|
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 - cthoman
3451
« on: December 11, 2009, 13:11 »
I'd probably be better off just suggesting that we get images somewhere else with lower prices and consistent pricing schedules.
Like where? Dreamstime? Fotolia? Don't they all have tiered pricing. Vector pricing at iStock is all over the map and people buy those everyday. I don't really see that much has changed.
3452
« on: December 11, 2009, 00:39 »
I find the new numbers enticing to become exclusive. I have a while to think about it because of the lock in at Dreamstime, but I'm definitely going to look at it again. I'd like to see how the new prices play out first though. Also, I'll have to reread the exclusive contract. Some of the wording in that thing scares me.
3453
« on: December 10, 2009, 12:42 »
I wouldn't be surprised if they modify the changes they announced for the canister levels. It seems that the sites often give us really bad news, receive a huge negative reaction, make a small change for the better and then most people think they have been reasonable. It has happened a few times now and is starting to look like a deliberate ploy.
That would actually make sense. They double the canister levels thinking that they'll have to bargain down.
3454
« on: December 09, 2009, 13:11 »
"you know it when you see it."
That's what I was going to write originally, but I decided to blab on instead. 
3455
« on: December 09, 2009, 13:09 »
There SHOULD be some consideration for the rights of the contributor's business, even those of us who have tiny portfolios. Unfortunately, we are too divided to force such an issue.
Again, I know that I am in the minority. Just making more noise and continuing to shoot myself in the foot. 
I didn't mean to insinuate that we shouldn't have rights as well, but contributors that just copy ideas from the best sellers seem kind of predatory. These people may not have violated any copyright, but their practices aren't necessarily what the agency or contributors want. Obviously, I'm not accusing the original poster of this, but I'm trying to point out that something doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong.
3456
« on: December 09, 2009, 12:27 »
Yes, you are right. You can't copyright an idea. But, I think a lot goes into it, so it is not very clear without seeing. I like iStock's use of the term abusive inspiration because I think that describes some of the practices employed by contributors. In the end, it really doesn't matter if you violated another person's copyright. If the agency felt you weren't playing by the rules, it may just be easier for them to get rid of your images. It may not be fair, but it is their right to run their business how they see fit.
P.S. I'd feel terrible by the way if I was accused of this, so I feel for you.
3457
« on: December 09, 2009, 11:01 »
Hopefully we will make it up in volume as the more cost-conscious buyers choose the cheaper non-exclusive files over exclusive ones.
This may be the case. In August of 2007, iStock raised prices and again in January of 2008 (at least for vectors). Before these raises, I was averaging about twice as many downloads per month in 2007 versus 2008. Downloads dropped off, but I was also making more with the raise. I don't know if it is price conscious or if companies have a fixed budget for images or maybe all the price savvy buyers just left iStock. Whatever the case, downloads were definitely affected by price in the past. I make more with iStock almost every month, but I'm still way below my most downloads month ever of 2007. Also, I'm never going to get those precious 5 more uploads for gold. Maybe, iStock should use all their new wealth in 2010 and hire some f'n reviewers.
3458
« on: December 09, 2009, 01:16 »
Interesting article. I'd never seen that. It's always amazing to me that some illustrators don't understand that you are supposed to shoot your own reference photos. And if you don't, then it better not look anything like the reference you used. I suppose copyright abuse will just get worse. I was shocked by this post at Shutterstock: http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=74163It's the same pose used by a dozen different contributors. Maybe, it's from a public domain reference, but it makes you wonder.
3459
« on: December 08, 2009, 10:32 »
Print Program, I knew so little about you and now you're gone. How's that Myspace greeting card thing going? Is that still around? Did anybody ever find where it is on Myspace?
3460
« on: December 07, 2009, 11:04 »
Rather than arguing endlessly in this forum, how about actually reading the license terms on the site where she bought the image?
Wait, you mean we are supposed to actually read the licensing agreements before we sell our images on sites? 
3461
« on: December 05, 2009, 17:55 »
...are you saying I can buy an EL from you, altering %25 of your image and then sell it as my own on a print site???
