|
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 - Sean Locke Photography
Pages: 1 ... 98 99 100 101 102 [103] 104 105 106 107 108 ... 314
2551
« on: March 06, 2014, 20:44 »
Yes.
2552
« on: March 06, 2014, 20:22 »
Agreed the other sites should sue for anti-competitive practices. They've got the lawyers. They know the ins and outs. The Getty 'contract' can be found, and I doubt 'giving away 35 million images' is included.
2553
« on: March 06, 2014, 18:00 »
Yeah bloggers licencing subs for a few cents .. is that really the busines we're in ?
I've the feeling you guys are all overreacting, Getty will bring millions of new users on their site and some of these free loaders will end up becoming loyal buyers, how is that a bad news for us ?
What do we have here? A diehard fan of Getty?
Yep. J. Klein in disguise.
2554
« on: March 06, 2014, 17:36 »
Well, of course they agree to abide to the TOS when they embed, so no problem. ( eyeroll ) Who's going to sue when it goes wrong? Not Getty, of course. Hands in the air....
2555
« on: March 06, 2014, 17:31 »
2556
« on: March 06, 2014, 13:29 »
No, you need to put that in the html, but you can just use that embed bit:
//embed.gettyimages.com/embed/180001639?et=Y6bmQlGSGEuDMaWJ-okQeg&sig=UTHDfD6LPp2rUdp2vALgZ0oKZUJnodIpbUlWJBodcUM=
to go grab the image.
2557
« on: March 06, 2014, 13:23 »
I understand you guys are all angry now but realistically we should wait 6-12 months to judge the outcome of all this. Yeah, that way, we'll be distracted by the next fiasco. May we like or not, what Getty is doing is nothing but giving the market what the market was asking for since a long time. The "market" would probably like my car for free, but I'm not giving it to them. What the market will get back is another story, that's depending on the payout photographers will earn once this thing will be up and running. Right, a payout. That worked pretty well with my $.001 payouts from Connect. I can't see why this is treatening out traditional business, book publishers and magazines and newspapers will still buy stock images like before, it's only bloggers and low lifers who will embed for free and they never paid a dime so far so where's our actuall loss ? there's no loss at all, i'll rather take 100$ bucks per year in royalties from bloggers than 0.00$ like i do now. Plenty of bloggers license images, with real money. http://blog.myphillylawyer.com/2012/12/29/pennsylvanias-underage-drinking-fines-soar-in-attempt-to-curb-teen-drinking/http://asiasociety.org/education/learning-world/what-pisa-and-why-does-it-matterhttp://www.todaysparent.com/blogs/tracys-mama-memoirs/my-back-to-school-boycott/... and that's just a couple from searching google images for my name.
2558
« on: March 06, 2014, 12:50 »
Question:
Embed. Does this mean the photo is stored on Getty's servers? Um.... not too knowledgeable about this stuff, but if this thing explodes couldn't they have several million blogs contacting their servers at the same second of time - can they actually handle that?
Why can I go to one of the embedded photos already in someone's blog and right click on it? It doesn't even have any exif to tell me where it came from.
From an embedded photo, you can "copy this code </>" and embed it on your own blog without even visiting Getty? Now that's convenient! No end user contact info. No spam from Getty!
Yes, to the first. The servers sit there serving up these images everytime a new visitor hits a page. Actually, at one point, I had thought of a service where you'd host images and let blogs embed them, and based on the number of hits the image got, you'd charge accordingly. But I thought the server traffic would cost more than you'd make, and I didn't think people would want to rely on an image hosted on someone else's servers. You can, to the second. You got it, for the third. They want them to spread virally.
2559
« on: March 06, 2014, 10:30 »
They "own" my images for the next year. By the time the contract is up, I'm sure my Getty photos will be all over the internet for perpetuity - even if I finally get them off the Getty site.
No, I'm pretty sure you can close your account with 30 days notice. It's them that has to wait a year.
2560
« on: March 06, 2014, 10:10 »
I think this is a good idea. Very good use for the domain name and it gives a real chance of increasing revenue.
Sure - I have no problem with this plan. Finally a useful idea.
