pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - Wisent

Pages: 1 [2]
26
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock Stirs the Pot Once Again
« on: August 26, 2006, 00:25 »
People consume drugs, people kill, people steal, people make wars, people lay landmines, people use illegal immigrants as slave workers, people are racist, people are pedophiles, people beat their children.  That's just the way it works, however I think most of us would be concerned if the confidence people who model for us had on us may be shaken due to image misuse.


What a rediculous response. I was clearly speaking of things that almost everyone does and that doesn't involve hurting people.
1. The IS TOS (Terms of Service) (@ http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php) state that it is prohibited to use an image of a model in a manner that (a) would lead a reasonable person to think that they endorse a business, or (b) depicts them in any way that would be offensive or unflattering.  The ad obviously violates both.


The first part, (a), is ridiculous at best. I'm not even sure what they are trying to say here because the whole point of advertising with a person is to associate the model with the product/service to make people want to buy.

The second part, (b), is too subjective to be really meaningful.

I'd toss the first part out and just go with the second and since I don't find it offensive or unflattering it doesn't violate the TOS.


exactly!

27
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock Stirs the Pot Once Again
« on: August 25, 2006, 18:27 »
i don't see it that way, clearly istock doesn't either

28
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock Stirs the Pot Once Again
« on: August 25, 2006, 18:14 »
The typical its degrading for women speach. Those women chose to do what they do. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean they can't do it. If you don't like it don't go there. Its only people like you who degrade them by talking about it the way you do. I'm sure 80% of the people end up going to a strip bar at least once in their lifetimes so don't treat it like its some sort of taboe. Its like porn, everybody hates it and the woman are sluts, but still 95% of the people watch it.

There is absolutely nothing degrading about the ad. I've seen more nudity on istock itself then in the ad so how can they lable it as inapropriate?

29
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock Stirs the Pot Once Again
« on: August 25, 2006, 17:57 »
Yeah well is suppose people could have other feelings about whats apropriate and what not. I would have found it inapropriate if the man was naked, or having sex or something. The TOS should give some clear examples as to what is allowed and what not. I don't see how the current TOS ferbids this kind of use, even if some of you would like it to.

There is nothing special or inapropriate about a bar. People go to bars to get drunk and have sex. Thats just the way it works. The site is very honest about that and thats what attracts most young people these days. I'm not saying i agree with this type of social behaviour but its not for me to judge.

Stockmaniac, you may have a problem with these sort of bars but if most people don't then doesn't that mean its not inapropriate and maybe you are a bit of a prute? You can't even type the word fuck. Whats so horrible about a word. Everybody says it and everybody does it. Don't be so hypocritical an start seing the world the way it is.

30
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock Stirs the Pot Once Again
« on: August 25, 2006, 14:49 »
I don't see the problem. Its a tastfullly put together ad in my opinion. There is no nudity visible except for the bare back. I would love to see one of my pictures used in that ad. And please don't play the "have compassion with this elderly man" card. Elderly people aren't as prutisch as you might think. What makes you think its a strip bar anyways? It looks like a nightclub to me. The ad anounces upcoming events and the featured artists. Alot of nightclubs use pole dancing images to send out a sexy vibe. Or am i missing someting here?

31
StockPhotoMedia.com / Re: How's the sales for SPM?
« on: August 23, 2006, 09:44 »
they accept everything and sell nothing

32
I'm currently studying to be a designer but i would also rather have money then tokens. Tokens are useless for designers unless they feel good about paying the company expenses out of their own pocket. And the handfull of succesfull self-emploid designers don't have the spare time to take pictures so i guess this feature is pretty useless.

33
As far as i see it getting multiple single sales probably is better then getting one extended sale if the template sells wel from the photographers point of view. So i don't understand why templatemonster.com wouldn't just buy the extended licence.

34
Crestock.com / Re: Crestock - any action
« on: August 14, 2006, 06:27 »
I am also considering removing my pictures from crestock. They are way to picky and i really dislike the "worst picture of the day" thingie they have. Seeming they don't really like my pictures i'm liable to get in there and that wouldn't be a very nice thing

35
CanStockPhoto.com / Re: Worth continuing?
« on: August 12, 2006, 06:44 »
i've been there about 2weeks with a very small portfolio (6) and sold my first yesterday night.

36
General Stock Discussion / Re: graffiti pics, legal or not?
« on: August 10, 2006, 13:15 »
Mine are more of an overal shot of the entire "design". I'll submit them and trust that when an agency accepts i'm alright legally wise.
Thanks for the reply

37
StockXpert.com / Re: How is StockXpert doing for you?
« on: August 10, 2006, 12:43 »
I have been rejected by StockXpert twice. They didn't let me know wich picture weren't good enough or why so i guess this means they where all bad??? I sent them my pics that were exepted by both dreamstime and istock and are selling well. Are there standards really that much higher or are they just being a pain in the ass?

38
LuckyOliver.com / Re: Sudjestions for improvements
« on: August 10, 2006, 09:06 »
it would be handy to have thumbnails on the downloads page because its very hard to know wich image was downloaded just by a name. I have several dog and sky picture with the same name so i cant know wich one was downloaded.

39
General Stock Discussion / Re: graffiti pics, legal or not?
« on: August 09, 2006, 18:41 »
i mailed lucky oliver about this and they said "we do take graffiti shots as long as they don't
contain any copyrighted logos or the artists name".

I've also noticed that dreamstime accepts graffiti pics.

Does this mean that it is legal and i won't get sewed(don't know the correct spelling), or just that they take the risk because the chance of getting sewed is minimal?

40
Off Topic / Re: Norway
« on: August 07, 2006, 17:44 »
Ghent - Belgium

41
General Stock Discussion / Re: graffiti pics, legal or not?
« on: August 01, 2006, 14:00 »
Too bad, i gues i still got some nice desktop images out of them for my personal viewing pleasure.

Thanks for the replies

42
General Stock Discussion / graffiti pics, legal or not?
« on: July 31, 2006, 06:39 »
I went on a holiday to Valencia and found some great graffiti work there in the narrow smelly streets that run through the city. My question is, can i sell these as stock or not? I think that since they are illegal works they can't really belong to anyone so i don't need a property release. Or do i have to remove the artists mark or something, i really don't know.

43
StockPhotoMedia.com / Re: How's the sales for SPM?
« on: July 05, 2006, 14:57 »
thanks for the speedy reply. i have found the statistics but i cant find "my files" in the account drop down menu on the left.

wich text file is it you mean i should open

44
StockPhotoMedia.com / Re: How's the sales for SPM?
« on: July 05, 2006, 13:50 »
call me stupid but i cant find a "downloads" page anywhere on the site. can any of you help me?

thanks

45
Featurepics.com / Re: FeaturePics (low sales)
« on: July 04, 2006, 16:15 »
i just uploaded my first pics to featurepic en noticed i have to determin the price myself. I look at some of the other pictures to see what the average price was but there's a real big difference 1to15$ and mostly there isn't a very big difference in quality.

Am i missing something and is there a certain method to price your photographs? I would love to charge 15$, but will that get me any sales?

Thanks

Tommy

Pages: 1 [2]

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors