|
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
2651
« on: December 08, 2009, 22:41 »
My tongue's bleeding from biting on it. I have to say something. Ivan, it's a good character trade to give EVERYONE the benefit of the doubt. Not many people still do this in this day and age!!! I would like to add my 2 cents on this one though. There are a couple of "red flags" in the statements she made: Given the fact that her "artwork" looks pretty decent in a technical aspect I assume this wouldn't have been her first composition that she made based on other artist's images. So we can assume this wouldn't be the first case of license breach. THEREFORE, I find her statement: ...She told me that she usually don't do that, and she bought maybe just a few images this way. ... a bit suspicious. First off, what do you guys think what a violator would say to you after identifying yourself as the copyright owner? Do you think he/she would actually respond: " Yes, I know this image is copyrighted and I do NOT have a valid license to do this." OR " I'm so sorry - I had no idea that I'm not allowed to do that". Now I don't know if the second half of this quote above is your interpretation Ivan, or if she actually said that but either way I've heard this sentence one too many times from people who lied to me. Nonetheless the expression: ...and she bought maybe just a few images this way... already implies that she IS using other peoples' images besides yours. You were just one who found out about it! In many cases such behavior and statements show that a license breach has been committed before BUT was never discovered. Ivan, after all this I would like to know why you think or why you are afraid of that she thinks that ...I think she was pretty upset about all this, and I'm sorry if she thinks I'm a monster... You and a monster??? I think you are not a monster. You kindly asked what . is going on and after the fact that she removed the image instead of purchasing a valid EL is very, very strange AND commonly known as an "admission of guilt". This should be the last thing for you to worry about whether she thinks that you are a monster... If she as an artist is doing this all the time (buying images for her artwork) but refuses to pay you in a way that you deserve AND you are offering her content for future projects you are the most generous man (well maybe second most generous...) that ever walked the earth. You've done it your way and things worked out to some extend - although you should have gotten an EL in the first place... I would have done it differently just based on my previous experiences with violators that DO KNOW that it is illegal but try ANYTHING to get out of it. The internet and the digital use of imagery make it very difficult to gather proof of such criminal intent as it would be up to you to bring forth proof of violation. In such cases it usually works the way: "Innocent until proven guilty". So the phrase: "Ohhh, I didn't know..." is the first step for them to get out, followed by removing the content (without paying a license and regardless if any sales already occurred!!!!). While this may have been totally innocent, I know that this is not the classic case.
2652
« on: December 08, 2009, 00:32 »
And here we go again. I just identified 4 more sellers on Zazzle distributing my image. I guess we all have not the slightest clue how many times our stuff has been sold without our knowledge... 
2653
« on: December 07, 2009, 23:57 »
@ Digital66 Come on! She is clearly stealing and using stock images to make some money.
Whitechild, Did she buy en EL? Did she ask you for permission to use your work? At http://www.redbubble.com/groups/redbubble/forums/posts/search?q=stock+photo&commit=Search+the+Forums she says: "I always send personal notes to photographers seeking their permission to use their stock images."
So, if she did not ask for your permission, she is just a liar. She is stealing stock photos.
She is clearly using this work to make money, not just to show "her art" . At http://s304.photobucket.com/albums/nn180/ayed2/Boodi/?action=view¤t=Drowning_Lessons_by_phatpuppy.jpg people can buy prints, mugs, playing cards, etc of this image Thanks for that! I cannot apply the same rules/opinion to all "artists" out there that use our images but I might remind you that the lovely lady who ripped my best seller and offered it on Zazzle, flat out lied to me when I asked if she made any sales. After identifying myself as the copyright owner of the image in question she replied: "Oh, I'm so sorry. I didn't know the image was yours. I removed it from my gallery. Thank god I never sold any items with that design on it." How many of you would just accept this an move on? I bet some and nobody gets hurt but I wrote to Zazzle and asked them about it. Big surprise she did have sales. The commission was not paid out yet therefore I claimed the royalties and guess what - I got them. My design, my copyright - MY MONEY! Can I explain it any easier? Just because people tell you one thing doesn't mean they are telling you the truth.
