1
Off Topic / Re: Brexit
« on: March 16, 2017, 17:08 »
At least we might be able to sell digital images without accounting for 27 different types of VAT.
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.
Pages: [1]
1
Off Topic / Re: Brexit« on: March 16, 2017, 17:08 »
At least we might be able to sell digital images without accounting for 27 different types of VAT.
2
General Stock Discussion / Re: Ethics and other Licensing Problems« on: April 22, 2015, 17:09 »
Nothing wrong with a photographer using your photo as long as they do not state or imply that it is their work. Only the same as a roofing contactor using you photo - it would be morally wrong if thet implied that this was a roof that they had fitted.
Just be happy you got a sale. 3
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS forum meltdown missing« on: March 26, 2015, 11:10 »
Its a pity it was mentioned on the latest 'popular posts' email just sent out.
4
General Stock Discussion / Re: Difference in agency CYA« on: February 27, 2015, 11:19 »
I woulld have thought that unique or distinctive properties would need releases if they were the main feature of he photo.
This case may create more questions than answers, but it is interesting. http://propertyintangible.com/2010/08/houses-right-of-publicity.html 5
General Stock Discussion / Re: A COPYCAT« on: February 19, 2015, 17:27 »it is not about the photo being a masterpiece. it also could be a piece of c**p which isn't the case here, your photos are all right by quality terms. it is about an idea. you aren't the one that made a business man with hand touching graphic concept. that fact that that files appeared after yours isn't relevant either (as long as the photo is NOT identical). One thing is clear to me now even if you didn't say it directly. You yourself have been inspired by similar concepts and you try now to take down a user that "copied" your "original" concept. Thanks for clearing this for me. Good luck with your work. This poster may be right or he may be wrong. Creative work will inevitably involve taking some influence from the work of others. However, many of us here seem to think that the copier has gone too far, too often. By putting it to shutterstock, i think that you will have a good chance of them taking action. Let us know what happens. 6
General Stock Discussion / Re: A COPYCAT« on: February 19, 2015, 14:53 »
Without looking at each image in minute detail, i am assuming that all originals are yours and all copies have later sequence numbers on shutterstock.
By all means contact him but make it clear that unless he takes these down straight away, you will report to shutterstock. If not resolved, then give the detail to shutterstock. If there is any justice in this world, the volume of this activity should at very least cause them to remove the images with the possibility that they close his account altogether. If you feel like it, miss out contacting him and go straight to shutterstock. I hope you get it resolved. 7
General Stock Discussion / Re: Exciting News! We've launched FocalPool« on: February 09, 2015, 04:30 »
I like a lot of what I see here.
EU VAT is a key issue and actually represents an opportunity for you. Self hosting in EU countries has become unattractive owing to the need for sellers to become tax collectors. I, for one, would happily pay your percentage if you are able to take on that role. To do this successfully, I have to trust you to do it as I would retain liability. Similarly, you need to be able to evidence to me that the tax has been accounted for. Your proposal is unattractive until you sort this out. 8
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Anybody know any Rasberries?« on: December 21, 2014, 11:29 »
Your picture has an iStock watermark across the middle.
You obviously need a release ....... from iStock ![]()
Pages: [1]
|
|