|
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
Pages: 1 ... 111 112 113 114 115 [116] 117 118 119
2876
« on: June 02, 2009, 18:58 »
What if all contributors join the sites where you set your own price, delete all your images from other websites, and see what happens?
As long as there is a minimum price set on these web sites, eg. Can't sell a high res image for less than 5 euro or whatever, no-one can undercut their neighbour, and you will all get a nice return for your work.
The whole problem here is that you are letting the agency dictate the price, my advice would be to support the agencies that let you set your own price MUCH more than the agencies that don't, even if you don't take the radical move of deleting your images from them..
The unfortunate thing about this is that is takes an initial loss of income, but after that, more profit for you, as long as the majority follow suit.
How about committing suicide? Think of the people who make a living off of this business... They would have to lose ALL their earnings from one day to the next (more or less) in order to upload only to sites that allow you to set the prices. God knows what these agencies will accept of all the stuff those photographers already had accepted at other agencies. Not to speak of older material that is not up to reviewing standards anymore but still selling at the other agencies... Then, and this is the most important point. Such set-your-own price agencies are still considerably small and barely have big marketing budgets. Who knows if they ever can take on the big boys in terms of advertising and getting the word out??? It's not just happening by itself that the buyers will be like: Hey this agency is fair to their photographers - I'm going to buy my stuff here from now on (although it's much more expensive), regardless if the image I really want is sold at Istock (that was just an example...). It would be a nice thought if we lived in imagination land. Wake up.
2877
« on: May 31, 2009, 11:23 »
Those guys are sick. Awesome stuff. Hi-speed recording rocks.
2878
« on: May 28, 2009, 19:28 »
Been there for nearly four years (ever since they opened) and I already have my BME this month. I must be doing something "wrong"...
2879
« on: May 27, 2009, 20:25 »
It's interesting to see the people who were bashing the smaller Micro sites the other day now considering leaving the big old SS... How things can change in a heart beat. Guess there is no good Micro agency after all... 
2880
« on: May 26, 2009, 19:41 »
Maybe it's my English. I meant that the only thing I would get from the host is having the website removed, or maybe not even that - just the image/page removed. I think this is a very small punishment. One thing is if the person does it without knowing that what he is doing is wrong - and quite frankly the term "royalty free" may be misleading - but as he insists in keeping the image after being warned, I think he deserves more.
As I understand, DT may act in our defense, at least this is what Achilles said, because it's of their interest. Maybe the idea is that the guy above will think different once there is a business coming after him, and not a person from the other hemisphere. OK now we're on the same page! Well I see it this way: If I can't dome after him legally (lawyer too expensive/not willing to work on contingency...) then I'd rather report him to the web host. The web host will give the culprit/suspect the benefit of the doubt asking for a license or a counter claim. If the user fails to produce a license it's up to the web host to decide whether they kick him off completely or just issue a warning. From my experience the people who have the image on their web site usually (very often) use other images that are also stolen. If you can identify the copyright holder of one of the other images and contact him/her so that they can also complain to the web host, the culprit will be in bigger trouble. But still you pretty much worded that right - it will remain just a "problem" for him since the worst case scenario is that they move to a new web host and then start from scratch. If they do their homework they can have their new site online within hours. BUT at the cost of a new hosting package  I know it's little satisfaction but you can make them jump through hoops and spend some money on the way. It's just fun to give them a bit of a "problem"  They might get the hint. I will meet with a lawyer and go through more serious scenarios in order to find procedures so I will be able to make valid monetary claims. I'm really sick of it. If they don't react when you write them, I doubt they will react when DT writes them. If they do - good for you but if not, just go with the web host. That's usually faster and more effective.
