|
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 - leaf
Pages: 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 [53] 54 55 56 57 58 ... 390
1301
« on: January 13, 2013, 16:24 »
iStock decided on a magical $12 for this deal, but where did that come from. Couldn't it have been $5 or $1 According to this deal and what they say they have the right to do, nothing is stopping them from them giving our ENTIRE portfolio to google for $1.00/image (even at the already precedented $12 it is horrifying) and letting google give away all those images for free. What if they decided to do that with all independent images. According to them, they have the right to do so... and if the recent past is any indication they aren't above doing so.  We could then remove all images from iStock in retaliation, but the license would have already been sold to Google. Google would still have the 'right' to give away those images.... according to iStock. I feel this clip applies
1302
« on: January 13, 2013, 15:58 »
Glad you made it back. Remember that you have to multiply the negative you hear by .5 and the positive by 10. People are much quicker to dish out negativity than they are positivity.
1303
« on: January 13, 2013, 07:59 »
This is a good example of why professional models or new models with professional ambitions need to be very cautious of ever doing stock shoots. Especially RF but RM is problematic too unless they / their agents insist that they have a record of every use.
Photographers really should explain this in detail.
agreed. All pro model agencies I'ves tried to contact aren't interested in RF work. They need to know where and when the images will be used (RM work). I also agree with Sean, it seems it is the model who has the problem. She made an agreement with you to let you take photos for RF work, she can't later decide that she doesn't want that agreement any more. One thing you could suggest to the model agency is if they pay you a certain amount of money (to cover the loss of the images not being for sale anymore) that you will take down the images.
1304
« on: January 12, 2013, 07:56 »
1305
« on: January 12, 2013, 05:44 »
moved to the Shutterstock board
1306
« on: January 12, 2013, 05:38 »
No promises that they won't do this sort of thing again. They think they can do this and contributors don't even have to be asked about this "bespoke" deal.
I'd say they are promising quite the oppposite. They say they have 'many more "innovative" deals in the workss'. Quite frankly, I've had enough of their innovative deals. Google is an important partner for us and we have many innovative licensing arrangements with them in place and in negotiations. Our goal is to continue to expand and improve this partnership over time to the benefit of everyone involved including Google and it's customers, as well as Getty Images and our contributors. This is a long term objective that includes pricing, copyright protection, and volume. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6817897---- and just a note. When you quote someone on the iStock board or elsewhere, please provide a link to the original text.
1307
« on: January 12, 2013, 05:37 »
So they post an update and say we didn't do anything wrong and we'll do more of it.
I am afraid if they don't provide an opt-out of deals like that I will have to leave. It'll hurt me financially but they are putting me out of business anyway. I'd still give them some time to come with something better, but if they don't I think there is no choice - all 7909 painfully uploaded files will have to be taken down and account closed.
My response to iStock. Wow.. just wow. I totally agree with you Elena. This is the first time I'm really considering deleting my portfolio from a site. Something like that really needs to be considered and it is worth while to give iStock some time to reconsider, but as it loos now, they are happy with their deal and are going to stick to it. The question we have to ask ourselves is... If a new site came on the scene, people were reporting great sales but the site only offered between 15-20% and negotiated deals where they gave our images away for free through Google and Microsoft as they pleased.. would you upload there? I wouldn't.
1308
« on: January 12, 2013, 05:23 »
Ok, got it fixed.
For those who are interested: The sql search was grabbing the most recent 50 threads but limiting it to only include threads that were posted within the last 175 posts. There have been so many posts in the google/istock thread that most of the 175 posts were used up in that thread. So, the 175 post max was reached before the 50 recent threads was reached.
1309
« on: January 12, 2013, 04:51 »
Yeah, there are a lot less threads showing on the front page. I'll try and fix it.
1310
« on: January 12, 2013, 01:38 »
How will we know which is yours?
1311
« on: January 11, 2013, 16:07 »
On your profile you can opt out of everything... that will remove all your images from the site.
1312
« on: January 11, 2013, 16:01 »
Sean - thank you for your effort on this. As someone else noted, iStock should be ashamed that you are doing this work and not them.
I was able to verify that none of my images are there, which is a partial relief, but Getty's high handed giveaway sets a new low water mark for bad behavior.
I saw Sean had 6 images given away and Yuri (Jacob Wackerhausen is on some of the images, Yuri Arcurs on others) 10. Lise Gagne only 2, Monkey Business Images 4.
Did anyone do better/worse than 10?
So far I found 2 from Thinkstock, 6 from Tetra collection, 1 Photographer's Choice. 9 in total.
17 for John Lund.
1313
« on: January 11, 2013, 14:28 »
I also saw some files from Blend Images. Both Tetra and Blend are high-priced collections selling not only on Getty but on other macros, what they h*ll Getty thinks they are doing. I am emailing Tetra and Blend to let them know this is happening if they are not on it already.
