|
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 - Noedelhap
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... 90
1076
« on: May 22, 2017, 13:07 »
the fault is shutterstock.
clearly tracing a photo is a derivative work and falls under "Fair Use" and is not a copyright violation.
this is very very clear in copyright law and has been upheld again and again and again.
tracing a photo is "fair use". "fair use" is a legal term that is specified in copyright law.
you created a new creative work and only used a minimal amount from a previous work. this is 100% legal and falls under fair use.
Yeah, ok. If I ever see you trace one of my images and sell them in your portfolio claiming it's 'fair use', I'll have your account closed. It's not allowed and copyright infringement. Easy as that.
1078
« on: May 21, 2017, 10:39 »
It's a shame agencies (Adobe/Fotolia being one of them) don't properly compensate for the damages. Adobe/Fotolia approved the content, which means they should have checked the copyright authenticity of the uploaded images. In reality this is difficult with an ever-expanding collection, but they should at least support the infringed artists and compensate them the best they can. Such as giving the infringed artist all necessary information so that they can take legal action against the uploader, or a clawback of the revenue and passing it on to the infringed artist. Refusing to apologize and pretending it's not their responsibility is just arrogant corporate behavior.
I wish you the best in dealing with this frustrating mess.
1079
« on: May 20, 2017, 08:19 »
So at the time you 'created' this auroch silhouette, you already were a contributor for 2 years at SS, and you didn't know you could use other peoples' drawings or photos for tracing?
That means you probably did it more than once, without realising it's not allowed by SS (or any other agency).
Since you're acting so surprised, I assume you didn't do this with malicious intent, but there's not much you can do. SS has every reason (and rightly so) to shut down your account.
1080
« on: May 12, 2017, 12:23 »
shouldn't something like this be reported ?
You mean the reviewers so they can be fired?
1081
« on: May 12, 2017, 12:16 »
I expected the worst (lower prices), but this is certainly good news! I noticed video sales are occurring more and more on Fotolia/Adobe Stock, so looking forward to even more sales.
1082
« on: May 11, 2017, 15:51 »
Sounds like something similar to this offering from Videoblocks and it looks like it's just a lure to drive traffic to the real site and in that case nothing wrong at all.
https://www.stockfootageforfree.com/
In doing a Google keywords/Adwords search the the other day I found that stock footage FREE comes up #1 so I can see the traditional paid services simply using that to drive traffic to the paid sites. Everyone wants video and photos for free and they are capitalizing on that.
So if they can't make money the honest way, they are going to try and bait and switch people. 
What is dishonest about that? They're not scamming anyone are they?
1083
« on: May 11, 2017, 03:21 »
So let's put this into perspective. There was a topic about Freestock seven (!) years ago, so it's been around that long. If microstock is still able to bring in sales after 7 years, maybe those free stock sites aren't so damaging after all.
1084
« on: May 10, 2017, 02:50 »
At least it was a positive adjustment... 1.75 here.
1085
« on: May 05, 2017, 10:00 »
With all due respect, but $500 for the full rights? Really? Are you sure the clip won't earn you more than $500 in your lifetime?
1086
« on: May 05, 2017, 04:16 »
Let me be the first to say: charge $5K or more. Keep in mind that if the full rights to an image (photo or illustration) can be sold for a couple of thousands, then a well shot video should be worth much more than that.
Take the expected revenue for the clip for the next 3-5 years, triple that and add some markup. Otherwise, what's the point, right?
Also consider who you're selling to and what they plan to do with it. They're not requesting a buyout for nothing. Bigger companies can afford more. All in all, don't cut yourself short.
1087
« on: May 04, 2017, 11:52 »
How I loathe corporate speak. It's so fluffy and meaningless. Throw in some 'reaccelerated growth' and 'huge number of assets', top it off with 'snappier, better and cloud-based' and stakeholders are happy again for another quarter.
1088
« on: May 04, 2017, 05:15 »
so I'm curious to know why you would for any reason upload images in return for 15% royalties?
Dude seriously stop feeding them
I admit that receiving 9c sales is pitiful. I was planning on abandoning them once I reach my first payout.
Then why would you still upload and spend precious time resubmitting rejected content?
1089
« on: May 04, 2017, 04:39 »
Where's the apology? SS is going the iStock way.
1090
« on: May 02, 2017, 09:21 »
● Am I allowed to put the same image on multiple stock footage sites if it's considered royalty free and non-exclusive?
● also once I put an image on a stock footage site am I allowed to still display that image in my portfolio and on websites that showcase photography?
First question: yes, as long as you're not going exclusive with any agency, you're free to upload it to all microstock agencies. Second question: yes, you still own the copyright, so it's up to you to display it any way you like. Just be sure to protect your work with a watermark if you put in on display somewhere.
1091
« on: May 01, 2017, 05:58 »
Some of my older HD videos (their accompanying jpeg previews) have ALL their metadata stripped from them...What's going on??
The program keeps the metadata in JPEG previews so if they got removed for some reason the metadata will be lost.
The accompanying JPEG previews are still there and were untouched. It's still only a couple of folders, though. But kinda odd.
The program would re-generate JPEG previews when you open the folder if they were removed.
But the JPEG previews weren't removed or changed at all. I checked the JPEG date to be sure, the last modification date was 2013 and I'm sure the metadata was still there last year. Somehow the metadata was stripped from all JPEGs within certain folders (the oldest videos). Not blaming StockSubmitter or anything, I'm just wondering how it could have happened.
1092
« on: April 30, 2017, 04:47 »
Some of my older HD videos (their accompanying jpeg previews) have ALL their metadata stripped from them...What's going on??
The program keeps the metadata in JPEG previews so if they got removed for some reason the metadata will be lost.
The accompanying JPEG previews are still there and were untouched. It's still only a couple of folders, though. But kinda odd.
1093
« on: April 29, 2017, 09:58 »
A few times I had someone requesting additional rights or even the full rights to my stock illustrations, some clients asked for a custom illustration based on my stock work, or customizations to existing images.
Most clients are put off by the extra cost I charge for customization (after paying a few dollars for an image), so I don't expect too much from it.
1094
« on: April 29, 2017, 09:50 »
Some of my older HD videos (their accompanying jpeg previews) have ALL their metadata stripped from them...What's going on??
1095
« on: April 29, 2017, 09:36 »
I've sold some 4K videos. HD is still sold more often, but that will undoubtedly change gradually over the years.
That's encouraging, will you keep on creating animations or footage in 4K?
Certainly, because 4K is more future-proof than HD. And because I make animations, creating 4K resolution isn't more costly than HD (save storage space cost, but that's negligible).
1096
« on: April 29, 2017, 09:32 »
$69-$79 for HD , $149 for a regular 4K.
Considerably higher than the Pond5 averages, but lower than SS.
I see about 15% at the listed price at Shutterstock. Maybe your numbers are different but I would hardly call $79 the true price at Shutterstock... It's just a number that very few actually pay.
That could be true, but my 4K price at Pond5 is lower than the listed SS price.
1097
« on: April 29, 2017, 08:54 »
Got a premium license sale on Pond5 for a specially negotiated price, never had one before!
1098
« on: April 28, 2017, 16:13 »
I've sold some 4K videos. HD is still sold more often, but that will undoubtedly change gradually over the years.
1099
« on: April 26, 2017, 13:09 »
I bought a nice apartment with a spectacular view. No thanks to microstock revenue.
1100
« on: April 25, 2017, 05:49 »
$69-$79 for HD , $149 for a regular 4K.
Considerably higher than the Pond5 averages, but lower than SS.
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... 90
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
