1976
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock's logo
« on: January 18, 2015, 06:11 »
Click on "promotion," then "create your mini gallery."
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. 1976
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock's logo« on: January 18, 2015, 06:11 »
Click on "promotion," then "create your mini gallery."
1977
Shutterstock.com / Re: Exciting news from Shutterstock HQ!« on: January 17, 2015, 13:04 »
"Both businesses will eventually be folded into Shutterstocks banner."
From the Variety article. 1978
Off Topic / Re: UAS and Model Aircraft - AKA "Drones"« on: January 16, 2015, 09:08 »You can be sure that gov wants to be able to watch you but they don't want you to be able to watch them. Who's talking about outlawing them? The FAA is trying to determine how they'll operate in existing airspace and how to set reasonable regulations for operating them. All the items you mentioned have regulations, possibly with the exception of silverware. Bicyclists have hit and killed pedestrians, just recently in Central Park, leading to bike speed restrictions there. Kids are required to wear helmets while on a bike. Pools have regulations, and you can't get a certificate of occupancy for your house without meeting them, at least where I live. I'm sure there are even more regulations regarding public poolsrequiring lifeguards and use of chemicals, for example. 1979
Off Topic / Re: UAS and Model Aircraft - AKA "Drones"« on: January 15, 2015, 13:55 »
Article today in the NY Times about news organizations joining Virginia Tech in testing drones in the airspace. So now I can look forward to the Times overflying my house. (Our tiny airport is one of the test sites.) The video is interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/business/media/10-companies-join-effort-to-test-drones-for-newsgathering.html?emc=edit_tnt_20150115&nlid=26752818&tntemail0=y&_r=0 1980
Shutterstock.com / Re: Exciting news from Shutterstock HQ!« on: January 15, 2015, 10:01 »
I fixed the grammar and added some possible additions in brackets:
"Hi Shutterstock Contributors, Exciting news from Shutterstock HQ! Today were pleased to welcome to the Shutterstock family Rex Features, Europes largest independently owned photographic press agency, and PremiumBeat, a royalty-free music service with 5,000 curated music tracks from leading composers around the world. Shutterstocks customers have been asking for an end-to-end solution that includes both commercial and editorial content. The acquisition of Rex is a decisive move into the editorial category, and underscores our mission to provide the worlds storytellers with all of the content and tools they need to bring their ideas to life. By adding a more robust editorial offering, including entertainment, news and sports imagery, Shutterstock is expanding to serve the full breadth of imagery needed by media companies and advertisers around the world. You, Shutterstock's contributors, will [be facing stiffer competition with the flood of new images entering the Shutterstock library.] [be invited to apply as Rex contributors.] [have your editorial work automatically mirrored to Rex, giving it greater exposure to a worldwide audience with the possibility of larger royalties.] The acquisition of PremiumBeat allows us to accelerate our progress in music by welcoming a strong and growing customer base, content library, and team to Shutterstock. Shutterstock music contributors will [be facing stiffer competition.] [be invited to apply as PremiumBeat contributors.] [have your work automatically mirrored to PremiumBeat, giving it greater exposure to a worldwide audience with the possibility of larger royalties.] [Most exciting of all, Shutterstock is raising royalties by 4% across the board. Happy New Year!]" 1982
Shutterstock.com / Re: Exciting news from Shutterstock HQ!« on: January 15, 2015, 06:21 »
With a headline like that I was expecting announcement of a raise.
![]() 1983
General Photography Discussion / Re: Smartphone photography tricks« on: January 14, 2015, 18:47 »
Love the macro lens.
1984
Adobe Stock / Re: Will Adobes acquisition of Fotolia force a decline in IOD prices?« on: January 14, 2015, 15:33 »
It does concern me. I wonder what their deal will be with major ad agencies, who keep current on Adobe software (Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign). This might make it easier for art directors to find images through FT. Most agencies have agreements with Getty and some now with Shutterstock.
If Fotolia offers lower prices, I say starve them of content. But that's easy for me to say, because I don't have images there since we found out about DPC. 1985
Image Sleuth / Re: Infringement of iStock exclusivity« on: January 14, 2015, 08:40 »
They're both from Turkey. My guess is same person, making slight changes to his own images.
1986
General Stock Discussion / Re: Reddit discussion about stealing my image« on: January 13, 2015, 16:31 »
Wow, this Reddit discussion is bringing my site tons of traffic. Glad I found it and butted in.
1987
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Strange Email From iStock« on: January 13, 2015, 15:15 »
My guess is that they owed you this amount back then (probably from a sale that hadn't been registered yet when you closed your account), and now that they're switching to automatic monthly payouts, they're sending it to you.
1988
Off Topic / Re: UAS and Model Aircraft - AKA "Drones"« on: January 13, 2015, 12:06 »
Yes to the plane crash. The pilot had already crashed a plane, and from what I've read his family wanted him to stop flying, but instead he bought a bigger plane and ended up killing himself, his son, a mom and her two babies who were home when his plane came down. The husband who lived there lost his wife and two of his three children, and the house was completely destroyed. Very sad.