2562
« on: March 06, 2014, 03:15 »
2564
« on: March 05, 2014, 21:48 »
My new goal - to automate a collection of 40 million embed links on individual pages in a "blog" with adwords on the side.
2565
« on: March 05, 2014, 21:35 »
Getty should be ashamed of the 'free to use' posts that are proliferating across twitter.
2566
« on: March 05, 2014, 21:09 »
"What if every web site in the world decides to use the Getty embedded viewer and an extra billion people a day get to see my stuff. Will I lose money or make money? The answer is: I will make a lot more sales and a lot more money. "
Sorry. I don't see the correlation.
2567
« on: March 05, 2014, 21:07 »
You missed the other thread?
2568
« on: March 05, 2014, 20:51 »
"There are millions of free images available already that are legal to use. Even for commercial purposes."
People often find that free isn't really 'free'.
2569
« on: March 05, 2014, 19:21 »
Naw, encouraging people to freely use content with no cost is just dumb.
2571
« on: March 05, 2014, 15:00 »
Sorry if it has been answered in the last 27 pages.
Have the stats on Istock for September and Ooctober been updated or are they still the "incorrect" stats.
Still incorrect. They're busy with the Valentines page.
I have wondered how that will affect people's tax. There doesn't seem to be any official form correcting the error, they just say people earned this and then started taking it back without any accounting correction that I can determine.
I don't think it affects taxes. You just make less this year.
2572
« on: March 05, 2014, 12:45 »
Methinks they're getting confused and thinking the terms protect the "PAYG" RF market:
"Are the other sites selling files with a "use-them-only-as-long-as-you-subscribe" bit? This is a huge difference."
The OP says:
"One difference for subscription licenses vs. images licensed with credits or cash is that customers are required to use the images they download within the term of their subscription. If they dont use the image, the right to use that image terminates when the subscription terminates. For example, if a customer has a one-month subscription, they must use the images they download within that same month in order to continue using that image following the end of the subscription term."
So, as long as you use the image before the term ends, you're fine. You can use them forever. Put it on a website during your subscription period, and it's good for all time. "Use" it in a comp, and you're covered. There's no definition of "use". You just can't stockpile a thousand images you don't "use". Of course, there's absolutely no way for them to police that, but whatever.
SS: "You may not ... Stockpile or otherwise store downloaded Images that are not used within twelve (12) months of the date on which you first downloaded such Image. If you fail to use an Image within twelve (12) months from the date of your first download of that Image, you lose all rights to use that Image"
2573
« on: March 04, 2014, 17:24 »
(As it was mentioned in the twitter thread, I tried 'ice cream'. There's something badly wrong with the Stocksy search engine. Some irrelevant files I clicked on don't actually have 'ice cream' in their keywords (maybe it was getting fooled by the US-English term 'frosting'?)
I'll let them know. Thx.
2574
« on: March 04, 2014, 17:21 »
I don't know about multiple cameras - when I was watching, there wasn't anyone else in that area onscreen, and I don't see any other cameras in the rear view. People never know where to look with camera phones. Do you look at yourself on the screen, look at the button, where's the camera hole?
2575
« on: March 04, 2014, 17:19 »
Well ok, whatever comforts you. If you believe you haven't behaved unprofessionally and that your sole reason for tweeting the same thing multiple times was "just helping others", there isn't much I can say or do. I can only choose to not believe you, what I actually opted for.
Also the other ones defending you that you are just helping others, like people can't type "microstock agency" in google, I don't know if they're being naive or just justifying your unprofessionalism under the pretext of helping because you're known in this community.
Whatever the case may be, it's yours and their choice, as mine is mine. I might not share the popular opinions around here, but at least I'm not phased by certain figures and am honest about my intentions and attitudes. Case closed for me. 
I don't think I said my sole reason was anything. Obviously, I was doing some marketing, and hopefully it helped some people as well. As I already pointed out, people were asking for alternatives. And I did get a couple of thanks. Again, you haven't said why it was "unprofessional", so I have to continue to disregard that.
Pages: 1 ... 98 99 100 101 102 [103] 104 105 106 107 108 ... 314
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
