|
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 - bunhill
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 ... 62
1226
« on: August 06, 2012, 13:08 »
In a FB group there was a contributor who buys who was complaining that they were getting poor results in searches today (and saying it was the first time they couldn't find what they were looking for on what they believed was a simple search). Perhaps something has changed in searches (versus an overall dropoff in business)?
There is a bad spam problem too. We all make occasional mistakes but some of it seems gratuitous and systematic. IMO they should prevent people from adding keywords after inspection unless they can definitely be trusted. I have the impression that many contributors wait until after inspection to add keywords - and that in many cases they are too lazy to check the correct disambiguation options and so select all of them. I have the impression too that some users upload a complete series with all the same keywords rather checking each image.
1227
« on: August 06, 2012, 06:52 »
I do have an axe to grind etc
Obviously generic answers are never going to address specific circumstances. This is not an argument against trying to help people to understand the sort of things which they need to find out and document when dealing logically with these sorts of questions.
1228
« on: August 06, 2012, 06:06 »
Thanks for that! It just shows how pointless these posts are. You get a load of different answers that don't give any definitive answer, and which clearly vary from country to country.
That seems a rather negative way of looking at things. It is not pointless if it helps people to logically identify the sorts of questions which they need to find answers for. The fact that there is no single definitive answer is of itself a pertinent piece of information. The reasons why there is no definitive answer help people to better understand the issues in general. Unless you took the pictures yourself in your own time using your own equipment then, just like with archival photographs, you have to establish who owns any copyright which may exist and who can sign a property release. With the caveat that the potential exists that you own the copyright yourself .... If the contract said that. Model releases would a different issue. I doubt these would count as identifiable people.
1230
« on: August 05, 2012, 05:14 »
I used to be able to search using my name or istock username but I've tried every variation possible now and can't find my portfolio there. I can search for my individual images and they come up, so it appears to all be there but search by istock user name has been removed?
Searching for your name (first name and surname) enclosed in single quotes I see 1226 results.
1231
« on: August 04, 2012, 04:23 »
Not talking about any site specifically - but I see people complain about being back to say 2007 numbers. There are lots of people in business who would love to be back to 2007 numbers - or even to still be in business.
This is the worst economy since the 1930s. 2007 was the high water mark of a long boom - especially online. The post 2001 internet boom far surpassed the pre crash dot.com era - lots of exuberant little startups all needing images, big companies with money to burn etc
Comparing anything with the high point of a boom is going to be a disappointing experience. And I know that this expression is being way overused but now probably really is the "new normal".
1232
« on: August 04, 2012, 03:04 »
The difference with Getty and Connect is that we are not an agency and we do not license images. We are just a platform. Our members upload their images and the whole universe of the web can publish them
How can you be certain that users are uploading their own images ? How can potential customers (users) be certain that the images uploaded actually belong to the people who have uploaded them and are properly rights cleared etc ?
1233
« on: August 02, 2012, 05:07 »
Alamy allows multiple pseudonyms under a single account which is a good way dividing work which is completely different or which is likely to rank completely differently.
1234
« on: August 02, 2012, 04:37 »
From what I have learned, shooting below/facing up an object/person makes it/them look like the hero/strong.
Often it makes them look fat in the face. It depends but you have to be careful when your camera is looking up people's noses via their double chins. eg bread and butter work like, say, corporate portraits tends to often be about trying to make middle aged men look slightly less heavy.
1235
« on: July 30, 2012, 09:36 »
And this is why, I believe, we have not seen our 2012 RC levels. They will let the new buyers deal with that.
I rather doubt that whoever buys Getty is at this stage going to be in anyway concerned (or indirectly involved with) micro-managing something like RC levels at one of the constituent brands. My assumption would be that, for the moment at least, the business at all its various different levels carries on as usual. I might be wrong but I would guess that it would be detrimental to a company and its brands (and therefore to the value) if there was ever any sort of idea that everything was somehow in limbo until after a sale.
1236
« on: July 28, 2012, 07:46 »
Carlyle, CVC, TPG weigh final bids for Getty - Reuters Three private equity firms, including Carlyle Group LP (CG.O) and CVC Capital Partners CVC.UL, are weighing final bids for Getty Images, as the auction of the digital media company enters its last leg, according to people familiar with the matter.
TPG Capital TPG.UL also remains in the auction and is considering a final bid for Getty, the people said. The largest supplier of stock photos, video and other digital content could be valued at as much as $4 billion, they said.
Final bids for Getty Images are due on August 6, they added.
Other buyout firms that had earlier taken a look, such as KKR & Co (KKR.N) and Charterhouse CHCAP.UL, have dropped out of the process, the people said.
A sale would come more than four years after private equity firm Hellman & Friedman LLC bought a majority stake in Getty in a $2.4 billion deal. I wonder who people familiar with the matter actually are.
1237
« on: July 26, 2012, 15:44 »
I purposely bought a cheap, generic, no-name Chinese knock-off microphone for that very reason.
Wouldn't a "knock-off" look deliberately like the thing which has been knocked-off ? In which case I can understand them treating it with caution.
1238
« on: July 23, 2012, 08:04 »
This is a 12 year old client
Crikey.
1239
« on: July 23, 2012, 05:53 »
If he can do similars to a standard which will pass inspection then a collection of hundreds would definitely begin to have macro potential - especially is he can start to focus on specific details ... traffic on that road, specific crops, specific, weather, specific places etc.
