|
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 - eric.zx
26
« on: February 13, 2009, 11:13 »
while I still have nightmares about the 'frozen wristwatch' from my Mac days.
Hahaha, oh yeah, "the spinning pizza of death" (Mac OS X equivalent of frozen wristwatch). I have nightmares about that as well.
27
« on: February 12, 2009, 20:46 »
I found Dreamstime alot tougher to get accepted at, but I'm very new at this as well and I'm limited by the quality of my lens/camera. You should try BigStockPhoto, or perhaps even CanStockPhoto. However, keep in mind that they don't offer nearly as much traffic as Dreamstime or Fotolia.
28
« on: February 12, 2009, 18:08 »
Most of the creative pro's may be using Macs. But using a Mac is not going to turn you into a pro. Your photographs won't look better because they've been processed on a Mac, or worse if you're using a PC for that matter.
29
« on: February 11, 2009, 23:42 »
Wow, that's pretty cool. It could definitely simplify the workflow.
30
« on: February 11, 2009, 13:23 »
I'm just curious, how much post-processing can be done in Lightroom? Is it possible to by-pass processing in Ps?
31
« on: February 11, 2009, 13:06 »
I definitely stick with a PC. I have no problems using a Mac, but I find them rather awkward. It's really what people are used to. However, I must agree with people saying that PCs are much more versatile. And there's too much unfounded hype around Macs in recent years, which is really Steve Jobs' marketing genius.
32
« on: February 10, 2009, 15:14 »
You can definitely do it in CS3. Using Photoshop, go to File > File Info... and just add title/description/keywords. Those are accepted everywhere. But you're going to have to edit the categories individually in each site, because every agency is different. That actually takes the most time when uploading photos in my experience.
33
« on: January 31, 2009, 10:15 »
I personally have not encountered that. Are you using some sort of anti-spyware software? Sometimes those can alert to false positives and block access to lots of harmless things.
34
« on: January 27, 2009, 00:16 »
Although I kind of understand sjlocke's point of view, how it could be a bit dishonest to provide the same image for $3 to one set of customers and $300 to others, I think if I was a buyer, I'd be aware of the fact that the same photo may be sold at a lower price on microstock. Especially given the fact that nothing is really stopping a photographer from making it available in both places.
I guess it depends on each individual photographer and whether they feel ok about it.
Just out of curiosity, has anybody ever have to deal with a pissed off buyer complaining that they bought your photo for 100x more than they could've at microstock?
35
« on: January 26, 2009, 20:35 »
Well it definitely makes sense, louoates. I mean, I'm sure most of us here are working with multiple agencies. And I'm sure buyers that are aware of one agency realize that there are multiple agencies that have their own benefits. We are diversifying and so are they. That's why most agencies are offering more incentives for exclusivity, because they're trying to earn buyer loyalty..
36
« on: January 26, 2009, 20:21 »
The site is definitely missing any sort of a legal structure. Thus, it makes the end-user unaccountable for their actions, meaning the model release goes out of the window. The downloader may use the image in any way possible, which may not be acceptable to the model. At least the free sections like on FT or DT apply the same rules to free images as to the ones you have to pay for.
I'm not trying to rip on you bobek. I think you may have good intentions, while earning a few bucks on the side, and I don't see anything wrong with that personally. "See a need, fill a need" sort of thing. And I've seen some good photographers featured on your site. I'm personally not a huge fan of providing my photos for free, although I'd consider it in some cases to help boost my sales or charitable reasons. But I'm not sure how my rejected images that do not particularly meet the standards that buyers are currently looking for would benefit me, unless I provide a good image for free as means of advertising. Maybe you should try to distance yourself from providing "rejected" images and focus on providing advertising to the photographers that would like to be featured on your site.
And you definitely have to include some sort of binding agreement between downloaders and your site, like making them sign up for an account and agreeing to terms of use. It may not be as important for photos not featuring people, but otherwise it could be a nasty lawsuit waiting to happen.
37
« on: January 26, 2009, 19:52 »
Lcjtripod has a very good point. This is a buyers market. Some will flock to Wal-Mart to get the same thing for cheap, while others will still go to that little store because that's what they've been doing for the last 20 or so years. Old habits die hard. I could definitely see Alamy losing business with buyers opting to purchase the same picture for a cheaper price. The photographers themselves shouldn't lose business though, just their revenue would take a cut because their photos wouldn't be purchased at high prices anymore.
