|
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 - klsbear
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 26
376
« on: March 18, 2013, 21:30 »
My upload limit is showing as 25 per day. Maybe it's tied to acceptance rates like some of the other sites do? Some sites also limit to control backlogs for reviewing. Could be that they rotate the limits rather than giving one blanket limit to all.
377
« on: March 15, 2013, 13:03 »
I think that has been there all along. I remember thinking "credit? What about payment?" The way it's phrased makes it sound like its ok to use as long as you just give credit.
378
« on: March 06, 2013, 16:08 »
Perhaphs they are asking for a bit more detail along the east coast with regard to the shapes. I live on Long Island, NY and it protrudes more easterly into the ocean, not slanted upward as in a northeast angle as shown on your map and Cape Cod appears on your map to be thicker and heavier than the narrow hook it is. I think they are nit-picking about the accuracy of the coastline details on the east coast.
I don't think it was copyright since they said the overall outline, specifically the east coast, was the problem. If this inspector was in NY they would have noticed it right away whereas the first inspector may not be all that familiar with the northeast coast and just looked at the general shape.
379
« on: March 05, 2013, 23:02 »
I have never been a Pixmac contributor, but Pixmac has a partnership agreement with Depositphotos. 276 of my images are on Pixmac through this arrangement. How is this going to work now, especially with the potential of duplication?
I'm wondering the same thing. I had been ready to sign up with Pond5. What's going to happen regarding duplicaate images? Can we have these Depositpotos partner program images removed if we upload direct to Pond5? I'd prefer to have control over content placement and pricing.
380
« on: March 03, 2013, 18:43 »
I signed - every little bit helps.
381
« on: March 03, 2013, 11:43 »
Only 266 photos online for me, lots of food shots. Sales are minimal for me but I generally see some activity almost every month including a couple of nice sales at the higher pricing in Feb. It's easy to upload and they show fair treatment of contributors so I have no problem putting my photos up there in hopes of seeing the site grow.
I think helping the smaller fair trade sites increase their image library is a vital step towards helping them succeed. Last year I was searching for a specific type of image for a promotional piece I was doing for my husband's business. We just needed a single image and I searched first on the sites like GL that I wanted to support. We ended up purchasing from BS since we just couldn't find the right image on GL, SF, etc.
The more we can support these sites by helping build the image library the more likely it is that buyers will make them a destination because they can repeatedly find the images they need.
382
« on: February 27, 2013, 18:23 »
I just got in and didn't have any problems navigating using IE9
383
« on: February 25, 2013, 18:29 »
I'm following and interested. I'm on the fence about hosting my own site but you're making it sound like this will be very easy for those without programming abilities. It's exciting to see a project that gives power to the individual artists.
384
« on: February 24, 2013, 22:06 »
I've found 3 of my pictures on Pinterest - two with watermarks (from 123RF and DT). Both pins have the source in the upper right indicating that they were pinned from Google.com. Pinned by the clueless brigade that thinks it's OK to just snag images off a Google Images search.
385
« on: February 18, 2013, 21:58 »
Dan, I was proud to be a part of Warmpicture and I appreciate the efforts you put into the site. I'm sorry to see it closing up shop. What a shame it is that Google has such power to manipulate search traffic with it's changes.
386
« on: February 17, 2013, 12:04 »
Easter apple background bag beauty cheese cooking countryside cube cuisine dinner dish drink egg eggs fatty flour fruits garlic greasy health heap hole home isolated lettuce long market meat mess milk mustard pasta restaurant sandwich shop shopping smoked spring straw summer tomato vegetables water wet white wine
should be:
Easter cooking cuisine egg eggs fatty health
(and even these)
It's also odd that they are missing some of the obvious words like Yolk, Shell, Cracked, Close Up, Brown, Yellow.
387
« on: February 16, 2013, 11:56 »
I got bored reading it. It wasn't very well written, and there were lots of issues with grammar and punctuation. Her point was buried in a blanket of words. Also, I'm not sure where she came up with this : "Did you know that by law it is forbidden for a business to sell goods or services under the norm value?"
She lost me after the first paragraph too. Much too wordy with an excessive amount of examples. She could have made her point better and faster with about a quarter of the words used. Looks like she's British so the law she quoted may be British law.