Yes (sort of), or you could sell it as is without modifying. In either case you wouldn't own it, have any claim to copyright or be able to distribute the actual image, but you purchased the right to license it for retail print. Some EL's don't cover PODs. I don't think Shutterstock's does.
3462
« on: December 05, 2009, 15:53 »
I returned a file once, but it was just an exchange for a larger size. So, there wasn't any certificate of destruction. I don't know what their policy is, but I assume if you were frequently returning files they might refuse to refund your money.
3463
« on: December 05, 2009, 15:46 »
I don't know about lawsuits, but you might ask them to stop selling it or buy the extended license. Here's the P-EL copy:
Print Usage (P-EL):
Physical Items for Resale: includes the right to use the photos for t-shirts, postcards, greeting cards, mugs, mousepads, posters, calendars, framed artwork that is to be sold to other customers for a maximum amount of 10,000 copies (applies as a total of each type of usage). If this amount is exceeded you need to acquire this license once again. The new license will provide you with the standard amount of copies.
This is an additional license to the rights included within the regular Royalty-Free license. Note that the other restrictions still apply.
3464
« on: December 04, 2009, 19:57 »
Weird? I thought $100 was the minimum payout. I guess not. I just switched mine to $50. It will be nice to get paid a little more frequently there.
3465
« on: December 04, 2009, 13:17 »
Good to hear. Hopefully, it gets resolved. You have to assume if this person stole one image, they stole others too.
3466
« on: December 04, 2009, 01:32 »
That's funny.
3467
« on: December 03, 2009, 15:11 »
It looks somewhat real, so you may try sending the site an email to remove the images.
3468
« on: December 01, 2009, 16:22 »
I was reading through some of that and what a muddled mess it is. I assume their main target is people that are actually getting paid to write reviews or given free merchandise to review. But, it doesn't really look like affiliates are safe though. There is definitely a lot of vague wording, so I'm not sure what to make of it. I guess I'll start writing some disclaimers.
Edit: Oops. I didn't mean it to sound like I was calling your article a muddled mess. Hopefully, that wasn't how it read. I thought you had a nice overview. I was talking about the law being kind of ambiguous. They might as well have worded it, "You know it when you see it."
3469
« on: November 25, 2009, 11:19 »
So what are the current upload limits at each canister? I was having trouble finding it. I thought it used to be on the upload page, but I don't see it there.
3470
« on: November 25, 2009, 11:15 »
As a freelancer, half of my job is promotion, finding clients and communicating with clients (definitely not the fun half). I can see the appeal of this logo program because eliminating all the time and money spent tracking down clients might be worth the lower prices. I'm taking a cautious approach to the logo program. I haven't uploaded any logos, but I'm definitely going to monitor its success or failure. I think it is a mistake to just outright dismiss it. Especially since many people are creating logos for it.
3471
« on: November 24, 2009, 01:00 »
Did they really ever leave?
You don't remember that one day where the sky fell, and... uh, but it... oh wait... never mind.
3472
« on: November 22, 2009, 12:08 »
Do you sell at the ispot, Albert? I looked at it years ago and was intimidated by the upfront cost to place my portfolio. I've also read about people making money with Folioplanet's stock service, but again, this was a while ago.
I guess if I was going to take a stab at rights managed I'd probably want to develop a different style with more conceptual images. Right now, I don't think my work would do well there. Does anybody have any experience with rights managed illustration? I here the photographers talking about it, but it is hard to translate things from their experiences.
3473
« on: November 16, 2009, 22:34 »
Wow! I guess it is not that much more for XXL subscriptions. The Vector ones are pretty nice at $1.11 for Silver.
3474
« on: November 16, 2009, 19:34 »
I'm also a big fan of istock. Sure, I've had my little quibbles here and there, but in the end I think they're one of the best. I'd probably go exclusive there if they were closer to 50% of my income, but it is usually around 30%.
3475
« on: November 16, 2009, 12:59 »
Telling people to start uploading to IS "as soon as possible" doesn't sound very positive. 
Is the answer to that, "I would if I had anymore uploads there this week."?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
