these sales typical photos you would see on micro or are they the more artsy/creative type?
338
« on: September 24, 2016, 11:58 »
I agree with getting things right before release.
When it happens, it happens, and everyone will be happy.
Look at all the screwups that have happened at SS with their tinkering with the site - nothing but pissed off contributers and buyers.
339
« on: September 23, 2016, 17:14 »
Normal- esp many ineurope and america takevacations insummer months, so slower sales all around
Next slow down will be in Dec approaching christmas and intothenew year
340
« on: September 22, 2016, 14:35 »
But imagine sending 100 images to retouch from a photoshoot. Only 50 are accepted. Then only 25 sell. I have to sell at least 350 times just to cover the retouching service. And another 350 times to make a reasonable profit. Those 25 images have to sell 700 times. So $1 is expensive...
Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk
You better sharpen your own skills first then...
341
« on: September 20, 2016, 17:26 »
I dont understand this dialect...
342
« on: September 16, 2016, 12:47 »
Go simple with maybe an off camera flash and umbrella , if you have it
If not go real simple and at least brong a reflector, and you can have your wife assist you
Keep things simple, relaxed and fun
Look up some youtube tutorials on posing for your model and just have fun
One more thing... If. The model is sexy, dont wear trackpants
343
« on: September 16, 2016, 10:16 »
Any agancy whose way of conducting business means crashing and burning for the contributers
344
« on: September 14, 2016, 08:07 »
That is highly unusual.
Ive never had any issue like this with SS.
But boy their system seems to be plagued with so many little bugs everywhere
345
« on: September 13, 2016, 13:19 »
Their business, their rules
I suppose its just another step that unmistakably identifies or tags such images as editorial rather than commercial, and puts the onus on the buyer to use said images within the proper reatrictions
346
« on: September 13, 2016, 07:43 »
I find i cant hold a phone properly for taking photos - the phones are so thin and flat its hard to grip it and try not to get your fingers in the way.
347
« on: September 11, 2016, 05:22 »
No wonder I cant get in there...
348
« on: September 10, 2016, 17:53 »
Wow
Well at least you picked the right handle for yourself - avant, avant, avant!
349
« on: September 09, 2016, 16:00 »
I would assume the buyers would pay the same amount they would have paid otherwise, whether that's a subscription or large SOD.
I'd like to assume that too, but I also assume Adobe wants a cut, and when a new middleman gets into the chain, his cut typically comes out of ours.
Yes but this plugin is a sales channel for someone else's product. And Adobe owns Fotolia, a competitor. Surely they're not inviting SS in to play for free.
Why would Adobe get a cut? Do they get a cut when someone buys any other third party plugin for Photoshop? You download the plugin, drop it into the plugins folder and it works. Adobe won't even know it's there.
Yes but this plugin is a sales channel for someone else's product. And Adobe owns Fotolia, a competitor. Surely they're not inviting SS in to play for free. Whether they could actually block a plugin like this, I don't know, maybe not and in that case they couldn't demand a piece of the action.
They can block it. The Photoshop SDK (Software Developer's Kit) is only available by request meaning Shutterstock had to ask Adobe for access to write a plugin. No doubt Adobe knew what Shutterstock had in mind.
Can they legally demand a cut of royalties? I don't know, I doubt it, but why would they allow the plugin to be built in the first place, knowing they would be going head to head in competition all for a small cut of royalties when they could block the development and have no competition.
Maybe it has to be made available for fairness business practices or it would open the way to be challenged legally? I dont know- just musing.
350
« on: September 08, 2016, 14:08 »
Does this mean we will get a small raise, after all we did the work?
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 37
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
