|
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 - Sean Locke Photography
Pages: 1 ... 74 75 76 77 78 [79] 80 81 82 83 84 ... 314
1951
« on: January 19, 2015, 20:12 »
Is there anything in this 'deal' that is different than a standard RF sale to an ad agency (aside from Google's larger reach to customers)? Can not an ad agency currently purchase an RF license and resell the image as part of an ad to multiple customers of theirs without needing another license?
No, ad agencies cannot buy an image and resell it to multiple clients. (And why would they? Think how angry their clients would be if they were running campaigns for different clients using the same imagery. And they can't have different clients who sell the same products, because they sign non-disclosure and non-compete agreements.
Though some mega-merger_agency behemoths manage this by buying up smaller agencies and keeping them separate from one another.)
In fact, ad agencies are usually the customers who buy the most expensive options, because often they need extended licenses, RM, or outright buyouts for large campaigns.
Actually, Mega is right-ish. Designers can use RF images for any number of clients in designs ( yes I know there's one or two that say one project ). But it's pretty unlikely they would use it for more than a few designs. This is Google playing 'designer' but the benefit is so ridiculously one sided it hinges on being inappropriate.
1952
« on: January 19, 2015, 14:50 »
This is very different from the iStock/google drive deal. It is a lot worse for the contributor. In the Dreamstime/google deal, an unlimited amount of end users can use our images for advertising purposes and all you get is 2 dollars. No one should ever accept this.
I'd have to disagree on general terms. The IS/G deal gave access to large, unwatermarked images to anyone that accessed Google Drive, without giving any real restriction on use. At least this is only for small images, embedded into ads, like the FB/SS deal, but on worse terms.
1953
« on: January 19, 2015, 11:01 »
I've had 2 $2 sales.
1954
« on: January 19, 2015, 10:25 »
hi, i am just trying to get started doing stock photography and i have a few questions. first, fotolia asks for your a copy of your id and or ss#. should this information be given out?
Are you interested in doing business or not?
1955
« on: January 19, 2015, 07:33 »
1956
« on: January 17, 2015, 22:32 »
It is very strange!
I got a mail from Istock and invite me to join Istock photo by showing my some popular photo in Shutterstock.The fact is I did in Istock from 2 years ago!!! 
Sorry, I'm not clear on what you're saying. Did you get an invitation to buy from iStock or contribute? And they used one of your SS images or just a SS image?
1957
« on: January 16, 2015, 07:58 »
Yep. Liked the old version better.
1958
« on: January 16, 2015, 04:54 »
They change it. But, now, I cannot see what was the last sale. 
Right. Me neither.
1959
« on: January 16, 2015, 04:39 »
did Dreamstime tweaked the site interface? I checked my profile, it seems the page has a new layout....
What happened to the list of sales by most recent downloads when I click on my earnings balance?
1960
« on: January 16, 2015, 04:03 »
1961
« on: January 15, 2015, 06:49 »
How is this actually exciting for the regular contributor? How does it affect us?
1963
« on: January 14, 2015, 08:19 »
1965
« on: January 13, 2015, 15:43 »
Everything in there is duplicated. Maybe he doesn't understand the meaning of the word?
1966
« on: January 13, 2015, 15:41 »
You can license it to them without releases, but they wouldn't be able to use it without sourcing the releases themselves. It doesn't have to be your responsibility.
1967
« on: January 11, 2015, 15:35 »
Those who focus on the model and whether she was posing in lingerie or not, are missing the point totally.
There is a bigger issue here.
The thing in question here is whether a photographer can be held responsible for what an end user is doing with his/her photos.
If the end user is breaching a TOS, how the h*ll can the photographer be responsible.
If you think that this only concerns photographers who shoots lingerie you are way off.
This concerns everyone who shoots people for stock.
Regular portraits of "regular" girls, grandmothers and even kids are being misused everyday and if the model should win this case, this industry will have to change drastically on many levels.
No, this actually concerns anyone who has a camera.
1968
« on: January 10, 2015, 06:29 »
Lol.
You've pointed out the main issue, that the images that were misused could have come from anywhere. You need to go after the person misusing them. Not the person who created them, with your approval.
1970
« on: January 08, 2015, 17:02 »
I think the release wording is a holdover from non-stock days, where the photographer controlled what happened to the images. Obviously, there's no way to guarantee anything now, but the model release doesn't say that.
1971
« on: January 08, 2015, 14:01 »
Read the forum thread for December/2014 over there. IS is crashing for all, so if you're tied into exclusivity, you have no backup. Exclusives are leaving these days.
1972
« on: January 08, 2015, 09:37 »
I had insurance but they found a way not to cover it.
I would pay your lawyer to look into that. Insurance is there for unexpected lawsuits, not just for tripping on a cable or something. I've modified the Stocksy release to say this, so things are clear: "For Consideration herein acknowledged as received, and by signing this release, I hereby give the Photographer / Filmmaker and Assigns my permission to license the Content including my likeness and to use the Content in any Media for any purpose while using best efforts to prevent pornographic or defamatory use. However, I recognize the liability for any misuse of the content lies with the end user of the content and not the Photographer. Uses may include, among others, advertising, promotion, marketing and packaging for any product or service."
1973
« on: January 08, 2015, 06:48 »
I absolutely believe the model is in the wrong, and that any competent judge would dismiss immediately.
Do you not have business insurance for just such a contingency? My insurance covered a similar issue for me.
What she is doing is raking in every single person - even imaginary tarts in Dubai - who has had anything to do with the pictures. She should have no case against the photographer and the agencies, but she probably has a case against the US sex clubs etc that have used the image.
Absolutely, the end user is the only one responsible.
1974
« on: January 08, 2015, 06:00 »
I absolutely believe the model is in the wrong, and that any competent judge would dismiss immediately.
Do you not have business insurance for just such a contingency? My insurance covered a similar issue for me.
1975
« on: January 07, 2015, 19:08 »
But what is 70% of nothing? Even 25% commissions with tons of sales trumps 75% with zero sales, all day every day. Work smarter, not harder.
What do you mean nothing ?
I would use it for sending my buyers there, Im not counting on their traffic at all, Im counting only on sales I bring there directly.
Host them yourself then.
Pages: 1 ... 74 75 76 77 78 [79] 80 81 82 83 84 ... 314
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
