|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
2626
« on: July 07, 2015, 13:11 »
...Shutterstock allows POD where the product (the image) can sell for over $400 and the contributor gets 1-4 dollars, maybe less? They say the minimum cost for the seller is $2.99 but there are products for sale at 99 cents, something fishy is going on there I would guess. ...
What are you referring to? I left Bigstock already (lack of opt out on subscriptions, but I already opted out of their scummy POD resales). Where does Shutterstock offer POD (I'm not aware of any, but perhaps I've been asleep at the wheel)? I can live with deals I don't like as long as there is an opt out. I have made my peace with Shutterstock's complete lack of transparency on the SOD licenses - so far nothing has surfaced to suggest they're abusing that secrecy over terms. Getty on the other hand has demonstrated multiple times -when they've been caught scr*wing contributors - that they cannot be trusted to act in contributor's best interests. Even so, I'd have stayed with iStock (i'm still there, but have all but left) if they'd have offered an opt out so contributors had the choice about whether to participate
2627
« on: July 07, 2015, 10:19 »
I just spent a little time re-reading some of the stuff written in late 2012/early 2013 in the iStock forums about the Google Drive deal - the forums are now all an "archive", and I assume will shortly go away as they move to the Getty contributor community. It's a shame in a way, but might as well bury the dead body - it's not coming back to life. I was re-reading to be sure I wasn't mis-remembering events. Getty was unwilling then to give an opt out to contributors from any deals they came up with and they clearly stated they planned to continue making deals. They didn't communicate the Google Drive deal up front either (not even to iStock management, apparently). Two and a half years later, they're continuing down the path they clearly said they were going to take. It beggars belief that between Mr. Klein, Hellman & Friedman and the Carlyle Group, they've damaged iStock (and Getty Images) as badly as they have, but at what point do contributors who keep hoping something will be different or better decide that they have to write Getty off as a business partner? Keep selling there if that makes sense to you, but be aware of Getty/iStock's history - none of this current idiocy on their part is surprising in light of their (many) previous idiocies. If anything, Getty seems to be doubling down on a failed strategy hoping to reverse the downturn in their fortunes.
2628
« on: July 06, 2015, 15:43 »
...You don't get the images you can use them on slide.ly. I doubt this sends the message that it's ok to use free images for advertising or commercial purposes. As far as deals go this one seems pretty benign.
If you read the startupbeat article (link in my earlier post) Slidely plans to offer paid services at some point. What happens then to the content for which the contributor receives no payment? Shouldn't there at least be some discussions with contributors about how there's something free now but there'll be a paid offering to come (if that's the plan)? "EasyHis plan to initiate monetization efforts centers around a freemium offering that will provide premium features, content and themes via subscriptions, in-app purchases, pay-on-demand, real-world photo accessories and will offer both Light and Pro versions of the platform." Another aspect of a number of deals between agencies and platforms is whether there are any deal-related payments - money that contributors don't share in - between the two parties. When there's no transparency at all over the general terms of the deal (and this isn't just a beef with Getty; Shutterstock wouldn't disclose details on a number of their arrangements either) there's the potential for our images to the bait on the hook and other people eat the fish caught.
2629
« on: July 06, 2015, 13:44 »
Some articles about Slidely - perhaps others knew all about them, but I didn't. I'm assuming that paid services like Animoto aren't too thrilled about the growth of free services (even though freemium is apparently in the future for Slidely) http://venturebeat.com/2014/04/10/slidelys-40m-users-and-7-3m-in-funding-shows-slideshows-may-be-sexy-after-all/http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/27/slidely-launches-new-show-app-for-making-videos-out-of-pictures/http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/17/slide-ly-is-bringing-back-the-mashup-with-its-social-slideshow-service/http://startupbeat.com/2013/05/03/featured-startup-pitch-easyhis-slide-ly-app-enables-people-to-easily-create-dynamic-slideshows-with-photos-and-videos-id3234/Oddly, although the Getty press release area had something about the Fiverr deal, I couldn't find anything about Slidely This article says it's a selection from Getty's stuff that's available. I did a search and the results making finding anything difficult (it appears to do an OR not an AND search, so narrowing things down is really hard) http://thenextweb.com/creativity/2015/06/17/slidely-pact-with-getty-gives-users-access-to-professional-images-for-their-creative-work/I also uploaded some of my own photos to create something short (a photo collage with the Ken Burns effect and some Sound Cloud music) a nd the results were pretty awful - very jerky, slow to load, and not something I'd consider posting for family to view. Doesn't encourage me to use it, free or not.I tried the link in Safari and things worked fine, then went back to Chrome and Shockwave had crashed, which may explain all the bad behavior I saw. It does work better with Shockwave running 
2630
« on: July 04, 2015, 17:45 »
Like I said, though, I'd think the 'benefit' would be the cheap price ( that they buyer pays! ) and ease of use. 'Course I don't know the ins and outs of Fiverr, so maybe I don't get it.
