|
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 - RT
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 77
276
« on: November 04, 2011, 13:38 »
What mess? You've actually got the most filtering ability I've seen anywhere. Price, copyspace, color, orientation, etc. etc.
Shame the CV's such a disaster!
277
« on: November 04, 2011, 13:17 »
RT, though I respectfully and strongly disagree, I do own a domain name that should work in this situation (and which absolutely does not lead to my editorial photography site, LOL). So...
put StinkStock.com next to all your images, and I will happily forward your info to anyone who inquires
And once StinkStock becomes famous enough, we can shorten the copyright notice to StinkStock
Sorry you seem so upset about it, I didn't mean to offend you I was just pointing out that they're not doing anything illegal.
278
« on: November 04, 2011, 13:14 »
Of course RT is wrong. The copyright symbol does mean owner of the IP in many countries.
Well as you're so well educated in the subject maybe you'd like to actually show where it says "the copyright symbol does mean the owner of IP"In the meantime here's a snippet from a site explaining about the copyright symbol: The normal format would be to include alongside the copyright symbol the year of first publication and the name of the copyright holder, however there are no particular legal requirements regarding this. While it has historically been a requirement in some jurisdictions to include a copyright notice on a work in order to be able to claim copyright over it, the Berne Convention does not allow such restrictions, and so any country signed up to the convention no longer has this requirement.
279
« on: November 04, 2011, 10:02 »
And when it uses/requires: agency name agency is openly claiming copyright on millions of photos it does not own copyright to, so a competent copyright lawyer could have a field day with this one.
Actually a competent copyright lawyer would just point out that the copyright symbol ( ) just specifies that the work is copyrighted, not that they're claiming ownership of that copyright, the purpose of having a name after is just so that anybody who wants to enquire about the identity of the copyright owner then has a point of contact, and if you want to be really technical all that Getty (or any agency come to that) would have to do to justify them putting there name there would be to show the the contributor (or any contributor) uses a different pseudonym at different agencies, to go even further, take your own name (assuming it's not a unusually unique one) and search the web to find out whether there's anybody else in the world that has a photo displaying the same name as yours - and there's your answer and the reason why Getty would win before it even went to court. I'm not justifying them not using our names (and I'd rather see my own because it links to my website) just explaining why they can do it, not that they legally have to display any copyright anyway. To be honest, from a protection point of view, unless you do have a truly unique name it's probably better having Getty/Thinkstocks name after the than your own.
280
« on: November 04, 2011, 09:40 »
If a can get the dutch candy bar for $.35 at X why would I pay $2.50 at Y if they are the same and they are.
So you'll support all your images at iS being transferred to Thinkstock and then support all the iS buyers buying them via a Thinkstock subscription then?
281
« on: November 03, 2011, 05:28 »
"Game to RT. Lagereek to serve. New balls please"
282
« on: November 03, 2011, 02:03 »
Also the fact that Photo+, is locked for 6 months, or have you forgotten? 
No as you've been told before Photo+ files are only internally locked into the iS collection (meaning of you can't swap your files in and out of photo+ until they've been there 6 months), they can be deleted at any time. As for reading your posts wrong!
283
« on: November 02, 2011, 15:29 »
Ummm....... I don't think you've read and understood what I've written, I'm not concerned or bothered about anything.
I'll explain - You keep moaning about iS and how your images have slipped from every best match change they make, how you're making more on other sites and have successfully removed some 'flame' images that are now selling better elsewhere and then you keep threatening to remove all your images from the site - Christian they don't care, they're not suddenly going to change things because of your empty threats and you're not big enough to be a special case, either do it or don't but to keep going on and on whilst doing nothing is ruining your credibility. Friendly advice take how you please.
284
« on: November 02, 2011, 12:58 »
On what should have been one of the best months for sales I'm afraid to say Canstockphoto was the lowest of all sites I upload to, and lower from previous months there. Disappointed.
285
« on: November 02, 2011, 12:55 »
I'm open to other suggestions...
Dump it and move on.
286
« on: November 02, 2011, 12:55 »
Nowdays, I am really in two minds, I have covered the IS losses by uploading lots to SS,DT and FT and its paid off handsomely. I really cant see the point in all this IS hassle. I have already deactivated about 100 files, some blue and red flames, put them into RF and they are selling very well.
Trouble is, IS, nowdays is a time-waster, uploading precidure is terrible, long reviewing times and for what? so that it can be mirrored in TS or end up on page 50 in this worthless best match, no thanks.
I will probably pull my port just before the migration. As I said, I have found a better place for them.
