|
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 - Sadstock
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 24
301
« on: October 30, 2011, 16:00 »
I'd like to see keywords used to purchase the image, like DT has. Also like to see credit pricing transparency, again like DT, which shows the age of the credits used to purchase the image.
302
« on: October 30, 2011, 08:46 »
Appreciate the goal of this thread, but if you want the agencies to react, might be more useful to provide an agency by agency score card in your initial post. Something like this
Veer
uploading
Pro: no categories, FTP, upload via browser
Con: CV keywording with little transparency, no keyword check boxes so list of keywords updates between each keyword deletion which slows editing to a crawl,
statistics
Pro: Good summary of monthly statistics
Con: No monthly summary email
and so on.
Obviously this will require you to do some work, but would be a big benefit to MSG and to contributors overall.
Think separating "upload' from "upload method" might be too much detail.
For model releases, I think the ease or difficulty in adding a release to an image would be very helpful. For example I find 123RF's system maddening. Why do I have to go to the master model release page to add a release, why can't I add the model release to a given image when I'm looking at that image? It is counter-intuitive and getting to the model release page is not easy.
Would also like to see things like can/can't delete/edit an image in the review cue. Going back to Veer, if they reject the first uploaded image in a series for lack of a property release, I'd like to be able to delete the rest of the series, rather then accumulate a whole bunch of rejections, since you never know how a site might use acceptance ratio in the future.
303
« on: October 30, 2011, 08:23 »
I agree with you, I am sure IS is not only site using search algorithms fine tuned to localized markets based on ROI database datamining and I would not be at all surprised to see them manipulate search algorithms based on payout scales.
The visible analytic's the sites use on the buyer side are getting fatter and more sophisticated every year!
If they ever did this it would be an extremely severe breach of trust. Basically you are saying if you are higher up in the payout scale, istock will slow you down and show your files less in a best match search and push files from a contributor on a lower percentage level.
They already have the RC system that allows them to decide how many 40% artist they want to have, by increasing the targets anyway they like, but to then add another "filter"/downgrade via best match would be terrible.
So many people on the team are contributors as well, it would demorailze anyone if best match got abused that way.
It would probably also be very difficult to keep something like this a secret.
No, I just cannot imagine them doing that.
------------------------------------- So few people know how best match works and I think they have the technology to manipulate this data easily with just a few senior people and an IT tech or two. It really is a question of trust, which I have very little of. Are they actually doing it? I've no idea.
305
« on: October 22, 2011, 07:31 »
I find it very hard to believe that "they are out to get me". I know most people here think, the exclusives are naive, we are not. We have met many people from the team, and they are all hard working, very dedicated people.
--------------------------------------- I agree nobody is out to get you or anyone else. I certainly don't think you or top tier exclusives are naive, and I certainly value your input. I've also met a number of the istock management and I agree they are hard working and dedicated people. I don't think that is the group of people that Slovenian is talking about. I think he's talking about Getty and H&F and I don't think that that those people care about exclusives or independents one bit. The one thing that is surprising to me is how long the original Istock staff is hanging onto their jobs. I don't think most of them have much future with Istock/Getty. As the content line blurs more and more, the need for dedicated Istock staff (marketing, accounting, and likely inspectors too) decreases and the impact of their salaries on the bottom line becomes more and more apparent.
306
« on: October 21, 2011, 12:36 »
Thanks you dreamstime!!
This should be industry standard by now.
------------------------------------ I think it will put a lot of pressure on the other agencies to do so. Their legal folks are going to say that now that one agency has addressed the issue, those agencies that continue to strip the data out now have a big potential liability.
307
« on: October 20, 2011, 21:51 »
What does this mean for us, what good will it bring us, can you just sum it up?
----------------------------------
Not eager to sum it up since somebody might object to how I do so. If there are any complaints I'll forward to you. 
Many/most micro's strip some to all copyright data from images on upload by contributor. They then license the image to the buyer, who may post it on the web. But since the metadata is gone, if somebody else likes it and might want to buy it, they can't because there is no metadata, they can't find out who created it.
