|
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 - obj owl
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 25
376
« on: January 12, 2018, 03:59 »
Sure, it's a well known brand name, but nobody has heard of Kodak Stock, or whoever it is. It's an untried and untested agency, so although the brand name will no doubt entice some people to dip their toes in the water... it's not like everyone is going to ditch SS, iS and all the other sites the moment they open their doors.
From what I'm seeing there is a mixed review of whether "Adobe Stock" has made a significant impact and thats piggybacking on Fotolia. But probably its true a Smart move might be to buy an existing agency.
True. The gist I'm getting from this whole thing is that Kodak don't really have much to do with this... it's WENN who seem to have come up with the technology and will be running the thing. It seems like WENN is piggybacking on the Kodak name and although it probably would be a good idea to get in with an existing stock site, that's then three companies sharing the profits rather than the existing two.
Who knows, maybe WENN shopped around and wanted to partner with a stock site, but had to make do with Kodak!
WENN have 2 stock sites, but they don't mention stock or agency in the blurb about the new enterprise. https://kodakcoin.com/
377
« on: January 11, 2018, 14:12 »
I find it hard to envisage how SS can magic up a big sale at the end of the month 
That's a lot more feasible than you might think in that big SODs are sold through the Enterprise Team who will often do the search for Enterprise customers. Therefore, they could (in theory) match customers up with contributors in need of a bump. Nonsense I know, but doable.
378
« on: January 11, 2018, 12:35 »
Here's what's good, in my view, about KodakCoin and KodakOne and all the hoopla. They have a trusted name and trusted partner in WENN.
Kodak are a brand for hire and as far as KodakOne goes it appears WENN are licensing the brand for the project. WENN on the other hand have form in the stock industry, they sell celebrity photos and gossip. Why would you put your trust in them?
379
« on: January 11, 2018, 12:14 »
They say "Registering your images using with the blockchain gives you immutable proof of ownership". but what if someone else registers your images first, it's going to be a real pain in the legal butt unraveling that. Would it be wise to get your images registered in the first instance to avoid that scenario?
380
« on: January 10, 2018, 04:34 »
I'm slightly confused.
"Associated KodakOne software will be used to crawl the web and find pictures that have been used without permission.
The company said it would then "manage the licensing process," so the photographer can be paid, in KodakCoin."
Just thinking out loud here, but surely this would only work if Kodak is the only stock agency and/or place to license photos? Otherwise, how will it be able to detect images that have been used with permission through Shutterstock, for example, if they've not been registered with the blockchain? An image will show up as being used without permission if it is sourced through a site that doesn't use Kodak's blockchain to register the usage. So the only way you'd they could 100% accurately crawl the web and find images used without permission... would be if every stock agency out there started registering sales with Kodak... and I'm not sure they'd be able to get such a level of buy in.
And would it be possible to separate the registering and the paying? So the sites register the license with Kodak, but they still handle the payment in real money rather than coins. If it only works with registering and paying through Kodak, then all other sites would probably become obsolete... or would need to become obsolete for the system to work to its full effect. I can't see it happening any time soon.
As I say, just thinking aloud. I may be missing something... it sometimes happens!
It's not what you are missing it's what you are adding that's causing you a problem, Stock.
381
« on: January 04, 2018, 19:36 »
382
« on: December 28, 2017, 16:08 »
383
« on: December 28, 2017, 15:37 »
On Shutterstock they call it Enhanced not extended. Your image would have been sold through the Enterprise Team hence Single & Other, which may be Enhanced or not, we will never know. Single & Other can pay $120 and occasionally more.
384
« on: December 28, 2017, 15:20 »
Is the sale under the Extended License column or the Single or other column?
385
« on: December 28, 2017, 12:06 »
I've been trying to work out this scam - it can't be that the scammer wants some small payment to generate all the Enhanced License downloads. It can't be that they want the images themselves (as they could get them from our favorite free site). It can't be that these specific images or illustrations are fantastic. It must be that they are going to download lots of images with a high payout with a stolen credit card AND have a way to get at the money being paid for the downloads. That seems to be the only way to defraud Shutterstock in a way where you end up with cash, not a few lousy image files.
