|
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 - ClaridgeJ
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 23
376
« on: November 10, 2012, 08:26 »
Something that strikes me is "why me". Should they not be suing the agencies that have actually sold these images? If the case is to stop the sales of their brand on stock sites, then why are they targeting me? In case they win all I can really do is make sure not to use their Glasses in any images in the future, but I can't demand a take-down on jurisdictions where this brand might not even have a design trademark filling? Makes sense?
Is the right procedure not to contact each of the agencies and demand that images showing their design be taken down?
Hi! Theyre trying to get money out of you and who better to pick on then you? They are not worried about you showing the design, they just want money, thats all. After all, you showing their design is free ( gratis) adverstising, isnt it. Danish courts are very relaxed. I doubt very much you will have a problem in the whole of Scandinavia. UK and US however is another problem. I would have thought the right procedure was to first ask the agencies to remove all the shots and go from there. The whole thing is getting ludicrous, you cant shoot anything without somebody filing for lawsuits. Anyway, the reviewers at the agencies accepted the pictures, then they should have more knowledge about the industry. They have the final say! so its their problem, not yours. Bad judgement on their behalf ( since they should be trained to lookout for this, their agencies claim they are trained, right? ). I would spin on that line, you havent got the final say but the agencies.
377
« on: November 06, 2012, 04:02 »
IS is just as affected as you. Its money out of their pocket as well. And you cannot prevent chargebacks. Period.
While I will not argue with you that chargebacks are a hazard of doing business, it is totally false that it is money out of their pockets. It is the contributors who entirely fund their shoots, and it is the contributors' intellectual property that is being stolen and distributed without any payment. So no, Istock does not take the financial hit on a product they do not have any stake in producing, nor any stake in protecting.
And also, while I agree with you that the occasional chargeback can't be avoided, there was a time a couple of years ago when Istock publicly announced that they were all going on vacation over the holidays and there was nobody minding the store. There were tens of thousands of fraudulent downloads over that time, and when contributors tried to get HQ to do something, they couldn't be bothered to come back to work early to deal with it. Many of us lost hundreds, and even thousands of dollars when they clawed back those royalties.
So YES, Istock should take responsibility for keeping our work safe, to the degree that they can, and they continue to fail miserably. It isn't a priority for them, because contrary to what you believe, they don't lose anything at all when our work is stolen from them.
yes the contributors FUNDS IT ALL! the entire industry. Our pics are their life-support and life-blood! without them, no IPOs, no money but the dole-que. They tend to forget that not sometimes but ALL the time.
378
« on: November 06, 2012, 03:49 »
IS is just as affected as you. Its money out of their pocket as well. And you cannot prevent chargebacks. Period.
While I will not argue with you that chargebacks are a hazard of doing business, it is totally false that it is money out of their pockets. It is the contributors who entirely fund their shoots, and it is the contributors' intellectual property that is being stolen and distributed without any payment. So no, Istock does not take the financial hit on a product they do not have any stake in producing, nor any stake in protecting.
And also, while I agree with you that the occasional chargeback can't be avoided, there was a time a couple of years ago when Istock publicly announced that they were all going on vacation over the holidays and there was nobody minding the store. There were tens of thousands of fraudulent downloads over that time, and when contributors tried to get HQ to do something, they couldn't be bothered to come back to work early to deal with it. Many of us lost hundreds, and even thousands of dollars when they clawed back those royalties.
So YES, Istock should take responsibility for keeping our work safe, to the degree that they can, and they continue to fail miserably. It isn't a priority for them, because contrary to what you believe, they don't lose anything at all when our work is stolen from them.
379
« on: November 05, 2012, 00:46 »
Well Emma Bunchen, Cindy Crawford and Elle Mcpherson, are all associated with photographers, Patrick Demachelier and Peter Lindberg.
Ofcourse they upload their famous fashion shots all over the micro industry. Cindy, gets about 0.25c, per picture or something like that.
380
« on: November 04, 2012, 00:36 »
This is straight from the horses mouth!
Since they are in a total limbo. The smartest move they could ever make, would be a best match, suiting both independants and ofcourse their exclusives. That would stir, shake the pot.
Its quite obvious at the moment they are not getting much value out of their exclusives, exept anger and bitterness, so what have theyn got to lose?
381
« on: November 04, 2012, 00:18 »
Must be the 55th thread about this sinking business and they havent sunk yet? Getty is their protector so they are not worried and not half as worried as many here. This is the way they want it, have geared it and for a purpose.
SS, have been the ultimate save for us independants for a long time now. Small signs of changes are beginning to emerge and they day will come, make no misstake when even SS will change. The question is, will it be for the better or worse.
