|
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 - Karimala
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 61
326
« on: January 26, 2012, 01:40 »
Gotta get out of the habit of shooting pretty pictures, and start shooting subjects that are commercially viable, no matter how boring they might seem. Some of my best sellers are a moldy bathtub, a packet of artificial sweetener, and a paper tag.
327
« on: January 25, 2012, 18:49 »
It's an illustration. Big deal. There's no "testimonial".
I would agree 100%, if the illustration wasn't depicting a fake disabled person. As the mother of a disabled young woman who models for me, it's frustrating to see disabled models bypassed in favor of a Photoshopped version or an able-bodied model who just uses props. Unemployment runs extremely high (well over 50%...about 70% for the blind) among the disabled, and it would be so much better if more photographers and agencies would seek them out for modeling gigs so they can actually earn some money instead of relying on government assistance or family. But you are right about the fact that this should not be that big of a deal, because as you said there isn't a testimonial. This isn't the same thing as the NY firefighter who modeled prior to his employment with the NY Fire Department, and whose photo was altered and featured in an ad for a law firm seeking to represent 9/11 victims. That ad contained a testimonial and made it appear he was there, when he clearly was not.
328
« on: January 25, 2012, 17:20 »
Is Image Source a Getty-owned company? Because the original article has a Getty copyright for the same photo.
Yes. Image Source has a collection on Thinkstock, too. I don't know if the collection is wholly-owned by Getty, but I would suspect it is or that Image Source wholly-owns its collection, given the photographer's comments. Image Source probably handled all the administrative details, like a model release. Edit: Here's a link to Image Source's "About Us" page. http://www.imagesource.com/about-us
329
« on: January 25, 2012, 14:14 »
The F5 site is living up to it's name, because you have to keep hitting F5 so it will work.
Seems like an F5 tornado hit IS, too.
330
« on: January 25, 2012, 04:37 »
Despite the reassurances of meetings with the CEO and attorneys, sure seems like Envato is continuing to play with fire. All it would take is someone notifying Marvel or a movie studio about the massive amount of infringements, and next thing you know a huge lawsuit is filed that would eventually bankrupt the company.
331
« on: January 24, 2012, 12:22 »
What I find interesting about this PR is where they've chosen to release it __ to the financial world rather than to the image buying world. Is their real objective to advertise 'Getty the business' itself? Could this be the start of a series of good news stories as H&F attempt to offload Getty during 2012?
Oh wow. Very interesting choice of venue. It seems they are targeting buyers, but not stock image buyers...
Actually, the press release was distributed all over the place via PRNewswire, and there are image buyer type websites that picked it up.
332
« on: January 24, 2012, 11:32 »
Wonder when they are going to fix the reported earnings...haven't had any earnings reported since the 20th.
333
« on: January 23, 2012, 23:05 »
The story of Detroit's decay saddens me. 
334
« on: January 23, 2012, 14:10 »
It's cheaper to fire employees and hire new people in another location than it is to relocate existing employees.
335
« on: January 23, 2012, 14:00 »
HA! Discovered the problem. I didn't realize "username" meant my e-mail address, not just my regular "username." Silly me. Thanks for all of your help anyway! 
336
« on: January 23, 2012, 08:45 »
I need an FTP program for Mac that works with Veer. Whatever I try doesn't work (FileZilla, Panic Transmit). Any recommendations?
337
« on: January 22, 2012, 15:44 »
It's the way of American big business, where the uber-wealthy CEOs sit in their ivory towers, insulated from the riff raff, disconnected from the real world. When are people going to realize, they will never get the answers they seek from Getty? Getty will do what Getty wants and only inform you of the decisions after they are already implemented. Or do people just not pay attention to their past performance?
Your comment reminds me of a piece in the Wall Street Journal that appeared yesterday, The New American Divide. While it's about the growing cultural divide between the upper-middle class and the working class, the same can be said for CEOs and the workers in their companies, especially in a situation like the one we face with IS/Getty/H&F. Has anyone from H&F ever taken the time to walk among us? Disclaimer: I'm making no claim about agreeing or disagreeing with the author's opinions for solutions.
