|
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 - 60D
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14
101
« on: December 09, 2015, 05:11 »
Do you have any stats showing number of sales SS make in a week?
102
« on: December 08, 2015, 10:32 »
I don't think there are many who do better with similar size of ports. Just keep up what you do.
103
« on: December 06, 2015, 08:00 »
SS is $25, isn't it?
104
« on: December 03, 2015, 09:37 »
Shutterstock.com team: Protecting of copyright on Shutterstock.
link to the petition ---
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock
Dear Shutterstock.com team,
At the moment, the watermark used in the preview function recently implemented on shutterstock site actually has failed in its main purpose: it is hardly visible, if at all, and it can be easily removed, even without complex manipulations just by downsizing the preview image.
As a result, we feel that our works are now unprotected, exposed to public access and available for download to anyone.
We have specified the list of proposals that we would like to see implemented as soon as possible:
1. Make watermarks larger and more noticeable:
Reduce the pitch of the watermark grid to 100 pixels for more reliable protection of icon sets.
Increase the width of the grid lines to 5 pixels.
The lines of the watermark should be contrast to the background. The pixels of the lines should have at least 15 levels of brightness in contrast to the surrounding pixels.
2. Inform contributors about any changes on the web site relating to copyright before such changes actually made.
Contributors who have signed this petition suspend uploading of the new images until the elimination of the negative consequences produced by Shutterstock.com.
Looking forward to your cooperation What happened to this petition? Was it delivered to SS?
105
« on: November 30, 2015, 09:35 »
It's declining for me too. I just wish it's a random thing and get more ODs in coming months 
106
« on: November 29, 2015, 22:15 »
I know what they want and what they don't want.
Do you mind sharing your valuable knowledge and experience with us? I still have trouble figuring out what SS wants. You must be a genius to figure it out even before getting accepted.
107
« on: November 28, 2015, 11:56 »
108
« on: November 28, 2015, 11:12 »
The website sucks. I tried very hard to upload multiple pictures, but it simply doesn't work.
Seems like you don't have enough patience for this business 
109
« on: November 19, 2015, 11:31 »
i said the world is round..
Is that true?
110
« on: November 19, 2015, 07:51 »
I think it is important to let people know that online doesn't mean necessarily free.
Well said.
111
« on: November 17, 2015, 10:02 »
It appears that all my images now carry the improved V2 watermark. Finally!
So now I'm back to uploading to SS again.
So you don't mind large previews?
112
« on: November 16, 2015, 09:30 »
Good interview. Best of luck for them. Unfortunately, they don't like me 
113
« on: November 13, 2015, 11:53 »
It would be great if the BBC stopped using Getty/istock. They must be wasting a lot of money and a lot of us get such a small cut from them or no longer use them. They should be using alamy more, a British site that pays a decent commission.
They tend to use Getty for celebs/politicans etc and TS for the rest. No doubt they get the maximum possible deal for on TS, as they would on Alamy.
Sadly, keywording is rife on Alamy also, though Klansman and the first two pages of KKK on the relevant sort seem to be clean on a quick shuftie.
I'd also prefer that they used Alamy - though they'd no doubt get a deal under the 'UK Newspaper scheme', which means that a portion of Alamy's offerings would be unavailable to them that way. But I guess there would be nothing to stop them looking first at the smaller group of files, and then at the full set of images if necessary, which is presumably what they do already, if they can't find it at TS, they check at Alamy.
Which may show they're getting a better deal at TS than Alamy would give them, as staying in one place would be easier.
What is TS?
114
« on: November 13, 2015, 11:20 »
It works fine for me. I received a couple in this month.
115
« on: November 10, 2015, 08:33 »
This sort of craziness is why I'm right on the edge of shutting down my remaining microstock accounts. I'm now making more money on print sales, and it looks like the microstocks are basically competing with me, with my own work.
How do you sell your prints?
116
« on: November 08, 2015, 05:34 »
Everything is still sooooo slow. I wonder what is going on there? Something seems different. It's like no-one is in the office.
Yeah, it seems very much like that. Staff layoffs? Bankrupted? Their agents didn't respond here for sometime now.
117
« on: November 08, 2015, 05:31 »
When you uploading mobile images to SS do you need some special tag, "mobile" or something like that ?
No
118
« on: November 08, 2015, 05:18 »
I read somewhere that it's 50, not 20. Too high IMO.
119
« on: November 07, 2015, 07:05 »
I've already got hate mail for signing it.
From whom?
120
« on: November 06, 2015, 22:52 »
Disappointing to see some of them only have iPhone app I have uploaded some editorial photos taken from my phone to SS and 123RF as regular uploads. One of them has 100+ sales, another with 50+, and many with 10+.
121
« on: November 06, 2015, 20:12 »
I think watermark not too bad on most of the medium size previews. I really don't understand the point behind releasing large size previews if they only want to show a medium size preview. SS is not gonna correct this. They seem to be too arrogant and sound like, hey, we are the market leaders, whatever we do will generate more sales. They drive me crazy.... I just want to opt out of this thing...
122
« on: November 03, 2015, 11:03 »
I can't correct you - I'm not an image thief or buyer. But buyers will buy and thieves will thieve, whether it photos, music, clothes, cars or groceries -- whatever. The problem is much deeper than a weak watermark. The term 'Royalty-Free' is no help, and that so many think that everything on the internet is or should be free. I just don't think anybody is going to wholesale copy your portfolio and sit there and remove 1200 watermarks. Doesn't sound cost effective. They'd probably get a subscription and just download the whole lot without watermark, or more likely use Google to find un-watermarked images.
It's just one opinion but I think those who are suspending uploads, deleting images and even whole portfolios are 'cutting off their nose to spite their face".
If anyone thinks all this hubbub will really affect the way SS does business is sadly wrong. They will do the things they decide will help their business, not your business. We are not partners, their success is not dependent on any 1 or 500 contributors. They spent the time and money to give us a 'final' watermark - don't expect anything more.
If all of us think as you do, of course, SS will do whatever they want. Fortunately, everyone is not like you. It's pathetic to see contributors like you.
123
« on: October 31, 2015, 11:14 »
i think we will do better and quicker if we twitted Mr. Oringer at his twitter site
Can you provide his Twitter username?
https://twitter.com/jonoringer
124
« on: October 30, 2015, 23:48 »
Other than fixing this watermark, SS should also mention in the footer that it's copyright protected, who is the copyright owner, and direct link to buy it.
125
« on: October 30, 2015, 12:45 »
I actually buy pictures. Do you?
Oh, you are a buyer, that's why you love it. You don't have to pay anymore. BTW, do you sell pictures? Look at the watermark at stocksy. subtle and barely seen. 
But much smaller image sizes. You just keep expressing vague ideas without any justification.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
