pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - MarcvsTvllivs

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15
1
MicrostockSubmitter / Re: Clipdealer
« on: July 07, 2023, 10:32 »
Scumbags... if it is enough money to make it worth it, it may be worth to find a German attorney or, if you speak German enough to google your way through it, use the German court's binding payment reminder system ("gerichtliche Mahnung"). Of course I do realize that "enough money to make it worth it" is a situation that sadly no longer happens in our industry :(

2
MicrostockSubmitter / Re: Clipdealer
« on: July 07, 2023, 09:10 »
So has the ClipDealer situation gotten any better or still the same? I, too, had to use legal processes to get my money a few years ago.

3
123RF / Re: If you have work on 123RF PLEASE READ
« on: September 29, 2022, 02:24 »
I honestly don't understand how anyone can have their work on 123RF anymore. Sorry, but I don't think you can be helped.

4
General Stock Discussion / Re: Clipdealer No Payment
« on: April 01, 2020, 06:47 »
They are not paying me either. I have three outstanding payments, the oldest is more than two years "pending". Thieves.

5
I'm sceptic, but I'll give it a try.

6
Not much has changed at clipdealer. They don't actually pay out.

7
General Stock Discussion / Re: Alamy "good news"!
« on: December 05, 2018, 05:43 »
James West looked like a different person in that video.  This ends my love of Alamy.  I wont upload more there, I'll look at other options.

This, more than anything. I used to actively recommend Alamy to everyone, buyer or seller. I truly liked them as a fair company. No longer.

8
General Stock Discussion / Re: German agencies
« on: October 01, 2018, 13:16 »
There's also Clipdealer, which doesn't actually pay out earnings even though their terms say they do it within two weeks. Agencies in Germany are a veritable shitshow.

9
Hi everybody and thanks for the comments! I have managed to get a response from them (believe it or not, this is the first ticket they have ever actually responded to within less than three months I think), and they say that it's against exclusivity. Which, honestly, I am speechless. Who bars their photographers from being featured in a little labor of love of a fine art photography magazine? Are they deliberately trying to hinder people's success as photographers?




Getty aren't exclusive if anyone else is allowed to sell the pix.

Even the photographer (as direct sales mean less money for Getty).

Well yes, obviously, but what does that have to do with this? Not trying to sell anything.

10
Hi everybody and thanks for the comments! I have managed to get a response from them (believe it or not, this is the first ticket they have ever actually responded to within less than three months I think), and they say that it's against exclusivity. Which, honestly, I am speechless. Who bars their photographers from being featured in a little labor of love of a fine art photography magazine? Are they deliberately trying to hinder people's success as photographers?

Anyhow, I guess I will just purchase a license to my image and then terminate that Getty agreement asap.

P.S.: To clear some things up, this is about an actual Getty exclusive image, not about iStock exclusivity.

11
Does anybody know how to actually get a response to something from Getty? They never respond to inquiries through their ticket system, that's for sure.

The background is that I want to use one of my Getty exclusive images for a fine art publication and while the exhibition part of it appears to clearly exempt from the exclusivity, the publication part of doesn't... but of course I can't let the curator/publisher wait for months.

12
Seems some photos nicked from SS have been bought - or at least watermark removed - but not all. Istock and Adobe still clearly watermarked....! :(

I would say this falls into a citation exception to copyrights, so it's fair use so long as the author is named. The ones that don't name the author seem to be embedded social posts.

13
123RF / Re: 123rf reducing commissions
« on: May 05, 2018, 10:54 »
I too have stopped uploading and am slowly removing images while waiting for the last $5 to go to my final payout. No point in feeding abusive crooks.

14
Disappointed with Arcangel, lost almost all motivation with them.

I've had some 20 sales with RH but their cut is pretty steep - 30% of what they receive, so lots of hands taking their cut in the already small pie. I did receive a 24 cents royalties from a RM Getty  sale via RH which nearly made me puke.  :o

Otherwise, a nice agency with a strong distribution network.

RH are image exclusive. Arcangel have an RF non exclusive collection but they don't allow duplicating on Micros. Their main collection is RM exclusive which makes sense since images go to suspense / horror type covers.

Interesting, thank you! Those * Getty pennies are like a disease that affects every agency. Sigh.

15
Arcangel (exclusive RM)
Robert Harding (exclusive RM/RF)

How are those image exclusive agencies for you? Especially Robert Harding, I shoot a lot of travel and was always tempted to apply. Do they sell?

16
Image Sleuth / Re: Pinsdaddy is this legal?
« on: April 14, 2018, 06:02 »
To be perfectly clear, it is wrong what they are doing. I am saying I think they've figured out how to circumvent getting into trouble for it.

That sums it up nicely in my opinion.

17
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy Record of contract changes...
« on: April 14, 2018, 05:58 »
marcus is completely misinterpreting what i am saying, and alamy has changed the language. ambiguity at its finest

What did I misinterpret? Really, please, I am curious. Maybe it was because of some ambiguity in your statement that ambiguities exist so that "lawyers can line their pockets"?