388
« on: February 13, 2013, 19:05 »
Lobo made a vague reference to it on Monday (below) and a post later today sounded like he was on his way there today. I don't expect we'll get anything close to what we'd like to hear. Posted By Lobo:
Posted By lostinbids:
^ I think Slobo was wondering if there was going to be an announcement on what is happening with Google Drive.
That was a freebie then.
I'm heading into HQ this week. I'll get some updates. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351105&messageid=6841727
389
« on: February 12, 2013, 18:59 »
Holy hell. The subscription prices are crazy low.
$69 a month??
I had a feeling they'd undercut SS, but not by anywhere near this much.
Edit: Wait, I'm wrong, that's for 5 images per day.
A more comparable plan would be Bigstock's 30 image per day plan for $209.
I can only see euro prices, but it doesnt look good.
SS - 199 euro - 25 images / day - 750 images - 26.5 cent image
BS - 169 euro - 30 images / day - 900 images - 19 cent image
BS is undercutting SS by 7.5 cent per image... !!
Also funny, when I went to the BS site, a chat box popped up, asking me if they could help me find the right sub plan. When I replied I got a classic message back
Joey:
Hello and thank you for visiting. Can I help you find the right plan?
me: Im just checking by how much you are undercutting Shutterstock
Sorry for the delay. We're working on getting to you as quickly as possible. If you need to run, please feel free to leave us a message.
Thank you for contacting us.
Chat session disconnected. LMFAO !!
You just disconnected too fast. I think that Joey is multi-tasking on several chats. I asked basically the same thing saying I wanted to compare prices between the two sites and got the same message, then a minute later he asked if there was anything he could do to help with that. I said no, unless he had a spreadsheet comparing the prices that he could send me. The response was "Sadly, we don not have anything such as that." I suspect that has been the conversation of most of the chats today.
390
« on: February 11, 2013, 21:56 »
Sean, you've been an inspiration and my barometer for measuring the ups and downs at iStock. I'm still stunned but agree with others that it was a shot across the bow intended to quiet the masses. Wishing you all the best.
By the way - has anyone told Rebecca yet? Sean's not around to tell her now that his forum privileges were revoked and it seems from the Google Drive incident that they needed him to find out what Getty was up to.
391
« on: February 09, 2013, 18:03 »
I got one from DP this past week in addition to many that others have mentioned. I don't think I got one from DT so I need to look into that.
392
« on: February 09, 2013, 11:48 »
Bigstockphoto is below Stockfresh in the polls on the right - it's not even mid-tier right now. Maybe they expect this to bring them and us new revenue but I can't see this move bringing a flood of new buyers anxious to sign up for subs unless it's a lower price than they can get elsewhere.
393
« on: February 08, 2013, 19:29 »
I wonder what they plan to charge for their sub plan and if it will be same or substantially diffeent than SS's plan. Here's the e-mail I sent in response to the announcement on the changes. What the cost will be on the subscription plans? Will you be undercutting the buyer's cost to purchase a similar subscription plan at Shutterstock? If the subscription plans are higher cost for smaller subscriptions or offer substantially different options (ie: small and medium size only for subs) it would be more palatable than if you are offering same or similar to SS but paying us less. As others have said, the higher tiers are a pie-in-the-sky dream given the traffic and industry trends right now. I would like to see the cost on the subsciption plans before it's implemented so I can make some decisions.
394
« on: February 06, 2013, 22:49 »
It was snagged off the DT site, the watermark is still on it. Be happy that you've only found one (so far). Usages like this are rampant. You can try and fill out the form on DT to report the illegal use, file a DMCA or contact the owner of the site with your complaint. Nothing much else you can do and it gets to be a full time job trying to stop this (I'm not saying that you shouldn't try). It's a blog and that's where this sort of thing happens the most often. Many bloggers haven't got a clue. They assume that if they can find it they can use it but this is especially bad since they had to go to the DT site to steal it with the watermark. Welcome to microstock.
When I found one of my DT watermarked images on a blog I contacted DT and they sent a letter within a day or two but the image remained on the blog for a few weeks so I went to the blog host and filed a DMCA and it was down withing 24 hours. Six months later I got an e-mail from DT letting me know that the image had been removed. My advice would be to follow channels through DT but if it's still up after a week then go to Blogspot who is hosting the blog and file the DMCA directly.
