|
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 - Risamay
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13
201
« on: February 17, 2011, 19:05 »
Boy am I glad I had myself banned when I did.
While it seems Lobo's tone has softened these last weeks, the more I read of Dawn and Kelvin (in particular) in their new role as moderators, the less I feel I know them. Their voices/tone has really changed from before the badges.
202
« on: February 09, 2011, 17:31 »
LOL @ "lolcanoes" 
203
« on: February 09, 2011, 16:38 »
It's pretty easy to get yourself banned by bluntly and angrily telling them the truth about how they have effed up one of the best stock sites out there. It's also reasonably easy to avoid getting banned if you want to temper what you say a little and word things carefully (harder to do for non-native English speakers, I realize).
Definitely true. If you're conscious and careful, you won't get a warning and you certainly won't be banned. In all my posts on iStock, I only ever got a handful of warnings from Lobo. And I usually knew when/why they'd be coming. Also, the posts of mine that he deleted never really surprised me. It was pretty clear to me what I could and couldn't get away with saying, and I feel like he let me get away with a lot over the years. What surprised me was only that he'd delete my more sarcastic comments but leave those of others. He's definitely become more vigilant of late, as things have continued to spiral out of control there. What with all the changes, bugs, and other negative developments or things we have to rant about.
204
« on: February 04, 2011, 11:06 »
That's essentially why I declined the offer to become unbanned.
I hear ya, Sue. And no worries, Tundra. I understand.
205
« on: February 04, 2011, 11:01 »
Well, Marisa, I always knew you'd come to a bad end 
I do sort of get the request to be banned. I've been trying to stay out of the train wreck/car crash that is iStock these days, but like many an addict, I can't help myself. Seems to me that all respect for contributor concerns has gone out the window. If they were being ruthlessly efficient and the site was humming like clockwork, I'd be a bit sad, but would probably adjust to the new reality. But this keystone cops farce is just embarrassing.
Now when Leaf starts sending you PMs warning you about your posts here...
LOL on the bad end And no PMs from Leaf ... yet  Though really, I don't see participating in this forum much more than I have already. I'm glad to have it as an option, but it's not the same as iStock's own forum. And you've seen me here at my ugliest, so if that didn't warrant a PM, I doubt I have anything to worry about.
206
« on: February 04, 2011, 00:06 »
Respect Marisa,
Only a handfull of people have the guts to do a thing like that.
Let's call being banned by Lobo a "Lobotomy" shall we 
I am surprised how many messages and even emails i get with support of people who have big concerns with IS
I'm not in any way thrilled about my last interaction with Lobo. I *thought* he and I were friends or at least friendly. So it was disappointing. I wish him only luck and hope he finds a way to be nicer to people - online life is real life, so far as I am concerned. I'm not one way with people online and another in "real life". He has a difficult job, but he makes it infinitely harder for himself than it has to be. And that's all I have to say about that.
207
« on: February 04, 2011, 00:03 »
So I'm now banned, by special request.
Hey, look: the Club of the Banned is so cool, people are asking to join.
Welcome! 
I am a little puzzled at asking to be banned. Why not just stay out of the forums? That's pretty much what I'm doing, just not wasting my time over there.
Thanks, Sue. Tundra, I'm just fed up. With Lobo deleting my posts and not those of others, with one brouhaha after the next, the whole shebang. And sure, I could self-censor/moderate or just stay out of the forums, but I know myself. crap there continues to hit the fan and piss me off and I'd rather not have even the temptation of posting or having to bite my tongue. If the threat of speaking my mind in my own voice (and yes, sometimes that means with a heavy dollop of sarcasm) means sitemails warning me to cool it or be banned, go ahead and ban me then. Screw it. I no longer give a crap. Besides, like I stated earlier, there is this forum if I *really* have something to say or want to interact with my fellow contributors. I hope they get it together and the company continues on successfully for each of us, I really do. But I'm no longer interested in trying to help people who could care less about what I have to say.
208
« on: February 03, 2011, 19:28 »
I always hear people say "If you don't like it you can just leave.."
