|
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 - Uncle Pete
4676
« on: June 02, 2018, 10:04 »
Thank you all for answers. It was unclear for me, is there some "universal" criteria to judge photos you upload. For example I photographed some old building with stone faces on facades, photo gets rejected. Or some statue that gets accepted on some sites, and other rejected because of possible copyright issue.
Like I said earlier it depends on which country you are shooting in. Castles in Europe may have different protections than you would expect in other parts of the world. Basically each country/locality can have its own specific rules. Where was the photo taken (country and was it on private property or somewhere that has entrance tickets for example), who was the creator, when did they make it, when did they die, who owns the building or who manages the property, etc... There are a lot of factors that go into what is acceptable or legal to license.
unnonimus, US laws aren't the only ones relevant here.
Correct Tick, and for those reasons and more, there is no universal answer which is what the OP was asking. All depends on the agency, what they wish to take or not, the laws are far to varied to have a universal world legal answer. Plus what's legal in one country isn't in another. I think the agencies that don't take easy right of panorama shots, are just being cautious. The other answer, just make them Editorial, is fine, but what's the use of having a photo available with an unusable license. Good if the idea is "how many images do I have", not how many sales can I get from some effort.
4677
« on: May 29, 2018, 12:05 »
https://petapixel.com/2018/05/29/he-said-no-fox-news-used-his-images-anyway/
Beat you to it. See reply #46. 🙂 I have a friend (also my former college professor) who worked for AP and traveled with Pres. Reagan as staff photographer. He posted it. His comment...hope the settlement is huge.
Yes to both and in that case list link, the lowest of low "appropriation artist" who there are a few doing this, they pay nothing and transform images. What a sack of...
4678
« on: May 29, 2018, 09:27 »
I understand their reluctance to embrace editorial content where people are the main subject (paparazzi conduct is often problematic). I hope they allow contributors to submit editorial travel shots (where the place is the main subject) and illustrative editorial object shots in the near future.
Credentialed, authorized, news media shots, would be nice also. Yes, Illustrative Editorial could also be useful for Adobe customers. I think they are staying away from citizen journalist shots, where everything with no release gets labeled as editorial. And also the control over use after the download. Just a kettle of legal headaches.
4679
« on: May 29, 2018, 09:12 »
Hi all,
i have a lot of model pics (5000+) with older iStock MRs which don't have visual IDs since they're old (2005-2011).
Many agencies reject my pics for MR issues.
How can i solve it?
Add reference images. There's nothing to say you can't edit, correct or adjust a model release to make it compliant. Also keep in mind, the release is for the agency's protection, not a legal requirement. If the model comes at them, they have a release. In court if you have a legal release, that was authentic at the time it was used to authorize the photos use... it's still legal. You are protected. All the nit picking from some agencies and the changing requirements are much like other changes and rules, made by the agencies. They are not necessarily legal requirements, they are agency requirements. Your old releases would be just fine and hold up in court, if necessary. I don't know if people here understand the difference? We can make and sell many images that the stock agencies don't take or will refuse based on their own legal preferences and interpretations. Everything from public domain, out of copyright to news. So back to the beginning, correct and edit the original release (save the unaltered original!) to meet the agency requirements. Happy Sales
4681
« on: May 27, 2018, 21:31 »
I think the point is "humor". People should give it a try.
And of course it's beneath her talent. The typical stock business shot is, in my opinion, maybe the most ridiculous thing you can do with a camera. It's not hard to make fun of something so incredibly cheesy and unnatural. Game of Thrones is a few steps up from that. 
Yes, and we can all be free to make fun of cheesy actors and actresses, full of their "ART" who are overly self important because they have a pretty face... (or artificial body adjustments?) And they can play pretend, and get paid to do that! Fair is fair. Sometimes sarcasm is cruel, but honest, and it's truth. First comment was "where's the girl smiling at her salad"? 
4682
« on: May 27, 2018, 21:21 »
I think they take editorial material from other agencies, they dont take it from regular adobe submissions.
