|
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 - photoshow
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
151
« on: August 06, 2008, 19:30 »
You really don't get it do you Michael, we are not suppliers we are the true client. The Stock Photo Agencies are OUR AGENTS we PAY THEM to market our Talents. The relationship between photographer and agent is the same as the relationship between actor and agent. The only problem is that the majority of the photographers are too * timid to take a dominant posture with the agents that WE EMPLOYEE, we are not the employees in this deal.
152
« on: August 06, 2008, 13:31 »
This is an enhancement to what SS already offers, not an effort to cannibalize more lucrative sales. Put me on record that any site that wants to pay me MORE per image sold has my wholehearted support 
I agree with Lisa 110% on this. The truth is that the ShutterStock On Demand brand is nothing more then a slick new wrapper for PPD and I am personally glad to see that SS finally has found a way to successfully integrate Pay Per Download into their business model. As far as the rest of Mike's idiotic comments well all I can say is consider the source.
153
« on: August 06, 2008, 12:58 »
Oh don't get me wrong, I don't think Steve is directly responsible for any of this, he is just the messenger and as such it is his obligation to hear all rebuttal and take it back to the PTB at Jupiter. At a personal level my grievance is with management at JI but since they are not talking to us I will continue to address my comments to their liaison.
All that said I really hope that they do come to an acceptable resolution to the EULA issues, as I do believe Photos.com has the potential to be a strong brand for all of us. I would love nothing more then to be able to include my content in the brand but the EULA issues must be address for that to happen and I really do not think that my position on this issue is unique among the top 100 contributors at StockXpert
154
« on: August 06, 2008, 11:24 »
Thanks, Lisa, for those nice words.
Leaf, if you opt-out of subscriptions, your images will not be available on Photos.com subs or PPD.
Hi Bobby, it's the decision to do it that needs careful consideration by others, and it's not a decision to be made overnight.
I do just want to let you know that we are not going to get everything right the first time all the time , we will need to experiment, but we will make sure we communicate better any changes we plan on making and provide more time to solicit feedback about these changes.
Thanks,
-Steve
Seriously Steve, what is to consider? This is a decision that can and should be made overnight. We are not sweatshop workers so please do not treat us as if we are. The contributors are not asking for anything new here. All we want is what we already have. This should be a slam dunk decision and the correct response to it is a win, win for both sides. Jupiter Images wants to be able to offer consistent content across the brands and the quickest most pain free way to do that is to adjust the EULA's to provide the contributor with consistent licensing terms. To do anything less then change the Photos.com EULA to something more favorable for the contributor is nothing short of an insulting slap in the face to the contributor. To not provide the contributor with a fair market rate compensation for the rights granted by the EULA says that Jupiter Images does not value the content creator.
155
« on: August 06, 2008, 09:11 »
Hi guys,
Sorry I have not been addressing the EULA change questions. I simply don't have an answer. Changing the EULA is not a unilateral decision; it's something that needs some serious consideration and discussion by people at a higher level than myself. It's definitely not something we could do in the short time we had.
We do not not filter images out of search results based on whether they are opted-in or out. Subscription buyers will see non-sub images.
Sorry Tom about the confusion. We are also distributing that message via sitemail with a more inclusive intro.
-Steve
Seriously Steve it is not that big of change, the verbiage is already written and approved by the legal team. The only work to do is agree to make the change and ad the verbiage from the StockXpert EULA to the Photos.com EULA
156
« on: August 05, 2008, 12:37 »
Correct, Jan. Cafepress and eBay type print-on-demad distribution is prohibited under the the Photos.com EULA.
Thanks,
Steve
I think I have somewhere read (I do not know where) resale of itemes with our photos on it through ebay or cafepress is prohibited under the EULA of Photos.com. Is this covered by the prohibition of selling Physical Goods (for resale through on-demand services)? Can you clarify Steve?
Steve, see there you go blowing more smoke. You and I both know that Ebay stores that are offering PRINTS are not deemed as Print On Demand. Ebay has become an accepted RETAIL outlet and can not be compared to Cafe Press. This license is not good for your contributors or for the industry and your issuance of it leaves Jupiter Images in a bad light. As an AGENT it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to act in GOOD FAITH to those you represent. This license is not in good faith and should not be offered as a Jupiter Images product. Simply bringing the Photos.com subscription EULA in line with currently acceptable subscription EULA's would end all this discussion and would see the majority of contributors opt back in to subscriptions across the board. Personally I don't understand why Jupiter Images is so unwilling to address an issue that in the end will be more detrimental to them then not. By conceding on this point you guys would be back to the originally stated goal of being able to provide a consistent product across all your brands. By not conceding you only deepen the gap and cause the removal of even more content from the subscription model.
