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 - dingles
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18
376
« on: March 28, 2013, 08:57 »
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??
To jsnover, I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.
thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so
Why not go back and read your own post? You stated that the only known fact was that Sean and Getty were both hiding facts from us. The clear implication was that he was engaging in deliberate deceit for some reason or other. That's effectively an accusation of lying by omission. Now it turns out that by "known fact" you mean "my uninformed speculation". I suggest you go back to your English comprehension class and try again, it might help you to get fewer negative votes.
How is it deceit when neither Sean nor Getty owe us any facts. I was also under the assumption there may be more to it...in the end it doesn't matter as the point of the post had nothing to do with calling anyone a liar.
377
« on: March 28, 2013, 08:53 »
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??
To jsnover, I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.
thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so, i am also not a getty apologist, i think it's safe to say i have similar feelings towards getty as most of you do. my point being (which you understood) was that it is a business decision by getty to do what they did and in all honesty only those two parties know the inner workings of why. the rest of it is pure speculation and rallying on seans behalf with a lot of emotion attached to it. nothing against sean, seems a nice guy, good shooter, and tries to be helpful more so than most, however it appears he simply overstepped the boundaries that getty felt comfortable with. i too am quite surprised at the emotion, anger, and name calling that comes from people towards others who simply have a different view. this whole pissing contest is between sean and getty - nobody else.
sean, a door closes and a window opens, run with it man and good luck.
No problem man, thank for replying. I'm getting a lot of forum hate now...I guess i called out a protected member or something
378
« on: March 28, 2013, 08:51 »
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??
To jsnover, I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.
thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so, i am also not a getty apologist, i think it's safe to say i have similar feelings towards getty as most of you do. my point being (which you understood) was that it is a business decision by getty to do what they did and in all honesty only those two parties know the inner workings of why. the rest of it is pure speculation and rallying on seans behalf with a lot of emotion attached to it. nothing against sean, seems a nice guy, good shooter, and tries to be helpful more so than most, however it appears he simply overstepped the boundaries that getty felt comfortable with. i too am quite surprised at the emotion, anger, and name calling that comes from people towards others who simply have a different view. this whole pissing contest is between sean and getty - nobody else.
sean, a door closes and a window opens, run with it man and good luck.
I personally believe it was more than a pissing contest. The move by Getty to unseat Sean (in my humble opinion, of course) was to send a message to the masses. Keep F_K_N with us and we will squash you like the peasants you are.
I agree it served that purpose. I believe they saw Sean as the instigator (not saying this is true, just how he was possibly perceived) to the deactivation day. And knowing that he is well known and respected among contributors he became an example. A crappy old school tactic on Getty's part. I think Getty would have benefited a lot more by just owning up to the deal being crappy and not as well thought out as it could have been. In the end I think attaching to a powerhouse like Google seemed so good to Getty that they gave them too much for too little.
379
« on: March 27, 2013, 19:34 »
It's still in top earners
380
« on: March 27, 2013, 18:56 »
I don't know, I feel if you aren't make more on iStock than the other sites you are doing something wrong. My iStock income is more than double Shutterstock. IO guess what I said isn't completely fair as iStock proved to be a top earner early on so it does gain more of my focus than the others. I'm sure you could do just as well on Shutterstock if focus was there...not so much Fotolia and Dreamstime..I just don't think they pull in the numbers...well Fotolia does, but I think their low subscription pricing depleats their potential.
381
« on: March 27, 2013, 18:17 »
I think we all could of predicted iStock to be in the lead...in reality we all know iStock makes us the most money...but we sure do love bashing them.
382
« on: March 27, 2013, 11:17 »
Hi guys,
what is this getty sales in istock?
is it only available for exclusive contributor?
Yes, exclusive content is added the Getty Images site (still labeled iStock content), but at different price points since Getty Images caters to a different client and offers different usage rights, so Getty sales can often be higher than iStock sales.
383
« on: March 27, 2013, 11:12 »
It's only useful if there is logical reasoning behind the choices...there are many factors that come down to fitting the artist with the right agency...each agency looks for certain types of images. And each contributor expect different things from agencies. So I think this may be too simplistic to really gauge anything useful from...and my guess it will be another "let me bitch about this agency" thread.
384
« on: March 27, 2013, 10:11 »
Why diss any? It's about which site(s) work best for you.
385
« on: March 27, 2013, 09:46 »
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??
To jsnover, I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.
386
« on: March 27, 2013, 07:55 »
Let the speculation resume
387
« on: March 26, 2013, 20:33 »
I cannot fathom why there is a small clique of Getty apologists who refuse to believe that what Sean has said is what happened. Even further, I can't understand why they'd waste their time on MSG to set us poor country bumpkins straight - those of us who take Sean at his word.
And as for Getty's side of things, their track record speaks for itself - it'd be easier to defend Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler as social workers at heart than to pitch Getty as the hardly done by agency scr*wed over by the evil SuperLocke.
Go and complain about us and Sean someplace else.
Wow, way to be inclusive. Who needs any other perspective...let all us little Lemmings get back to our smug...errr...snug little bubbles 
There's a whole lot of things I can be inclusive about - but not the flat earth society, those who support having imprisoned Galileo for saying the earth revolves around the sun - I could make a list, but I'm sure you get the point.
There's a saying someone else came up with that we are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Sean has given us the tale of what happened and when. Having people come in here and say that - in essence - Sean is lying, is a complete waste of their time and ours. Let them send rude site mail to Sean calling him out if they really feel the need to set the world straight.
