|
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 - cardmaverick
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 18
51
« on: December 30, 2012, 21:12 »
You can't copyright a style... as far as I know.
Imagine if everyone had to pay royalty for shooting a color photograph or making an HDR photo.... madness.
52
« on: November 23, 2012, 17:00 »
I've been doing well on Flickr and have eyeballed 500px for a while... what I don't get is the total lack of community on there. It's kinda weird that there are no forums or groups or anything else to keep people on the site longer.
53
« on: November 19, 2012, 05:48 »
For some images it's worth it, for others, its not. You just gotta research what sells well at Getty.
54
« on: November 17, 2012, 18:09 »
I just had this pop into my head...
Let's say you did manage to get product placement to work with a big agency like Getty - would the end user have the right to remove the products logos etc...? If they did, it would be hard to sell product placement... the brand might never be visible, thus wasted money on "ads" that never materialize.
I think product placement in stock would be more of a nightmare than a solution the more I analyze it.
55
« on: November 17, 2012, 18:00 »
Got any examples of the opposite being the case?
I do. I work in film. I was on set for the movie Kalamity for about a month. I witnessed first hand the systematic elimination of brands galore. Some major movies can sell product placement spots, but not all directors want to turn their films into obvious ads, ergo having too buy permission from the brand. It's an issue of control and appearance. You might think it's great to sell a spot for a beer can your character drinks until all the people interested start demanding more blatant exposure or even brand name utterances from key characters - before you know it, you're paying them so you can use it in a more subdued natural fashion that doesn't affect the story.
56
« on: November 17, 2012, 17:49 »
A bit off topic, but the inherent loss of control associated with RF stock photos is one reason why some modeling agencies won't let their models appear in stock images.
57
« on: November 17, 2012, 17:46 »
Once upon a time this is how things were done to finance movies. Back in the 80's - product placement was a source of financing then one day, companies just said "hey, why don't you PAY US for the right to put our stuff in your movie." It's been that way ever since. I honestly don't see that changing back to the old paradigm.
Nope, still the way it done with movies now. Hence the beer drinking scene in the new bond movie. Product placement still a big source of finance for new movies. Got any examples of the opposite being the case?
ETA this link, maybe you should watch this to get a better idea of how it still works?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POM_Wonderful_Presents:_The_Greatest_Movie_Ever_Sold
RF Stock images mean loss of control, they will never go for it, their product could be used in a zillion ways they don't want it used in... this is the one big reason for the Le Corbusier lawsuit. In a movie, it's one specified use, and it can be tightly controlled. RM images? It's possible, but it could be a real PITA for an end user who just needs an image ASAP with no extra crap to deal with - that's the big reason behind the success of RF images - buy it, use it, forget about any hassles. The trend here is clear with stock photo lawsuits - they want us to pay them, not the other way around. If they want an ad, they want control over it. They can easily do it themselves.
58
« on: November 16, 2012, 22:13 »
Hi Yuri,
I haven't read all the posts so this may be redundant but their was a french designer furniture company ( Le Corbusier ) last year that won just such a battle and every image with their furniture in it had to be pulled ( Getty is still trying to fight it ). It took our agency a lot of work but that was the final verdict, now their furniture is not in any of our stock agencies. This case sounds very similar and I am afraid might be the catalyst that will cause a great deal of stock imagery to be removed by copy written products. Best of luck I hope this isn't the beginning of the end for stock, please keep us posted. Here is a link to the topic. http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140613/getty-images-fights-copyright-infringement-ruling-french-court
Cheers,
Jonathan
P.S. All props should be purchased at Walmart 
I don't think it would be the beginning of the end, but the beginning of companies making products specifically for stock. I can't think of a better advertising source than stock photographers using your glasses, jeans, shirts etc. If a clothing company were to say stock is OK, they could stand to get a lot of advertising out of the deal and we'd save having to remove logos  I'd guess top stock artists would get free clothing / accessories
Once upon a time this is how things were done to finance movies. Back in the 80's - product placement was a source of financing then one day, companies just said "hey, why don't you PAY US for the right to put our stuff in your movie." It's been that way ever since. I honestly don't see that changing back to the old paradigm.
