|
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 ... 88 89 90 91 92 [93] 94 95 96 97 98 ... 119
2302
« on: July 28, 2010, 09:05 »
One of my computers failed on me due to a motherboard issue. It will be replaced today. However my second computer which is the one for eeeeverything (photo editing, video rendering and all the stock stuff) failed on me as well. I can't replace both computers due to the lack of a raise from SS - lol OK here is the deal. I need a reliable, SMALL SATA hard drive. This hard drive will only be used for the OS and not storage. Since my OS drive failed, I can't use my newer computer as the secondary HD is full  All I need is a small, reliable and preferably dirt cheap HD. Ideally I'd like to pick it up at Staples, Office Max, Office Depot or BestBuy so I can go on with my work today. Reading reviews of ANY HD shows that some people ALWAYS had a failure within warranty time or just after. Is there a drive that usually quite reliable? I had a 500GB Seagate that failed and I'm inclined not to get a Seagate anymore. But online I read from other people that Maxtor and Western Digital suck and they only get Seagate  What should I do? Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
2303
« on: July 25, 2010, 10:24 »
Click on their Blogger Content policy, then there is a link to this:
http://www.google.com/blogger_dmca.html
It tells you how to use their form to report infringement. You can fax or mail it to them.
Good. In most cases these days you need to send a DMCA claim to the site owner. Usually when I see my images stolen (especially with watermark) I don't even bother trying to contact the user. It's a waste of time. I go straight to the site owner or the web hosting company. There will still be room for the user to respond and clarify the situation but mostly the users don't care if the copyright owners contact them. Once the web host or site owner contacts them threatening to close their account they get nervous and do respond.
2304
« on: July 23, 2010, 12:42 »
If you check the site that the OP mentioned above you can clearly see the DT logo on the illustrations.
That, in and of itself, does not necessarily mean that the images aren't stolen.
But coupled with your other comments, you are probably correct. I have seen a few of these API-associated sites popping up and every time it is confusing for me because they don't explain right up front that they are an affiliate site and when you purchase you will be redirected to the micro site. Just that statement alone added to the home page would make it all very clear.
I notice there is no Contact Us link on the home page...for me that is a big red flag. I am fairly certain they should NOT be offering Apple, Intel and other logos for download, but to do anything about it, one would need to spend time researching.
I strongly assume that we are both on the same side. But in all honesty: As long as watermarked images are being offered anywhere online and the link takes the user to the agency's web site I have no problem with these sites. They are not trying (at least it doesn't look like that to me) to have users download the watermarked image and use it with the watermark (which is already stupid enough). To see watermarked images (dummies) on final products like books and CD covers is mostly just stupidity of the graphic designer and not intentional, and I really rarely give anyone the benefit of the doubt. That some "poor" students use watermarked images is something beyond our control and it's happening that's just reality but the kids have to live with the fact that it doesn't look good. If they don't care about their assignments now, they probably never will care later in life about the work they do.
2305
« on: July 23, 2010, 11:44 »
If you check the site that the OP mentioned above you can clearly see the DT logo on the illustrations.
The image shows together with a "Buy credits" button which takes you straight to the DT's site.
They just might use DT's API and cramped it into their "free" site.
Maybe this is the early stages of the microstock "revolution" we've been hearing about.
The whole page design is very confusing (at least for me). I can't clearly differentiate between ads, Google ads, Royalty Free and free content.
It's just one big clump of stuff and I guess the "buyer" has to figure it out him- or herself.
Sure, lots of companies need another company's logo for their own advertisements etc. so this site might be one place to go to but I doubt that there is a noticeable amount of users converting into paying customers.
But I guess today, site owner's will try anything to squeeze a buck out of their page...
2306
« on: July 23, 2010, 08:18 »
Found this site selling some of my vectors.
Anyone know if they are affiliated with our regular sites or what the deal is?
Thanks - Jerry
http://www.allfreelogo.com/
I'm sure you contacted them already to find out where your vectors are coming from. Looks like anyone can submit logos there so some might have been ... stolen. I don't understand how these sites get away with this to offer free downloads of major brands. And then the large industries wonder why there is so much counterfeit products out there... Go figure.
