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 ... 96 97 98 99 100 [101] 102 103 104 105 106 ... 119
2501
« on: March 28, 2010, 12:29 »
...I posted a message on DT's forum quite a while back, asking if DT couldn't consider limiting the size of sub sales.
The thread was removed within an hour, with no warning or notice. I said nothing at all negative or derogatory, it was simply a suggestion.
That was the last post I made (or shall ever make) on their forum. 
This agency behavior (in general) will keep on going in the future - sadly. Competition leaves less and less room for generous commission cuts for the photographers and the running costs for the agencies are just going up (more staff/reviewers/offices and disk space/servers etc. - cost probably increasing faster than their sales - if sales even grow!!!). So for them it's a necessary move to grind down any amounts they can save (moving those costs onto the contributors) to stay in the game. While it's easier for them now to predict future costs and prepare (by adjusting prices) they can maintain their own salaries but naturally the individual contributor will make less and less. There is no way around it. In 5 years, each of the top 3 agencies will have maybe 200.000 or 300.000 contributors pumping content to their libraries. By that time Yuri is long gone somewhere on his own yacht, only shooting custom projects and that's it. The full-time Micro-shooter will be an extinct species then. It used to be a real good money maker but now it's going to destroy itself (for the contributors).
2502
« on: March 28, 2010, 08:31 »
... Anyway, in the case of key-wording. I cant see the big issue. Just use terms as football, stadium, crowd etc etc. Unless somebody is looking for a actual picture of the cup (as in, the trophy) it wont really matter?
Thanks for your response. As for the keywords I'm only concerned using the terms "World Cup" or "World Cup 2010". This really not easy to convey an image that doesn't abuse any copyrights or trademarks but relates directly to this year's event. Even if people just use the keywords "world cup" and "2010" separately I wonder if FIFA is still ok with that.
2503
« on: March 27, 2010, 10:37 »
2007. I cannot know anyway when he joined Fotolia. I hope he can give me some reasonable answer. I always presume 'innocence' before condemning somebody, so the benefit of doubt I can still give him for a little while...
Is he total exclusive or only some images exclusive? Did you find that out? If he is exclusive with Fotolia (or DT for that matter) and he has the same portfolio at any other site - it's beyond benefit of the doubt.
2504
« on: March 27, 2010, 09:08 »
Yep, you need to print it, fill it out and scan it again. The only way!
2505
« on: March 27, 2010, 08:59 »
I'm using a TS lens to do the panorama. See the bottom of this article. I've got a 65mm Hartblei SuperRotator, and I'm actually shooting quite close up, attempting to get a square image at XXL or even XXXL (for istock) instead of 3:2 from my Pentax K20d. Perspective is an issue. The article says the camera should move rather than the lens when shifting right and left, which is why I'm trying to find a fairly accurate way to shift the camera. ...
Thanks, I understand now why you need to shift it.
2506
« on: March 27, 2010, 08:03 »
thank you Madelaide. Now I can notify this person that he is violating the terms of contract, having exclusive images at FT, but the same exact in DT at least (I haven't checked others).
Go get him. I wonder how long he got away with that. Could you see when he joined DT?
2507
« on: March 27, 2010, 08:00 »
I have a need to slide a camera in portrait position sideways to take two overlapping portrait shots and stitch to make a square image. I have a manfrotto tripod with standard tilt head (not ball head), but finding some bracket that can attach to it which has a right angle to hold the camera vertically and also allows sliding is problematic. I do have a straight sliding bracket that can fit to tripod and camera, but I need the right angle. Any suggestions would be welcome.
I just got up so maybe you have to disregard this question: Why would you slide your camera for a stitch instead of turning it? Are you running out of background? I tried stitching shots that I took by moving sideways. Total mess. The software I used (PTGui) couldn't handle it. You get far better results by simply rotating the camera. As long as the pivot point of the camera (or better of the sensor) is on the axis of the tripod you'll get a perfect square stitch. Maybe you can elaborate your scenario so I can understand. It's too early.
2508
« on: March 27, 2010, 07:51 »
Answer from Achilles: ... PS: a green curve above the blue curve represents a mature portfolio with a good RPD. The bigger the gap, the better the quality factors of that portfolio. ...
I have that scenario since the beginning of January 2008 and I'm still on a decline. It means nothing.
2509
« on: March 26, 2010, 22:15 »
That is fantastic! I can just dream about $2 RPD. What types of photos do you shoot?
Kone
I'm more into illustrations - not vector though.
2510
« on: March 26, 2010, 20:58 »
My RPD last month was also well over $2 but still I was over $100 away from my BME.
8 months now of decline. Not pretty to look at.
2511
« on: March 25, 2010, 22:09 »
I really have no problem complying to their rights. I never tried to copy anything. I had my own designs and "only" used the words. If the words are trademarked or whatever, I will stop with my stuff.
Once you get the rights to something, you're entitled to it - that's how it works.
I'm just not so sure if the agencies are already aware of this, because iStock, Shutterstock , Fotolia, Dreamstime and the rest will be having a lot of trouble coming their way then using this term...
2512
« on: March 25, 2010, 19:51 »
Did you have the word FIFA?
Absolutely not! I was already doing research before designing this stuff so I thought I was somewhat sure that it's ok.
2513
« on: March 25, 2010, 19:47 »
Are there really still people out there who believe that a new micro agency will take off and accumulate a library of images in the 2 to 5 million range within one or two years? Every single new agency that was founded in the last 3 years never made it to the top 5, not even by a long shot. Where do these people get their business loans from?
