|
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 - ShadySue
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 622
1
« on: Yesterday at 17:27 »
2
« on: Yesterday at 15:49 »
but still the problem with the newspaper example is missing
Being nitpicky, and IANAL, maybe they're banking on 'permanance': Under section 59(1) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz ber Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), it is permitted to "reproduce, distribute and communicate to the public, by means of painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography, works located permanently in public streets, ways, or public open spaces". I have no idea. It's a can of worms. According to Wikimedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Freedom_of_panoramaIt's the sort of stuff that keeps lawyers in champagne, and scares the rest of us witless if we think about it for long enough.
4
« on: April 21, 2024, 04:58 »
Actually, there is no clause that say they can steal your images to train competing software.
All the agencies have super wide terms, aka weasel words, which they can subsequently use in various ways we, and probably even they didn't think of at the time. Adobe clause 1: " Licenses for Adobe. You grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, fully-paid *, and royalty-free license to use, reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute, index, translate, and modify the Work for the purposes ofoperating the Website; presenting, distributing, marketing, promoting, and licensing the Work to users; developing new
features and services; archiving the Work; and protecting the Work. " Of course you didn't think that meant training AI, but the permission is there for them to do so. Notice also that sneaky 'perpetual', which covers them even if the contributor pulls their port. * "fully-paid"? I have no idea!
5
« on: April 19, 2024, 12:42 »
Worrying update here from Alamy.
I asked Alamy whether my token damages over some $25 would bring the matter to a close and their reply:
"This matter remains ongoing with the case currently in front of the German courts. As mentioned, legal costs are being incurred by Alamy in defending the claims which as a contributor to you provide Alamy with indemnification against such claims under the terms of our contract. In the event of any further developments in relation to your cost liability under this matter we would provide you with an update to advise of any changes."
To be continued...
That is indeed worrying.
As a contributor, you are forced to pay for a court case without having a say in it, where you don't know what it's about, how long it will take and how much it will cost in the end.
Above all, you don't know whether it would have been cheaper to settle the initial claim.
Worrying indeed, but I wouldn't be surprised if all distributors have similar clauses in their contracts. E.g. iStock 10B: "iStock reserves the right, at your expense, to assume the exclusive defence and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you, and in such case, you agree to cooperate with iStocks defence of such claim."Shutterstock 13m "Shutterstock represents and warrants that:
m. upon making or learning of any claim that is inconsistent with any of the warranties or representations made by you, Shutterstock may send you written notice of such claim, using the email address provided by you to Shutterstock, specifying the details of the claim as then known to Shutterstock.
i. Pending the determination of such claim, Shutterstock may withhold from royalties and/or other compensation due to you hereunder, such sums as are reasonably related to the probable value of the claim as determined by Shutterstock.
ii. Pending the determination of such claim, Shutterstock may withhold from royalties and/or other compensation due to you hereunder, such sums as are reasonably related to the probable value of the claim as determined by Shutterstock."Alamy: "5. Indemnities
5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the Indemnified Parties) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content or Metadata infringes any third partys copyright or any other intellectual property right (ii) any breach of your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract." (my bold)
6
« on: April 17, 2024, 19:29 »
Another question I ask myself is whether Brexit might even play a role here - my picture was taken at a time when the UK was still in the EU and I may be wrong, but as far as I know I was still allowed to upload the picture at the time.
I wouldn't have thought so, legally.
7
« on: April 17, 2024, 18:19 »
It's really not about the amount of 11.43 - but the way it's done is really absurd - they checked the picture themselves and approved it
They look at a few images for quality issues, and mostly not even that. Mostly mine are 'approved' immediately upon upload. If I haven't uploaded for a while, there's a good chance that my next batch will be inspected. They have never (at least not since I started in c2010) edited for content (i.e. IP), and made that clear. That said, if your photograph was of a magazine rack with several publications from various publishers it's an odd IP call. Seems vexatious to me, but IANAL. (I really, really wished Christian Louboutin had sued Trump for the red soles on his tacky gold shoes, but that's a tangent AND a rabbit hole)
8
« on: April 16, 2024, 17:58 »
Although I did better than 2023 (a lot more dls), much lower rpd than each of March 2017-2022, so lower or much lower $$ total than March in each of these six years, despite March 2024 having more or many more dls than each.
9
« on: April 14, 2024, 19:23 »
I'm slightly concerned: 13 reported dls for a photo of a flower bush which has otherwise very seldom in two years ... 
10
« on: March 31, 2024, 09:58 »
For Alamy by far the most important is Caption. Then "Super" keywords, then the rest.
"Discoverability" criteria is irrelevant. (Optional Fields on 2nd Tab, 40+ keywords, etc). This has been brought up many times. Just put as many as possible relevant keywords in Title. 100% true*. Several of us have been asking for ages for them to remove the stupid discoverability bar, as it just encourages people to spam, but to no avail. "Super" keywords should NOT be what's is already in the Title.
Do you mean 'caption' rather than title? If so, that advice makes no sense (to me - maybe you'd care to explain?) and is counter to Alamy's official tutorial (super quiet voiceover ): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DeGewd73uw&t=206s*For newbies, notice how few keywords are used on their examples.
11
« on: March 25, 2024, 14:03 »
apparently I had no sales in Feb from the US, nor have I had any US 'interactions' in the rolling month 24 Feb - 24 March.
Weird, it's usually my #2 country, if not, it's #1.
LIke everyone else, Feb sales spoiled by a slew of refunds.
