|
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 - Shelma1
Pages: 1 ... 62 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69 70 71 72 ... 116
1651
« on: June 10, 2015, 16:30 »
The conversation isn't confusing at all; I'm simply pointing out tickstock's hypocrisy. He's OK with iStock's lack of ethics, and it doesn't bother him if they break the law by claiming a file is exclusive when it is not, but he chastises me for suggesting I feel no pity for a company that acts dishonestly towards its contributors when one of those contributors tries to find what would be a perfectly legal loophole when it comes to exclusivity (which is a malleable concept as far as iStock is concerned).
It's not something I'd try. But I don't feel badly for iStock, because they set an unfair precedent by allowing special contributors to get the financial benefits of both exclusivity and non-exclusivity simultaneously. It's unfair to everyone else, who is either non-exclusive (like me) and gets lower royalties and lousy search placement, or is truly exclusive and forfeits the income from other sources.
It is your double standards that are confusing.
"Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?"
As for the original question, there is no grey area when it comes to right or wrong.
It is like saying because my wife does not clean the house the way I think she ought to; it is okay for me to cheat on her because she deserves to be punished for her infractions.
iS created a legal loophole for some contributors to get the benefits of exclusivity while also contributing to other sites. The OP is asking about the possibilty of a similar loophole that would allow him or her to act the same way as the contributors who benefit from iStock's special loophole. Who's wrong?
1652
« on: June 10, 2015, 15:13 »
The conversation isn't confusing at all; I'm simply pointing out tickstock's hypocrisy. He's OK with iStock's lack of ethics, and it doesn't bother him if they break the law by claiming a file is exclusive when it is not, but he chastises me for suggesting I feel no pity for a company that acts dishonestly towards its contributors when one of those contributors tries to find what would be a perfectly legal loophole when it comes to exclusivity (which is a malleable concept as far as iStock is concerned).
It's not something I'd try. But I don't feel badly for iStock, because they set an unfair precedent by allowing special contributors to get the financial benefits of both exclusivity and non-exclusivity simultaneously. It's unfair to everyone else, who is either non-exclusive (like me) and gets lower royalties and lousy search placement, or is truly exclusive and forfeits the income from other sources.
Like I said you won't convince me that it's ok to defraud buyers or a company, no matter how bad you see them (obviously it can't be that bad or you wouldn't be paying them 85% to license your work). It's wrong, period.
So you think iStock is wrong for defrauding buyers. Ok, then. Great.
1653
« on: June 10, 2015, 14:53 »
The conversation isn't confusing at all; I'm simply pointing out tickstock's hypocrisy. He's OK with iStock's lack of ethics, and it doesn't bother him if they break the law by claiming a file is exclusive when it is not, but he chastises me for suggesting I feel no pity for a company that acts dishonestly towards its contributors when one of those contributors tries to find what would be a perfectly legal loophole when it comes to exclusivity (which is a malleable concept as far as iStock is concerned).
It's not something I'd try. But I don't feel badly for iStock, because they set an unfair precedent by allowing special contributors to get the financial benefits of both exclusivity and non-exclusivity simultaneously. It's unfair to everyone else, who is either non-exclusive (like me) and gets lower royalties and lousy search placement, or is truly exclusive and forfeits the income from other sources.
1654
« on: June 10, 2015, 13:12 »
I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.
He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do. If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers. I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.
You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.
I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.
If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.
I read what you said it's quoted above. You said you had no ethical problem with cheating or lying because "istock set a precedent". Personally, that's not the kind of person I want to be. Not because I worry about being caught like you say but because it's wrong.
Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?
If you believe they are breaking the law then file a complaint, doing illegal or immoral things in response isn't the right answer it just makes you an immoral person. iStock can make sweetheart agreements with contributors, it's their business. Jealousy doesn't make it ok to do immoral or illegal things either.
If you're OK with skirting the boundaries of ethics by doing business with a company that offers sweetheart deals and breaks the law, don't chastise others for seeing what they're doing and looking for ways to skirt around things as well. You've drawn an arbitrary line that stops exactly where you personally feel comfortable with questionable ethics and illegality as long as it makes you money, but still feel entitled to climb up on your high horse.
1655
« on: June 10, 2015, 12:07 »
I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.
He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do. If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers. I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.
You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.
I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.
If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.
I read what you said it's quoted above. You said you had no ethical problem with cheating or lying because "istock set a precedent". Personally, that's not the kind of person I want to be. Not because I worry about being caught like you say but because it's wrong.
Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?
1656
« on: June 10, 2015, 11:54 »
I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.
He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do. If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers. I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.
You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.
I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.
If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.
1657
« on: June 10, 2015, 11:44 »
I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.
He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do. If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers. I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.
