|
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 - cathyslife
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 294
426
« on: January 26, 2020, 18:55 »
oscarcwilliams, do you give away your work? Why don't you upload your entire portfolio to free sites? Surely it serves as inspiration for many others. Or you may want to charge some money for your work. Just maybe.
The difference is Oscar didnt give his work away for free, suck people in, then monetize. He is selling microstock, he always charged. You are comparing apples to oranges. Should people come here trolling for customers, when its supposed to be a forum where people help others? Just like the guy selling books. 
Trolling for customers? Oh c'mon its a couple of bucks! Get real.
Don't like it then don't pay ~ just don't keep expecting people like Steve to give advice for free to his competitors.
Then why was he here for years, giving advice for free to his competitors? And no, I wouldnt pay. And the purpose of a forum is give advice, and discuss stuff. What are you here for, if not that?
427
« on: January 26, 2020, 18:51 »
Should people come here trolling for customers,
Same here, read the link. https://www.backyardsilver.com/2020/01/blog-will-continue-as-before/
This is the reason I quit most of the forums that discuss microstock issues - microstockers (in a lot of cases) is an emotional nasty bunch of people who are looking to jump on one another and eat each other alive without even trying to employ an iota of rational thinking.
Wow, being a little dramatic there. Eat each other alive? LOL.
428
« on: January 26, 2020, 16:47 »
oscarcwilliams, do you give away your work? Why don't you upload your entire portfolio to free sites? Surely it serves as inspiration for many others. Or you may want to charge some money for your work. Just maybe.
The difference is Oscar didnt give his work away for free, suck people in, then monetize. He is selling microstock, he always charged. You are comparing apples to oranges. Should people come here trolling for customers, when its supposed to be a forum where people help others? Just like the guy selling books.
429
« on: January 22, 2020, 15:24 »
You actually have to pay for Flickr? What do you get for that, WHY?
Yeah, my question too when I read the heading. I thought it was free.
430
« on: January 17, 2020, 20:38 »
The key word is sell. If someone pays for the correct license, theres no problem in what they use it for. Thats microstock. For someone to take a watermarked free image, use it on a page that they likely make money from, and make fun of it... Using that BS fair use excuse, is still wrong to me. But hey, thats just me. YMMV.
It's not an iStock watermarked image. It has a larger version of the iS watermark engraved into the rock. You can see from the link to what is possibly the original file that iS's watermark is smaller, but repeated across the file. https://www.istockphoto.com/gb/photo/mount-rushmore-rapid-city-south-dakota-gm1126952302-296868683They may or may not have paid for the file; I have no idea but they are surely innocent unless proven guilty. Where did I say it was an istock image? And you are right, they may have paid for the image. Again, IMO, stupid.
431
« on: January 17, 2020, 16:04 »
I didnt laugh either, I thought it was stupid. Wonder if the copyright holder thought it was funny.
So whtats the problem when you sell your picture to a humorous page and they make a funny joke of it?
As a stock photographer you never know what will happen with your sold pics and in what context they will be used.
Ugh. Quoting isnt working correctly. 🤔😯
The key word is sell. If someone pays for the correct license, theres no problem in what they use it for. Thats microstock. For someone to take a watermarked free image, use it on a page that they likely make money from, and make fun of it... Using that BS fair use excuse, is still wrong to me. But hey, thats just me. YMMV.
432
« on: January 16, 2020, 17:55 »
Looks to me like clickhole thought they should be able to use images free. So they decided to make a joke (not very funny) about it. Cheap greedy
people.
I don't believe that. Clickhole is a humor site, a low rent version of The Onion. I suspect someone there saw a photo with watermark and thought it would make an amusing article. I didn't laugh, but I suspect that was their intent.
I didnt laugh either, I thought it was stupid. Wonder if the copyright holder thought it was funny.
433
« on: January 15, 2020, 20:21 »
Looks to me like clickhole thought they should be able to use images free. So they decided to make a joke (not very funny) about it. Cheap greedy
people.
I don't believe that. Clickhole is a humor site, a low rent version of The Onion. I suspect someone there saw a photo with watermark and thought it would make an amusing article. I didn't laugh, but I suspect that was their intent.
But they are still using a watermarked image in their blog, right? To illustrate their not funny blog? 🙄 Just because they think its funny, guess that means its ok to use watermarked images.
434
« on: January 15, 2020, 14:12 »
Looks to me like clickhole thought they should be able to use images free. So they decided to make a joke (not very funny) about it. Cheap greedy
people.
435
« on: January 04, 2020, 18:05 »
I couldnt even get to it a couple of hours ago. OK now though.
436
« on: December 29, 2019, 11:47 »
Slow for me the last 2 days. I tried earlier, wasnt opening. But just now it came right up. Maybe fixed?
437
« on: December 23, 2019, 12:13 »
438
« on: December 14, 2019, 08:24 »
😂
439
« on: December 13, 2019, 10:01 »
Reviewers are most likely paid per image, so they make twice as much money by mass rejecting everything and then mass accepting when you resubmit.
I checked into this 7 or 8 years ago. At that time they paid $.05 per image reviewed. I think you are right on...they mass reject/accept to make more money. Thats why theres so much crap on the sites now.
440
« on: December 13, 2019, 07:57 »
Many buyers prefer to search by new images, because that way they know it was not used many times bu others already.
how do you know this? how many buyers have you interviewed?
As a buyer, I have searched this way. Who wants to use an image thats been downloaded and possibly used thousands of times.
441
« on: November 04, 2019, 19:08 »
Wow, today, Zazzle support comes up with a new one!
Kellie (of Zazzle Support) said: "Unfortunately, there is no way (bold added) for us to release payment until you upload an updated W8-BEN form, until then, the funds will remain on your account."
First I don't think my W8-BEN is missing because it was updated at the beginning of each year. Second, without W8-BEN, Zazzle can simply keep the withholding tax and pay me the rest.
Would you still say this company is honest and honorable?
No. Sounds like they are trying to rip you off. Thats a shame.
442
« on: November 04, 2019, 19:05 »
Cityscape = skyscrapers. Towns = church steeples, no skyscrapers but maybe 5-10 floor buildings.
443
« on: November 04, 2019, 19:02 »
If they want to work with you, they can just buy your photos from deposit. Work together, I think likely means I want a deal.
444
« on: November 03, 2019, 14:05 »
M, a Zazzle support person wrote back, saying that I could not log into my account because my browser is not compatible and an update of my browser is needed.
That's likely BS because I was able to log in a month ago. Peter, the first support person had said that I would be paid in the next payment cycle.
It's just a simple last payment. A honest and honorable company will make it simple and easy, would you say?
One of the reasons I quit them was because of the convoluted way they reported sales. These places make it so un-transparent, on purpose. If you made a sale today, you sometimes had to wait a month to see that sale move to the available column. Then you had to wait for their next pay cycle, which invariably was another month away. That was all ok when I was making regular sales, but when sales dried up, it was intolerable. Browser not compatible? Yeah, that sounds like BS. Hopefully you will be able to get your money.
445
« on: October 30, 2019, 19:12 »
Well, could I open a new account on behalf of my spouse to continue making sales? Of course, with images 100% made by me. Even if some of them belong to the suspended portoflio?
That would be cheating.
446
« on: October 27, 2019, 19:00 »
A number of years ago, I found an image of mine used in Good Housekeeping magazine, purchased from istock. I looked up the license purchased, and it was not purchased as an enhanced license. I had the circulation figures of the magazine, a picture of the article, etc. I sent the info to them, and they credited my account for the proper license. I should think the procedure would be the same for your clips. Send documentation and details of where they are being used, and maybe SS will investigate.
447
« on: October 26, 2019, 21:18 »
Images that are making America great again!
448
« on: October 26, 2019, 10:00 »
Nearly 7.5 million Adobe Creative Cloud users are left open to phishing campaigns after their records were left exposed to the internet.
449
« on: October 24, 2019, 16:39 »
Here is the problem about winning judgements. You really may win nothing. You can win a judgement in court, BUT getting the folks to pay you is another story. These copyright infringements are not criminal judgements they are just a letter from the judge that states someone owes you something. If they don't want to pay you and most likely they don't, you will never see a penny. Best lawsuits are with corporate 18 wheelers that have big pockets , not copyright infringements.
That was exactly my experience with small claims court. It was a waste of time and money. The judgment means nothing and the court doesnt help you collect the money. You are on your own. At least thats how it used to work.
450
« on: October 24, 2019, 08:12 »
There seems to be some confusion on the difference between percentages and percentage points. If a commission rate is 40% and that is then cut to zero what has happened is that commission has been cut by 40 percentage points, which in this case is 100%. If the rate was cut from 100% (i.e the agency hands all the cash over) to 60%, that would still be a cut of 40 percentage points but would also be a 40% cut.
To look at it from another perspective, if your commission was cut from 40% to zero, would you complain that you had suffered a 40% cut in earnings? I don't think so!
I hope that clears up the confusion.
As for Alamy, I'd rather that they hadn't cut the commissions but at the same time I have always been happy that the profit they make goes into cancer research rather than into lining the pockets of billionaire venture capitalists who are eternally looking for more and more sneaky ways to screw us (yes, you know who they are, and you probably STILL supply them). I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with the general view here.
Harmaceutical companies fund most research, so 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. The money is still passing through billionaire capitalists.
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 294
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
