|
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 - puravida
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13
201
« on: June 21, 2009, 09:06 »
Some sites like IS explicitly forbid the image use for logos. Is this considered a logo?
Other examples here:
http://www.orkutfun.com/orkut-hindi-graphics/orkut-namaskaar-graphics.html
Is the sun yours? If so, I am not questioning the fact that they used your sun. What concerns me more is the copyright they inserted. This makes it look like they are the copyright holder of this image, including your sun. Is it legal for someone who buys the usage of your image , use it as a composite , montage or single, add a few text, or logo,etc.. then paste a copyright . their copyright. This new image now belong to that copyright?
202
« on: June 20, 2009, 16:01 »
Ahem, actually... make that 2 for FT. I didn't see this thread earlier, as I only pay attention to thread on the top of the page. But Perseus revived it, and I was curious . Unfortunately , like Perseus, I am a masodhist, crap stirrer and insane. I voted for FT also. Unofortunately ease of upload does not equal sales. Yay would be a big six if it did. 123 is also fairly easy.
Weell actually, you are almost correct , tsmarkley. Yay is not the (MOST) easiest and does not equal sales. Flickr and Mostphoto are easier 
203
« on: June 20, 2009, 15:38 »
You can safely say it applies all round, really!
204
« on: June 20, 2009, 15:33 »
What stockastic? You mean DOUBLE SPEAK, like politicians, or CEOs before they "restructure" and lay off everyone and then give themselves a fat bonus because there is a recession , or the company is in deep sh#t?
Well, it's in their blood? or should I say - in their mouth. They don't know how to tell the simple truth, or won't.
This way, they can say : we never said anything about NOT PAYING YOU, we only said we DON'T INTEND to go out of business. We went out of business, BUT that wasn't our INTENT.
You get it? No lies!
205
« on: June 20, 2009, 09:42 »
On DT 17 of my last 20 sales were from the use of key words, 20 sales before that was 16 sales from key words. So if the search is by key words the buyers will find your images ..... if you used the correct key words.
As an ex buyer of images, I always used key words to find an image.
I'm new on DT and found the site to be user freindly and it took me exactly 4 months from day one to reach the payout. (yesterday)
-Larry
woa, excuz me if I misread something. But june 16 you said you were unhappy with DT and was contemplating concentrating on some other site, now you say DT is great. how is it possible the in 4 days you went from unhappy to ecstatic? pls let me in on the secret 
206
« on: June 20, 2009, 07:23 »
Then again, not with Veer but with DT,etc...I had similar images of unidentifiable professional people at worksites rejected due to MR. One set was even just a silhouette of construction workers in the distance, occupying not even 20% of the image. I can relate to the fact that perharps even though these professionals are (unable to recognize themselves), the setting is recognizable and (could) be connected and in turn be recognized.
eg. the building site , or in your case FD, the demo of the firefighters. Just guessing the reason, though.
207
« on: June 20, 2009, 07:05 »
Personally I think Photos.com is currently totally over rated. Unless Getty can change the situation drastically, Photos.com is currently nothing more than another small subscription site. Based on my earning from my approximately 1300 images on Photo.com (via StockXpert) and the same images on SS I have earned there less than 2% of my earnings from SS. If they were an independent site to which I had to submit directly I would probably have stopped uploading there a long time ago.
I don't understand why first Jupiter Images and now Getty are going bananas over Photos.com. First JI risked damage to StockXpert by forcing Photos.com down their throat and now Getty is doing the same to IS. If Photos.com was one of the big 5 sites I can understand it, but they are not. Compare the Alexa traffic of Photos.com with that of SS and you will see they are not comparable.
I have opted out of the IS deal. To me this whole issue is more one of principle with Getty trying to lower our earnings. The loss of revenue is really of no significance to me. To all the IS exclusives that are opting in. Don't keep you hopes too high for a huge additional income. It is not going to happen anytime soon.
