|
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.
Topics - unnonimus
1
« on: September 27, 2023, 23:53 »
My sales for videos dropped.
I discovered that Shutterstock erased my sales data for my videos, so they no longer appear in search results.
When I do a search for best selling videos, and for newly submitted videos, I get the same results.
All of my videos disappeared from search results.
Sales dropped to 0.
I contacted SS support and they denied it, even though it is clearly evident.
2
« on: May 21, 2022, 08:01 »
March 2021
128.24 USD
23753 photos sold
0.01 average
= .0059 per image sold
3
« on: September 26, 2021, 03:27 »
funny, Youtube does not have ANY of the crazy copyright restrictions that stock companies have.
YouTube allows you to post videos with tattoos, videos of buildings like the Empire State Building, Hollywood sign, sports venues where you have to buy a ticket, people who are 'identifiable' by their clothes, videos that contain other artwork and photos.
I guess YouTube hasn't learned yet? (this is sarcasm)
The stock companies have been misinterpreting copyright laws for a long time. Hopefully some day they will start reading the copyright laws properly instead of what they have been doing.
4
« on: September 08, 2021, 17:03 »
just had a tattoo rejection for a tiny infinity symbol.
tattoos are 'work for hire'
you go in, the buyer picks a similar design or says what he wants, and pays for it. it is work for hire. the buyer owns the copyright. there is no exception to this.
if the author buys some human skin, draws a tattoo, sells you the skin, and you graft it on your arm, then the artist owns the copyright.
copyrights are not owned by the author upon creation. if the artwork is a work for hire, it is transferred to the buyer upon creation. this is clearly written in copyright law.
when you watch a TV show, the camera operator does not own the copyright to the video, the audio guy does not own the audio, the gfx dept does not own the overlays. the person who pays for everything usually is the owner of everything. for example, Jimmy Fallon likely does not own the copyright to himself performing on SNL, or giving a monologue on his late night show. NBC owns the copyright to the video and audio.
even if the writers own the copyright to what they wrote, it is limited to the written word only and does not extend to the video performance.
I own copyrights for my music. I hired people to record the music. I had to fill out the forms, read all the laws, and declare who the copyright owner was. the copyright is transferred to me upon creation.
all tattoos are works for hire. 100% owned by person receiving it.
so you will say "but the tattoo artist owns the original design". you are correct.
but he does not own the copyright of the tattoo on your butt.
copyright only protects him from having other tattoo artists copy how work. it does not allow him to dictate how you can display it in a photo or television show. that is transformative and fair use.
in almost always every copyright case, copyright protection ALLOWS others to use the work. that is the purpose of copyright law. you cannot do a simple exact copy and resell it to compete with the original author, but you can use another author's copyrighted work if you are using it in a new way.
wake up stock sites! go take the time to read the 1 paragraph about how work for hire works in terms of copyrights and stop incorrect rejections.
if you disagree with me you are wrong and you should go learn about copyrights.
5
« on: September 01, 2021, 05:07 »
you can no longer say things such as "An American" because it is offensive
You can no longer say "an intelligent person", now you have to say "a person with intelligence"
You can no longer say "An American person", it has to be "A person from America"
You can't say "A winner", you have to say "A person who has won"
You can't say a "cook", you have to say "a person who cooks"
You can no longer say "A patient", it has to be "a person who has sickness"
You can no longer say "A fireman", it has to be "A person who is employed in fire suppression as a career"
great job. well thought out.
6
« on: June 16, 2021, 08:14 »
does SS have any optional programs such as API, sharing with other sites, etc, that are opt in?
I only see opt in for photo & video. I would think there were more
trying to determine if I opted into something that reduced my sales
7
« on: June 26, 2020, 03:38 »
sold 64 videos yesterday for 84 cents each under 'clip packs'
8
« on: April 03, 2020, 05:27 »
got a weird difficult to understand message from 123rf where they are saying they are no longer accepting video.
9
« on: March 19, 2020, 13:36 »
has anyone had any experience with a stock agency terminating your account or contract, and then allowing you to reapply so they can force you into starting over again at the lowest pay rate?
thanks
10
« on: February 22, 2020, 00:55 »
21/02/2020 109 42.62 41.04 1.50 0.08
11
« on: January 30, 2020, 17:12 »
Istock is telling me via email that images that have the same person, doing the same pose, where one is a close up of the face and another is a full body shot is 'too similar', and that a full body vertical shot of a person vs a horizontal torso shot are 'too similar' and have limited my uploads (to an unreasonably low number).
I have 50,000 photos. they want me to upload a max of 50 per week.
no advance warning.
I am going to lose out on all those 1 cent photo sales.