2307
« on: July 22, 2010, 09:00 »
Ups!
You have a right, it is my mistake. I am sorry.
Rejection reason, "Image processing error".
Regards
Kone
No biggie. It's just so the newbies won't get confused. At least some things should work as expected these days 
2308
« on: July 22, 2010, 07:08 »
"Partially Failed" usually means there was an image processing error on one of the images, not a QC failure.
In that case they will pass the rest, assuming they pass QC. Click on the batch number (OL658544) to see the full results.
That's what I thought - check that batch and let us know what the "rejection" reason was. I had only partially failed ones because of processing errors and not inferior images.
2309
« on: July 22, 2010, 06:58 »
I mean come on. First it's obvious that it's a scam. Terrible grammar and spelling and he is from the UK? You're talking about a job that is worth many thousands of dollars and the guy who hires you doesn't even have the language skills? Not that non-english speakers aren't allowed to have money... but as someone from the UK you'd expect more or at least have a friend who is fluent enough to write that email. I'm so surprised that the scammers who do make quite a bunch of money do not re-invest one cent into proper translations. Next, why would I actually pay any overage amount to someone I don't know? How could anybody think they can (afford to) pay someone (they don't know) with funds that haven't even cleared yet? I mean helloooo? Has anyone who gets these emails ever dealt with money before? Especially a wedding that "requires" a high profile photographer is not set-up within a week. Usually couples take months or years to plan that day. Plenty of time to let the checks clear or find out if any other form of payment is fraudulent. I've seen these uncover-stories on 60 minutes and it just blows my mind that people just send somebody they don't know at all tens of thousands of dollars still thinking they are doing the right thing. If any of you feels like that please PM me because I'm planning a trip to the moon and need a photographer to document the whole thing. But make sure to include 2 assistants on this trip because we will need a lot of lighting on the side of the moon that is facing away from the sun. I will send you a check over $2 Million dollars with $1.9 Million in overage. Please send the overage to my uncle in Dubikistan because he needs some more Compaq computers for the control center. 
2310
« on: July 21, 2010, 15:42 »
Well, either she signed it or she didn't. Option 3: she signed but says now it's a forgery. For 2 million, it's worth trying.
She gets her 15 minutes of fame either way. In fact, the buzz is likely to make her the next big star ala Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, ad infinitum.
I doubt that unless her parents own BP or something like that...
2311
« on: July 21, 2010, 15:19 »
Well, either she signed it or she didn't.
LOL. That's what I thought.
2312
« on: July 21, 2010, 14:26 »
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/17386/181765
This model is suing for US $2 million over use of her image.
The kicker is that this thing even got sold, not to mention taken in the first place. Try submitting this to the Micros: Rejected: unnatural facial expression.
2313
« on: July 21, 2010, 13:31 »
so this image usage is still within the licensing usage? possible to inquire the agency? if we think our image is misused without the right license, do we contact the agency or just the company?
In order to find out for sure you would have to contact the publisher or perhaps the printing company to get to the right person who can tell where the image came from. One you have that information (good luck with that), you can contact the stock agency and ask if this specific use is covered. They will let you know whether yes or no. If no there is a slight chance that the agency will contact the buyer and make them aware of their "mistake". If things work out by the books, the appropriate license would be purchased after the fact and you should get the right amount of money. IF it requires another license... IF !!! I've seen my stuff on books, CDs, magazine covers and years ago I thought I can start looking into buying a yacht once my images are on the covers all over the place. Pfff, forget it. Oftentimes a simple download at SS is enough to be printed on a book cover or CD - so don't get too excited over a free hand-out map... Anyways, good luck.
2314
« on: July 21, 2010, 11:50 »
Hi,
I have to say that is not true, at least not in my case.
It used to be that way but lately Alamy changed it, if there is problem with the image in the batch they will only reject that image and accept rest.
That is also true. It does happen what you're talking about. But it also depends on your track record. If you have been uploading shots that all got accepted in the past they might just reject one and accept the rest. In other cases where people kept uploading inferior images, Alamy reserved the right to fail all uploaded batches if one images looked bad.
