|
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 - ShadySue
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 624
476
« on: January 07, 2021, 09:16 »
477
« on: January 07, 2021, 09:15 »
Trump should go away ...
No one else wants him, unless he can go into the sunset hand in hand with his pal Putin. A mere rumour in a national paper that Trump was intending visting one of his failing enterprises in Scotland was quite enough to get Nicola to make a public statement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIHR-tALd8s
478
« on: January 07, 2021, 08:53 »
.
479
« on: January 07, 2021, 08:46 »
480
« on: January 07, 2021, 07:30 »
What I wonder is, why were the police/security so unprepared?
On Tuesday the Liar In Chief posted something like, "Watch out, Washington, we're coming for you" in a tweet encouraging his followers to turn out. The tweet was subsequently taken down, but it was up for at least an hour (there were nearly 400 comments on it by the time I saw it).
Surely someone should have been monitoring, from a pandemic pov as well as public order.
481
« on: January 07, 2021, 06:54 »
Now, I am hopeful that Trump will get self-pardon from him, or pardon from Biden.
I think and hope that sentiment may be 'lost in translation'. I hope he will face justice. But he'd probably be considered 'unfit to plead'. 
482
« on: January 03, 2021, 15:05 »
What information did you want? He says he bought the domain name and he owns the site? Does any site actually say "we're a partner site for agency 1, agency 2, agency 3, Etc."?
I want information about why this site is selling my images with a depositphotos logo.
I don't know whether any site says "we're a partner site for agency 1, agency 2", but then again I don't know any stock site that sells images from other agencies. Partner sites from stock agencies, at least the ones I know, usually sell some kind of product where you can use images from stock sites - blog layouts, wall prints, puzzles, etc.
iStock has so many that despite requests, they say they "can't" keep an updated list, for which read 'we don't want to pay an intern a ha'penny to update a list once a week'. You, too, can be an iStock affiliate: https://affiliates.gettyimages.com/
483
« on: January 03, 2021, 14:06 »
I am sorry, I still can't find the information. Where does it say that Stockphoto is associated with Depositphotos?
As was said above, if you click on a thumbnail on stockphoto.com to get to a 'buying page', the image has a faint Depositphotos watermark and a larger, heavier stockphoto one. Like this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kvcd5djili1bwdz/Stockphoto.jpg?dl=0So either they have some sort of legitimate arrangement with Depositphotos or (less likely IMO) they have stolen the pics and if you buy one, it'll have the DP watermark on it. But if you have a third theory about the DP watemark on SP images, please explain. That said, I googled +"Stockphoto.com" +DepositPhotos and got nothing relevant. Spooky or what?
484
« on: January 02, 2021, 15:04 »
Yeah it just seams strange that they can have such a high ranking in the Google search results on the first page beating out Adobestock and others and they are doing it organically without paid placement.
Seems to have been his intention from the beginning: "Its not terribly innovative, I must admit. But I was adamant we would have one thing in our favour a great, converting domain name with natural type-in, as well as search engine traffic.
When someone types stock photo into Google and they see my domain name in the top few search listings, my bet is that they would trust my domain name enough to click on it."and later: "Its not a traditional startup. It wouldnt be sexy enough for Silicon Valley. The stock photo business isnt broken enough for me to try being disruptive. It required code that could support, basically, an eCommerce store with lots of different vendors and products. It wasnt solving any problem that hadnt been solved before.
The only thing I was doing differently was using a marketing hack."Meaning he assumed enough people would land on stockphoto by mistyping istockphoto? or just that searching "stock photo" would favour the domain stockphoto.com? And actually although he was on my first page for "stock photo" on a 'clean' browser (from which I clear all history, cookies etc every time I leave), I tried 'horse stock photo' and they're not in the first five pages, but they are on the second page for 'family stock photo'. Interesting that the site hasn't come up on msg, or at least has come up very seldom, in seven years. (Also interesting that kall3bu discovered it's connected to Deposit, good detective work.)
485
« on: January 02, 2021, 14:32 »
Hmmmm ... "Compare yourself against the best
Monthly Leaderboards show the Photographers with most downloaded images. Drill-down on their portfolio learn from the best and level-up!"The most successful photographers must love that! "Win fabulous prizes and share in earnings
The Photographer with the most downloads each calendar month takes home an amazing array of camera gear, courses and gift vouchers as well as a share of the earnings."I happened to see this paragraph before I saw the preceding, and thought it was likely that this would often be the same person, but probably not if everyone else copies their work. Also, do they have to go to Perth, Australia to collect the 'amazing array of camera gear' in order to 'take it home'? I'm always a bit concerned when I see sites using inaccurate language, as I assume they will post it out. It's a strange site altogether: I've already found two different 'About' pages  One headed "How to ask your wife for permission to spend $250,000 on a domain name" and one "Every idea needs a Medium". "Stockphoto.com was finally launched on the 9th of September 2013. We were cashflow-positive from Month 1. Not huge numbers, of course, but a promising start."Seven years, and this is the first I've heard of it? That probably says more about me than about them, but there hasn't been much discussion of it here, though searching stockphoto.com brings up istockphoto, bigstockphoto, canstockphoto ... but it doesn't have its own agency forum section, so there can't have been much interest on here.
