|
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 - caspixel
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 41
51
« on: January 19, 2012, 11:23 »
Wow. And to think just two days ago I suggested he might not still be there.
52
« on: January 18, 2012, 22:16 »
I don't understand why they are still promoting that Feast website, in light of these layoffs. I'm still trying to figure out the benefit of that to them. Seems a waste of resources. Does anyone even visit that site?
53
« on: January 18, 2012, 00:24 »
I wonder if those laid off received some type of "golden parachute" offer of a bonus to not trash-talk iS in return?
No doubt they all have to sign confidentiality agreements.
54
« on: January 17, 2012, 22:03 »
Makes me wonder if KKT was the last line of defense for some of these people. He gets replaced and the trickle is turning into a tidal wave. How I wish Lobo was one of the cuts though! LOL
According to that interview with Kelly in October, he was promoted to Vice President of Product Development, and is now based in New York City.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbESgjlRjCA
Right, but he would have zero control over iStock in that position...if he is still there, that is!
55
« on: January 17, 2012, 21:35 »
A Twitter post from six hours ago says there were 30 layoffs. I don't know how big the company is, how many they employ. Is that a lot?
I think for HQ it is. The number 100 (give or take) sticks in my mind for some reason.
56
« on: January 17, 2012, 21:33 »
Makes me wonder if KKT was the last line of defense for some of these people. He gets replaced and the trickle is turning into a tidal wave. How I wish Lobo was one of the cuts though! LOL
57
« on: November 30, 2011, 21:16 »
I had a client who was using it. We were trying to look at some photo she selected and that page came up. She is now searching elsewhere; canstockphoto.com and 123rf.com will be getting her business now. She also liked the prices on the latter two better.
58
« on: November 30, 2011, 11:05 »
Well, it is working perfectly...for them. What a benefit that it is not crediting contributors for sales. 100% of the sale in their pockets!
59
« on: November 28, 2011, 23:59 »
...my post has been cut - and I got yet another email telling me my forum privileges have been revoked and telling me to contact CR (I did, but they won't reply).
This is getting hilarious. I quit submitting to IS long ago; their value to me now is entertainment.
I have gotten two message this month that my forum privileges have been re-revoked. They think I still care? LOL. I think I'm going to close my account there.
60
« on: October 06, 2011, 12:39 »
When I got home I turned on the TV and was shocked to see that Jobs was dead. CNN and MSNBC were discussing Jobs' legacy while Fox was interviewing somebody who was saying that the upcoming U.S. election was really about weather or not somebody like Jobs could be successful in America today or would the government stifle such a person. That is so stupid and I don't even know why they would want to turn his death into some kind of political statement on success (which is so ridiculously off the mark anyway).
61
« on: October 05, 2011, 18:03 »
Tragically funny.
62
« on: October 05, 2011, 13:20 »
Thanks for your input everyone. You have been very helpful!!
63
« on: October 04, 2011, 16:47 »
AFAIK you need to differentiate between usage rights and intellectual property: while the client might have paid for the rights to use a design, the designer might still have the intellectual property rights, meaning you can not simple change his design without his consent - for which the client might need to pay beforehand...
This sounds like what this designer is doing, except after the fact. They did not say anything about IP vs usage when initially creating designs for the client and even gave them the layered files and vector art. Seems like a pretty sh*tty thing to do to someone, IMO.
64
« on: October 04, 2011, 16:35 »
The designer gave them the layered files and the vector art and even instructed to them how to change it, showing intent to let them use the art as needed for various things. Apparently the designer did not send a contract initially, but accepted payment, and then tried to force a contract on the client later, after things started getting sour.
As far as I know, verbal/email agreements and paid invoices are also contracts.
65
« on: October 04, 2011, 15:53 »
I know for sure the client paid for everything. In fact, the client paid for stuff the designer didn't even deliver.
But yeah, if the client didn't pay, then sure, the designer has a right not to release the work. But this stuff is happening even after invoices were paid and acknowledged by the designer.
66
« on: October 04, 2011, 15:16 »
I currently have a client who is getting harassed by their former designer. That designer is saying that the client can not use any of the graphics that the designer created for them (and the client paid for) because they were copyrighted by the designer. Has anyone ever heard of this before? How can this possibly be legal? That designer is also harassing other designers (not me...yet) who the client has hired to do work, claiming they can't use any of the designs to create work for that person either.
I honestly don't even know how this designer can claim that. Who would sell designs to someone and then not allow them to use any of it? Anyone know if there are *any* legal grounds or precedents here?
67
« on: September 11, 2011, 08:45 »
68
« on: September 07, 2011, 17:36 »
Does anyone actually understand this Feast thing? I have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. I'm obviously not "down with the kids" enough.
Neither understand it, nor care enough to try to understand it. Personally, I think their Feast is going to turn into a Famine pretty quick.
69
« on: August 30, 2011, 09:59 »
They should just pay everyone in lube. Maybe gum as a bonus.
Nooooo we said in the survey we like it dished out raw. The lube is what got Kelly sacked!
LOLOLOL
70
« on: August 29, 2011, 14:13 »
I wouldn't bother contacting them. Just report it to the copyright holder with the suggestion they tell FB and the agency. Your complaint wouldn't really have any weight as you aren't the copyright holder for the image.
Well, they did technically steal my design and then cut the horse out of it. I submitted a report through FB. I doubt anything will even be done about it. No one seems to give a sh*t about online theft anyway.
71
« on: August 28, 2011, 16:31 »
It's because of this deflated value of photography that you are questioning whether you should go after this person or not. After all, the image cost you peanuts. But for reasons of principle alone (not to mention what I pointed out above) I would try to have them remove it. Regardless of the cost of the image and the fact that they aren't reselling it, I would at least concoct a nice email explaining yourself and provide a link to that image at 123.
Just my 2 cents. Les also brings up a simple approach that will take this off your plate.
It's not so much the low cost of the image, but more the use that I question whether or not it should be pursued. The person is not trying to profit from the image, they are just using it as their profile photo. However, I think that they shouldn't be using the photo unless they pay for it to. I paid for it and have the legal right to use it. They do not. So not only have they stolen my graphic, but they are also stealing from the photographer of the image.
72
« on: August 28, 2011, 15:58 »
How do you know the other person did not also purchase the same picture? - perhaps from a different agency. That's what I was going to ask, given that the image is for sale as 123 and perhaps other agencies.
The bottom of the y from caspixels text is showing at the top of the other image as is the right hand side black border line.
Yes. That.
73
« on: August 28, 2011, 08:58 »
I created a banner using a stock photo for my profile on Facebook and I noticed someone stole part of the banner (the photo) and is using it on their profile now. They probably think it's okay because it's out there on the internet and everything on the internet is free for the taking, right? Should I report it to FB or the agency I bought the photo from. Or should I just contact the person (though I'm not sure if they speak English). Obviously the person is not profiting from the photo or anything, and maybe I'm oversensitive and should just "get over it because it's a compliment" as other people have told me when I've mentioned other stuff stolen I've seen stolen (  ) What would you do? My banner: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150374244242786&set=a.486395962785.271150.509677785&type=1Their profile: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001724972309Should I just let it go because stuff like this happens on the internet, or should I pursue it? Bought the photo at 123RF.
74
« on: August 27, 2011, 19:10 »
After all, are nicer moderators and better communication really going to make you happy? 
I was under the impression that is was, since the money didn't 
75
« on: August 26, 2011, 00:26 »
Sounds like an overhip version of what istock was. Very strange.
It's an old perverted greedy man (Getty) trying to masquerade as a hipster youth. LOL Feels creepy.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 41
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