I received a warning sitemail from Lobo yesterday after posting this - Posted By risamay:
Oh, stop your worrying. We have a seasoned new VP (read: expensive). He's going to fix everything. Just you wait and see.in response to this - Posted By delirium:
Unbelievable. Unprofessional. Unacceptable. I've been here since 2002, and I've never seen a company go so bad, while making money hand over fist.At first I was like, okay. I get it (because I do). But then, after seeing how many similarly snarky and vitriolic comments were left live both before and after my post, I took it personally and asked that Lobo shut my forum posting privileges. He finally got around to turning them off just now. So I'm now banned, by special request. While I'll always have an opinion, I realized that it's pretty well senseless to go on sharing it there. The feeling I get is that iStock doesn't really care, isn't really listening, and, even if it does/is, isn't doing anything with the lion's share of our criticism (snarky and vitriolic or not). On the contrary, things only seem to get stranger and more disappointing. And frankly, I'm tired of yelling at a wall. Thankfully there's still this forum for ranting, commiseration, etc. And I'm sure Lobo/Andrew/iStock monitors the chatter here, so they know where to go to find other views not expressed on their own forums. Not that what we say here makes a lick of difference, either.
209
« on: February 03, 2011, 19:20 »
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=298792&page=1
Have to say I'm not very excited. Wish they would hold off on new features until they've fixed the ones that are broken.
+1
+1 and considering how long Logos took to launch. Oh, wait ... I'll be excited when it launches and any kinks are worked out. Because you know there will be something silly to go wrong with it when it finally comes live. Alas.
210
« on: January 21, 2011, 17:49 »
Frankly, I'm a +1 for getting rid of the forums, period. Here's a novel idea...how about IS hires competent people to build the site correctly, and then actually TEST it before it goes live. That would eliminate about 95% of the threads right off the bat, because most of the threads nowadays are troubleshooting and reporting of bugs by contributors, WHO GOT A DECREASE IN PAY!
The other 5% comprise the kiss-as*er woo-yayers. Some of you think the negativity is annoying? I think all that kissy-kiss cr*p is annoying. So let's just eliminate 4% of those. That leaves 1%. Anybody who feels the need to report or say something, email contributor relations. After all, that's what THEY get paid for.
Sounds too efficient. And logical. It'll never work.
211
« on: January 21, 2011, 15:36 »
People will just find an alternate way to say "+1". Funny though, if the "+1" was replaced with a hearty "Woo Yay", would they be forced to ban that phrase?
Briulliant.
Do it, people!
Oh, that is brilliant.
212
« on: January 21, 2011, 15:34 »
Agree or disagree or +1 or -1 -- doesn't matter, by banning the use of that it is just one more nail in the coffin of what once was the great the istock community - the thing that built iStock and the (in my opinion) biggest thing that made iStock stand out among the competition (at least for most contributors). there was a time when everyone (well, most) wanted to be a part of that great community. sadly, that's not so much the case anymore as there really isn't much of that spirit left.
+1
213
« on: January 21, 2011, 15:32 »
I think they want to cut the negative chatter.
The point they're missing is that they do that by (a) getting the site functional and (b) treating contributors fairly and reasonable. With respect would be nice too. In the absence of those, they can get silence with a few woo yays sprinkled in.
+1 And it should come as no surprise that the WooYay breakdown is 99% badges/admin (or those who clearly would like to wield a badge of some sort).
214
« on: January 21, 2011, 15:28 »
unfortunately, some of the people complaining about the +1 are those who REALLY just want one-sided freedom to say what they want. so, what those peple are truly asking for is for management to sit back and let people deride the company, belittle and misquote one another while high-fiving those in the 'clique' with +1s.
-1
215
« on: January 12, 2011, 13:08 »
There have been cases that completely fall into very gray areas as well.
For example, many photographers seem to think that fair use means "as long as I take this image in a public place, it's OK.", or when a building is built, maintained and paid for by taxpayers' money, so it doesn't require an Property Release.
