|
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 - click_click
Pages: 1 ... 86 87 88 89 90 [91] 92 93 94 95 96 ... 119
2251
« on: August 10, 2010, 07:50 »
Sounds like there are a lot of fires to be put out.  Pro photographers have spread sheets of of monthly costs, expenses, number of jobs and how much those pay in order to keep track of what their work is worth. If you don't know what your work is worth, it's getting complicated. Such a job would hardly be handled on an hourly basis. More of a day rate or even (if you have experience in this) a flat fee for the whole project. Next thing is the lighting/reflections. It will help you to actually have a look at the pieces you are supposed to photograph. It could be brushed metal which would be a little easier to handle than polished chrome surfaces. In any case, the internet is loaded with tons of tutorials, youtube videos and other tips how to take picture of highly reflective objects. It can get quite complicated with those things. This would also be something to consider when calculating your day rate (or final cost). Shoots of this caliber require proper preparation. Lots of exchange with the client to achieve their vision and knowing what your part will be to get there. It's nearly impossible to throw a number at you what you should be charging. Some photographers are happy with $200 in their pocket at the end of the day, others won't even pack their camera bag for the job if they don't get at least $6000 a day (plus equipment rentals, props, MUAs, models etc.). Looks like a god opportunity to jump into the water with this one and see how it pans out. Good luck!
2252
« on: August 09, 2010, 11:53 »
I'm sorry but I don't think any of these images will get you into iStock.
To me they all appear quite noisy and show artifacts.
Except of the Gecko they all appear too snapshottish.
iStock wants to see your creative side. 3 completely different shots.
No street signs, palm trees or grass. They've all been done too many times and iStock will only let you in if you can top the existing ones.
You need to convince them that you can deliver what they don't have yet or make it better.
Good luck!
2253
« on: August 09, 2010, 11:39 »
Congratulations! Feels good, doesn't it? 2 million print run ain't bad...  Follow their forums, you might find your name when people browse for credits every month. You can also try contacting somebody from the UK there and ask them if they would mind checking in the papers for you. I did it before and a guy was very nice and spotted the images for me. Had him mail me a copy 
2254
« on: August 08, 2010, 23:20 »
Do you offer wedding photography? Do you have a wedding photography gallery on your web site?
Is this how they found you?
For me it would be a scam as I don't offer wedding photography.
2255
« on: August 07, 2010, 14:31 »
is it just me or is the download date column missing from the details page?
I think it's you... I see it as well with all the dates - unfortunately not too many from today 
2256
« on: August 07, 2010, 13:21 »
Just don't touch anything...
2257
« on: August 06, 2010, 10:50 »
It's actually not that complicated to set-up MORE warnings for all the uploaders.
1. Make everything HTML upload
2. When images are chosen to upload and user clicks "Upload" a big red window should pop up (or a redirect to a follow page) asking: "Are these your own images, or did you download them somewhere else?"
3. If they press: "Yes, these are my images" another big yellow window will pop up saying: "If you upload images that you did not take or create you are committing copyright infringement. If any of your images infringe somebody's copyright, you will be held liable for all damages and loss of royalties that occurred due to your actions". If you still want to continue uploading these images press: "I am not committing copyright infringement" otherwise click on "I didn't know that but thanks for telling me."
Is that so hard?
2258
« on: August 06, 2010, 07:34 »
FD, there is a lot of truth to what you said.
I think though that there is something to consider first.
I saw three years ago the first wave of Asian or Eastern European contributors coming to the micros. And of course in most of those countries cost of living is much cheaper than in most other industrialized parts of the world.
Naturally this kind of business will attract a higher percentage of contributors from these countries.
BUT, will there be enough Caucasian models there to shoot? Many Eastern European contributors take images with their fellow citizens and you can tell immediately if the image is coming from Russia, Poland, Ukraine etc.
I wonder if those images will easily replace Yuri's style? In America people want to see classic American faces and even the Latino market is huuuge.
I think there is only so much that can be produced in "Eastern World" but some things will never change...
2259
« on: August 06, 2010, 06:27 »
... Where'd everybody go?
Thinkstock
2260
« on: August 05, 2010, 19:32 »
I believe the only referral link is if you would buy from me and not for referring a new contributor...
2261
« on: August 05, 2010, 19:12 »
What for you means on regular basis?
...
Daily sales.
2262
« on: August 05, 2010, 18:47 »
ok, I've been on Zazzle for a while now (8 months) and I'm selling items on a regular basis but I want more sales.
I have almost 6000 items in my shop and 99.9% is my stock material which means that the images are "not lousy" in terms of technical quality.
Now that alone is not a ticket to wealth at Zazzle (obviously...) but another very "basic" principle is driving me nuts: their search results.
I don't want to belittle other people's work nor am I saying my work is better than others' but I have to show an example to prove this point.
If you search with the keyword "fun" in the category "T-shirts", sorted by "popular" gives me some of those results I can't wrap my head around.
Take result #4 - a photo of the front of a Peugeot with the word "ownage" underneath it. I'm not saying that it's a bad design - I just wonder how this shirt can outsell all the following results?