395
« on: February 06, 2013, 22:29 »
I don't see them handing out a raise by increasing the current commission rates but I think there is room for increasing our income by adding more options like the SOD downloads that were recently added and are bringing in some big dollars for some contributors.
I'd like to see:
An Opt-Out option for individual images in the SOD (sensitive use) program. I think a lot of people are holding off from the Opt-In option because they don't want to include images of certain family members, children, etc. Let us choose to Opt-In to the program but Opt-Out on select images.
Exclusive Image collection with a higher DL payout, exclusive for one year, then it goes back to the regular collection and you can upload to other sites. This gives SS the benefit of exclusive images without having exclusive contributors. Limit it to a percentage of one's portfolio to avoid someone opting in all their images which in effect would make them an exclusive contributor.
An "upload bonus" in the form of higher commission on new images for the first year, then drop back to the regular schedule. This would encourage new content but only reward if it's on-target and sells.
From a business viewpoint it's not good to increase the current commission levels. What's needed is more creative thinking like the SOD sensitive use program that brings in more money for everyone.
396
« on: February 04, 2013, 23:05 »
In the black bar at the top, to the right side, is a link to the Management Area and it takes you to the old familiar screen with the round buttons linking to the various areas for managing your portfolio.
397
« on: January 30, 2013, 18:10 »
I've notice on one of my systems that I just get a spinning circle. What browser are you using? I was having trouble in IE9 on one system, not on the other. It may have had something to do with the version or service pack installed. Try Chrome or Foxfire if you're IE(whatever version) and see if that works for you.
398
« on: January 30, 2013, 18:07 »
I have a couple more DL's than last Janauary but half the $ amount due to being level 2. It doesn't help that there have been an increase in the Subs sales and I'm seeing less on the larger sizes in the credit level. Discouraging - not feeling the love here anymore.
399
« on: January 29, 2013, 21:09 »
Like Joann, I'm standing at 4 sales for $1.70. I've started to see a few sales each month which is I took to be a sign of coming to life a bit. I only have just over 250 images online there so I really didn't expect much yet so any regular activity has been welcomed as holding hope for a future.
400
« on: January 29, 2013, 19:04 »
As before, if you click on one image there is a small notice which says 'Image may be subject to copyright'. (Maybe that's just google.co.uk?) But it's not exactly evident how you would find out whether the image is copyright. The random photo I clicked on was in hundreds of instances across the web,
http://tinyurl.com/ayzlobm
and you'd have to be very persistent and at least a bit knowledgeable to even make an educated guess. You'd need to know about Google Image Search and how to install it to your choice of browser. (I gave up trying to keep fixing it with new versions of FF and now have Chrome on my computer only to use GIS). Then you'd have to recognise the names of all the stock agencies. But of course, even if not on an agency, it's still copyright, but finding the copyright holder would be even more difficult if they have it on a personal site.
That particular pic I randomly chose is effectively orphaned - maybe deliberately by Google(?). OTOH, it's very easy to copy a photo and thereby lose the metadata, so maybe just ignorance by some user in the chain.
I clicked on the "learn more" link and followed the trail, finally sending this e-mail: Hi - your Google Drive stock images says that they are labeled (not licensed) for commercial use with a link to "learn more". That takes you to an article saying that it's up to the user to figure out what license is available, followed by this warning: Before reusing content that youve found, you should verify that its license is legitimate, and check the exact terms of reuse stated in the license. For example, most licenses require that you give credit to the image creator when reusing an image. Google has no way of knowing whether the license is legitimate, so we arent making any representation that the content is actually lawfully licensed.
How is one supposed to find out about legitimate image licenses? There is no link back to the source, no listing of the source and reference to the copyright owner or artist. This is the response I got back (which sounds like it came from a 15 year old high school intern): Hey Karen, You just may get your answer in the "Google Drive Help Forum" http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!forum/drive
Just pick a discussion category, jump in and post your question. You'll soon have your answer.
Cheers, Shannon Translated means: We have no clue and we really don't care, that's your problem, not ours - go find your own crowd-sourced answer that may or may not be correct. 
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 26
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