I agree at present income levels similar to crestock etc, I dont see that changing real soon. I think the problem is it that they have a great domain name and want to maximise its value and do so quickly for instant gratification of stockholders etc. Unfortunately at this stage it seems cursed  by one poor management decision after another by JI then Getty. Personally it would have a great name to start a midstock collection of istock premium and cheaper getty, or just point it at istock or one of the getty brands.
Yes, as in the other stock market , ie. the REAL Stock Market, perception plays a lot in the success and failure of an organization. There is also other boardroom motivation to the buyers that may or may not benefit the contributors. Acquisitions of a company is not just for the sake of pleasing distributors , the bottom line is to make money in the shortest time, then sell it again before they lose market value. Anyone who thinks these big players are interested in long term relationship is living in the past or still wet behind their ears .
208
« on: June 19, 2009, 18:03 »
That is a good point. But if the images I'm submitting to Veer are not exclusive, that means I might have the same images on other sites. So if one of the images that I post on Veer takes off on another site I am on, then the photo on Veer isn't going to be different anymore, is it? To me, the only way to be different on Veer is to shoot exclusively for Veer. Hmmm....
I'll go through some of my latest uploads that haven't had a chance to sell yet and see if something there might be a better fit and give it one more shot. And all this time I thought my photography work was getting better and better...
Rather than view it as rejects from the Big 5 , better to think from a different point. The simplest analogy would be IS and SS, as we all know it. Many times the one you think is a sure thing for SS are the same ones that gets rejected by IS. It's not because they are lousy images, just that the buyers needs or culture is different . Same with DT and FT. If you look at Veer , the elder brother, you will see what I mean. There is really no point of Veer opening a micro site that is a clone of SS , IS, DT , and FT is there? They have to hold their own to succeed, so it's no surprise they are looking for something else. I would say, submit the newest images you have, rather than the ones that already sold well elsewhere. And as you say, they sell like the other sites, well, it really does not matter then. They just want to have the new images like the others, not your old stuff. Hope I explain properly my point.
209
« on: June 19, 2009, 15:58 »
SS also requires constant uploading.
Another ridiculous myth being perpetuated once again. You only need 'constant uploading' if few of your images ever become regular-sellers and don't appear within the first 100 or so of a search. I do a lot of travelling and it makes relatively little difference to my income if I take a couple of months off or upload 100 in a month.
photos.com won't require constant uploading as far as we know.
As we already know sales are so poor there that unless you are uploading at the rate of 1000 images a month (for about an extra $20) you wouldn't notice any difference anyway.
... you're right though, I haven't worked with SS.
That's pretty obvious from what you write.
Another myth __ SS didn't actually 'invent' the subscription model either. There were several agencies, including SS themselves, that had been offering subscriptions for years but always with wholly-owned content. Jon's genius was to open the doors of a subscription agency to outside contributors for the first time. At the time he had 15K of his own images and had been trying to compete against other agencies with 200K images. The rest is history ...
gostwyck, you may say all this is a myth, but the motto "feed the beast" did not just pop out of thin air here at this forum. You also don't have to be with SS to know what you're saying. Many SS contributors voice their displeasure here, so hawk_eye not having worked with SS does not make it "obvious" that he does not know what he is saying, just like the perception that only you know what you're saying.
210
« on: June 19, 2009, 15:42 »
b) If the market is to be devalued then if its not JIU/PC then it will be someone else, Flickr or Wikimedia Mayflower or another site
c) I will wait and see, here on MSG you will find different opinions on all the sites some IS is 10th place for some first
And alot of the arguments you make were probably leveled by macro photographers at microstock in the past ....
The bad thing is that it was still possible to create stock imagery with micro prices. Macro was too expensive for many young business and also under evaluated the availability of commercial quality images toward the last years when microstock started.
Now it's not possible at all to continu creating new images at 5 cents per images. IMO
but 35 cents is ? you must be kidding!
211
« on: June 19, 2009, 15:34 »
I am sorry I do not go farther back to find out it was IS who started * us in. That still does not absolve SS . My beef with SS is no different from my beef with IS , unchanged. The fact that if SS , or IS, did not succeed with subs, we would not be hear getting shafted .
