|
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 - trek
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 30
126
« on: September 05, 2019, 13:04 »
Hello all! Please help - how to delete images from bigstock? tried, spent time - cannot delete, and for editing they ask for reasons. I want to spend time once for deleting
No way to self delete at Bigstock. Support has to do it for you.
127
« on: August 30, 2019, 14:07 »
By the technical or artistic side, you are totally correct @trek
But an agency is a company, accountants that counts products and assets. And they love to see and show numbers grow. Perhaps i am wrong though
I think your right. I think they want to brag about a billion image library (even if it's half crap).
128
« on: August 30, 2019, 14:01 »
Why should they delete products that payed people to curate and stored for a long time? Further why should upset people that spend time to shoot, upload keyowrk and list them?
Bulk sales, lowest prices and resolutions seems a better idea. Guess this already happened?
After all, deleting all unsold would actually reduce marketplaces to a big reset point.
Why.. to get rid of insanely redundant low quality material that frustrates buyers. If it hasn't sold in 10 years I say trash it.
129
« on: August 30, 2019, 13:56 »
Regarding Dreamstime: That's because most their files never sell these days. They were also using the unsold - delete ploy to get people to donate to their "free" section.
130
« on: August 30, 2019, 13:13 »
Since I have read things like this in this forum, ........ If you do not know English well, do not use irony..... or in my comments, recommend that you do not use the google translator, because my intention to participate in this forum is not valued,...... I decided to leave the comments for the usual four others and simply read, as 99% of the users of this forum do.
That said, I entered here probably the last time, because I liked your approach. I simply want to add, that today, it is more expensive for the websites to delete the files. The price of keeping them in the server is null for the storage capacity of these days. Deleting files is laborious and costs money.
Deleting files could be fast and easy if they simply delete unsold files after ___ years.
131
« on: August 27, 2019, 06:24 »
FYI: Pond 5 has a "Global Partner Program". The click box is located in account preferences. You might be opted in by default.
132
« on: August 22, 2019, 16:13 »
I'm not in favor of the subscription model but I think sites like Photoshelter could add a monthly subscription pricing tool for individual contributors if they wanted to.
133
« on: August 22, 2019, 10:09 »
The photo batch repricing tool fails for me (using firefox). The individual resize tool works fine. Not using stocksubmitter.
134
« on: August 20, 2019, 10:07 »
Not sure if it's spelled out in the new agreement but: The royalty rate for nonexclusive sound fx was recently lowered to 35%.
135
« on: August 15, 2019, 14:23 »
I thought they were owned by Visual China Group.
136
« on: August 09, 2019, 09:27 »
Where can I check my current level? I think I was about to turn Emerald but never checked it again since migrating to Adobe site. Now I don't know where to see it. Just logged to the Fotolia site but couldn't find any information.
Contributor Account, Your rank is at the bottom.
Interesting. My rank reads emerald. But my download number is a hair shy of 25,000. Hopefully I'm okay to start.
137
« on: August 08, 2019, 06:29 »
Only question I have is:
Should I trust them to delete my content... or should I remove it myself?
138
« on: August 05, 2019, 09:44 »
They have four of my shots via shutterstock. One of them is already in my FAA portfolio.
FYI: 40x30 art print via me = $67- same 40x30 via shutterstock = $92-
Would like to know what we actually get from a via shutterstock sale.
139
« on: August 01, 2019, 10:42 »
Click through Terms and Conditions agreements are not benign. They are one sided and unilaterally changeable by the agencies. I have not given up on Dreamstime but I do and will continue to remove all content from agencies I do abandon.
140
« on: July 31, 2019, 06:26 »
I WISH I could turn my mountain of old negs into usable material.
Someday someone (like Nividia) may invent an AI scanner that will render crummy negatives and old 4x6 prints into full frame glory. Might take another 10 or 20 years. But I think it will happen. It's certainly within the realm of possibility.
141
« on: July 30, 2019, 10:37 »
I'd say, yes, it's a cost The concept of "opportunity cost" is really interesting, though!
another name for it is net present value, used in finance https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/npv.asp
for stock we each have to decide what our time is worth
Related but not the same thing NPV is a way of measuring the value of an investment taking into account interest rates (or cost of capital). ie if you give me 100 now its worth more than giving me, say 110 in 5 years as I could stick it in an interest bearing account and get more. Its a more sophisticated method than the "payback period" i.e If I spend $3000 on a camera how many years will it be before I earn it back (I wish). One of the difficulties in stock is knowing what the future value of our Port is. Personally I think anyone thinking it will fund their retirement for more than 5 years at best is being optimistic.
My portfolio's return per shot is half what it was three years ago. I don't see anything on the horizon that will stop the overall decline in the "commodity price" of photography. Portfolio size growth helps but in the end... Wanna be retirees and full timers need to factor a steep angle of decline into future plans.
142
« on: July 23, 2019, 15:01 »
I would think US / western airlines would understand editorial content is protected by the first amendment aka freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Was it a foreign airline?
143
« on: July 22, 2019, 13:06 »
Can anyone say what they get for a standard Canva sale through Getty? On Canva there are 3 tiers, normal common 1$ sales for which Canva pays .35 uncommon 10$ sales for which they pay $3.50 and almost non-existent $100 sales which they pay $35.