157
« on: August 05, 2008, 11:07 »
Those of you who think that this does not have any effect on you because you don't currently have a significant EL market are missing the point completely.
Every subscription download at Photos.com will in fact be an EL. That download will carry with it the rights to create printed items for sale. Art prints, T-Shirts, Greeting Cards, image branded consumer items at retail and on Ebay.
Images downloaded under the Photos.com subscription EULA will be able to be used for all these uses and for the right for manufacturers to use your images as PRODUCT you will receive 30 cents!
If any of you allow this to happen then you are only hurting those in the industry who do rely on ELs and or have deals with manufactures to provide content at reasonable market prices. To allow your images to be licensed under this plan only contributes to the continuing undermine of pricing in this industry and will eventually lead full circle back to images being given away for free.
I personally would have happily opted in to the Photos.com plan had they only been willing to correct this issue in the EULA but their unwillingness to do so proves that when they say they are customer centric and that they realized we are customers too only proves they are lying.
First off WE are not customers we are Clients. Why is it that no one seems to understand ALL THESE AGENCIES WORK FOR US? We PAY THEM to market our talent and Content. They don't pay us WE PAY THEM as such WE HAVE THE POWER to stand up an make a real difference here but WE have to recognize OUR TRUE POSITION HERE
158
« on: August 05, 2008, 01:35 »
This industry is already undermined and accepting the subscription plan here as it now stands only deepens the undermining of the industry.
It is well past time that these greedy agencies came back to the realization that WE are the ones that THEY work for not the other way around. The Agency is the AGENT that means they make their livings off of our talent. They own nothing but servers, we own the content and as such if we stand UNITED on issues we remain in control.
It is time for the contributing content creators in this industry to grow sacks and stand up against this fiscal abuse.
It truly is sad that JI and StockXpert have gone down the same greed lined path as the rest of this industry. I actually liked it here but the truth is that under the current conditions I am done here. My legacy portfolio can remain as long as it does not contribute to the undermining of my sales elsewhere and everyone else here needs to stand up and take the same stance here and WE WILL WIN THIS ONE.
DO NOT OPT IN TO StockXpert / PHOTOS.com Subscriptions. To do so only weakens an already terminally weak industry. The health and strength of this industry lies firmly in the hands of the contributors. We own the content and as such we own the power! To win though WE have to ACT TOGETHER!
159
« on: August 04, 2008, 22:06 »
They did nothing but blow smoke up are asses on this one. Giving us an opt out does nothing to solve the greater issue of undermining an already undermined industry. Allowing print resale for a 30 cent commission simply shows what greedy *insult removed* all these agencies are becoming. I swear if just one agency would step up and prove that they knew there place in the industry and would treat the content providers like clients (which we are) then I would give serious consideration to providing exclusive content to that agency. Of course that will never happen so I will continue to whore my elf out to all the pimps for my penny here and my penny there.
160
« on: August 04, 2008, 12:05 »
I am really disappointed to see there doesn't appear to be any news about what StockXpert plans to do to remedy this situation. I guess I will wait a few more hours but I am getting pretty close to deleting my portfolio.
I am with you on this one Lisa. They promised a new announcment today but if they don't offer a solution I will be among those who will bail out.
161
« on: July 08, 2008, 14:31 »
It's because nobody invoked Miz. For that you have to say Miz, Miz, Miz! Nah, I say it
LOL, I did not invoke the guy the first time around!
162
« on: July 08, 2008, 13:45 »
Don't you find it ironic that I post a thread trying to help a model win a Cover Model contest and I get BLASTED for PIMPING and then I post a true PIMPING Thread and people actually seem to enjoy the images and no one complains. Go figure!
163
« on: July 07, 2008, 10:08 »
Yea we got really lucky, we spent a long time looking for just the right building and fully expected to have to have the cyc built from scratch. When we found this building it was completely by accident but it worked out perfectly for us.
164
« on: July 07, 2008, 01:47 »
We shoot all of our isolations (such as these ones of Bobby's) on a 16x20 Cyclorama.
Did you build it, have it built...what?
It was already built in the building when I leased it. The previous tenant was a Video Production Company and they had built it.
