|
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 - Artemis
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20
326
« on: August 11, 2010, 14:37 »
DJPadanova,
Yeah, seriously.
No other site I know of has ever offered a buyer promotion paid for by contributors.
End of story.
Don't confuse comissions with short term buyer promotions.
And talking about commissions, they're higher on the other sites.
And in my case, so are my sales.
But if you're happy paying for it, great!
Not my problem.
Your sales? Didn't you just mention you've had 4 sales in 3 months in iStockphoto? I don't mean to be rude, but it looks to me like you are brand new to this and really not in position to make macro commentaries on the industry. Trust us. Those who have been around for several years contributing to the various sites have seen plenty. This is the tip of the iceberg.
They take 80% of our (non.excl) commission. Yet they still have the guts to make us pay for a 25% off promotion... you can be bothered by it or not, but i dont think you need daily sales to have an opinion on these dry facts. I always experienced Eireann as someone with a pretty lucid view on things; + if only the big fish can talk this place would become pretty quiet.
327
« on: August 11, 2010, 08:52 »
so i think everyone porfolio in dreamstime and fotolia will be available in pixmac?
what about similiar photos in this 2 porfolio? and what the different directly uploading to them?
If you have checked the Partner Program in dreamstime, yes your port is automatically at Pixmac. I don't know about fotolia.
You're correct, Tangie just confirmed in the DT forums. Still strange my pics werent there when i'm enrolled. Not anymore, i dont feel comfortable with buyers not even have to register.
328
« on: August 11, 2010, 06:53 »
so i think everyone porfolio in dreamstime and fotolia will be available in pixmac?
what about similiar photos in this 2 porfolio? and what the different directly uploading to them?
If you have checked the Partner Program in dreamstime, yes your port is automatically at Pixmac. I don't know about fotolia.
Are you sure? I just checked, im enrolled on dreamstime but cant find any of my pics on pixmac (want to keep it that way); its also one of the many reasons i ditched Fotolia...was really tired of seeing my pictures popping up on all sorts of sketchy sites, some even without watermark.
329
« on: August 10, 2010, 10:56 »
no change noticed here either, my stats are to cry for since may, actually picking up a tiiiny bit since this week. (small port, not necesarily representative, still fun to chime in  )
330
« on: August 08, 2010, 18:29 »
Congrats with a beautiful son!!
331
« on: August 08, 2010, 14:59 »
Aha! Thanks for pointing me to that one borg!  Makes sense i guess, pity it's so confusing to find out how much $ i have since my last payout.
332
« on: August 08, 2010, 13:06 »
Strange, i just lost $1.05 too... 
333
« on: August 08, 2010, 12:55 »
From badstockart.com: NOTE: please dont share photos from istockphoto.com unless that is, youve paid for the license and are willing to give it to us. They gave us the old cease and desist email, which scared us deeply. We know, we know, we lost some classics there. We might buck up and pay for some of the funnier ones.Looks like istock agreed Cathy
334
« on: August 06, 2010, 06:22 »
I might be wrong but i think the flags arent inspected anymore. I never flagged an image but 2 months ago i bumped into a picture of a "white rabbit sitting in the grass" with among the keywords: horse, cat, dog, deer, black, sky, clouds, blue (theres no sky in the picture), .... i flagged it. A month later it was stil there so i flagged it again. Nothing has happened to the image so i asked in the DT forums if there still was a big backlog. Never got a reply from staff, only from a contributor who said he stopped flagging as well because nothing ever happens with them. I wouldnt worry too much when i get a flag
335
« on: August 05, 2010, 18:51 »
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/doingmediastudies/4684752486/#
This one is still up.
This member is no longer active on Flickr.Aww, all i asked is to take the big version offline. Fixed and more... 2 from the 3 down...ashbury church remains unresponsive for now.
336
« on: August 04, 2010, 15:27 »
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/doingmediastudies/4684752486/#
This one is still up.
Yeah Cathy  They replied with apologies telling me they took the big version off, but i guess they missed this one (takes one extra click now), so mailed them back pointing this one out with a direct link to it...still waiting for a reply. Thats great click_click! Victory!  Pity for his many hours of photoshop, haha!
337
« on: August 04, 2010, 12:17 »
Soon, if stock agencies not careful, many of our work will be free on cd for sales on ebay or download free torrent like porn movie and movie problem.
That's the case already. But what will they do with it? Music and movies you can enjoy in private, but using an image on the web is a public thing. If people are spreading their images over many agencies, how anybody can prove that it wasn't bought somewhere? The sites won't help you, if you're not exclusive. How could they?
Every time a buyer posts one of those pictures on their website the next person could come along...right click...save as...and use on the next website waiting for the next person to do the same. Some probably use them for those "2000 stock photos for $1.00" cd's depending on the size. That is a little hard to prevent. No telling how many pictures are floating around out there that this has been the case. If you a designer and photographer and buyer, you know that this isn't right but an average everyday person wouldn't.
True! It's amazing how few people seem aware it's not ok to just right-click, save and use for whatever needed. Today at work i was talking about image theft and they all were genuinely surprised. Turns out they're all 'right-clickers', for their websites, for our center magazine etc (not anymore now ). As soon as it's on the net it seems to lose all it's value and becomes 'take what you need'.
338
« on: August 04, 2010, 07:53 »
Thank you miss cclapper!  I just received a message from "doingmediastudies" with an apology saying they didnt realize it was so huge and telling me they took the large version offline. I think they made a mistake though, it's still there, just have to go through one more click. Bugging them again (:
339
« on: August 04, 2010, 00:30 »
"theblackhauke" just replied to me that she found the image on Bing; she offered to credit me or take the image offline; i'll reply i prefer the last option. Bing led me to 'the Asbury church' website where there's another huge version of the image ready for take. Mailed them too. You were right click_click, two birds with one stone Any news on your stolen images click_click? Did you send a DMCA notice? ETA: they're gone, 1 down 2 to go.
340
« on: August 03, 2010, 19:05 »
Indeed i do know what to do now, thanks again! It's done and done as well, written to them both. If the large versions aren't gone within 48 hours im contacting Shutterstock too. (i'd like to give them a chance in case there really was no malicious intent, which i suspect because he credits shutterstock) Vonkara, to me it looks like he used the pictures to announce a competition, but maybe i'm seeing that wrong...
341
« on: August 03, 2010, 18:36 »
Thanks A LOT click_click, for the advice and for finding that 2nd one (its really huge and definitely not ok!)! For that first, erm..masterpiece; IF she bought my picture it would be legally ok you think? I'm a bit bothered by the download thing... I fully agree Vonkara! I'll be contacting them both and that big version better be taken off quickly. Sometimes it really feels like selling stock equals making your pictures public domain  ETA: i see this "doingmediastudies" has a lot of stock pictures posted at the same huge format. Anyone selling pics with books in them better check.
342
« on: August 03, 2010, 17:44 »
I definitely dont want to hijack this thread, can i chime in with a question about one of my pics please? I never used this Flickr thing, probably never will and im not sure how it all works. I also found one of my pictures there (the magic book) with another one just slammed on top and was wondering if something like this is considered legal use? "All rights reserved" is a bit vague (think i need some education too  ) http://www.flickr.com/photos/67824406@N00/4559439540/#sizes/o/(nice piece of photoshopping too, dontcha think? )
343
« on: August 02, 2010, 16:32 »
this hasn't happened as much with the strong growth in uploads in previous years, why now?
Tipping point. Rate of increase is very sharp now.
I'm not buying it. If it was the competition among contributors the decline would not be so sharp, sales really fell of a cliff. TS was announced and launched in march, after march for most of us sales on istock have been going down and down, add some summerslump and it makes sense. Strange if it is the economic recession it only seems to hit hard on istock and far less on for example SS. i wholeheartedly hope sales on istock will pick up again in september, but i'm pretty pessimistic.
344
« on: August 01, 2010, 18:49 »
Small fish alert (+- 300imgs).
SS has been doing exceptionally well, close to BME.
DT nicely on track.
iS disastrous, RPI until march was over $3, last months it slumped down with this month being a new low: around $1.
345
« on: July 31, 2010, 20:00 »
Or maybe they've decided they don't like the images that many are sending to TS, and would prefer to populate it by other means.
The new Japan lypse that was just announced requires that all images taken there that are uploaded also be sent to TS. Getty's strong-arm tactics at work?
OMFG. Just checked the thread.. unbelievable. This makes me wonder how long it will take before we get to hear we MUST opt in or bugger off. (we're all part of the family, don't forget!) Next to that, if i hear the word 'oportunity' once more i'm going to vomit.
346
« on: July 28, 2010, 19:33 »
You're the first person ever i heard that has (even if its only 2) sales there. (the ones in Apr 2009 were Vivozoom test downloads). don't really think their future looks bright, eh 
347
« on: July 28, 2010, 15:21 »
Old thread alert It really looks like they're dying a slow death, even with this Tony Stone thing (unless they're plotting something behind the screens). Has anyone contributing to them had a sale (apart from the test ones in april 2009)? I haven't, not a single one. They advertised with the big names, but seems like Yuri pulled his portfolio as well. A pity, i always had a weak spot for Vivozoom
348
« on: July 28, 2010, 06:46 »
Anyone checked out the latest video?
Imho the site design looks neat, but i'm pretty concerned about 1 aspect: it looks like the sort options for searching are gone. Buyers don't seem to use the 'sort by age' as much as on Shutterstock, but i still dont like the best match as only option, definitely not as non-exclusive.
Nevermind this; in the video it looked like search options were gone, but Andrew confirmed they'll stay
349
« on: July 27, 2010, 19:23 »
Anyone checked out the latest video?
Imho the site design looks neat, but i'm pretty concerned about 1 aspect: it looks like the sort options for searching are gone. Buyers don't seem to use the 'sort by age' as much as on Shutterstock, but i still dont like the best match as only option, definitely not as non-exclusive.
350
« on: July 21, 2010, 16:12 »
Couldnt agree more with everything said here, a HUGE congrats Lisa!
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