I am curious what a sale through Getty makes the artist.
I get several 15 Canva sales each month via istock. No opt out of course.
144
« on: July 20, 2019, 15:17 »
Perhaps all agencies should try harder. Perhaps agencies should require the photographers name. When the photographer is not the contributor perhaps agencies should require an upload of a work for hire or transfer of copyright document. Buyers deserve to know they are receiving a legitimate product.
Which agencies don't requite the photographer's name, and some sort of proof of identity? These are legally required to prevent money scams in the EU, in any case.
I don't know the ins and outs of every agency, but the ones I know of either require a transfer of copyright or don't allow them. There must be some way that image factories can work with agencies.
Obviously, from msg and elsewhere, we know image thieves put up portfolios of stolen work, but that's not relevant in this case. It seems the Alamy tog didn't put up a pic of Nadar's photo pretending it was his. He put up a photo of a framed photo in 'some' context in an exhibition. That's not the same thing at all.
It seems many agencies ask "do you own the copyright" which different than "did you take this picture". Additional clarity might help. Alamy recently added a button asking if the image is public domain. A button confirming the contributor and photographer are the same seems reasonable.
145
« on: July 20, 2019, 14:49 »
...failure of Alamy to recognize an image that shouldn't have been available for commercial use
1. Alamy does not check for IP. It also does not control editorial/commercial use. These are the responsibility of the contributor.*
2. What makes you think it was available for commercial use?
*iS / Getty does check, but even correct annotation doesn't stop images sold from there being used commercially, either by buyers or by image thieves.
I like Alamy so I don't want to be too critical but perhaps they should check IP and commercial vs editorial designation. Contributors are likely to make mistakes.
Perhaps all agencies should try harder. Perhaps agencies should require the photographers name. When the photographer is not the contributor perhaps agencies should require an upload of a work for hire or transfer of copyright document. Buyers deserve to know they are receiving a legitimate product.
I saw the original picture, it was online for a few days after Alamy deleted it. The original picture was on a frame, on a wall in an exhibition with a wall sign and showed distinct shadows from a window. I didn't see it on iS, so I don't know how it was captioned, but it seems unlikely the photographer was trying to pass it off as his own work. The BI bought it and cropped it right in to the photo only and did at least some work to mitigate the window shadow across the photo. Rolling Stone seems to have left the shadow in as it was on the original, and I'm not sure via google if they cropped the image in too, but it looks like they did.
I also don't know whether these two end users credited the image to Nadav Kandar, only to the Alamy tog or not at all.
So the buyer bought a legitimate product, but the end users went against Alamy's terms of use (quoted and linked to above) which say editorial images should not be cropped to alter context.
Looking at it logically, and not necessarily legally (they're not necessarily always the same thing), the only defence the end user/s could have is that that particular piece of information isn't easy to find*. UNLESS buyers are required to have signed their agreement to it when they sign up as buyers (I'm not a buyer, I have no idea).
*However, you'd think professional photo editors/art directors should know not to crop an image to alter its meaning. Unlike, for example, Joe or Jane amateur blogger. In Scottish Law (I don't know much about English Law) that sort of thing (expecation of professional knowledge of a section of the Law) hold quite a bit of weight.
Interesting. I agree that end users have a huge responsibility in regards to proper use.
146
« on: July 20, 2019, 14:21 »
...failure of Alamy to recognize an image that shouldn't have been available for commercial use
1. Alamy does not check for IP. It also does not control editorial/commercial use. These are the responsibility of the contributor.*
2. What makes you think it was available for commercial use?
*iS / Getty does check, but even correct annotation doesn't stop images sold from there being used commercially, either by buyers or by image thieves.
I like Alamy so I don't want to be too critical but perhaps they should check IP and commercial vs editorial designation. Contributors are likely to make mistakes. Perhaps all agencies should try harder. Perhaps agencies should require the photographers name. When the photographer is not the contributor perhaps agencies should require an upload of a work for hire or transfer of copyright document. Buyers deserve to know they are receiving a legitimate product.
147
« on: July 20, 2019, 06:33 »
This is an important issue because the main product agencies sell is not our photos. It's not the license. It's trust. Customers need to trust that the product they are getting is not stolen property. Customers need to trust that an angry artist wont crawl out the internet demanding injunctive relief and removal of published material. When you receive a large license it's not luck. It's often a corporate buyers legal department rejecting the standard click license and paying for additional guarantees and insurance. Companies like Disney have buildings full of lawyers just to review (and alter) rental agreements. Without trust agencies have nothing. This issue and Shutterstock's (stupid) policy of leaving known thief accounts in place while removing a shot or two are highly damaging. Agencies would be wise to place integrity above short term income.
148
« on: July 12, 2019, 20:58 »
I bailed Out of P5 3 years ago deleted everything . Just started again. uplosded 12,880 Files. Very smooth. hope the rest Gets as easy.
Why did you quit P5 three years ago?
149
« on: July 10, 2019, 17:01 »
150
« on: July 09, 2019, 09:47 »
Opt out.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 30
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