2654
« on: December 05, 2009, 17:21 »
...Your image is a substantial part of her artwork, but she did include other elements to make a derivative work. Which is allowed in the standard microstock license. ...
Lisa, I really would love to hear everyone's opinion about this statement. Could you elaborate what this exactly means? While Shutterstock's submitter agreement clearly states that all uploaded content must be created by the contributor and the definition of copyright as I stated above also considers this as an infringement of copyright I have a hard time following your thoughts on this. I understand that this "artist" is not selling this "artwork" at Shutterstock or possibly not even at any stock image agency, however if there is a financial gain involved it is considered commercial "artwork". You can not sell artwork as your own if elements have been taken from other artists. If so then only with their consent (and not just by adding a link or note to the agency where the image was obtained...!!!). I have to go back to the fritzkocher issue as many may remember and I think Lisa you may have followed that problem as well: This guy took very good stock images form other contributors and photoshopped helplessly some compositions together that were clearly considered as copyright infringement (at least by many stock agencies). Who cares if he did acquire an EL for all those images? He still broke the law. Now to go back to this image and your statement Lisa, are you saying I can buy an EL from you, altering %25 of your image and then sell it as my own on a print site??? I really would like to get this cleared up, because I thought we do have some limits on how far one can go ripping our images. I would draw the line in this case a long time ago.
2655
« on: December 05, 2009, 16:20 »
If you need a proper answer you must speak to a lawyer!
The Enhanced or Extended licenses allow reproduction but it does not transfer any other rights (like copyright).
If this Deviantart artist claims copyright for the new image it is a breach of licensing terms in my book but I may be wrong.
Dreamstime will help you to answer that question.
In any case it's a lousy attitude to use somebody else's image as the main element of the new artwork without asking for permission (besides purchasing a valid license of course). This would actually already answer why the person didn't ask you for permission because if I were you, I wouldn't have given permission...
@ m@m - this will always happen - unfortunately. But you are right, one has to take action and do everything possible to get these images removed or taken down from distribution.
2656
« on: December 05, 2009, 14:59 »
No it's NOT ok - here is why: Definition of copyright infringement by the U.S. Copyright Office ( http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html): As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. Just this in itself should explain clearly where you're at. Furthermore if anyone remembers, the "fritzkocher" issue - he did the same exact thing and got banned from all the stock sites. This is crystal clear but of course the artist who used your image (and others) will not agree with that. I'd do everything to sue this thief *biting tongue*. Good luck!
2657
« on: October 21, 2009, 15:45 »
It's the text inside the card. I have a basic text in my card, but allow buyers to change it if they wish.
OK so this would be the final sentence. You can leave it the way you posted it. Just to put it like: "Ein frohes Weihnachtsfest und ein glckliches Neues Jahr!" would be also ok. I'm not a pro at editing greeting card text but I think you can get some "inspiration" by checking out some greeting card stores online.
2658
« on: October 21, 2009, 15:37 »
Und ber dieser Satz?
"Mit den besten Wnschen fr ein frohes Weihnachtsfest und ein glckliches Neues Jahr" It depends on the context. Is this just a text on a greeting card or is it the final paragraph of your web site?
2659
« on: October 20, 2009, 20:16 »
If the model would have looked into the camera in the second shot it would have been a much better stock photo.
Furthermore you should decide where to go with your background. It's either blown out white or another distinct color.
In this case it just looks "dirty".
You can make it work with one light source to illuminate the model, bounce some light on the dark side and blow out the background.
With a white background you'll get a nice clean look.
2660
« on: October 20, 2009, 20:11 »
Ich wuerde auf jeden Fall "Sie" verwenden. Hoert sich viel professioneller an.
Redos Ubersetzung ist makellos. Gut gemacht!