2315
« on: July 20, 2010, 12:59 »
i read this somewhere that's their policy if 1 image isn't accepted, the whole batch will be rejected without reviewing the rest. I wonder is it true? doesn't sound logical to me.
It is true, although they don't always review all pending batches so if they review 3 pending batches with 10 pictures in each batch they might only actually review the first 5 images of the first batch. If they are ok all batches will pass. If one ore more out of the 5 reviewed images has a problem they will fail all batches (30 images).
2316
« on: July 20, 2010, 10:56 »
@ click_click I think we're talking about two different things. The site can change who it's hosted by, these are just registrars who sell on domain names and provide the servers to host the site. The actual URLs are controlled by a handful of agencies eg the Public Interests Registry runs all the .org domains in the world. They could revoke the URL, which would have no easy comeback for the thieves (theft= taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent).
The internet is like the wild west used to be, all it takes to regulate it is the will to act. A lot of the chaos is illusory, when you get to the bare bones there are ways of enforcing the law.
I understood what you meant, I just started elaborating about more general stuff around those pirate sites. You are correct about the registrar but in order to revoke them you need to have a massive amount of people ready on stand-by to deal with the massive flood of DMCA claims from all over the world. That's what I was referring to. If in any given country the government cannot even get the upper hand on child pronography online, do you believe they will set-up an emergency phone line for us Microstockers to call and have them remove URLs? I doubt it.
2317
« on: July 20, 2010, 10:52 »
I don't agree with you there.
Ebay's policy on IP...
...
Ebay almost always protects the buyer in a payment dispute regarding anything. I think it's worth a shot if you're worried about it. It might get a buyer purchasing a licence or it would at least discourage them to use the images. I'm pretty sure they'll ask for a refund and it's likely they'll receive it.
I'm a Vero member and I've been dealing with them many times. The regular process of an auction/listing will be protected by ebay/Paypal. That won't include IP infringement cases, I'm pretty sure. But since you mentioned it, I will contact them and make a claim for the recently found illegal listings and ask for my money. That's cool. Then I won't even have to do Microstock anymore. I can just live off of the damages from ebay now 
2318
« on: July 20, 2010, 10:02 »
... 2) contact ebay themselves asking for a refund.
It's probably more likely that option 2 will occur and ebay will be forced to give the buyer back their money. Eventually the seller will find it's not feasible to sell the item there having to pay fees for items that didn't sell. If ebay get enough complaints and have to give back enough refunds, they'll then close the seller's account and their 100% rating will be gone.
I can tell you one thing: ebay will never ever pay damages for IP theft. Not on such a small scale like in our cases. I know ebay had to pay damages before to some brand. It was a handbag company or something. That was large scale copyright infringement. For pictures, posters, belt buckles, stickers you'll be barking at the wrong tree. I'm totally on the same side with you, that ebay should control the items being offered on their site but their terms state otherwise. It's not ebay's responsibility to verify the authenticity of each item in every listing. That's up to the buyer to decide and if in doubt - do not bid! I would have made so much money with the strategy you are proposing, ebay would be broke within a month if everyone put in a claim for copyright infringement. LOL. As with many things online these days - it ain't going to happen. Unfortunately.
2319
« on: July 20, 2010, 08:40 »
I don't know too much about the IP thieves and their distribution channels online but I'm sure we (photographers and "regular" internet users) are way behind in terms of what they get away with or not.
Heroturko is a major warez listing site. Not only that they get away with a disclaimer stating that they don't host the file but they also have a strategically designed network of secondary servers and backup DNS routing.
So even if the web hosting company, decided to put an end to Heruturko on their servers, Heroturko already has set-up backup DNS once the primary web host becomes unavailable (normally due to a server outage).
Large warez sites are making serious amounts of money through ads, clicks, referrals and even donations. As with anything that one does "for a living" you make sure to protect that as best as you can.
I've found some of my images on a web site for desktop wallpapers. I wrote to the host as well to some other photographers whose images I found there. Within a matter of hours the site was down and the account suspended.
24 hours later the same site was up and running again, just with the reported images missing.
