|
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 - Karimala
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 61
226
« on: May 16, 2012, 09:05 »
I didn't opt in to alamy with Zoonar and it's not Stockfresh, because my photos come under a name that I don't use there. I asked alamy and they wont let me know who it is, as pseudonyms are confidential. The site I still think it could be is Veer but would they use alamy when they are part of Corbis?
Yes. Corbis actually has a collection at Alamy.
227
« on: May 16, 2012, 08:56 »
I've send them the following:
"I see that you are now rerouting content to Alamy, which potentially puts me in the curious position of competing against myself in order to pass a slice of my commissions to you.
Given the level of sales here, it seems quite possible that my loss in commission share from Alamy will exceed any extra I make from sales through your own site.
Obviously, a situation where I risk losing money as a consequence of allowing you to represent my work makes no sense at all. For the time being I will cease uploading. I wont close my account yet as only about 4% of my portfolio is currently in your hands and so far my work does not appear to have been transferred to Alamy, so I can wait on events.
Please let me know if you decide to offer an opt-out from this scheme or to scrap the tie-in with Alamy, in which case I will be able to resume uploading,"
Hopefully, if they get enough protests it will persuade them to alter the arrangement.
Excellent letter! I'm so tired of all these partner programs. Here's a messed up story for you guys: There's a woman here at MSG who has only posted once about how she terminated her account at StockXpert 2-3 weeks prior (early October 2011) and was wondering if she'd get paid whatever money was left in her account. Since she couldn't access her account anymore, she couldn't check to see if she had been paid. Anyway, I found her post as she neared StockXpert's 90-day image removal deadline, and when I searched Thinkstock and Photos.com, I discovered her StockXpert images were still online...five of them, to be exact. Fast forward to today, and not only are all five images still online...StockXpert has since added 151 images to Thinkstock (two have been removed from Photos.com, so she's down to three). Think she's been getting paid these past seven months?? I doubt it. I consulted an attorney about StockXpert's contract, which says they have 90 days to use "reasonable efforts" to get images removed from the partner sites, and he said she cannot sue for copyright infringement, because "reasonable efforts" is such a broad definition that favors StockXpert. So not only is StockXpert keeping her money, she can't even sue for blatant copyright infringement. It's ridiculous!!!
228
« on: May 15, 2012, 22:58 »
Umm... I too see that my Istock total jumped up a few days ago - is there a place to see the Partner Program total for the month? When I go to PP link on my Istock account it just shows me my files with total downloads (both PP and Istock).
Unfortunately IS doesn't provide a place where the numbers are broken down. I have an extra column in my earnings spreadsheet that calculates the difference.
229
« on: May 15, 2012, 13:59 »
want me to pimp photos and tell stories?
Yeah right! lets keep this a fun-thread! for a change.
One without math. 
230
« on: May 15, 2012, 13:54 »
IS was not a public company.
However, Getty was public when it bought IS.
231
« on: May 15, 2012, 13:37 »
How do I participate in the IPO? I'm located in Europe.
I could spare a few thousand dollars for some SS Stocks... 
Ya even I would like to participate in the IPO... but how...?
I discussed today from one of my share broker and he told that I cannot invest in the ipo since I am living on different country.
Yes, you can. According to this article on eHow, all you need to do is have an account with a US brokerage firm. http://www.ehow.com/how_5784383_buy-u_s_-stocks-internationally.html
232
« on: May 15, 2012, 12:23 »
Not liking this quote from the Atlantic article... From an investment perspective, the most obvious red flag, though, is that their revenues have more than doubled in the last several years, but their net income has been stagnant. They're having to spend a lot more money on sales and marketing than they did back in 2008. If that trend continues, something will have to change on the revenue side.
233
« on: May 15, 2012, 11:39 »
Now we know for sure the agencies read MSG! 
From the Prospectus:
INDUSTRY AND MARKET DATA
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this prospectus concerning our industry and the markets in which we operate, including our general expectations and market position, market opportunity and market size, is based on information from various sources, on assumptions that we have made that are based on those data and other similar sources and on our knowledge of the markets for our products. These sources include BCC Research, Zenith Optimedia, BIA Kelsey, Microstock Group Forum, Cisco, IBISWorld, Netcraft and MagnaGlobal. These data involve a number of assumptions and limitations, and you are cautioned not to give undue weight to such estimates. We have not independently verified any third-party information and cannot assure you of its accuracy or completeness. While we believe the market position, market opportunity and market size information included in this prospectus to be generally reliable, such information is inherently imprecise and we cannot give you any assurance that any of the projected results will be achieved. In addition, projections, assumptions and estimates of our future performance and the future performance of the industry in which we operate is necessarily subject to a high degree of uncertainty and risk due to a variety of factors, including those described in "Risk Factors" and elsewhere in this prospectus. These and other factors could cause results to differ materially from those expressed in the estimates made by the independent parties and by us.