2661
« on: October 15, 2009, 08:02 »
I agree.
I used to upload to 15 Micros. Total waste of time.
3 went out of business while uploading and the others just had horrible returns.
Upload to less agencies and focus on producing awesome images.
I saw a guy on iStock with 130 files in his portfolio and he got 33.000 sales. It's only about quality if you want to rake in the big $$$.
2662
« on: October 14, 2009, 13:44 »
It only says "old credits". I was under the impression that these "old credits" don't even exist anymore or at least expired.
All I know are credits from 2008, 2007, 2006 and "old".
So this image went over the table for 3 "old credits" although a current customer pays 10 credits.
That's a far stretch IMHO.
2663
« on: October 11, 2009, 19:30 »
Both of your works are very good, no doubt.
Looks like this is a "hot spot" for travel photographers - kind of a must-have-shot.
Heck, if you have a woman along with you why won't you toss her into the frame to make it look better?
Appears to me like shots of Big Ben, Eiffel Tower, Big Apple etc. Seen one, seen all - along those lines. Doesn't mean that there can't be some outstanding ones but these are just like printing money. Go there, do it and rake in the cash. Can't blame either one of you.
2664
« on: October 11, 2009, 12:31 »
...
Like I said, I always see these images of the earth in MS photos and I know these photographers arent getting rides in the space shuttle.
So where is the source material?
NASA is the source. It has to be mentioned in the image description IF the agency accepts the image. However, I doubt that NASA has public domain images of the statue of liberty high-res enough and noise-free enough for stock...
2665
« on: October 10, 2009, 21:43 »
It's possible that somehow our brains are wired together...lol. The guy whose image I mentioned is the current dreamstime featured artist. I browsed his portfolio and found a girl in santa's hat snorkeling underwater. I just recently did this shot as well and to my knowledge couldn't find anything similar in micro, I thought it would be fun to try. The creepy thing is, according to dreamstime both our shots were done on the same day one Island apart in the Caribbean. How creepy is that  
You should get in touch with that guy - it seems like you have a lot in common. Maybe together you become like a super-photographer-team or something.
2666
« on: October 10, 2009, 19:52 »
Christian, this does hurt. However I'd take it as a compliment although it's quite lame to copy the shot. Instead of just one woman sitting there he could have paid a local couple to lay in each others arms just to get a different feel. This photographer didn't just start out and to take an existing shot and copying it means that you did something right! Many people won't know about it, but for me, he lost some points 
2667
« on: October 10, 2009, 18:28 »
This is where the gray area starts. While you may download free images for commercial needs like for an advertisement, you're going to lean yourself farther out of the window by using a free image to incorporate it into a composition that you are going to sell as your own. Considering that the entire image won't be "yours", you might get away with it as it will most likely stay undiscovered by the original copyright holder unless you get the owner's consent to do so. I wouldn't give consent. Even on the few images I uploaded for free a long time ago at sxc.hu Furthermore Shutterstock contributor terms prohibit this behavior where it states: ...
11.
Representations and Warranties:
You represent and warrant that:
...
c.
the Submitted Content and all parts thereof are owned and controlled by you, unencumbered and original works and are capable of copyright protection in all countries where copyright or similar protection is available;
... If you ever get caught with that at SS, you're out. I'm sure other agencies won't like to see this either.
2668
« on: October 10, 2009, 12:49 »
Thanks for all your views everyone. Really appreciate it.
In terms of buyer behavior and preference, what would a buyer be thinking if they specifically wanted and RM image instead of a similar subject/image sold as RF? Since RM does not necessarily mean exclusiveness anyway.
