|
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 - YadaYadaYada
Pages: 1 ... 56 57 58 59 60 [61] 62 63 64
1501
« on: November 13, 2011, 19:02 »
I'm thinking of submitting to photodune. I'd love to hear people's opinions so I know if its worth my time. I see its part of a big network of template/content sites. Cool!
Ask again in three months. Right now its the hot site people with big numbers are joining Let it settle and have more people join.
1502
« on: October 26, 2011, 20:30 »
Pretty cool. Just a gimmick and I agree, without being there live to see her paint on the person 3D it looks like just another photo of a painting. But pretty clever of her to come up with the style.
Nice style and creativity. Artist Alexa Meade, who lives and works in Washington, D.C., creates photographs that could easily be mistaken for paintings. I like 2 3 & 6 for the merged work.
1503
« on: October 26, 2011, 19:55 »
Curious,
I wish you had just contacted me directly to clear up any confusion.
When I first started the website I did indeed grab public images that I found on the web, although I never used them commercially or anything like that.
However, for years now I have had an image licensing deal that was procured through one of my sponsors.
Please dont hesitate to drop me a line via e-mail with any further questions you may have. I always love to chat up fellow draftniks.
Glad that got cleared up. It seemed odd that someone who didn't own the pictures was watching a competing website would come here looking for information.
1504
« on: October 20, 2011, 20:24 »
BS still doesn't make 10% of what I get from iStock. Either you are doing really well at BS or incredibly badly at IS
+1 looks like you figured it out incredibly bad.
1505
« on: October 20, 2011, 20:17 »
Yes, to me it's silly to complain about it. It is incredibly obvious that there will be exactly as many photos that benefit as there are photos lose out. The only reason to complain is if poor photos are being artificially moved up front due to what collection their in, etc, like at istock, but htat doesnt appear to be the case here. The photos near the beginning, while different, still seem to be good.
FYI, i seem to have lost out mildly on this. Definitely most photos are a little further back, but nothing huge.
Temporary bug is being fixed.
1506
« on: October 20, 2011, 20:08 »
Just reread this blog post and saw at the very bottom of the comments that DT has changed its policy and will embed copyright info into all its purchased and thumb images!
http://blog.picniche.com/microstock/do-microstock-agencies-violate-photographers-dmca-copyright/
This is a great change and hopefully others in the industry will follow. Thanks to bobbigmac for grabbing the attention of the agencies.
(I recall somebody had started a thread about bobbigmac's blog post, but I could not find it, so started a new thread)
What does this mean for us, what good will it bring us, can you just sum it up?
----------------------------------
Not eager to sum it up since somebody might object to how I do so. If there are any complaints I'll forward to you. 
Many/most micro's strip some to all copyright data from images on upload by contributor. They then license the image to the buyer, who may post it on the web. But since the metadata is gone, if somebody else likes it and might want to buy it, they can't because there is no metadata, they can't find out who created it.
Some countries have or are considering "orphan works" laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works which basically say if you can't find the creator of the work to license the image, you can use it without paying anyone. If the agency has stripped out your copyright info, the likelihood that your images will be used without you receiving compensation goes up significantly.
Don't let the truth interfere with your misrepresentation of how orphan works operates or what it means. Lack of identifying information on a work would not be an excuse to use a work. http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/ow/myths-and-facts
1507
« on: October 16, 2011, 12:50 »
To me this is nothing more than evidence of the fact that this industry has strayed too far from what it was originally selling:
SERVICES & CONVENIENCE
It was never about selling imaginary "rights", so get over it. Talk to any veteran of the business from the 80s and 90s who worked at an agency like I have, and you can get them to admit this. The web has forced a change however, because originally, it was very hard to steal stock images because you needed a decently high res file to make any real use of it in print applications.
What we really need isn't more useless legal intervention, what we need is more creativity about how to sell SERVICES & CONVENIENCE in the new digital version of this business, as well as better ways to protect the content on the sites themselves.
I like tin eye's technology, but the idea of using it to drag people into court was seriously not well thought out... most people don't go to court already because what they win (or could win) isn't enough to cover their legal fees or their time and energy. They should focus on using their technology to sell images instead of trying to chase down infringers.
