|
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 - stormchaser
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 22
51
« on: April 12, 2012, 02:10 »
Are comments allowed? Just post one. If the image is watermarked, let them know usage is not free. If they don't take it down report them to the google people.
Just a note, usually with some smart searching on the web you can find out who these people are.
52
« on: March 30, 2012, 14:35 »
Doesn't IS have some kind of print partner? Maybe it's them? Or one of them. It's hard to tell because none of the agencies are transparent in their partner and affiliate relationships, one of the reasons I have gravitated away from a lot of them. I still have imgs on IS, but they're so insignificant to me I really don't care about them any more. They make some money, I cash out.
53
« on: March 27, 2012, 21:46 »
Does this just mean they will put images on Thinkstock and the other subs sites? 50% of those commissions isn't much.
More than likely. It won't be like imgs will be for sale on the authentic Getty. If past changes to Getty terms haven't ticked off enough photographers there, this would certainly send them over the edge. And you can already hear the familiar Getty tune being sung in the near background - La Di Da Reduced Royalties La Di Da.
54
« on: March 25, 2012, 18:22 »
This becomes less of a copyright issue and more of a willful misrepresentation issue, and it happens all the time. http://www.petapixel.com/2010/09/15/photographer-offers-groupon-deal-using-stolen-photographs-chaos-ensures/In the US, my first stop would be the Better Business Bureau for their area. Unfortunately, stock agency terms do not explicitly prohibit this kind of use. It's wrong, but one would think that such unethical usage would be understood by a business. Looks like it's not here. Save your money on the lawyers unless they are a big fish and actually worth pursuing. Take screenshots of your image in use. Also take a screenshot of their copyright notice or anything that might relate to claims of it being their own work. Send a takedown request. Set a time limit in the request. If the images are not removed, post the business link and your stock link EVERYWHERE, especially on sites that are big in local commerce where the photographer does business. Avoid personal commentary, just state the facts. Avoid the phrase "stolen images", since technically he did not steal, he said he licensed them. Better to use terms like Misrepresentation or False Advertising. Send to your local news agent too. They may not even care, but if it is a slow news day, the news agents these days have published less important things. Also if the photog is using advertisers to gain revenue for their site, contact them too. This will put the screws to them better than any claim of copyright infringement. Edit: My error in not thinking - when making your statement make it Misleading Advertising, not False Advertising. And BTW, if you go to that Dana Dawes photography site, looks like it is now out of biz and the site owner may now be attempting/planning to monetize by writing about stuff like auto parts and restaurant supplies.
55
« on: March 16, 2012, 00:57 »
What else do I need to do.
You need to establish a new email address just for stock, and a new separate one for Paypal or whatever you use. I use yet another for banking. I then have those addresses all forwarded to my main address so I see any unusual activity. These addresses are all registered under a private domain I own for which no live website exists. Never use either of your commerce/business addresses for posting comments on any blog or for registering on any forum, flickr, twitter or facebook or any other social media. I use a junk address for forums etc that I never even check. Ever. If you used your main address on facebook my guess would be that is where the hack occurred. If you buy or sell on fleabay use a whole separate address for that as well. Ebay vendors have been known to empty out paypal accounts depending on where you purchase. My sister got her account emptied after buying some some computer gaming thing there from a small vendor. This was probably about 4 yrs ago before they tightened things up a bit. The above sounds hard buy it it really isn't unless your are extremely active with the social media or are nervously checking on everything every minute of the day. As far as using a google address, sorry to say good luck on that. Google is in the business these days of harvesting as much data as possible on everyone. When they kept demanding my cell phone number to keep an account "secure" I dropped all the google addresses except for a junk account. Good luck and hope this helps you out a bit. And just as a note, I would post as little information as possible here on the forum regarding any ongoing processes in attempts to resolve the problem. Even though you may feel that it may help others, you will only expose more info about yourself. A simple, "everything is ok now" will be good enough.
56
« on: March 16, 2012, 00:20 »
That gives people 400,000+ reasons to not buy an image.
You said it best. For those who want to continue to devalue their work, go ahead.
57
« on: March 14, 2012, 14:42 »
Copyright itself seems to be under attack, and the attack is real and serious. If the 'Copyright is Monopoly' movement succeeds, our right to get paid for what we create will be gone.
Movement? Do you have a link?
The Copyright is a Monopoly phrase originated in 1841 as stated by British poet Thomas Macaulay when he spoke to the House of Commons in Britain We have, then, only one resource left. We must betake ourselves to copyright, be the inconveniences of copyright what they may. Those inconveniences, in truth, are neither few nor small. Copyright is monopoly, and produces all the effects which the general voice of mankind attributes to monopoly.It has been floating around the web since at least 2005 and some have used it and of course manipulated according to their own whims. Ironically some have claimed the statement as their own original thoughts when writing their pro-priracy blog posts. And of course the web Freetards have adopted it as their gospel. Just search "Copyright is monopoly" in quotes and you'll find the same statement over and over, sometimes attributed, sometimes not.
58
« on: March 13, 2012, 20:18 »
Does "ooohh how pretty!" qualify as a comment, because seems to be about the extent of the vocabulary there.