Yup, waiting, but I won't hold my breath. There are so many legal complications with editorial (which is my main market) and Adobe is more artistic and design oriented. I'd love it if they took editorial news from contributors. Just look at the market? Getty is the place for Editorial and News, except when they block us from contributing or competition. Adobe is design and arts oriented. SS won't take anything public domain, but Adobe will and so will IS. Pick your best matching places, don't expect them all to be everything to all of us.
4683
« on: May 27, 2018, 21:13 »
Not on a 12 year old thread
LOL yes, but it actually fits the question. And what is the life of a forum subject.  2016 photo, I'd estimate the life expectancy of this image was 24 hours. Not like some artistic, commentary or illustrative images. Logos and location. Too bad because he just won the Indy 500, much deserved. 
4684
« on: May 25, 2018, 22:21 »
Africa Studio keeps working, 130,000 images, Featureflash is an agency, couldn't find Helga.
Helga is on the site with 374,005 images.
Nice work
4686
« on: May 06, 2018, 20:34 »
Seems some photos nicked from SS have been bought - or at least watermark removed - but not all. Istock and Adobe still clearly watermarked....! 
I would say this falls into a citation exception to copyrights, so it's fair use so long as the author is named. The ones that don't name the author seem to be embedded social posts.
There's no such thing as a 'citation exemption'.
Absolutely True, where do people get these made up uses? Oh if you steal a photo and give credit, it's OK.  NO IT"S NOT! Neither is using something with a watermark. It's still stealing. This isn't transformative or anything with creative alterations. But there is an exception for Parody or Satire. Not sure if this one is a fit? Seems like if it's humor and satire, it would pass? That's for the courts to decide. citation exemption, thanks for the BS new term.
4687
« on: May 04, 2018, 21:38 »
How many refunds have you had which aren't repurchased, even after some time or for a different value, clearly by the same buyer? Compared to sales?
Not sure if I understand the specific question, but my only Alamy refunds have been purchased at Alamy, same terms, immediately after the refund. (at a lower price) I've never had one refunded and not re-purchased. I don't know if they renegotiated the use or what.
4688
« on: May 04, 2018, 21:33 »
Funny thing I just realized as I don't really pay much attention to Daily sales Mostly weekly or Bi weekly But, For some reason the past 4 Months or so Im Having the almost Identical sales numbers everyday. everyday within one or 2 sales even on weekends.Strange.
Is it being somehow controlled? Hmmmm tinfoil Hat stuff.lol
Another bizarre thing or maybe Im just losing it. strange things....at 10AM in LA I have say 10 sales. at 2PM 4 hours later I have 8 sales. Is that possible??
Thats it! controlled it is and been for some time now. My days weather good or bad only differes in cents but hey! soon we have the ghostbusters here telling us we're just imagining this!
I think it's the Full Moon and the pyramids, along with alignment of Venus and Mars and Sun spots, plus UFOs that send signals to our brains. All of this is caused by unexplained outside forces, not economics, market or buyers needs. It's all luck and a game... controlled and manipulated. Abandoned all hope, ye who enter here, into the world of Microstock. You have perished, so has your income. You are now in Photo Purgatory. I'm taking a vacation from this absurd speculation and insanity. Enjoy your Summer of self inflicted misery. Find some Reynolds Wrap or Kaiser Quilted Foil and make a strong hat with a little propeller on top. Have a good "trip".
4689
« on: May 01, 2018, 09:11 »
Looked this morning, the stock was at $50 a share which I still think is high, at least 20% over what it should be.
How did you come up with the 20% figure?
It's $50 a share, my personal feeling is, the stock would be a good long term value at $40. I look for stocks that have growth over time potential, stability, not fast ups and downs based on some hype or news. Roughly speaking the SSTK dropped to $35 last year, but now it's $50 = over valued.
Bumping along at $42 now seems a lot of people agree with you.
I saw that drop right after the financial report. Also there are some huge investors like $350,000 from one of the teachers unions. There are funds that own similar blocks of 10,000 shares for example. That kind of place wants growth for their retirement or financial pool. They don't want stagnation. Believe me, if I sold all my other stocks, to buy SSTK I'd need to see growth, steady and a future, not level or small earnings. The flash and boom has happened, we're just looking at the light reflection off low clouds of smoke while hearing the echo. SS needs to come up with something new that will entice and encourage investors. Something that promises continued growth. When a company has a good strong basis and doesn't expand and diversify, investors (not me, the smart ones) will go elsewhere.
4690
« on: May 01, 2018, 09:00 »
How much does it typically cost to convert Tokens to Dollars or to a cryptocurrency? Genuine question I have no idea?
Binance, for example has a 0.1% trading fee... so not much. I'm guessing the future will require some crypto currency of some sort so leaving it in Bitcoin or something similar isn't a bad idea.
Like someone else mentioned in another thread - I wish these projects would use Bitcoin or another well known blockchain for their project. people aren't going to be wanting to hold 50 different coins
Yes there are transaction fees to buy and to sell/convert coin into fiat currency. I found this pretty straight article about bitcoin, purchasing and trading. Especially good is the by the numbers, which show, what someone needs to open and account, finance it, buy coin, and putting it into your virtual wallet. https://www.mybanktracker.com/blog/investing/fees-trade-invest-bitcoin-cryptocurrencies-276084Personally I tried a couple and Coinbase is the easiest most reliable system. I then transfer the funds into my Metamask wallet. Since I haven't transferred anything out, I can't really comment.  I've been breeding, buying and selling CryptoKitties. https://www.cryptokitties.co/profile/0x0542abab5c5415296682a5dc3c25d6ac70076e06 All transactions are public if someone has the link. Example: I paid to breed two of my Kitties. https://etherscan.io/tx/0xbd1610f948d1909801701a0322830e8b00182222235ca3dd498ba1e0e31e4fb7 that cost .008 ETH, anyone anywhere can read this, but it's just a ledger, nothing can be changed or altered. I suspect that's where the protection is being claimed. I'm not sure if I've seen the answers yet, or I missed them. Why would a buyer want to go through the time and trouble to buy a proprietary coin, in order to buy rights for one of my photos? Bitcoin, Etherium, Ripple would work just fine? Since these places are not agents, they don't need to market, we need to keep all records and pay taxes ourselves. Maybe for someone who sells their own work, this is a great system. But for most of the people who want to upload and have the buyers find images in a search, I'm not sure I see the plan? I don't see how this protects anything as anyone can still copy and re-use anything on the web, same as now. A good strong law or some legal remedy would make me much more happy, than a new way to pay. (whole different issue, but the question exists?) How does a transaction record protect us more than what we have now? Why do we and why would a buyer, want to buy some volatile currency that trades up and down, during the day. If someone pays to buy the special coin, the market can change the value of their purchase. Say that value goes up, now they have leftover small increments of coin. Say the coin goes down, while they are deciding on a purchase, then they need to buy more. Proprietary coin is pretty much like a debit card, using only their currency, that's only good at one store. That card is only good at store W. Now you find something at store K and you need to buy some of their coin, to shop there. And soon, you have a wallet filled with sixteen different currencies, if you want to shop for stock photos from each of these pop up coin shops. By the way, only place I've seen this work is Disney, where they sell Disney Dollars. Casinos do something like this with the tokens and chips/checks. Would you go to McDonald's if they started only taking MickeyDCoin and not cash? Why would you buy the rights to a photo at an agency that only takes their coin, and limit your choice for image needs? If you were a buyer, would you find any of this complicated, somewhat risky, unstable finance, attractive? Or would you go to an established agency that takes money. And besides, what happens when the big agencies decide to take crypto currency, one of the major coins, not some special limited coin. Then what? Blockchain is a good answer to many Internet and value trading problems in a global economy. I'm not convinced that having 100 different kinds of coins, or currently around 1,000, with each agency only using their own, is the answer to anything that would help us?
4691
« on: April 30, 2018, 11:55 »
Looked this morning, the stock was at $50 a share which I still think is high, at least 20% over what it should be.
How did you come up with the 20% figure?
