MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Dreamstime.com => Topic started by: red on May 31, 2012, 21:13
-
Serban announced today on the forum - http://www.timelineimages.com/ (http://www.timelineimages.com/)
http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_31550_pg1 (http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_31550_pg1)
Meet Timeline Images, our newest project, a platform built specifically for the Facebook community which is now rapidly getting closer to 1 billion user accounts. Ti is designed as a creative and original resource for Facebook cover photos mainly.
We have always tried to go beyond our industry's borders and this is just another step we have taken in that direction. Unlike licenses sold on Dreamstime, TimelineImages sells an end-user only license type, granting no other rights than using the image for social media accounts.
We have set an attractive universal price of $1 for all images available and the size downloaded is somewhere between extrasmall and small. Keep in mind that this is a new type of license and we are allowing access to small sized images only. Royalties are awarded as per our level-structure, between 20-60% and these sales will be reflected in our Dreamstime accounts as any other Alliance sale. Users are provided with two options and they can download the images with or without a credit line. The first 3 downloads are free, complimentary from Dreamstime. They are awarded as subscription downloads for our contributors with royalties between $0.35-42 per download. The contributors are kindly asked not to download their own images, these free downloads are meant for promotional reasons only.
As you will see, the site includes a hand-picked collection with striking images that send a powerful message and are already cropped for Facebook. There is a secondary set where all our images are made available. The user can crop before downloading when using this secondary resource. Everything else is pretty simple and intuitive, despite the hard work this has required.
Only images that are enrolled in our Alliances participate in this program. Contributors can opt in/out their portfolios should they decide to do so. The project is still under development, please be gentle about it and email us any issues you may come across.
We hope you enjoy it, it's time to update your Facebook covers ;)
-
thanks for posting :)
first 3 for free? no I am not having any ideas!
giving a 2nd thought FB should delete the share button ;D
-
I don't think I'll be updating FB with someone else's photos - we were asked not to download our own! I suspect that if this gets used a lot, the images will get lifted and re-used by others on FB - seems to be a grab and go environment.
This seems a bit like the IS experiment with VOX (and people there who weren't already contributors didn't use many of the images), but perhaps this will catch on. I find it hard to believe people will use a purchased photo for something as personal as FB, but we'll see.
-
I find it hard to believe people will use a purchased photo for something as personal as FB, but we'll see.
why do you find it hard? I see tons of people using pictures with DT, IS watermark on FB, every day I see many, its just insane actually and I am talking about people and all fan pages, all that crap.. I am sure this 3 free per user will be used massively, I really wish it doesnīt hurt our potential sales once there are many bloggers and such using FB.. how will DT control this license?
-
You can upload these non-watermarked images to Pinterest, wooyay! From the TOS "You may upload and display the licensed image on your own personal Facebook timeline, or other similar social networking use (e.g., Google+, MySpace, Pinterest, personal blog)."
I guess Serban won't mind when we all download 3 of his images for free and put them up on Pinterest?
-
How can the TOS give someone else the permission to claim copyright and give someone else permission to use/distribute, don't you at least need an EL for that?
-
I find it hard to believe people will use a purchased photo for something as personal as FB, but we'll see.
why do you find it hard? I see tons of people using pictures with DT, IS watermark on FB, every day I see many, its just insane actually and I am talking about people and all fan pages, all that crap.. I am sure this 3 free per user will be used massively, I really wish it doesnīt hurt our potential sales once there are many bloggers and such using FB.. how will DT control this license?
This from the agency who put the Pinterest and all other share buttons under contributor's images on their site...somehow I don't think DT cares about what happens to our images.
-
This a joke, isn't it? This is how DT has been spending the money we pay them? First creating the Free site now this, which is basically free too. What Facebook page owner is going to buy an image when they can have three for free? How often do will they need change their Facebook Cover? Once a year? Once every two years? Never?
A Facebook page owner will use his free images and when it's time to buy, they won't buy, they'll just pick one up from another Facebook page. How will anyone know they stole it then?
DT has finally gone and lost the plot. How desperate are they? They must be feeling the squeeze financially to be doing all this garbage.