So the fraud must work by making an arrangement with the contributor to share the revenue that the image sales generate. How else could it work?
I wouldn't think its an agreement so much as its just the same people doing the uploading and the buying.
Credit card numbers cost next to nothing. Any way they can find to get any cash off them is ideal for a criminal or criminal gang. Even if they only get 20-30% like in this case.
Normally they have to buy items and sell them on cheap, or even try buying vouchers and selling them on at lower than face value. Much easier and less risky to open an account with an image library and upload a load of images you have stolen off the internet, buy some licenses with the credit cards then cash out. They could probably set up a program to do it all automatically, another advantage as apparently criminals usually buy huge lists of credit card numbers only some of which work.
Set up a computer to run through the list of stolen credit card numbers and set up buyer accounts spoofing a new internet address for each. Then the account also automatically makes some random purchases plus a few big ones from your own contributor account, done.
Only one problem, your theories do not work with microstock given the delay between accepting payment and payout. The contributor did not cash out.
386
« on: December 26, 2017, 14:09 »
387
« on: December 26, 2017, 12:08 »
PS Selamat Hari Natal (isteri saya orang Malaysia)
Thanks, not sure what that means though?
This is their website http://en.psn.gov.my/site-map/ but can't find a useful email address, but maybe they can get me one.
Google translate says that means Merry Christmas 
I see two email addresses: Website Assistance: [email protected]
Bookings : [email protected]
Sorry, it was late, Selamat Hari Natal to you too.
388
« on: December 25, 2017, 23:28 »
PS Selamat Hari Natal (isteri saya orang Malaysia)
Thanks, not sure what that means though? This is their website http://en.psn.gov.my/site-map/ but can't find a useful email address, but maybe they can get me one.
389
« on: December 25, 2017, 22:24 »
I have three images displayed in the National Science Centre in Kuala Lumpur, refurbished recently, and they are popping up on Facebook and Instagram with folk in happy mood posing in front of them, all well and good. Unfortunately, they have also been uploaded on Shutterstock, image only, by at least five different contributors. I have reported this to Shutterstock, it may take them a while. My immediate problem is that I have also found a couple on EyeEm, image with person posing in front, being touted as editorial. Question is, in either context with or without people, would they get away with selling this as editorial? One of my images on Shutterstock https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/sight-sore-eyes-digital-abstract-fractal-181260509Look at similars for photographs of my image. EyeEm images https://www.eyeem.com/p/114440439 https://www.eyeem.com/p/114461782I have had several instances where my images have shown up at science exhibitions, but not found them for sale on microstock before. This place has only been open a couple of months and appears not to be temporary, so it may be a continuing occurance. The people ones may be good advertising for me, but not if photographic copies are uploaded.
390
« on: December 25, 2017, 13:51 »
It's so clear, this was some kind of temporary bug and the question is not about the licences and prices. I can't understand why to spend the expensive time on discussing this topic.
but you do it anyway.
391
« on: December 24, 2017, 17:22 »
The E marketer tells you he can get you sales, you pay him, you get sales and you pay him more. He buys your images, you pay him more. Why would Shutterstock not think something is amiss here, if you are paying more than you are getting why would you not think that there was something wrong?
392
« on: December 24, 2017, 11:41 »
Please explain what this means: "plus many more contributors are moving up than will move down."
Are they changing everyone's royalty rate?
It's the best line they could come up with that looks good, but tells you nowt. It probably means most people are staying put because despite their efforts they could not meet the target and a few couldn't be bothered anymore and get dropped. A few more, probably newbies who can up their port numbers relatively easily move up a notch.
393
« on: December 23, 2017, 14:45 »
I wouldn't lose hope on this one, dodgy companies do dodgy things and it may well be that someone has found their image on products and challenged it. Once caught out backpayments are due. I'm not saying 500px are dodgy, but I wouldn't trust them, it could be one of their partners. I would do a search to see if your images are being sold on products.