Usually these guys register their domain with a different company than the web host, so that these two go completely independent. Once a web host drops you, you can re-set your DNS to another (even free) web host and continue business as usual.
What I don't like about web hosting companies is the fact that you can even buy web hosting for a month or 3 months. That obviously shows how easy it is for these guys to get their operations running. If they had to purchase web hosting for 12 months upfront you'd have less of these sites because the initial start-up costs are higher.
Well, anywho as I'm saying. We (or at least I) don't know enough about their practices but it has to be clarified that the internet is an almost lawless space. There is no internet police. And most likely there will never be one. Who is going to pay for that? The users? We? Do I want to pay an additional monthly fee for an internet police? And will "regular" people pay that fee that don't deal with IP related stuff?
It's quite complicated and convoluted.
But for sure it's a great business idea. If someone can come up with a company that would get these things automated etc. that may work then...
2320
« on: July 18, 2010, 10:07 »
You didn't clarify the fact that you are explicitly referring to iStock and its terms of usage/license agreements.
I'm not explicitly referring to iStock. I was just trying to give a specific example, since my general comment seems to cause understanding issues.
I think it's important to clarify as much as possible about this issue. This thread was read over 2000 times by now and it appears that people are interested in how it works (or can work). I appreciate your input from an iStock/Getty point as well as your experience as a professional photographer in general. Therefore it IS (at least to me) very surprising to see such things happening (RM/RF mix) as I wasn't aware of it. I'm usually understanding things well once an example is being used. Therefore I was pushing my question with the scenario of being a Macro RM contributor who also wants to sell Micro RF that this would be a major issue for the RM agency - am I right? I understand that you cannot give me an answer that will cover all agencies of the world but if at least you could speak on behalf of yourself/Getty's policy it would help a bit to understand the rules of a leading agency which would be somewhat substantial.
2321
« on: July 18, 2010, 08:48 »
Isn't it that any RM collection/agency will drop a contributor like a hot potato if they found out you sold the same stuff as RF (micro/macro) at the same time you have it with them for RM?
If not, feel free to PM me with a list of Macro agencies that tolerate such "business strategies".
You clearly missed the point of what I'm saying. I am not referring to specific agencies with requirements on this or that. I'm speaking generally. For instance, you can have an image on iStock, and a customer wants to use it an a way not covered by the license. Support will tell you to work that out for yourself outside IS, so you write a short RM license with specific terms for that use. Viola, RM and RF.
You didn't clarify the fact that you are explicitly referring to iStock and its terms of usage/license agreements. I'm not arguing with you whether iStock support hands you additional business. I'm just surprised that iStock "allows" any contributors to license their (even exclusive - I assume you did license images as RM as it sounds...?) images freely besides iStock (only if referred by support I suppose). I thought iStock wants to have full control over their content (speaking of exclusives). So if you are "allowed" to license images as RM it is ok? Unless you are referring to non-exclusives here which you haven't stated clearly either. I'm not questioning what you do or did at iStock/Getty. I'm just surprised in general to hear about this RM/RF mix. Also I think it makes a bigger difference if you are a Macro contributor at Corbis, Getty, Masterfile etc. and start uploading your RM content to the Micros. My point I wanted to make was this scenario, that in such a case, the Macro agency will kick you out.
2322
« on: July 17, 2010, 18:34 »
As I've said before, you can sell the same image RM and RF. All RM refers to is selling a set of rights to use the image. Exclusivity and image history can add value to the RM license but are not technically a requirement. Heck, you can write and license requirements you want to.
I think your post slipped my eyes before. While I understand that I can write any usage terms myself stating things that would anybody go haywire I'm surprised to see this kind of statement. I can hardly believe that your RM Getty images are offered elsewhere not to mention as Micro RF at some Indonesian local microstock agency that isn't indexed by Google, with a different pseudonym and some conspiratorial exclsuvion from Tineye as well. Isn't it that any RM collection/agency will drop a contributor like a hot potato if they found out you sold the same stuff as RF (micro/macro) at the same time you have it with them for RM? If not, feel free to PM me with a list of Macro agencies that tolerate such "business strategies".
