Quote from: BelieveInStock on August 14, 2014, 06:48

Seriously, they have all it takes to win - great interface, search, fresh content, recognizable brand, contributors' support. The last one may turn out to be the most important these days. Pond5 give fair 50%, allow to set your own prices and have clear distribution network.

... horrendous site design for buyers,  lousy interface for sellers, unable to stop input mechanism from converting uppercase letters to lowercase after years of requests ...

They have things to work on.

Sean, I gotta be honest, most of the time I find you a bit too harsh to people and agencies both. But, my god, this ridiculous inability to carry over capital letters is... man... you are letting them off too easy here. What *idiots*. Leaders? Please. They appear to be worse engineers than me, and I am a goddamn lawyer.

Fotolia is up for me as well. I too am opted out of DPC.

This has suddenly stopped working for shutterstock for me. It says connection problems when i try and access sales or refresh the balance. I've been using this for a year without issues so maybe ss have changed something? Is anyone else having issues?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can confirm.

Quote from: MarcvsTvllivs on June 18, 2014, 13:48

Quote from: Mantis on June 18, 2014, 13:16

Quote from: MarcvsTvllivs on June 18, 2014, 11:22

...aaaaaand I just had a "sub" sale on an image that was deactivated months ago (with the rest of my port). Great.

I am beginning to feel that uploading my port to Depositphotos was the biggest mistake I made in this business.

Man I would lawyer up and seek copyright restitution.

If I knew who bought it I might. They are the ones using it without a proper license, and it is them one would have to go after to really screw Depositphotos.

But aren't they selling your work without your permission? That's illegal.

Sure, but what damages could I really ask for? If it would look even the slightest bit like I might win they would pay up the few hundred bucks and be rid of me.

Sue the buyer and you have news. "Buyer of major stock site Depositphotos sued because Depositphotos sells photos that they have no right to sell." And Depositphotos with no direct way to stop the case, as they aren't even a party to it.

Ah well, one can dream. In all honesty I am not even sure I would win. I am sure they have weasel words somewhere in their terms, and I am sure they have more expensive lawyers. Let's not even speak of the quality of judges, juries and the legal system in Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

...aaaaaand I just had a "sub" sale on an image that was deactivated months ago (with the rest of my port). Great.

I am beginning to feel that uploading my port to Depositphotos was the biggest mistake I made in this business.

After having to delete and reinstall the App, some of my logins do not work anymore. As in when I enter the correct username and password it just won't log me in.

After reading this thread I took my last 20 rejections, downsized them to 6MP, and had 14 accepted. That settles it for me.

There was one recently where a law firm used a photo of Judge Judy in their ad.  OMG, how did they pass the bar?  It was the first time Judge Judy sued anyone.  I think it's still in court, but pretty sure we know who will win.   (For non-North Americans Judge Judy is an American TV judge).

That really was a hilarious case, but quite different from this one. A photo of a famous person leaving a Duane Reade could well be considered "editorial" reporting of facts, even if the reporting party is Duane Reade itself. It's a lot like making the statement "she shops at Duane Reade!". If it is ruled to have just been factual and in no way misleading or seeming as an endorsement, they may stand a chance.

That being said: it will settle.

Interesting idea. And certainly better for creators than what Getty is doing.

If any of these sellers turn out to be located in Germany, let me know. I will go after them.

No use in trying it anywhere else though. (for me)

Quote from: ComfortEagle2095 on March 29, 2014, 11:32

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on March 29, 2014, 07:02

Does this work?
http://automattic.com/dmca-notice/

I don't see how -- the site isn't on Wordpress.  Doesn't this only work for Wordpess blogs?

I am not sure that it works only for WordPress blogs.
WordPress is used as example I think. But it is not very clear.

___
"If you�d prefer not to use our automated form, you can send your complaint to our designated agent (we prefer email):

Automattic Inc.
132 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94107
Attn: General Counsel

Phone: (877) 273-8550
Fax: (415) 840-0710

You must include the following:

A physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner or a person authorized to act on their behalf;
An identification of the copyright claimed to have been infringed;
A description of the nature and exact location of the material that you claim to infringe your copyright, in sufficient detail to permit Automattic to find and positively identify that material. For example we require a link to the specific blog post (not just the name of the blog) that contains the material and a description of which specific portion of the blog post � an image, a link, the text, etc � your complaint refers to;
Your name, address, telephone number and email address;
A statement that you have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and
A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that you are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

___

They don't say that it is specific for WordPress.
They are an independent company.

Maybe the best is to contact them directly and ask: [email protected]

Yes, but it would have to be on a website hosted by automattic, Inc.

So I know there has been some discussion, griping and ridicule of Age's "Low Budget Royalty Free" collection, which essentially separates out and brands microstock photos in their own, low cost group. Like a good ole' sheep, I have always submitted my microstock images to that collection on Age, because that's how it's supposed to be, right?

Well, after scanning through their legal material once more the other day I realized I cannot find the wording that says so. Has anybody else looked this up? Are we actually legally bound to submit micro photos only to LBRF on Age, or could we submit them to Pixtal (their regular RF collection)?