12
« on: February 07, 2024, 19:24 »
I took this up directly with DACS as I file my own, but didn't hear back.
Although I file my own, I'm aware that Alamy is likely to be able to find more than I can, and I wonder, but don't know, if because Alamy does a bulk return, they probably get into a much higher band than I reach on my own, so maybe 40% of what they could get is better than 100% of what I've found. (?)
But whereas I'm RM on Alamy, so it would be relatively easy to find the book sales, and maybe they even require the buyers to provide them with that info I'm curious as to how iS finds the books etc. that our RF files might end up in. That would be a full time job for several staff.
13
« on: February 04, 2024, 19:53 »
They've been doiing it for a few years: there's a clause in our contract which can be interpreted to let them do it without an opt-out, though like so much in the contract - which is very wide in their favour - very narrow in ours, I for one didn't foresee this.
14
« on: January 28, 2024, 13:18 »
Is the legal system in the Netherlands that messed up, that they couldn't file a legal appeal through the courts? Or that they couldn't find an attorney to act on their behalf. Do you know these people, personally? Ask them why they only hammered on breaking a brick wall, instead of going around it.
Could be like the UK case of the hundreds of unjustly imprisoned/fined/blamed postmasters/mistresses who were accused of stealing money from the Post Office, when it was in fact a faulty Fujitsu computer system (Horizon). Despite several media, starting with an article in Computer Weekly in 2009, a BBC Panorama documentary in 2015 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67884743 and particularly the current affairs paper Private Eye who consistently reported on it for over a decade, it took a TV play last month to force the issue and only now is it high on the agenda. The inquiry is showing how little people can do when the Man, the Government and the legal system gang up to shut down all your avenues of appeal, especially when your money has been taken (to repay shortfalls which were the fault of the faulty system) and your means of earning have been cut off (because who is going to employ someone who has been convicted of stealing?), totally unjustly. Here's the shortest of summaries: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56718036and this is significant: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68079300As you can imagine, it's all a much more tangled web than this, you'd just need to do your own searches, or follow the links.
15
« on: January 20, 2024, 20:10 »
Is it me or DM doesn't display right, Todayis20 shows no thumbs, the Dec. file reports as October? Did Getty adjust the access again?
Yeah, they changed it, again. Apparently they have advised TodayIs20, and we're just waiting for them to have the time to make the necessary adjustments on their site. Of course, if Getty would just give us decent stats, we wouldn't need external apps.
16
« on: December 18, 2023, 21:18 »
Best month since Dec 2019. It's strange, I seem to have one standout* month a year, and that month changes apparently randomly.
*compared to my other months in the same year.
Still, it's all the lottery of getting one or more high value sales.
17
« on: December 16, 2023, 19:32 »
How do i know how many files are in my portfolioo in Istock?
I presume there's a better way, but the only way I know is to click on my name on one of my photos which takes me to my port. Make sure you have all aplicable types of files ticked and then your number will be at the top of the page. Then you can bookmark your portfolio in your browser, but on previous experiences, it suddenly stops working, not sure if that's a browser issue or an iS issue. Hopefully, someone will be able to tell you a less clunky way...
18
« on: November 25, 2023, 18:29 »
Many talk about selling AI images. For private use ist o.k. but not for the purpose of making money on other peoples intellectual property.
I will never use AI. Anybody else on this forum? If I would do so, I am no longer myself but a thief.
I see you're an illustrator, so this may not be relevant to you, but for example the relatively new Denoise is an AI function of Adobe Camera Raw. I'm using that function when needed to rescue high ISO files, so I can't say I'll never use AI, but AFAIK, this use isn't (ab)using other people's IP.
19
« on: November 24, 2023, 08:36 »
Many talk about selling AI images. For private use ist o.k. but not for the purpose of making money on other peoples intellectual property.
I will never use AI. Anybody else on this forum? If I would do so, I am no longer myself but a thief.
What if there was at some point some AI that you could train on only your own photos?
20
« on: November 23, 2023, 19:08 »
I've had 'adult' and 'only adults' added to some files I had accepted today, where 'only adults' is not accurate. Also 'only women' added to another file, ditto. Very annoying. They keep putting out little nippy notes about how important it is to keyword accurately, then they add irrelevant keywords (I checked my files in my submission folder in case I'd made a mistake). And don't even think about the categories at the bottom of the page. There are two sets of categories which they add. Some might be accurate but very vague, most at the bottom of the page are inaccurate, sometimes 5/5 totally wrong. Added: having enquired about the additions, it seems it's a keyword mapping feature.
21
« on: November 18, 2023, 20:30 »
22
« on: November 10, 2023, 17:34 »
'Allegedly' what we see when looking at our own ports doesn't affect what a buyer will see, and they have other weightings anyway like location (and previous purchases, IIRC).
23
« on: November 05, 2023, 16:36 »
Sometimes I sell phone covers through FineArt America.
Me2
24
« on: October 24, 2023, 18:11 »
anyone get the Payment ?
See the forum. There's a 'hitch'.
25
« on: October 19, 2023, 19:52 »
If they're not in the CV, they don't show up on the file page.
However, they are 'usually' searchable.
Just to be clear, Sue ... does this mean that keywords not in the Controlled Vocabulary but that you have included in your submission, are in fact still attached to the image, even though they are not visible?
That's what I've found, though I can't claim it's universal. Try with some of your own photos to see. (BTW, It seems that at sometime over the past couple of years, a lot of words have been removed from the CV.)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 622
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