It's $50 a share, my personal feeling is, the stock would be a good long term value at $40. I look for stocks that have growth over time potential, stability, not fast ups and downs based on some hype or news. Roughly speaking the SSTK dropped to $35 last year, but now it's $50 = over valued.
4692
« on: April 30, 2018, 11:34 »
Interesting (and pessimistic) article about KodakCoin:
https://www.finder.com.au/kodakcoin-is-a-failed-ico-rebranded-under-kodak-name
Dated January 18, not news. The information is true, same as written by many others during the first week after the announcement. The name is a license by Kodak, to WENN and Kodak will benefit, payment, stock and by getting a percentage of the ICO. https://www.coindesk.com/kodak-earn-5-million-ico-brand-licensing-deal/Note: the ICO hasn't happened yet? Announced early Jan. Then early Feb. put on hold to investigate financials of buyers and to make sure of investors, for "a few weeks." What's WENN doing? There site still lists the Feb. 5th news. How long is a few weeks? I'll just jump to tomorrow, months later, and the news is pretty quiet about Kodak or KodakCoin. This was also listed as a way to protect the interests and rights of photographers. More sites coming online with similar claims and using their own coins. I still don't know why a buyer will pay for the trouble of buying some special coins, to be able to buy our work, when it's easy to find using credit or other means that are universal and easy to obtain.
4693
« on: April 27, 2018, 20:35 »
Maybe the noise reduction thing didn't help?
Noise reduction = blurring. It can also create banding in the sky, so be very careful! Noise is often ADDED to remove banding.
I would turn off the in-camera long exposure noise reduction and do everything in post, for full control.
Many times you would mask out things with lots of detail and apply less noise reduction there, or none at all, and more in areas like a sky where the noise will be more visible, and you don't need any details. But again, be careful so you don't create banding. Never go 100%! As you can understand, getting perfect images is a job for Photoshop, not Lightroom.
Ideally, when you shoot at ISO 200, you shouldn't need much noise reduction. On an m43 sensor, there might be lots of noise anyway, but it gets MUCH, MUCH better if you overexpose a bit and bring it down in post. Of course you still need to make sure the highlights are intact, except for lights.
For example, on the GH4/GH5, the big brothers of the G85, the image quality when filming can be 10 times better if you expose to the right, ETTR, and bring it down to a natural level in post. You will get much more noise and artifacts if it's a bit underexposed or in the middle.
Just like monsters, noise likes to live in the shadows. 
No doubt about any of that, and when someone tries to photograph lights in windows, street lighting, any of that, and also tries to get structures and shadow details at the same time, there's some impossible physics that's involved. This would be better with multiple exposures. Unless done at exactly the Sunrise or Sunset time, all the artificial light sources are going to have flare and possibly a variety of color balance. It is a nice composition.
4694
« on: April 27, 2018, 08:47 »
"beta of 1.16"? I'd think it's a much more risky investment than that ... ROE of only 8.43% is pretty low. Those shares seem about double what they should be.
Worth 11 1/2% less at close of play yesterday ;-)
Could bottom around $40 or if like last year around $35. Someone just took some profits! I have little faith in some AI that will filter out duplicates or bad images. OK maybe duplicates, Alamy already has the diversity search, where one artist can't have a big block of one search, Alamy spreads the results among matching images by pseudo. 1.5 million new images a week, makes no sense at all. Accepting filler and junk makes no sense either.
4695
« on: April 27, 2018, 08:37 »
OK, thanks. My head is spinning a bit but I THINK that was useful....!
At least I have more of a clue!
If all that wasn't enough, you can gain speed by setting up two SSD drives as RAID drives. I think the gain is roughly double the speed of one drive.
4696
« on: April 27, 2018, 08:29 »
Also, one last thing I forgot to mention: atmospheric distortion/heat distortion!
You said you took the photo at 45 mm, which would be equivalent to 90 mm on a 35 mm.
That suggests you are quite far away from the skyline. Heat distortion, or atmospheric distortion, is yet another factor that can impact sharpness.
