|
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 - FD
Pages: 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81 82
1876
« on: December 10, 2009, 05:10 »
It might be useful to read what PACA wrote about "stealing" concepts and derivative work. This was considered derivative:  (I wrote something about it a couple of years ago, scroll down till bottom). (" It is not permissible to re-shoot a photograph of a person in the same pose with a different model.") The PACA PPT presention is here. Notice the paragraph there about the " faut faire": some concepts are so common (e.g. girl with headset) that they are considered public domain. Also check this concept: businessman, hammer, PCMine:  Copycat (he even copied most of my title, description and keywords):  Of course if you are first, you'll get most of the downloads if the search engine is sensitive to that factor. Not much to do about it, I guess.  In love, war and microstock, all is fair.
1877
« on: December 10, 2009, 04:15 »
I dont understand is it "new" thread about prefinal beta of something called wanabee application for uploading to iStok even this application dont exist or it is not offered or verified by iStock? It's a conspiracy, that's what it is! I heard from very reliable sources what happened, but please don't spread this around or the iStock undercover wannabe gunmen will hunt me down and finish my poor sales.  Did you notice that the iStock staff arrived one day late at the iStockalypse last month in iStanbul? Haha! Here's what happened. While at an unscheduled stop in Brussels on their way to iStanbul at the far end of a dark runway, the iStock staff was hauled over secretly in a bunch of buggies by Franky (the author of DeepMeta), straight to the railway station into one of the waiting wagons of the Orient Express Brussels-Istanbul. In a private compartment with free booze and smokes, they went to sit together to forge their evil plans as soon as the train left east and into the gloomy fog. Present were Frankie himself, Hercules Poirot (of course), the main iStock coders, one very high iStock official (herr Roger von Mexico) and Agatha Christie. They brooded, conspired, worked and coded all night, while the train was storming to the Orient, till they found a way to identify Suljo's PC (pardon, a Mac devoid of Intel-chips) on the net, stuff it with random buggies from within DeepMeta and scramble his keyboard inside out. Tired but happy, they arrived the next morning in iStanbul installing their "upgrades". And that's why everybody else, except Suljo, can use DeepMeta well and thinks it's a great program.  Is this mean that any damage will not be refund by iStok if it is caused by buggy DeepMeta? If you receive a car (or a buggy) for free and you drive it into the hays, do you expect the kind giver will pay the damage to the hays?  Why don't you ask Franky yourself? He's just a sitemail away on iStock. 
1879
« on: December 09, 2009, 21:00 »
How many independents might now consider going exclusive on istock? I think most here had the same observation: what flies at one site gets buried at another, and vice versa. Since the images and tags are the same, this can only be explained by search engine placement and search algorithm. Let's face it, when a buyer is looking for a concept, he takes the first image that will do, and he won't crawl (at the expense of costly time) through all the images in the hope to find a marginally better one that is buried. Being independent and be present on all selling microstock sites gives the best chance to all your images. Being exclusive means that you run the risk that very good images stay buried as you are at the mercy of one particular search engine with its unavoidable idiosyncrasies. So, no, no exclusivity, certainly not at iStock. You can't even sell your images directly (it happens) and your rejected ones are a total loss. Exclusivity on a per-image base would make more sense, on condition that they are pimped in the search engine. Moreover, with earnings like 1:2:3 on IS:DT:SS, an increase in commission on IS wouldn't make up for the loss on other sites. The picture might be different for those independents that have most of their income already at IS.
1880
« on: December 09, 2009, 09:52 »
Or perhaps more specifically any image with people in it that isn't released HAS to be uploaded as RM on Alamy. You could have pictures of say, a volcano erupting that would be editorial, but could still be uploaded as RF because it has no unreleased people in it. Ah thanks for the clarification. I would never upload Editorial for being too lazy to ask for a MRF, but only if the shot has some relevance and asking a MRF would be too cumbersome, like here. Although it's an OK shot at DT (level 3) and SS, I wonder if I shouldn't upload this kind of stuff to Alamy, as RM then. In that case (to stay on topic), iStock wouldn't mind presumably. But imagine iStock ever does Editorial or Alamy allows RF Editorial...
1881
« on: December 09, 2009, 09:18 »
Thanks all for the links feedback. @FD-amateur, what video links you are referring to? The ones on the right column of your blog. Maybe you route them through Facebook but I don't have an account there so I get the Facebook page to sign up. I don't think it's an hijack since I freshly installed Win7 yesterday after a malicious (and new) vbs script that ruined my XP. My usual antivirus programs (iobit 360, avg, adaware) didn't detect it, so I'm not sure where I stand now (sorry for the techtalk). I didn't reformat and I didn't check on my laptop yet.
1882
« on: December 09, 2009, 09:17 »
they sell them as editorial RM.
Where are selling your editorial shots as RF. I think Alamy only allows editorial as RM. I'm only doing commercial RF now on Alamy. I wasn't aware they only have commercial RF and not Editorial RF. It was just a plan for now.
1883
« on: December 09, 2009, 09:13 »
This is not good sign... 2012 is near. 
1884
« on: December 09, 2009, 09:05 »
Slightly off-topic but related: as Editorial doesn't sell well at micro (with some exceptions) and I stopped uploading at SS for their fancy rules that define Editorial more as "News" (leaving only DT - I stepped out of YAY), I decided to upload most Editorial to Macro RF.
