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 - YadaYadaYada
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 64
401
« on: January 01, 2018, 11:19 »
I 100% don't buy that we are getting anything like the real story. Without links to his work elsewhere we have no idea who this is and what actually happened.
We never do on these account closed for no reason crys. The opposite, the person goes away and we don't hear the answer or the account gets restored because it was a mistake. I didn't know is not a defense. Somehow someone paid for all these on demand downloads, how can that happen for a small fee? There's more here than we'll ever know.
402
« on: January 01, 2018, 11:13 »
I find this very silly.
Dogs and cats will be next. No more santa cats and dogs or funny birthday cards.
And after that all children, because of course you dont know if they are really voluntarily posing for the photographer or if their parents are forcing them to...
Obviously humans should in the end be banned too because how many people only do it for the money?
Maybe their soul will be stolen by the camera?
That's what PETA wants, soon they will demand we all become vegetarians and then the vegans will come to claim anything animal including food, is abuse. Where do people get off saying a photo of an animal, ape or dog, with a party hat or glasses is abuse. Oh right, it's so stressful, you can see it in their face. Over the top? On the PETA site, "Chickens are arguably the most abused animals on the planet. In the United States, approximately 9 billion chickens are killed for their flesh each year, and 305 million hens are used for their eggs. The vast majority of these animals spend their lives in total confinementfrom the moment they hatch until the day they are killed." Chickens are bred, raised, grown and eaten, that's our choice not some animal rights group. Animals rights should protect against the real abuse, killing for horns or sawing off tusks, abuse and criminal treatment, potential killing off species. Include protection of habitat. Prosecute the puppy farms, don't allow wild animals as home pets, prosecute people who actually abuse animals. Go after that, not a photo of a chimp.
403
« on: January 01, 2018, 11:01 »
"... IS better in December ..."? How you know that?
They show me 'Downloads Year To Date' number, and it's growing from day to day
Where? All I see on ESP is November.
404
« on: January 01, 2018, 10:57 »
Wish you all many many sales!!!
To you and everyone here, and I mean everyone.
405
« on: January 01, 2018, 10:56 »
You mean like we actually get what was promised or voted for? I haven't seen anyone running on law and order where I live, longer jail sentences or more convictions. Do you make this up of do you live in the American Southwest, where crime, illegals and stupid politicians are rampant? California the land of fruits and nuts.
Assume I'm wrong then: what do you think explains that the US has five per cent of the world's population, and 25% of the world's prisoners?
US is not far from the definition of a police state. People go to prison for being poor and unable to pay stupidly huge fines, initiating a vicious poverty circle. There is also the "war" on drugs, one of the main reasons for unnecessary incarceration, but still a successful way for backward minded politicians to get elected. Police has way too much power in US. It often looks like an occupation army. But "law and order" is another election winning slogan.
So much for the "land of the free"!
Right we should do nothing about people who rob and mug others for drug money. People who are poor might be going to jail for committing crimes, not for being poor. You may like anarchy until you get beat up on the street by someone who needs a few bucks for a fix. ...
So the alternative to the highest incarceration rate in the world is anarchy, in your world? No, my friend, the alternative to the highest incarceration rate in the world is a "normal" incarceration rate. All civilised communities rely on laws for cooperation. However, jailing for minor offenses is a police state characteristic.
And, for your information, people are going to jail for being poor and unable to pay their debts. Yeah, not paying debts is a crime, but do we really have to fill our prisons with such "criminals"?
Read these examples among many other: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/opinion/sunday/is-it-a-crime-to-be-poor.html
"If you dont believe me, come with me to the county jail in Tulsa. On the day I visited, 23 people were incarcerated for failure to pay government fines and fees, including one woman imprisoned because she couldnt pay a fine for lacking a license plate."
And here is a recent article about the re-enforcement of these laws: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/opinion/sessions-says-to-courts-go-ahead-jail-people-because-theyre-poor.html
"A veteran battling homelessness in Michigan lost his job when a judge jailed him for bringing only $25 rather than the required $50 first payment to court."
It reminds me the story of Jean Valjean in Les Misrables!
And don't tell me these are "fake news" from "failing NYTimes", please, because your other "arguments" sound very similar to those coming from some well known small tweeting hands.