165
« on: July 06, 2008, 17:01 »
Thanks Laurin. She was a blast for this thematic Maxim style stuff but Stacey the girl in the now locked 944 Cover Contest thread is one of my all time favorite models out of all the girls I have worked with  Vote For Stacey As 944 Magazine Cover Model
166
« on: July 06, 2008, 16:42 »
on last image in upper left corner there is visible dodge tool. you need to calibrate your monitor. hhhh
Naw they were just hastily processed on a laptop that even when calibrated is not the best tool for image processing so yea I missed a bit of 5% grey in a corner but these are camera shot isolations no pen tools of PS magic to create the isolations besides just a quick touch of dodge tool under the shoes
167
« on: July 06, 2008, 10:26 »
Seems someone has a screw loose around here and can't tell a PIMPING THREAD from a TRUE PROMOTION so I thought I would offer to tighten up that loose screw and help define PIMPING THREAD all at the same time. So here you go FotoKmyst just for you I give you Lyndsay (a monthly winner of the 944 Magazine] Cover Contest has gathered her tool kit and is ready to perform a little preventative maintenance for you and help tighten those loose screws and maybe help pitch a tent or two along the way Oh and BTW this model is Great to work with. She has a ton of experience and is capable of working for extended shooting sessions with minimal direction. An ability that only comes with experience and to top it off if you can believe it she IS NOT DEAF     
168
« on: July 06, 2008, 10:02 »
the fact you came to this forum to pimp your image makes it a public business. SHAME SHAME!
from someone who has worked many years in STS and a personal friend of many deaf ppl, the consensus among us at work with is still tacky.
not on Stacy's part, but on your part. Shame! 
Good for you but you are still irrellivant in the big picture so complain all you want now if you will excuss me I think I will go start a REAL PIMPING THREAD so you can learn what one looks like
169
« on: July 05, 2008, 23:46 »
Bobby, if you had just left the fact that Stacey was deaf, many photographers with deaf friends would not have found this "tacky".
MIZ was right in calling it pimping, and regardless of how many of your friends came to chastize MIZ and attack him personally, which I feel is
even more crass as this is not about MIZ, it's about whether this is seen
as pimping your image.
I don't doubt you have lots of images , so do many of those who voiced their opinion of your tackiness here.
I recognize some of their names and they voiced their opinion in support of MIZ.
This has turned sour , because most of the people who came in to your defence did so, more out of a personal vendetta rumble on MIZ because MIZ had turned their cranks in other threads .
You find it tacky that is cool, why not go ask Stacey if she thinks it is tacky. I have tried to be reasonable with you now I will tell you the same thing I told Miz, who I have also dealt with many times over the years. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS this has nothing to do with you, vote or don't vote I could care less. In the grand scheme of things you are simply an insignificant annoyance. If she wins it will be because she has a good cover and it will be promoted hard. If someone else wins it will be for the same reason
170
« on: July 05, 2008, 21:52 »
171
« on: July 05, 2008, 21:49 »
Out of curiosity I went and looked at the rest of the contestants. There is page after page of them....some pretty nice ones and some not so nice ones.... and some pretty sleazy looking ones. Turns out you can vote for more then one model. Reason I decided not to vote for Stacey is I don't like the photo with the 944 logo right over her face. Couldn't you have given her a photo with more copyspace at the top? The vast majority of them have the 944 logo plastered over there face so all those are bad photos to me . Her being deaf plays no part into that decision for me. How hard of a worker she is or how good she is to work with also plays no role in it to me. If its a true model contest and not just a popularity contest then the decision on who to vote for should be based on how good the model and the photo looks.
If its just a popularity contest then its really just that and has no real meaning.
Take a look at Kyle Lardner, shes on the first page along with Stacey. Beautiful model with a fantastic photo that shows her face without the 944 across it. She got my vote.
Yea Micahel I know what you are saying about the logo but if you have ever seen a 944 magazine you would know that on the actual puplication they move the logo to the background layer while on the contest covers they move it to the front as a watermark to prevent models from claiming they were actually cover models for the magazine when they were not.
172
« on: July 05, 2008, 21:46 »
So miz, how about a tutorial detailing how to get banned from stock agencies and forums?
He should write a book on that
No but he is on getting banned
somehow i don't think MIZ an expert on pimping
173
« on: July 05, 2008, 21:45 »
174
« on: July 05, 2008, 21:40 »
So miz, how about a tutorial detailing how to get banned from stock agencies and forums?
He should write a book on that
175
« on: July 05, 2008, 19:24 »
Robert the only think that is not called for here is for you to come into my thread and try to tell me what I can and can not or should or should not do.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