Now would that rule me out as an iStock exclusive, even if iStock doesn't have Editorial yet? What do exclusives do with their Editorial shots? Just let them gather dust at their HD?
1885
« on: December 09, 2009, 02:26 »
I used to take notes when I uploaded so I wouldn't forget and send in duplicates. I cut back to four sites and some days I still have to go check what's pending.
With old age, memory is always the second thing to go.
1886
« on: December 09, 2009, 02:23 »
whether I'm "dirt" or double-black-diamond, I still get the same commission. Oh, but you forget the invaluable honor to be represented by the World's oldest and most prestigious Microstock Agency! You don't seem to realize what a competitive advantage that gives you, when it comes to free downloads on Flickr!
1887
« on: December 09, 2009, 00:18 »
humm I don't know what to suggest except maybe install firefox or do an IE update .... Works fine under IE8/Win7 and looks the same as in Firefox. I can't click the video links though, I get thrown into facebook where I don't have (and don't want) an account.
1888
« on: December 08, 2009, 23:42 »
Non-exclusive royalties are not affected by canister levels, only the upload limits are. Thanks for making that clear. Fifteen per week is large enough with some planning for a modest amateur. I use Deepmeta as a buffer for times of high production: you can do all tagging etc... there and forget, just like on other sites. You just have to set your clock every 8 days to drag 15 more from "waiting" to "uploading", a matter of seconds. Many thanks to Deepmeta.
1889
« on: December 08, 2009, 23:36 »
"We're also hoping to encourage the strongest talents in stock today to consider bringing their best work to iStock exclusively."
You can read that two ways but I'm hoping they are going to (at long last and not before time) allow us independents to submit a selection of exclusive images (with perks) as appose to total exclusivity, if that were the case I would seriously consider making them the only 'microstock' agency I submit to. That would make a lot of sense. I was planning to upload my very (salable) best exclusively to DT because of the high earnings (even as a sub) that level 3 and up images make there. It makes much more sense to attribute exclusivity and tiered pricing to images, rather than to contributors. 5.6% of my total income on DT comes from one single level 5 image and it never had an EL. Apparently, buyers don't care about the higher price level as sub (1.26$) if it is the image they want. Flamers on IS still make the same amount. A buyer, after all, isn't interested in a contributor, but in an (exclusive) image.
1890
« on: December 08, 2009, 17:01 »
Suddenly silver is very far away. I don't know whether silver means higher yield or just higher upload limits.
"Holy cow! That's a lot of good stuff coming up. This place rocks!" - that's why avoid IS forums.
1891
« on: December 08, 2009, 16:46 »
My JIU and StockXpert regular and sub sale have also increased since the Photos.com content was removed +1
1892
« on: December 08, 2009, 16:37 »
Wow, months to implement this and soon they give up? Achilles is a great entrepreneur. It's very wise and courageous to stop a beginning bleeding early and lose some face, rather than let it go on and have to cut the operation later anyways with a larger loss.
1893
« on: December 05, 2009, 02:14 »
Should author buy an EL for this image or not? If he is selling it there (even modified), he is doing redistribution, and that is forbidden on all MS sites. Sue him.
1894
« on: December 02, 2009, 13:09 »
Maybe that is why I am getting clipping in the darkest shadows? I struggled with this problem for a long time. NEVER clip the blacks: iStock won't forgive it. Avoid autocurves, autocontrast and autolevels in PS at any cost. I only found out by a high-contrast calibrated monitor what was wrong.. It's also good to detect banding in gradients, for instance blue sky. Previous posters were right: calibration is not that much about color but about luminance, especially in the blacks.
1895
« on: December 02, 2009, 12:26 »
OTOH I would think twice about going back to my 80's hairstyle I still have it since my mom didn't allow an 80's hairstyle in the 80's.
1896
« on: December 02, 2009, 12:10 »
I have ABCXYZ images online on macros ;-) Nice grin. So, err.. where on Macrostock? Flickr? On microstockgroup I have 6 ignores from members so far ;-) If you are God's Gift to Macrostock, why waste your time on a forum of Microstocl shrimps? Envy is all over your posts. Nothing to learn from you. No portfolio links. You're just a troll. Make that 7.
1897
« on: December 02, 2009, 12:04 »
How many times do we adjust colours in photoshop ! So why correct for monitor ?? Nice circular reasoning. You adjust your images in Photoshop on an uncalibrated monitor? Right.
1898
« on: November 29, 2009, 09:42 »
...but it looks like Albert is the biased one here, not the istock inspectors. If I got it right, "Albert" is not even a member of, let alone an uploader to iStock. How then he can judge about rejection reasons and practices on that site?
1899
« on: November 29, 2009, 05:17 »
Istock accounts for over half of my earnings, so I like Istock for that reason. SS earned me 3x as much as IS, and DT 2.4x as much, so I love them all, but not in the same amount 
1900
« on: November 29, 2009, 01:36 »
Yup... It is very huge problem there. Exclusives are inspectors and they decide what is stock and what isn't regarding to that what THEY have in their own portfolios. So if they see anything even far similar to their work or to their fellow inspectors they just reject it as not for stock... That is called abusing power to protect their positions. Also, they seems to work as team and that is what is wrong there.
How I know that? Well I can say that I am very well informed person of what is going on where ;-)
I know many people doing stock as well those on micros too... They all have very great experience when combined on one place.
Sorry Albert, but you're just full of it. Your conspiracy theories don't hold water.
Milinz is back.
Pages: 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81 82
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