-
This a joke, isn't it? This is how DT has been spending the money we pay them? First creating the Free site now this, which is basically free too. What Facebook page owner is going to buy an image when they can have three for free? How often do will they need change their Facebook Cover? Once a year? Once every two years? Never?
My niece has changed her facebook cover photo 3 times in the last month alone. It still doesn't mean she'd ever pay for a photo though.
There is a secondary set where all our images are made available. The user can crop before downloading when using this secondary resource
What I don't get is why they need a separate website to offer this? If people can crop images themselves why not offer custom cropping as part of the dreamstime service and just market to facebook users? It seems DT is trying to stay hip and relevant in the social media avalanche and grab a bit of the "sharing" pie but appealing to pinterest users and this new venture just doesn't make sense.
-
"When you purchase an image license, we grant to you a limited, revocable, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to download the associated image to your computer solely for your personal non-commercial use."
How are they going to monitor for "personal non-commercial use"?
It's actually not a bad idea, imo. I suggested something similar to combat the "Pinterest-everything-is-free" syndrome - a social usage license of some type. However, you have to have a way to monitor for correct usage - that people aren't taking them and using them against the terms.
-
"When you purchase an image license, we grant to you a limited, revocable, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to download the associated image to your computer solely for your personal non-commercial use."
How are they going to monitor for "personal non-commercial use"?
It's actually not a bad idea, imo. I suggested something similar to combat the "Pinterest-everything-is-free" syndrome - a social usage license of some type. However, you have to have a way to monitor for correct usage - that people aren't taking them and using them against the terms.
What's needed is a radical change in the licensing model and some new technology. Imagine introducing a new embed method to the jpeg image format that allows for scripting (similar to a virus). When someone licenses an image for the web, before they can download they have to enter the domain name it will be posted to and that data is embedded into the jpeg. If someone right clicks the image and tries to post it to pinterest or some other domain, the "virus" kicks in an introduces a corruption into the image data, turning all the pixels black.
That would be cool.
-
"When you purchase an image license, we grant to you a limited, revocable, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to download the associated image to your computer solely for your personal non-commercial use."
How are they going to monitor for "personal non-commercial use"?
It's actually not a bad idea, imo. I suggested something similar to combat the "Pinterest-everything-is-free" syndrome - a social usage license of some type. However, you have to have a way to monitor for correct usage - that people aren't taking them and using them against the terms.
And can't the same thing happen as with PT, where one friend downloads the image and then shares with 500 friends (IF the friend actually buys something after the first 3 free)? So the contributor gets paid for one image. But does DT really think that after the first 3, people will come back to pay for more? I doubt it. Once again, like PT, traffic to DT site, little to no sales for contributors. This is direct marketing to a demographic (12-30 age group) who typically DON'T pay for anything and think everything on the internet is free, and don't have a clue about copyright infringement, nor care.
The only thing I can say is that they at least are providing an opt-out, but again, it's an all or nothing thing. If you opt out of affiliates, you don't participate in anything, even if you wanted to. So they have you over a barrel. If a contributor thinks this is a good idea and opts in, they are opting in to all the other partner programs that might be paying them a penny (ok maybe that's an exaggeration, for now at least) for a download. It's all carefully crafted to mainly benefit the agency, not the contributor.
-
What's needed is a radical change in the licensing model and some new technology. Imagine introducing a new embed method to the jpeg image format that allows for scripting (similar to a virus). When someone licenses an image for the web, before they can download they have to enter the domain name it will be posted to and that data is embedded into the jpeg. If someone right clicks the image and tries to post it to pinterest or some other domain, the "virus" kicks in an introduces a corruption into the image data, turning all the pixels black.
That would be cool.
That would be very cool. But I'll bet contributors would be charged $ to have it added to their images. ::)
-
My niece has changed her facebook cover photo 3 times in the last month alone. It still doesn't mean she'd ever pay for a photo though.
Right, I forgot it was for personal-use only, which is even worse. Why would anyone pay for an image when they can pick one up for free, legally-illegally on Pinterest or legally from so many free for personal-use sites. They'd also be looking for more artsy images, not stock. I just googled "art" using the filter "free to use, share or modify" and got 126,000 results.
