|
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 - Karimala
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 61
376
« on: January 19, 2012, 19:44 »
Do you have to opt in or something to get the SODs? I'm getting the feeling something is wrong, because I have a few ELs every month, but only one SOD so far??
And how is it that the page showing the licenses that I can buy doesn't contain the SOD? Is that option only for U.S. buyers? I live in Europe.
The SOD program is still in beta and only available limited markets. Mine have all come from the US.
377
« on: January 19, 2012, 19:02 »
All of mine are in, except December 31, but that could be due to a zero download holiday.
378
« on: January 19, 2012, 17:40 »
Just a thought...
Denying copyright owners access to these sites causes the unintended consequence of us not being able to effectively monitor infringements on our work. How can we bring charges against these companies or send them DMCA notices, if we can't even see they are infringing on our property rights in the first place? That's an issue that should be addressed in the legislation.
381
« on: January 19, 2012, 14:56 »
I'll never forget the day when I saw people in the Istock forums cheering that StockXpert was killed.
I wonder who's cheering now.
I still mourn the loss of StockXpert. 
382
« on: January 19, 2012, 14:10 »
He was promoted to Getty, yes, but according to the infamous interview, he was still involved with overseeing IS, Thinkstock and Photos.com.
383
« on: January 19, 2012, 13:53 »
Interesting how the official statement only mentions JJRD, while Kelly is left out. That tells me only one thing...Kelly was fired.
384
« on: January 19, 2012, 13:39 »
If my images aren't so precious why do they need to hang on to them for 6 months?
In fact it is only one third of your port, uploaded within the last 6 months, that you cannot delete. Just as Istock introduced exclusivity, to defend their position against the emerging competition, the 6 month lock-in was DT's response to that. It also ensures that having gone to the expense of reviewing images it has a reasonable chance of getting a return. Back in the day people were choosing exclusivity and deleting portfolios that had only just been reviewed. Anyway, if you don't like it then don't join DT __ simples.
The decision was also a response to contributors who would submit images for the sole purpose of entering the monthly "On Assignment" contest and then pulling them after the contest ended. It was frustrating a lot of buyers who wanted to purchase images from an "On Assignment" collection.
385
« on: January 19, 2012, 10:27 »
I do know one thing that's going on, at least with Getty. They are calling people who created accounts at Thinkstock, inquiring about their photo buying needs. Yes, Getty called me yesterday. Out of curiosity, last week I created an account at Thinkstock to see if there was anything additional available to registered users. Nope...what you see is what you get. The only difference is you get a phone call from Getty plugging Thinkstock. Woohoo!  At least they also mentioned IS, which gave me a teensy tiny bit of relief, but nevertheless I had to laugh, because I'm in the middle of deactivating all of my IS images. Such impeccable timing! Much preferred when Anthony from Shutterstock called me. He called to let me know about the integration of images from SS to BigStock before it happened, and wanted to know what I thought about it.
387
« on: January 19, 2012, 10:15 »
As an indie, the only noticeable declines my portfolio and income have witnessed come from Getty-owned agencies...IS and StockXpert. I'd say I made a pretty good bet.
The declines that indies are seeing could well result from changes in their best match position rather than underlying sales decay. I've seen no erosion yet, although like Sean my earnings increase has lagged behind portfolio growth.
Having said that, I'd prefer to be in your shoes right now.
With regards to StockXpert, the decline is due to the fact that they dismantled the StockXpert website, removed our images from two partner programs, and relegated all the images to Thinkstock with much lower earnings (dropped from 35 cents to 25 cents). And at least with my own portfolio, I can tell you the decline IS isn't just because of a change in best match. Before I deactivated them, I had 20 images of alphabet letters created from my neon sign photos. When I recently searched for "neon" and "alphabet," just over 100 images would show up, including mine. However...sales on 17 of those 20 images came to a complete halt at IS in August 2010 and started selling in September 2010 at Thinkstock and Photos.com. Up until August 2010, these images had regular sales at IS, and then switched to having regular sales at the partner sites. Explain that one to me. It left me wondering if they actually disappeared for a time from IS and only recently reappeared, instead of merely being buried.
388
« on: January 19, 2012, 10:05 »
IS is the only place keeping up image costs and royalties. Without them, you'd be getting $.10 from SS and images at DT would be $.50 .
I've never had a problem with iStock's pricing. In fact I am one of the few who have applauded their consistency in pushing up prices. But it's a little disingenuous to point the finger at Shutterstock when you have iStock clearly pushing Thinkstock subscriptions. The bottom line is they can't have 84% of the commission for my work. It's pathetic, and their treatment of contributors completely undermines their desire to raise microstock pricing to midstock.
+1. That 84% cut feels like outright theft, especially considering we're paying them more for a service that is continuously deteriorating.
389
« on: January 19, 2012, 10:01 »
Ah...it's been years since I've watched "Star Wars," so I didn't recognize it.
You're definitely right about the designs you showed, unless these artists were able to obtain property releases, which is highly doubtful. There isn't enough difference between the original artwork and the new derivatives. The Sand People guy might still pass based on how the Obama case turned out (in favor of the artist and not the AP photographer), but that doesn't mean George Lucas can't go ahead and file a copyright infringement lawsuit, letting a court of law decide. These artists are all taking a serious gamble with their illustrations. Stupid.
390
« on: January 19, 2012, 09:46 »
At least for its own protection, Red Bubble is registered with the US Copyright Office as an OSP, so they can't be sued...but the artists involved sure can!
391
« on: January 19, 2012, 09:40 »
As a former Getty-iStock employee who was also let go in July (after doing GREAT work there), I can only say there is a much better door open for these people. I'm now at Shutterstock, and we're hiring like crazy. So we'd love to hear from talented people who have much to contribute in this industry. All my best to the 30 iStock people at this time of transition. I know from personal experience that it can be scary for you (and those close to you) right now, but it may get a lot better as it did for me.
Welcome and thanks for sharing! IMO...you're working for a much better company. SS has been my favorite since Day 1 for good reason. Mind if I ask a question? Hmm...let me see if I can put this delicately..........................WT* is going on over at Getty and IS?!?!! This is the first I've heard of layoffs last July.
393
« on: January 19, 2012, 09:21 »
Interesting indeed, considering he just relocated all the way to New York this past September or October.
394
« on: January 19, 2012, 09:19 »
January sales are currently way above average - whatever settings are in play right now, I'm liking a lot!
Same here.
"Another pint of Kool-Aid for my two friends here please"
It's going to be a real shame for these two when they sober up in a few months time __ because Istock's significance as a major player is now measured in months not years. Only the most die-hard, swivel-eyed apostles of Istock will still be exclusive come 2013.
It's interesting for those who have been on the wrong side of predicting whether it's more monetarily beneficial to be exclusive with istock for the last 5 years to now being able to predict the next 14 months. Truth is over the last 5 years indies have lost a ton of money with this bet. Didn't Sean report 2011 as his best $$$$ money year ever. How is that a decline? Yuri said his sales were down everywhere in terms of $$$ in 2011 for the first time since 2005. Which one is reporting a decline? How do you ignore one report and ignore the other report and tout the end of a company?
As an indie, the only noticeable declines my portfolio and income have witnessed come from Getty-owned agencies...IS and StockXpert. I'd say I made a pretty good bet.
395
« on: January 19, 2012, 09:05 »
Hmmm, interesting timing for this Getty blog post about their technology development approach which I'm familiar with.
I wonder how much of this approach impacts technology strategy at IS.
Just found this;
"Redundancies at iStock
Posted on January 19, 2012
This statement directly from Getty/iStock: As we continue to bring Getty Images and iStockphoto closer together, we are completing the process of full functional integration across the two brands. As with most integrations, some positions become redundant and approximately 30 employees will be leaving the business in the coming months. It is never easy to make these decisions, especially given the strong team we have at iStockphoto. Nonetheless, Getty Images remains committed to having an office in Calgary and to the vitality of the iStockphoto brand."
This was the source;
http://www.whichstockagency.com/en/502/nutshell
It's nice that they're "committed to having an office in Calagary" although it omits to confirm whether any staff will actually be occupying it.
Huh? Does this mean 30 more employees will be let go, or are they referring to the 30 who were just let go? The source link only leads to IS, not the actual statement.
396
« on: January 19, 2012, 07:39 »
Oh wow, I thought they were okay until they received a DMCA from as long as they could say "It wasn't us gov, it's our users"
Interesting.......
Assuming a DMCA take-down notice in the terms of service protects an OSP from copyright violations is a mistake numerous websites make.
397
« on: January 19, 2012, 07:31 »
Posted this info in another thread, but thought I should also post it here... Envato is not within the letter of the law, at least not here in the US. For an Online Service Provider, like YouTube, to be protected from copyright violations, they must be a registered OSP with the US Copyright Office. They are not registered. http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/e_agents.html
398
« on: January 19, 2012, 07:30 »
Here's an example of the problem with the current reactive state of play:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/photodune/envato-and-copyright/msg238908/?topicseen#new
A site that knows that there are violations going on all over the place, but they know that the DMCA covers them till a complaint is made.
They are within the letter of the law but are basically using the law as a loophole rather than having any interest in the spirit of the law or taking any sort of care about the stuff posted on their site.
And that is a site many of us actually trust with our work!
That's the kind of cr*p I hope legislation will sort out.
Envato is not within the letter of the law on this one, at least not here in the US. For an Online Service Provider, like YouTube, to be protected from copyright violations, they must be a registered OSP with the US Copyright Office. They are not registered. http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/e_agents.html
399
« on: January 19, 2012, 07:16 »
Wow...there's a lawsuit waiting to happen, that's for sure. Can't imagine Chris Rock or Scarlett Johanssen would appreciate having their likenesses being used to sell templates, nor that they gave Envato/the designers permission to use their likenesses for blatantly commercial purposes. Without a model release, such images can only be used for editorial purposes...that's it.
From what I can tell at a quick glance, Envato is based out of Australia. I'm not familiar with their copyright laws, but here in the US, it is a violation of copyright laws for artists to use another artist's copyrighted work or a trademark in any promotional material, even when promoting our portfolios. For example, say I have a photo of a home interior that contains a painting someone else created. While I can show the photo as part of my portfolio, I cannot use it to promote my work without obtaining a property release. The copyright holder of the painting can sue me for copyright infringement.
400
« on: January 18, 2012, 19:23 »
Why not email them and ask why they are allowing this?
I might, their DMCA policy etc. is also quite vague: ... fair use is allowed in parody ...
So basically I can take any major brand logo and make fun of it and then sell it as my own work and make money off of it? Is that art?
That's BS (and I don't mean BigStock!).
Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Saturday Night Live, etc. would disagree.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 61
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