You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.
1658
« on: June 10, 2015, 11:00 »
I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.
1659
« on: June 10, 2015, 10:56 »
I'm not sure what the strategy is either. If you give away a pack of photos for much-lower-than-DPC prices there will be huge sticker shock if you visit the Stocksy site.
1660
« on: June 09, 2015, 13:10 »
From the video of the CEO, it sounds like the royalty is 32.5%.
1661
« on: June 09, 2015, 12:14 »
CM seems to be becoming the bargain basement of stock.
I hate to think this person might be reselling Stocksy photos.
1662
« on: June 09, 2015, 11:16 »
My guess is that they meant "copywriting," which is what I do for a living. The writing of copy, not the registering of copyrights. But the fact that they spelled it incorrectly doesn't say much for the skill of their copywriter(s).
1663
« on: June 07, 2015, 19:08 »
The problem with that is that you're spending extra time making separate art just for Dreamstime...time that could be better spent creating entirely new images for the top sellers.
Edited to add: Besides, it looks like Mike already did that with two of his images, and they were rejected anyway.
1664
« on: June 07, 2015, 14:42 »
I've actually bundled some of my best-selling icons into sets and the sets didn't sell at all. Lots of buyers are looking for one thing in particular.
1665
« on: June 07, 2015, 14:39 »
Shooting themselves in the foot, IMO. SS actually encourages separate icons (at least in a recent video). DT's refusal to accept separate icons and "similars" that are similar in subject matter but not visually similar will just serve to increase the disparity between the size of their library and Shutterstock's. I already submit fewer files to them anyway; this will just discourage me further.
Shutterstock is doing a poor job encouraging separate icon sets, there are 2 million files that show up for a search of icon sets.
This file has 3,450 icons in 47 sets http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-180645041/stock-vector--icon-set.html and there are many many more that have over 1,000 icons per file.
Gee...tickstock, who does not do vectors, still won't miss an opportunity to try to slam Shutterstock? Quelle surprise. 
1666
« on: June 07, 2015, 14:11 »
Shooting themselves in the foot, IMO. SS actually encourages separate icons (at least in a recent video). DT's refusal to accept separate icons and "similars" that are similar in subject matter but not visually similar will just serve to increase the disparity between the size of their library and Shutterstock's. I already submit fewer files to them anyway; this will just discourage me further.
1667
« on: June 05, 2015, 16:28 »
"Expresso" a pet peeve of mine, here in the U.S.
1668
« on: June 05, 2015, 13:41 »
I must say this is a new one. The person who inspects jpgs approved one of mine, which then appeared in my portfolio yesterday. Then the vector reviewer rejected the same jpg and it disappeared from my portfolio! For the ridiculous "title" reason, despite the fact that the vector has the same title and was approved. Amazing. Absolutely amazing.
1669
« on: June 05, 2015, 10:29 »
My iStock credit sales have dropped substantially over the past couple of weeks, but it's hard to tell how many total sales you're actually getting there until PP and sub sales are reported a month later.
1670
« on: June 05, 2015, 08:05 »
The truly unfortunate thing is that they have potential to grow hugely with their Adobe partnership. Every ad agency uses the Adobe suite, so now Fotolia images will be available to the biggest buyers without them having to leave the program they're working in. I really wish someone else had made that deal. I'd much rather have SS in there, for example, though that might lead to even more of a monopoly.
1671
« on: June 05, 2015, 07:12 »
Great work, great site.  But I think your watermark is too heavy....it's hard to see the illustrations through it.
1672
« on: June 03, 2015, 14:35 »
How could it be greed? Obviously people are going to notice. And they paid out more than they took in. And they got lots of bad press here. What benefit would come from it?
How do we know they paid out more than they took in? It never occurred to me to look for my files on DPC because I opted out. Who knows how many days the files were actually available before someone noticed and posted about it here? They've lied about so much already, including the lie about the files not being available for purchase, which they then had to backtrack on. I don't trust them at all when they say the files were only available for one day. It seems awfully weird that incompetence leads to profit.
1673
« on: June 03, 2015, 13:10 »
Ok, I personally don't believe fotolia did that on purpose and just hoping no-one will notice it.
I don't either. I know they've done some things in the past, but I attribute this to incompetence, not malice.
I attribute it to greed.
1674
« on: May 29, 2015, 10:10 »
It's summer in the U.S. Memorial Day kicks off summer Fridays at most ad agencies...either a half day or full Friday off from now through Labor Day (September). Summers are slow in U.S. ad agencies.
1675
« on: May 28, 2015, 12:13 »
Unfortunately the outage resulted in a lot of lost sales for me. 
Pages: 1 ... 62 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69 70 71 72 ... 116
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