38
« on: January 26, 2009, 19:44 »
I think as long as the device is not easily recognizable, it's ok to upload it. But if the design of the device is unique (such as an iphone or a blackberry), then that may spell trouble. I think Apple is very protective of their stuff because it's minimalistic clear white design of laptops and computers is their trademark. Whereas some older models of Toshiba/HP/Compaq are very similar to each other and at certain angles you can hardly tell them apart. Generic is the key.
39
« on: January 26, 2009, 19:36 »
You've got some pretty sweet mousepads there. And I also like the holiday lights abstract.
40
« on: January 26, 2009, 19:34 »
That is so cool. I've had no idea that microstock is that wide-spread.
41
« on: January 26, 2009, 15:06 »
Do the earnings usually have to reach a certain level like at most microstock agencies, or can you request them at any time?
42
« on: January 26, 2009, 15:04 »
Wow, cover of a journal! That's pretty awesome. I come from a science background and I truly had no idea that those journals also use microstock. As far as I know, the journal contributors usually supply the cover picture (which aren't that great sometimes from aesthetic point of view), so I think this is quite an achievement! And it's an awesome picture, too. Congratulations!
43
« on: January 26, 2009, 14:57 »
I am surprised you guys are getting tax forms from istock. Are you in Canada?
I have never received any tax form from istock, nor from StockXpert, 123 or the smaller agencies. I claim the income anyway, though. No point in running afoul of the IRS.
Yeah, I am in Canada. They're saying that I need to send out my social insurance number to their office so that they can prepare tax forms for possible earnings before they even look at my application. I personally have not encountered anything similar at SS, DT, FT, BigStock, CanStockPhoto (StockXpert still pending). It must be some new rules that are likely to be implemented at most major agencies since they're claiming they are required to do this by the government.
44
« on: January 26, 2009, 14:47 »
Wow, thanks alot everyone for such detailed input. I guess it's a good thing that now they're at least making some sort of an attempt to prevent that sort of stuff. I was just bewildered a bit by the sheer scope of violations.
And yeah, you're right stormchaser, the more I've researched about that site, the more I've realized that web presence is a must in order to have some success there.
I might try it out in the future when I have some spare time just to see if I can make some sales. The market needs of zazzle are a bit different from microstock.
45
« on: January 26, 2009, 14:32 »
I think you've done quite a good job with the overall design/layout and the whole theme. It's very easy to navigate your site. One thing I might suggest is to combine different categories of your photos (i.e. nature, landscapes, etc) under a single 'Portfolio' link as your site starts to grow and becomes more complex. Otherwise, it's functional the way it is right now for the current size of your site.
How do you like Weebly so far? I'm currently researching different hosting services and I'm just curious to hear your opinion.
46
« on: January 25, 2009, 21:41 »
I've only encountered it at IS so far, and it's actually hindering my application for photographer because I have to send out a letter to their Canadian office.
But I haven't had any payouts yet, so as xposurepro pointed out, that stuff would have to be filled out when you actually try to get the money.
47
« on: January 25, 2009, 21:35 »
Hello,
I'm very new to microstock and just selling work online in general. Browsing through this forum, I've stumbled upon people mentioning Zazzle. I've checked that site out and kind of got interested, but the very first thing I've noticed is a whopping amount of products containing copyrighted material (such as pictures of celebrities, etc) that in no way would fly on legit microstock sites (unless for editorial use).
Not that I'm comparing microstock to zazzle, but I'm assuming that copyright is the same and should be applicable to both to the same degree. My question is to anyone who's dealt with that site before. Do they bypass the whole copyright issue with some sort of freedom of artistic expression (since it's designs on merchandise that are sold, not the designs themselves), or are they just a few steps away from a major lawsuit? And is it worth it dealing with that site? The idea seems very interesting to me, but the whole cesspool of copyright infringement is what's putting me off. Unless I'm wrong, and there isn't any infringement there.
Any input on this would be greatly appreciated,
Eric
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