This new venture's going to be huge waste of our money.
-
I agree wit slocke tnat its no a so bad idea. Most user won't use/pay, but some of them will do do it, and "some" from milions can bet a big group. The pre-crop will help to control the uses.
-
You can upload these non-watermarked images to Pinterest, wooyay! From the TOS "You may upload and display the licensed image on your own personal Facebook timeline, or other similar social networking use (e.g., Google+, MySpace, Pinterest, personal blog)."
I guess Serban won't mind when we all download 3 of his images for free and put them up on Pinterest?
HMMMM... That sounds like a pretty good idea. So, we should all get our 3 FREE images from Serban's folio, use them on our Timeline, friend each other on Facebook, and share them across the internet ... post them on Pinterest, sit back and laugh. :P
-
This is stupid - it mentions "author" but not copyright.
I think it's a good idea, but I don't like that
- Nowhere does it say who I am (by Pixart - not who owns copyright)
- There is nowhere to click to see "more images by this author"
- There is no push to sell anything else "Need a larger copy of this image - then click here"
Then what is the point?
-
it would be interesting to see which pictures we will sell for FB, at least it would be easier to control, that said we arenīt paid for that..
if a blogger gets a picture for his FB and then use it on his blog how will DT control such thing? (I guess this ainīt allowed right?)
-
it would be interesting to see which pictures we will sell for FB, at least it would be easier to control, that said we arenīt paid for that..
if a blogger gets a picture for his FB and then use it on his blog how will DT control such thing? (I guess this ainīt allowed right?)
It's allowed: "You may upload and display the licensed image on your own personal Facebook timeline, or other similar social networking use (e.g., Google+, MySpace, Pinterest, personal blog)."
-
I agree wit slocke tnat its no a so bad idea. Most user won't use/pay, but some of them will do do it, and "some" from milions can bet a big group. The pre-crop will help to control the uses.
I tend to agree. I think it's a good idea to start to accustom the facebook crowd to the idea that professional images cost money. And by keeping the price to a dollar it isn't too off-putting.
I think Lorraine had a great idea below, about adding a "more from this author" button and/or a link to download a bigger size or broader license directly from the DT site. Maybe that can be implemented down the line if the program takes off.
With copyright violations so rampant, I definitely understand some of the concerns, but I think it's a mistake to reflexively trash every effort any of the sites make to expand our market of buyers.
-
... However, you have to have a way to monitor for correct usage - that people aren't taking them and using them against the terms.
Seriously? In a non-exclusive world (I know foreign to you...) this is impossible.
Our images are licensed daily the wrong way but there is no way to verify.
Even if I find a suspicious use of one of my images I encounter very stubborn and uncooperative agencies to help me figure out if the proper license has been purchased.
Often the agencies won't even respond to such inquiries.
The agencies are simply under-staffed and wouldn't consider this as a part of their day-to-day business operations.
-
What's needed is a radical change in the licensing model and some new technology. Imagine introducing a new embed method to the jpeg image format that allows for scripting (similar to a virus). When someone licenses an image for the web, before they can download they have to enter the domain name it will be posted to and that data is embedded into the jpeg. If someone right clicks the image and tries to post it to pinterest or some other domain, the "virus" kicks in an introduces a corruption into the image data, turning all the pixels black.
That would be cool.
Wow, out of the sudden everyone forgets about this one button called PrtScn on the keyboard...
-
I tend to agree. I think it's a good idea to start to accustom the facebook crowd to the idea that professional images cost money. And by keeping the price to a dollar it isn't too off-putting.
By offering them three free images? They'll use up the three and go back to their usual way of obtaining free images, either by stealing them or from a free site. I can see now why Serban defended Pinterest. It's because the 'share' Facebook button on uploaded content, isn't too much worse than the 'pin-it' button. They're there to distribute our images.
What happens if you sell one of these Facebook licenses but you find the image on 20 people's page covers? You won't know which is the legitimate buyer and which are the 19 thieves. Will you chase it up with DT? They're not likely to care about it. What happens when these numbers grow? And what will commercial buyers think of your image when it's splattered on thousands of Facebook users pages? I think it devalues the image.