If you have time and want to smile at this serious matter, watch this: https://youtu.be/0UjpmT5noto
You didn't answer, but your answer is anarchy. No punishment, do what anyone wants. No laws if the person is poor? What is you alternative. Let people with no license plates drive. Let people with no registration or insurance drive? Most of these sad stories of how someone was imprisoned for not paying a fine will be backed by this person having a long history of illegal activity, bad checks, shoplifting, breaking laws and not paying any fines. Don't try to make the criminals look like the victims. How about the people they stole from and the stores that got bad checks. How about their rights? What is your answer? Calling the US a police state is not a solution it's just shouting. What's the solution?
406
« on: December 31, 2017, 11:59 »
Idiots. PETA and SS
Sad part is I can only give you one + not 100 It's also not about animals in general (yet), but specifically apes. Are they afraid people will see a photo of an ape in a suit and immediately go out, get an ape and put it in a suit? Weird. I seriously doubt photos of apes in unnatural situations will warp people's minds about apes and create an 'expectation' that they belong in suits.
There is a big gap between this and actual abuse. There are atrocities being committed against animals, including apes, that deserve peta's attention far more than this.
Another +100 point.
407
« on: December 31, 2017, 11:57 »
You mean like we actually get what was promised or voted for? I haven't seen anyone running on law and order where I live, longer jail sentences or more convictions. Do you make this up of do you live in the American Southwest, where crime, illegals and stupid politicians are rampant? California the land of fruits and nuts.
Assume I'm wrong then: what do you think explains that the US has five per cent of the world's population, and 25% of the world's prisoners?
US is not far from the definition of a police state. People go to prison for being poor and unable to pay stupidly huge fines, initiating a vicious poverty circle. There is also the "war" on drugs, one of the main reasons for unnecessary incarceration, but still a successful way for backward minded politicians to get elected. Police has way too much power in US. It often looks like an occupation army. But "law and order" is another election winning slogan.
So much for the "land of the free"!
Right we should do nothing about people who rob and mug others for drug money. People who are poor might be going to jail for committing crimes, not for being poor. You may like anarchy until you get beat up on the street by someone who needs a few bucks for a fix. Young black males without a high school diploma were more likely to be in prison or jail (37 percent) on any given day in 2008 than to be working (26 percent). People without jobs and without education, end up suffering the most. I think we need to fix the education system and help these people get out of poverty and the slums. First step would be schools that teach instead of warehousing kids. Then stop the liberals from passing everyone on and out, as long as they feel good about themselves, and start helping kids learn something. Less Latinos are in jail then blacks because the illegals just get send back or deported. Don't blame crime on race, or blame the system for arresting criminals, that's racist as all hell. Blame the system that doesn't allow equal opportunity for school and jobs. When blacks are in gangs, have more out of wedlock children, or filling prisons, do say, oh its just part of their culture the white people don't understand. If we are all the same, we all need to live together and behave the same with the same laws. There's no free pass for cultural differences, one nation. Stop dividing and start joining together. There are many other minorities other than blacks and latinos, they don't end up in prisons and the poorest areas, with high risk neighborhoods and gangs. Why is that? Maybe there is a cultural difference and some groups aren't joining into the system. Why do the California colleges have set quotas for the number of Asians allowed into a college class, racial discrimination, but have to reserve spots for other minorities, to make sure those less qualified minorities can get into school. Cultural? You bet your ass. If we all get what we earn based on qualifications, work and skills, why do some have to get special treatment to be equal? Pretty much everyone here doesn't like others who get accused of better treatment in the search, a better % rate, more sales because the agency might be favoring them. Then on the forum you defend the same discrimination in the culture you live in? That's strange. People are in jail because they commit crimes and the system prosecutes. There's no bias or law and order agenda that says we need more people in prisons. We need less. My exception to this is any crime committed with a gun should have a mandatory sentence, but you would probably argue that too many people went to prison for that, at the same time crying about gun crimes? Make up your mind. I say better education will make for better opportunities and in the long term less young people in jail because they are living in poverty and poor conditions. With education and skills they can bring themselves out of that cycle. Prisons don't rehabilitate anyone or if they do, it's a small number. If you don't want people in prison, how would you deal with crime? That's my question?