DP and FT, are the latest examples, one flick of the search-order switch and they are falling and lagging behind. Thats how fragile it is.
382
« on: November 03, 2012, 04:22 »
Note that yesterday was a public holiday in many european countries. Most people won't work today neither.
10 European countries have a public holiday in Europe on Nov 1, out of the 45
Anout twelve, but besides UK, the biggest and richest, including Germany and France.
I never heard of a UK holiday on Nov 1st. Certainly not in Scotland.
I thought the Scots were always on holiday? sitting by the shores of Loch Ness, sipping Ale and looking for Nessie?
383
« on: November 02, 2012, 07:06 »
Regarding all micros, an image should earn its search place by merit, i.e. by selling power and commercial value and not by anything else, ofcourse mixed with a few new images, etc.
This was the standard rule of every single trad-agency and still the rule in the entire house-collection and there are never any problems.
Ofcourse, this method creates fierce competition of the slots and photographers bent their backs in trying to produce better and better pictures.
DT, is in fact one of the better search engines showing relevant material but just look at some of the others, well, its like a buyers nightmare trying to find anything and in the end they are left with a constant messing and tweaking of search problems that they themselves once started.
384
« on: November 02, 2012, 05:19 »
No. DT and SS, are the two most steady ones for me.
385
« on: November 01, 2012, 15:03 »
Same here.
386
« on: November 01, 2012, 14:30 »
This is the real funny thing about indies. They actively root for the company that pays them less for the work. It makes no sense. But then again there is that cheap hooker vs high priced call girl thing. I know which one I would choose.
Hahaha, and even more funny is you're writing this while selling on micros earning maybe 1$/download.
Agree! and funniest of all is the fact that every single one of us have signed up of our free will, no fifth amendment, no one has twisted our arms and we all knew from the start is was a flee-market. We knew from the word go, it was pics off the peg but we accepted and signed on the dotted line. Now years later we are complaining. Are we a stupid bunch or what?   
387
« on: November 01, 2012, 10:39 »
Purpose self destruction of an agency, seen it before after so called take-overs. With all the problems, these constant absoloutely meaningless changes, its almost as if they want exclusives to leave, buyers from buying. So when its all washed up they can easily fold without too much heat.
388
« on: November 01, 2012, 09:47 »
Never heard about it! when uploading to DP I frequently get this message, Ajax-error? whats that?
389
« on: November 01, 2012, 08:43 »
Yes but Tyler is right here. Growth is still only in comparison to what amount one has uploaded, etc. Example: during the last six months I have had an average of about 12, RM sales per month and for quite big sums, some involving right and everything. For being RM, thats extremely good.
However when I then look at the amount of RM shots uploaded/accepted over the past 6 months, which is quite a bit, considering I have been concentrating on RM very hard.
Well, all of a sudden sure its a good growth no doubt but its more like the growth you would expect rather then massive.
390
« on: November 01, 2012, 00:22 »
Good one! keep it up. 
391
« on: November 01, 2012, 00:19 »
SS. almost BME. great month.
IS. good month up 30%. PP: exeptionally good.
DT. Great month, good prices as usual.
FT. coming on strong with some ELs.
----------------------------------------------------------
RM sales: better then ever.
392
« on: October 31, 2012, 06:37 »
Many of us are having a terrific month here, mee too, with a bit of luck all I need is 100 quid and I can shout BME! however, the last two days have been strange, its as if they are experimenting yet again with this search or something because exactly the files that sold during the "relevancy" are selling now? yet when you search yourself, it shows popular.
weird? anybody else?
apart from that, terrific month.
393
« on: October 31, 2012, 02:56 »
There is a misconception among many people that fast glass is optically better then slower lenses. This could not be more wrong. Listen to lens producers such as Schneider, Rodenstock, Zeiss, Leitz, etc and you soon find out.
An "idiot" friend of mine proudly told me about his new 50 mil.1.2 and the guy is doing daytime photography under a blazing sun?
No matter how many Aspherical elements you pump into a lens, there is no guarantee for a better optical performance. As an example, todays Zeiss lenses made for Canon and Nikon by Cosina are very good but they are a far cry from the original Zeiss.
Nikon is today the only manufacturer who actually still make their own glass, ensuring top quality in the original glass, hence on an average the Nikon lenses are slightly better then lets say Canons.
Nikons legendary 24-70 will outperform both Canons 24-70 and 24-105, anytime and on every focal-range. Nikons super 14-24, well? it will just kill off Canons wides, even some of their primes.
What Im trying to say is, for the type of stock we are doing, even RM stock, its highly doubtful you need a Schneider-super Angulon quality.
