|
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 - ravens
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17
101
« on: May 17, 2021, 09:10 »
While all the fire at the moment is understandably on the commission cut, some of the other clauses bear close scrutiny, especially when we remember how semi-innocent-sounding clauses ended up being used by Getty.
For example:
"4.1.5. except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamys ability to license the Content;" which would grant them the right to sell images we designated RM as RF, which obviously conflicts with RF-exclusive contracts elsewhere.
"4.1.6. any use or exploitation of the Content by Alamy, a Customer or a Distributor will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, indecent, vulgar or violate publicity rights anywhere in the world."
I don't see how that can possibly be legal, but presumably PA have had their lawyers look over the new contract.
Wonder if this means that there is no disabling Personal Use?
102
« on: May 10, 2021, 07:07 »
Everest, you are missing the whole point. Even if you have the right to photograph it doesn't mean you have to behave like a jerk. You are on lawful grounds documenting and photographing someone on public grounds. It does not matter if the subject being photographed likes it or not. It is a right granted to you in most free democracies. Why? Because it helps transparency, freedom of press and because when you are on a public street you are not granted anonymity anymore. Nothing to do with respect or not. It is the way it is the same way as you have the right to not be arrested and maintained in custody by the police without a lawyer even if the police thinks that it detracts to catch the bad guy.
Things work this way in a democracy for a lot of reasons.
And about microstock and freedom of press. It does not matter if you have an official badge from a press organization which I have as I studied and have a degree in journalism in Spain, or if a microstocker or a citizen journalist documents any action on public ground. That freedom protects all.
And the photographer that had problems in Salamanca has all the law on his side and the subject that got angry not, only if the published image is used for "informative" purposes. If that would not be the case then the angry bad educated man might have a case.
103
« on: May 09, 2021, 02:03 »
Just to inform, this is NOT personally directed to Alexandre. I'm speaking generally about shooting strangers in public. We photographers tend to get so defensive about our legal rights. Relax. It shouldn't ALWAYS be about legal rights. What about common decency, and what's reasonable? The other person you are pointing your camera at is not an anonymous object or a piece of meat. That's a real person with thoughts, feelings and opinions. I don't think it hurts too much to be considerate to other people, when you are shooting. Show some respect. If you are like most photographers, you have an enormous backlog of images to work on. It can't be ALL about that one photo of that one person who doesn't want his/her photo taken. It's never a bad idea to think of your own reputation. If somebody starts complaining about you, it can be bad for your business. You come across as difficult to work with. Potential clients looking for a freelancer will choose someone else to work with. "Freedom of press" is a huge exaggeration when it comes to microstock photography. A great deal of editorial micro shots are just a bunch of unreleased images that are not topical and will never be published by any news media. Even a microstock photographer who shoots some newsworthy shots every now and then can't be associated with daily news reporters employed by nationwide or international media. That's a whole different ball game. You are just wrong and don't understand how freedom of press works. In public space you have no right to not to be your image being taken by a photographer or a security camera. Those images cannot be published in a commercial way but yes in an editorial way. That means if an article is about a city for example and you are standing in the shot the article has all the right to use the image with or without your authorization. Tha's the law in most democracies. You might like it or not but that's how it works. In North Korea China and Venezuela it might be different do.
A photographer has his or her rights but a person has a right to be left alone. I usually think in situations like this, "what if this would be me?" Do I want somebody to point a camera at me when I walk on the street? NO!
OK, then I will have to give the same privacy to others, too.
104
« on: May 08, 2021, 06:44 »
Upon connecting on Filezilla I got the sftp unknown host error.
"The server's host key is unknown. You have no guarantee that the server is the computer you think it is."
105
« on: May 07, 2021, 06:46 »
To the op :
Your statement: "capturing and submitting editorial photos in a legal mess, but as the risk is very small its not something I would worry about"
Maybe you should have more respect for people in public places (I remember picture of homeless people that you sell without their consent).
Spannish "Aggressive Shepherd-Painter" is agressive but... maybe we can understand his reaction.
Such a fuss over some photons. Anyway, the general rule of thumb is that consent is not required when shooting in public, but depends on jurisdiction and needs further analysis. UK being the most liberal and photography-friendly. Portugal/Spain/Italy less so.
Homeless people were remunerated accordingly, unless unconscious.