408
« on: December 30, 2017, 09:24 »
Wow just looked into my Dreamstime account and saw $300 for my blog post which got the most votes Happy days. I owe you a pint, Master Steve for helping me out 
Nice going both of you.
409
« on: December 29, 2017, 10:20 »
Funny how Dutch image thieves invoke the 'no artistic merit' thing in an attempt to avoid paying for the use of an image.
In my case (around 30 years ago) someone noticed that a popular tv show was using a poster that had been printed from a commissioned photo of mine as decor in a butcher's shop set. They may have used it in 10 episodes but I was certain that they used it in one.
I got a specialised lawyer on to the TV producers. The lawyer determined that the price for use without licencing was a total of DFl. 5000 (licence fee + 200% fee as fine). At first they came with the argument that the poster content was generic/amateur and of no artistic merit and that therefore they could just use it! I no longer had the original 6x9cm transparency material but I did have the Polaroids taken during the session. Confronted with these and the fact that it was a commissioned photo, they paid in full!
It's also funny that it's the 'royalties' from trade-marked/copyrighted wares and services which appear to be the basis for the majority of tax-avoidance schemes that the Dutch tax laws facilitate. 
Nice going! ...a clear blue sky... Anyone can reproduce it...
Not if you live in the UK...
Please explain why not? I'm not in the UK and don't know the clear blue sky laws.
410
« on: December 29, 2017, 10:01 »
Agreeing Jim! 110% and you seem to know lots about pirates and theft!! I dont need SS but you do! thats the difference here.
You're right for me too, SS is my biggest earner, I wouldn't remove my files and stop uploading to spite my own earnings. Since you do so much in trads and RM I don't know why you have any Micro at all. If we're all so terrible and FT and SS are just down the dumps, why don't you leave?
411
« on: December 29, 2017, 09:58 »
I really don't see that. The inmates could just have easily watch TV shows about living outside. But because virtual "reality" is involved, suddenly everyone panics? Stupid.
We are already running the US prison system on a for profit basis. That's why we have the largest proportion of our population in prisons. More than any country in the world.
Very little of the US prison system is run for profit. (I think the figures are something like 10% of state prisoners and 20% of federal prisoners.) So I don't think that's the reason.
American voters keep voting for politicians who promise lots of prison sentences ... the longer the better.
You mean like we actually get what was promised or voted for? I haven't seen anyone running on law and order where I live, longer jail sentences or more convictions. Do you make this up of do you live in the American Southwest, where crime, illegals and stupid politicians are rampant? California the land of fruits and nuts.
412
« on: December 26, 2017, 09:35 »
Wouldn't it be great if sharing links to your port increased your sales 10,000% overnight? I'd share a couple links and retire to the tropics.
Another + for that one too. If I got 5% I'd think it was a market success.
413
« on: December 26, 2017, 09:34 »
Yes well somebody at Adobe who should know told me that its a vast difference selling stock off the peg rather then producing and selling picture programs. I am beginning to think she was right!
Although the last couple of weeks it seems its improved slightly.
That's right, the pictures are only a valued added product to the cloud and the software subscription. We are not an important profit part of the business. Our images are not important to them like other stock agents who depend on our work for income or profit. Difference also is Adobe treats us with respect as artists.
414
« on: December 26, 2017, 09:23 »
Why do you people even both wasting energy with that outfit?
$$$ It's a no brainer.
15% for none exclusives, constant 1 cent royalties nothing but crud from them
I'd say its brainless
Or worse, I don't know why I waited until now to close my account. I do, I was giving the new system a chance. They failed. There's a reason why IS went from top to under SS to under AS and will be passed by P5 this year. Illustration 100.00% iStock 1.35 15.00% 0.20 which is less then a sub, anyplace including iStock. Or these electronic use, Price Per Image CALIFORNIA 0.12 varies 0.02, two cents? Only 150 more and I can buy a beer. I think the exclusive are doing the right thing if they have good work. Ind are being pushed out the door, or stay I get crapped on and IS makes more money. They don't want me, I don't need them. Time to go.
