151
Dreamstime.com / Re: DT's RF check box
« on: March 06, 2010, 15:30 »
I've always thought they were positioning themselves for future growth - it changed when the site layout changed.
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. 151
Dreamstime.com / Re: DT's RF check box« on: March 06, 2010, 15:30 »
I've always thought they were positioning themselves for future growth - it changed when the site layout changed.
152
Adobe Stock / Fotolia with editorial?« on: March 06, 2010, 13:37 »
http://www.fotolia.com/id/8801232
How is that image possibly allowed? It's in the INFINITE collection *! Shouldn't it be checked? Am I missing something obvious? 153
Shutterstock.com / Re: Hilarious rejection - just to lighten the mood« on: March 04, 2010, 11:36 »
i accidentally pushed an image that had already been uploaded. It was rejected for being previously approved and already live in my gallery. But Not Approved - Reason: Approved was funny to me.
154
Shutterstock.com / Hilarious rejection - just to lighten the mood« on: March 04, 2010, 11:32 »
Got this today.
![]() Kinda funny! (Yes I know why) 155
Off Topic / Re: Did you know "The Miz" or RJMiz???« on: March 02, 2010, 20:53 »
Haha oh boy I would have loved to tell him myself.
![]() 156
Off Topic / Re: Did you know "The Miz" or RJMiz???« on: March 02, 2010, 18:21 »Underfund. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/underfund 157
General - Top Sites / Re: Haha, I am not sure anymore what actually means "poor quality"?? :D« on: March 01, 2010, 20:24 »That is where you are wrong - it's not simply a matter of taste, it's a matter of understanding the commercial photography marketplace, and what differentiates a commercial image from a snapshot. Had we been there together and made this same shot, I can say with confidence that my (more commercial) version would outsell yours by a wide margin. Agree completely - actually went BACK on the thread to find where someone (ends up being you) said this. The shot on the right, other than slightly oversat. is a WAY more commercial shot. Great stuff sharply 158
General Stock Discussion / Re: Yuri admits he's losing money !« on: March 01, 2010, 19:51 »I was in I guess just 2 topics in this microstockgroup forum, I am not calling attention! I think he means Yuri...but I could be wrong. 159
General Stock Discussion / Re: Worrying legislation for UK microstockers.« on: March 01, 2010, 19:18 »
What's worrying about it? Make sure you understand it.
------- The premise behind an orphan works addition to copyright law is that it would provide a means for anyone to make use of copyrighted material that no longer has an owner. It works by limiting damages that can be claimed if the work truly falls under orphan works protection. If a person wants to use a work they must ask permission from the copyright holder just as they do now. Under the current law, if they cant find the owner they are out of luck. With the orphan works bill in effect, they could use the work after conducting a diligent search and failing to find the copyright owner. Later, if the original owner shows up, he must be paid fair royalties for the use of the work. It does not limit or change Fair Use. 160
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Thinking about exclusive but have some EDITORIAL images at other sites...« on: March 01, 2010, 16:56 »The question is, Sean, why do you even bother? HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA love it. ![]() 161
General Stock Discussion / Re: Contributors revolution!« on: March 01, 2010, 12:05 »It's been months since I had one flagged then I get one today? Which among us is using the forum links to make .02 off each other? Ok so who's Marck. I ain't fraid of no ghost. 162
General Stock Discussion / Re: Contributors revolution!« on: March 01, 2010, 11:46 »
It's been months since I had one flagged then I get one today? Which among us is using the forum links to make .02 off each other?
163
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Nature Lightbox - Microstockgroup on Istock« on: March 01, 2010, 11:31 »
Thanks for the NEW TOOL Leaf - I have used it to ADD MY OWN IMAGES to the Lightboxes!
![]() You need to add them here! http://www.microstockgroup.com/istocklightbox/ 164
General Stock Discussion / Re: Contributors revolution!« on: March 01, 2010, 10:49 »maybe I've gotten lucky Nobody dares question your keywords - they figure you'll ban em. ![]() 165
General Stock Discussion / Re: Contributors revolution!« on: March 01, 2010, 10:48 »
I'm not a huge fan of keyword spammers but I think I preferred when you could make at least a small inference and didn't have to keyword with nouns so much.
Right now its so bad - I keyworded a summer BBQ image as "4th of July" and had it rejected. Ok, fair enough. Maybe I don't understand buyers but will they never type in 4th of July? If they will, what image could possibly make the cut? A red, white and blue flag is simply a flag. If my bbq image is 'simply a bbq' than fireworks are "simply fireworks" and can't have 4th of July as a keyword either. Same with flags. So what would a buyer find under 4th of July? Nothing iconic, nothing representative. It's like saying you can't keyword a heart with "love, Valentine's Day, holiday" - if you can't key a heart illustration with those you make buyers change their habits from "Valentine's heart" to "heart, pink" It's noun keywording and I dislike that part of the job. 166
Image Sleuth / Re: Is this legal??« on: March 01, 2010, 10:34 »
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-45584971/stock-photo-back-color-pencils.html The pencils comes directly from SS homepage.
167
General Stock Discussion / Re: Getty sold a 65K $ image !« on: February 28, 2010, 19:35 »That's the point and the lesson to learn from that elephant photo. I thought what I was saying is that I immediately thought this was Lund's photo - he did the elephants thing but this isn't his = it's not unique. He has a ton of great elephant shots they could have had (and he could have scored with!) 168
General Stock Discussion / Re: Getty sold a 65K $ image !« on: February 28, 2010, 17:35 »
That has to tick off John Lund who has a TON of great elephant shots! lol
170
Off Topic / Re: Free CMS Portfolio WordPress theme?« on: February 27, 2010, 12:20 »
Cub3r is fun for a front page but I need gallery creation to do the sites I do. Sadly I end up using custom Shadowbox most of the time. I would like to use something like FlashGallery but with the amount of sites I operate its too expensive.
171
General Stock Discussion / Re: What's the lowest commission you've ever seen?« on: February 26, 2010, 21:26 »
My lowest was a single sale for .03
172
Crestock.com / Re: What the heck is going on with Crestock?« on: February 26, 2010, 20:34 »
Removed port there awhile back. I don't think it's going to turn.
173
123RF / Re: Earnings discrepancies« on: February 25, 2010, 18:18 »
The big question is how much of a discrepancy are we talking? $3? $30? $300? I mean...that's all that will matter I think. And will we all go up? Or will some LOSE money?
174
123RF / Re: Upload problem« on: February 25, 2010, 13:56 »
And yes I already contacted 123RF about it. So hopefully it'll get fixed.
175
123RF / Upload problem« on: February 25, 2010, 13:51 »
I can't FTP to 123RF right now - been trying for about an hour or so. Tried through FTP, tried through Cushy.
Getting a timeout or something - it won't connect. May be related to the issue with pay? I'm not sure - but it's not working. Just grabbed the FTP error: The control connection was closed due to the server being temporarily busy, full, or in the process of shutting down. Retry again later or contact the system administrator for assistance. Click Details>> to see the exact server response. Password rejected too. But it's right. |
|