Check the following result pages. Already on page 2 I see more "artistic" or "funnier" shirts than that car one.
Supposedly the ranking is calculated by a mix of sales numbers, views, votes and other stuff we don't know about.
Now, if you click on the portfolio of that Zazzle member with the Peugeot car you see that "he" has only two designs in "his" store.
Is this just a fluke or did somebody with 2 designs on Zazzle turn up on #4 for the keyword fun out of 1.9 million search results crack the code (or the algorithm)?
I'm pretty sure whoever knows the most important factors of Zazzle search won't tell them here but maybe you want to share anything regarding this.
Again, I think all the images in this example look great and I respect the designer. I'm just trying to paint a scenario here.
2263
« on: August 05, 2010, 17:41 »
I completely agree that the "similars" policy as it is being implemented by DT is counterproductive. However as contributors we don't have much say in it. ... It is so sad that it has come that far. It really makes us feel like we are not really a part of this whole thing at all. But you are right!
2264
« on: August 05, 2010, 12:22 »
Just register, will you?
In Microstock you cannot register every single image prior to uploading unless you created such a massive backlog (6 months) which would make it worthwhile.
You can register thousands of image for one flat fee (still $35 ?). At least get those out of the way - after that just keep registering every 6 months or so. It's still worth it. Any attorney will ask if you registered copyright first time you call them if you inquire about infringement...
At least you can say "yes" to that question!
2265
« on: August 05, 2010, 07:26 »
I'd always ask if I can contact the person/owner.
Only if you are unable to trace sources and it's editorial, then just go for it.
2266
« on: August 05, 2010, 06:21 »
I've been using only the "I swear..." paragraph, with perfect results. Before that, I normally describe the infraction and give links to where the images are sold under my name.
That used to work at Fotolia but they require a DMCA claim as mentioned above as well. Just with your clause you won't get far anymore wherever they ask for a full DMCA claim. It's important to deliver what the web site owners want otherwise our claims will be delayed significantly.
2269
« on: August 04, 2010, 19:14 »
This is the one I have used.
http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/09/dmca-notice-of-copyright-infringement.html
FWIW it is DMCA (think it stands for Digital Media Copyright Act), rather than DCMA, which may be why you were having trouble finding it 
That should work. Sometimes the different web sites require the individual points numbered as they want the information in a certain order. Like sometimes they want the digital signature at first, sometimes last etc. Also if you use Google searching for "DMCA template" you should get what you need.
2270
« on: August 04, 2010, 18:57 »
...
Any news on your stolen images click_click? Did you send a DMCA notice?
...
Yep, Yahoo just removed the image from Flickr.
All is well.
Congrats Click! Well done!
Good luck getting yours down too Artemis
I'm glad Yahoo sees it the same way as I do.
2271
« on: August 04, 2010, 14:48 »
...
Any news on your stolen images click_click? Did you send a DMCA notice?
...
Yep, Yahoo just removed the image from Flickr. All is well.
2272
« on: August 04, 2010, 12:58 »
I hard about a software or image format that expires once a license is not valid anymore. The moment they invent some embedded license/usage code, two hours later it's cracked and you will have "image cleaners" around. Look what happened to the WMA format and long ago, to the Region Codes in DVD's. The only ones that suffer are the legal buyers.
I know what you mean but the regular Joe Does out there who finally understood the concept of right-clicking and saving won't immediately get this system. It's never 100% fool proof nor will it prevent copyright infringement. I never implied that.
2273
« on: August 04, 2010, 12:22 »
I hard about a software or image format that expires once a license is not valid anymore.
I think selling RF should be limited to maybe 2 or 3 years as a valid usage period. Who else needs images running for longer campaigns etc.?
I would be totally for this system so that the images are harder to copy.
Of course it will always be possible to make a copy but the harder it is, the fewer infringements will occur... maybe? Maybe not.
2274
« on: August 03, 2010, 19:00 »
Haha this week's Hot Shots.
I just realized that those images are not hot sellers, they are just hand picked by the guy who changes the light bulbs in their office.
I don't know, shall we do this Getty - Hot Shots of this week-thing again? There would be plenty to discuss...
Anyone???
2275
« on: August 03, 2010, 18:42 »
Thanks A LOT click_click, for the advice and for finding that 2nd one (its really huge and definitely not ok!)!
For that first, erm..masterpiece; IF she bought my picture it would be legally ok you think? I'm a bit bothered by the download thing...
I fully agree Vonkara! I'll be contacting them both and that big version better be taken off quickly.
Sometimes it really feels like selling stock equals making your pictures public domain 
ETA: i see this "doingmediastudies" has a lot of stock pictures posted at the same huge format. Anyone selling pics with books in them better check.
First things first: Contact the Flickr member first and ask in a polite manner where they obtained the image. You can do it two ways. Either you identify yourself as the copyright owner or you act like as if you want the image as well and maybe you get a link where they took your image from. You may hit two birds with one stone this way. Once this is settled you know what to do.
Pages: 1 ... 86 87 88 89 90 [91] 92 93 94 95 96 ... 119
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