Some countries have or are considering "orphan works" laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works which basically say if you can't find the creator of the work to license the image, you can use it without paying anyone. If the agency has stripped out your copyright info, the likelihood that your images will be used without you receiving compensation goes up significantly.
Don't let the truth interfere with your misrepresentation of how orphan works operates or what it means. Lack of identifying information on a work would not be an excuse to use a work. http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/ow/myths-and-facts
------------------------------------------- Slovenian - I think YadaYadaYada is looking for you.
308
« on: October 20, 2011, 14:45 »
Just reread this blog post and saw at the very bottom of the comments that DT has changed its policy and will embed copyright info into all its purchased and thumb images!
http://blog.picniche.com/microstock/do-microstock-agencies-violate-photographers-dmca-copyright/
This is a great change and hopefully others in the industry will follow. Thanks to bobbigmac for grabbing the attention of the agencies.
(I recall somebody had started a thread about bobbigmac's blog post, but I could not find it, so started a new thread)
What does this mean for us, what good will it bring us, can you just sum it up?
---------------------------------- Not eager to sum it up since somebody might object to how I do so. If there are any complaints I'll forward to you. Many/most micro's strip some to all copyright data from images on upload by contributor. They then license the image to the buyer, who may post it on the web. But since the metadata is gone, if somebody else likes it and might want to buy it, they can't because there is no metadata, they can't find out who created it. Some countries have or are considering "orphan works" laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works which basically say if you can't find the creator of the work to license the image, you can use it without paying anyone. If the agency has stripped out your copyright info, the likelihood that your images will be used without you receiving compensation goes up significantly.
309
« on: October 20, 2011, 14:17 »
Just reread this blog post and saw at the very bottom of the comments that DT has changed its policy and will embed copyright info into all its purchased and thumb images! http://blog.picniche.com/microstock/do-microstock-agencies-violate-photographers-dmca-copyright/This is a great change and hopefully others in the industry will follow. Thanks to bobbigmac for grabbing the attention of the agencies. (I recall somebody had started a thread about bobbigmac's blog post, but I could not find it, so started a new thread)
310
« on: October 20, 2011, 14:08 »
311
« on: October 20, 2011, 09:59 »
Edstock makes me ill. Didn't JJRD say back in the spring that the moment Istock stopped working for its contributors he was gone? Should I stop holding my breath yet? 
312
« on: October 19, 2011, 17:51 »
Cool! I'll be sure to read the newsletter more closely from now on. A comprehensive list of partners would be very welcome and would put Veer at the top of the transparency list.
313
« on: October 19, 2011, 17:48 »
I'm sure that some do have a system in place, but those systems are there to serve the agent, not the contributor. I have doubts that some of the agents are able to manage the accounting within their own company, let alone with a whole slew of partners This is at least a theoretical way to narrow the trust gap between contributors and the agencies a bit.
314
« on: October 19, 2011, 13:52 »
Wonder if the mystery shopper could get agreement from the agencies in advance that sales made by the shopper would be identified to the agencies after 60 or 90 days and then identified to the agencies so the transaction could be voided so no benifit could accrue to the contributor?
60 or 90 days would give partners enough time to report the transaction (or not!) to the agency and them to report to the contributor.
315
« on: October 19, 2011, 13:44 »
316
« on: October 17, 2011, 22:09 »
Found very few of my images, but those that I were able to find are also on Veer. Not conclusive as they are also on other sites. I did find this http://www.mattonimages.rs/slike/licence/fancyCopyright is 2002-2005 but at the bottom it lists Veer's Calgary mailing address. Veer is usually good at admitting to having new partners, so hopefully they will mention something here.
317
« on: October 17, 2011, 17:13 »
If you do a basic stock image search at Getty, you are already searching 179 separate collections, including "Vetta" and "iStock Vectors". If you only want to search one of those collections you have to go to advanced search. http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx Imagine if the only way you could search just for Istock was to start at http://www.gettyimages.com/ then go to advanced search and unselect all but "Istock". We would have a lot more competition.
318
« on: October 17, 2011, 12:45 »
It's a purchasing questionaire. This is all my language as I remember it - not theirs word for word
Do you buy here, where else do you buy? Are you satisfied with credits, would you rather have single purchases. Are you satisfied that credits expire after 12 months?
UH-OH
Would you like to purchase credits that can be used at getty, jupiter, thinkstock, istock et all getty companies
Would you like all searches displayed from (all the getty companies)
(Are they trying to copy Envato?)
---------------------------- If your memory is correct, this would be really bad. Big risk I see is that if there are universal credits and a universal search, a top down rationalization of pricing and content would be needed. If one search will show you content from Getty, Istock, Thinkstock, Jupiter, the same content could show up multiple times. Why would you pay 10 times as much for one version of a file over another? The solution is that the content can only reside in one of the many Getty name plates and the pricing for those name plates needs to reflect the perceived quality. Since they just forced all independent content onto Thinkstock, logically independent content would leave Istock entirely... Universal Getty credits would finish the transition from what is left of Istock into a name plate for Getty since they would no longer need things like an accounting department.
319
« on: October 17, 2011, 12:26 »
I really like the site and what you are doing (I am an illustrator myself) and I might even join the site, but at the moment I am very afraid that this 'opinion being formed in Calgary' will be detrimental to your success Calgary ows obedience to the British crown and rules some pinewoods around as serfs. Britannia, at the contrary, rules the waves. It's about time we Europeans beat some sense back into our rebellious colonies that seem to be ruled by gangs of greedy lawyers nowadays. The best thing that could happen to iRockStock is that the i-thing sued them, before a British and EU court of course. Everybody likes free publicity.
And the British and European courts will kick them well into the long grass. Canadian lawyers will not enjoy the experience, any more than American lawyers, in facing the English and European courts. And besides, iRockStock has done nothing wrong. Anyways, what are the Canadians afraid of, a little competition? They really ought to be more concerned about the beatings their getting in the microstock markets by SS, DT and FT. That's really gonna kill them off.....
---------------------------------- I have no idea if Istock might have a case, but generally I think the plaintiff gets to pick the venue, so Istock/Getty could sue in U.S. or Canada.
320
« on: October 15, 2011, 12:24 »
here are some little bits and pieces I found poking around.
Will the metadata (keywords and descriptions) I have embedded in my images be retained?No, the Snapfish.com upload process does not read the IPTC or XMP metadata that may have been attached by many popular image-editing programs. Snapfish Stock Images gets all the image file information from Snapfish.com, so the embedded metadata will not be available. This is why it is important to add metadata during the Prepare for Licensing process. I was curious how Snapfish actually operated wondering if Veer would show up and found this. The annual fee for Snapfish Stock Images is $12 per year. This fee enables you to submit an unlimited number of images to sell on the Snapfish Stock Images web site; enabling you to earn money in doing so. The fee allows Snapfish and their partner, LicenseStream, to build, maintain and process the transactions associated with offering your images for sale to professional image buyers. In addition you will be able to share your images and use other Snapfish Stock Images subscribers' images for personal projects within Snapfish for free. So I went hunting for LicenseStream http://www.licensestream.com/licensestream2/Portal/company/about_us.aspxhttp://www.licensestream.com/licensestreamportal/blog/LicenseStream, formerly ImageSpan, is the first comprehensive platform that allows owners of digital content efficiently to license, transact and monitor all forms of electronic media.... Founded in 2003 and based in Sausalito, California, LicenseStream is backed by Bertelsmann Digital Media Investments, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bertelsmann AG, a leading international media company. They claim you can set up your own site through them including rights managed http://www.licensestream.com/licensestream2/Portal/solutions/creative_overview.aspx
321
« on: October 14, 2011, 11:12 »
OK, so final conclusion, the American troops should invade Fotolia, remove the threat by toppling the management, get the contributors to vote for new Fotolia management, admit that they could not find evidence that Fotolia would have went through with the threat, withdraw their troops and start focusing on another website which might be a threat.
Can the Subject now please be changed to include the words "The war against....."
------------------
322
« on: October 14, 2011, 11:10 »
Since search results can also be sorted by ratings, ratings probably do ultimately affect sales.
---------------------- Had not realized this was still an option! Not sure why this search exists since it only benifits people who spend their days playing this game.
323
« on: October 14, 2011, 11:08 »
First I wanted to thank you for maintain MSG as its been a fantastic resource for me over the last year. Couple of different thoughts. 1) In the original post, Leaf, you suggest one benefit would be that agencies would be more likely to listen to contributors whose ID had been verified. Unless they can see that information themselves, having you vouch for us as actual contributors will likely not make agencies any more receptive to our critiques. 2) MSG is a great resource for contributors in part because people can, if they choose, to share information and opinions about the agencies without the risk of retaliation. Anything you post on the internet is effectively forever. Today what you post about an agency might not be a problem, who knows about tomorrow. Call me a wimp, but if I were using my own name/identity, even if it was only shared with Leaf, I would engage in a lot more self censorship about what I say about agencies in general. I also would never have undertaken the project of tracking partners. No way to know how the individual agencies will react to having this info compiled and shared, so I would not have taken that risk. 3) Lively debate on microstock topics is very important for us to grapple with new developments in the industry, as it will over time produce the best insights and critiques. Unfortunately lively debate slips into crude/rude behavior very quickly, particularly on the internet. For better or worse, I've never participated anywhere online that it was not present to some degree. Not to discourage you from trying new ideas to address it, but I think the most effective solution is less tolerance for bad behavior. There are a few people here who constantly post provocative messages, seemingly not to engage in productive debate, but designed to stir up a fight. I'd encourage you to be more aggressive in addressing those individuals as their input would likely not be missed. 
324
« on: October 13, 2011, 17:19 »
It looks like an old lithograph, Public Domain if created before 1923
depends on the jurisdiction. Countries have different copyright laws - and it may also depend, in different juridictions for example, on whether copyright has been renewed. There is no single rule which applies which is why the best thing is get legal documentation, provenance etc.
As always I speak from where I am, and in the US, EVERYTHING before 1923, photos, records, books, art... is public domain now, whether renewed or not.
The Gauss image should have been verified when it was uploaded. The Editorial designation is a lazy way for the agencies to license things, without worrying about the actual copyright detals or the facts of law.
That etching was probably made in the late 1800s and if it is, it's PD everywhere that I can think of on this planet. Start thinking Berne Convention which in many instances is more open and lenient than the US laws!
Which laws govern Dreamstine, I don't know for sure.
Dreamstime LLC
1616 Westgate Circle
Brentwood, TN 37027
United States
I think it's 70 years after the artist's death in the US.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.pdf
----------------- In the U.S. at least, it depends on when the work was created first, then other factors in some cases. If it was created in 1919 but the artist lived another 60 years, the date of his/her death does not matter, only the date of creation. However if the work was created in 1978 or later then 70 years after his/her death rule applies. Thanks to Sonny Bono. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act.
325
« on: October 13, 2011, 15:29 »
This thread got me thinking http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/fotolia-partner-sales/msg223313/?topicseen#newGiven the lack of transparency in accounting that we face with our agents/distributors and their partners, I think somebody could start a business mystery shopping for individual contributors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_shopping for those who dont know about it.) Ive got a busy day job, so this is beyond me, but I bet a number of contributors would be willing to pay to see how long it takes to show up in the contributors account and how much the agent/distributor actually pays out. The big hurdle is getting the agencies/distributors to not object to this when a contributor comes to them with a problem transaction fund this way. I can imagine some agent/distributors taking the position that anyone buying images on your behalf is seeking to manipulate their system and will close the contributors account rather than work to resolve the issue. Clearly this would not work on high volume images since it would be hard to identify individual transactions, but most of us have a few more niche images that rarely (if ever in my case) sell. Added to note that if you are posting here under your real name that you might not want to state you have/intend to buy your own images, regardless of how well intentioned you might be. People have had their accounts closed for doing so.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