486
« on: December 30, 2020, 16:24 »
I see many photos like this with ordinary people without model released but are offered for "Marketing" meaning for advertisement/commercial.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-people-walking-in-street-shimla-simla-himachal-pradesh-india-101671139.html
This is a problem, I think. Who is at fault if a buyer uses it for commercial and get sued by a person in the photo? Is it the photographer/contributor, buyer who used it despite it says no model release, or Alamy that sold the photo? It's kind of confusing and is different from Shutterstock/Adobe Stock. Shutterstock would never allow this photo to be offered to be used for "Marketing" purpose.
A few times I've had sales which have been noted as "marketing - non advertising". I've asked on the forum a couple of times what that means, or for examples, but no-one has been able to say. But yes, the buyer is liable. It seems to be more required that you definitely tick the editorial-only box if you're selling RF. I only sell RM there. If you're worried that you might have forgotten or made a mistake, just do regular searches in image manager to see what files you've indicated have releases. After seeing a file (someone else's) for sale which claimed to have model releases for performers and audience at a large military tattoo, I checked mine and found I'd made a mistake once, though luckily it was a file which had just blurry pixels, never with any enhancement identifiable.(wouldn't have needed a release on iS, for example). Finally, although it used to be that you didn't have to upload releases, just indicate that you had them and could produce them if needed, nowadays you have to upload ("assign") them if you claim to have them, so that would prevent such a mistake.
487
« on: December 30, 2020, 14:40 »
It can potentially cost contributors a lot of money in lawsuit.
And rightfully so if they think they can sell photos with property that doesn't belong to them or people who didn't agree to this for commercial usage.
Contributor can forget to check the "Editorial only" box. That's why Shutterstock and Adobe Stock decide which photos they sell as commercial, not contributors.
But you have to answer, "Is there property in this image?" "Do you have a release?" "Are there people in this image?" "Do you have release/s" If you don't tick these, the default is set that there are no releases, even if none is needed. Alamy is much stricter about what consitutes property or people (SS is pretty lax). I indicate property even if it's very old and e.g. iS would accept it. Also tiny bits of people, even out of focus pixels way in the background are regarded as people on Alamy. At that point, it is the responsibility of the buyer to decide whether they would be taking a risk in using it. Most of Alamy's buyers are editorial buyers. In my limited experience, I've never found an editorial image being misused by an Alamy buyer - I have had several instances of iStock editorial files being used commercially by buyers, which I've reported to iStock - who each time assured me that I would have no liability for these misuses. And, by the way, contributors have to upload editorial files to iStock via the editorial route, rather than the bizarrely-named 'creative' route. However, I understand that files sent as creative are still being rejected if there is a possible IP issue, so there is that extra level of protection. Alamy expects their contributors to know what they're doing.
488
« on: December 28, 2020, 12:59 »
It's not about accusing anyone, it's about asking a question. I don't see any problem with that, especially because in very few cases they did have the proper license (like 5% or something).
Just check the policy of each agency. iStock certainly takes a dim view of contacting buyers or abusers ourselves, it's in the contract: "iStock reserves the right, at your expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you, and in such case, you agree to cooperate with iStock's defense of such claim." (non-exclusive agreement) The only contact I ever made with a buyer was within the past year when I found my image, exclusively sold on iStock. being used as a book cover, but credited to Shutterstock. I did a quick search on SS and couldn't find it, but it was at a time when a lot of stolen images were being found on SS and reported here on msg, so I contacted the publisher and said I only sold the image via iS, and I'd be interested if they could tell me where they had found it on SS. It was a genuine error by an outsourced image researcher, but they volunteered the iS receipt anyway.
489
« on: December 25, 2020, 18:49 »
There are some micro sites which seem to rely on this sort of vendor to be honest and purchase an EL (or equivalent) if they actually sell something. So you need to know from where the vendor acquired the image, then whether that site has this sort of deal. So it could be legitimate, or maybe not. However, if you charge in accusing someone if illegality where there is none, some agencies could take a dim view of you hassling a legitimate user and ban you. Check your contracts with all the sites you sell that image through and see if they have a clause effectively giving them first dibs on chasing up infringements.
Of course, if the vendor would reply to you, you'd be able to check the situation with the agency they claim to have the deal with.
Good luck getting this resolved.
490
« on: December 22, 2020, 11:49 »
And other agencies just change it to i.e. NAME-adobe or they take out of the copyright information - see other threads about this.
In this case, what are you doing?