I saw quite a few from John Lund (from blend).
.. yeah.. wow. 17 on my count.
1314
« on: January 11, 2013, 14:26 »
This feels like a Dreamstime sell the right license .. except we only get $12 and they get to pick whichever photos they want. They are essentially killing the value of the photos they stuck in this freebie
1315
« on: January 11, 2013, 14:10 »
Thanks a lot Sean. That helps in finding the images. One of mine and I'm not impressed.
I was thinking of trying to fill up all my upload slots to iStock this year, not sure I want any more of this.
1316
« on: January 11, 2013, 13:13 »
Shouldn't his name be unclickable if he's banned?
No. It's only unclickable (and greyed out) if the account is closed. He'll have the opportunity to come back once his ban is lifted.
Correct. It is only grey when someone deletes their own account. You can't tell which members are banned. Perhaps I should change that in te future. Bans last for as long as they are set to last. This ban is set to last forever.
1317
« on: January 11, 2013, 12:00 »
... and he's banned.
I'll remove some of the posts in an hour or so when I have a little more time.
1318
« on: January 11, 2013, 08:45 »
Look at Shepard Fairey from the Obey. That guy obviously traced and sell his works but still regarded as a good artist.
Another example is Cristiano Siqueira from www.crisvector.com. One cafepress imitates Shepard Fairey style and come up with obey the breed. His works are also traced but they are accepted at cafepress to be sold.
That would be called creating a derivative work, and yes it takes talent and yet it is legal. Derivative works however are NOT allowed to be sold as stock photography with the major stock agencies (Shutterstock, iStock, Fotolia etc). There isn't really any more do discuss. If your images / illustrations are copied, your account will be shut down.
1319
« on: January 11, 2013, 08:35 »
Here's someone who has had their Photographers Choice images (the deal where you pay $50 to sell an image on Getty) included in the deal for a big $12 royalty. Step 1: pay $50 to 'sell' your image on Getty Step 2: collect $12 in royalties Step 3: have your image given away for free on Google I found some of my Photograper's Choice RF images added to Google drive.
I checked the Getty statements to see any purchase and I found them:
----
Product Type: Premium Access Time Limited
Customer Name: Google eCommerce & Google Dri
Gross Royalty (in USD): 12.00 http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&messageid=6817023
1320
« on: January 11, 2013, 04:11 »
I haven't been able to get my stats page to load for at least a month 
1321
« on: January 11, 2013, 04:04 »
1323
« on: January 10, 2013, 07:27 »
Do these 4 images SS ignored have "Ready to upload" status in SS?
Otherwise it won't upload them.
yes
On the microstocksubmitter software it says it uploaded 46 images but if I look at each image individually (all 50 of them) all their status' say 'uploaded'.
Yes, SS will not mark images as submitted for shutterstock because of some technical limitations.
It submitted 33 of the uploaded images and left 16 in the 'unfinished area' on SS
Did you try to leave SS running for a while to let it submit remaining 16?
Yes, I left it for several hours (overnight once I believe)
Today, another batch of 50 and it only recognized 40 of the images. Could it have anything to do with a bracket in the file name? There is more than 10 images with brackets in the file name so I'm not sure how that could be the cause.. I'll try to trouble shoot it a little more and see if i can find the pattern.
ouch I have no idea if this problem in this case but as a general rule neverever use an additional character with the exception of the underscore in a filename (unicode), tip of the day ;-). As a sidenote I don't have any upload problems to SS (Shutterstock) using SS (Stocksubmitter).
I know.. naughty naught. Adobe bridge added them when I bulk renamed a bunch of files and I noticed it too late. I already had my sorting and organizing done, I didn't want to go back and redo it. :S
1324
« on: January 10, 2013, 05:15 »
Do these 4 images SS ignored have "Ready to upload" status in SS?
Otherwise it won't upload them.
yes On the microstocksubmitter software it says it uploaded 46 images but if I look at each image individually (all 50 of them) all their status' say 'uploaded'.
Yes, SS will not mark images as submitted for shutterstock because of some technical limitations.
It submitted 33 of the uploaded images and left 16 in the 'unfinished area' on SS
Did you try to leave SS running for a while to let it submit remaining 16?
Yes, I left it for several hours (overnight once I believe) Today, another batch of 50 and it only recognized 40 of the images. Could it have anything to do with a bracket in the file name? There is more than 10 images with brackets in the file name so I'm not sure how that could be the cause.. I'll try to trouble shoot it a little more and see if i can find the pattern.
1325
« on: January 10, 2013, 04:48 »
487 responses and counting...
thanks everyone!
Pages: 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 [53] 54 55 56 57 58 ... 390
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
I just downloaded a high resolution exclusive photograph from the Vetta collection at Google Drive for free ($100 dollar value)! 
