|
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 - RT
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 77
201
« on: January 27, 2012, 06:56 »
AND it is illegal to help him.
I suggest to delete this thread.
Read through the replies and you'll see people here are trying to help him so that he doesn't do anything illegal.
202
« on: January 26, 2012, 13:30 »
Is it possible to "build our own" camera?? A la a Dell Computer???
Now that would be good.
203
« on: January 26, 2012, 13:22 »
There must have been a good chance they could get a real example of a person who had had an amputation due to diabetes who was willing to be photographed as a warning to others?
From the link: But they said that doing so was not always feasible. Sometimes we use individuals who are suffering from the particular disease; other times we have to use actors Sometimes when I'm doing an outdoor shoot I want the sun to shine, it doesn't always happen so I use a big light 
204
« on: January 26, 2012, 13:07 »
I'm used to a system where adverts must be 'legal, decent, honest and truthful' (though I don't actually know the difference between 'honest' and 'truthful'!) even by implication.
What 'system' is that?
I was wondering the same thing. @ShadySue - I thought you lived in the UK. The basic principle here is that the ad must not 'mislead consumers' and taking the ad in the OP's original post there's nothing there that I can see would breach any UK regs, assuming of course that the information about the diabetes is correct.
To be honest you'd have a better chance of suing the burger chain in gostwycks example.
Advertising Standards Authrority (UK)
http://www.asa.org.uk
Exactly, nothing in the CAP codes of practise say anything where the way the ad is made graphically has to be "legal, decent, honest and truthful" in a way that the OP's example would be an infringement over here, as I said earlier those rules are to stop the ad 'misleading consumers' by way of the message/information it's portraying. The guy in the photo may have a case for defamation of character but that's another issue.
205
« on: January 26, 2012, 12:36 »
I'm not worried at all for being an offence, I'd print it and as I said destroy it during the shoot (who's ever going to know I "produced" it).
As I said I don't know which country you're from, but if you did a photo destroying UK money you'd need to prove it was fake money that was legally produced with authority from the BoE, otherwise you commit an offence for destroying real bank notes. That's the reason that the BoE have the statement about producing bank notes (the one that confuses most people including agencies into thinking you can't photograph them) you need permission to produce fakes so that you can destroy them without committing an offence.
206
« on: January 26, 2012, 12:29 »
I'm used to a system where adverts must be 'legal, decent, honest and truthful' (though I don't actually know the difference between 'honest' and 'truthful'!) even by implication.
What 'system' is that?
I was wondering the same thing. @ShadySue - I thought you lived in the UK. The basic principle here is that the ad must not 'mislead consumers' and taking the ad in the OP's original post there's nothing there that I can see would breach any UK regs, assuming of course that the information about the diabetes is correct. To be honest you'd have a better chance of suing the burger chain in gostwycks example.
207
« on: January 26, 2012, 07:55 »
Can't speak for the Euro or dollar but if YOU produce fake money in the UK without the authority of the Bank of England then you commit fraud, there's no offence in photographing fake or even real UK money (and before anybody jumps in with the usual 'oh but x agency says you can't photograph UK money and sell it as stock' - yes you can, I'm not going to argue with you, go and learn the law) but there is an offence if you produce it.
My advice is go and buy some fake money from a theatre/stage prop production company in the country you're in.
208
« on: January 26, 2012, 07:45 »
I've scanned the ruling and believe that this is nothing more than a personal conflict over an image between two parties that has ended up in court.
Neither the claimant or the defendant were the first to create an image such as this, either by content, composition or photographic/photoshop technique, the judge has been able to make a ruling because the defendant was legally proved to be aware and in possession of the claimants work before they created they own, as was proved by evidence of a previous settlement between the two parties.
So for those of you who are worried or to the folk who are scaremongering others into believing that you will be sued if you take a similar photo to somebody elses, don't:
As quoted from paragraph 57 of the case papers in the above link: If Mr Houghton had seen Mr Fielder's image, decided he wanted to use a similar one, found the Rodriguez or Getty photographs and put one of those on his boxes of tea, there would be no question of infringement.
I wonder if the claimant got property and model releases from the bus company, advertisers on the bus, creators of the ads on the bus, people in the photo etc - in order to sell his image on all these tourist products. This case might come back to bite him!!
209
« on: January 20, 2012, 09:23 »
And since Getty is all exclusive content I can't see them wanting to put non-exclusive content there.
No it isn't and hasn't been for years, a large proportion of the images on Getty are there via distributions agencies and are on every macro site, it's only individual contributors who have to submit exclusive images to them.
210
« on: January 19, 2012, 14:38 »
Add me to the list of people who have an amount shown as being paid on 16th Jan and yet still haven't received the money
211
« on: January 17, 2012, 12:05 »
Hi! havent been able to upload any zips as yet but what happens if you got a port of say around 2000 files? is it too much hassle or what? 
Don't do what I did and upload them all at once by FTP, I tried that to my cost, their server deletes any files that haven't been 'processed' within 24hrs of uploading, (they've now added that info to the upload page!) which in my case meant the files had been deleted before the upload of all the files completed. My advice is do them in batches of 200 or so. They will take large collections via a HD but personally it was easier just to do them in batches. One PITA is the 50 keywords thing, their system doesn't delete duplicates (i.e. if you keyword 'one man' 'man only' 'business man' etc whereas other sites count the phrase as one keyword theirs doesn't) and it doesn't tell you how many keywords there are so you have to guess.
212
« on: January 12, 2012, 13:41 »
What excuses? I'm just telling you what's going on.
Umm here's another one. Photodune: started with around 1 million potential customers - Stockfresh: started with 0 potential customers.
How on earth would we be able to compete with that at this point?
Call me old fashioned but why not try what every other single business on earth does when it starts up - marketing or advertising. Oh let me save you the time in replying with something like "we don't want to rush in and waste a load of money on marketing until we've ............blah blah blah I'm not going to be ashamed just because we are smaller, especially since traffic is going nicely.
I understand everyone's very impatient (including me), but you have to start somewhere!
Who said you should be ashamed because you're smaller? and maybe people are inpatient because almost a year to the day you said on this forum (I've bolded a relevant excuse part): I'll pop in from time to time, don't worry!
Well, as you probably already know we have around 560,000 images at the moment, so the collection is shaping up nicely. As for the marketing drive, it's coming but we are not quite there yet. There are a couple of very important things that we need to sort out first. We really don't want to rush it because you can burn money fast if you're not doing things right. We want to be extra careful.
A newsletter is in the works. I also post all the important news on the Stockfresh blog which I'll try to update a bit more often in the future:
http://stockfresh.com/blog
We're also on Facebook and Twitter. If there's something important going on, we definitely post it on both sites.
http://www.facebook.com/stockfresh
http://www.twitter.com/stockfresh
As I said best of luck but I'm no longer going to upload to Stockfresh, I'm in this as a business not a charity.
213
« on: January 11, 2012, 11:51 »
I think one things clear - the pixel race is over.
214
« on: January 11, 2012, 11:48 »
Started average but has picked up a bit this week, but personally speaking it's the same at the other agencies I supply - well except for you know who!
215
« on: January 11, 2012, 11:46 »
Excellent, love the 3rd before/after shot and the closing line.
216
« on: January 11, 2012, 11:42 »
Are you kidding? He's my best selling model! If I throw him out, one of you other photogs will snap him up, and then where will I be?
Strangely enough I'm my best selling model, I take great pleasure in winding my regular models up with this info. I know a few other male stock photographers for whom it's the same, and without namimg names and insulting them I doubt any of us would ever grace the front cover of Esquire.
217
« on: January 11, 2012, 11:37 »
I got myself an EIN instead of a personal ITIN number because you can just phone up for that instead of all the hassle of filling out paperwork. I think it was RT that mentioned here you could do that if you are set up as a company/ partnership? not sure if it works for self employed?
I don't know if you need to renew it every year, I haven't renewed since the agencies started asking for it.
You're right I did, getting the EIN was a simple/painless phonecall to the US, I did have to answer some questions related to my business and employees but that was all, and as far as I'm aware the EIN never needs to be renewed just updated if circumstance change (new address etc) Slightly OT but on a side note if anybody sells via Agefotostock (saw it being mentioned in another thread) not only do you have to supply an EIN for US related sales but they also require a certificate of self employment from the Inland revenue for any EU sales, otherwise they tax your commission at the Spanish rate. Add to the fact that you have to invoice them and include all the paperwork each time means for me it's too much of a PITA and personally the sales there don't warrant the hassle.
218
« on: January 11, 2012, 11:27 »
He's being depicted as a French homeless person.
Kick him out and then you'll only have to worry about his nationality being wrong 
219
« on: January 11, 2012, 11:24 »
It's a lot of work and whoever thinks it's possible to become successful within just 1-2 years has no idea what it takes to establish a business like this.
I've been with Photodune less than a month, only half of my portfolio is online and I've made more money with them that I have with Stockfresh since it started 18 months ago. Sorry Peter you're a nice guy and I wish you the best but I've had enough of the excuses and empty promises, I upload my photos to agencies so that they can market and actually sell my work, I've lost faith that's ever going to happen with Stockfresh.
220
« on: December 22, 2011, 14:51 »
I've got an aluminium print on my wall at home, it's not as big as the one you mention (it's about 20x40) and was nowhere near as expensive as that, the print quality is indeed superb and certain things in the photo have a kind of muted shimmer to them, when I got it done I remember they said that this time of print doesn't suit images with large areas of white. Got it through a German company called WhiteWall. The one I got was the direct print onto aluminium.
221
« on: December 21, 2011, 15:09 »
I've just realised why they've done this.
They're about to close down for the Christmas period and no doubt will be posting that nobody will be monitoring anything for the whole period, this way when all the credit card fraudsters around the world download exclusive files only there won't be the aftermath of angry posts in the forum from all us nasty independents, like there was last year, they'll say 'were working on it' and the majority of replies will be 'you guys rock'
222
« on: December 21, 2011, 12:49 »
Quite incredible. I have an image that on iS and every other microstock site is the highest downloaded image for a certain keyword, on all the previous best match changes it's still always appeared in the first five pages, in this recent change I gave up checking after 200 out of the 671 pages of images for this particular keyword, every page was full of 'exclusive' only images of which a vast majority didn't even feature the particular item for the keyword search.
Well if iStockphoto didn't want to lose business before they sure as hell will do now. I don't normally subscribe to conspiracy theories but I genuinely now do believe somebody in the Getty/iStock management wants to kill the site off.
223
« on: December 21, 2011, 05:19 »
CEPIC - London - May 16th
224
« on: December 20, 2011, 16:28 »
I'm not sure what a "fine art portrait" is. You'd need to post an example.
Isn't it what some 'photographers' tell the model just before asking her to take her clothes off.
225
« on: December 20, 2011, 16:26 »
I think I read somewhere recently (on msg?) that some Getty pics are being sold on Corbis.
Getty sell images on Corbis and Veer under the name 'Ocean', and also on Age under the name 'Palladium'
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 77
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