We'll, we have had several authorities coming to us, claiming that a certain site, building, etc. is within their trust and hence, want to sue etc. etc. During that time, who will bear the responsibility and brunt of any legal action?
So do have a thought before you write to us and telling us that such and such a place doesn't require an MR. Have you checked? It's YOUR responsibility.....
Alex.
Thank you, Alex. So far, I have not heard of anybody suffering as a result of these clauses. There are many millions of images on sale and scores of thousands of photographers selling stuff, so the risk seems to be minuscule. There's no doubt, though, that if anybody was caught up in a case the consequences could be devastating.
I think Istock has said it will take responsibility for paying out on its guarantee to buyers that images are legal. But it looks to me as if there is one contract (for buyers) saying "if there are problems with an image we will give you thousands of dollars" and another contract for sellers saying "if we pay anything out because of your images you will have to foot the bill".
Of course, some old iStockers may feel that iStock is too honorable to break a forum promise just because it seems to have the legal right to do something nasty. And there may be others who don't have quite so much faith in the company.
Anyway, so far there is no word of this ever being triggered.
It is confusing, over at iStock. No matter where I submit, I always do my part to stay within the rules and hope for the best. Though it seems like there are gray areas (as Alex pointed out) that may catch anyone by surprise, if we aren't careful. That said, I'm glad that generally, there aren't myriad stories of big lawsuits and suffering as a result of these clauses. thanks for the list. I'm surprised to see it includes a book written in 1865, a fairy tale, and a 400 million year old (or older) rock, but I can see the desire to CYA, and I won't be uploading any images of these.
Yes, thanks for the list. That is quite helpful.
216
« on: January 11, 2011, 18:26 »
...and the value of artist exclusivity seems to be rapidly declining.
I disagree, IS still seems to be propping up their exclusive program with a number of perks that might be interesting opportunities to independents. Higher priced files, Vetta, Getty, etc.
It used to be that every exclusive contributor had a chance to make it to the top royalty levels. Some did it faster and some slower, but if you hung in there you would eventually make it. That's not true anymore. The RC targets mean that most istock exclusives will NEVER make it to the higher royalty levels.
There is an elite club of very successful, very talented people who manage to gain enough access to Vetta, Agency, etc. and can therefore have the full benefits of exclusivity. Unfortunately, for the rank-and-file Istock exclusive contributor, who doesn't produce Vetta or Agency-style images, who is now stuck forever at 25-30%, the benefits of exclusivity are all but gone.
(your comment in red) is bang on. really succinct. and the new system ensures a steady income for Getty/iStock without consideration for motivating exclusives. They've made it very clear that it doesn't matter who the income comes from, as long as it comes. that's really disappointing.
I'm kind of happy now that I don't have much Vetta or Agency, because they're pushing it so much on Getty that 20% is going to be more and more the royalty for non-exclusives. In fact, I'm considering opting out entirely from Vetta/Agency as I have for the Partner Program. that gives me regular collection and E+ to work with and my 35% on iStock (though that's indefinite, depending on what happens next year with RC targets).
Sounds like you're changing your tune. Here's hoping it sticks. This time
217
« on: January 09, 2011, 16:46 »
Thank you, Blufish. And thank you for shedding some light on the commonplace nature of this arrangement in most of these agreements. Particularly for pulling up the specifics within the agreement over at iStock. Shows how closely I read over that contract! You three have been quite helpful. I'm not worried a lick, now. So thanks again. Hopefully this detailed clarification and insight has set Bridget's mind at ease, too.
218
« on: January 09, 2011, 15:08 »
Thank you, gostwyck. That makes sense then.