Even just as beautiful pictures this sort of stuff stands a chance of being picked up as the sort of generic, nice but deliberately not-anything, geometric stuff which gets used in e.g. the sorts of brochures which private banks send out about specific investment opportunities. There is quite a demand for pictures which are not about anything specifically and they are harder to source than you might imagine.
1240
« on: July 23, 2012, 04:47 »
I have long believed that picture research (finding pictures based on client requests) could be crowd sourced in the same way as inspection is crowd sourced.
It doesn't work at the moment for the most part because if you start a thread on an agency forum asking for specifically WXY and definitely excluding Z - well invariably most of the responses will from people offering ABC and are you sure you wouldn't mind just a bit of Z - or maybe a picture of their mum. And most people are very poor with concepts especially.
I have no idea how you could devise a system to choose and train picture researchers - traditionally people worked in room full of people who knew the collection and bounced ideas off more experienced colleagues. Or else it was done by independents who knew which libraries might most likely have what they were looking for.
If you could crowd source this however, and if the third party licencing could be worked out - well it could be a better business than supplying images.
1241
« on: July 21, 2012, 06:27 »
Some of what he was saying was right.
You people should be getting paid for your work. That was basically his point. And that copyright and conventional royalty models are under threat from markets, corporations and govts which seek to dilute existing models. Concept such as 'orphaned works' for example, which are used to push through the idea that it is for the copyright owner to show ownership - as opposed to it being for the user to ensure that they have the rights. Ditto the emerging idea that copyright is only really somehow valid if it is registered at cost.
His opinions run counter to the notion that these models should be shaped by inevitable trends.
I sort of agree with some of what I think he was saying - I think he was saying that a dilution of IP rights is being somehow dressed up or muddled up with internet freedom.
1242
« on: July 19, 2012, 02:31 »
What made you want to reactivate the images with flames at iStockphoto after you had pulled them ?
1243
« on: July 19, 2012, 01:16 »
Yes, I pulled about 15 blue flames, some of them with over 3K dls and some 30 red flame files. I wont sanction an agency that purposely destroy.
Didn't you try to re-activate them again though - I remember you posting that it would be a hassle having to have them go back for inspection again. ETA: edit - my mistake ... I remember now. That was at iStockphoto not Alamy.
1244
« on: July 17, 2012, 09:07 »
The BBC were happy using istock for years before they were informed about TS. I doubt they would ever of changed from istock if they weren't prompted. They used istock for their regional websites but they also use Getty a lot for their TV programmes. I wonder if using TS has lost money for Getty?
BBC online funding cuts of 30M PA were approved in 2010. That represented 25% of the budget. guardian.co.uk
1245
« on: July 17, 2012, 08:10 »
e.g. the BBC, which formerly used a lot of iStock photos, now uses TS when they can, and I've noticed the RSPB, formerly an iStock user now uses TS when possible too.
It makes sense for magazine style websites which consume large amounts of content to use subscription websites. And the sites you mention have a special responsibility to keep costs low. I doubt it is a case of iStockphoto having lost out to TS. More likely it is a case of that business not having been lost, sooner or later, to a subscription site elsewhere. Having content available at lots of different price points makes sense. People still shop in Fortnum and Mason despite lots of places being more affordable.
1246
« on: July 16, 2012, 17:02 »
I regret the forum brouhaha which resulted in exclusive content being excluded until it is 18 months old.
1247
« on: July 14, 2012, 02:33 »
do i need to create separate accounts at alamy for my work and my father in laws?
Under a single account you can create multiple pseudonyms for different work.
1248
« on: July 12, 2012, 15:17 »
and SS booming and going public soon.
Is that definite still ?
1249
« on: June 26, 2012, 05:24 »
This is an ill-conceived idea which has the potential to get people into trouble. And is potentially not good news for this board either. Most importantly - you are effectively proposing that you agree with each other to 'infringe' your own IP. De facto you are granting permission. In which case there is no infringement. And then you are proposing to raise bogus and arguably fraudulent legal notices against these fictitious infringements. So not good already. On another thread here - someone was proposing that photographers should be personally sending out demands for payment against perceived infringements (as opposed to letting their agencies deal with legal issues). And - though the two threads might be separate - it wouldn't take a leap of imagination to cook this all together and call it a fraudulent conspiracy. People should let their agencies or legal professionals deal with legal issues. Especially as the industry is clearly focused on resolving these issues top down. Half-cocked schemes like this are likely to backfire and get people into trouble. I'm game, but you'll have to tell me EXACTLY what to do. You can sitemail me if you like.
grafix04 volunteered to infringe, so you can be infringed. Send him a PM with a link to a page with one of your images, and grafix04 will pin it. You will then file a DMCA through Pinterest's online form. Watch your email to see if you get a note of the removal from Ben or his minions.
In fact, since we have a volunteer infringer, everyone else can be an infringee, to answer the second question "how much infringement before they cut off your account?" We just need to PM grafix04 with a list of pages where we want him to pin. Two weeks later, we start asking Pinterest to remove the material. Not everyone at once! We don't want to look un-natural.
@grafix04 - you could do an advanced google search for images in Creative Commons, and fill up a few folders, just so the proportion of infringed material isn't 100%, again we don't want to trigger something un-natural. I don't think Pinterest checks anything at all, but just in case.
1250
« on: June 16, 2012, 05:06 »
Another contributor was (a while ago, when support was bad, but better than now) opined that one could set up customer service that just told everyone "F@ck you!" and still have better support than IS 
^ You want them to let you back on their forum so that you can slag them off over there too ? ETA: ubiquitous
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 ... 62
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