The guy mad an assumption...who is going to take it as fact...I guess those flat earth folks, but we don't care about them anyway.
388
« on: March 26, 2013, 20:21 »
I cannot fathom why there is a small clique of Getty apologists who refuse to believe that what Sean has said is what happened. Even further, I can't understand why they'd waste their time on MSG to set us poor country bumpkins straight - those of us who take Sean at his word.
And as for Getty's side of things, their track record speaks for itself - it'd be easier to defend Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler as social workers at heart than to pitch Getty as the hardly done by agency scr*wed over by the evil SuperLocke.
Go and complain about us and Sean someplace else.
Wow, way to be inclusive. Who needs any other perspective...let all us little Lemmings get back to our smug...errr...snug little bubbles
389
« on: March 22, 2013, 18:56 »
Ah Gotcha - unlikely to make any difference to 3D contributors then.
Good question. I have 3D rendered stills, but I wouldn't classify them as illustrations...
390
« on: March 22, 2013, 16:15 »
They now are separating raster illustrations from images. You can upload vector or raster illustrations, but not both of the same file
391
« on: March 22, 2013, 08:56 »
I think illustrations have proven to be good sellers and their current approval queue is less than an hour for an Illustration to be approved (from my recent experience)...so I think this is a way to strengthen their illustration area and promote the new acceptance of Raster illustrations. Makes sense...approval time will probably go longer now. Not everything is a huge conspiracy
392
« on: March 21, 2013, 11:45 »
Posting a link doesn't help much...do you know where the images are from? If so report to the respective agency(s).
393
« on: March 21, 2013, 09:20 »
I just had several videos approved within a week. I am exclusive to video there, but previously i hade waited over 4 weeks...so big improvement a great surprise.
394
« on: March 18, 2013, 09:07 »
I thought Sean's images could be found via "tailgate" which produces no results now.
Yes, they are gone. I can not find any of my images - the pharmacy one, the student one, or the tailgate ones.
I wish they would keep us up to date on what the deal is.
Perhaps they must remove any images that are no longer on istock since their original agreement was with istock (or their partners)? No one has seen the actual, original agreement between google and istock that started this fiasco. Just speculating...
Allegedly the agreement was between Getty and Google - allegedly iStock admins didn't know anything about it until Sean pointed it out. It would be a very unusual agreement that required images to be pulled if the person pulled their port. iStock's IT dept could never cope would be 'extremely challenged' to cope with that!
'Extremely Challenged'...that sums up iStocks IT well in general ;P
395
« on: March 15, 2013, 21:12 »
i got an email - clearly indicated from istock - questions were very good &guess BCG wrote them. didn't see anything about winning an ipod - wouldn't have taken it seriously if there had been. the message said it was a survey for all exclusive istock contributors. anyway i answered it in depth, also cited a particularly rude comment made to me, but no names.
That is a different survey to exclusives the BCG survey was for buyers
396
« on: March 14, 2013, 13:21 »
I ask them to show Istock and Getty financial figures.... lol
That won't happen, I wish they would at least show a graph or something that indicates if sales are good or not. Doesn't have to be specific.
397
« on: March 14, 2013, 12:36 »
Do Istock Bosses really think there are so many people paying 10x more than other sites and paying artistes 10x less so stupid to continue "working" for them? Now The new consults will tell them to give the "slaves" a "candy" so they can continue to work for them. You will see increments of 0.01% in your revenues, new games, new tips but it will remain the same s**t.
Have a bad taste in your mouth there?
How do you know that? Are you stalking me? 
I'm behind you right now
398
« on: March 14, 2013, 12:22 »
Do Istock Bosses really think there are so many people paying 10x more than other sites and paying artistes 10x less so stupid to continue "working" for them? Now The new consults will tell them to give the "slaves" a "candy" so they can continue to work for them. You will see increments of 0.01% in your revenues, new games, new tips but it will remain the same s**t.
Have a bad taste in your mouth there?
399
« on: March 14, 2013, 12:18 »
@sweetgirll - No, I do not sell at clipartof. Thanks.
UPDATE: I contacted the business via their Facebook page. The owner responded and was very surprised to see this. He had paid a "designer" friend of his to develop the logo. He is very disappointed with his friend but glad to know the truth. The owner of the restaurant and I are now discussing how we can make this right.
Thanks to all the MSG folks who offered their input, I will let you know how this all unfolds.
This type of thing is rampant these days as the tools are available to anyone..and anyone with the tools can call themselves a designer. Good to hear they are working with you.
I have seen it many times...usually a customer comes to me and shows me what other "designers" have done and it turns out to be clip art. Then they specifically ask me for a custom logo, which is what they thought they were paying for from the previous "designer".
Are you telling that really exist people paying for a logo?
Of course, I make more money doing freelance work for clients than selling stock. And clients are willing to pay for custom quality work...however every time someone passing themselves off as a designer claims stock content is their own it hurts the design community. It's fine to use stock in designs as long as the client understands...passing it off as original work is not acceptable...but of course it happens.
400
« on: March 14, 2013, 11:36 »
Please stop about complaining the usage of your images, you will never know where and how your microstock image is used, this is the world of microstock. In the worst scenario , if someone uses an your vector image and he puts a copyright on it, you can be sued too.
Ignorance must be bliss
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|