2514
« on: March 25, 2010, 19:25 »
Dont know about "world cup" , but I can tell u that nobody who likes football in Europe or in almost all countries where football is national sport number 1 , never uses term soccer , and never will , FIFA and UEFA dont use that term also.
I guess they cannot copyright "world cup" cause the term is used in other sports world championships finals , If I had to bet the term they own is "FIFA world cup" , but Im not 100% positive about that
I had products removed from Zazzle because FIFA complained about my "World Cup" term. "FIFA World Cup" is trademarked, it says it on their web site.
2515
« on: March 25, 2010, 18:16 »
Funny enough the term "Soccer World Cup" is in the disambiguation system of iStock. There are also tons of images on there using the term in the image description and title.
Wonder how that pans out.
2516
« on: March 25, 2010, 18:12 »
I uploaded soccer themes and used the term Soccer World Cup or just World Cup.
How else can I refer to this event?
"International championship that takes place every four years"
I respect their copyright but it's just a bit far I think.
2518
« on: March 25, 2010, 17:48 »
I had some stuff removed on Zazzle for using the term "World Cup" - obviously it was soccer related. I see on their web site that the term "FIFA World Cup" is a trademark. But on Wikipedia the term "World Cup" is defined as: A World Cup is a type of sporting competition. Also what is with the term "Soccer World Cup" - who owns that? Maybe someone of you has more info about this.
2519
« on: March 25, 2010, 07:47 »
Does anyone know where the opt-out checkbox on BigStock is now? I've looked around all my profile pages, etc. and I don't see it. I wanted to be sure I am opted out from partner programs with BigStock, since they are participating in this MediaBakery thing.
I'm not 100% sure but I think you can't opt out from partners at Bigstock. Ever since SS took over I wouldn't be worried about faulty earnings reporting. I'm sure SS is having a serious eye on MediaBakery so they get their money. I believe it usually works this way: Partner receives web resolution thumbnails for application of new watermark but once a sales happens the high res files will be downloaded from the BigStock servers. This way the original agency can easily track the transactions. I hope it works this way also in this case. I keep my fingers crossed.
2520
« on: March 24, 2010, 19:46 »
There is a list of stock sites at left, haven't you seen it? BigStock is among them.
Then why is my copyright note saying "Colossus RF" and not Bigstock?? I'm sending both BigStock and MDBKRY an email to figure this out.
2521
« on: March 24, 2010, 08:12 »
I don't think you (cash my files site owner) are taking this business seriously enough. If people can sell movie posters or the like with logos on them from "Paramount Pictures": http://cashmyjunkfiles.com/files/medusa-.html (and check the other image in this person's portfolio). there is something majorly wrong. http://cashmyjunkfiles.com/files/forum-buzz-script-mrr.html (Brothersoft logo) There is something called "intellectual property" - you may have heard of it. It grants all copyrights to the creator of the files and not any 3rd party (unlike your "contributors"). Those image collection files you are selling look fishy too. I won't be tracking down any copyright holders but eventually you'll get word from them I'm sure. This is a good example of how not to start an online business.
2522
« on: March 24, 2010, 00:20 »
This partner site stuff is starting to pi$$ me off.
My images are listed with a copyright notice from "Colossus RF" - god knows what collection that is and where it came from.
I'd guess it's a Fotolia affiliate maybe someone can spot an image that's only available at a certain micro site in order to pinpoint the source.
2523
« on: March 22, 2010, 19:26 »
Nice stuff, a lot of people have said they wouldn't have put this sort of stuff on micro, the OP said " There's not much of this sort of work on microstock so it will be interesting to see how viable it is." has nobody thought that might be the reason why she's put it on iS!
I'm guessing she's not new in the stock industry.
I'm not saying that she is not smart to upload this to iStock but I wonder how many people need half naked models with splashing clothes to advertise their products and services... It's her creativity and skills that make these images so special.
2524
« on: March 22, 2010, 19:09 »
Must agree with Sean regarding the detail - awesome concepts though.
At this level I think she'd rather open a creative agency teaching a couple kids (as her employees) her skills and lean back raking in the cash.
I wouldn't submit this to Micro either.
2525
« on: March 22, 2010, 12:18 »
I have not read any cases where a miscellaneous face in a crowd visible for 3 frames was able to sue anyone in a legal case. Perhaps you could provide an online link to such a history.
I think this is leading into a gray area as I wouldn't want to see myself for 3 frames in an ad supporting a republican party (or democratic *cough*). What is the actual time "allowed" for an identifiable face to be displayed without having grounds for a lawsuit? I doubt that a company is "permitted" to take photos of people on public grounds and compile a time lapse without their consent just because the faces are shown for only 3 frames. I thought, as long as the person can recognize him-/herself you need a release - period. If no release is available it will be editorial (if possible). Especially in time lapse videos it's easily possible to process the footage in a way to make the people unrecognizable - I thought that would be the requirement for RF. But obviously it's just enough to "be part of a crowd". Now let's define crowd (*getting a headache*). I highly doubt that this is written anywhere which may be a good and a bad thing at the same time for us photographers. However, in order to be able to publish legally safe content it would be of great help if there would be official statements made by the agencies accepting such content (most likely footage). Or shall we just upload anything hoping that the agencies will make the decisions for us?
Pages: 1 ... 96 97 98 99 100 [101] 102 103 104 105 106 ... 119
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|