|
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
2626
« on: January 27, 2010, 19:47 »
Question: Minimum upload size is 3MP. Are most of the applicants uploading only 3MP for consideration or is it necessary for the editors to see the whole works?
I'm asking as the images that are being submitted to the group are public and available for download...
As I would try to apply with 10 of my bestest shots I have ever created you could assume that many people would be interested in those images (especially if they are uploaded in full res).
Sounds scary.
2627
« on: January 26, 2010, 00:19 »
...Yikes! I didn't realize that I was contributing to the downfall of an industry. 
Yeah, it's all your fault. LOL 
2628
« on: January 25, 2010, 22:20 »
WOW.
Didn't realize that the 100,000 weekly barrier had been broken.
2629
« on: January 24, 2010, 17:01 »
... Flickr is becoming a problem.
Flickr always has been a problem when it comes to copyright. Same thing with Deviantart. People still believe they can download anything that's online modify it and claim it's theirs. Ridiculous.
2630
« on: January 24, 2010, 16:01 »
I wonder if it would be possible to have a lawyer work for us,...
I already thought about that a while ago. Anyone who is interested to work on something please PM me.
2631
« on: January 24, 2010, 09:39 »
Good for you! Well done! I recommend everyone not to take things like this too lightly. If the site owner (Deviantart in this case) is unwilling to help or plays ignorant you MUST take other ways to increase pressure on them. Write a DMCA notice to the web hosting company explaining your case. Web hosting companies take copyright infringement very seriously and a site owner can be easily taken offline for such violations with their web host. So this would already help to gain some leverage. Also mention that your legal advisor has been informed and is reviewing the case, considering a claim for lost royalties, damages and misrepresentation of copyright ownership. Of course in every case you have to inform all stock agencies that sell this image. It's in their best interest to have that image taken down. Provide as much information as possible to them.
2632
« on: January 17, 2010, 23:16 »
Sean, I knew you'd keep that from us Anyway, I see that this must be too much of a secret although no one appears to have a problem critiquing other photographers' images which would also lead to tougher competition...
2633
« on: January 17, 2010, 21:18 »
It's a (relatively) easy start in Microstock. Shoot, upload and earn.
At some point many of us get more serious and want to make a living with our images/videos. What venues, products, marketing strategies are you using to get your stuff sold?
How about a list of ways to (re-)use our images in order to rake in more $$$.
Let's start with:
- Zazzle, Cafepress, redbubble (which require lots of self marketing) - hard to achieve but it does work.
I think it would be useful to many of us as we can't think of everything. Ideally it would be nice to hear the ways that actually generate some money.
2634
« on: January 13, 2010, 18:11 »
This might have been brought up before but I obviously missed it:
BigStock (for me) started slowing down about 1 year ago. With the acquisition through SS I thought this could bring BigStock back to the big players again.
I understand that (certain) changes don't come overnight but I was under the impression that there will be a big marketing push with the help of SS for the credit based "branch" to make things worthwhile.
I have yet to see any significant (and positive) changes that derive from this SS deal (besides copyright guidelines etc.).
That brings me to the next issue how the credit pricing will be attractive to new buyers. I haven't done too much math with the credit pricing at each agency but it appears to me that BigStock is fairly cheap. Is the pricing going to be raised to "match" the competition (FT, IS, DT) or is SS more likely to keep prices low to use it as a marketing point?
Your thoughts.
2635
« on: January 06, 2010, 23:00 »
800 + files
58,000 + views
6 sales
You're on fire! Way to go!
2636
« on: January 06, 2010, 22:39 »
- 520 files online - referred 14 members - referred 6 sellers - 24.000+ views royalties: $0.00 
2637
« on: December 31, 2009, 12:15 »
Thanks for clarifying this!
2638
« on: December 31, 2009, 11:01 »
I'm a bit surprised as I just finished keywording an image when I saw that my in my image level commission table that 1 credit equals 37 cents (Emerald).
When I look into my sold images from today - I see that 1 credit was paid to me with 38 cents.
Did they announce a commission change? It appears to be a 1% commission change.
Did I miss something? Is this a fluke?
Can anyone upload an image and get back to this thread and check if they have a change in credit pricing?
2639
« on: December 22, 2009, 22:31 »
You chose a theme which has been covered many, many times already by photographers who shoot these things every single day.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't or can't do it but be aware that you are wrestling with the best. Huuuuge competition.
I'd suggest to try a concept that hasn't been shot tens of thousands of times already It will also increase chances of selling more images...
2640
« on: December 20, 2009, 12:38 »
I'm flying "blind" as well for weeks already.
You fixed it before, remember? I'm not sure for how long I haven't received notifications anymore but definitely longer than 2 weeks.
2641
« on: December 19, 2009, 23:06 »
...Hmmm, thats odd. Beginning of this year, I caught a user off a social site I was using, Photography-Network, steal about 20 of my photos and numerous photos from other users and post them on flicker.
I posted comments in each of tthe photos calling him a thief and placed links to my photos, wrote my site whick deleted his accout. THan I files a complaint on Flickr, there was a link available for copyright issues leading to thier legal dept. and gave them all the links to prove it. THe images were removed.
THan I followed up where he lived and posted .
II have since found him on flickr again, but, he is keeping it clean.
Good job! Well done!
2642
« on: December 18, 2009, 15:48 »
This week alone I found four (4) Zazzle members using my images. Shall I really just let them be and start educating them about what they did wrong or try to get some licensing fees that they should have paid in the first place...?