In an alternative reality, the Shepherd would have asked nicely and I would have replied nicely by removing both images, sending him high-resolution copies for his marketing and I would have helped to promote his work. In this reality he can fk off to his pastures.
Photography is not a crime. You should support freedom of the press.
Thank you for a great informative post once again and congrats on your successful month on Alamy. Hope that you will see more of those big sales! The Shepherd case is INTERESTING. Maybe he had several reasons to be furious. Some people do think that having their photo (or photos of their property) taken means trouble of some kind. Can you blame them. Some stranger has images of them and can do whatever with them. Others of course feel at home in front of camera and have 100s of selfies taken daily, but this guy probably didn't belong to the latter group. A photographer has his or her rights but a person has a right to be left alone. I usually think in situations like this, "what if this would be me?" Do I want somebody to point a camera at me when I walk on the street? NO! OK, then I will have to give the same privacy to others, too.
106
« on: April 15, 2021, 07:42 »
Shutterstock's new microscopic contributor payments are in line with this. Their next move is to make them non-existent, and it will be so much fun to go shopping with imaginary money.
107
« on: April 13, 2021, 01:41 »
Now That's Funny.
108
« on: February 09, 2021, 06:51 »
Thank you Adobe and Mat! This is a generous and extremely useful offer.
109
« on: January 13, 2021, 12:06 »
Mat, how do keyword combinations or keyphrases work on Adobe?
It depends on the context. If the word combination would be found in the dictionary then yes, it's appropriate for a compound keyword. For example, an image of an Arctic Fox, you would use the keywords "arctic fox" and "fox" but not "Arctic." "Golden Gate Bridge" you would use all three words as one keyword in addition to "Bridge" but you wouldn't' use "gate" for example since that's irrelevant.
However, words like "Red Dress" should not be used as a compound keyword but instead separated into two different keywords.
Hope that helps,
Mat
Thank you Mat! I've used some common nouns as compound keywords (as a guess what the buyer would search), so would removing them improve my placement in searches? Do hyphenated compound keywords work in Adobe search engine? Eg. arctic-fox, artificial-intelligence, electric-car.
110
« on: January 13, 2021, 00:59 »
Mat, how do keyword combinations or keyphrases work on Adobe?
Does anybody know?
111
« on: January 09, 2021, 05:34 »
I see "Recommended" before RF license in Alamy manager, is it new or I have not noticed yet?
The latter. It's been there for quite some time. To my experience RM and RF sell equally well, and I'm placing most of my new work RM.
112
« on: January 08, 2021, 13:29 »
Mat, how do keyword combinations or keyphrases work on Adobe?
113
« on: January 07, 2021, 11:24 »
Believe it or not but people like Oringer, Zuckerburg etc etc are lefties and now with a new leftie President??? lefties have always become rich on other peoples work or money! so Jim how do you propose to get somebody like Oringer to do this?
100% correct.
114
« on: January 05, 2021, 08:13 »
>>> If we won't be liable, why would they even ask? Shutterstock license editorial stock as commercial upgrade for extra fee without asking us, I think. >>>> They ask because they would like to license your image differently from what YOU have selected. It's not that they want to deceive you or trick you. (That's Shutterstock's job  )
115
« on: January 02, 2021, 11:31 »
》》》》So, if Alamy asks me if they can license an editorial photo putting liability on my shoulder, I would definitely say no.《《《《
Alamy don't f**k contributors like that.
If they'll ask you if you can lift the restrictions, you can state that you will not take the liability.
Remember that you just supply the images and license them to your best knowledge. You cannot control the actions of someone else. Just search online. How many "editorial" stock images are used wrongly.
Buyers license them and it is up to them what they will do with them. We cannot control that, that is not our responsibility.
It's very good to be careful with image licensing, but not neurotic!
116
« on: December 31, 2020, 01:07 »
It can potentially cost contributors a lot of money in lawsuit.
And rightfully so if they think they can sell photos with property that doesn't belong to them or people who didn't agree to this for commercial usage.
Contributor can forget to check the "Editorial only" box. That's why Shutterstock and Adobe Stock decide which photos they sell as commercial, not contributors.
But you have to answer, "Is there property in this image?" "Do you have a release?" "Are there people in this image?" "Do you have release/s"
If you don't tick these, the default is set that there are no releases, even if none is needed.
