|
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 ... 87 88 89 90 91 [92] 93 94 95 96 97 ... 119
2276
« on: August 03, 2010, 18:14 »
I found this through tineye Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/doingmediastudies/4684752486/#Please follow up. It says copyright Shutterstock. 2.
By this Agreement, Shutterstock grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, right to use and reproduce Images in the following ways, subject to the limitations set forth herein and in Part II hereof:
a)
On web sites, provided that no Image is displayed at a resolution greater than 800 x 600 pixels;
...
10.
Resell, redistribute or transfer any Image except as specifically provided herein. Displaying any Image in any digital format or for any digital use at a resolution greater than 800 x 600 pixels, except in preliminary design work, will be deemed to be an attempt to redistribute the Image and could result in the termination of your rights under this agreement.
2277
« on: August 03, 2010, 17:57 »
I definitely dont want to hijack this thread, can i chime in with a question about one of my pics please? I never used this Flickr thing, probably never will and im not sure how it all works.
I also found one of my pictures there (the magic book) with another one just slammed on top and was wondering if something like this is considered legal use? "All rights reserved" is a bit vague (think i need some education too  )
http://www.flickr.com/photos/67824406@N00/4559439540/#sizes/o/
(nice piece of photoshopping too, dontcha think?  )
I don't care about etiquette in such situations. I dare to assume that this image wasn't purchased to be a composite of that caliber. I'd definitely contact the member asking where they purchased it from. This should quickly resolve your issue. Send that message twice if you don't get a response. If no response after second time contact Yahoo with a DMCA notice - done. Please don't take this as legal advise. This is how I do things and so far I've never found one user who did purchase the image. Maybe this would be the first time, who knows. I'd give it a shot. Thanks for hijacking, as this is for educational purposes!
2278
« on: August 03, 2010, 17:15 »
2279
« on: August 03, 2010, 16:59 »
... That's how it usually goes. Old stuff still sells - new stuff gets buried... 
Don't say that. It makes it look like as if there is no more money in microstock 
2280
« on: August 03, 2010, 15:47 »
I had this problem last week. When I got the blank page after submission it looked like they hadn't gone through, but when I checked my pending queue they were there and had been properly submitted. Maybe yours went through too?
Unfortunately they didn't go through but it worked with Internet Explorer so no problem  Thanks for the heads up though!
2281
« on: August 03, 2010, 15:22 »
I expressed my concern to the moderators there and they weren't happy how this thread developed. I'm still waiting to hear back from them.
Well, maybe this is a way to "educate" the masses...monitoring some of these forums and doing exactly what you did, pointing out the legal ramifications.
I think it should but that forum is basically "living" from designing covers using professional photographs of the actors from the production companies as well as the offerings of logos of the film distribution companies. So overall this is not really something I want to get in to...
2282
« on: August 03, 2010, 14:45 »
Yesterday, I also came across a forum where people "design" new DVD/BlueRay covers to "replace" the "originals".
A guy was looking for an image like mine with a few samples and asked for something in hires.
Some other dummy posted a link to my image hosted somewhere and said that this one is great because it's super high res.
Then the first dude replied that this was exaclty what he was looking for but he needed to make changes to make it fit.
So (get this) a Super-Moderator of the forum stepped in and uploaded a modified PSD-version so the OP could get it the way he needed it.
I expressed my concern to the moderators there and they weren't happy how this thread developed. I'm still waiting to hear back from them.
2283
« on: August 03, 2010, 14:14 »
...Lately I saw a guy taking a isolated hotdog from microstock. The guy paint the hotdog arms, feet, mouth and eyes. He claim it was his work and he was so proud of his work. The issue is more their pride about their weak photoshop skills, and the 100 comments they get by saying, wow nice hotdog, how did you do. 
EXACTLY!
2284
« on: August 03, 2010, 13:59 »
Ok thanks for the feedback!
2285
« on: August 03, 2010, 13:40 »
For over 1 hour I can't upload images to IS. Well the actual upload works but then after keywording it stops and ends in a blank page.
The image never gets submitted and you have to pick up the pending upload and re-keyword again, which then takes you in the above described loop.
Am I the only one with this problem? I'm using Firefox.
2286
« on: August 03, 2010, 13:13 »
...
I don't think so, if you remember my image being stolen and somebody else has that image in his portfolio, so You , FD_regular, Click-Click, Jsnover and some other people from this forum reported it and helped me to take it down. As well I sent a letter to Flicker and they suspended his account.
If a person did not buy Click-Click's image and cannot prove it, Flicker will suspend his account.
Honestly, I'm already happy if the image will be removed. I don't expect much anymore these days. They didn't really make money off of it and just tried to polish their ego by submitting it to user driven image sites. It just leaves a sour taste when people try to pass on the image for free claiming it's theirs, even if it's a composite.
2287
« on: August 03, 2010, 12:03 »
Could we please see the image (flickr link) ?
no I'm having enough problems keeping my best seller off of the Google image search, ebay, Zazzle, Flickr etc. - So I'm not going to play into everyobdy's hands to produce a top seller without making an effort. Sorry.
2288
« on: August 03, 2010, 11:56 »
Oh and he claims he owns the copyright.
XXX
2289
« on: August 03, 2010, 11:56 »
Is he selling your image or allowing download of it? If not, he is well within his rights to post his "derivative artwork" on his website. He is only infringing on your copyright if he is redistributing your image in some way.
He is offering free download. He never paid a license fee. That's already two strikes.
2290
« on: August 03, 2010, 11:43 »
OK, just a little story about what you can run into as a microstock (or general stock) contributor these days.
I found one of my best sellers (created in 2005 and registered copyright on it) on Flickr as part of a composition which basically consisted out of 2 images (one of them being mine). Copyright is stated in the image naming the contributor in question and not me.
Mine was the background and an isolated object was slapped into the center of the image.
As I found my image I contacted the Flickr-member, asking to have it removed.
He replied with his opinion that as he created the image with Gimp which took him "several hours" it is his image. He further explained to me that he "got the two images from different sources". So he claims the image is his.
I then informed him of the US copyright law and what is considered copyright infringement together with a link to the web site of the US Copyright Office.
I originally also asked him to let me know where he purchased the license from. No answer there. He didn't even mention that topic.
Well, long story short I contacted Yahoo with my DMCA claim waiting for the outcome, which should be obvious.
Now as I just checked back on Flickr, I realized that there is also a Deviantart watermark on the image. So I'll be heading over there to let them know as well.
2291
« on: August 02, 2010, 21:37 »
... Something is definitely up at IS. Not sure what it is, but the other big sites don't seem to be particularly affected.
Here is the answer: http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/new-istockphoto-web-design-coming-up/I'm sure they already started screwing around behind the scenes. Not to mention all the problems they had before the re-design was even announced... I'm particularly concerned about the development in the footage department and the big release of the new video processor which immediately took a dump right after the release. I do feel for the Jim in the footage department as somewhere, there must be lurking a big, big troublemaker that nails iStock a couple times a year with the bug-hammer. By now, under Getty's wings I thought the IT-side would be not such a huge issue anymore but if you have reached such a status in any given industry you better be employing people who know what the fudge they are doing. It's especially sad, since iStock performed extremely well at the beginning of this year (at least for me) and the dive it took was out of this world. So there must be something else going on (as mentioned above).
2292
« on: July 30, 2010, 12:33 »
Dreamframer, you're too late for this party If you look closely you can find images on iStock with actual company logos on them that were submitted many years ago with downloads in the 4000s per image. Times have changed and so did the approval requirements. It's not fair to the newer contributors while the "old" images still remain on the site, being sold under the same licensing terms (even guaranteeing that they're free of third party claims). But that's the game we play here. Be happy about the ones you got accepted and try to get them out there as editorial wherever you can but it's pretty much obvious where this star is coming from. If the owner can recognize it and didn't give consent, you might be in trouble.