From all your recent posts I don't understand why you've still got any files with iS, if I felt the way you clearly do I'd remove mine immediately, I'd be concerned that spending countless hours moaning on and on about a site and yet still supporting them would make me look foolish.
287
« on: October 21, 2011, 12:17 »
Non-exclusive authors earn 25% of every sale as a flat fee. As you might guess, our marketplaces are heavily slanted towards exclusive authors. In fact close to 99% of all files sold on our marketplaces are by exclusive authors. Though as we branch into new areas like photos, that's changing a bit[/li][/list]
Thanks, saves me the time and trouble looking into to uploading to your site.
288
« on: October 21, 2011, 12:08 »
Of course, anything can be beautiful to someone. On the subject of dry stone walls I think they're great - don't personally think that photo in the link you provided is particularly good though.
289
« on: October 17, 2011, 06:23 »
Alamy News launches at the end of this week so I expect that figure to climb significantly
290
« on: October 17, 2011, 06:21 »
When I find one of my images being used without licensing...................
I'd had thought that was virtually impossible to judge for images that are for sale on microstock sites, images that are only available on your personal site, RM or even possibly macro RF (allowing for a long reporting period) you might be able to do it but I can't see how you could possibly keep track on standard license microstock images.
291
« on: October 14, 2011, 02:08 »
What's the point of proving one's identity, I could put my real name but that isn't what my portfolio is under and it's the same for the vast majority of contributors.
We've seen instances where an agency has taken direct action over what's been said here, again a good reason for anonymity.
The biggest problem you have here is your own censorship, you allow people to make statements on MSG and then when they're challenged or asked to provide some form of evidence you delete the posts and lock the thread, I appreciate this is a good revenue source for you and of course there should be a balance of politeness but to allow fraudulent statements to go unchallenged undermines the whole idea of an independent forum.
So on one hand your asking people to prove their identity but not to provide any proof of what they say. Pointless really.
292
« on: October 13, 2011, 05:50 »
The S2 is three times the price of the M9 and twice the resolution, and they are both designed for different usages, buy the one that meets the type of camera you want. It's a bit like saying which car should I buy a Range Rover or a Ferrari.
293
« on: October 12, 2011, 14:25 »
Yep! youre right, thats what I mean though, new money! they dont know how to deal with it, or treat their staff or look after the people who earns their money, namely, the contributors. Like Frank Sinatra said when in Australia, nothing but bums anyway.
So who do you want to run the place?
Alan Capel or James West would be my first choice.
294
« on: October 12, 2011, 14:21 »
I don't shoot at all, I take photos I know I'm weird but I never like to use the word "shoot" unless there's a gun involved. I know this is OT but I just saw the title of this thread and thought of a different type of shooting season.
Sorry I should have been more clear, and you're right despite the title of the thread being in the "General Stock Discussion" category it could easily confuse someone into thinking it was a thread about guns, or maybe even young plants but I thought as this was a thread in a forum mainly discussing stock photography I wouldn't need to elaborate on the term 'shoot'. Out of interest what terminology do you think would be best to describe the process of 'planning, arranging and commiting to a period of time during which you take a set of photographs based around a particular theme or subject'
295
« on: October 12, 2011, 12:08 »
^ Well keep the camera you've got and buy a 400mm lens, the result will be better.
296
« on: October 12, 2011, 12:06 »
That's great, are you going to start marketing now? I'm starting to give up on you guys.
297
« on: October 12, 2011, 12:04 »
It's fine, Alamy are non-exclusive you can show and even sell them anywhere you want, just don't mix licenses.
298
« on: October 12, 2011, 11:56 »
The point is that you have the option to shoot at higher resolution when you need it - for example you're shooting wildlife but only have a 200mm lens, so want the option of "digital zoom".
That does and will have it's limitations no matter how big the sensor is, if they bring out a 400mp camera in the future it doesn't mean you can stand on the balcony of your safari hotel with a 50mm lens and shoot an elephant six miles away, safe in the knowledge you could digitally zoom into a 16mp size and it'll be perfect. 
299
« on: October 12, 2011, 08:59 »
Could be a Compact Systems Camera, they are bound to want some of that action.....
That would be my guess also, I thought one of their guys announced a while ago that they were looking into this market and then recently they registered a patent for a CSC EF lens mount.
300
« on: October 12, 2011, 07:51 »
^ Traditionally stock shooters would target the advertising industry for a 6 month lead in, that would mean for instance getting your Christmas shots uploaded to the site in by March because it would take three months to get them in the system. But your answer answered my question, and as far as I can see the answer is no you're not a 'season' targeting photographer (but I knew that about you anyway ), you do them few and far between as and when, like a lot of us.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 77
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