212
« on: June 19, 2009, 15:05 »
Yes, I have to agree with hawk_eye.
Sweet change of face. Suddenly Shutterstock is the sweet darling and saviour of the month, which used to be Istock. All saying how lovely your relationship is with them.
But am I mistaken or what, to have read that it was Shutterstock which started the subscription model. Had they not introduced this pay us peanuts great idea, we would not be screaming hell and high water over what Getty is doing to us at IStock and Stockxpert. Or has everyone forgotten about that?
Sure you look at your paycheck and think oh wow, nice bossy gave me a fat check every month. But nice bossy was also the stinker who got you to accept a reduction of commission per download for the whole business.
Or did you all just contracted amnesia?
213
« on: June 19, 2009, 13:22 »
Well, that's not entirely true. How else do you explain Shutterstock's increasing royalties several times over its history? Jon looked at his business, decided that he could raise prices and, once he felt he understood how that affected customers' downloading behavior, increased payouts. Seems to me I was getting .20 per download when I started there. Now I get .36. If that isn't a company deciding unilaterally to pay its suppliers more, what is?
Of course, a combination of a down economy and more aggressive competition may entice companies to move in the opposite direction. I hope not, but won't be surprised.
So SS pays you .36 and you think it's manna dropping from heaven? did I misread something you wrote or is that what you're cheering SS so valiantly? (confused)
214
« on: June 18, 2009, 21:22 »
Sorry here come another off topic comment...
Puravida, you sent me a private message asking me a question about something I said in this thread, but apparently you are the one person who has me set to ignore, so my reply to you is being blocked. 
Oops, sorry, I must have set the * in my email preference, which meant block all, instead of accept all. Silly me 
215
« on: June 18, 2009, 21:01 »
I uploaded my initial 10 on 6/10. I just got notice today that all 10 were rejected. Here's the reason:
Based on these 10 images, we can't offer you contributor privileges at this time. You are welcome to submit 10 new images
I uploaded my 10 best sellers from IS and other sites. I am really bummed. Not only am I a reject, but the reason is so generic and lame, I don't even know why they were rejected. Not good enough? Not the right content?
Wow, I feel like such a loser. 
That was your biggest mistake : submit your 10 best sellers from IS and other sites. You read that Veer wants to be different. Also, who would want to have images that have sold and sold and sold. Even an IS exclusive has pointed here on another thread re Yuri and another stock site, "who wants a pile of images that have been sold so many times already on so many other sites" , or words to that effect. Don't give up just yet. Stop trying to compare Veer to "all the other sites". Give them your best images that have not been submitted or sold . You don't give old shoes to a new man in town. Good luck.
216
« on: June 18, 2009, 17:46 »
BTW hqimages, you got one heart for the link . Been nice talking with you!
217
« on: June 18, 2009, 17:44 »
What's great about what those photographers are doing too, is that if they do win, it benefits us. It means there's an onus on the agency to give us what we signed up for, which is a fair price for our work. For example, they would have to leave an opt out for subscription pricing on IS and other web sites that used to be pay-as-you-go with a better return for the photographer.. I hope they suceed anyway, and it could even save 'pay-as-you-go' models, rather than the current trend of sub royalties which are just pathetic from the photographer point of view!!
Yes! But if Getty wins, time to pull out of anything that has Getty's signature on it. In fact, I was surprised there wasn't a squeak out of IS photog's about the removal of subscription opt-out, and there was no change in the terms to reflect that all files are now in the subscription pricing format as a compulsory 'feature'.. even if you are opted-in, you should always fight for the right to CHOOSE the pricing for your images..
It's hard to teach old dogs new tricks
219
« on: June 18, 2009, 17:23 »
Thx , I will be following it too.
It all depends on what fine prints these photographers signed to in their initial agreement. If there is a clause that empowers Getty to make any changes , I am sure that would be the loophole to spring Getty.
