|
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 - ravens
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17
251
« on: April 27, 2017, 11:13 »
The number of people trying to sell NASA images just astounds me. FAA is full of them. IMHO, it's a shabby way to make a few bucks. Yes I know it's legal. But there's just a bit of scamming going on here, relying on the fact that most people don't know these images are available free.
If you don't have to be the copyright holder there is no problem to download or swipe stock images and then resell them via Alamy. Alamy is a huge agency, they don't notice or ask questions. If the image creator complains, he has no case, since copyright is not required for uploading and selling.
252
« on: April 26, 2017, 13:43 »
Interesting case but here the "celebrated photographer" was a fool. Why did she donate her images into the public domain? What fool does that? She was shooting her own foot. This kind of behavior is also against every professional photographer who actually has to live by photography, you know, buy things to eat, buy clothes, buy gear, pay rent! Professional photographers don't live by "free". So she got what she was asking for. Good. What we learn from this is: don't give away your copyright. Defend your copyright! Exactly. Alamy's becoming a free site. If something is public domain only lunatic would pay for it.
Getty have apparently beendoing this for years.
https://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper
253
« on: April 26, 2017, 11:12 »
Exactly. Alamy's becoming a free site. If something is public domain only lunatic would pay for it.
254
« on: April 26, 2017, 08:57 »
4.2.
This was there already:
(i) You are the Copyright Owner of the Images or have authority from the Copyright Owner to enter into the Contract and that the Copyright Owner is the sole owner free from any third party rights of the entire copyright and all other intellectual property rights throughout the World in the Image except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted for the use of the Image/s, and that accordingly the Image/s do not infringe upon any third party copyright, trade mark, moral right or other intellectual property rights; or
THIS IS NEW:
(ii) the Image has been supplied to you to distribute under contract for the uses for which they are proposed to be licensed; or (iii) the Image is entirely free from copyright and no attribution is required.
What does this mean for us?
Somebody can purchase our work and upload them and sell, claiming they are free from copyright?
They will begin distributing a huge amount of creative commons content?
In the end they will become an immense FREE site, so where does that leave us, the sales will be even fewer.
PS. If you are still on Novel Use Scheme, opt out, you can only do that in April. Novel use means that there are actually no rules about image use or pricing and you won't necessarily be paid.
255
« on: April 20, 2017, 15:39 »
March was my best month ever. First part of April was slow (Easter , now strongly picking up after the holidays.
256
« on: April 20, 2017, 15:22 »
Why are many of you still with Istock? No use complaining. Get out. Close your account. I closed mine in the beginning of this year and I feel a LOT better ever since!
257
« on: March 09, 2017, 16:18 »
This IS the problem. Fotolia removed the watermark on thumbnails?
I don't remember any watermark on the thumbnails.
And
Shutterstock has not
Adobe stock has not
Dreamstime has not
iStock/Getty has not (and their "thumbnails are twice bigger that the one of the other sites)
Envato has not
CanStock Photo has not
Depositphotos has not
Bigstock has not
123RF has not
Zoonar has not
GL Stock Images has not
Alamy has not
Mostphotos has not
etc.
So, where is the problem?
258
« on: February 22, 2017, 07:51 »
Somebody pays their slice. If there weren't "free" sites like Avopix, we would earn more. Shutterstock would pay US more. People would not get used to bad ormediocre images and demand everything free. "Free" Sites like this kill serious photography and photographers. There are two ways to look at this. We live in a world where there are a lot of free images available and there are a lot of people who are interested in using those images, many of whom have never purchased a stock photo and would never consider looking at a paid site. I know we all hate them, but free sites drive literally hundreds of thousands of visitors per day to Shutterstock in exchange for a cut of the purchase. This saves Shutterstock millions of dollars yearly in advertising costs in a very efficient and cost effective customer acquisition strategy.
Plus they don't take a percentage of our earnings. Shutterstock pay us the same rate regardless of whether the customer went directly to them or through a Third Party, unlike some sites who pay less to us if the purchase was via a 'partner program'.
259
« on: February 22, 2017, 07:46 »
Is it good? New contributors need encouragement = quick sales. I wonder how Alamy works at that.
I have small portfolio on Alamy and rather few sales too. I know, on Alamy you would need a large port to generate any substantial sales. Compared to the work it requires to get the images online (uploading, optimizing the images in the new AIM) it is sometimes frustrating to an old contributor...When you log in no new sales... Imagine how it feels to a new contributor!
260
« on: February 20, 2017, 16:38 »
Thank you for your reply, KuriousKat. Yes, makes sense, this is how the site works.
But I think Avopix is a strange site anyway. No contact information anywhere. What legit site has no contact information? When you download a "free" image, how can you be sure that using them is really legal? Only a fool would be using these in advertising, etc. Plus it is confusing that they say "All images are public domain" and then there are images which link back to SS. Image buyers may believe that the info on this rip-off site applies to the SS photos as well.
I hate free sites like this. First they offer "free " low or mediocre quality photos and make professional photographers starve. Then they take a presentage of our measly earnings with the referrals. These sites are true pests.
261
« on: February 20, 2017, 07:26 »
Does anybody know what Avopix is? https://avopix.com/The photos link back to Shutterstock but this information is certainly disturbing: "Free images and videos you can use anywhere All images and videos on AVOPIX are released free of copyrights under Creative Commons CC0. You may download, modify, distribute, and use them royalty-free for anything you like, even in commercial applications. Attribution is not required. "
262
« on: February 08, 2017, 10:39 »
There seems to be many accident shots in this portfolio. People actually die in accidents. No matter how much money these shots can make, personally I would not shoot accident scenes and crushed vehicles. Let there be some decency!
263
« on: February 08, 2017, 02:41 »
I copy pasted their unique link on their ESP email sent Feb 3. It worked. Then you are asked to create password, that works too. BUT finding your our port is hard, it is like the best kept secret. I searched for it ages and ages and when I was convinced it was not there, I found it. Scroll down under Update your profile place, there is a tiny link. clicked it and
THEN
I almost chocked in my coffee. The preview images are without any protection whatever! You can go ctrl + and enlarge the images to sufficient size, voila, free photos. Who buys photos any more. Google is going to grab these and distribute!
Horrible!
Thank heavens I haven't uploaded anything in IStock for ages, now I am done with them.
264
« on: February 07, 2017, 16:06 »
I don't think this photo is that bad at all, although the description about bokeh was sort of funny.
This image is what you see if you have bad eyesight or too weak glasses. So the blurred photo can sell glasses. I think a blurred "before" glasses image and a sharp "after" new glasses image could also be useful.
265
« on: February 01, 2017, 16:08 »
I too believe it's the shape of the marker, it is very recognisable. Also the text and logo show through the marker, it needs to be tidy. Clean it up properly.
The marker pen does disturb me, and I'm not so crazy for the fact that it is cut at the tip. It is like cutting a person's head off. What is there to highlight? What is the idea behind highlighting? Why not ordinary pen or pencil?
Maybe different, tighter cropping might work to conceal the shape of the marker...
266
« on: January 30, 2017, 10:55 »
A human being with a normal brain won't write spammy titles by accident. Robots do. So if we are human, and we write the titles ourselves, we are fine.
267
« on: January 26, 2017, 10:54 »
Nearly impossible to upload.
268
« on: January 20, 2017, 03:25 »
Shutterstock is not wrong. You did not include the most essential information - the FILE information. You know, those little digits? This is just a nice photo of your wife. Also not a good idea to post online a person's signature, photo, full name and full address. Criminals are having a feast with that information.
269
« on: January 17, 2017, 15:47 »
If you do have "bad" images in your portfolio that disturb you, then by all means do a small clean up within your portfolio. But do not delete 5000 images unless you have other plans to use them! I agree what's been said here - What buyer will look at 6000 images, judge which is worst, and then decide if they buy or not? And if just one buyer among 100000 other buyers is like that, why should you care? Truth is, no one really looks at your port as a whole. People find an image from the search, hopefully buy, and go.
270
« on: January 11, 2017, 15:43 »
Same here!
271
« on: January 10, 2017, 09:29 »
I now have a batch pending for 6 days. This is new - in 2016 and before they used to review images in a couple of hours. I think the max pending time was 24 hours.
272
« on: January 10, 2017, 09:20 »
Just checked and noticed that the petition is (still) online. It now has 1105 supporters and I signed it a couple of weeks ago too. It seems very long ago.
How does it work? Has the petition been delivered at some point or is it just waiting on the web? What's going to happen?
273
« on: January 10, 2017, 02:23 »
Re-check your editorial captions and rewrite them if necessary, then resubmit. If you write to support, it will just take time. I would not do it before 1-2 resubmissions.
274
« on: January 07, 2017, 15:17 »
Hi, on Android also bugs as described on 1/
Sales information stop on Friday.
Can't comment the Twitter function, haven't used it for a while.
275
« on: January 07, 2017, 05:02 »
Thank you for the article. Everyone check it out!
I personally add the copyright notice in camera "Copyright firstname lastname"(and make sure it shows there while I do editing) and I believe the workflow for many Istock contributors is pretty much the same. So when the image is submitted the copyright information it is definitely there.
Istock has the nerve to dilute Copyright to wishy washy "credit line". They have to be stopped, or other agencies will follow suit.
I am not going to look up the law for the sake of this post, but I am pretty sure it is illegal to remove a copyright notice from a creative work in the US.
although i found this: "Removing or altering a copyright notice from an image or stripping metadata from the picture file is a violation of the DMCA. A person can be liable for between $2,500 and $25,000 plus attorneys fees for removing from a work what the DMCA calls copyright management information from a work". Murphy v. Millenium Radio Group LLC and McClatchey v. Associated Press
http://www.photolaw.net/did-someone-remove-the-copyright-notice-from-your-photograph.html
US courts might not count a copyright notice as counting for anything (after all, copyright exists automatically on every image that's made) unless the image has been registered with the Library of Congress. That's my guess, anyway.
Getty /Istock have a lot of international contributors. They can not be expected to register their copyright in a foreign country, in this case, US. We do the creative work and have the copyright. Why should we have to ASK some office in another country to register it? Do we have to ask some foreign entity whether our work is really ours before we can sell it at 0.02 usd via Istock? Copyright is the essential right for every artist/ contributor. Without copyright we cannot sell or licence our work. Istock is intentionally blurring the line and distributing unclear information. Just try and download a preview photo. At least on the metadata of my photos the selected "copyrighted" is changed onto "unknown". Replacing "Copyright" with "credit line" is altering and distributing false or misleading copyright information so yes that is wrong and against law.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