Cool! Where can we find the prospectus?
Gbalex posted a link. http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss-ipo-it%27s-done/msg255125/#msg255125
234
« on: May 15, 2012, 02:52 »
Oh, for God's sake.
The last reason why I participate at MSG is to see a peeing dog video. And it's a YouTube video posted, no less, by the guy who's so worried about Pinterest cutting into his ability to provide for his family.
Sickening.
235
« on: May 15, 2012, 02:43 »
If the arena is included with the Seattle skyline, there's no need to worry about trademark or architectural copyright. I couldn't find any information about the building itself being trademarked, which would only matter if the photo's primary subject is the arena. However, I did read that the arena is owned by the City of Seattle, thereby making it public property. I also searched the US Trademark Electronic Search System, and found the single word "KEYARENA", in a typed drawing, is trademarked by KeyCorp Corporation, a sports facility company in Cleveland, Ohio. A long-winded note about images containing trademarked or copyrighted primary subjects: US law allows photographers to shoot trademarked or copyrighted works and license the photographs without penalty. The onus falls on the buyers / end-users of our images to prove whether or not they have permission to use an image depicting a trademarked or copyrighted work. For example, I can shoot and sell stock images of Coke cans with the Coca-Cola logo emblazoned on the front to my heart's delight. On the other hand, the buyers / end-users of those images MUST either 1) use them for editorial or artistic purposes only, or 2) for commercial usages, have a written agreement in place with the trademark or copyright owner to use images of their work. A restaurant with an agreement to sell and promote Pepsi would not be able to use my photos of Coke cans to promote their restaurant, but a restaurant with an agreement with Coke can (no pun intended). The same goes for my own business. I can't use my photos of Coke cans without a commercial agreement with Coca-Cola saying I have their permission to use my images of their product to advertise my photography business. Fortunately there is a loophole built into the law that allows photographers and agencies, for sales purposes, to publish individual photos contained within our portfolios. Just can't use them for advertising purposes. So...with that said, you are free to shoot the Key Arena however you want to shoot it. Your main decision is how to and whom to best distribute your photos for licensing purposes. Wide angle shots can go RF and micro, while close-up shots need to go RM, because they are more willing to accept what I call "outtakes"...aka great shots that will only sell once in a while for bigger bucks.
236
« on: May 14, 2012, 23:59 »
Now we know for sure the agencies read MSG! From the Prospectus: INDUSTRY AND MARKET DATA
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this prospectus concerning our industry and the markets in which we operate, including our general expectations and market position, market opportunity and market size, is based on information from various sources, on assumptions that we have made that are based on those data and other similar sources and on our knowledge of the markets for our products. These sources include BCC Research, Zenith Optimedia, BIA Kelsey, Microstock Group Forum, Cisco, IBISWorld, Netcraft and MagnaGlobal. These data involve a number of assumptions and limitations, and you are cautioned not to give undue weight to such estimates. We have not independently verified any third-party information and cannot assure you of its accuracy or completeness. While we believe the market position, market opportunity and market size information included in this prospectus to be generally reliable, such information is inherently imprecise and we cannot give you any assurance that any of the projected results will be achieved. In addition, projections, assumptions and estimates of our future performance and the future performance of the industry in which we operate is necessarily subject to a high degree of uncertainty and risk due to a variety of factors, including those described in "Risk Factors" and elsewhere in this prospectus. These and other factors could cause results to differ materially from those expressed in the estimates made by the independent parties and by us.
237
« on: May 13, 2012, 16:25 »
Nothing would stop buyers from buying the large, cheaper size and shrinking it down.
238
« on: May 13, 2012, 10:32 »
From the questions in the survey referring to "Professional Photographers" and "Curated Collections", I get the uncomfortable, sneaking suspicion that in their hearts they still believe in the original Getty model and are trying to manipulate false support of them slowly morphing istock's model into the old Getty model.
