|
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 - tickstock
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 151
326
« on: September 29, 2015, 07:06 »
What's up with all the edited out license plates in editorial files?
327
« on: September 26, 2015, 13:07 »
The truth of the matter is, one day you can find your image on lets say page four, the next day on page seven or one regardless of a sale or not.
There is no logic in the sort whatsoever.
Hmmm wasn't the argument that there was some logic, namely that when you get a big sale or lots of sales you get pushed down in the search? If there is no logic to it then there is no conspiracy to cap your earnings.
328
« on: September 26, 2015, 11:13 »
Maybe your big days and ELs are coming because they promoted your ports? It's funny when you're having a good day or week it's all because your images are great but when you have a bad day it's a conspiracy to keep you down. Seems just as likely that your bad days should be the norm and SS is boosting you up to unnatural levels on your good days.
I don't know if you are specifically referring to me but if you are I never come in here touting "how good my port is". I am merely reporting what happens to me, regardless of my port quality. We are talking about known, repeatable patterns triggered by a specific event.
Nope not aimed at anyone in particular. Maybe your bad days are the fair normal ones and the good days are really SS propping up your ports at someone else's expense, seems just as likely as the alternative especially when you can easily test to see if your images are moved up or down the search. I think since it's easy to find proof that they cap earnings but no one has it's most likely they aren't doing anything. How hard is it to check the search results?
329
« on: September 26, 2015, 09:09 »
Maybe your big days and ELs are coming because they promoted your ports? It's funny when you're having a good day or week it's all because your images are great but when you have a bad day it's a conspiracy to keep you down. Seems just as likely that your bad days should be the norm and SS is boosting you up to unnatural levels on your good days.
330
« on: September 20, 2015, 07:14 »
can you keep stuff in focus with those cameras? I have a hard time shooting video with my Canon 5dM2 because I cannot see the focusing on my LCD with my 65 year old eyes. So I got a SONY HXR NX3. It does not do 4K but at least stuff is in focus.
I am not really into 4K now. Just to sterile. Good for landscape aerial i guess. Might change... dunno. Plus my UL bandwidth sucks. Hard to get even small files ULed to SS.
Yep I have a 4k camcorder but I'd choose something like this before a dslr just for ease of use. It requires a lot less set up and having built in ND filters is a real plus.
331
« on: September 19, 2015, 17:46 »
Depends what you want to be able to do, what you already have, and your budget. Use your Canon lenses? Have high quality audio? Autofocus?
I would stay away from point and shoots if you want quality, shallow DOF, easier manual focus, etc..
332
« on: September 19, 2015, 09:02 »
It would be very easy to see if this were true, just do a search (or have someone else on a different computer) and see if your images show up or if they are moved down to the bottom of the results. Unless you're saying they are not paying you for downloads which I very much doubt.
333
« on: September 19, 2015, 08:58 »
Tell them you want 40 big ones, a quarter a dime and a nickel no pennies!
334
« on: September 18, 2015, 14:59 »
Well, their site, their choice. I don't see anything wrong with that image. Maybe they're being forced to be PC.
Maybe models threaten to sue when those images are used for escort services, porn sites, or other things they don't like.
That's a violation of Getty's own release (pornography or defamation), which is the one I use with all the agencies. I've had it happen twice in ten years and was able to have the images taken down immediately with a DMCA request. So no, whatever the reason for iStock's change in policy, I'm confident that you haven't identified it.
Some of those images look like they could only be used for those kinds of things, if they can't legally be used per the terms then it makes sense to cull them.
there is market for those images - "covers of romance stories".
There are a lot of self-published books of this kind (even on Amazon)
www.amazon.com/Their-Stepsister-Alexa-Riley-ebook/dp/B00U02FK12
And (wearing my designer hat now) sometimes it is more convenient to have nude image even when final product won't show any private parts. Covering them by texts, etc makes it visually more pleasing then have it covered by clothes. Illusion sells...