Cheers,
PTLee
Many things. Amongst others the buyer can inquire about if the image he (she) wants is being used by somebody else during the time period the buyer wants it. In RM the buyer pays for the type of use and the time period. Time is an important factor. Many agencies require their RM images to be exclusive anyway. At Alamy not necessarily. If it comes to commercial RM the buyer is likely to ask about exclusivity even thouh it's not marked exclusive at Alamy. That's the big advantage of RM that the use of an image can be somewhat controlled or monitored. Commercial RM also usually involves high cost shoots. Therefore the photographer needs to rake in more $$$ than getting a couple hundred bucks for an RF image. RM images can sell at rates between $2000 to $9000 per use. In some instances the same photo can be used for a campaign where it requires multiple licenses so it can be licensed 2 or 3 times netting several thousands for each license. Imagine selling the same picture as RF for a one time $200 in your pocket... But the market is huge and the RM needs go from a spot size newsletter image (netting $12) to exclusive high gloss magazine covers (more than $12  ). You need to test the waters. *license prices may varyHa, I almost forgot: Take any RM/L image at Alamy and use the price calculator top see how time and usage types affect the pricing!
2669
« on: October 10, 2009, 08:13 »
Some things mentioned here about RM/RF sales ratio and series do not apply - at least for me.
So far I'm selling far more RF at Alamy than RM maybe 10/1 ratio. So to say that RM is the way to go at Alamy is nonsense. It only depends on your portfolio - not the agency.
If you look at their Quarterly Statement, for the last ten Q's the tendency of RM/RF ratio has been a slight increase of RM over RF from 3:1 to 4:1. I agree it depends on the buyer and the portfolio, but it is pretty obvious that most Alamy buyers are getting RM images.
http://www.alamy.com/contributors/statements/default.asp
I'm not ignoring that Alamy makes their money this way and I'm just writing about my RF/RM sales ratio. All I'm saying is that one can still make money at Alamy solely with RF although their main market is RM.
2670
« on: October 09, 2009, 13:01 »
Thanks for the input. So should I stick with mixing the RF/RM or decide on one or the other for each set of images?
Perhaps one can still find a 'niche' in RF or RM in Alamy. Are your sales mostly from returning customers?
2,000 images eh? The uploading and keywording is gonna take me a while, I'll try my best.
Cheers,
PTLee
Success in the stock image industry (by whatever measures) doesn't happen overnight. It takes hard work and dedication over a longer period of time. Walk this road for 3 or 4 years with consistent new imagery and you'll see what I mean. You also will always improve your quality and style - things you can't do without. Most importantly: Use correct keywords. Buyers/researchers are (mostly) not idiots. If they have a concept in mind they also know how it could be visually conceived so they can come up with some keywords on their own. Stupid example is not to use the word "friend" in an image of a dog (although he might be man's best friend...). The buyer would know to look for a dog... I'd suggest not to mix RF/RM of one subject like you did with the Hoover dam. I'd leave them all RM unless you have the RFs on the Micros. That's just my opinion and some might suggest otherwise.
2671
« on: October 09, 2009, 09:57 »
Some things mentioned here about RM/RF sales ratio and series do not apply - at least for me.
So far I'm selling far more RF at Alamy than RM maybe 10/1 ratio. So to say that RM is the way to go at Alamy is nonsense. It only depends on your portfolio - not the agency.
Screw their ranking system. A buyer is looking for an image and will look as long as necessary until he finds it. If you have that image with adequate keywords you will get the sale period.
I sold abstract images where it's sometimes hard to find keywords and yet buyers found them.
@ OP - You're still far away from the photographers that upload 20 images of the same subject with minimal framing changes. I don't think it's too bad in your case.
You definitely need to get more images online. Come back once you have 2000 images with them, then we talk about sales.
2673
« on: October 08, 2009, 18:12 »
...
I like the idea of a dedicated area to handle this problem. If... leaf can set it up that way......
You're already in it! 
2674
« on: October 08, 2009, 15:20 »
Just to put this straight.
He has been removed from BigStock.
It's only the thumbnails that still show up - the actual images are gone.
2675
« on: October 08, 2009, 14:14 »
Canstock does have footage sales - better than AlwaysHD at the moment...
Fotolia is selling quite well actually.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
