|
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 - Sean Locke Photography
2901
« on: September 25, 2013, 10:14 »
Ok. Sorry, just thought SS contributors might want to look into it. That is all.
2902
« on: September 25, 2013, 09:39 »
Are you sure its a violation, you left that part in bold conveniently out of your quote ?!?
THIS IS A SINGLE SEAT LICENSE. IT AUTHORIZES ONE NATURAL PERSON TO LICENSE, DOWNLOAD AND USE IMAGES. Your Shutterstock username and password are to be used only by you. Each person that desires to access the Shutterstock Websites must have his/her own username and password. We reserve the right to monitor accounts and institute means to stop users from sharing their login information. Customized products for multiple users are available from Shutterstock. Please contact Shutterstock Support for details or see Shutterstock's Multi-Share product.
http://www.shutterstock.com/business-solutions.mhtml
I didn't leave it out conveniently. I didn't think it applied. The blog sounds like it's just aimed at the average everyday buyer, and this will be a feature available to everyone. Not a special custom "multi-user" deal.
I don't really care, I just thought it was interesting.
I think Ron is saying that Shutterstock's terms already allow users to share images like in the dropbox scheme, so it's not a violation as long as the dropbox deal is called a customized product.
I don't think so. If the dropbox thing is available to everyone, then the terms in the license no longer apply.
2903
« on: September 25, 2013, 09:24 »
Are you sure its a violation, you left that part in bold conveniently out of your quote ?!?
THIS IS A SINGLE SEAT LICENSE. IT AUTHORIZES ONE NATURAL PERSON TO LICENSE, DOWNLOAD AND USE IMAGES. Your Shutterstock username and password are to be used only by you. Each person that desires to access the Shutterstock Websites must have his/her own username and password. We reserve the right to monitor accounts and institute means to stop users from sharing their login information. Customized products for multiple users are available from Shutterstock. Please contact Shutterstock Support for details or see Shutterstock's Multi-Share product.
http://www.shutterstock.com/business-solutions.mhtml
I didn't leave it out conveniently. I didn't think it applied. The blog sounds like it's just aimed at the average everyday buyer, and this will be a feature available to everyone. Not a special custom "multi-user" deal. I don't really care, I just thought it was interesting.
2904
« on: September 25, 2013, 08:47 »
I am sure they contacted DropBox for this service
Oh, I'm sure they did, but it seemed like they themselves are encouraging licensing violations.
2905
« on: September 25, 2013, 08:47 »
On fluorescent, yes, I try to, depending on the setup, or I'll selectively mask in PS. But most regular environments seem to be using close to daylight balanced bulbs anyways, and my ABs tend to hang right around that temperature too.
2906
« on: September 25, 2013, 08:08 »
Was looking at the new SS blog, and saw they are integrating with DropBox: http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2013/07/announcing-shutterstocks-dropbox-integration?pl=news-welctoournewblog&cr=PB"Soon, youll be able to download images and footage directly from the Shutterstock site to your Dropbox account. Our Dropbox integration will give you a frictionless way to store creative assets, sync them across all your devices, and effortlessly collaborate with colleagues on creative projects." Isn't that a direct conflict with the licensing terms? http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml"THIS IS A SINGLE SEAT LICENSE. IT AUTHORIZES ONE NATURAL PERSON TO LICENSE, DOWNLOAD AND USE IMAGES." "You may not ... Make images available on a digital asset management system, shared drive or the like for the purposes of sharing or transferring such images. "
2907
« on: September 25, 2013, 07:43 »
Both. I try to shoot with natural light accented with strobes. Unless the location is just too dark for a reasonable ISO, like my new Stocksy market shots.
2908
« on: September 25, 2013, 05:37 »
Wow. Some people here really seem to think the only thinkable usage of a glamour shot is promoting prostitution. Not much artistic freedom left in a microstock fried market I guess.
No, the only use of this particular shot, sold as stock, is going to be a business that takes advantage of what is shown in the image.
I know what you mean. But this does not justify that the client who bought the image is breaking the legal agreement of the Agency who sold it. Misuse is misuse - even if the usage fits the matter very well.
It doesn't, but creating content that invites misuse isn't very good business either.
2909
« on: September 24, 2013, 20:24 »
Wow. Some people here really seem to think the only thinkable usage of a glamour shot is promoting prostitution. Not much artistic freedom left in a microstock fried market I guess.
No, the only use of this particular shot, sold as stock, is going to be a business that takes advantage of what is shown in the image.
2910
« on: September 24, 2013, 19:19 »
I'm not sure in how many other ways that sort of image could be used.
Yeah, sorry. You're just asking for it to be used improperly. And she wasn't very smart to sign. Hey, but your food shots are great!
2911
« on: September 24, 2013, 18:53 »
Hmmm, you might find it very difficult to find out where the sites got the images. Even if they bought them, where did they get them from to know which agency might help you. If they stole them, it's going to be difficult to establish that - they're hardly going to get back to you to admit it.
Depends on your country. A contract doesn't always protect you from legal proceedings, just as a disclaimer doesn't. There's also 'fully informed consent', in my country at least. But how you could establish that you did tell the model that you have no ultimate control how a file may be abused (assuming you did), I'm not sure.
Good luck.
Think carefully before doing this sort of shoot in future. How would you like it if it was your sister in this position?
I am in the US. Glamour modeling was what she did for a living, its just recently she "made it big" supposedly with a local cosmetics company doing promotion. She has no problem with the images themselves, she even got the contract with her new company because they saw my images and wanted to know who the model was. I told her I would have no problem taking the images down in exchange for a compensation shoot with something less likely to be abused, like some sort of lifestyle type shots. She refused, said she "does not do TFP anymore" and is "making big money" promoting that cosmetics company.
Does "Glamour modeling" mean nekkid pictures or lingerie? If so, there should be no surprise they ended up on an escort site.
2912
« on: September 24, 2013, 11:59 »
I meant this thread, not the fact that they were over on SS. Though I guess that can be forgiven  .
2913
« on: September 24, 2013, 11:19 »
2914
« on: September 24, 2013, 08:42 »
The only thing that surprise me about your Stocksy portfolio are the simple backgrounds of seeds, leaves and the like. I got the impression that in your Istock days you'd have dismissed such basic subjects as the territory of newbies. Is that because on Stocksy they are more worthwhile because the volume of similar images is so much less?
It doesn't hurt to be contributing to a collection that is still in need of subjects. And I like doing the backgrounds. I think they're useful for ads and articles. I was doing them at IS as well.
2915
« on: September 23, 2013, 17:12 »
Well, now they have two sort methods to complain about. From the comments it seems that as long as 'your' images show up on the first page, it's working great!
If its Best Match sorted by date, then that means its just best match with the date factor turned up. Wowsers. Didn't we used to have a relevant slider?
2916
« on: September 23, 2013, 16:55 »
Bizarre. It's just confusing. Buyers can limit by time period if they want newer files. And what is 'fresh'? It's like a radio station liner from the 90's. 'the freshest mix of today's hits!'
2917
« on: September 23, 2013, 10:42 »
If you want to be part of a grand effort to reduce prices to dust, upload all your photos to every site you can find - large or small - and let them compete on nothing but price. If any of the small new sites actually start to develop significant market share and pull customers from the big sites, the big boys will just cut their prices to match. Round and round we go, and in a couple of years it will all be over.
And then you'll learn what 'professionals' do
2919
« on: September 23, 2013, 09:13 »
Wouldn't you be able to use it forever? Half price of early 2013 prices would still be true unless they change the pricing again wouldn't it?
"Half our images are half the price, forever". A: half the price of what? B: images in the cheap collection can move up in price. C: they aren't half the price if you pay cash. D: after a period of time, using the slashed out credit price has to become misleading to the consumer. E: "save with lower credit prices" - confusing - are credit prices lower, or is the amount of credits needed per image lower?
2920
« on: September 23, 2013, 09:02 »
2921
« on: September 23, 2013, 05:51 »
How long are they allowed to use the "now half the price" bit legally? It's been several months.
2922
« on: September 23, 2013, 05:49 »
Personally I believe that almost any image good enough to be accepted on Stocksy, on an exclusive basis, would almost certainly earn far more as a non-exclusive image on multiple microstock sites.
Honestly, if I put the images I have on Stocksy on the other four sites I'm selling on, I doubt they would make more than a few dollars a month. There's an audience that wants what Stocksy is selling, and they're willing to pay a reasonable fee.
You are on 2 low tier and 2 middle tier agencies if I am correct. If the images go on the top 6 they would probably outsell Stocksy.
Sorry. The four "non-subscription" sites.
2923
« on: September 22, 2013, 21:02 »
Personally I believe that almost any image good enough to be accepted on Stocksy, on an exclusive basis, would almost certainly earn far more as a non-exclusive image on multiple microstock sites.
Honestly, if I put the images I have on Stocksy on the other four sites I'm selling on, I doubt they would make more than a few dollars a month. There's an audience that wants what Stocksy is selling, and they're willing to pay a reasonable fee.
2924
« on: September 20, 2013, 08:21 »
My two cents: Yes Getty is responsible since it doesn't have a MR and misused the image. The woman claims that "New York photographer, Jena Cumbo, snapped the shot years ago but had no written release or authorization to use or sell it."
No release or authorization is required for editorial.
2925
« on: September 20, 2013, 07:19 »
Exactly. Getty might have sold the photo as Editorial. The usage is clearly NOT editorial as the photo is used to advertise something (A New york state program). It is not important if the entity is non-profit or profit. Advertisement is advertisement. Assuming it was sold as editorial the fully responsible instance is the advertiser or ad agency since they clearly broke the getty agreement too.
Yep.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