I guess romance novelists will have to go elsewhere to get nude images that they want to crop or cover up so there is no nudity in the final copy. Seems like a very limited set of buyers though at least. BTW it looks like the image you used for an example would still be allowed wouldn't it? I also don't think they should get rid of requiring releases for commercial work just because a buyer could crop, blur or cover the parts of the image to make it ok.
335
« on: September 17, 2015, 19:19 »
Well, their site, their choice. I don't see anything wrong with that image. Maybe they're being forced to be PC.
Maybe models threaten to sue when those images are used for escort services, porn sites, or other things they don't like.
That's a violation of Getty's own release (pornography or defamation), which is the one I use with all the agencies. I've had it happen twice in ten years and was able to have the images taken down immediately with a DMCA request. So no, whatever the reason for iStock's change in policy, I'm confident that you haven't identified it.
Some of those images look like they could only be used for those kinds of things, if they can't legally be used per the terms then it makes sense to cull them.
Still the question why certain contributors are not affected... many pics left are open pornography...many pics deleted are women in bikini
The only examples I've seen are the couple here, not the bikini ones. It's probably subjective in many cases and from what they said they haven't finished yet. For the one in the OP it's hard to see what kind of commercial use would be allowed, at least in the US.
336
« on: September 17, 2015, 18:58 »
Well, their site, their choice. I don't see anything wrong with that image. Maybe they're being forced to be PC.
Maybe models threaten to sue when those images are used for escort services, porn sites, or other things they don't like.
That's a violation of Getty's own release (pornography or defamation), which is the one I use with all the agencies. I've had it happen twice in ten years and was able to have the images taken down immediately with a DMCA request. So no, whatever the reason for iStock's change in policy, I'm confident that you haven't identified it.
Some of those images look like they could only be used for those kinds of things, if they can't legally be used per the terms then it makes sense to cull them.
337
« on: September 17, 2015, 18:25 »
No surprise here, all the woo yaying drowned out the warnings I guess. Hopefully this is the wake up call but my guess is people will complain that Shutterstock is doing something wrong instead. Maybe they didn't advertise correctly, or the site is wonky, or they have bad management, or bad inspections when really the issue is another site giving away more rights for less price.
338
« on: September 17, 2015, 18:19 »
Well, their site, their choice. I don't see anything wrong with that image. Maybe they're being forced to be PC.
Maybe models threaten to sue when those images are used for escort services, porn sites, or other things they don't like.
339
« on: September 11, 2015, 11:20 »
Under sell the rights, the only restriction I see is that it can't be relicensed by someone claiming that they created the image. So they have exclusive ownership of the image since the photographer/illustrator has to disable the image and all similars, but they don't have the right to resell it as their own work. When a pro photographer sells the copyright, this restriction is often contained in the contract and does not contradict full ownership, it goes to attribution rather than ownership. http://www.dreamstime.com/terms
A photographer can also sell the copyright and give another the right to relicense it. It depends on the contract. When I referred to selling the copyright, I was speaking in general terms and not referring to DT in particular. I used them as an example of an exclusive license without a copyright buyout. Hope that's clear now.
I guess it depends how you define "full ownership" (along with half a dozen other terms) in DT license, I think a normal reading would include copyright. The terms are written so poorly that they barely make sense (I don't think they are coherent at all). It's like they wrote that "license" up ad hoc.
340
« on: September 11, 2015, 10:15 »
When they talk about "buy the rights" it depends upon what rights they are buying.
DT licenses different rights such as those explained above where a customer is buying the right to use a photo exclusively for a year so the photographer can't license that photo anywhere during the one year period, but they have no protection from those who have licensed it previously using the image, which is why they pay hundreds not thousands for the privilege. For an RM image where you know the history, a buyer will usually pay a lot more for exclusive use because they know exactly what they are getting.
Buying out the copyright is a totally different right - that gives you ownership of the image and the right to license it yourself as stock. People may pay thousands to tens of thousands for that privilege, it depends upon the photo and would be based upon the projected income that one could earn from it.