For this to work, we need some basic universal image tracking system that all Micros use. For instance when they sell an image, the agents add some metadata on the image with the name of the agent, the name of the photographer and a unique transaction number that appears on our sales data. When we find our image somewhere, we can right-click on it and can cross reference it to see if it's legit. Any image without this information should be considered an infringement.
-
I tend to agree with you and your idea is a good one, too.
I do see Sean's and others' point about trying to educate people, but I believe it is as you said...people want stuff for free, period. Once they use the freebies, back to stealing. I suppose there could be some small percent who realize they should pay, but how many more images get stolen in the meantime? Hundreds of thousands is my guess. That's a lot of pennies being given away (for us contributors) and a lot of dollars for the agencies.
-
What's needed is a radical change in the licensing model and some new technology. Imagine introducing a new embed method to the jpeg image format that allows for scripting (similar to a virus). When someone licenses an image for the web, before they can download they have to enter the domain name it will be posted to and that data is embedded into the jpeg. If someone right clicks the image and tries to post it to pinterest or some other domain, the "virus" kicks in an introduces a corruption into the image data, turning all the pixels black.
That would be cool.
Wow, out of the sudden everyone forgets about this one button called PrtScn on the keyboard...
You're right I did out of a sudden forget that. Totally out. of a sudden. I have a mac though and there is no prtscn button. Making a screen cap is a a key combo that not everyone knows. Ah well, there is no perfect solution then. We should probably just complain a lot on a forum somewhere...the question is where.
-
... However, you have to have a way to monitor for correct usage - that people aren't taking them and using them against the terms.
Seriously? In a non-exclusive world (I know foreign to you...) this is impossible.
Our images are licensed daily the wrong way but there is no way to verify.
I wasn't saying the solution to this existed today, though...
-
I tend to agree with you and your idea is a good one, too.
I do see Sean's and others' point about trying to educate people, but I believe it is as you said...people want stuff for free, period. Once they use the freebies, back to stealing. I suppose there could be some small percent who realize they should pay, but how many more images get stolen in the meantime? Hundreds of thousands is my guess. That's a lot of pennies being given away (for us contributors) and a lot of dollars for the agencies.
I see Sean's point too but I just don't see it happening on Facebook. If I really had to go the Facebook Route, I'd be Targeting Facebook Pages only, not personal pages. But I'd only do this if Facebook got rid of the 'share' button for cover photos and made it so people couldn't right-click on it, or if they did, some message popped up saying that it's copyrighted material.
-
For this to work, we need some basic universal image tracking system that all Micros use. For instance when they sell an image, the agents add some metadata on the image with the name of the agent, the name of the photographer and a unique transaction number that appears on our sales data. When we find our image somewhere, we can right-click on it and can cross reference it to see if it's legit. Any image without this information should be considered an infringement.
I'm all for that. I really think RF stock agencies should get together and collaborate on some sort of tracking ability, and then aggressively pursue infringements. You won't get an argument from me there.
I also like your suggestion about a pop up saying it is copyrighted material.
I do not support the wanton distribution of our images for free. But I do theoretically understand the desire of the agencies to find a way to monetize all this social media sharing. They aren't quite there yet, but hopefully they are moving in that direction.
-
I do not support the wanton distribution of our images for free. But I do theoretically understand the desire of the agencies to find a way to monetize all this social media sharing. They aren't quite there yet, but hopefully they are moving in that direction.
I don't think there is a way to monetize it, unless you first educate people on the legality and ethics of sharing. There's a TV show on in the afternoon all about smart phones and apps for smart phones and they did a segment on the apps available for pinterest this last Saturday. They went on about how pinterest was a great place to share beautiful images you find on the web blah blah blah but not one word about copyright. Not one mention about how people might own the beautiful things you want to share. It brought it home that sharing and pinterest seem to now be part of the public vernacular but the word copyright has become some half-forgotten obsolete notion.
-
The markets are starting to realize that monetizing traffic isn't as easy it first appeared. Facebook is just now coming to terms with what Napster found out when it tried to get legit. Giving people stuff for free may attract them to a site but it makes them less willing to pay for anything at all, so you shoot yourself in the foot. What's the point in advertising to people that don't want to pay for anything? all you do by giving them things for free is make them even harder to upsell to. They'll take the 3 free DT photos and move on to the next agency giving them 3 more free photos, or just steal the images, because they must be worthless if you are giving them away right?
