MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

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 - cathyslife

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 267
51
Off Topic / Re: Global Warming is causing the Polar Vortex ???
« on: February 01, 2019, 19:05 »
Im probably late to this discussion, but a recent post by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains the science in very simple terms

https://t.co/LDqfq4JH9n

Does that explain why warming makes things colder?
Yes, the picture explains it perfectly.

52
Off Topic / Re: Global Warming is causing the Polar Vortex ???
« on: January 31, 2019, 14:47 »
A few elements about the polar vortex.  It splits when the stratosphere heats up quickly.  Solar activity influence the temperature of the stratosphere as well as other factors including human activity.  Meteorologists are studying it and their is no consensus yet. Some patented technologies to manipulate the weather involve heating the stratosphere.  Last autumn, as the price of natural gas reached a 5 year low, some financial advisors were recommending investing in the energy sector -some specifically explained how this year the polar vortex may split resulting in a great demand for natural gas and energy.  Did they hear that from meteorologists? 
Climate change is man made and man can change the climate.  The first official reports of weather manipulation here in Canada came in the mid 50s. Hydro Quebec used weather manipulation technology to trigger rain.  They wanted more water to feed dams in the North.  The federal government acknowledged that they issued permits three years after the fact.  How this technology evolved we do not know much but you can get a glimpse via registered patents.   Quickly warming up the stratosphere is exactly what HAARP does.  And the same results can be obtained using technology installed on satellites.  How and when such technology is used remains classified and is not taken into account when analyzing weather patters.   That human activity has something to do with this vortex I believe absolutely but I am not certain what specific activities.   


Your post peaked my interest about what HAARP is. Holy crap. https://www.wanttoknow.info/war/haarp_weather_modification_electromagnetic_warfare_weapons

53
Dreamstime.com / Re: Dreamstime Files Lawsuit Against Google
« on: January 30, 2019, 11:09 »
I wouldnt bank on it. google has more money than gawd to squash this stuff, payoff judges, etc.

54
0,27 cento to 0,95.....how much are commission...really people are so desperate to contribute with any bshit that opens its door?
ibeing a photographer is not a medical prescription...

Royalty is stated very clearly on the same page you quoted that price. Creators get 85% (WeMark takes 15%)  If you were an early supplier of media, you get 100% royalty on those images.

I do find it interesting that they charge users in Dollars, yet pay artists in <<??>>


It has scam written all over it! It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

55
Why are we even having this discussion? Fotolia no longer exists. Sign-in, Google search, all roads lead to Adobe Stock (with a big headline that proclaims "Fotolia is now Adobe Stock!")


Actually, I just logged into my Fotolia dashboard, and used it as before. There was a banner at the top saying Fotolia is now Adobe Stock though. But its not gone yet.

56
I like the Fotolia site better, I have never liked the new, modern look of sites with big giant fonts, spread out everywhere. But as long as they keep improving the Adobe site, which they seem to be doing, I think I will adapt.

57
Shutterstock.com / Re: "It's not stock, it's Shutterstock"
« on: January 23, 2019, 08:35 »
The last I knew, they hired people that worked via telecommuting from all over the US (or world), so yes, they would be independent contractors working from home who got paid X amount of cents per image, which they agreed to up front. If SS actually has 1000+ employees working in an office or warehouse somewhere, being supervised and being treated like slaves, then that is a new thing, and they should go down.

58
Shutterstock.com / Re: "It's not stock, it's Shutterstock"
« on: January 20, 2019, 19:54 »
India population 1.339 billion and has free healthcare for all.
USA population 325 million and just can't afford universal healthcare.


Sure, we can afford it. But it wont leave anything in the coffers to be raided by #traitor and his buddies.

59
Adobe Stock / Re: Important Fotolia Announcement
« on: January 19, 2019, 11:08 »
On the new adobe upload page, you are asked about 'recognisable property'. If you say 'yes', you are prompted to choose or upload a release, so what are you supposed to do with recognisable property that doesn't require a release?

It doesn't feel right to say 'no' to the question when there clearly is some recognisable property in the image.


Recognizable property requires a release. Answer yes and attach a release. If you are posting a picture of some unidentifiable patch of land in the middle of nowhere, dont attach a release. Say no.

60
The platform can be the most excellent out there, but in order to self-host, people need to understand that a huge marketing/advertising effort is required to bring customers to the site. Just because you build it, and the photographer builds it, doesnt mean they will come. I dont think photographers are looking to showcase their work...I am pretty sure most want sales. I tried three different platforms while I was knee deep into microstock. I spent so much time working on the site and finding ways to sell the images, there was no time to actually do what I enjoyed...taking photographs. Sure, there will be some who can afford to hire someone to do the website crap while they shoot, but not sure that represents the majority. But all the best to those who try.

61
Dreamstime.com / Re: CLOSING DREAMSTIME NIGHTMARE
« on: January 14, 2019, 18:49 »
I got out of DT years ago, so none of this matters to me, but I'm wondering:  are you really prevented in some way (i.e., in the site code) from just deleting all your files one-by-one, disregarding the agreement?   And if you did, what could DT to you in retaliation?    Sounds like a bluff to me.


I dont know about today, but back when I deleted images, no, I could not just disregard the agreement and delete them all. It stopped me when I got to the percentage, and I had to keep going back as photos aged and delete them. Maybe they are lax about it now, guess its worth a shot.