I am not complaining, I am just notifying the rest of you because they do not warn in advance, they just place the restriction and refuse to resolve it.
12
« on: January 21, 2020, 00:35 »
does anyone know a keywording app for twenty20?
13
« on: August 20, 2019, 11:56 »
does anyone know of a stock photo site that has an RSS feed for live search results or portfolios?
thanks
14
« on: May 14, 2019, 19:39 »
now the "okay" hand gesture is being rejected by at least 1 stock agency
15
« on: May 02, 2019, 23:47 »
shutterstock now requires 5 word minimum for all descriptions?
dumb idea
16
« on: January 29, 2019, 12:02 »
lately 15% to 50% of my uploads are not showing up.
when I upload I keep a record of the file size on the remote ftp server and I record whether it is successful or fails. my records show the files are being received in full by pond5's ftp servers. but they never appear on the site
probably a problem with disk space on a temp drive
17
« on: January 04, 2019, 02:52 »
I have lots of problems with adobe.com for more than 2 weeks now.
Attackers might be trying to steal your information from contributor.stock.adobe.com (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Learn more
NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID
contributor.stock.adobe.com normally uses encryption to protect your information. When Google Chrome tried to connect to contributor.stock.adobe.com this time, the website sent back unusual and incorrect credentials. This may happen when an attacker is trying to pretend to be contributor.stock.adobe.com, or a Wi-Fi sign-in screen has interrupted the connection. Your information is still secure because Google Chrome stopped the connection before any data was exchanged.
You cannot visit contributor.stock.adobe.com right now because the website uses HSTS. Network errors and attacks are usually temporary, so this page will probably work later.
The owner of contributor.stock.adobe.com has configured their website improperly. To protect your information from being stolen, Firefox has not connected to this website.
contributor.stock.adobe.com uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is only valid for the following names: marketing.zzppensioen.nl, t.marketing.zzppensioen.nl, m.marketing.zzppensioen.nl, res.marketing.zzppensioen.nl Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN
18
« on: July 03, 2018, 03:20 »
anyone know what this is? $149 purchase price, $86.05 net payout?
Type Preview Title Purchase Date Purchase Price Royalty Discount CC Trans. Fee Tax Withheld Net Payout
MP Smiling Woman Wearing Hat Jun 27, 2018 $149.00 $91.64 $0.00 $5.59 $0.00 $86.05
19
« on: May 27, 2018, 16:46 »
I was wondering what people's opinions are on using backdrops for portraits. do you have a color that you think is the best? or a texture that you think is best?
for example, solid black, solid white, grey, brick wall, natural setting, etc?
I would like to know what backdrop produces the best overall or best sellable photo.
I film outdoors so I am most interested with a backdrop I can replicate outdoors in many cities.
thankyou
20
« on: May 26, 2018, 21:25 »
I am shopping for a new camera and the issue of shutter life expectancy has come up. has anyone had an experience whereby the shutter stopped operating due to overuse and had to be repaired?
based on the numbers I saw, I will hit the shutter life expectancy in a short time so i am concerned about what to expect.
21
« on: May 26, 2018, 09:32 »
does anyone know of a web site where you can search for a landmark or location and get the GPS location with the photos?
for example, if I want to film the carrier dome, and I see a nice photo that i think would be a good background, I would need the GPS coordinates from the photo so i can go see the location in person to get the same landmark in the background.
if anyone knows a site that does this please post. thankyou
22
« on: May 25, 2018, 10:00 »
does anyone know if alamy accepts photos from a D3400 camera? after I bought this camera, alamy began rejecting all of my photos.
23
« on: May 22, 2018, 08:58 »
I do portrait photos with an APS-C around 200mm. I usually focus on the person's eyes.
however, I am not happy with how sharp many of the photos are. how do I improve the sharpness? I understand that I might be able to improve the sharpness by buying a prime lens.
is it possible to improve the sharpness by switching to a 80mm lens? (the stock lens that comes with the D3400)
will I get better overall sharpness if I am close to the subject or far from the subject?
are there any other functions on the camera (other than the focus) that make the image sharper overall?
25
« on: May 22, 2018, 04:43 »
In a recent shoot, I just bought a new camera (Nikon D3400) and accidentally hit the button to adjust the exposure for one of the programmable modes. Also I just started out with photos and previously was doing video with a SONY. I look through the eyepiece, and it was a bright sunny day, so I did not notice that the exposure was being darkened quite a lot, until I did an image review, which I do after about 25 or 30 photos.
so my question is... if the exposure is adjusted by the camera using the manual function to adjust it, and it is quite dark, will there be any artifacting from software correction? the images have already been corrected. they look a little strange.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
