|
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 - anonymous
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 20
301
« on: May 19, 2008, 11:41 »
I've assembled as series of clips using Windows Movie Maker. When I burn a DVD of it, it plays fine in my computer but isn't recognized by my television's DVD player. Do any of you have any suggestions of what software (PC) will convert it into the multiple directory format needed for television playback?
Thx
302
« on: May 19, 2008, 11:36 »
his reply , if no one else received it:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The site has been taken down.
Many of the images that were on the site were not mine and had been placed
there by an overenthusiastic web designer without my knowledge.
I can assure you, and others, that none of these images were used while the
site was up and when it does reappear again you are very welcome to look at
it carefully. The only images I sell are mine.
Apologies for this.
Regards,
Mark Anderson
What a complete crock of shite that is! I don't believe a single word of it.
Over-enthusiastic thief more like it.
He would have us believe that he DID NOT proof read the wording of his own website claiming the images were part of his own portfolio?!?
First in his family born without a tail if you ask me and now that he's learned to walk upright it looks like he's just registered on here as well.
Do you know what name?
303
« on: May 19, 2008, 07:22 »
I sold a christmas wrath in december. That's my only sale there
That must have been one REALLY angry Christmas "Wrath"! 
304
« on: May 19, 2008, 07:17 »
I'm still averaging 1 - 2 sales per day (pretty much what I've always had), but they have shot down EVERY SINGLE ONE of my last 24 submissions for "Type of Photograph"  A bit frustrating, so I've simply quit uploading until they get their s&@t sorted out. In irony, every image I sell there IS that "Type of Photograph"...buncha weenies!
305
« on: May 19, 2008, 06:55 »
his reply , if no one else received it:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The site has been taken down.
Many of the images that were on the site were not mine and had been placed
there by an overenthusiastic web designer without my knowledge.
I can assure you, and others, that none of these images were used while the
site was up and when it does reappear again you are very welcome to look at
it carefully. The only images I sell are mine.
Apologies for this.
Regards,
Mark Anderson
306
« on: May 17, 2008, 14:56 »
well, these french guys used it without even paying for it http://lassiette.blog.lemonde.fr/category/livres/.
...sorry Zymm, can't read french.
Vika, keep us posted. I just sent him an email "...are you ready to face the legal system for using other photographer's works?"
I'll keep you posted if he responds.
in response to the email i sent him: Mark Anderson photographer to me show details 1:39 PM (1 hour ago) Reply They are being removed this evening
307
« on: May 17, 2008, 10:13 »
always good for a couple of payouts a month...accept the majority of my submissions. I've even purchased images from them that I couldn't find elsewhere.
308
« on: May 17, 2008, 10:06 »
well, these french guys used it without even paying for it http://lassiette.blog.lemonde.fr/category/livres/.
...sorry Zymm, can't read french. Vika, keep us posted. I just sent him an email "...are you ready to face the legal system for using other photographer's works?" I'll keep you posted if he responds.
309
« on: May 15, 2008, 16:10 »
This is one of the reasons I stay. They've alway been straight up and prompt. one sale per month equals 6 months of LO AND Crestock combined..PLUS no silly sideshows or numb-nut judges...much more professional feel.
310
« on: May 13, 2008, 16:05 »
they ALL vary in their review times, but right now it's running about a week for me...but quicker than DT
311
« on: May 12, 2008, 17:48 »
Exactly. They've been a bit of a thorn in my side with reviews lately too, but it's no reason to pull all of my images. Even with their sales downturn (noted in another thread), they still bring in a decent amount of money, firmly in the Top 7.
Agreed, mass rejections there but they still are turning sales for me...As Dan says, "always look on the bright side of life..doo doo, doo doo, doo doo doo doo..." (bait set)...
312
« on: May 12, 2008, 17:40 »
My sales don't appear to have changed but out of my last 24 submissions (spread out over 10 days), all were rejected for "type of photo"...what does THAT mean (even tho most of my sales this month are images from the same shoots that were rejected) I'll keep uploading as I do with the rest and maybe the review troll will crawl back under the bridge.
313
« on: May 12, 2008, 07:23 »
we are DEVO.
314
« on: May 09, 2008, 15:18 »
Where do we apply for scholarship?
315
« on: May 09, 2008, 15:16 »
I got the same message when I applied. I sent my top selling images. but that is not what they are looking for? So I deleted their link and won't waste any more time. At least SS can get you good sales for your efforts; I doubt if StockXpert is in the same league when it comes to sales.