-
I can't understand why an agency would go there at all. If there was a market for it there, they wouldn't need to give the three images away for free. Even if they do sell the odd image, there's likely to be hundreds of that same image stolen via Facebook over time. I can't make any sense of it.
The image libraries have grown so huge that they can shaft us without much consequence but what annoys me is - us - the majority of contributors will accept any decision they make. The number of amateurs/hobbyists outweigh professional photographers and they don't appear to care too much about their images and copyright. The DT forum is full of these types. It's bad enough that they don't stand up and voice their concerns (if they have any) but they brown-nose and actually thank the agents who shaft them. "Oh, you're giving away three of our images for free and allowing people to distribute our images on Facebook as well as Pinterest, thank you DT. You know what's best for me!" It makes my stomach churn! The more amateurs/hobbyists there are, the more power the agencies have. They probably hardly look into this forum anymore and if they do, they probably laugh at us. We don't have a voice anymore.
-
I'm not 100% sold on the idea....but I'm not 100% against it either.
The thing that worries me is, if I remember correctly, these cropped images are also the same size required by Wordpress for their (free) blogging templates. First thought is we all know blogs are a source of revenue from the microstock agencies so I hope this doesn't have a negative effect on that business. Second thought is, if a person uses a free Wordpress template, should they be expected to pay for an image?
I also seem to remember there is another agency that currently partners with Wordpress but I can't remember which one.
-
I don't know why they don't also offer it on DT itself - I would think it would do better here. A small business (with limited design skills or software) buying images might think it's a great idea to buy a perfectly sized version for their account.
-
it's nothing new actually.
years ago there were companies selling templates for MySpace.
and now in the underground there are black hate CEOs selling fake FB friends and likes with ready made "packs" of tens of thousands of fake accounts, all looking real, all automated and even commenting on your posts with automated garbage.
-
I think there was much truth said. Ppl want free stuff and Facebook isnt really the market with huge crowd of happy buyers. Stolen images are not tenths of thousands but billions. It is estimated that there are about 300 millions of pictures uploaded to Facebook only every day! You bet there are millions of stolen images, I will not guess how many. Facebook has about 900 millions of users - even if half of those are just fake marketing accounts, it is still huge number. Many times larger then any stock agency customer base.
So to the point. I dont like stealing or misusing pictures but in current state it somehow become socialy accepted. Thats the way we pay for easier exposure to potential buyers. On the other hand, there are hundreds of millions of users just on Facebook alone and if just one promile of them will buy just one licence per year for just one buck it makes 450 thousands $$ per year(I counted only half of FB users as real users). Does developing timeline images website still looks stupid to you? I would definitely give it a try if the development would cost me just few grands and there is potential to earn hundreds of grands every year even if the conversion is extremely small.
Yes it is a bad thing for photographers in some ways and I definitely dont like Pinterest button on DT. On the other hand TimelineImages at least educates users, that there exist ways to legally buy pictures and that they are * cheap. There are still lot of users who would simply buy it.
-
Yes it is a bad thing for photographers in some ways and I definitely dont like Pinterest button on DT. On the other hand TimelineImages at least educates users, that there exist ways to legally buy pictures and that they are * cheap. There are still lot of users who would simply buy it.
yeah everybody is still convinced FB is a goldmine, in the meantime it's stock value is down again to 26.90$ per share, market cap is now just 57 billions, almost HALF of three weeks ago ! nuff said about FB real value ...
but back to timelines : no, nobody will get rich selling timeline images, as nobody makes money selling avatars to forum users, it's a small niche only targeting a bunch of hardcore FB addicts, the ones who spend their whole day online and are ready to waste money on these things for vanity.