59
« on: March 08, 2012, 23:21 »
Don't know what to tell you other than that you will have to plea your case with istock directly. I've shot thousands of these over the years and while the shots are all distinct, to a novice's eye or to someone who actually has not physically done this type of work, depending on your setup and method, they can all wind up looking the same after awhile. I would say the judgment was made by someone who has not actually done splash work.
As far as the similarity of your image to the image linked on istock, I'm going to say Not Even Close.
60
« on: February 25, 2012, 18:47 »
Well there are images that are acceptable as RF on the micros (eg something unreleased with a completely unidentifiable person in it) which can only be sold RM on Alamy. You are now effectively banned from placing such an image on Alamy, in the past (as I understood it) you could have sold it on both the micros and on Alamy.
You are right, as of now, (most) Micros allow such images without a release.
This might change though in the future as Alamy got sued for such an image and therefore implemented this new rule of requiring a release for people pics.
So as soon as the micros get hammered with such law suits they might change their requirements as well.
However, the OP didn't give me the impression (or proof) that the images were actually people pics or no-people pics. So we can't really help here.
When were alamy sued? I watched their AGM video a few years ago and they never mentioned being sued. They mentioned photos that shouldn't be sold as RF but I remember someone asking if that had caused problems and they said it hadn't. I think they wanted to make their rules for when to use RF and RM clear cut. People can say they recognise themselves in a photo, even if it isn't them. How can a reviewer decide when a model release is required and how can buyers be sure they don't need one? The way alamy have done it makes it very clear.
I believe the suit was because of someone who had actually forged a model release. 2 Years ago maybe? Check their blog. I remember them posting it there.
On the lookup, there was no actual suit. I should have done the lookup when I made my previous post. The facts are that a contributor contract was terminated as a result of the incident in the blog post here http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2008/02/25/2681.aspxSo lawsuit, no as far as this reads, although it is very possible Alamy may have been on the hook for some damages. To my knowledge further details have not been disclosed, and Alamy is under no obligation to disclose any private settlements. As people sometimes lie about things like releases in desperation to get a stupid photo posted, they are now required. Next step would be forgery - then you've got some real trouble. Just as a note some of the posters here don't seem to know what a rights managed license actually entails and I suggest you do some outside reading rather than listen to the misinformation being presented here.
61
« on: February 25, 2012, 02:24 »
Well there are images that are acceptable as RF on the micros (eg something unreleased with a completely unidentifiable person in it) which can only be sold RM on Alamy. You are now effectively banned from placing such an image on Alamy, in the past (as I understood it) you could have sold it on both the micros and on Alamy.
You are right, as of now, (most) Micros allow such images without a release.
This might change though in the future as Alamy got sued for such an image and therefore implemented this new rule of requiring a release for people pics.
So as soon as the micros get hammered with such law suits they might change their requirements as well.
However, the OP didn't give me the impression (or proof) that the images were actually people pics or no-people pics. So we can't really help here.
When were alamy sued? I watched their AGM video a few years ago and they never mentioned being sued. They mentioned photos that shouldn't be sold as RF but I remember someone asking if that had caused problems and they said it hadn't. I think they wanted to make their rules for when to use RF and RM clear cut. People can say they recognise themselves in a photo, even if it isn't them. How can a reviewer decide when a model release is required and how can buyers be sure they don't need one? The way alamy have done it makes it very clear.
I believe the suit was because of someone who had actually forged a model release. 2 Years ago maybe? Check their blog. I remember them posting it there.
62
« on: February 13, 2012, 17:19 »
Yep they made that change I think as a response to this issue. Their MOD went through on the relevant thread on their forum inserting the fact that they had changed the terms meaning other authors could use your work free of charge as long as it's watermarked.
I assumed they would have let contributors know?
Did they not send out an email or anything telling contributors?
I saw it as a positive change as long a contributors were informed.
ETA: e.g. here
http://graphicriver.net/forums/thread/important-use-of-assets-in-previews-on-envato-marketplaces/58291?page=2
"EDIT By Jordan_M: Its actually a new part of our terms of use that authors can use watermarked photos from PhotoDune as part of their previews without prior permission from the author."
Hey Microbius,
Actually 'new' is a relative term in this context. This part of our terms and conditions has been in there since 2010, so everyone joining PhotoDune would have been agreeing to this when they joined. Our marketplaces date back to 2006 however, so there are lots of authors on the other marketplaces for whom this would be new - as it applies not just to photos used in previews, but for instance audio using in VideoHive previews (which is a common usage).
Hope that clarifies!
So the Getty stuff is ok then?
63
« on: February 12, 2012, 10:58 »
...He used some stuff to create his images which was declared as "free for comemrcial use". This is ok according to the TOS of shutterstock as well as the law.
Do we know that the stuff was, in fact, free for commercial use? All I've seen in this thread is the OP's assertion that this was the case.
Seems odd that the artist would release his work as such and then get all upset that people used it commercially.