Items for Resale and buying the copyright are not the same thing. the resale license lets you sell prints, mugs, T-shirts etc. but does not let you license the image as stock.
DT says the buyer gets " full ownership" and "The photographer acknowledge and agrees to provide the buyer with full ownership for the file retrieved using the SR-EL license." They also say that the contributor owns the copyright, how the buyer has full ownership and the contributor owns the copyright is beyond me. Either the buyer doesn't get full ownership, they get an exclusive use license or they get full ownership which using normal language includes the copyright. I would think if I gave you full ownership of my image that would include the copyright because if you have full ownership then I have no ownership, it can't be 100% for one party and 50% for another can it?
341
« on: September 11, 2015, 07:17 »
So the buyer gets full ownership but can't resell it, seems contradictory. Hard to figure out what selling THE rights and full ownership mean, sounds like they don't actually mean THE rights just some rights and it's not full ownership but limited ownership. Is there a more complete explanation of this somewhere?
You can use the image in any way you want (moral standards provided), for products, unlimited print runs, for as many clients as you want.
But the main key for buyers to buy out those rights most likely is the exclusive use. They can't license the photo as a photo but they can protect themselves from others to license the same image in the future. The only risk is that the image has sold in the past and those licenses can't be revoked. It's basically what big companies still pay five digits for in the rights managed market, just with a lack of sales history.
They use the words "sell the rights" and "full ownership", who owns the copyright when the buyer buys the rights and has full ownership of the image? If all they were getting was exclusive use then they wouldn't get full ownership and they wouldn't be buying the rights, they would be buying some rights and have no ownership.
342
« on: September 10, 2015, 17:27 »
So the buyer gets full ownership but can't resell it, seems contradictory. Hard to figure out what selling THE rights and full ownership mean, sounds like they don't actually mean THE rights just some rights and it's not full ownership but limited ownership. Is there a more complete explanation of this somewhere?
343
« on: September 10, 2015, 15:01 »
You cannot go to a stock photo agency, buy a photo, then put it up on your own stock photo website and resell. No. Generally that is called redistribution.
You can go to Dreamstime and do just that.
344
« on: September 10, 2015, 14:40 »
How much are you willing to pay, I think everyone of us is open to it at the right price.
345
« on: September 10, 2015, 14:34 »
The answer is yes.
346
« on: September 10, 2015, 14:24 »
Of course it's possible to do it if the copyright holder agrees to it and the rights are secured.
347
« on: September 10, 2015, 14:10 »
Do you mean sell it as a print or license it?
348
« on: September 09, 2015, 23:33 »
I don't think Getty is considered to be microstock.
Just can't wait to see the name Getty with no numbers after it like the other 40 that don't make the minimum.
There is no minimum. The reason those sites don't show up is because there aren't enough votes. From what I remember a site needs 20 votes to get the numbers put up, that shows how few people are entering their numbers.
349
« on: September 09, 2015, 22:40 »
How about you raise the maximum to at least $5000 and allow exclusives to enter our earnings for Alamy, Pond5, and Getty.
350
« on: September 04, 2015, 12:40 »
I'm not sure what the solution is, but like so many of you, I am tired of giving the bulk of the sale to an entity that provides the front door for customers. I'm equally tired of listening to excuses as to why clips and images need to be priced as low as they are. Getting 100% of $49 is as bad as getting 30% of $79. Not like I don't take the money, I need it, but it doesn't mean either is a good deal. It's just as easy to change the $49 at VB to $29 or $19 or $9 as it was to change $79 to $at Dv. You have nothing to say about it that will make them understand.
That's why I've stayed away from VB. If they become successful they force other sites to lower prices and then what happens if they decide to take 50% royalty or if they stop licensing videos and only promote their free offerings. I'm going to say away and most likely this year go exclusively with Pond5, I've already stopped uploading at iStock and slowed down a lot at SS. I'd move a lot faster if Pond5 would fix a few things but even if they don't I'd still rather support them than the other sites.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 151
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