-
Yes it is a bad thing for photographers in some ways and I definitely dont like Pinterest button on DT. On the other hand TimelineImages at least educates users, that there exist ways to legally buy pictures and that they are * cheap. There are still lot of users who would simply buy it.
yeah everybody is still convinced FB is a goldmine, in the meantime its stock value is down again to 26.90$ per share, market cap is now just 57 billions, almost HALF of the initial IPO ! nuff said about FB real value ... and yet another class action against FB has been filed yesterday.
but back to timelines : no, nobody will get rich selling timeline images, as nobody makes money selling avatars to forum users, it's a small niche only targeting a bunch of hardcore FB addicts, the ones who spend their whole day online and are ready to waste money on these things for vanity.
-
And here's what some of the rest of the world thinks about Time Images
Who . buys a stock image to put on the top of their Facebook timeline? Would you do it? Would any of you really pay a buck to put the photo of some random model doing some stupid thing?
I guess there's a clientele for this service. And it makes me sad.
Link to article
http://gizmodo.com/5915327/who-the-hell-buys-stock-images-for-their-facebook-timeline (http://gizmodo.com/5915327/who-the-hell-buys-stock-images-for-their-facebook-timeline)
-
This is a wasted effort imho. Not because of the price, or something else being given away for free... simply because most people have no taste, sense of, or need for aesthetics at all. The 21st century unthinking majority is perfectly happy with their blurry dark junk shot that makes them and their friends look disfigured on their timeline.
-
www.coverphotobook.com (http://www.coverphotobook.com)
"Download Free Facebook Timeline Covers!". I wonder where this guy is getting his source material.
-
re the PrtScr button - many people aren't aware of it, or know what to do w a captured screen
smugmug has a feature that disables the rightclick [ needed for 'save picture as']and instead displays a owner provided message -- eg
http://www.pix-now.com/Travel/India1/IndiaTemples/ (http://www.pix-now.com/Travel/India1/IndiaTemples/) right click on the large picture to see it work
this doesnt solve everything but at least it's a start; also any screen captures are going to be fairly low res anyway.
-
[url=http://www.coverphotobook.com]www.coverphotobook.com[/url] ([url]http://www.coverphotobook.com[/url])
"Download Free Facebook Timeline Covers!". I wonder where this guy is getting his source material.
This guy appears to be using other people's copyrighted images. I can't imagine he has rights to those copyrighted images. I haven't found anything of mine, but, for example, found that he's offering a free cover with a shot of a strawberry being shot through with a bullet. See this page (http://coverphotobook.com/facebook-cover-photos-timeline/other-cool-random) for his cover.
But that image is copyrighted by Alan Sailer - see an article about him and the photos here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1164865/Extraordinary-pictures-capture-moment-flying-bullet-tears-strawberry-paintball-crayons.html)
A lot of the images look like stock, but on a quick glance I didn't see anything I recognized specifically. I'm assuming if someone finds one of their own images and complains (although I don't see a DMCA link on the site) it won't take long to get this shut down
And I found one image that's on SS (not mine) - I'll try contacting SS support to see if they'll go after this loser. The image he lifted is this one (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=36910312) and it's offered here on the rip-off site (http://coverphotobook.com/facebook-cover-photos-timeline/creative-innovative-amazing#) as Four Elements.
-
[url=http://www.coverphotobook.com]www.coverphotobook.com[/url] ([url]http://www.coverphotobook.com[/url])
"Download Free Facebook Timeline Covers!". I wonder where this guy is getting his source material.
This guy appears to be using other people's copyrighted images. I can't imagine he has rights to those copyrighted images. I haven't found anything of mine, but, for example, found that he's offering a free cover with a shot of a strawberry being shot through with a bullet. See this page ([url]http://coverphotobook.com/facebook-cover-photos-timeline/other-cool-random[/url]) for his cover.
But that image is copyrighted by Alan Sailer - see an article about him and the photos here ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1164865/Extraordinary-pictures-capture-moment-flying-bullet-tears-strawberry-paintball-crayons.html[/url])
A lot of the images look like stock, but on a quick glance I didn't see anything I recognized specifically. I'm assuming if someone finds one of their own images and complains (although I don't see a DMCA link on the site) it won't take long to get this shut down
Those were my thoughts as well. I didn't see anything I recognized but with all of the digital paintings, vector, photos et al he's either one of the most talented and productive guys on the web or he's using other people's work with not even a credit to them.