You can choose from two options: 1. Accept it 2. Don't send your files to these agencies, which is probably all, and certainly most, of the 'known names' There are no other choices.
491
« on: December 21, 2020, 09:11 »
Are the ads for the agencies?
Also, some topics have a lot of similar footage, I've been fooled by almost identical images that weren't actually mine.
But, if you see something that's certainly yours, and hasn't been sold, contact the agency about abuse.
Difficult when the clips are being sold over three agencies, though. How to you establish where the TV producer sourced the file/s?
492
« on: December 19, 2020, 12:22 »
I got 17 dollars from 116 downloads. The pits. But then I'm the idiot to still have an istock account active.
Well obviously Me Too  My current plan is get to $100 or whatever I can, by September of 2021, and close the account. The hope is, all the transactions will be completed and Getty can pay me. Also whatever that amount is, will be on a 1099 for 2021, nothing in 2022. Maybe I should be thinking August?
Word is (from them and from people who have left) that they'll pay you even if you don't reach payout by the time you've left, and you could get drips of cents for a few months afterwards. PS: As for Nov's stats: "They are what they are". Strangely, for a few months my UK sales have been well below my US sales, which is surprising considering my content.
493
« on: December 18, 2020, 06:38 »
Sadly, that's only likely to work if your work is both niche and highly desirable.
I spent over two years submitting only to Alamy, and that got me nowhere. A lot of it was geographically niche (around where I live) but not desirable.
Good luck anyway. Hope you do better.
494
« on: December 16, 2020, 17:53 »
Strange, I just got the email within the past hour approx, and I can't imagine I've ever posted on the Adobe Stock channel, never having contributed there nor on Ft before that.
Plus it's using my old Flickr user name, which isn't associated with my Adobe CC account or any other.
Still, it does say 'new here'!
495
« on: December 10, 2020, 08:30 »
Thank you. My husband of 53 years died Tuesday night, peacefully and painlessly with me at his side. It was a relief in many ways, because he had suffered through a long, difficult series of events. He is at peace now, and I am too.
This was not Covid or any normal disease. In 2011, he suffered through two rounds of viral encephalitis (an extremely rare inflammation of the brain). Although he survived that, it left him with brain damage and epilepsy. Managing the epilepsy has dominated our lives these last 9 years, but about 6 weeks ago the medications stopped working. He developed an end-stage condition called Status epilepticus, where the seizures just go on and on and on with stopping. His lasted 48 hours before they finally burned out.
If anyone is curious, Johns Hopkins University has a clear explanation on its website:
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/status-epilepticus
So sorry to hear your news, Martha, though I understand your feelings of peace for him and for you. Look after yourself now. These are especially difficult times to be going through this experience.
496
« on: December 08, 2020, 12:11 »
I'm very late coming to this discussion because my husband has been in the hospital (not for Covid, thank God) almost since the thread started. He's not doing well, so obviously my attention is there, not here.
Best wishes to you both, Martha. Thinking about you.
497
« on: December 04, 2020, 07:43 »
I just looked at the chart on the right. The "Top Tier - Big 4" is down to 3 with the lowest of those being DT at 3.1.
Looks like the whole game is now between AS and SS. For those of us who took ourselves out of SS, the pickings left behind are pathetically slim.
Or, as somebody else said, not much motivation.
EDITED TO ADD (2 days later): the numbers on the chart have shifted. There now are an actual "Big 4" and DT has dropped to #6. This makes more sense. I'm actually glad to see that change.
Maybe people reading the thread decided to vote?  But honestly, and Leaf is the only one who can answer how it works, until an agency gets 50 votes, it shows nothing. I don't know how long the time period is for a vote sticking, before it rolls off.
I didn't realise it was as many as 50. Anyway, when I saw that remark about the Big 4 and saw iS was off it, I realised I hadn't polled, so I put mine in, and the next time I looked, the iS stats (both!) appeared. That could have been pure coincidence, I couldn't possibly say. But would me voting bring up both iS indie and iS exclusive? Maybe - they're linked in some way; I don't poll for Alamy because when I do that, my iS score goes into indie. A friend pointed out he's exclusive for stills on iS, and doesn't submit video to iS, but does submit video to SS, P5 but if he puts his video income there, his iS stills exclusive income goes into iS indie on the poll.
498
« on: December 03, 2020, 14:22 »
I've never submitted anywhere other than iS and Alamy, and IIRC Martha now is focussing on AdobeStock, so it would be hard to say where would be 'best'. I'm not really a landscape specialist anyway.
499
« on: December 01, 2020, 19:04 »
If the so called "reward" is not fair financial compensation then what is the point? Unidentified "rewards" dont pay the rent or put food on the table!
Oh Wendy, don't you remember that "money isn't what makes us happy"?!
500
« on: December 01, 2020, 07:59 »
I'm still surprised and shocked that you're not doing better on Alamy.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 624
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