2881
« on: May 26, 2009, 18:51 »
OK I'm confused... again. First you say: There is a site in UK using a watermarked image from Lucky Oliver, I wrote them, they ignored me. I can write their host, but that will only mean a problem for him, I'll get no compensation for his infringement. This sounded to me like you tolerate the culprit's behavior. You wrote "I can write... BUT... will mean a problem for him..." This sounds to me like you don't want the culprit to feel any consequences at all. Maybe my English is way off here. Please help me out. Then you compare my statement about either having an infringing image being removed or sell a license in order to get proper (regular) compensation with this: If I steal your car, use it, then the next day you find me with it, and I simply return it to you, would it be ok? Now since you mention: But let's say that instead of paying US$10 he would have to pay US$100, that would be a lesson. But no lawyer (as possibly no stock site) would go after that. It really makes no sense to me why you wouldn't report the "bad" guy to the web host. At least this way he will feel consequences or as you call it "problems". Don't forget that he brought these "problems" on to himself. It's absolutely his fault and will have to face the consequences for his wrong doings. To me this is a clear case. Please explain to me if I'm wrong on this... And why would you have DT contact that guy if it is YOUR copyright that has been infringed??? It's up to you. It would certainly be a nice move if DT steps in for you (and LO) and complains about the situation. However, legally DT has the least possible leverage over that since the image carries a LO watermark. Your copyright has been infringed, YOU make the claim to the web host. YOU can prove that you are the copyright owner. Furthermore if this is the only violation of that bad guy he will get a warning from the web host and that's it. They most likely are not "giving him serious problems". This is how I would handle it. Honestly, I couldn't sleep anymore if I knew that those people are using my image without a license. I'm well aware that there are plenty of places out there doing without me knowing BUT as soon as I do know the fun is over for them. I lost a bunch of royalties because someone uploaded one of my best sellers in Hi-Res onto their web site and Google indexed the Hi-Res image. For almost 2 yearsI didn't notice that but wondered why my sales for that image dropped. After giving these people "a problem" the image has been removed and my sales are kicking in again. Just my experience. If the price was US$1, the penalty is one; if US$1,000, is way much higher. I believe this may vary between countries. I don't believe this is correct. If IBM uses one of your images that they are going to use to re-brand their company (for years to come) and infringe your copyrights you will be entitled to more than $1. You won't have a problem getting a lawyer as well as some nice sum to retire. I think it's a misconception that just because the image can be purchased for $1 it's worth $1. Would you sell your copyright to me for $1 per image? Think about it...
2882
« on: May 26, 2009, 16:01 »
I have to partially agree with Old Hippy that in most circumstances the infractor only has to remove the image or buy a license...
Madelaide, wouldn't that be just fair? I'm not saying that an ebay seller who uses one of my images as a background for his auctions should be sued for millions  Of course, it has to be proven that he/she didn't purchase a license to claim copyright infringement. In one of my cases the culprit simply removed the image and apologized. If he/she would have agreed to purchase a license from me I would have sold him/her one. Either way it's alright. At least the image is not being used illegally. That's what matters. I don't see a microstock site chasing rights in court in a foreign country, at least not a country where they don't have offices. It's even less likely that any of us can do it. Shutterstock is eagerly pursuing illegal uploads of their images. I wouldn't be surprised if they have sued people over that in the past. Again, just because we don't hear about it, doesn't mean it's not happening... There is a site in UK using a watermarked image from Lucky Oliver, I wrote them, they ignored me. I can write their host, but that will only mean a problem for him, I'll get no compensation for his infringement. WOW - so you are allowing infringement of your own copyright because "their host will give them a problem" I would think about that again... "They" violated the terms and conditions of the web hosting company. They infringed your copyright. They didn't pay you a license fee. They misrepresent the image's copyright... I'm speechless. I have to say however that I don't have the slighest idea of how far Getty or Corbis would go either. Would they sue a infractor in China?
Getty and Corbis, especially Getty has been violently harrassing companies over unlicensed content. It's something they have to do. There are statistics about how much money is lost through unlicensed imagery - it's quite a sum. It's profitable for them to do so. Sometimes however, they don't reach the right people. In some instances they sued the web site owner although the site was designed by an advertising company and never told the owner of the web site that they should have paid for the image in the first place... Really messed up stuff. If the violation is "bad" enough they will hunt you down deep into the forests - even China.
2883
« on: May 26, 2009, 14:21 »
maybe you're right but so far i haven't heard of a single case where the micro
guy manages to get his money back from leechers, spammers, and resellers.
all the micros can do is barely shutting down some offending web sites
and rant on photo forums about stolen images, as if selling their images for 0.25$
isn't quite like giving them our for free in the first place...
don't you realize once your pics are RF you almost ZERO rights nor protections
in cases like this ?