I am not defending infractors, but its is difficult to get more than just having them remove the infringing item, right? And if the image is on micros, the fine for infringement is probably small, or not? Is it worth the legal problems? What if the infractor is abroad? BBC News still shows the watermarked thumbnail of an image of mine from StockXpert, even if I reported it to StockXpert long ago. If BBC is not worth sueing, what can you get from a small business?
Madelaide, I don't think that you defend violators either but we must insist and fight for our right! Just because an image is sold on the Micros doesn't mean that the damage that has been done is also "small". Neither does it mean that it's "not worth" pursuing the violation. When I claimed the royalties for a stolen image from Zazzle I did get paid from them so yes it was worth the effort. Maybe it's not working every time like this but I want to encourage everybody not to look away and enforce their royalties and their copyright. I'm not a lawyer but I recommend to contact one in England and ask for a quick response on your issue with the BBC. Thank god we have email these days which make it quite easy to contact anyone. It's free and it doesn't hurt - worst thing they can say is "No". Usually lawyers quickly listen up when big companies are involved in a copyright situation. I'm sure there will be some lawyer willing to look into your case. I've had lawyers in the US take my cases on a contingency basis for less than what your problem is. Furthermore it is highly recommended to register your copyright. That can make it a lot easier to find a lawyer who would take it on contingency.
2643
« on: December 18, 2009, 10:50 »
2644
« on: December 17, 2009, 19:00 »
I sold more images with a smaller portfolio at Snapvillage than now with Veer MP.
A total dud.
2645
« on: December 16, 2009, 17:48 »
...how are they expected to know that an image they see online is also protected?
Well for instance they could think (by using common sense) that someone else in this world must have created this image since it's highly unlikely that images just create themselves or that the internet creates them. I don't believe that the same people are aware of the term "public domain" either so it's not a case where they have been actually thinking about their actions. Furthermore, as I mentioned before in other threads the "thieves" (whether they know about their wrongdoings or not) will always claim "I didn't know". If we keep giving everybody the benefit of the doubt we (photographers/illustrators etc.) will eventually not license one image in the future since everybody just steals them and then claims "I didn't know". That can't be a solution either. And I have yet to find a thief who stole my images who actually offered to pay for a license to use the image. They all knew what they were doing. This week alone I found four (4) Zazzle members using my images. Shall I really just let them be and start educating them about what they did wrong or try to get some licensing fees that they should have paid in the first place...?
2646
« on: December 16, 2009, 17:30 »
...True. Even more when it's in the internet, people think everything there is free.
I really wonder why people think just because it's online it must be free... When I walk on the street (sidewalk) I can't take any car/bike and use it. When I'm in the store I can't just eat the apple and walk out without paying. It appears to me that people just don't use common sense anymore when they do these things. In the case of (ab)using an image without having a proper license theft HAS been committed and should be punished. Give those little buggers a break and ask for a $50 license fee so they can (most likely) afford it and still use it. Claims for statutory damages can be up to $30.000 so it should be a fair deal. Oftentimes though you're lucky enough if they take the image down.
2647
« on: December 16, 2009, 17:16 »
I really don't think Getty will shut down StockXpert ... unless it is loosing money, which I can't see it doing. If they were to shut down the site they couldn't guarantee that all the buyers would go to istock so they would be loosing income. By having StockXpert they also get full access to the non-exclusive photographers which might not upload to iStock.
Makes sense. But how is it with the big mess there regarding footage? I haven't been up to speed what's happening since I can't get my photo-jpg movs accepted there. For some reason my files (and other contributors' files) keep getting refused by the server. Also the rare sales are often returned. It used to be a big problem. Since they are going to cut down on personnel I wonder how they can keep this ship on course... Or will they drop footage? HD is almost half price compared to iStockphoto - I'm curious how good that is for them...
2648
« on: December 16, 2009, 14:35 »
Obviously there has been a lot of speculation going on in the last few weeks and now with the latest StockXpert site mail announcement things haven't gotten any clearer.
I haven't been following all the latest threads (if there were any about this specifically) but does anyone know more detailed info about StockXpert's future?
StockXpert does generate an important amount of sales for me even without JIU and PHotos.com so this would be quite a hard hit for me and possibly for some others as well if they would (be) shut down.
2649
« on: December 12, 2009, 21:29 »
Have been going to the gym for 5 years now. 3 times per week.
1. What to you are the most important factors in joining a gym?
- affordable price (preferably no contract - month to month)
- clean gym/machines/exercise rooms/showers/bathrooms
- don't allow kids (under 18) - extremely annoying - they will come in groups and act like they own the place
- knowledgeable staff - only hire people who DO want to work there!!!
- many, many disinfectant dispensers and paper towels - other members often leave the equipment when it looks like it stood in the rain (yes - it's sweat)
2. What would make you cancel your membership and leave?
- sales people that flat out lie to me in terms of pricing (every gym I walked into did that!!!)
- obnoxious members (who don't leave the machines the way they found them)
- cheaper membership somewhere else
- rude and untrained staff
3. For you personally say you could choose 10 pieces of equipment for a personal gym what would you choose?
Like mentioned before.
4. have you used a power plate? If so do you like it and why?
Powerplates are useless. Used it and it doesn't do anything. They just started promoting here it with naked women sitting on it (for real) - well guess why... You're on it for 10 minutes and feel woozy, some people just get a headache from it. Pointless. If you have a super upper-class fitness club you might get away with it claiming it has to be that way...
Good luck!
2650
« on: December 08, 2009, 22:41 »
Sorry double post.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