This did happen with one of those Illustrator Brush people out there, although it was quite a long time ago when I heard about it and the creator name escapes me. He had all kinds of brush goodies out there, found out people were using them for vector stock, got PO'd and then said "No more." My take on it was that the artist originally released as "free to use" and perhaps his intent was to make them usable as "accents" in illustrations. But it's possible and very probable that some of the stock vector people almost wholly based their vectors on them. If I found that, I'd be PO'd too. As I recall the guy had been on the web a long time. It was also a time when artists did not really pay attention to licensing language. And it was likely even before someone thought up the Creative Commons license. After I heard about the situation, I went back to the site and there was a whole page of legalese. My own opinion here is that if the use was becoming problematic for the owner of the brushes, just take the brushes off the site. At least it would make acquisition harder. But if you have Google ads running and are in effect begging for clicks, it's a traffic draw. Even if a license is attached, you can't guarantee that the downloader will thoroughly read, understand, and abide by that language. In order to prove yourself legal in use you would need to produce the exact language of the terms at the time of acquisition. And if it was a long time ago, that language if it could be produced would be open to wide interpretation. @JM Yes even if some of these artists wirite a license or disclaimer, they in many cases do not know what's legal or not, or proper or not. To the OP - if you really want help you need to post examples. I just gave an example of what happened with one situation. And regarding this statement of yours If I can upload those pictures on another website then which websites are best and paying better?
Are you really serious here???
65
« on: February 10, 2012, 00:36 »
Yep. you find little David duChemins just about everywhere.
I could give you a list from over the years. The first guy i assisted many years ago used to go to workshops given by a photographer who discovered that there was a lot more profit in running workshops than running a studio.
I know one of these. Every blog post is a plug, and sometimes multiple plugs in one day. It got tiring when the guy had nothing original left to say. It's all about "buy this light because I use it", "oh a new filter pack came out and here's what I did with it. and by the way, here's my referral link. It got tiring and I stopped following his little advertising blog. David on the other hand is a good guy and he's worth listening to.
66
« on: February 05, 2012, 16:49 »
Why anyone would devalue their own work in such a way still baffles me. It's really time to say NO TO FREE. On your site or for any stock.
67
« on: February 05, 2012, 16:45 »
It's also surprising that a manipulation like this with the duplicated background went unnoticed by everyone putting the paper together. Perhaps they need someone at the paper who knows something about image manipulation to check images before they're published.
Yeah. Why wouldn't the Bee ask for RAW files, so this wouldn't happen?
Most PJs I know shoot jpegs only so they can immediately be sent to the wire service etc. News agencies don't require anyone to shoot "raw" although it's becoming a good idea to do both if you can. Still most guys don't have the time now do they want to bother with archiving 2 file types for one image.
68
« on: February 03, 2012, 19:05 »
Hi all,
anyone has experience of professional printing for photos? someone had suggested me to print some of my photos and try out in gallery.
It is just a rough idea but i think it won't be bad just to try out or even just hang it on my own wall.
What kind of printing will it be involved? it is usually best on canvas? I notice some photographs printings hanging in Starbucks cafe, the surface is with textures, and wrap over a board, is that canvas printing?
I have no idea why it is printed on canvas, instead of printing on photo paper and frame it? it is canvas are more lasting?
thank you.
Sorry to seem blunt and even rude, but the medium needs to be appropriate for the individual image. By committing to one media type on a whim is just throwing money away. To ask the advice of those who have never seen the images involved is equally as useless. You might as well just run stuff off on an inkjet.
69
« on: February 03, 2012, 12:40 »
And don't the shots in the Flickr collection also have to be exclusive?
I do believe you're correct here.
70
« on: February 01, 2012, 23:29 »
You could always start a thread complaining of no sales.
71
« on: January 31, 2012, 18:00 »
<sarcasm>
And not everyone knows Kylie Minogue. Can you really consider her a VIP or celebrity?
Oh so she's like Snookie then : 
72
« on: January 31, 2012, 16:44 »
73
« on: January 31, 2012, 11:53 »
74
« on: January 29, 2012, 04:54 »
Well don't even know why I posted here anyway as I only submit to 2 places these days and have pastures much greener than micro. Here's a company trying to gain business. You (ok, one selected commenter) asked for Sml, Med, Lg pricing, and then are PO'd when you get it. I'm not the one who has my knickers in a twist here. But you really need to give a new model a chance, and 3 or 4 days is not an acceptable trial. Have they cut commissions yet? Have they gone to subs? Are they putting you in canisters and then them taking them away? Have they become involved in shady partner programs where your work becomes diluted and stuff lands everywhere on the web? Sorry I quit the microstock slumlords for all of these reasons. Here is a company trying to attract a different buyer demographic. That's all. And if people don't need a 5200 pic long side image, they're simply not going to buy it. Reference thread regarding confusion about partner programs: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/gograph-com-stolen-images/msg241153/?topicseen#newAnd just an info side note for Lisa - awhile back I found an Asian blog who was blogging all of your images off DT and others. The site was simply throwing the bait out for buyer referrals. From what I could find he wasn't even a submitter anywhere. Not only your stuff, some others here too. And if I ever run across it again I will post it. But for all I know, it could have been a "partner site." But it just looked like blogging for pocket change to me.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 22
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