I'm not really up on the ins and outs either, but based on what I know of Fiverr and its gig economy, the buyers really couldn't care less about where the photo came from and just want a picture. Some may care that it's legal versus not (and as you've probably gathered, there's a ton of stuff that Fiverr management should have stopped ages ago; offering stock images for resale). I think if you were to do a survey, the gig buyers would think $10 is expensive, not cheap. I think Getty's so eager to appear in the forefront of something with buzz that they've done a deal with completely the wrong outfit - a place which is more craigslist than boticca and where the Getty name isn't really worth much, even to those who know who they are.
2632
« on: July 02, 2015, 17:56 »
2633
« on: July 02, 2015, 14:17 »
Copying a concept is something we see a lot of and is probably just part of the business.
Copying virtually every aspect of the staging and setup as well as the concept is plagiarism - even though they are different files in the most technical sense - and the copycat's account should be closed. It's just wrong, and with so many blatant examples, it's not an accident.
Does anyone know any of the creators of originals to send e-mails to? I would hope with complaints from the copyright owner there might be a response from the agencies (I assume this work is other places too?). As long as the copies sell, the agency may not have any real incentive to act - it doesn't hurt them. But the copyright owner could send a DMCA takedown notice for the copy.
2634
« on: July 02, 2015, 13:10 »
The Getty press release seems pretty clear that exclusive (Signature collection) content is included: " SMBs can now turn to Fiverr for virtually any creative service and execute stunning campaigns at an affordable price. Add in premium visual content from Getty Images and the unique, crafted imagery found exclusively in iStocks Signature collection, and SMBs can produce their own million-dollar campaigns." I thought that Signature stuff was not on Thinkstock Also, although the seller of the gig can't use it again in another gig, that says nothing about what terms the buyer is bound by. If they produce 10 blogs on a topic, writing the other 9 themselves, can they use the Getty image in those blogs under the terms of the license from the Fiverr gig? If so, while it's restricted vis-a-vis the gig seller, it's pretty much RF to the gig buyer.
2635
« on: July 02, 2015, 10:14 »
And all or nothing is the Getty way (their April 2011 contract changes). SS is a big dog now and figures it can get away with it without losing any (or many) contributors.
All or nothing is every agency's agreement since the beginning of time, when did you ever get to pick and choose which parts an the agreement you wanted to follow and which ones you could ignore?
Never. But those aren't the only two choices. There were many times in the early days of microstock agencies that groups of contributors nudged the agencies to change terms in the TOS when we weren't happy with them. And they did. That's obviously ancient history now and the agencies are big and profitable enough that they don't bend or negotiate or in any other way consider contributors' interests.
2636
« on: July 02, 2015, 09:53 »
I very much doubt that it's the way you saved the images. I'm assuming they don't think the composition of the images is what they're looking for.
Veer has its own editing standards - I used to find (I was there but left over their partner program deals) that some of my images that sell well elsewhere were rejected as being "too editorial for Veer customers" (and these were not editorial images), or another rejection was something like not meeting the aesthetic standards Veer customers expect..
You might write to support to ask if they could explain further, but I don't know if they're willing to elaborate or coach
2637
« on: July 02, 2015, 09:43 »
What if you don't agree? Is your account closed? For editorial, why wouldn't they give an opt in or opt out from commercial use? I can see this coming back to haunt the artist down the road, especially when you look at how little the agencies fight for us. Some artists may agree with everything in the TOS except offering their editorial work for commercial use, and if they want to make a business decision NOT to offer it to protect themselves, is the alternative to have your account closed? This seems awful strong handed to say it's all or nothing.
If I wanted to continue and had editorial work I was worried about, I'd just delete those items from SS and leave my account open rather than leaving. I have so few editorial at SS right now, and none that I think could cause problems, so I'm going to leave them there. Probably wouldn't upload any more though And all or nothing is the Getty way (their April 2011 contract changes). SS is a big dog now and figures it can get away with it without losing any (or many) contributors.
2638
« on: July 01, 2015, 23:19 »
True, Sean did stand up for us and for that I take my hat off to him, thank you Sean. But he was also being somewhat shady and being sleight of hand himself in conjunction with a few other contributors and inviting many contributors onto a private password protected site and trying to get some legal action going even getting into the discussion of raising funds for this in addition to possibly funding a new site. In effect he was a driving force in creating a mutiny of sorts. I really don't think Sean is as innocent as most believe. I know because I was one of the people invited to the secret group. There is always two sides to a coin, and Sean got busted. I truly think he did not get the boot just for standing up for what he believed in, he got booted for his extracurricular activities.
This is an outrageous mangling of what was going on - and I was part of that group too. The only requirement to be a member was that you have a link to a portfolio (to try and eliminate people who had no skin in the game). Contributors discussing options isn't being shady, and Sean certainly wasn't trying to create a mutiny, but just figure out what options people had. Even with your view of what he was doing, how would that have violated any agreement he had with Getty? If had chosen to leave of his own accord and if others did so too, that isn't shady or sneaky or any other such thing. It's just business - from the contributor side versus the agency side.