416
« on: December 25, 2017, 18:31 »
I used several operating systems on my Computer, Linux and two Windows In Linux, I used the spoofing mac address But not In windows Does this have anything with my Issue
... So, I've got a question ... Why the Mac spoofing and everything? Something seems fishy here, I'm not sure we're getting the full story.
It's just a traditional way to use a PC, is this important? Spoof Mac address its like used several devices together, and I think SS can't read my mac address, it is a privacy
This is the full story But as proverbs say, I'm still looking at my old book to understand what's going on I mean, this has nothing to do with the story But I am distracted. I do not know where I should start and what to look for
And If you have a question ask me Thank you very much
How long did you have an account to get up to $800 in sales?
417
« on: December 24, 2017, 09:54 »
Yes to both. You reached your level or quota for 2017, in thanks for your hard work they're raising that so you won't be able to make as much next year. Which means they will pocket more of your hard earned money.
418
« on: December 24, 2017, 09:47 »
I don't know but my eyes zoomed in on this part, not about closed account or second account or being closed before.
After careful review of activity within your account, we have determined that your account is linked to the fraudulent customer and therefore we will not be reactivating your account.
Paragraph 4 of the Submitter Terms & Conditions gives Shutterstock the right to terminate any existing account " . . . for fraud, intellectual property infringement, violation of a third party's rights including those of privacy or publicity, artificially inflating downloads, submission of material that is obscene in nature, violent or that might be construed as defamatory, failure to comply with Shutterstock's guidelines as may be amended from time to time, or for any breach of the terms of this or any other agreement that you have with Shutterstock.
Fraudulent customer and "artificially inflating downloads"? Sounds complicated or someone with same IP address or connections, bought a subscription, for example, and downloaded all his work. Just a guess. But it looks like the problem is something to do with the customer and downloading.
419
« on: December 24, 2017, 09:40 »
I wonder if the judge would have ruled differently if the car company were the copyright holder.
I wonder if anyone follows links or reads what's written here? 1991 and it's the Netherlands not someplace else. In 1991 the Supreme Court ruled that a creation had to have an own, original character (Eigen, Oorspronkelijk Karakter) and had to bear the personal stamp of the author (Persoonlijk Stempel van de maker) in order to be eligible for copyright protection (HR 4-1-1991, NJ 1991, 608: Van Dale/Romme). I think the judge and supreme court is wrong to deny the art creation that started this thread, but that's the Dutch. Happily the rest of the world, unless there's another stupid interpretation of the law, still protects us. So if I understand this correctly a Dutch judge ruled in favour of a Dutch company and the legal basis for their ruling was nothing more than a subjective personal interpretation of what constitutes artistic merit? Not only is this the height of arrogance it is a dangerous precedent which leaves us all in a position whereby we will not only need to prove that we are creators of a particular work but also that that work has artistic merit on a case by case basis. Not only is that ludicrous but it's also potentially financially ruinous. In the case of the image above no matter how mundane it may seem to be, the photographer made many choices conscious or otherwise to achieve the final product. It is the photographers work. Period. I don't understand how anyone can possibly argue that.
+ Pretty well covered it there didn't you. Not only is it arrogant but short sighted. From further reading they say inventions that are the result of limited choices are not protected. The case does not set a precedent, the interpretation has been in effect there since 1991. This will not topple the market and ruin our protection in the rest of the world and it hasn't in 16 years. More reading on how the Dutch have no sense, not new, this one 2010. https://kvdl.com/news/copyright-still-has-its-boundaries-dutch-supreme-court-confirms-exclusion-of-technology/
420
« on: December 23, 2017, 17:57 »
But getting back to the question yes its way too pessimistic I doubt this will make any difference whatsoever.
It might in the Netherlands but if you saw my note it's based on a 1991 decision. Making no difference anywhere else is very likely. Still these are bad decisions for the future if the same continues and some judge can say whether his opinion is it's art, creative or original enough.
421
« on: December 23, 2017, 12:19 »
Here's why, the Dutch Supreme Court has ruled that to be considered a work, it should have its own, original character with the personal imprint of the author (HR 4 January 1991, NJ 1991, 608(Van Dale/Romme)). I'd guess the judge is just following the law, which I agree with most people here, is wrong. If you take a photo of a sky, it's your work. However stupid and plain that may be, it's an individual work. Sorry Hanna you have to tell me when something changes from just a stupid photo into art or something that can be protected. Where's the line? In the article the judge decided, and in the sky example Hannafate decided. That's subjective and both are wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_NetherlandsGo ahead Darla tell me when something becomes art or creative work, and not just a person pushing a button on a camera. I'd like to know.
