|
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 - yingyang0
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 30
151
« on: July 10, 2008, 21:42 »
BTW, hope nobody thinks my frustration is directed at everyone who wikis. Lots of folks took it seriously and did a fair and reasonable job at it. It's just the boneheads and overzealous that I object to...
I took it seriously until I realized it was futile. I never wiki'ed anyones file that could be in competition with mine. Instead I wiki'ed like crazy where I had tried to find a photo and couldn't because people had spammed the topic to death. For instance, gambling photos. When I had tried to purchase a photo of Las Vegas all I got was pages and pages of isolated dice, playing cards, and the welcome to las vegas sign. After a while I realized that the wiki system was futile because images were being approved with spam faster than anyone could stop them.
152
« on: July 10, 2008, 21:34 »
...buyers understand this as well which is why it's something that is very rarely raised from a buyers perspective.
It has always been my experience that buyers of intellectual property don't really understand the intricacies of the licenses until an issue comes up, but I only deal with buyers when things have gone wrong (ie they've been sued). Are you talking about the higher end buyers, or all buyers in general? I've never heard this view point expressed so I'm very interested.
153
« on: July 10, 2008, 21:22 »
I don't know what you have against Miz. If you don't like what he has to say ignore it, or state your views, or whatever. I don't know why you have to personally attack him.
Miz is also a retired prison guard. You know, one of the guys who spent his days locked up with criminals who wanted to kill him so we didn't have to deal with them in the outside world?
There was no personal attack in my post, I was stating fact. It was a trolling post. Everyday Miz posts at least one thread which should be called Miz's random thought of the day. Yesterday he posted on this topic, which has been part of my job for years and years. I classified it as a trolling post and uninformed because that is what it was. You can't boil down US copyright law to 6 statements (especially ones poorly paraphrased from something you heard in an interview). It is like me (someone who knows very little about photoshop) posting a tutorial on photoshop. I mean, really, what was the point of the post? I have no problem with MIZ, I have a problem with the constant deluge of MIZ threads on mostly irrelevant topics, or ones like this that don't really add to the communal knowledge. I'm also not sure how Miz being a prison guard is relevant.
154
« on: July 10, 2008, 07:49 »
Yingyang, are you sure I should email the keyword staff about this? I've contacted them in the past to suggest additions or corrections to the CV.
Regards,
Adelaide
Yes. I've done it every time one of the keywording staff has made a big mistake (like taking the keyword monkey away from a photo of a monkey). Keywords, I forget his real name, needs to know when images are done incorrectly so he can education the person that was making the mistakes. Also, don't add the keywords back in because the iStock system only logs the last person that modified the file so if you do then Keywords won't be able to find out who edited your file.
155
« on: July 10, 2008, 07:44 »
Another uninformed trolling post by MIZ.
156
« on: July 09, 2008, 19:18 »
I opened a contact ticket, but it takes so long...
No. Contact the user Keywords at iStock. He's take care of it and as long as you don't modify the file he'll be able to see which keyword admin is responsible for such a silly mistake.
157
« on: July 08, 2008, 17:28 »
Public Domain. Additional source description and credit info:
Records of the National Park Service.
(79-AAG-1)
Ansel Adams (19021984)
"The Tetons--Snake River" Wyoming, 1942. Vintage signed print. National Archives: Unrestricted.
Ansel Adams is not public domain, only that specific signed image. Copyright is life of artist plus 70 years.
158
« on: July 06, 2008, 11:38 »
Istock has an exclusive Royalty free contract, so no you cant sell royalty free images at alamy, but yes you CAN still sell rights managed images at Alamy or other sites.
uploader, are you sure of this? being exclusive as a contributor means not to contribute to any one else. it never says anything about RF or RM.
if i am exclusive to National Geographic , i don't shoot for any other magazines. 
I'm exclusive at IS and I can assure you that he is correct. The IS exclusive contract is for RF (royalty free) only. You can sell images under a rights managed license somewhere else.
159
« on: July 03, 2008, 21:04 »
What strikes as odd to me is the number of exclusives (based on my own observations and relatively speaking) who have very few referrals. I would think the cards would make for an advantage.
Well I for one had just thrown away the old batches because they were printed on bad cardboard stock. I have one referral and I have no idea how it happened, however I've never tried to promote my photography.
160
« on: July 02, 2008, 19:49 »
I don't really see business cards from iStock as a perk when you could get 250 of your own printed online for under a fiver...