Could you leave the door open at your house. You have insurance it won't cost you anything and I need new camera. Going to court doesn't win you anything. The serial numbers don't matter because they should use technology to selling cameras not tracking down me for stealing your equipment. one message says, Here is a safer way to use this technique: Look for images that appear on TWO royalty free sites. For example, image providers will "sell" their images through dreamstime AND istockphoto, therefore it would be difficult for either company to come after you as you could argue you bought the image on the competitor's site. true we don't know and micro places don't care unless we are exclusive because they don't know. No protection.
1508
« on: October 12, 2011, 08:39 »
It is clear that Fotolia made their point and can stand by it, as they can clearly see that there is a lot of moaning and gowning going round (which will eventually quiet down) and no action. Lot of huff and puff, but when it come to any action which might influence my income (although it will be much less now), I will rather not stir.
It seems like Fotolia (I am sorry to say) know just how far to push their own income increases up at the cost of their contributors, without really risking loosing them.
Actually, as far as I've heard, there has been no action on Fotolia's part. They have threatened to lower people to white IF they are selling cheaper elsewhere, but it hasn't yet been implemented. Are you suggesting that people quit Fotolia based on a threat that they MIGHT lose earnings at some time in the future? That's ridiculous!
If FT actually lowers some emeralds to white level, then you will see people pull their ports and close accounts.
You support FT threatening us and using us as pawns in the price war. Income over fair treatment I see how FT can bully and push people around becasue none stands up to them. Abused wife doesn't leave home because husband takes care of her and makes a nice home. FT makes income and abused photographers don't leave.
1509
« on: October 02, 2011, 21:44 »
When you have a file refused, do you resubmit the same file again some time after that to see if you have more luck with the next reviewer? Do they know what files we submited before?
Just wondering...
NO, never.
Patrick H.
No resubmit, yes they know similar or identical resubmit. DT will know SS will close you.
1510
« on: September 29, 2011, 21:02 »
While things continue to get worse at FT & IS, they just keep improving at Shutterstock! Thank you Shutterstock!!
++++++++++
1511
« on: September 29, 2011, 20:59 »
I don't mind them keeping Bigstock open. Closing Stockxpert was a disaster for me, my earnings have never fully recovered. Bigstock wouldn't be as big a loss but if some of the buyers switched to Thinkstock or sites I'm not using, that would be a loss of earnings.
SS probably keep it open because they think it makes them more money than closing it. I just hope SS buys a few more sites and not Getty.
I think you are right and market share to.
1512
« on: September 26, 2011, 22:56 »
Congrats you two. It makes a lot of difference when you pass that first rung. Much more fun after that. You have good things ahead of you. Enjoy!
+1 0% el this year
1513
« on: September 26, 2011, 22:55 »
Of course we are being paid.. how do you think DP became a better seller than veer and BigStock on the ranking? this is how.. images are given away for free and we are being paid.. If I wasn't paid I would remove my images in a heart beat no matter how long it took to upload them..
The ranking is a poll not verified, people from DP could raise the poll number to make it look better. I don't believe it.
1514
« on: September 26, 2011, 22:34 »
I cant remember the specifics, but a there was an image sold on Alamy for something like $20,000. It was an image of a fish market (if my memory serves me correctly) just a snap shot, it wasn't any production image or a famous photographer. I wish I could find the forum post of this but I cant even remember which forum it was on, I read so many and this was a good four or five years ago but it was legit. There was a lot of hoopla over it at the time.
Yes you're correct, it sold to a large merchant bank in the US, there was also a tin of tuna that sold for a lot (search Alamy for 'tin of tuna' and you'll see that loads of desperados uploaded their own shots after that sale, some people are so dumb!), and last year a terrible photo of Windsor castle with a blown out sky sold for thousands.
Tin of tuna, I have to see that one. 
1515
« on: September 24, 2011, 08:12 »
Good catches. I'm shocked no one else has chimed in on this yet. I don't see any of my images infringed upon by this collection, but someone needs to turn this person in. Have you alerted Shutterstock?
I haven't because I'm anonymous here, so anything I tell MSG about kind of precludes me getting on to the agency because it'll give away my identity!
Every photo I did the special Google image search with came up as belonging to someone else, so yes someone need to let SS know so the portfolio can be removed as a whole.
Writing to SS will give up your MSG identity how does that work do you think they have a secret connection for info sharing. Why cant you write to SS and tell them? Good sleuthing.
1516
« on: September 24, 2011, 08:05 »
Flickr
+1
I wouldn't put my dirty laundry on flickr somebody would steal it.