1989
Off Topic / Re: UAS and Model Aircraft - AKA "Drones"« on: January 13, 2015, 09:51 »
It's the injury part (and the invasion of privacy) that concerns me. It's great that drones were able to capture news events, but IMO it's just a matter of time before a news drone crashes and hurts or kills someone. In the U.S. general aviation planes crash every day. Someone is killed in one or by one a few times a week. I wish the FAA would regulate those a lot more, to be honest. I just don't want to see these things (drones) crashing into people. On the other hand, I do think they're cool and useful and fun; we just need regulations to be sure they're operated safely.
1990
General Stock Discussion / Re: Reddit discussion about stealing my image« on: January 13, 2015, 07:23 »
Thanks, Ron!
Toopy, I saw that someone visited my Symbiostock site through Reddit and i clicked on the link in my Wordpress stats. 1991
Symbiostock - Network Building / Re: Toonstyle.com - new symbiostock website with unusual cartoon-style vectors« on: January 13, 2015, 06:26 »Yes, I already have FB page, Twitter, Instagram and I have about 10 years of experience in commission works:) And I even used to have a huge rotating slider of my images on the homepage of my website - there were several designs I went through. Maybe I return it to the homepage - that's not the case. There are a couple of Symbiostock vector artists who have success with their own websites. I sell a few images a month; they sell much more. I think their stuff is more unique than mine (yours is also quite unique) and they're more aggressive about marketing than I am. They shared some of their tips on the Symbiostock boards. 1992
General Stock Discussion / Re: Reddit discussion about stealing my image« on: January 12, 2015, 14:36 »
I replied and the guy who suggested stealing it argued that I don't really own the copyright. Amazing.
The "G" I got from adding the minimal amount I could to the "C." I decided not to add the descender or to bring up the open side further. 1993
General Stock Discussion / Re: Reddit discussion about stealing my image« on: January 12, 2015, 13:03 »
Actually, the OP in the feed found the file on my site and seems willing to pay for it there, though hasn't bought it yet. We'll see what happens. At least he/she was willing to look for a place to purchase it.
1994
General Stock Discussion / Reddit discussion about stealing my image« on: January 12, 2015, 12:11 »
Well, this is fun.
![]() This person "can't find" my font, but links to it on Shutterstock. And then you have people suggesting he just trace it. Lovely. http://www.reddit.com/r/minimalism/comments/2ryduq/could_you_help_me_find_this_minimal_font_please/ 1995
Symbiostock - Network Building / Re: Toonstyle.com - new symbiostock website with unusual cartoon-style vectors« on: January 12, 2015, 06:07 »
You should also start submitting stuff to The New Yorker. One of my old bosses gets a cartoon published now and then, and he can barely draw. They just featured him on Facebook last week. Facebook page is important...everyone will expect you to have one. And it's very inexpensive to advertise there. You can promote a post for as little as $1 and choose your target audience (people in publishing, advertising, etc.)
Lol...you already have a Facebook page. I liked it. You should add that header to the top of your website to feature your work, as ArtPuppy recommended. And promote your posts. 1996
Off Topic / Re: UAS and Model Aircraft - AKA "Drones"« on: January 11, 2015, 21:07 »
The drone was flying at 2,000 feet. Article also has info about FAA regulations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/nyregion/two-men-arrested-after-drone-flies-near-new-york-police-helicopter.html?_r=0 1997
Off Topic / Re: UAS and Model Aircraft - AKA "Drones"« on: January 11, 2015, 19:59 »
Well, the FAA has to get involved because they govern U.S. airspace. You can't have people flying drones around where they'll get in the way of flight patterns. Already in New York there have been a couple of instances of videographers flying drones too close to police helicopters. That's what they're testing near me...how to incorporate unmanned drones into the airspace. They promise the drones will just fly out to sea to record and there will be no invasion of privacy. But they'll only be a couple hundred feet over my house as they head out or come in, so I find that hard to believe.
1998
General - Top Sites / Re: Big portfolio, or small well saled ?« on: January 11, 2015, 17:23 »Is it good big portfolio with lot of unsoldable pic, or smaller portfolio with the best soldable works ?? Yes. 1999
Off Topic / Re: UAS and Model Aircraft - AKA "Drones"« on: January 11, 2015, 17:18 »
People are concerned, with good reason, about invasion of privacy. Plus, you have people like this guy flying stuff around. He managed to kill himself with his model helicopter...he could've killed anyone else who happened to be nearby that day:
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/09/05/remote-control-helicopter-kills-man-in-brooklyn/ Lucky me, I live near a tiny airport that is one of the first to be chosen as a testing spot for real drones...the big ones. So now I get to have those things flying overhead, as well as general aviation airplanes (10x more likely to crash than a car), homebuilt experimental aircraft (even more likely to crash), and "RC toy aircraft" that buzz our neighborhood in between the real aircraft takeoffs and landings. I'd really love to take their fun away. Big time. 2000
General Stock Discussion / Re: Justin Bieber - How a man-child turns into a muscle-man« on: January 11, 2015, 09:24 »
I think both images are photoshopped to some extent. But if you look at the video of him stripping down to his Calvins on TV, it's clear reality is much closer to the "original" image, although the crotch area in that one has an awfully odd shadow. The people who posted it have taken it down to avoid a lawsuit.
|
|