It's the classic marketing mistake of not first finding out what buyers want and strategizing a profitable way to provide it, but rather coming up with an idea that you like on your own and trying to convince buyers it's the best way. It usually never works. But those who do it this way usually fight their way to the death.
On another note, if the site becomes more and more like Getty, and if they start to include Getty more and more in their branding, I am afraid they will hit the old Getty extortion letter stumbling block. We don't hear much about it today, but evidently it is still fresh in the minds of large, longtime stock buyers. I was talking to one the other day, casually, mentioning recent changes at istock. They told me in no uncertain terms that they would NEVER buy from Getty again because many of their clients continue to fight those letters. In fact, in their circles it is still a very fresh wound. If this is any reflection of the industry as a whole, it would seem that keeping istock as far away from the Getty brand as possible would be the best path to take. (Google "Getty Letter" if unfamiliar with the issue).
eta: the Getty extortion letter was not COOL
I read the questions the same way you did, confusing terminology that can be used to justify bringing more outside content onto iStock. The other point about the letter though, how were buyers of Getty content getting the letters unless? Maybe I haven't looked hard enough but I can't remember hearing anyone say they licensed the content correctly and Getty still tried to get them to pay for not licensing it correctly.
Here's all the examples of Getty's actions you'll ever want to read! http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/One of the main problems for web designers buying images at Getty was Getty coming after their clients for copyright infringement. Getty would send a letter demanding $1000-$2000 and if the designer's client didn't pay up, Getty threatened to sue them. Countless confused clients paid Getty instead of being sued, even though they purchased licenses through their web site designers. People were also buying web site templates featuring Getty images (that were properly licensed for template use) and later receiving letters from Getty demanding payment in order to prevent a lawsuit.
239
« on: May 12, 2012, 13:49 »
I was going to make a comment on this whole survey thing, but I just looked at my istock stats for the first time since last month and found something more interesting to comment on.
April was my worst month at istock in over 4 years, and this week was my worst week there in about the same time period. istock is now at it's lowest percentage ever (4%) in my monthly microstock earnings total.
Amazing how bad it's gotten.
My January earnings with PP included were a few dollars less than my November 2006 earnings. November 2006 was my 9th month at IS. Last month, BigStock was a mere $10 shy of my January IS earnings (BigStock also beat Fotolia for the first time ever).
240
« on: May 11, 2012, 18:19 »
Ugh...mine dropped again today and now I'm officially #800.  Doesn't seem that long ago when I was just about to cross into the Top 300. Earnings are down about 55-60% and decreasing every month. It's so bad at Fotolia that BigStock has surpassed and replaced them as my steady #4 earner. I haven't uploaded to them in over a year and started pulling non-sellers last week.
241
« on: May 11, 2012, 11:06 »
My portfolio at SS (& BigStock) earns me about 60% more money each month than it does at IS (& the PP). Therefore SS has far more POWER, to use your expression, than IS for me.
Plus SS has a history of accepting far more images than IS, doesn't pollute their archives with agency images that compete directly with their contributors, nor does SS have skimpy weekly upload limits. My earnings at SS are 1.5x what IS (and the PP) generates as a result, while BigStock has caught up to 60% of my IS earnings and continues to grow. That sure doesn't spell "power" for IS.
242
« on: May 11, 2012, 10:40 »
At least we now know the reason behind the disappearing images and weren't left guessing about what's going on or told to contact customer service.
My one image that went missing last night is back again, so at least the problem doesn't appear to be long-lasting. It sold twice before disappearing, too.
243
« on: May 10, 2012, 07:21 »
In this business you need to seriously pick your battles. The occasional image theft is going to happen, and it's inevitable. Like Karimala said, use DMCA claims when you find them.
As DMCA is an US law, how does it work if one, two or all of these apply:
1. The artist is not American.
2. The source the image was stolen from is not American (e.g. a non-Amerian agency, with watermark, a non-American website if you could find out where it was lifted from.
3. The unauthorised user/website is not in the US.
I note that, according to Wikipedia, "On May 22, 2001, the European Union passed the Copyright Directive or EUCD, which addresses some of the same issues as the DMCA"
But again, the same issue as above can apply, or could be crossed, i.e. someone could be from the EU, the offending site might be American but the source of the image might be e.g. HQd in Canada.
(In fact, I guess many pinterest users are just ignorant, and would take your image down if requested pleasantly; it's the others that would be the issue.)