1517
« on: September 12, 2011, 22:56 »
I never leave my money in Paypal, I just cash it as it goes in, both for this reason (could be nicked or your account suspended for no reason etc.) and because it's pretty pointless having your cash sitting there not earning for you, working for these companies while you gamble on the exchange rate increasing in future.
^^^+++1
+1 more the op says card payments not stolen from moneybooker which could be stolen card number. use card data stolen at store you lose. they say the web is more secure then restaurant gas station or in person where they can scan and steal your information from the card.
1518
« on: September 12, 2011, 22:32 »
Hi Sadstock,
Just wanted to show my appreciation for your efforts. Well done and thank you for sharing.
Best,
Jonathan
+1
1519
« on: August 26, 2011, 20:40 »
Is Photoshelter where you share in the profits, then it's not a co-op. A user owned site would be just what is needed to fight the low comisions.
1520
« on: August 26, 2011, 20:34 »
I've found a Shutterstock artist selling what I consider to be a copy of one of my best selling images and, although I've told IS ( useless), and just contacted support at Shutterstock ( still waiting a response) I'd also like to contact the artist directly. Is there a way to do this, like the iStock sitemail?
It's now a concept copy not direct copy from what you write. That makes it harder to protect. I'm with you but legally it gets harder to protect yourself. It's a vector not photo right? Not business handshake, girl writing chart on glass, or some thing thats done 100 times by every one.
1521
« on: August 26, 2011, 20:29 »
I have the same experience at iStock. I submitted two photos which were shot within a few seconds in the same setting, except the model was laughing in one and serious in another. One was rejected for lighting and the other accepted.
Which one? Is laughing more acceptable lighting because it's making light instead of dark frowning.
1522
« on: August 26, 2011, 20:24 »
This post got blocked by you know who but I will ask it here. Why do Fridays seem to be a very bad or no sales day compared to the rest of the week. Does the US stop work on this day an have an extended weekend ?
Blame the US but from what I've seen the UK is six hours ahead of the US their day ends by 10am US time and they seem to close up at noon for the weekend. Before the US gets up for breakfast the UK has closed up for the weekend. That's something that would hurt sales. End of the week stinks, Monday is start work, you only have 3 good days a week. becouse people in Australia and Japan are already in saturday, and someone don't work....This can be seen in the last hours of the day on Friday 
+1
1523
« on: August 26, 2011, 20:20 »
To all those who constantly scream "I NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH XYZ"...please stop this. It is not constructive. We all know that most of us get paid regulary. I never had a problem too, but doing this in a problem focussed thread is like writing: "I never had a accident!" after someone asking how to deal with the insurance after he had a accident. Same goes for the paypal threads (Yes, paypal is causing LOTS of problems)....
Do you get paid by check? Just wondering if you are allowed to reply to the thread with gbg2000 setting his rules.
1524
« on: June 24, 2011, 20:18 »
Me too, its impossible to tell but in general, all prices, RM, RF, are sinking. The smaller or shall I say "private" RM and RF, collections get far higher revenues per picture.
Prices are not just falling, they are in free-fall...
For example the average sale (after the agency commission) in alamy had a 70% drop from 2008 to 2011! I'm earning a third of what I used to per average sale.
Is no sales in 2011 freefall enough to pass falling prices for bad news.
1525
« on: June 24, 2011, 20:14 »
Just imagine if there might be intelligence somewhere else that had a head start of lets say 500 million years. What part of the evolutionary ladder would they be at right now?
Judging by the way our society's heading I'm thinking somewhere in the basement?
Are we assuming intelligent life will behave/evolve the same way as us?
What if they aren't nice and friendly and they come to eat us. What if we are the most intelligent life form and we go to visit others. Are we then the benevolent imaginary ET. Natural selection says they will be similar in appearance for practicle reasons, not four eyes, six appandeges, big soft head and all the SciFi imaginary art. When Sagan or Hawking hypothisize life that may be any life, an amoeba or fungus or bacteria life, not intelligent life. We haven't found proof of any life which makes it a long way to complex life forms. The gullible believe the eagle is realwhen it's an obvious fake, people want to believe ET exists without any evidence. UFOs are not ETs, they are lights or flying things but no evidence makes them anything but a mystery. No proof of anything solid ever. That makes UFOs and ETs more of a religion based on faith then science which is based on proof and evidence.
Pages: 1 ... 56 57 58 59 60 [61] 62 63 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