422
« on: December 13, 2017, 11:08 »
I got this email this morning. Which sounds similar to what you were saying Sue.
I also wanted to delete some items from my portfolio and Getty will not allow you do that either, evidently.
Maybe time to leave. Will they make it hard for me to just pull the portfolio all together?
-------------- Hi Norma,
Thanks for the reply.
It appears that you are only looking at the terms of one of our license agreements. We offer this this content multiple platforms such as iStock, Thinkstock and Getty Images. According to the Artist Supply Agreement which you accepted, we are permitted to offer this content on all of our platforms. We have a custom agreement in place with this client which allows for this use.
Should you wish to discuss the agreement which you have accepted in further detail, please feel free to reach out to our contributor relations team for more details.
Please confirm you will cease this erroneous claim against our client.
----------------
Since it takes months to see sales, you wouldn't know if there was a license. No you can't remove items by choice only all by deactivating your account. iStock and Getty are not your friend. Too bad they didn't explain the license, just threat to you.
423
« on: December 13, 2017, 10:57 »
If mostly new files are shown, old-timers with lots of sales will complain.
If mostly files with lots of sales are shown, people who actively upload now will complain.
A search engine will never be able to make everyone happy. It is impossible.
If buyers really want new files, they will sort by "New". If they find what they need with "Relevant", well, then the results were relevant.
So true, but then you see people on forums saying, remove photos, upload as new and get seen, but post after post saying new images don't sell. Followed by old images don't sell, new gets unfair search advantage. No search will ever please everyone, in fact with Microstock any search will likely displease almost everyone.  Seems like finding things wrong comes with working Microstock.
424
« on: December 13, 2017, 10:52 »
Someone who didn't do their research before submitting, it seems. Admittedly, I thought their minimum was 25c; but as I don't submit for that, I hadn't checked any further.
The blog post or whatever that is, is highly inaccurate and one sided. Nice way to open the door for the Microstock haters to jump in with their versions of why we are stupid, or how they make much more by some other means. Then the also usual how digital and autofocus ruined photography or how Microstock ruined income because anybody can sell now.
That's the point of Micro, anyone can sell their work and make some money! 
Then the professional genius peeps who say, they tried with 100 photos and only got some 25c subs, so they quit. What did they expect, money raining down from the sky, because they added a minimum starter group. Doesn't matter who they are, 100 for two months isn't a good test. Try 2,000 for two years, that's a start.
My last ten sales on Adobe. $1.24 .27 1.65 .99 .99 .27 .27 .33 .99 .99 which beats SS but not as many sales on FT. Believe me I don't have models or great work, bronze, but that's what I get and it's more than the people who answered the blob post.
That's not my article.....
Sorry  I didn't realize from the post that you were just creating click action, nothing but a link, leading subject, no explanation of why you posted that.
425
« on: December 12, 2017, 15:20 »
Someone who didn't do their research before submitting, it seems. Admittedly, I thought their minimum was 25c; but as I don't submit for that, I hadn't checked any further.
The blog post or whatever that is, is highly inaccurate and one sided. Nice way to open the door for the Microstock haters to jump in with their versions of why we are stupid, or how they make much more by some other means. Then the also usual how digital and autofocus ruined photography or how Microstock ruined income because anybody can sell now. That's the point of Micro, anyone can sell their work and make some money!  Then the professional genius peeps who say, they tried with 100 photos and only got some 25c subs, so they quit. What did they expect, money raining down from the sky, because they added a minimum starter group. Doesn't matter who they are, 100 for two months isn't a good test. Try 2,000 for two years, that's a start. My last ten sales on Adobe. $1.24 .27 1.65 .99 .99 .27 .27 .33 .99 .99 which beats SS but not as many sales on FT. Believe me I don't have models or great work, bronze, but that's what I get and it's more than the people who answered the blob post. DUMC what did you think you would get after you read here, saw the polls, read the Adobe payment terms for artists details? You did read them ? https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|