StockXpert is very standard stock oriented. They like iso's, people, and the kind of stuff that's easy to incorporate into designs. I was rejected on my first round as well. Send a variety of styles...sending a group that is basically all the same seems to not butter their pan. They're picky too..my acceptance rate is only about 60% but the sales are modest / steady. Give it another whirl, SS is good, but on its own, it won't pay the bills (for me anyway). Good luck!
316
« on: May 09, 2008, 15:07 »
Always shoot color...if the designer wants it B&W, he / she will take care of it.
317
« on: May 08, 2008, 16:01 »
My sales at StockXpert are very very poor, so when I got one of those yesterday I couldn't believe it either... I had to dig around a bit to find out what it was for.
Boy, just a few of those a month could really make StockXpert a good earner.
Ditto Pix, but this week has been a nice turn.
318
« on: May 06, 2008, 17:51 »
several of mine there as well...we'll soon see how this pans out....thank goodness I'm not a zombie.
Just saw this and kinda got a little "red flag" in my head:
These are not sold as stock but either as one off sales or limited editions.
...could mean a lot of things...
319
« on: May 06, 2008, 17:46 »
...there is NO mandatory registration req. and i couldn't find anything to indicate we'd LOSE existing copyrights.
under the new law, a user MUST do reasonable search -- if they use a work after that, and the actual copyright owner later appears, they are STILL subject to a fine...
That's exactly what I've gotten from reading the bill. I found no language to suggest that any current copyright policies would be affected by a passage of the orphan works bill.
Critics of the bill have been suggesting that someone could just do a quick search and claim to have attempted to find a copyright holder, thereby getting away with infringement. That also is not true. The "diligent search" must be performed within approved Copyright Office databases, and paperwork must be filed confirming that such a search was performed. Users must also file with the Copyright Office to report their intention to use a work that is believed to be orphaned. It is not an easy process, and it is certainly not worth the time it takes, just to steal an image that could have been legally licensed for a few bucks.
Basically, the Orphan Works bill does not make it any easier for someone to get away with infringement. Copyright will be just as valid under this bill as it is today. It is not the "thieves charter" that some poorly informed bloggers are making it out to be.
bingo
320
« on: May 06, 2008, 15:47 »
..which all goes back to nobody knows what will or will not sell...including the reviewers at the stock sites. "Not stock material"...if they truly knew what stock material was, they'd be sipping martinis on their yachts.
LOL..... amen to that one, anonymous!!!! ha ha ha ha...  =tom
and instead of being some stock site's burrito 
How many stock reviewers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? "20"...One to review it and 19 to say "I could have done it better"... How do you know when a stock reviewer is at your front door? "Pizza's here!" How many reviewers does it take to review a photo?..."None", they have machines that do that now... Ah..I feel better now 
321
« on: May 05, 2008, 16:03 »
which is exactly the problem i think exisits when people say that they put all the 'bad' images as cheap on sites like snapvillage and their 'good' shots more expensive. most people have NO idea which are their good or bad shots. It is very hard to be a judge of your own work i think... especially in the commercial sense.
...which all goes back to nobody knows what will or will not sell...including the reviewers at the stock sites. "Not stock material"...if they truly knew what stock material was, they'd be sipping martinis on their yachts.
322
« on: May 05, 2008, 08:14 »
no problems here...using IE7
323
« on: May 04, 2008, 09:05 »
I dont have an adult filter in my pants. Seeing it from above or front to front, is that such a horrible experience
So what if someone is selling photos of nude people. Kids nowadays for sure knows where to find them and much much more hardcore things. They just need to check the internethistory before its erased:)
Ok, I have a hard time understanding some photos. But someone told me its a big industry (magazines websites and so on) and that it sell really good. So get naked folks!
Done!
324
« on: April 30, 2008, 00:00 »
Leaf, with all due respect, I think it's just "Josh" and not the gang. I love the fact that he is very "present" on the board vs. the majority of the sites, but the CS model just aint workin'. It's the only site that I've had "1" payout in 1.75 years ( had 2 at FP in that same period...which isn't saying much). It started off strong but is postioned to be the next LO. If they cannot pony up the minimal payout increases that the rest of the sites have done, it likely means they simply cannot afford it which does not bode well for their future. I'll personally hire Josh if you guys want to start our own stock agency 
325
« on: April 29, 2008, 23:48 »
same here...the worst payouts and most inane rejections. I'll leave my current port but stopped uploading over a year ago. "Josh" is the ONLY positive thing about them as he maintains a frequent profile on the boards. At some point tho, even HE has to get a bit tired of the "crap pay" and "rejectionmania" complaints. Josh, go to the light!!!!
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
