|
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 - Axel Lauer
26
« on: May 28, 2014, 14:57 »
Does someone knows a Grease-Monkey-script which makes it possible to delete all my images which are hold like hostages by this dubious website without spending my half lifetime?
27
« on: May 28, 2014, 14:43 »
@all
How can you be sure that you really have opted out??
Screenshots, Screencasts, tons of people who wittness that you really opted-out??
I mean - if they just say that you did not opt-out - what can you do?
If an agency acts like gangsters (automatically opt-in is in germany illegal) i can imagine that they try to betray you with even more dirty tricks.
28
« on: May 28, 2014, 10:26 »
I just sended a mail to our attorney to kick their asses.
Despite that new attempt of cheating contributors they still sell our images although we cancelled our accout over 9 months ago.
I hope they kick the bucket as soon as possible.
29
« on: May 28, 2014, 07:19 »
Hi, since the support from stockeon is not willing (or able ??) to clearify a question about minimum payout i ask here and hope that someone knows. I asked them if there is a minimum payout amount. Support said : "There is no minimum - you are paid what you earn each month. If you earn $1000 for example, we pay that (minus hold amount which is paid later). If you'll earn $1, we pay that as well. No minimum as we don't want to hold users money unnecessarily. " Their TOS ( http://www.stockeon.com/conditions.html) say in Paragraph 7: "The Author agrees for the remuneration to be paid after reaching the
minimum amount and to be paid by the 15th of next month, in accordance with these Terms of Service and a relevant agreement." This is a relevant discrepancy between what their support says and what their TOS say. That means: Whenever they want they can change the minimum payout to what ever they want (because you agreed into their TOS). And if your balance is high and their minimum payout has been set high enough you will never see a cent. i asked back and since then i just get lame explanations and they try to threat me with that funny stuff : If you dont like it here we are happy to close down your account The next shady company??
30
« on: May 21, 2014, 11:06 »
.....but if that were the criterion for staying with an agency I'd have pulled out of them all -
That is what we will do the next weeks except two of them. I am really fed up with all these shady "companies" and that trouble with incompetent reviewers and all that timeconsuming crap for just a grand per month. I give Symbiostock a try (my webdeveloper works on a verson which is able to handle videos) and if that works i even give the last two agencies the axe I prefer to sell only a few files for fair prices than to bite the hand thats feed me. I leave it up to others to bring the whole business to a point where you have to sell your HD video for 1 cent. (Look at Dissolve - they already sell HD for 5$) Yes, you are right - i cant stop that trend. But at least i dont have to explain my apprentices why i did my best to ruin their means of existence.
32
« on: May 21, 2014, 05:47 »
These 49,99$ you might loose in the worst case is nothing compared to what you did loose by the daily rip-off you have to bear as a contributor.
So in my case i dont care about the payout.
I would loose much more if i stay with them.....
33
« on: May 21, 2014, 04:52 »
You give away your images for peanuts to have a backup?  We have 20 TB backuped on HDDs and we use crashplan / backblaze for a second backup. So no need for 123RF in that case and since they ... -dont sell (more or less) -have a dubios policy regarding their API / partners -sell for lousy cents -have no opt out for that pain in the a*ss , called partnersites... ....we decided to give them the axe. Back to topic: Any experiences with cancellations / terminations?
34
« on: May 21, 2014, 02:59 »
Hi
I want to terminate my account and the last mail from them sounded a bit as if they would act as shady and dubious like many other so called "agencies" (Dreamstime eg) which make the process of termination so painfull that contributors leave their content online only because they do not want to spend a huge part of their lifetime with clicking "delete buttons".
Thats the hostage-strategy.
Does anyone have experience how a termination works with them?
If it turns out that its a hostage-company i better ask my attorney to get that done.
regards axel
PS: and this term from their TOS makes the impression that 123RF is something quity shady complete:
"Effect of Termination: Within a reasonable time after termination or expiration of this Agreement, 123RF shall delete all digital files representing the Accepted Images and withdraw the availability of such files for search and licensing from all Distributors databases and repositories. "
Reasonable time......
aha...that sounds very much like something very crook to me
36
« on: May 03, 2014, 16:44 »
The news are:
1:There is no need for a class action lawsuit if its against DP. Its possible to sue multiple times - for every single photographer a separate case.
Our attorney is looking for a competent american lawyer (cause you better have a lawyer in the country the company you want to sue resides)
2: We took measurements against Shotshop - but since its a actual case i do not want to tell too much.
When the whole case is a bit more advanced we gonna tell you more
axel
37
« on: May 01, 2014, 12:24 »
Hi Ron
i dont worry about royalties / split in these cases.
Dont you care about in what eventualy dubious / dogdy / shady environments your name or your work might show up??
We do!
At least i want to know where my work shows up or if their partners are OK.
Since that whole business turns more and more into something very dubiuos i dont believe / trust anymore kind words except my own.
And thats why i want to know from shutterstock who else they let be their "partners".
(sorry for my bad grammar)
axel
38
« on: May 01, 2014, 12:08 »
Hello, does someone knows what that is and if its a "official" partner of SS? http://www.flower-pics.com/(I am pretty sure that you will find your pictures there too - even if your work is not about flowers) And yes .... i realized that they just link ....and in the footer its sayed : " Images and data by Shutterstock" So there must be a kind of API / Partnerprogramm established by Shutterstock and i want to know how many "Partners" there are. I am not willing to let other people decide where my work is published and not even get informed that it is publsihed somewhere else. This at least is unethic and unprofessional (if not even more) regards axel
39
« on: April 30, 2014, 15:30 »
Why is SS so impolitic to deliver a fraudelent bait&switch-site wich spreads also malware with our images?
