|
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 - Bateleur
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 35
301
« on: March 04, 2008, 10:43 »
All in all, I say yes, go for it, it's free afterall. Nothing to lose! 
Yeah, nothing to lose except your non-watermarked images that almost anyone can hijack.
Thanks but no thanks.
That's the reason I wouldn't upload anything there. I wrote to them and got a rather lame excuse that watermarks "... seriously impact sales." I don't notice that happening on the microstock sites.
302
« on: March 04, 2008, 02:55 »
I've just been looking at them and wondering whether to join.
They also have a 'Personal Archive' where they'll store your photos.
Anyone use this?
303
« on: March 03, 2008, 15:58 »
I can see that, at Dreamstime, some people write in their profile something like "let me know where can I see my photos" and give their email address. Perhaps I can do that and see what happens.
In my experience it's probably not worth doing even that. I used to do it on iStock - a polite little note in the description field asking users to kindly let me know where my image was used. Response? A big ... fat ... 0
304
« on: March 02, 2008, 11:52 »
As a photographer I agree that it is stupid and anything visible from a public place should be fair game, but...
What would you think if your house or your customised car (please see the "customised") was photographed and then used as a repellent in an advertisement saying "if you don't want to be like the ridiculous owner of such a pitiful piece of -whatever- come and buy at so and so" ?
I'd be deeply upset and I'd try (as far as my shallow pockets allow  ) to go after them. But it wouldn't be for publishing an image of my house/car. It would be for calling me a 'ridiculous owner' etc. No one has a right to make public value judgements like that - whether they're on public property or not.
305
« on: March 02, 2008, 04:50 »
This whole business of not being able to use images of property is becoming a nonsense.
As I see it, if you take a photo of the Atomium (or any other structure) from a point on public land then copyright cannot apply.
It's the same with iStock's running-scared policy of pulling pictures that show cars.
Copyright is intended to protect the intellectual rights of the creator of an object or a work of art.
So, if someone tries to build an exact replica of the Atomium, or make a car the same as another, or even try to sell a photograph of a logo or a painting ... yes, go after them with the full force of the law. Even if someone takes a photograph from private land, showing a view that is only visible if you've paid/been given permission.
But pictures of these things from public property? That's fair game. As leszek said ... it's just capturing the light that's bounced off them and ended up in a public place. How can you copyright that?
306
« on: March 01, 2008, 18:32 »
Good for Alamy!
There are loads of images with them which show they're model and/or property released, but can't possibly be.
Look at this one ... A3HHW4.
Not to quibble, but that image is permitted:
Q : Is the publishing of a photo of the Eiffel Tower permitted?
A : There are no restrictions on publishing a picture of the Tower by day. Photos taken at night when the lights are aglow are subjected to copyright laws, and fees for the right to
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying the image isn't permitted. What I'm saying is that the photographer, whoever he/she is, cannot possibly have a property release for it. The problem is that I think a lot of people (and agencies are particularly bad at this) falsely tick the release boxes to make their images show up in more searches.
307
« on: February 29, 2008, 17:34 »
Their colour scheme is certainly something!
Makes me feel ill. Looks like it's the Australian artists' copyright protection agency. A lot of countries have something like this. I'm a member of the Swiss one for writers. It doesn't cost anything to join and they pay me a small amount of money each year for stuff I've had published.
308
« on: February 29, 2008, 03:29 »
Good for Alamy!
There are loads of images with them which show they're model and/or property released, but can't possibly be.
Look at this one ... A3HHW4.
Trouble is, unlike most other stock sites, they rely on the photographer's honesty. You just tick the box to say you've got the release. No need to send it in. And they're being taken for a ride by some dishonest photogs.
Time to clear the liars out.
And also time to clear out some of the junk that they have. If they went through their stock of images with a critical eye and eliminated the rubbish they'd have a lot less than 11 million.
309
« on: February 25, 2008, 16:58 »
I've never met anyone that's ever bent a pin in the reader. Unless you're mashing the cards in back to front or upside down, they're such a tight fit into the slot I think you'd have a hard job not lining the pins up.
I've heard of it happening ... not in a reader (which would be cheaper to sort out) but in a camera. A staff writer for the magazine Photography Monthly (who, one would imagine, knows how to handle a camera) was given a Sony Alpha 100 to test. The test was halted because one of the pins inside the camera got flattened and the card wouldn't plug in properly. (See the July 2007 issue.) The other thing that concerns me is not so much bending/flattening a pin, but wear which would cause them to become a loose fit.
310
« on: February 25, 2008, 12:24 »
... photos from your camera to your computer, do you:-
- leave the card in place and plug the camera into the computer?
- take the card out and put it in a card reader?
I've been taking the card out and putting it in a card reader. Transferring direct from the camera is much slower and takes an age. But I'm wondering if all the unplugging/plugging is going to affect the slots in the card or the docking pins in the camera.
Anyone got any knowledge/experience/opinions on this?
311
« on: February 22, 2008, 03:55 »
Well done!
I think you've done so well in your portfolio because so many of your images tell a story. They're great.
312
« on: February 21, 2008, 02:56 »
Obviously it's a personal decision, but I'd advise not becoming exclusive.
Be aware that, unlike with other agencies that only require exclusivity for individual images, iStock requires complete and total exclusivity.
In other words, if you become an iStock exclusive you cannot (according to their legal terms) submit any RF image (even if it's rejected by iStock) anywhere else.
That's nowhere else ... no-where ... period.
See what you're doing to yourself if you become exclusive?
313
« on: February 21, 2008, 02:46 »
Don't worry about it.  You're way, way better off over here. I was all keen on the iStock forums when I first joined. But pretty soon the sycophantic nature of the posts got right up my nose. For example: iStock: We're limiting your uploads to 1 per week on Thursdays only, and cutting your royalties to 0.5%. Contributors on forum: Thank you, thank you, iStock!!!! That is just sooooooo cool!! Way to go! Amazing!!!! Utterly utterly brilliant!!! ... ... and, so on, ad nauseum. That, coupled with the fact that they immediately lock (or remove) any post that is even mildly critical, means their forums are a complete waste of time and energy.
314
« on: February 20, 2008, 02:46 »
... Cookies, maybe, as most sites do.
Regards,
Adelaide
That's right ... most sites put cookies on your computer. There's a simple way to deal with this. Use Firefox as a browser (much better than IE) and set it to erase all cookies every time you shut the browser down.
315
« on: February 19, 2008, 18:19 »
I use Stat Counter http://www.statcounter.com/As far as I'm aware it doesn't dump any of those things on my computer and gives masses of information.
316
« on: February 19, 2008, 09:41 »
What's there left to photograph? Flowers?
Many cultivars of flowers, fruits, and vegetables are patented and copyrighted as well. Just about any recent cultivar. I know the agriculture dept. at my alma mater (U of Mn) is rather wealthy from an apple that they developed (the Honeycrisp) ...
Aaaaaaaaghh! iStock are going to start pulling pictures of apples next! I give up. I'm gonna take up the nice quiet hobby of underwater needlework.
317
« on: February 19, 2008, 05:03 »
But we're not making cars.
You don't know who will actually use your photo and for what purpose.
There you've got it! You've hit the nail on the head. The buck should stop with the user of the image. Not the photographer, nor the agency. Trouble is, in these litigious times, the suing party and their lawyers will go for anyone they think they can get money out of.
318
« on: February 19, 2008, 02:10 »
I think it is understandable ... car design is copyrighted I guess.
Oh... and welcome from Lausanne 
Hi from Gland (that will make sense to a Swiss resident). Okay ... agreed. Car design is copyrighted. If you are going to be making cars you can't make ones the same shape and size etc. as BMW. That's perfectly right and proper. But we're not making cars. The whole point of my photograph is not the car (which is intentionally blurred, and questionably identifiable) but the weeds growing into the picture. I even alluded to it in the title - 'Taking over'. But, okay, so they're scared of litigation. Why stop at cars? Certain makes of buses, and lorries and railway engines, ships and boats, yachts, and even bicycles are all identifiable. Presumably their design is copyrighted. Planes too (sorry Sharply _done). In fact, planes are far more identifiable than cars. Then furniture. A lot of furniture from big manufacturers (for example, think of a Scandinavian company whose name begins with I and ends with A) is easily identifiable by its design. Then houses too. And interiors. And tools used in workshops. And kitchen equipment ... ... the list goes on. What's there left to photograph? Flowers?
319
« on: February 18, 2008, 17:49 »
Depends on what you've already got ...
320
« on: February 18, 2008, 16:58 »
In have just received an e-mail from iStock telling me that they are deactivating one of my images that has a car in it because (in their words) they are: " ... taking up this leadership role by implementing a change in our policies, and improving the standards for content that is accepted into the collection." This is the image:  It's been a steady seller since I uploaded it last autumn, not brilliant, but it's earned me over $20. And the reason they give for deactivating it is: ". .. we can no longer accept most images of cars where the vehicle is depicted as a product or represents more than 20% of the image as the main focus of the photograph. Luxury and exotic cars are not acceptable regardless of size, context or alterations done to the image." I'm appealing. I mean ... are they going to remove every image featuring a car that's more than a dot on the horizon? What are they afraid of? Litigiophobia (I made that word up) seems to be spreading wider and wider.
321
« on: February 18, 2008, 07:27 »
I'm not sure ... but I think I just got a $5.00 referral on Dreamstime (DT). I can't otherwise account for $5.00 in my earnings ...
That's probably from you putting their logo on your site/blog. Dreamstime do that automatically once they've checked it's there and the site is 'suitable'. As for best referrals - I go along with the rest. Shutterstock by a long, long way. And, as far as I'm aware, the bonuses from the referrals you make go on indefinitely. I hope so! (Oh ... and can someone get rid of that spammy post immediately above this? Pur ... leeeese!)
322
« on: February 17, 2008, 16:30 »
I've just noticed that on the list of Users Online (lower left) on this forum, some of the names are in bold. (Not mine ) What does it mean? Are they special in some way?
323
« on: February 17, 2008, 13:42 »
One way of boosting the contrast is to use 'Curves' in Photoshop.
Anchor the straight line of the graph in the centre, and put two other anchors in halfway between the centre and top (right) and halfway between the centre and bottom (left).
Then pull those halfway anchors up and down respectively to get an 'S' curve.
You'll have to watch the result to see you don't overdo it, but that usually adds 'zizz' to an image.
324
« on: February 15, 2008, 02:01 »
I have never heard of Calumet, and have no experience with AlienBees (as I don't live in the States), but I have the Elinchrom D-lite 4 set and I'd recommend them. They deliver all I want, with a very high degree of control.
My only gripe is that the softboxes are a bit of a struggle to set up, getting the supporting struts into their holes, and the fabric is a little bit weak. I've had to put reinforcing tape on some of the seams which started to tear.
Apart from that ... great!
325
« on: February 15, 2008, 01:56 »
I've seen reviews which indicate that the difference between Genuine Fractals and Photoshop in bicubic mode are so small as to be negligible.
I can't find the links at the moment, but if I do I'll post them.
I use Photoshop (7) in bicubic mode and upsize in 10% increments. I don't know if that makes a difference, but some experts say it does. I do that for Alamy, who require it, and have never ever had a problem in that area.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