The majority of the sites that infringed my copyright were shut down by the respective web hosting companies within a matter of days or hours. Blatant copyright infringement is easy to trace and the web hosting companies don't have sympathy with such clients abusing their terms and conditions. I spoke to a photographer who successfully claimed and received damages of people selling his prints. So, there are cases where this happens. Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist... Feel free to PM me and I can hook you up to verify my statement. Furthermore I don't think that it's on any photographer's to-do list to post such issues on public forums in the first place - so it is harder to "hear" about it. Just because an image is RF doesn't mean that your copyright is worth any less. In any serious case where copyright infringement has been committed it is important to realize that lost licensing fees and claims of lost damages are two different things. While you might get another $5000 more out of the lawsuit because the image should have been RM licensed for that price doesn't mean that an RF image that was illegally used on a nationwide commercial can still put up to $150.000 into your pocket - how cares about $5000 more or less then???
2884
« on: May 26, 2009, 12:47 »
ridicolous.
as long as your images are worth 0.25 $ each, what else did you guys expected ?
they steal exactly because they know no one in his mind would sue them for a quarter
dollar damage.
on the other side, if you were covered by macro agencies like Getty or Corbis
we're talking of pictures easily sold for 500$ each.
last year Getty sued hundreds of guys using un-licenced Getty images and always won,
we're talking of fines around 5000$ per image.
with micros you're simply screwed, you've no chance whatsover that iStock starts
suing somebody for micro images worth less than a dollar.
Just because images are being sold through Microstock doesn't mean one can not claim lost damages. With registered copyright and a lawyer in your pocket you can squeeze some $$$ out the person who broke the licensing terms. Of course, it is "ridiculous" to pursue lost licensing fees... That was never the point.
2885
« on: May 22, 2009, 18:33 »
Thanks. Maybe the better question is, what is an affordable video cam suitable for stock footage. The obvious nice aspect of the Nikon, or Canon DSLR is the shallow depth of field, but if i'm buying something primarily for video then perhaps I shouldn't consider a dslr. Is there a favorite affordable video cam (under $1000) among the micro stock crowd?
Yes, there is. Again, you will get limited features for that budget but you can get something for just under $1000. Take the camera in your hand and test it to see what you feel comfortable with. A couple of things come together. Good video equipment comes expensive. It's not just the camera, it's the lenses, tripod etc. You can easily pay $5000 for a tripod that delivers Hollywood style pans no matter what camera you use - just to get the nice fluid movement. DOF is definitely a great feature of the DSLR that you won't get with a <$1000 video camera (probably - I'm not tooooo fmailiar with that, please correct me if I'm wrong). It's a tough decision. Check out the cameras and compare, it will give you hands-on experience of what they deliver. Dang, I forgot something. Don't forget the fact, that the DSLRs have their "built in" compression. You don't have control over the bit-rate that they are recording at least the D90 doesn't. With camcorders that record onto hard disk, memory stick or DVD be careful what your options are. If you go with tape you can enjoy the full plethora of information recorded. Then it's up to you how badly you compress it
2886
« on: May 22, 2009, 18:11 »
Another thing I wonder. Do these crooks find only little people or not so big sellers ?
lisafx is a big seller too, relatively speaking, but why do we not hear about Yuri ,etc..
having this problem. There has to be a problem or else SS would not make this topic known.
I wonder if this is like the same with credit card companies not admitting there is a problem, that people like Yuri do have that problem but don't say it. Or is it that the thieves feel they could get away if they don't try it on people like Yuri. Simply because they know he has the clout and connections to stop them.
Maybe Yuri will tell us what his experience is... My guess: His images are great. No doubt that he is a victim of copyright infringement. Now, having established that Microstock is distributing images all over the planet and considering his sales figures (up to 1.000 images a day just on SS) I believe it is somewhat impossible for him to trace any particular image down for infringement. He would have to answer that. Technically he needs an army of people screening the internet verifying licenses. His stats says he is selling 1.1 mill. licenses per year. That breaks down to over 3000 images a day. Who . can keep track of each and every one of his images? I'd assume he focuses on producing more great content rather than meeting with lawyers all day long. I'm sure though that some special cases do deserve his attention when his material shows on national TV or something like that. Stuff that is actually traceable even for him. But that's exactly the point, you have to focus on your work. Don't let your work flow get interrupted by this copyright stuff. It'll drive you mad if you let it get to you. The days that I spent all day writing DMCA letters are over. I accepted the issue and focus on my work. That's why I posted a few weeks ago, that everyone of us should post web sites here on the forum that distribute our work for free. This way we can look out for each other. It's impossible for every one of us to do it on our own.
2887
« on: May 22, 2009, 17:59 »
1. Don't give away images for next to nothing on subscription and desperate people can't pirate them effectively, it's very simple economics
That would exclude Shutterstock. They are still my #1 microstock earner... and for a few others. Their reputation is outstanding. Whatever next to nothing means - if you start with SS you get 25 cents no matter how good or bad you are... 2. Use a different password on every site on the internet (nice firefox plugin here: https://lastpass.com/ ) and you will avoid people stealing your info to commit fraudulent purchases and/or downloading your files directly from photog backup archive features
True. 101 of being safe on the internet. 3. File your images with your official governmental copyright office and make the decision really simple for the honorable Joe Q busy judge who really has better things to do (and more morally offensive crimes to contemplate) than read up on the current laws regarding the internets
Technically absolutely correct. Realistically I couldn't find a lawyer on contingency basis in 2 US states although having registered copyright. Lawyers want to see money upfront or deal with a case the delivers a significant sum in order to obtain their share. It's near impossible to prove actual damages and when they see what you should have received as a licensing fee they'll just laugh at you. They don't work for a $5 image if they usually charge $300-$500 per hour.
2888
« on: May 22, 2009, 16:58 »
...So that means that person actually bought your image , for what? 25 cents, a sub, a buck, then turned around to use it illegal? How nice, and you probably thought you had a sale.
Hmm ! 
Something along those lines. Someone did buy it to get the full res version, yes. But out of stupidity the web designer (probably the same person who purchased the image) used Frontpage or something like that, which resizes the images if they are too big. The file was actually used as a small image in a web blog on a university web server. However, like I said before, Google and Yahoo indexed it and it was available for almost 2 years. No wonder my sales dropped for that image... I'm sure I lost some money. No one to sue because the blogger "Didn't know"...
2889
« on: May 22, 2009, 16:43 »
One thing that bothers me is that all we can do is to stop the image from being used. There is no chance we will receive any compensation for someone having committed a crime.
Actually, it isn't all we can do. Recently I had an image of a sweet older lady used on one of those "most outrageous" tv shows in a way that upset her and was definitely over the line of sensitive use. She was really upset and I was afraid she would never model for me again.
I researched who the production company was that made it and had a lawyer write them a letter to cease and desist. They agreed to edit the photo out of the show and also to reimburse my lawyers fees. Most of these people don't want to face a lawsuit and damages over a picture they paid a couple of bucks for.
While nobody got damages in this instance, I am happy to be recovering the attorney's costs (wow, attorneys are expensive!!), and the model is just relieved that something was done about it.
She is modeling again this coming week because now she knows I am willing to protect her if I find misuse.
I'm really glad it worked this way for you. Putting a person into a bad light is really upsetting but happening a lot with Micro images. It's been said before that a lot of models do not know what their images could be used for. Tough times. At least with the trads you can put restrictions on the images.
