|
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 - Shelma1
2576
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:50 »
Jon?
2577
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:47 »
If I was a Vetta contributor I'd be steaming mad right now.
If Jon says it's no big deal then I'm cool with it.
Jon?
2578
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:46 »
Ok but those are different things. A vector being given away implies that the entire full sized image is being given away with layers etc.. That's not what this is.
Is a JPG of a vector any less valuable than a JPG photo?
A JPG of a vector is less valuable than a vector of a vector and a JPG of a photo can be less valuable than a RAW of a photo. Sorry I'm not sure I get your point. Someone said vectors were being given away, they aren't that is all I was saying.
If your argument made any sense at all, Getty would never watermark vectors.
2579
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:44 »
If I was a Vetta contributor I'd be steaming mad right now.
2580
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:38 »
I'm simply making the point that photographers' images are not the only ones being given away...illustrators' are, too.
Ok but those are different things. A vector being given away implies that the entire full sized image is being given away with layers etc.. That's not what this is.
I sell jpgs of my vectors on Shutterstock. I'd be awfully POed to see them being given away by Getty.
2581
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:32 »
I'm simply making the point that photographers' images are not the only ones being given away...illustrators' are, too.
2582
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:28 »
2583
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:07 »
2585
« on: March 07, 2014, 08:56 »
I have said we need a new Rights Managed licensing model. RF has given open rights with no possible recurring revenue and also has made it impossible to track proper licensing versus infringement thieves.
This could be the new-age RM for commercial usage. Getty could charge a usage fee so that commercial websites are renting an image for a specified period of time and specific use. This is essentially a subscription usage model like Adobe CC. You can use it as long as you're paying for it.
This brings recurring revenue back in the equation instead of now where with RF once they buy it once and use it however they want. Even with the "restrictions" in RF licensing, what buyer pays attention to it and who polices usage? Nobody. Now they pay as long as they use it.
It also should easily provide the ability to manage rights. Should be pretty easy to find infringements because imbeds would have very specific usage just like RM.
And usage premiums would be back. If a website buys a 400x600 imbed for one page they can't enlarge it to 1200x1600 and use it across 50 websites. If they want to use it across 50 websites then they pay extra for that usage.
Getty already does this. That's what rights-managed is. Or am I missing something?
2586
« on: March 07, 2014, 07:44 »
2587
« on: March 07, 2014, 06:46 »
Love it!
2588
« on: March 07, 2014, 06:43 »
What the folks who believe people will click on the embedded photos and then purchase them are missing is that those people are the wrong target market. They're not designers or art directors. They're there to read the blog or article, not to buy photos. If they're fellow bloggers and like the image, they can also get it for free.
2589
« on: March 06, 2014, 19:26 »
This is my best week ever for SODs there...even today, with all those free images available from Getty. 
2590
« on: March 06, 2014, 19:15 »
I'm scared. 
2591
« on: March 06, 2014, 19:12 »
SS could use the opportunity while the site is down tonight to offer higher royalties, and watch the mass exodus from Getty. Not that I want the additional competition, mind you.
2592
« on: March 06, 2014, 17:35 »
2593
« on: March 06, 2014, 15:11 »
Yoga room, cafe, ping pong..."you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."
2594
« on: March 06, 2014, 14:13 »
Anyone could easily go in to that code and increase the constraints on the size of the image or change the frame. Or right click on the image and save it.
All of those actions are against Getty's T&Cs, of course. Based on their history of sending big payment requests when they find T&C violationsand because these images will be closely trackedperhaps Getty sees this as a shiny new income stream when people change code or right click?
2595
« on: March 06, 2014, 14:09 »
Kind of typical of advertising/production spaces in NY.
2596
« on: March 06, 2014, 13:22 »
now there are 35 Million free pictures and subscriptions at iStock, they really know what they are doing
Just think about the recent Selfies at the hollywood oscars... that picture was shared millions of times and the author earned nothing .. with Getty they could have made tens of thousands $$.
It was paid product placement and promotion for/by Samsung.
2597
« on: March 06, 2014, 13:19 »
What the he-ll guys, up until now we got ZERO $$$ from bloggers and spongers, at least now Getty is doing something to monetize and of course their plan is to raise the bar in the future depending on many factors.
Just think about MILLIONS of blogs showing the name GETTY IMAGES in all their articles, it's HUGE and it's gotta be another nail in the coffin for their competitors who are struggling to stay afloat.
Nothing and nobody is going to make these rascals pay for stolen images, what Getty is doing is just getting a slice of the pie which is better than nothing.
Actually, when I search my images online I find they've been bought by bloggers and news outlets. They paid to license the images.
2598
« on: March 06, 2014, 10:36 »
I think (hope) there'll be a backlash, and Getty will have to backpedal.
2599
« on: March 06, 2014, 06:39 »
Only thing I can think of why this wont work is that I personally dont want to see the big Getty banner at the bottom of the image with the social media buttons if I were to use it on my blog or website.
All it takes is for Getty to make it a bit more discreet and elegant. Not hard.
All you need to do is constrain the image box to cut off the bottom. Already done in article linked to above.
2600
« on: March 04, 2014, 18:20 »
Poor Liza.
Is there a notated list of who all those people are?
Look in front of the group of actors in the bottom shot. There's a phalanx of cameras facing them, positioned in the aisle below the stage. They're casting shadows in the stage lights. They also had a camera positioned above and behind the group, which is where that rear shot came from. No doubt some or all are video cameras. This was set up beforehand, with Ellen instructed to lead people towards the bank of cameras and hitting a mark on the floor so they'd be in the right spot.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