338
« on: January 22, 2012, 10:39 »
I still personally feel that all indys will ultimately be pushed into PP as their only "relationship" with Getty.IS. I have no proof, of course, just that it seems that is just the thing these vultures would do.
That would be interesting. I suspect an awful lot of indies would pull their ports out of the PP if it came to that. They won't have a PP if they have no content.
It's already happening in some ways. As I've mentioned previously, 17 of the 20 images in my neon alphabet series completely stopped selling at IS in August 2010, then started selling on the partner sites in September 2010. They had regular sales at IS up until then, and sales continued with regularity on the partner sites. Why would these images just stop selling on IS like that? I've deactivated these images, so I can't monitor them on IS anymore, but just prior to removal they were showing in best match along with 80 other images with the keywords "neon" and "alphabet." Only 100 images in the best match, so why did sales come to a sudden halt? Did they somehow get lost for over a year on IS and only recently reappear just prior to deactivation? I have no idea, but I do find the whole thing extremely weird.
339
« on: January 22, 2012, 08:28 »
Since both agencies are rights-managed and non-exclusive (with Demotix offering an exclusive option), you're free to send your images to both Alamy and Demotix, so why not submit to both?
I'm not submitting to Alamy's news program yet, but I sold some editorial over the last year (when I started submitting my older images to the general collection). Three sales out of about 70 images, which I consider pretty good.
340
« on: January 22, 2012, 08:11 »
No. Extended licenses don't promise exclusivity. They just provide a wider variety of usage options.
341
« on: January 21, 2012, 19:35 »
"The Day the LOLCats Died"...fabulousness!!! 
342
« on: January 21, 2012, 17:11 »
Wow.
Like I said before, Envato is seriously vulnerable to a lawsuit here in the US, because they aren't registered for protection with the US Copyright Office. If they aren't registered, they can be sued right along with the artist and any buyer who doesn't remove the material prior to commercial usage. They need to get with their lawyers ASAP before Getty et al catch wind of this, because Getty doesn't play nice when it comes to copyright infringement.
Scary that I, as a novice, know more about what Envato is supposed to do for protection than they do.
343
« on: January 21, 2012, 16:22 »
344
« on: January 21, 2012, 12:03 »
One of my favorite movie lines of all times is from "Field of Dreams." "If you built it, they will come." 
345
« on: January 21, 2012, 11:54 »
...Pond5 is the big winner, just like SS is with stills.
Checked Alexa out of curiosity, and for the first time I've seen, Shutterstock is running neck and neck with IS and actually beating them on some days. Whether or not Alexa is reliable, this development is nevertheless interesting.
346
« on: January 21, 2012, 05:43 »
347
« on: January 20, 2012, 22:42 »
Aw, shucks.  I just hope it helps some folks during these uncertain times. Publishing a book on Zazzle tricks is a good idea. Most of the good info is buried in Zazzle's forum, and it takes some hunting to dig it all up.
349
« on: January 20, 2012, 21:35 »
Well said, James!
350
« on: January 20, 2012, 21:08 »
I just checked it, and it's a good thing what Karimala said isn't true. Image ID's are totally different, it looks that this week wasn't as strong for this type of photos than the last. I feel better already, I'd feel pretty bad if the images were buried because I made a mistake
Um...what I said was 100% true in my situation.
Well I guess it was some kind of glitch then. It makes absolutely no sense, it's not logical for a file being given an ID if it wasn't even submitted for inspection. I also checked the search results, I used specific multiple search terms and the first set was on the 4th page, the second was on the 2nd, as it should be according to image IDs. Can you recheck it, you might have remembered it incorrectly if it happened a while ago (it happens to everyone)
Maybe SS changed it, I don't know. I haven't uploaded in a long time. But it used to be that file IDs were assigned upon order of upload received, not order of submission. Same at LuckyOliver where I was a reviewer, and same at StockXpert.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 61
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
Sean keepin' it real as always.