2293
« on: July 30, 2010, 10:32 »
I don't think that DT is going to change their "new" policy, ever. Why would they? With the new policy in place they only accept more unique and better content which is only for their own benefit. And that's all that counts to them. I've mentioned before that the agencies are the real winner in this game as they can put their own rules in place that WILL affect all contributors except themselves. It helps the agencies but not the individual contributor. The agencies on the other hand claim that with a "better" collection/improving collection more buyers will come and buy more of your images - ok we all know that this is not going to happen. There are too many players in this game so it's basically survival of the fittest. Newbies will soon be discouraged early on and drop the ball because they can't make it to the critical port size to see a good, steady stream. And the oldtimers will have to bite the bullet and take a hit in income until eventually the amount of active contributors drops significantly. In general I'd recommend to stay away from well covered topics. The apple, wine glass and the friggin' beautiful woman on headset (  ) are just a waste of your time unless you can make it better than the best images that are already online. If I can do it better than some of the best I'll give it a try but otherwise you are putting time into something that won't give you enough returns. Furthermore, every agency can refuse an image for any reason. Fair or not, that's what we signed...
2294
« on: July 30, 2010, 08:33 »
this must be the most out of focus stock photo ever. must've made it through alamy qc on the coat tails of their checking only one photo out of the entire batch.
http://tinyurl.com/256llde
Why would someone submit that? 
Clearly that image is sharp, it just happened to be a 2 Megapixel source image. All loss of detail occurred during up-sizing.
2295
« on: July 29, 2010, 07:18 »
My old semi-working office computer (which was supposed to be replaced yesterday) works still with IDE controllers.
My "newer" editing computer only has SATA - including the crashed HD.
So right now I can't put the SATA into another computer to diagnose. I only got an error code on my computer indicating that there is a HD failure and the BIOS is not recognizing any SATA devices - not even the good HD as long as the broken HD is connected.
Thankfully I made a whole HD backup last week so worst case scenario is that I lost the last 8 or so images I submitted to the micros. I don't run a backup after every single image I submit.
It'll work out somehow.
Thanks again for all your help and suggestions.
2296
« on: July 28, 2010, 14:18 »
Thanks cclapper, I do value all your opinions as they are less "anonymous" than "S. Johnson from CO wrote:..."
In my situation 2 Seagate drives failed on me within 2 years - that's pretty lousy in my opinion.
So naturally I'll try out something else. Like I mentioned before the are people who had bad experiences with WD and swear by Seagate now...
2297
« on: July 28, 2010, 13:08 »
keep them cool (more fans), use second drive as pagefile (swapfile), use UPS to protect system...etc..
Got 6 fans, using other drives as pagefile and have UPS. I thought I didn't do enough already...
2298
« on: July 28, 2010, 12:31 »
...All modern drives are good, but will fail eventually. It's how you look after them and use them that makes the difference in lifespan
I didn't know that. I refrain from kicking my computer. I also remove dust from the interior of the housing regularly. How do I extend the life span of a hard drive? Or how do I "look after them"?
2299
« on: July 28, 2010, 11:27 »
I'm not ordering online. I'm going to the store locally for the reasons mentioned above.
I guess I'll pick up a WD 320 GB for a little less than $50. That should do it.
Thanks again for all your responses.
2300
« on: July 28, 2010, 09:50 »
Thanks everyone for your suggestions. It's true that I don't care whether the drive fails on me in 2 or 3 years because it's just the OS and not other data. So a cheap drive will do. @Lisa: Thansk for the link. This is how I shop: I look at local stores what's on sale, then check the reviews on Newegg and Amazon to see if it's any good. Once I found what I want, then I'll look for online coupons to get it cheaper (if possible). I found a coupon for the drive I posted above at BestBuy for 10% off. No biggie but at least something. I keep looking, maybe there is a $10 off somewhere around Oh, I won't be installing a PCS-e card as you mentioned... Price. But thanks so much for your input. I will keep all responses in mind next time I buy a whole new system. Thanks again for all your responses.
Pages: 1 ... 87 88 89 90 91 [92] 93 94 95 96 97 ... 119
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