219
« on: January 09, 2011, 14:33 »
Hi there. New indie here. I've been following StockCube's Independence Blog for formerly exclusive iStockers who are taking the plunge as independents (I am one of these folks). She highlighted today a possible turnoff in the 123RF Photo Contributor Agreement. Reference: http://stockcube-stockcube.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-agencies.htmlCan anyone here shed a little expert light on this? Point 3 under Indemnity states: "You agree to fully defend and indemnify 123RF, its employees, directors, and officers, and anyone else associated with 123RF, and each of their successors, licensees, and assigns free and harmless from any and all claims, liabilities, costs, losses, damages, or expenses, including attorneys' fees and expenses, arising from the breach of the warranties you so grant in Clause 10: Copyrights and Warranties." Source: http://www.123rf.com/submit/agreement.phpOn first read, that seems pretty scary. Do I really want to risk having to cough up potentially huge sums of money if there is a "breach of the warranties I so granted" in Clause 10? And how likely is that? Upon reading Clause 10, I can't see breaking the rules. So is there anything, then, to worry about? Does this point cause sleepless nights to 123RF contributors, or is it just 123RF covering their behind and so long as you adhere to the points in Clause 10 when you submit photos, you have absolutely nothing to lose sleep over? Confused. Hope you can unconfuse me and put me at ease with submitting here. Advance thanks for your thoughts.
220
« on: January 08, 2011, 14:19 »
I agree with SNP (shock!) that TPTB decided it wasn't enough trouble to waste development time on figuring how to pull them back as yet another adjustment, and in the current climate, just look at it as a random bonus that doesn't really do anything much.
That is shocking! Though, regarding the RCs from the scam as "a random bonus that doesn't really do anything much" - without all the details including a breakdown of numbers before/after how many such credits were racked up for individuals, I'm just not sold on the idea that the bonus didn't do anything much for at least a few people. Because you have to remember the "legit" bonus that was in play for Vetta sale files, too. Those two bonuses together may well have helped a few, and particularly after Kelly's overall adjustment to the RC system. We can never know for certain. But those, if any, who were boosted by these two bonuses know who they are.
221
« on: January 07, 2011, 21:58 »
The changes help me not on iota. Neither as an indie, nor had I remained exclusive.
222
« on: January 05, 2011, 11:19 »
What you say makes a lot of sense, gostwyck.
223
« on: January 04, 2011, 10:17 »
Loving these examples.
Way back in the early 90's during an early foray into a forum, I expressed my anger at a troll. An American woman who agreed with me wrote:
"You really have a way with words when your p*ssed".
...which led to some very confusing exchanges, as I tried to figure out why she thought I was drunk, and she wondered what on earth I was talking about!
That's hilarious.
224
« on: January 02, 2011, 21:20 »
Marisa - what right do you and nruboc have to discuss my income openly? this is crossing a line guys and it has nothing to do with this thread. can we move on?
I wasn't discussing your income. I was providing further (general) instances as to why any discussion of income without the specifics is useless. As to people here crossing a line and feeling like they have the right to discuss openly the income of folks by name, I think you were the initial violator of said line when you used Yuri (by name) in just such a discussion of income? Therefore, it wouldn't be a stretch to see how other people might feel like they have a similar right to discuss your income openly. Again though, I wasn't discussing your income. Openly or otherwise. I was but highlighting the fact that without specific numbers and details of cost of living, marital status, etc. that such talk is pointless. So yes. By all means. Let's move on from such pointless prattle altogether. Shall we?
225
« on: January 02, 2011, 18:51 »
At nruboc: but I never said I'm unhappy with my income (which you seem to be convinced is well below what it is, so I suspect you're extrapolating quite inaccurately on my dls:files ratio). I'm not comparing myself to Lisa or yuri-that wasn't remotely my point. I will never complain about my work. I get to make a living doing what I love. I don't know why you're suggesting I complained about my income. YOU complained about my income.
And dude, we live in a major urban centre in Canada. Cost of living isn't low.
Again, everything is relative.
Where I live 2 (1 bedroom) room appt would cost you over 1,200$ . cost of living in Canada IS low...
Yes. Without specific numbers on income and location-specific cost of living, it's just poppytalk. Further, are we talking singles or a two-income household? And do both people contribute the same or is one income really the main support and the other just the wife's fun money that got serious, but if she lost her job it wouldn't matter because hubby could/would still support her?
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