2890
« on: May 22, 2009, 16:41 »
That's true too. It's little consolation. I wonder why the stock sites don't do anything other than this
The market's too big. Too many resources would have to be invested to get all claims sorted out. It would end up that our commissions would be lowered so the agencies can pursue OUR copyright. The agencies just want to eliminate the big boys sharing stuff on rapidshare etc. If an individual web site uses one of your images illegally, what's gonna happen? Been there done that. The web site owner claims: "I didn't know - sorry" and the case is closed. Unless you have a $1.000 loose change in your pocket to hire an IP attorney to make a claim for damages and lost license fees (lol). One idiot got a hold of my image in full res and used it on his web site (in a smaller size). Unfortunately Google and Yahoo were indexing the file so the entire www community had free access to the high-res image. People started using it as backgrounds for their ebay auctions etc. I almost had a heart attack. Eventually the agencies make far more money focusing on selling and marketing our images rather than claiming damages. Usually those claims are settled in court and that takes a long time until you will see some money. @ Lisa when you send the DMCA to the web host, just throw in a sentence mentioning that a cease and desist order is also on its way. That should get them going. I've dealt with web hosts that shut down the site within minutes. I'm sick of it. Once you hit the point of producing material that's being ripped off in any way possible you don't want to contribute to the micros anymore. My stuff is becoming too valuable for me.
2891
« on: May 22, 2009, 15:48 »
But what good is that going to do? they won't sell there, would it?
Sorry, got a bit carried away in the last one... It depends on the buyer. If you have buyer who only wants to spend $5 or less for an image that's going on a product packaging, of course, they are not going to spend $500 on it. Then you will not sell the image on a trad agency. But, and this is the case if you have a buyer who wants exclusive usage rights for a specific amount of time you will sell the image on a trad agency for a lot more money. If they really cared about their product, they most likely don't want an image that's been sold many times through the micros and take the risk that the image appears in a different context. There is a buyer for everything... Example: You have an image of a cat and the cat food company wants to put the cat on their cat food bags. They want a cheap image and buy it off some Microstock agency. They most likely don't think far enough, that the image is still being sold to other people at the same time. Also consider that as a photographer you can not put any sales restriction on the image which means the image can be used in many many ways. Now, PETA comes along and starts a campaign against animal cruelty and needs an image of a pretty innocent cat. Assuming they bought your image as well and use it in one of their TV campaigns, you will soon realize that there is a conflict of interest going on. It has nothing to do with you. It's just the fact that if a client wants it cheap - they might run into a lot of trouble that way. Again, that's why I said: If you keep your stuff on the trads - you will sell your images only to buyers that are a lot more educated/smarter to prevent such things from happening and besides you make a lot more money that way as well. On another note. Take Yuri's images. They are EVERYWHERE. Consider that some companies just want it cheap and then also that there are buyers who want to be unique. Like I said, there is a buyer for everything. It just hurts when the little ones on the micros are being screwed over because they simply can not take legal actions.
2892
« on: May 22, 2009, 14:47 »
Also is anyone submitting footage from the video capable dslr's? Thanks Yes, it works. BUT I have no clue how many buyers I've lost because of the substandard quality... I'll never know. Those cameras are photo cameras not video cameras. They have their limitations. If you know how to work well within those limits, go for it! But don't get frustrated when camera pans or zooms are annoying . out of you (also the infamous rolling shutter issue) You can do lots of stock footage just with a tripod. Forget the Full HD on the 500D due to the 20fps. So you will have to "deal" with the lower commissions for 720p resolution (not with Pond5 of course, since you set the price yourself). Keep in mind that the promotional footage of those cameras (I think Reverie) were made under tremendous efforts when it came to lighting and perspective. The footage you're going to take at the closest intersection might not look same... It's a good start with footage. You will learn industry specific issues by using your photo camera. So you are not really "losing" anything if the footage thing doesn't work out. Good luck!
2893
« on: May 22, 2009, 14:37 »
click_click , you say : What can you do? Move your stuff to the trads...
But what good is that going to do? they won't sell there, would it?
You have to determine: "What are my images worth to me?" When I started with photography I couldn't get into the trads because I sucked. I used the micros to make money along the way and now through continuous learning my images are good enough to make it into the trads. Most of my newest stuff goes there. But I have to accept that some images on the Micros either get stolen after a while or are being used without a proper license. Most of the times there is nothing you can do because you can not even trace back the culprit. Not so with the trads... There you can easily identify the buyer and more importantly it is a lot easier to enforce a copyright infringement claim or lost damages through a lawyer. So my advice: Move your stuff (your NEW stuff) to the trads.
2894
« on: May 22, 2009, 14:07 »
Is anyone have an experience as client or have similar experience???
Yes and it happens all the time. The longer we all are in Microstock the more we will see the drawback of this industry. Right now, I assume you don't even know who the buyer is. Sad enough, when you go shopping one day to the pet store, seeing your photo on a major brand that's being distributed worldwide. On the traditional agencies this could have bought you a nice summer vacation... I sold an image once on DT (single image download - I got $1) and the buyer left a comment that it's going to be printed in a book. DT replied that this is adequate. I'm selling images on the traditional agencies all the time for book publications and I do get significantly more for that. What can you do? Move your stuff to the trads...
2895
« on: May 21, 2009, 09:10 »
...average selling price approximately $300 and average commission just under $60 per sale...
Ouch, ouch, ouch. Getty, the Macro-Istock. It's funny though, you could have put those images non-exclusively on various Macros with a 40/60 or 50/50 split (60% you and 50% you) and enhance the chances of making more sales through more sub-agencies... Seems like you do a lot of travel. I think you would have quite some sales with Macros... and I mean other Macros... like ones that are not being sued by its own photographers for commissions that give you chills.
2896
« on: May 20, 2009, 20:31 »
Sorry to be a bit critical, but that doesn't seem like the kind of thing to build a quality collection from.
Sean, he didn't ask for critique. Once he does, we have the right to bash.  I think there are quite a bunch of people on this forum who beg to differ when it comes to defining "quality" and not to speak of "collection"...
2897
« on: May 20, 2009, 20:15 »
Straight from camera, shot handheld so it's shaky :-) I need to use tripod for video for sure. Also I need simple video editing software, so I can crop videos. Any suggestions?
https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/399567
Be careful with the rolling shutter issue. You can see the waves in the background "pulsating" when you make horizontal moves. With photo-cameras it's a must to use a tripod, it's impossible to hold those still also since they don't have a shake reduction. Google "rolling shutter issue" and you will find lots of tips how to reduce/eliminate it.
2898
« on: May 20, 2009, 08:19 »
Trying to get a basic/simple rastered image on iStock is imo.. close to impossible and extremely frustrating  I've got 15.000 images on SS (and usually over 10.000 with other major sites) while iStock has so far accepted 27 LOL  On the bright side: life has gotten a lot less frustrating now that i've stopped regular uploads on iStock and plan to stop uploading alltogether  No more cursing on best match changes/horrific uploading/weird policies/insert other complaint
Impressive quota. I guess you are not going to reveal your secret how you can upload nearly 20 images/illustrations every single day for 2 years straight (rejections not counted). On a 10 hour working day, that's 2 images per hour including keywording. If you count 3 minutes for keywording, that's another 1 hour a day just to tag the images. Then you still have to categorize them. Are you on life support or do you ever leave the house to go shopping for food? I get dizzy uploading 10 a day to all the agencies including keywording and categorizing... Keep going.
2899
« on: May 19, 2009, 18:40 »
OK, now since this is getting completely out of hand - here you go:
A buyer (who shall remain anonymous - I hope no more trolls have a problem with that...) wants some of my images exclusively. These images in question are on the micros.
OBVIOUSLY these images have already sold many times.
The buyer knows that!!!
STILL the buyer is interested in getting exclusive usage rights, NOT COPYRIGHT
I have gotten my answers already thanks to people who PMed me as I asked.
Once I have news about this topic I will post everything about it so nobody feels left out.
2900
« on: May 19, 2009, 17:34 »
Well, I don't know if this is what you're talking about, but I make my living by selling photographs, with exclusive rights, to advertising agencies. Of course, these are commissioned assignments. My agent usually quotes two prices, one for limited usage, and one for exclusive ownership. The ad agencies always choose the exclusive rate, which I love, because it's the higher of the two prices. I've never sold one of my stock images for exclusive use, but only because I've never been asked. I would though. Everything is negotiable.
I understand that this is how it works when you do assignments. I'm sitting in a different boat now. Obviously the potential buyer doesn't mind if the images have been sold RF so far. Naturally, in case there is a deal I would have to take them down from the agencies.
Pages: 1 ... 111 112 113 114 115 [116] 117 118 119
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