-
There's a DT ad right at the top. Could he be a Partner of DT's? And that's where the images are coming from? Maybe a Partner of SS?
-
In the case of the strawberry image, that's not being sold by any of the micros or Alamy , so it's a private deal with the copyright holder (not likely) or lifted from one of the newspaper web sites. We'll see what SS says when they reply to my support ticket.
-
[url=http://www.coverphotobook.com]www.coverphotobook.com[/url] ([url]http://www.coverphotobook.com[/url])
"Download Free Facebook Timeline Covers!". I wonder where this guy is getting his source material.
I ran a GIS on four photos in the nature section. All of them were widely available on 'free desktop wallpaper' sites, but none of them led to any of the known agency sites, as far as I could find. One of them was claimed by three different people as being their stunning photo!
-
[url=http://www.coverphotobook.com]www.coverphotobook.com[/url] ([url]http://www.coverphotobook.com[/url])
"Download Free Facebook Timeline Covers!". I wonder where this guy is getting his source material.
I ran a GIS on four photos in the nature section. All of them were widely available on 'free desktop wallpaper' sites, but none of them led to any of the known agency sites, as far as I could find. One of them was claimed by three different people as being their stunning photo!
Orphaned works perhaps, offered up as free by anyone to anyone? Seems like a prophetic peek at things to come.
There's a DT ad right at the top. Could he be a Partner of DT's? And that's where the images are coming from? Maybe a Partner of SS?
I didn't see any ads for DT (I have adblocker installed) but If you mouse over the green download arrow button it doesn't link to any agency but directly to the jpeg. There's no credit line on any of the images so it's an odd partnership if it is one.
-
This morning I received a reply from SS support (seems a bit sluggish to me to take just over a week to reply) saying they'd forward my information to the right department "...they will see what they can do, and take action as soon as they can."
The site is still there, along with the image that's on SS...
-
I added some possible copyright violations that I found on this thread:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/coverphotobook-com-probable-copyright-infringements/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/coverphotobook-com-probable-copyright-infringements/)
-
I agree that helping the FB crowd understand that good images should be paid for is a step in the right direction. People aren't necessarily going to share images; surely the point of your own profile is its individuality? Pinterest is another can of worms altogether.
that guy making those cover images is doing them for $20? surely by the time you've emailed your client, explained what you do, got their pic, added in text and other info, it's been an hour? $20/hour is not good money in my 1st world overpriced nation. He probably can't afford to pay for images too. he's selling a lot of branded stuff too, are there issues with that I wonder?
-
I agree that helping the FB crowd understand that good images should be paid for is a step in the right direction. People aren't necessarily going to share images; surely the point of your own profile is its individuality? Pinterest is another can of worms altogether.
that guy making those cover images is doing them for $20? surely by the time you've emailed your client, explained what you do, got their pic, added in text and other info, it's been an hour? $20/hour is not good money in my 1st world overpriced nation. He probably can't afford to pay for images too. he's selling a lot of branded stuff too, are there issues with that I wonder?
How do you know he's in a 1st world over priced nation? A whois look up of his domain shows he's in Trinidad and Tobago. The exchange rate there on US dollars is $1US -> $6.26 TTD. 20 US dollars may go a lot farther there. Besides, the $20 thing is just a hook. If he does a basic facebook cover for you and you take it as is it's $20. If, however, he shows you a proof and you want to make a change, it's billed extra at probably $20/hour. It's called AA's (Author's Alterations) and it equals cha ching.
-
What's needed is a radical change in the licensing model and some new technology. Imagine introducing a new embed method to the jpeg image format that allows for scripting (similar to a virus). When someone licenses an image for the web, before they can download they have to enter the domain name it will be posted to and that data is embedded into the jpeg. If someone right clicks the image and tries to post it to pinterest or some other domain, the "virus" kicks in an introduces a corruption into the image data, turning all the pixels black.
That would be cool.
That would be very cool. But I'll bet contributors would be charged $ to have it added to their images. ::)
It couldn't apply to traditional RF image sales, anyway. It might be nice for RM sales.
-
I like their initiative, but putting a stock photo at the top of your timeline is incredibly tacky.