That crappy PD-site cant drive that much user to SS that its worth to risk such a reputation-damage, or am i wrong?
40
« on: April 30, 2014, 14:50 »
Ok, but how come that your / my images ended up there?
Whats the connetion between SS and them?
And to be honest - i dont want to find my images on a website stating;
"Welcome to Public Domain Pictures"
There are enough people out there thinking that "internet = free content" and i really dont need more hassle than i already have with thiefs and other crooks.
And a website that gives that kind of impression is absolutely dispensable to me
41
« on: April 30, 2014, 14:08 »
Can someone explain why i find my images here and what Shutterstock has to do with them? http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/" PublicDomainPictures.net is a repository for free public domain images.
The pictures are free for you to use and you should feel good about doing so."
42
« on: April 30, 2014, 09:15 »
We tried to buy them this morning and it was possible to put them into our shoppingcart.
Maybe you see empty shells right now because they started to delete them since we sent them a harsh mail and putted our lawyer into CC.
Oh Boy......
i can become so furios if i come across injustice , unfairness or stupidity that my temper might kill me one day.
43
« on: April 30, 2014, 05:37 »
Since that DP / Shotshop-scandal we had a look to agencies we had contact in the past and what shell i say - we found the next one you should have a very close look at. www.photaki.comAlthough we cancelled our account in June 2013 they still sell our images. And on top - they locked us out of our account Here is the link to our port: http://www.photaki.es/fotografo/rightlightThe next "agency" you better should put under surveilance
44
« on: April 30, 2014, 02:46 »
In two hours i have a phonecall with our lawyer who is a specialist in copyright-issues.
i know that the actual case is not about copyright-issue but i will ask him about the possible measurements.
I myself think about to start with a suit against shotshop at first and would really like to be a part of a suit against DP.
But to be honest - i am quite confident with german law but not with american.
In some hours i know more and let you know.
45
« on: April 29, 2014, 15:40 »
Lets collect money for a lawyer
Robert Kneschke had an idea.
He said:
If we find 300 contributors and everyone spends 100$ he would put 1.000 on top.
I am in too.
If we find 300 contributors and everyone spends 100$ i put 2.000 on top.
That should be enough for a competent american lawyer.
is someone able to manage that in a way that everyone is safe to get his / her money back if it does not come to a suit?
regards axel
46
« on: April 16, 2014, 13:00 »
A Tattoo is a work for hire, therefore its not strange to think the person with the tattoo can sign a PR and MR and it would all hold up in court. Its the same as being a hired photographer and the photos are owned by the customer.
You hit the nail
47
« on: April 16, 2014, 12:58 »
Hi,
4 weeks ago one of my employees made that joke and the whole team were laughing their heads of:
"Wait a while - soon SS will ask for a PR of the tatoo-artist if you shoot a portrait and the person has a tatoo."
Oh boy - what a laughter....
You should never make jokes like that............
Rejected:
"TATTOOS-We require a property release from the tattoo artist for all prominent tattoos"
Example: http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpg
And for this one i have to send you 12 PRs???
http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-anna-just.jpg
What comes next....??
PR from Dolce & Gabana if a model wears a D&G coat?
Oh no, i am sure it will be like this:
You need a PR from the farmer who owns the sheep D&G made that coat from the model wears on your shooting.
Thats the future.
Strange that its always SS which makes these "special" rules.
Why dont they invent something useful instead?
BTW:
I heard there will be a new agency with 90% split for the photographers in the first year and not less than 75% forever , no subsystem and you set your price yourself and they have a big print-company in the background as financial sponsors.
Does anyone knows more about that?
what's the big deal? just get a property release. problem solved.
On what planet are you living??
48
« on: April 16, 2014, 12:57 »
The Coca Cola or Apple logo for example.
Not relevant. Model does not pay Coca-Cola or Apple for using their logo - but she did that with the tattooartist. and one more: If this would be true than the tattooartist would have a kind of sovereign power above the person the tattoo is on.The model paid for a tattoo
49
« on: April 16, 2014, 12:52 »
@ppdd and bunhill, i appreciate your contributions a lot but i would appreciate it more if you would read what i have wrote - even if it is not my motherlanguage i am writing in. once again: 1: documentary photo of a painting (which can be considered as a copy) 2: photo of a model which has a tatoo she paid for (which can be considered as a own, new artwork) This is not a documentary copy-shot of the tattoo!! http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpgIf someone makes a painting out of my photograph that painting is a piece of art which stands for itself if it has a certain levelhttp://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/one more to think about: Who is the copyrightholder of a fashionshoot with a prominent make-up, a hightower-haircut and a prominent outfit?? The coiffeur? The make-up-artist? the fashion-designer? No, its the photographer. The idea of Co-Copyright-holders is just a theory and has never ever become judged in practice. Simplified you can say that its the person who pulls the trigger on the camera who owns the copyright Indepentend from the number of assistents (light, make, style tec) he has btw: we europeans dont have a copyright @sean locke what would you say if your lighting-assistent claims the copyright on your pictures (we all know that the light is the most important on an photograph)?? You like that idea?
50
« on: April 16, 2014, 12:34 »
If someone makes a painting out of my photograph that painting is a piece of art which stands for itself
The hypothetical painting of your photograph may breach copyright however. Exactly the same as a photograph of a photograph or a traced vector.
NOT TRUE read some courtsentences or this one: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he)
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