It would depend on the conditions on that particular day, but sometimes it will just be completely impossible to get a perfectly sharp image if you are too far away from your subject. The light gets distorted and it doesn't matter what equipment you have or how still your tripod stands.
---
I shot a 600 mm time lapse from a 10 km distance the other day and it was completely ruined by heat distortion. On a day without temperature fluctuations between the water/ground and the air it would have worked, but now it looked like I put a turbulent displacement effect on it.
Good points, now that I looked there are not sharp edges on the lights and buildings. Could be the lens quality or haze or small aperture diffraction. Can't tell. "You said you took the photo at 45 mm, which would be equivalent to 90 mm on a 35 mm." How does a lens become an equivalent? It's a 45mm no matter what camera it's on. The only difference is the 4/3rds sensor CROPS the image that the lens projects. The distance from the lens to the focal plane is identical. No it's not a 90mm lens, it's a 45mm and the field of view, is about the same as a 90mm lens would have taken on a full frame camera. Haze, distortion, I climbed a mile up a wooded path for this crappy shot!  This wasn't the lens it was the haze from the humidity in the air.
4697
« on: April 27, 2018, 07:59 »
Does anyone feel the ability to have lower noise levels at high asa is an advantage....I'm desperately trying to rationalise a new toy but to be honest I'm not sure the marginal improvement in IQ is worth the s anymore.
I assume you meant ISO?
Better ISO performance is a huge advantage in my opinion. But I'm out and about filming, relying on natural light pretty much all the time. The most exciting things usually happen when light is weak.
A high megapixel count usually means worse ISO performance, however, as the size of the pixels is smaller. The bigger the pixels, the better the ISO performance. So it's always a trade-off, like with most things.
Before ISO became the International standard we used ASA or DIN number to measure film speed. It's outdated but once was the standard, American Standards Association. In Europe (and maybe other places?) film was rated by a DIN number. Sometime in the late 80s ISO became the standard that is most accepted and most used. But ASA is not obsolete, just barely used anymore.
4698
« on: April 26, 2018, 08:36 »
Just a little reminder:
The last funny story, when they introduced a Flexible Plan (in fact, 1 image for $1, on demand) a lot of people left Depositphotos or deactivated the images. And you know what? They started to block deactivation! You could kick down 5 works, then get error message and delay before you could deactivate the next 5. And all the time they replied that everything is fine and they did not block anything. Then they started to whine to every contributor's e-mail, that Flexible Plan is a temporary solution and they will turn it off soon. Guess what? Plan is still there, for almost two years. And they advertise it every month.
I don't know, why some people are still there, really.
I remember that. I closed my account in a few days after they do those things.
No regrets !!!!
Just looked: $29/month
Download 30 hi-res photos & vectors every month
Additional images are $1 each
Unused downloads transfer to the next monthNope no regrets here either, I don't need them and I figure they don't care what I think, as long as there are willing victims who will be desperate enough to upload and take 5 cents pay for a download.
4699
« on: April 26, 2018, 08:32 »
Clearing cookies doesn't help. Had to switch from Chrome to IE.
That's a sad development. I didn't know IE still existed. When I got my new computers in the past, first thing I did was remove IE. Firefox is good, but you're right, seems Chrome displays the most pages the best. Yes I can get into IS with Chrome just fine, yours is a local problem. Is this the link you are using? Just a wild shot in the dark: https://esp.gettyimages.com/Using your email and password not your UserName or business name? Good Luck
4700
« on: April 26, 2018, 08:26 »
So from your key operating metrics I'm seeing that the collection increased 50% (way more competition) while the paid downloads remained flat (buyers not buying more or lack of new buyer growth).
That covers it. I'm thinking the market has reached it's natural capacity for download demand. A download cap... I've never thought that the new lower standards or millions of useless images, bad keywords, excessive duplicate or similar images, are anything to brag about. Apparently the investors are still sold on this smoke and mirror trick, that income growth in the future is somehow connected to adding millions of useless images which pollute and dilute the collection. That's the game and all we can do is watch it play out.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