We buy zoom because they are practical, right? but in reallity they havent got much chance against their fixed prime counterparts.
394
« on: October 31, 2012, 01:15 »
Really, what's the point? If you shoot macros, you use a different lens then landscapes, then portraits, then lifestyle.
Sean's right as always. Many people rave about various fast 50mm lenses, but they'd be almost no use to me. I often wish I had longer than 400mm: but probably most people posting here would have no use for a long tele.
So what do you use it for? How does it pay for it itself? It's a fantastic lens for shooting waterfowl, etc ... but for stock?
Beg you pardon madam but I have, got a 600 mil, Canooooooooon! try that for size!
Used it a lot for Aerospace, shipping and industry, where you actually can not, for safety reasons get closer to the place. Taken many stock shots with this one.
395
« on: October 30, 2012, 11:48 »
Why do people even bother with RPI ? whats the point? surely the important thing is what you get in your hand in the end of month, thats all that matters.
I couldnt give a flying so and so about the RPI as long as the money keeps rolling in.
396
« on: October 30, 2012, 11:45 »
Nope! but the PP sales were extremely good, way above expectations. Must say if PP sell this well I dont really care about any IS income. As independants it wont be much at IS anyway.
397
« on: October 30, 2012, 09:35 »
Really, what's the point? If you shoot macros, you use a different lens then landscapes, then portraits, then lifestyle.
Sean's right as always. Many people rave about various fast 50mm lenses, but they'd be almost no use to me. I often wish I had longer than 400mm: but probably most people posting here would have no use for a long tele.
Beg you pardon madam but I have, got a 600 mil, Canooooooooon! try that for size!
398
« on: October 30, 2012, 03:44 »
Oh one of those? best match? whats that?
399
« on: October 30, 2012, 01:15 »
Frankly, I never really understood why it wasn't all priced the same. You are buying a license to use the image (not quality, size, production costs, etc.).
It was to encourage people to do more high-production-value imagery that normally wouldn't be feasible at iStock prices.
No it wasn't __ it was to generate higher profits for Istock. When the 'Vetta collection' was launched it was created entirely from existing content. The supposed 'high production value content' couldn't have been that unfeasible as folk were already submitting it. Istock already had a marketplace for that high-value-imagery and the customers who wanted to pay those prices __ called 'Getty'.
The 'high production value content' excuse is nonsense anyway. There's a bloke called Yuri that spends an incredible amount of money on his shoots and yet he seems to be doing ok without any 'Vetta' images at all. A Vetta image of the Sydney Harbour Bridge for example hasn't necessarily cost any more to shoot than any of the thousand or so non-Vetta images of it. The name of the bridge is misspelt in Istock's ridiculous CV too.
Having supposedly 'invented' microstock, to provide low-cost imagery for the masses, Istock have completely lost their way and, it would seem, a lot of their long-term loyal customers too. Greed and incompetence to blame.
100% true! it was done with existing material. Even so, none of this material would pass any house collection at Getty. Simply isnt good enough.
400
« on: October 29, 2012, 00:03 »
I'm surprised how many folks are saying the 24-70 has soft edges....after I was bashed for pointing out the same thing a few months ago LOL
I've heard the new version 24-70 isn't as bad as the old version.
With relation to the 24-105....I've had two copies. The first copy wasn't all that great - I used it on a 1Ds MK II and on a 30D. I wasn't happy with the image quality.
The second copy I owned I used on a 5D MK II and I was pleased with the image quality. I purchased the lens for a friend (but decided to test it first). I did a photowalk with it in the business district between 9:30 and 10:30am (normal, sunny day). There were areas on the street where I found myself cranking up ISO in order to shoot at 1/125 handheld and I wished I had my 24-70....however, the lens is lighter than the original 24-70 so it was a trade off.
I don't think you'll be disappointed witth the lens unless you're regularly shooting in low light. In studio, it doesn't make a bit of difference. It will also make a difference on which camera body you are using with it. There is an advantage with the focusing system on the 24-105 if you are using it with a 5D MK III or a 1Dx. I don't know why Canon did this, but shooting with a 24-70 and a 70-200 side by side (the 24-105 has the same focus points as the 70-200 but the 24-70 does not) it can be a mind screw
Personally, I like faster glass and I'll be upgrading my 24-70 first generation.....I need to pay for a trip I'm taking in the spring first though.
Ed! I hate to say this but my experience with the 24-70, is with the new 24-70 second generation lens, didnt find it much better then the first. However it might unluck? test a few copies before buying. I dont do low-light at all and almost always work at base ISO but I do demand uniform sharpness across the entire picture.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