63
Dreamstime.com / Re: CLOSING DREAMSTIME NIGHTMARE
« on: January 14, 2019, 09:59 »
I could be wrong because its been years since I quit dreamstime, but I think they have a rule where you can only delete a certain percentage of your images a certain time length from when they were uploaded. You might check the contributor terms.


EDIT:
Yes, those terms are still true. From the contributor agreement:
Contributors are required to keep at least seventy (70%) percent of their portfolio online with Dreamstime.com for a period of at least six (6) months. You may disable all files older than six months from the date of review at any time. You will be allowed to disable a total of thirty (30%) percent of your total Media submitted within the past six (6) months. Media that was disabled and then enabled again will be counted as new submissions, no matter of their original upload date.

64
Shutterstock.com / Re: "It's not stock, it's Shutterstock"
« on: January 10, 2019, 22:48 »
Boy, are buyers going to be pi$$ed when they see these ads, think they are going to a professional site, then on the first search they have to wade through thousands of crap similars. What a waste of shutterstocks money. They should have used the $ to clean up the site.

65
DepositPhotos / Re: Depositphotos Is it the devil? ( tax form)
« on: January 10, 2019, 17:39 »
They have been kinda shady from the get-go. See earlier threads on this forum. If you decide to do business with them, dont be surprised at anything that happens.

66
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock very bad results
« on: January 09, 2019, 11:25 »
I noticed that I have quite a few days, sometimes a whole week, when I sell nothing in America, my sales used to be half America and then the rest of the World.

Their algorithm seems to be deliberately manipulated, which is just plain wrong.

Essentially they are keeping the rest of the World out of the American market, they are supposed to be a global platform for our work and they take a commission for this, it seems to me that like Getty/istock, that they have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

I would like to think I am wrong, but the data seems to point otherwise.

Personally I believe that all these Microstock companies should publish facts and figures, like how many files where sold in Italy and in which Country those file were created, this should be on a monthly basis.

Then we need clarity on the financial side, so we can see how much money was made in each Country and which Country received the commission.

At the moment too much information is opaque.

I am sure all these Companies have this data and we are the Creatives producing the work that they are selling for us.


It will never happen, but you can fight back easily. Stop doing business with them.

67
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock very bad results
« on: January 08, 2019, 10:37 »
Portfolios with spam are definitely a problem. The site is so infested with bad similars, what buyer would want to wade through all that. When you spam, you arent the only one who suffers...everyone does.

68
Site Related / Re: Does anyone use tapatalk
« on: January 08, 2019, 07:35 »
no

69
Adobe Stock / Re: 12-week trend graph
« on: January 06, 2019, 22:40 »
.

70
Site Related / Re: Spam attack
« on: January 06, 2019, 14:17 »
Yes, I moved a few to the garbage, but gave up when I saw there were a ton and notified Leaf. But it looks like the forum is messed up...I only see a few topics.

71
Image Sleuth / Re: Stolen images.
« on: January 03, 2019, 10:50 »
Isn't there anything we can do about it? Who knows who took from whom?

I think all we can do is post here when we see this happening, in the hopes that one of us will find our own image being stolen so that we can make the report to Shutterstock.

I've made assumptions about who took from who based upon the image ID numbers. It isn't a foolproof method but a pretty good indication, particularly when viewing the age, style and portfolios as a whole.


Another thing is that the internet is the land of fake identities. All those contributors could be the same person, just using different phony names.

72
Image Sleuth / Re: Stolen images.
« on: December 30, 2018, 11:24 »
It makes sense that only copyright owners can file DMCAs. But its too bad they dont take emails from anyone reporting stealing more seriously. As has been mentioned in the past, they dont really seem to care how they make their money. They say they take copyrights seriously, but if that were true, they would be shutting down these watermark-removal-from-large-size-images thieves immediately. Look how long that has gone on and still goes on.

73
Newbie Discussion / Re: How do I "clean image" before uploading it
« on: December 25, 2018, 07:38 »
WHY?...what the heck are you Hiding....or trying to Hide???

I did think the same but was too polite to say it :D

Stolen photos?  :-X
OMG,  you three should work for CIA.

There can be many, legitimate, reasons why to remove metadata. For example I delete them before uploading as I always put many additional and personal data concerning shooting and I don't want provide them to agencies paying me pennies. Example:
- exact location, including GPS position
- additional confidential info about model and location
- camera, software
- shooting precise setup (lighting...)
- info about additional staff ( make-up artist, food stylist)
- client info. Yes, sometimes some photos taken during on assigment could be used for stock
- ...

To respond OP I use Xnview ( edit, medadata, clean metadata)


I am wondering why you would put all that info in the metadata, only to turn around and remove it before upload. Wouldnt putting that info in Bridge or Lightroom be a more efficient way?

74
If only there was a way to avoid this when selling photos online. I can see how that could easily happen to everyone of us and there is nothing you can do about it.


It isnt stealing if a person willingly enters into a contract (addressed to noodles comment). If that person chooses not to read the terms, thats not on the agency. He still had to click an agree button (I think...its been about 14 years since I signed with SS) There is a way to avoid this happening...do not sell on microstock! Stick to traditional stock agencies. But does selling an image to a major company and getting peanuts suck? Yes indeed.

75
so he randomly uploaded one picture to the stock photo service Shutterstock.
He uploads one photo and Walmart happens to find it out of millions of photos? Possible, but something smells fishy with this story. What rock did he live under that he didnt understand what microstock is? Whether he read the t&cs or not, he still should have had some idea of how microstock works. Sounds like fake news to gain attention.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 267

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements