|
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 - Lizard
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 33
226
« on: April 17, 2015, 15:02 »
I see it like a 2 floors building...
Hundreds of thousands of artists on the first floor holding a massage room on the second floor above their heads. Ind its getting heavier day by day.
227
« on: April 17, 2015, 11:06 »
Back in the day when they gave us raises, they would increase prices, wait a month or two to see how buyers behaved and then set the royalties they paid us. It'd be reasonable for them to do the same here. I can wait a month or two for them to figure buyer behavior out.
Im not sure and I may be wrong but at that time, haven't they announce that we will be seeing a raise in advance and then took that time to figure out how much will that rise be ?
228
« on: April 15, 2015, 08:51 »
Can somebody tell me how long does it take for uploaded images to show up in portfolio or any way ? Sorry if its already been answered but there are 23 pages and i am a bit time short these days 
229
« on: April 13, 2015, 06:59 »
The actual law varies from country to country, or at least the interpretation seems to. However it seems to me that the law is about right where it says that people in a public place have no "right to privacy" as far as having their photograph taken goes. Use then is a different thing, and while I wouldn't agree with defamatory use, or use which made false claims about a person, I don't see that general interest shots which don't show people in a bad light hurt anyone.
I don't really see there is any difference between being in public where anyone can see you, and being photographed in public where a lot more people might see you, as long as it's kept in context.
Well by my personal criteria even showing people in bad light is sometimes ok, so I wouldn't generalize . For example, public servants that are misusing their given rights by law. I stick to my rights to record any approach of theirs in my direction, and its for their protection as much as for mine. If they choose to perform under"bed lights" its absolutely their decision to do so and if they act politely with acts enforced by law im deleting the record at the spot anyways. I already had situations from their side trying to enforce fictions of their imagination as law and from then Im recording every conversation if they like it or not its my legal right and I choose to use that right. As they are doing public job anyways so they shouldn't be uncomfortable to appear in public if they are performing "by the book". On the other hand, anyone chasing random people on the streets and pushing lens in their faces against their will deserves at least a punch in the nose I think a book can be written on this matter and every single case can be a story on its own so its very slippery area.
230
« on: April 13, 2015, 04:52 »
I shot a lot of strangers, probably thousands, during my newspaper photojournalist job. I personally think is unethical, except for politicians, celebrities and such, since it's part of their job after all. Also, except situation where people call for attention intentionally, like protests, strikes, performances etc.
But taking pictures of passerby, homeless, children, mentally ill, victims of any kind (disasters, car accidents etc) is, in my opinion unethical. If you ask me, I would forbid street photography completely. And I have many years of experience of doing street photography.
Would that include removing all cameras from the streets including city owned cameras,banks,financial institutions and other corporate that are capturing public streets, sidewalks etc... After all we are all the same in front of the law. I dont share your opinion at all and with all its bad sides i believe that the current state is the best option there is, anyone is welcomed to shoot anything at public place unless he is doing any harm to someone else. On the other hand selling images with other people on them which could be against their will is another thing and i would agree to some major restrictions on that field.
231
« on: April 09, 2015, 16:01 »
Nice outfit on that photo
232
« on: March 30, 2015, 06:09 »
Hasn't it always been like this in microstock? Guess who would be paying for it if the sites had professional reviewers and paid them properly.
Or from another perspective, we are, but they are saving on professional reviews and redirecting that into something more important 
233
« on: March 30, 2015, 05:28 »
So I assume that also means that SS has officially absolutely no control over monitors on which images will be reviewed. Good like with white balance rejections.
234
« on: March 23, 2015, 14:58 »
The terms are really bad for contributors but it has been like that forever. Now you know.
Not forever - when I first joined in 2004 that requirement wasn't there. It was around the time iStock introduced exclusivity that they started the hold.
What Serban originally proposed was 12 months and a number of us protested and stopped uploading saying that it wasn't reasonable. After some discussion, they agreed to 6 months - and at the beginning it was a flat 6 months from the date of upload to the date you could remove a file. Later they added the percentage of portfolio.
I didn't like the 6 months, but as a compromise, it seemed like something I could live with, and I guess most people felt similarly.
Ok not literally forever but longer than the OP has been a contributor.
Yap but those from beginning and added later tells 2 different stories
235
« on: March 23, 2015, 12:16 »
"Hello Contributor. I'd like to play a game!" 
236
« on: March 23, 2015, 05:44 »
A long exposure heats the sensor. This results in more noise. Cold temperatures outside should actually result in less noise.
It should be like that, I remember reading an article with photo samples on Canon 5D where ISO 200 actually gave significantly less noise than ISO 100 while rising ISO to 400 was worse option from those 3 in same low light conditions. It was on urban small city center shoot with not too much lights. I haven't test that myself though.
237
« on: March 11, 2015, 23:00 »
capitalism is a modern slavery even if you are paid well - then, you are a well paid slave
capitalism Socialism is a modern slavery
If Jon at SS is really a billionaire, then I'm guessing that he alone has made more money than all the contributors to SS put together. It doesn't seem fair, but the truth is that just about any of us could have done what he did back in the beginning of microstock if we had the foresight, energy, and business savvy. But we didn't. He did and he gets the big payout. Neither whining about it nor wishing for a Communist workers paradise is an attractive alternative IMHO.
If we don't like it, we can stop contributing, which in fact is what I personally have done. We're not slaves.
Any of us could have done it How about all of us...and I mean every single one ? And about ...isms, all of them were and are instruments of enslavement.
238
« on: March 10, 2015, 23:19 »
We had an agency that had easy and fast upload, the option to set our own price and paying us 52% royalty!
What did we do? upload our stuff elsewhere to get that quick fix then complain for not having sales at GL (Graphic Leftovers) and eventually quit them...
GL isn't exactly a good example of a squandered opportunity. They had their own internal problems, poor branding (the original name didn't suggest "premium" content), some kind of search meltdown and poor placement in Google, etc. Sure we can always say we should have supported them better, but in the end I think their undoing was mostly their own fault.
...Did we use this very forum as a leverage to guide buyers? We still don't to this day.
Did we give them any chance by uploading files exclusively for a certain amount of time? Nope again, looking for that quick fix is all that seems to matter these day, like junkies. 52% of nothing is nothing. WTH do you expect anyway when your same work is up much cheaper elsewhere. Buyers are still willing to pay big bucks if you only guide them...
Agreed wholeheartedly. Our biggest failure as a community has always been (in my opinion) our failure to turn our collective frustration into something positive. We're a community of complainers, and surely I'm as guilty of that as anyone. But when it comes down to doing something, we largely don't do enough or anything at all.
A few years ago I wrote a long post about rallying behind a single good company, someone who pays 50% or more, has a good site, good "curb appeal" for customers, a simple buying system, and preferably experience in the business. I thought that company was Stockfresh at the time, but they've since proven that they're not really interested in taking on the task of marketing the site and expanding their reach. I guess they're content with where they are right now.
The point was, though, that I thought if we could all make some sort of effort to drive customers in a certain direction, towards more fair companies that offer the best mutually beneficial experience for both buyers and contributors, that the collective strength of the community would make a difference.
We know that individually we can make a difference. Referral programs prove that. I know I've personally referred at least 100 buyers to Stockfresh and Creative Market combined. Imagine if everyone on this forum referred 100 buyers to good agencies. Or even 10 buyers. Those numbers add up.
The reality is, we won't ever do that. We won't ever agree on which companies to focus on, and in past discussions about this some people actually think that Shutterstock is the company we should be referring buyers to, despite SS paying largely unimpressive royalties. And as long as we can't agree on even the most basic things like who the best companies are (from a contributor standpoint) then we'll never get beyond that point to make anything good happen.
We also won't do anything to put our work where it does the most good. I think if everyone made a minimal effort to change upload behavior, it would make a difference. I try to push stuff to Creative Market first, and to offer more with each file at CM than I do elsewhere. I have a really good selling set of 9 vector badges that I sell everywhere, but CM I added 3 more badges that are only available there. And I offer PSD versions of many of my images at CM, something I don't offer anywhere else. It matters. If someone really wants a PSD version or a fully editable text version (SS and others don't allow vectors to retain editable text), they'll go to CM to get it. When someone contacts me asking about why the file they bought at SS doesn't have editable text, I tell them exactly why and where they can get fully editable files in the future. And you know what? They go there to buy those files next time.
We can affect buyer behavior if we try. And if we combined our efforts and rallied around a couple of the best companies, it would absolutely make a positive difference for us in the long term.
I think GL was the victim of their own failures, but other companies will fall victim to our failures if we continue to only look at short-term gains and ignore the long-term health of the business.
Can you please give some positive name to this post and open as separate topic for those interested to continue the conversation in this direction... I can only promise to join the conversation so there will at least be 2 of us and that's already at least 50% more people than I seen in some topics in history. Gave you +1 btw 
239
« on: March 10, 2015, 22:48 »
Interesting to see how little of the money goes to American suppliers, and also to UK and Germany. By inference by far the largest portion goes to Russia, Baltic States, ex Eastern Bloc, where we know that many of the high volume producers, factories live.
Those Countries have seen their currencies plunge by 20% to 30% against the Dollar over the past year, effectively giving them a 20% to 30% pay rise in local currency. Those guys probably have massive smiles on their faces as they are earning 20% to 30% more than last year. They won't be joining in the call for a raise from Shutterstock, because they are already creaming in the dough.
Sorry, you were right in every word you wrote from your perspective but you have to spread the frame and add more numbers on this to get a clearer picture. Have you considered, again from another perspective, that dollar has not even reached its state against local currencies from lets say 2009. and that pay rise that you are mentioning is objectively nothing less but partial covering of the loss of huge dollar plunge that those people experienced in all those years. And it was almost up to 50% in some of those places at some points. People from those countries lost at least 20%-30% on all last 6 years work just on currency exchange rate. Another thing, lets say that one of those "factories"had to take a loan to start few years ago, only reasonable option was offered only in foreign currency because unfortunately home country doesn't own any banks anymore after the recent sell out. And ti di di di dit, that currency is getting 35% up. Lucky them...those guys probably have massive smiles on their faces Somehow I feel that unfortunately % of those smiling in the industry at this time is not much of a number and that you targeted wrong smiling group.
240
« on: March 08, 2015, 16:05 »
^^
I dont understand how that is even legal. I havent closed my account there until I have figured out a way to make them delete my images. I dont trust them for one second.
Reading trough this topic and few other ones in history I was wondering a same question and few days ago I asked my lawyer friend the same question just to hear his opinion. The solution can vary from country to country but its generally like this for any business you can name... If there is no reason, time limit etc in your current agreement to remove your work from the site you just have to request it by e-mail or even better in written, with proof they have received it. You request instant removal and instant delete of all your work on the site BUT you also offer them to keep your images with a daily fee you charge for each image they decide to keep and it can be any fee you can think of (its your product). Now just keeping your images is an act on which they are legally agreeing and accepting on your contract offer and they have activated a new contract perfectly valid on any court you can imagine. Now when you receive a notice on any file activity on the site you can send a recipe with a fee from the contract. Just like when you park the car on parking spot, just the act of parking your car on that spot is the act on which you are legally accepting contract offer between you and the parking company without the need of signing it. In my opinion that should solve the problem
241
« on: February 28, 2015, 09:01 »
They were playing their moves and acting like a fly with diarrhea in the game where main opponent was mostly just observing.
I really feel their biggest problem is that they are running out of moves and they cannot allow them self to turn in the single one possible direction
which could benefit all because its a long term one.
They are heating that boat with the boards from the deck, yap its a big big boat...but they need a big fire to keep it warm.
242
« on: February 26, 2015, 07:41 »
as i see it, the entire creative world is going to crumble due to the Internet and Digital and Globalization.
it will take 10-15 more years to create a new balance and a "new order" but the golden days will never ever come back.
You mean US and UK creative world, not the entire creative world? Because, for some of us the golden days have just started, thanks to globalization.
I would really like to know who and where is living golden days at current time when middle class is significantly vanishing all around the globe...thanks to globalization. The rich are getting richer and all the rest are getting poorer
243
« on: February 26, 2015, 03:23 »
Their real problem is that they borrowed against tomorrow to live high on the hog today, with all those fabulous bonuses and profits from ramped valuations of the company, and now repaying the loans is problematic.
Still, the bonuses are safely banked, aren't they? So the management is fine.
It's SOOOOO like Greece.
Its so not like Greece
244
« on: February 25, 2015, 20:36 »
Hi Semmick and dirkr,
The honest answer is that the royalty % is calculated on what allows us to grow our business and support our team.
With honest respect the royalty % should be also calculated by keeping in mind on what allows contributors to grow their business and support our families.
245
« on: February 23, 2015, 07:03 »
Hi Jo
I own i2istockphotos.com and how misinformed you are.
Its a perfectly legit site. We have our own photos that no one else has ( over 100, 000 ) which we are currently catagorising and will be uploading shortly. If other photographers want to upload their photos we pay 50% to the photographer.
We have spent considerable amount on developing our own software and we own our own server which is superfast. We also have unlimited funds to continue for at least the next 10 years even if we never sell a single photo, which we will.
Yes we are small at the moment but at least we are bigger than you Jo Ann Snover.
Thanks.
Looking at the small amount of work already there, I can't see any reason to be optimistic about the site's prospects, whatever its name is.
The whole thing looks very familiar - I tried to find an old thread where someone came here saying lots of photographers were signing up and we should all join. It used the same software as this site (different name) and there were just two contributors (one of whom had all but a handful of the images).
Here's the photographer list from the current site
http://www.i2istockphotos.com/store/members/users_list.php
All the general questions apply - why would anyone buy from this site versus all the established ones? They are offering 40% royalty and images sell for 1 to 4 credits (but I can't find the prices for a credit). They are also offering advertising on the site, which I take as a very negative sign.
If you sort by most downloaded, apparently 3 images have had one download each.
I wish I could find the earlier thread as I think this is just a retread of an earlier time-wasting site.
Now that's a proper introduction of a new site
246
« on: February 15, 2015, 21:07 »
Before I waste a lot of time on this - could someone give me a quick bottom line on 500px? Is it another exclusive club that accepts a chosen few, or can anyone come in? Do all photos get exposure or is it another crazy 'curating' game like Crated? What's the 'catch'? Every new site has one :-)
There is some free option but generally you have to pay for the sweets
247
« on: February 15, 2015, 17:18 »
Yap, and they are charging insurance "by taking responsibility" on our responsibility to play by the rules in this particular case described in section 17.
Its fine to be responsible but its fine to be compensated if responsibility is being sold separately.
So you're not making a specific legal point then ? Just some words.
Selling responsibility on something we already agreed we are responsible of in a legal contract and they are aware of it. There is clear legal prof that responsibility of the image belongs to contributor so how can they sell it? False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising, and misrepresentation of the product at hand, which may negatively affect many stakeholders, especially consumers.
248
« on: February 15, 2015, 16:50 »
Yap, and they are charging insurance "by taking responsibility" on our responsibility to play by the rules in this particular case described in section 17.
Its fine to be responsible but its fine to be compensated if responsibility is being sold separately.
249
« on: February 15, 2015, 16:21 »
Unless someone can show me where, in their contract with me, that this type of sale is an exception I maintain the view that that are in breach.
Here is the agreement. Which part of it are they in breach of ?
I can try to be creative Ok, lets say the buyer gets sued after buying that legal guarantee, and that income is not shared with contributor because its only istocks responsibility right ? Lets assume you are right and no image is 100% secure... Now lets check section 17. "If and to the extent you are submitting Content to iStock as an authorized representative of the applicable copyright owner(s), you acknowledge and agree that (a) you will ensure that such copyright owner(s) comply with the terms of this Agreement where necessary; and (b) to the extent Royalties are paid to you in such capacity, you will be solely responsible for compensating the copyright owner(s) where applicable." So, really... you claim its like insurance...then on what basis should the contributor be compensating anything in the area that "they solely insure" ? And if we are sharing responsibility , because according to agreement we are, than it would be normal to assume to share any income based on that responsibility on any legal basis u can think of ? And also its not a favor they offer because its inseparable from the image itself. If contributor is responsible for compensation on agreement basis than they can not be only responsible side, they can not sell their responsibility so the argument is not valid.
250
« on: February 10, 2015, 10:02 »
1) UK not USA.
USA - They can't stop you, or prevent photos or video in a public place and they can't make you erase things or take your equipment or data.
2) How hard is it to give your name and address to the officers and be allowed to walk away?
I mean, when I'm stopped, I offer the information, and I've never had a problem. That includes airports, trains, power plants, industrial and many others. They are just asking "who are you?" and you can be sure it goes into their notebook.
In London ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJH9F7Hcluo#t=104
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest
I held my right not to say a word to this people who imagine we live in police world and show id only and only if they respected full part of their legal procedure(introduced them self properly with a badge or card in some countries , gave me the reason why they stopped me and why they need my info. In the meantime i record everything on the phone for my and their protection with live streaming on internet just in case they get an idea to erase the truth and if arrest me for reason they imagine its legal, they will have to stand up and justify that decision in front of a judge with full responsibility for their act just as I have to do for mine . Never get on your knees and reject your rights and dignity in front of an public servant who is here to make your life easier and not to invent problems just to get some money out of you for the system. And that goes legally for any country in the world because most are co-signers of human rights declaration which is highest legal act of them all and all laws should serve the declaration.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