2639
« on: July 01, 2015, 14:57 »
I've been checking and the sale was reported June 30th - at least I assume that's the Travel & Leisure sale, but it's for the image they used
2640
« on: July 01, 2015, 13:07 »
This is where it gets scary. Desperate, failing companies will throw contributors and our work under the bus for whatever pennies they can scrounge for themselves.
What frightens me more is that even the so called successful publicly traded companies are doing this as well and this all seems to be the norm these days. Sadly they all seem to be throwing our work under the bus for those pennies. It's almost as if they are all playing a game of chicken to see who can get the closest to the bottom without actually crashing.
Yep lots of competition for these deals, at least it's for a one time use and maybe it will give fiverr the incentive to protect photos a bit more.
is the end product one time use as well then?
Fiverr's support page said it was not usable by the seller for any other gig, but the buyer of the gig can, I assume, use it like any RF image, but I haven't seen any license terms to verify that. As far as how anyone would track that, who can tell? The setup is for the seller to pick the image and thus Getty would have no idea who the buyer was (and thus who was legit and who not).
2641
« on: July 01, 2015, 09:55 »
I received e-mail from SS this morning about the TOS change and the wording seemed really strange:
"We've revised the
Contributor Terms of Service
We've given you the option to lower the minimum payout amount from $75 to $35. You still own your work and copyrights, and your agreement with Shutterstock is still non-exclusive."
There was a Learn More button underneath.
Why would they feel the need to say we still own our copyrights - when was that ever even a question?
2644
« on: June 30, 2015, 22:40 »
I swear I was reading for a punch line - I figured this had to be a joke.
Fiverr has been totally out to lunch in dealing with gigs that offer to resell stock images (the give me the number and I'll download it for you type). Then there's the huge packs of pretty lame stock images that are legit (these packages come with reseller rights so it's legit in a low-rent-district sort of way). And into this steps Getty???
I guess they really are desperate and don't care much about long term consequences as this cannot be a good thing for contributors - this is a marketplace that has no discernible respect for IP rights.
2645
« on: June 30, 2015, 19:18 »
YES other agencies do. But it seems that some here are missing the important condition of this new license option. ...when the customer obtains the necessary rights and clearances...
I think the issue is that just because some customer tells SS that they've obtained the rights doesn't mean that they actually did that (possibly just because they don't really understand what they need). If someone licenses editorial, misuses it in a way that the license doesn't cover, the foolish customer is on their own - they have no permission from anyone to do what they did. If an ignorant customer gets an OK from the agency (and I'm assuming SS will not spend the money to actually verify what the customer tells them; they're about volume and profit not bespoke service) - perhaps they cover the brand names but not realize they need model releases from visible people - it seems to me it increases the likelihood of lawsuits (remember that Virgin ad with unlicensed people? I know the facts of this case are a bit different, but it's the idea that people don't like seeing themselves on a billboard) Perhaps the bottom line is that if I trusted the agency to make sure the legalities were thoroughly taken care of it would be fine, but for a subscription download royalty, the risk/reward ratio seems all wrong. I haven't seen anything even hinting at additional royalties to the photographer.
2646
« on: June 30, 2015, 17:21 »
Any suggestion of "all rights" would be very bad because there are tons of things you can't do with the current agency licenses, even extended licenses.
Perpetual limited license would be descriptive, but it doesn't have much of a ring. Then you'd have a Perpetual extended license for the ELs.
The key thing is that the term of the license is forever; the "what" is the set of restrictions laid out by each agency. License is important because that's what you're buying, not the image itself.
2647
« on: June 30, 2015, 16:48 »
...And, will never do it again, now that she knows.
Good story - thanks. I have had similar experiences where one look at an image someone was proposing to use tells me it has to be stock and not public domain. I usually help people find legitimate free images if they have no budget (or if it's family, I offer them something of mine if it works). In your friend's case, she could make it right by purchasing a license after the fact... I think Google should - if it had any ethical sense at all, which I see no evidence of - spend a ton of its profits educating people about this stuff and sticking a bit of text saying "this might be copyrighted" isn't even a decent start. This would apply to all sorts of copyrighted content that its search finds, not just images. Hire a creative agency, make some videos, some ads, having something pop up when you're looking at image search or using Chrome to Save Image As...
2648
« on: June 30, 2015, 14:44 »
There is some new on the dashboard....I only see this when I'm logged with the "brand name"...
Do any of you see some templates and button saying "add a new template"
and on top a menu that says "template brand kit team members billing"
here:
https://www.canva.com/brand
I can see that. It says I can invite team members - free for now then a $14.95 per person per month fee. This is clearly something for users, not contributors if there are monthly fees involved
2649
« on: June 30, 2015, 13:48 »
Interesting, even if I press "I understand" nothing happens, pop up is still open and I cant go to my page.
I'm using google chrome Version 43.0.2357.130
It worked OK for me - same version 43.0.2357.130 (64-bit) on a Mac
2650
« on: June 30, 2015, 12:14 »
I just logged in - it's July 29th that the terms will change
"Terms of Service Change
On July 29, 2015, our Contributor Terms of Service will be updated. By clicking the "I Understand" button on the bottom of this document, you accept these Terms of Service.
You can read a summary of the significant changes, and see the full terms here."
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