2323
« on: July 17, 2010, 16:01 »
I mean Microstock has turned the stock image industry upside down as it is. But to come along and support the idea of offering the same image as RF and RM (not even to mention the mix of Micro and Macro) will sooner or later end up in major distrust of buyers across the board. Not to mention that Getty and other Macros will give you the boot once they find out. Good luck for your "professional" career as a stock photographer...
2324
« on: July 17, 2010, 15:27 »
In theory you can't sell an image RM if it has sold RF, however huge numbers of people do.
If your pics are on micro as RF, then there should not be a problem selling the same ones RM on Alamy. Some people will quite rightly argue this is not the way to go about things, but it is what lots of people including top microstockers do.
What I am trying to say here is don't panic, if you think your pics would do best as RM on Alamy, do that.
Rgds
Oldhand
 Uhhhh what? Let me read THIS again: ...If your pics are on micro as RF, then there should not be a problem selling the same ones RM on Alamy. ...
I thought the former discussions were about the moral or ethical part of business regarding offering our images as RF for $1 on the micros and $300 on Alamy (as RF). RF on Alamy naturally does not guarantee the exclusive or limited use of an image, the same as in Microstock. RM regulates the use of an image for a specific purpose (one license for print ad, one license for TV commercial, one license for online ad ...). Every use requires a license. In some cases the buyer even requires exclusive use of the image for the required period of time. How on earth do you justify offering Microstock images at Alamy as RM? I can't believe I'm reading this here. While I respect the opinion of contributors saying it's unethical to offer the same image for $1 on the Micros while offering it also at Alamy for $300, I cannot wrap my mind around the idea of offering a Microstock image as RM at Alamy. Those are two completely different types of licensing. I'm not ignoring the fact that some people do that (RF Micro and RM Macro) but to suggest that on a photographers forum, is a bit "not right" (biting on tongue until it falls off...). Wow, just wow. Please tell us that you are yanking our chains...
2325
« on: July 17, 2010, 14:42 »
I haven't used Flickr since limitations were placed on my FREE account. But, I have made sales thru there. That is where I got the idea to scan and actively market vintage motorcycle images.
I lost interest when the limitations were applied. It is NOT worth $25 a year.
PS: you should put your original post on DT. Rolmat loves sarcasm.
Ok thanks, what limitations are you talking about? I know that Flickr is not a traditional photo hosting site but what is it that had changed for you? I was wondering how photographers approach Flickr in terms what they upload and how much. Are you actively participating in groups etc. contributing images or inviting endless numbers of people as friends...?
1. I did 2 years ago, full port, watermarked.
2. My paying account was suddenly terminated without any warning. My guess is (a) the watermarking annoyed the sharers and they reported me for 'commercial use' (not allowed); (b) I had links on every photo to the actual sales site (commercial use).
Wow, I never know that you are not allowed to link to the agencies, not that the watermarking is such a big issue. 3. Flickr doesn't really like other (paying stock) sites, I have the impression. But maybe they changed now they decided to team up with Getty. Users hate the watermarks and I got scolded for that a few times. Again, watermarking is totally legit IMO. 4. Yes, I heavily participated in groups. It's a feelgood and wow site. It can be very rewarding and you get high exposure by that. On the downside, it eats time. If you don't do that, your photos will drown in the other 2-3 billion. Yeah, I can see that it eats a lot of time to stay "popular". I assume it's somewhat "pimping" your images in all the various groups where then people tell you how great you are. 5. You can set the copyright as you wish: all rights reserved or one of the (worthless) creative common "licenses". While the copyright note should say "All rights reserved" I wonder if people really care and respect that. Most likely they still grad a screen shot and paste it into a new file for their own pleasure... 6. I never had anyone contacting me for a sale, but I regularly found blogs and even commercial sites carrying my pictures complete with watermark and all.
Hope this helps. Also check Dan Heller's site: he has some articles about Flickr.
Nevertheless, I started a new account again, but free this time. In that case, you are limited to 200 photos so your port won't fit there.
Thanks.
Pages: 1 ... 88 89 90 91 92 [93] 94 95 96 97 98 ... 119
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