Actually the cards that iStock gives to exclusives would have cost $87.96. I wouldn't even consider handing out a business card that only cost $5 for 250. Cheap cards send the wrong impression and is something that potential business partners and clients notice (especially when I'm in Japan). http://www.moo.com/products/business_cards.php?gcid=S31011x232-M_pr&keyword=Moo%20business%20cards
161
« on: July 02, 2008, 12:18 »
I just received my my exclusive business cards from iStock and have to say that they are some of the highest quality out there. It's a nice change from the last batch that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. It's one of the the actual perks that exclusives get, the others being faster review times and an increased percentage of the sale.
162
« on: July 01, 2008, 18:56 »
So where do you enter the RPI. I can't find it.
163
« on: June 30, 2008, 17:14 »
here is your answer...
when the oil fall back to 80-90 dolars
the dolar would be again arount 1,20-1,35
well make your guess....
:-)
The price of oil is a function of the value of the dollar, not the other way around. So you need the dollar's value to rise which will cause oil to fall. START BUYING MORE US GOODS!
165
« on: June 26, 2008, 21:47 »
If I were to buy one of your photos rimjobmiz (snip)
I had to read this a couple of times before it sank in. Hmmm, rimjob falls into that slightly gray area between backhanded compliment and insult.
Opps...a slip of the fingers on the keyboard.  I corrected it.
166
« on: June 26, 2008, 21:45 »
No way that verdict will stand. I believe the words are "unjust enrichment" or some such thing. I'd say on appeal they'll be lucky to get their attorneys fees and a few thousand for the work.
Unjust enrichment is a legal term but you're using it incorrectly as it is not applicable to this situation. Unjust enrichment is something the plaintiff sues for when for example you pay someone too much by mistake. Everyone should remember that 1) this was a default judgment, meaning the defendant didn't show up or mount a defense, 2) while the actual damages won't/can't be overturned the calculation of the consequential damages (i.e. the profits) is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law and will most likely be overturned if the defendants ever show up.
167
« on: June 26, 2008, 21:20 »
If your are not so inclined to provide proof then I am inclined to think your are fibbing.
If I were to buy one of your photos r**j**miz then you'd get .10 because my credits are bought with IS earnings.
168
« on: June 25, 2008, 20:08 »
Let me know what you think, am I a douche bag for having sparkles? 
Yes. However the article is encouraging you to be a douche bag so it's ok.
169
« on: June 25, 2008, 13:43 »
So leaf, how would you then normalize the data you get? For instance, right now shutterstock has a higher earnings rating than istock, but I suspect if you went to percentages this would be reversed. The reason is that exclusives will be voting 100% each month. You can't just exclude the exclusives because then the results would be biased against iStock since the exclusives presumably went exclusive because it made up a larger portion of their stock income.
170
« on: June 24, 2008, 15:01 »
Could someone please tell me what I have to add to my MR form?
You need everything that is on iStock's model release, that is the bear minimum. The best approach is to use iStock's model release and photoshop all the mentions of iStock off of it. The iStock release is accepted by all the other sites (as long as you have edited out mentions of iStock).
171
« on: June 22, 2008, 23:49 »
I presume that you can't submit rights managed to Alamy and RF to micros...is that right? I guess it would make sense to have that as a no-no.
Finally, if an image was listed as RF with micros and then taken off the micro sites, can they then be sold as rights managed after a certain period of time, assuming that they are no longer put back on RF micros?
You can sell the same image under RM and RF as long as the RM license doesn't claim the usage is exclusive. The same answer would work for the second question. HOWEVER, I wouldn't do either because it's unprofessional. I wouldn't want to upset any buyer for any preventable reason.
172
« on: June 20, 2008, 22:43 »
I had two sales today, but the balance did not update. I sent support a note.
before doing that did you check and make sure they weren't subscription downloads?
173
« on: June 19, 2008, 22:06 »
So you're going to send out Christmas cards??? How sweet!
Sorry nativelight, but you didn't make the list.  See below: yingyang0, PaulieWalnuts, fotoKmyst zorki and Microbius
174
« on: June 18, 2008, 22:45 »
Open one of your images. Under copyright you can see your name. I think this is true for all of us, since we had to supply real information and submit our id which matched that information. I think that's why search finds your name.
There is an option to hide your real name and it was created for exactly the reason Perry is upset about. Go to your control panel on iStock. Click Contributor and you'll see a drop down labeled "display copyright owner". Choose member name rather than real name. You'll have to wait until google's bots cycle through iStock again before your images disappear from the google search engine, but they will eventually.
175
« on: June 18, 2008, 22:40 »
You're right. It's all about you. I apologize for losing sight of that for a moment.
Darn, someone beat me to it because that was my first response when I read that post.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 30
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