18
General Stock Discussion / Re: Licensing via pixel.com
« on: April 14, 2018, 05:56 »
Greetings all,
Anyone here using licensing.pixels.com for licensing?  If so, I would love to hear about your experience.  Flat rate of 30% commission over the price you set.  Do you know of any other similar service anywhere else to compare with?

More commonly known as FineArtAmerica. They never license anything, so no need to bother with that. The "art" sales are okay though.

19
Image Sleuth / Re: Pinsdaddy is this legal?
« on: April 13, 2018, 12:23 »
http://www.pinsdaddy.com/business_KZMU9gKUrXg5eRQCXBYgGhNXN*GyqTAn59CPSfizecs/

Oh tricky, illegal characters, the link would need to be copied and pasted. Here's Tiny URL version:  https://tinyurl.com/ybsktayx

Welcome to our Business section from here you can click on your desired Business image and use the Business picture embed code to add to your blogs, forums, websites and other online media. The embed code contains all necessary CC attribution, that are mandatory to include, so you don't need to contribute the image authors manually. If you want, you can customize your Business embed code: resize the Business image as well as select the position in which you would like it to appear on in your article. It's then simply a case of copying the short code and pasting the Business code into your post.

Is this legal? I see some of these as crediting some site that probably paid for the use. There are also other searches with watermarks still on them Shutterstock for example.

I didn't cross search but I'm sure that people here will start to see their work or friends.


Unfortunately, as a consequence of the CJEU's misguided (if you ask me) decisions regarding linking and embedding, this should be legal in the EU. Which, yeah... it sucks.

EDIT: The good thing is that users of such a service expose themselves to shenanigans like someone changing the linked/embedded photo to something obscene. That at least keeps serious business users out.

20
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy Record of contract changes...
« on: April 11, 2018, 06:48 »
Quote
On a legal document, "if I'm reading it right" should not be a question.
legal documents always have some sort of ambiguousness to them otherwise there would be no neverending lawsuits and lawyers couldnt line their pockets

Sigh.

Human language has ambiguity. Human interactions are complicated and have ambiguity. The lawyers that draft contracts don't make money from ambiguities and lawsuits -- quite the opposite. They are liable for them.

Alamy have apologised and are going to have that clause reworded.

Good. I agree that it is not a well drafted clause for public terms.

21
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy Record of contract changes...
« on: April 11, 2018, 05:38 »
Quote
On a legal document, "if I'm reading it right" should not be a question.
legal documents always have some sort of ambiguousness to them otherwise there would be no neverending lawsuits and lawyers couldnt line their pockets

Sigh.

Human language has ambiguity. Human interactions are complicated and have ambiguity. The lawyers that draft contracts don't make money from ambiguities and lawsuits -- quite the opposite. They are liable for them.

22
Use www.copytrack.com

It does a good job, scanning the network for you, in the background.

But the overwhelming majority of hits you will get will come from stuff licensed legally (hard to track when you license through multiple agencies)


Thank you for the suggestion. I signed up with Copytrack after you mentioned it and just got a $1000 payout. Nice windfall, especially after all the other services I had tried might have been okay at finding uses but were a joke at chasing thefts.

23
Off Topic / Re: Annihilation on Netflix
« on: April 07, 2018, 15:29 »
This is strange. When I use my home connection, the image quality on Netflix is crap. But if I connect though a VPN such as SneakFlix I get HD quality. Isn't a VPN slowing connections down most of the time?

Sounds like your ISP is throttling Netflix.

24
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy Record of contract changes...
« on: April 06, 2018, 11:41 »
What's the actual difference between an agent and a licensee*?
It was looked on as negative when iS moved away from being an agent to whatever they declared themselves to be instead.
*It seems a very odd use of the word 'licensee'.

Was this info in an email? If so, I didn't get it, but the Image Options thing has been aired on Alamy's forum.

As a licensee, they received a license from the photographer and then granted a sublicense to the buyer. As an agent, they grant a license directly from the photographer (acting as an agent in the photographer's name) to the buyer.

It makes Alamy's business into a commission agent model: they sell things directly in their own name that they do not own, for the account of a third party principal (us), and then arrange for direct fulfilment of the sale by the principal. In return, they get to keep a commission.

At least that's how I understand it. And I am not sure that it makes terribly much of a difference to us (but stand ready to be corrected -- maybe on the accounting side?). That will take some deep thinking though, which I am sure Alamy's lawyers have done (scary thought of the day!).


25
123RF / Re: 123rf reducing commissions
« on: April 05, 2018, 07:18 »
Is there a way to delete single images on 123RF but leave one to leave the account open? With obvious crooks (e.g., Depositphotos) I like to do that so that I at least have some form of record that they claim there are no more sales.

Click on upload in the footer. Then click on 5 (Manage Media) . Then click on Remove beside each image. Images can only be deleted one at a time so it's a bit of a chore.

Thank you! Chore indeed, but at least it's possible.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors