|
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 - molka
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
201
« on: October 08, 2010, 09:03 »
RM is supposed to give exlusivity over the image for a period of time
Please be so kind and point to the legal wording in the Alamy RM-L licence where any kind of exclusivity is granted.
It is true that grant of exclusive usage rights as well as a record of usage history has been (and still is) a feature of many RM licences provided by many agencies.
It is untrue that "RM" is a clearly defined licence type that in all cases where an agency sells licences it names RM includes these rights.
If it's not that clearly defined it's just worse for the average guy. Beleive me a lawyer will be just a slightly bit more likely to come up with a reading that favors his/her client than you.
How is a lawyer going to "come up with a reading", when there is nothing to read in the license about exclusivity.
You may want to refrain from posting, until you understand what you are talking about.
I do not intend to refrain from anything just because you personally don't like it.: ) Contain yourself please.
202
« on: October 08, 2010, 08:47 »
RM is supposed to give exlusivity over the image for a period of time
Please be so kind and point to the legal wording in the Alamy RM-L licence where any kind of exclusivity is granted.
It is true that grant of exclusive usage rights as well as a record of usage history has been (and still is) a feature of many RM licences provided by many agencies.
It is untrue that "RM" is a clearly defined licence type that in all cases where an agency sells licences it names RM includes these rights.
If it's not that clearly defined it's just worse for the average guy. Beleive me a lawyer will be just a slightly bit more likely to come up with a reading that favors his/her client than you.
203
« on: October 08, 2010, 08:44 »
The same image as RF and RM might end you up in a lawsuite
No. That depends on what exactly the RM licence says. Alamy's RM licence (at least their "L" licence) does not include any exclusivity terms and no need to provide any image usage history.
My previous longer message just got lost due timig out, so i'm gonna cut it shorters at phase on now:
That's not gonna a problem if the case is handed over even to a semi-decent lawyer. RM is supposed to give exlusivity over the image for a period of time, and if its up as RF, that's likely to be breached. One my realtives is contract lawyer in LA, and they easily handle cases far more obscure than that... and then I'll skip explanation, coz I'm pissed over lossing it previously : )
omg. Know what you are talking about before you post. "RM" makes no promise of exclusivity over anything. Unless that's something that is part of the specific license you purchase.
Ok, so it's basically RF, someone just mistyped a letter : )) You people are kinda funny : )
204
« on: October 08, 2010, 08:42 »
This is what I don't understand. A 15-20% commission on a $2 sale is unsustainable for the contributor.
There is no money in it unless a particular file sells in the thousands.
Lets face it, those types of winners are very few and far between.
Why has no one instituted a sliding commission system.
Say something like this:
$2 sale 40% commission
$10 sale 35% commission
$20 sale 30% commission
etc, etc.
I don't get this. If you guys see that so clearly now, why didn't you see it years ago, and simply skip microstock?  It would have been understandable if there were almost no other chioces but there were plenty! (Alamy for example... 75% comissions!) Total nonsense..... actually i have to say you can blame yourselves as much as the greedy companies, you made horrible, uneducated chioces with little to no foresight whatsoever.
205
« on: October 08, 2010, 08:35 »
The same image as RF and RM might end you up in a lawsuite
No. That depends on what exactly the RM licence says. Alamy's RM licence (at least their "L" licence) does not include any exclusivity terms and no need to provide any image usage history.
My previous longer message just got lost due timig out, so i'm gonna cut it shorters at phase on now: That's not gonna a problem if the case is handed over even to a semi-decent lawyer. RM is supposed to give exlusivity over the image for a period of time, and if its up as RF, that's likely to be breached. One my realtives is contract lawyer in LA, and they easily handle cases far more obscure than that... and then I'll skip explanation, coz I'm pissed over lossing it previously : )
206
« on: October 08, 2010, 08:21 »
I'm going to bet they had the keyword "setting" maybe outdoor setting or something of that nature that got "disambiguated" to setting the table within iStock's lovely keywording system. And perhaps since they all got dumped in so fast and have other special privileges the keywords are not being reviewed at time of upload. I looked at a few of the images keywords and setting the table is the only really funky one in there and its there for a ton of them. The one that irritates me more is "business" on an image of a young guy in a t-shirt with no business props clothing or backgrounds, mentioned earlier. I'm quite sure under normal circumstances that wouldn't fly.
yes, it was an admitted keyword CV issue, but STILL... the fact that this "Agency Collection" is allowed to do the following (listed in no particular order) really stinks:
1) have the exact same file for sale on other sites
2) get uploaded in bulk without regard to quotas
3) get listed as an "exclusive" photographer (see #1)
4) have higher weight in the best match, especially after it has been written in the FAQs that they would not
5) have a huge price premium for shots that mostly do not stand out from other non-Agency images thus causing buyer confusion (and outrage)
You guys really are being treated as 4th class citizens there. They also lied to you: they said the new content gonna go thru inspection just like your stuff. You have to go thru inspections, get a lot of rejections, and if you do get rejections, start all over with uploading, keywording, etc... The agency stuff was uploaded in bulk, and when found to have bad keywording, it just gets corrected by the nice people at istock for them : ) But if you do wrong keywording, you have to start all over and it's deducted from your upload limit. This is humiliating beyond all measures. But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .
207
« on: October 08, 2010, 07:47 »
Makes me wonder if any of the other exclusivity programs make sense.
Why don't SS have exclusivity ?? they can easly hurt many competing MS sites like this.
Exclusivity has been pointless in micrstock for quite some time now, it's just that these sites got kinda big and really slow to react... but it's starting now.
208
« on: October 08, 2010, 07:38 »
The same image as RF and RM might end you up in a lawsuite
209
« on: October 08, 2010, 06:50 »
"Does my analysis make sense? "
No, actually it doesn't. Just because your income or someone else's income from a place like let's say SS isn't that great doesn't mean that they don't make great business.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