Alamy is much stricter about what consitutes property or people (SS is pretty lax). I indicate property even if it's very old and e.g. iS would accept it. Also tiny bits of people, even out of focus pixels way in the background are regarded as people on Alamy. At that point, it is the responsibility of the buyer to decide whether they would be taking a risk in using it.
Most of Alamy's buyers are editorial buyers. In my limited experience, I've never found an editorial image being misused by an Alamy buyer - I have had several instances of iStock editorial files being used commercially by buyers, which I've reported to iStock - who each time assured me that I would have no liability for these misuses. And, by the way, contributors have to upload editorial files to iStock via the editorial route, rather than the bizarrely-named 'creative' route. However, I understand that files sent as creative are still being rejected if there is a possible IP issue, so there is that extra level of protection.
Alamy expects their contributors to know what they're doing.
That's good advice. OP, do some research. RM is not RF. Alamy is not Shutterstock. Contributors can only tick the right boxes, we can't control what the buyer ultimately does and therefore, can't be responsible for their actions.
117
« on: December 15, 2020, 07:11 »
I'm with cascoly here.
Minority agenda is forced on everybody these days. Where is modern imagery of average folks, consumers who go to work, and who actually buy stuff, and who do not think of their identities, sexuality, heritage and past lives every minute?
118
« on: December 03, 2020, 06:37 »
Travel at the time of Covid-19? Not a good idea. (Covid won't disappear by 2021)
Shooting travel? Not a good idea. Travel, as a genre is extremely popular and heavily competed. It isn't doing well these days.
Keep working on the templates, you've got a good thing going, and enjoy good times with your wife.
Travel - not a good idea at the moment.
119
« on: November 26, 2020, 01:14 »
In 2020 clearly less XXX sales, but also I do see less X sales since July and a delightful amount of XX sales. XX sales for me are on the increase and overall 2020 is my best year on Alamy. I add images regularly, many only on Alamy, and have said goodbye to sites like SS and IS.
I understand the frustration with PU and that's something Alamy should look into. On RM you can disable that, but this feature should be offered for RF also. RF images are normally sold by size anyway and not by use.
Would like to ask those who upload the same photos on SS or DT - why should Alamy pay more?
120
« on: November 15, 2020, 00:19 »
"Have I been pawned" website also sent a notification (I'm a subscriber) with clear information - the email from 123RF is rather wishy-washy.
According to Have I Been Pawned the breach happened in March 2020.
Email found: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Breach: 123RF
Date of breach: 22 Mar 2020
Number of accounts: 8,661,578
Compromised data: Email addresses, IP addresses, Names, Passwords, Phone numbers, Physical addresses, Usernames
Description: In March 2020, the stock photo site 123RF suffered a data breach which impacted over 8 million subscribers and was subsequently sold online. The breach included email, IP and physical addresses, names, phone numbers and passwords stored as MD5 hashes. The data was provided to HIBP by dehashed.com."
121
« on: November 08, 2020, 06:32 »
Mat, the best solution would be that Adobe should buy the rights to images in Free collection. This way, you would be distributing your own images and marketing your software with your own content.
-- edited due to typos --
if the 1 yr cost is $X / image what would a buyout cost? it would also make it more costly to change the collection each year
This is something Mat should answer. Buyout is the only way to eliminate negative contributor related consequences, ones like gnirtS below describes.
122
« on: November 07, 2020, 03:19 »
Mat, the best solution would be that Adobe should buy the rights to images in Free collection. This way, you would be distributing your own images and marketing your software with your own content.
-- edited due to typos --
123
« on: October 26, 2020, 23:36 »
On the plus side we can download the free images and if appropriate to your work, use part or all of the free image to form a composite new image and upload to sell back on Adobe etc
No, this is not allowed.
-Mat
It is not allowed, but people will be doing this because it is made possible.
124
« on: October 20, 2020, 05:55 »
Mat,
Free images doesn't make people feel "wow, I need this service, I'm going to pay for it".
No.
They just want more free images and download what they can get free of charge, then go to the next free site, and so on.
Free makes our work of less value, and Adobe as a stock agency will lose its credibility and look like Pexels, Unsplash, whatever xzyqw sites there are.
I'd expect stock agencies to be a little more inventive with the services you offer. Is "Free" really the only thing you come up with??
125
« on: October 19, 2020, 00:41 »
Free images: Contributor abuse.
Am l interested? Hell NO!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