394
« on: December 23, 2017, 11:37 »
I think the judge wanted to be the judge and force his opinion on the court. It was the judgement of the company that used the image that should have been adjudicated. The company could of used any of thousands of images or sent someone to the carpark and get them to take a picture on their phone, but no they chose this one image, they must have thought it had value.
395
« on: December 19, 2017, 05:48 »
I dont buy any of this crap! I think SS is fully aware and have been from the start of these thieving sites but, well...you know when you get as big as that, ....you really dont give a sheit do you, the lolly still keeps coming in...in droves! sod the contributors!
besides Semmick is right, you close one up pops another three! you cant win! I recon all advertising is good advertising and if thieves keep showing your images they recon its going to generate sales, sooner or later??
Defeatest crap, I don't know why some people bother getting out of bed in a morning.
Sent out any cease and desist communications yourself then?
My images of course, more than you can shake a stick at, the last one ironically was at Shutterstock . I do a trawl of the internet about once a year, drives you mad if you can't let it go for a while. This is not about my images though, it's about our images and if we all notify Shutterstock every time we see another site pop up we have more chance of something being done don't you think?
396
« on: December 19, 2017, 03:06 »
I dont buy any of this crap! I think SS is fully aware and have been from the start of these thieving sites but, well...you know when you get as big as that, ....you really dont give a sheit do you, the lolly still keeps coming in...in droves! sod the contributors!
besides Semmick is right, you close one up pops another three! you cant win! I recon all advertising is good advertising and if thieves keep showing your images they recon its going to generate sales, sooner or later??
Defeatest crap, I don't know why some people bother getting out of bed in a morning.
397
« on: December 14, 2017, 16:56 »
Any news from SS on this?
It doesnt seem to be mentioned in SS forums?
If SS had random watermarks, like some other sites, I assume this wouldnt have been an issue?
As far as I am aware Shutterstock are currently on top of the situation, unless you know differently? SS has banned mention of this on their forums, deleting threads when they appear. How do buyers obtain images without watermarks, this is effectively what the thieves are doing. It shouldn't be an issue, just Shutterstock being inept.
398
« on: December 14, 2017, 11:42 »
Recently I'm getting lots of emails from Bigstock promoting some new 'limited time' offer with 30% or 50% discount.
Tuesday it was a "One day only: 50% off a subscription. Today, Thursday, it's a 72-hour offer: 30% off image credit packs.
They certainly don't mind giving away discounted images! I'm wondering, is there any other agency that offers so many discounts? Seems to me they are desperate to attach new customers, but why this race to the bottom?
Why? It's a numbers game. Just over a year ago istock change the way that contributors were paid for subs with a bottom cap of $0.02. That cap could only come into force it they were selling yearly subs packs at massive discounts. From reports on here it looks like they have not needed to go that low that often. Shutterstock followed suit earlier this year by also putting us on percentages, but for smaller subs packages. As the number of downloads has fallen since then at Shutterstock it seems that Bigstock has been chosen to lift the ship, in terms of number of downloads at least.
399
« on: December 11, 2017, 07:47 »
Whoops got my Zs mixed up apologies. If you are getting 44c for postcards on Zazzle perhaps I should review my pricing ;-)
You need to go back to bed, 44 pence UK money, for a pair, that's 0.22 each.
400
« on: December 11, 2017, 07:21 »
Product prices at Zazzle are just ridicules, maybe if some companies find something interesting for their promo material, but for individual purchases I don't see anyone buying anything, you can get those things for a fraction of price at local print shops.
Agree I only really only get the odd postcard sale with 4-5c commission  . Odd mug or two and some jewellery once. But I wouldn't pay their prices!
You're looking at it upside down, anybody can buy cheap, but where can you buy something unique that only you can supply. Put your prices up, I sold two postcards this week and got 44 pence for the pair.
Was that on Zoonar?
You just made me go back and read the thread again looking for Zoonar, good job it's a short thread. Zazzle, you were talking about Zazzle?
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 25
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