I don't know how the laws work regarding websites outside the US, but I do know that due to international agreements, artists outside the US are covered by US copyright law and can use the DMCA take down notice against US-based websites. Foreign artists can also sue for copyright infringement in US courts against US-based companies and actually have better copyright protections than US citizens (we have to actually register our images in order to obtain full protection; foreign citizens do not have to register their images). I have also seen non-US websites post DMCA take down notice instructions.
244
« on: May 09, 2012, 05:01 »
Well...I was going to rate my favorite photos using IS's rating system and then let you know, but..............................like so many other things on IS, the ratings system isn't working properly. 
245
« on: May 09, 2012, 04:52 »
I wonder if this new survey means they have changed or will change that attitude.
No. And would a change in attitude or pricing or whatever even matter at this point? No...at least not from this indie's point of view.
246
« on: May 08, 2012, 17:30 »
A man goes to a bar, walks up to a woman and asks her: Please have sex with me right now.
I think I haven't seen a more desperate attempt of a company (to try) to find out why buyers are shopping elsewhere.
This is so sad.
Initially I thought this was a joke but I assume it's for real.
LOL It also reminds me a lot of an abusive relationship where the abuser returns to the abused begging them to take 'em back and promising to change. Yeh, right. They'll be good for a while and then, like clockwork, will go back to their old, abusive ways.
247
« on: May 08, 2012, 16:35 »
Love, huh? 
248
« on: May 08, 2012, 04:45 »
I don't stress about Pinterest-type usages, because I'm confident technology will eventually catch up to our concerns. I've already read about technology in development that would track photos online and any time someone new used one, small sums of money would be deleted from an account they have set up and deposited in ours. Something like that...it's been a while since I read the article.
The only way the law will ever catch up is if we demand it. I'd really like to see right-click saving permanently banned, and if that can't happen, then let there be fines imposed on companies that strip metadata from the easily stolen thumbnails and preview images. Quirks in the stripped metadata law recently prevented my attorneys and me from filing a copyright infringement lawsuit. Dreamstime is quoted on Microstock Diaries as saying they strip the metadata, because it's the industry standard to do so in order to save bandwidth and storage space...a practice that was once critical when we still only had 2 MB hard drives, etc., but is no longer important in most parts of the developed world. I'm much more concerned about that than someone pinning my photos to Pinterest just because they wanted to save a recipe for later or remember where certain beautiful spots along the Oregon Coast are located for when planning their next vacation. Those types of personal usages don't concern me.
249
« on: May 07, 2012, 22:37 »
Contrary to popular belief, Pinterest and all of the companies mentioned in this thread aren't doing anything illegal. All of them are registered with the US Copyright Office as protected service providers (just like the majority of the stock sites). Registered service providers, like Pinterest, Google, Shutterstock and Youtube are protected from being sued for copyright infringement. Unregistered service providers, like PhotoDune, are not protected from lawsuits, so if someone uploads one of your photos to PhotoDune, you have the right to sue both the uploader and PhotoDune for damages.
You can see which companies are registered with the US Copyright Office, and thereby protected and legal, here: http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/p_agents.html
So you don't mind your images on pinterest?
your image: http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-queso-&-chips-image1786005
your image pinned: http://pinterest.com/pin/214976582182653960/
your image stored by pinterest: http://media-cache5.pinterest.com/upload/134334001354959698_isLiqbEP_f.jpg
My post wasn't about my personal opinions. Just stating the facts, so folks know Pinterest is acting well within their legal rights. I don't have a problem with my images being passed around on Pinterest, because I also post my own work with the intention of it getting into the hands of other people. If I find something of mine that I didn't post, I can either send a DMCA takedown notice or I can comment on it with a link to the image at a stock site or if I like the post, I can repin it myself and brag a little about being the photographer (while including a link to the photo on a stock site)...which is what I did with the one you posted.  I just try to take some control of the situation instead of worrying about something I can't do anything about.
250
« on: May 07, 2012, 20:55 »
Contrary to popular belief, Pinterest and all of the companies mentioned in this thread aren't doing anything illegal. All of them are registered with the US Copyright Office as protected service providers (just like the majority of the stock sites). Registered service providers, like Pinterest, Google, Shutterstock and Youtube are protected from being sued for copyright infringement. Unregistered service providers, like PhotoDune, are not protected from lawsuits, so if someone uploads one of your photos to PhotoDune, you have the right to sue both the uploader and PhotoDune for damages. You can see which companies are registered with the US Copyright Office, and thereby protected and legal, here: http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/p_agents.html
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 61
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