But the catch here is selling RM port as low priced sub . I like to see their lawyers pull a rabbit out of this hat.
220
« on: June 18, 2009, 17:05 »
Getty are no stranger to litigation, the more info you gather about them, the more you realise they BELIEVE they are invincible, they really do, and they will never work to keep contributors happy, that's not how they got where they are today.. the below link is an interesting one that people don't seem to know about, or maybe they don't care either I dont know!
http://www.draiochtwebdesign.com/blog/photographers-sue-getty-for-copyright-infringement
Noo kidding, hqimages. Thx for the link. I was only kidding, but now I think I should spend less time here farting around and spend more time googling on Getty's hidden can of worms. This is going to be interesting read for me. Thx again. Update: But this was 4 November 2008. What was the outcome? Do you know?
221
« on: June 18, 2009, 16:52 »
Does this mean that Crestock is a new convert ? Perchance a renaissance of Mao 's red book disciple and overt communism disguised as the Judge at Crestock? OK, OK< I got it. Crestock is moving HO to Beijing, and we will be paid in Renminbi.
222
« on: June 18, 2009, 16:40 »
I really can't imagine how JIU/PC subscribers are going to feel when 90% (literally!) of the entire library disappears overnight in 3 months time. Yes, they'll get a few more from IS, but even if 10% of IS images are transferred over (which I doubt) then the 3M images they've lost will be replaced by 500K older stock images that have been largely ignored by buyers up to now. I can see litigation being threatened if customers had subscribed specifically to access the 3M images that appeared to be on offer. It's going to look like a 'bait and switch' job to them.
Good point ,gostwyck, I think whitechild pointed out the same thing too . But oh I am sure Getty will liquidate way before there is litigation. You cannot get redress from a defunct company. Getty is not just some dumb establishment.
223
« on: June 18, 2009, 16:28 »
@puravida, no I do not mean strip joints.
I do not know where you live, but in the Los Angeles to San Diego region of southern California the young ladies are often clad in what is called 'club wear'.
Club wear is often very revealing and sexy.
These ladies are playing into male fantasy no doubt, but it certainly gets attention.
Another popular trend in this part of the world are go-go dancers.
Again, no stripping and not porn. Just playing into male
fantasies.
No we have them too. Except any fool can see they are the strippers from around the sleazy corner. No doubt all getting free drinks in exchange for luring the desperate guys to buy drinks for them. Of course there are also lots of wannabees practising the trade to be ladies of the night. Some are even foreign students who moonlight just to get free meals and party. Feel sorry for the cuckolds at home, waiting for their gfs who are away at foreign universities, supposedly to get a masters degree . Moonlighting that even the girls parents don't know what's really happening. Sad state of society , isn't it?
224
« on: June 18, 2009, 15:37 »
Very pertinent Shakespeare quote Whatalife. Hope you are right
Never mind Shakey, I prefer the one used for NATO coined a long time ago by some angry citizen ... N-o A-ction T-alk O-nly.
225
« on: June 18, 2009, 14:30 »
Boy we Americans and Brits are such a bunch of prudes!
Pick up the recent issue of Vogue Italy with Eva Mendes featured prominently (topless) and you will see that the Europeans are way more sophisticated about nudity. There are a lot of European ads that would never get run in the US.
As far as lingeree being used for adertising other than porn, I can come up with at least four possible uses that are perfectly legitimate just off the top of my head.
For instance, here in Southern California there are a lot of night clubs that run posters and fliers every week. Many of these ads have a sort of fantasy theme and feature scantily clad young women. Or how about a plastic surgeon attempt to show how wonderful you will look after liposuction, eh?
I could go on, but you get the idea.
lol Night clubs fantasy theme, huh? You mean strip joints, doncha? Which night clubs do you go where the women come in scantily clad or in lingerie? Liposuction? well, why not a woman with cellulites instead of a skinny girl in lingerie? I like to meet that plastic surgeon who could transform a woman with cellilites into a skinny girl with liposuction, rofl.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