59
« on: November 15, 2012, 04:04 »
The agencies and their recaptcha's killed them off, which is a shame, we need a service like that.
60
« on: November 14, 2012, 20:17 »
They will claim they lost out on a piece of licensing revenue.
61
« on: November 14, 2012, 16:52 »
The concern I have is that even if the manufacturer lose the suit in Denmark they could file suit in Japan, South Korea, Australia, Brazil, USA, Canada and just about anywhere else. Each country has different laws and effectively the manufacturer only needs to win in one jurisdiction to force the micros, because of their license everywhere model, to remove all images with this company's glasses.
Is there actually an issue ? There are plenty of places to source rights issue free spectacle frames to use as props.
It's not that simple. Many "no-name" brands etc... are just producing knock-offs of the designer versions that are protected. Getty Images specifically addressed this with the Le Corbusier problem. It's not enough to get a knock-off. I'm not so sure this glasses manufacturer will win though. Last time I checked, there is no copyright protection for fashion designs, only trademark. Glasses would be considered clothing by many... but I'm sure the manufacturer will argue otherwise if it helps it win. The other issue is that photographers are not physically reproducing and selling a physical product. That's what copyright is supposed to protect, a real reproduction of an item and a photo just isn't even close to that. Trade Dress laws are basically an attempt to extend trademark laws.
62
« on: November 14, 2012, 04:56 »
Problem is, many of the major agencies are multi-national companies with a presence in places like France where they have these un-reasonable IP laws in place.
Always surprising to hear photographers complaining about the protection afforded to other artists, designers and the owners of intellectual property in general.
It is potentially no different from me using one of your images as the main subject of one of my own, or in a design, and then selling that under an RF licence - including from sites which guarantee and underwrite any use which falls within their terms. Of course intellectual property needs to be licensed if it is re sold for commercial use. The same as for photographs.
It is little different from people who use photographs they find because they do not know any better (Facebook, Pinterest etc). People who do not know about clothes, fonts, spectacles etc forget that people who do are instantly going to recognise them whether or not a logo is removed.
LOL. Read around the forum here... you'll find I'm actually the strongest supporter of ending IP laws.
63
« on: November 14, 2012, 02:48 »
I wouldn't be surprised if the Company was a French company. Perhaps the solution to the problem with trade dress is....
All agencies block access from French IP addresses and simply refuse to sell to anyone who is French.
Sounds a bit crazy, but it might be a start.
Now that is truly hilarious! I wouldn't be surprised if the author of such comments turned out to be an uneducated American bumpkin with irrational prejudices against all "cheese-eating surrender-monkeys".
It's not really hilarious, more like a sad potential reality for many agencies. If Getty Images simply did no business in France or with French customers, it would have been more difficult for Le Corbusier to have sued them. The original FAQ from Getty mentioned that where you sell the images matters more legally than where you take them or what is pictured. Problem is, many of the major agencies are multi-national companies with a presence in places like France where they have these un-reasonable IP laws in place.
64
« on: November 13, 2012, 20:48 »
Are there any pictures of the glasses? Would that not be allowed Yuri?
The only way I can see this really having any weight is if the glasses are super distinct looking (think Oakley) - but even if they are, I don't think they should have any right to sue you if you pulled off their logo from the glasses.
Trade dress law suits like this will not only destroy the stock media business - they will also threaten all over media production businesses. Movies, TV shows, the list goes on.
65
« on: November 13, 2012, 20:39 »
I said this kind of BS was going to hit this industry hard a while back... get ready for more of this crap. You can thank IP laws for this huge mess.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Company was a French company. Perhaps the solution to the problem with trade dress is....
All agencies block access from French IP addresses and simply refuse to sell to anyone who is French.
Sounds a bit crazy, but it might be a start.
66
« on: October 07, 2012, 16:31 »
Some agencies use accrual accounting methods, others cash - and it always creates headaches for me and my book keeping :s
67
« on: October 07, 2012, 15:14 »
I've been pretty busy with a big 6 month commercial assignment, so not much time to create more content, but I''ve got a new improved format I'll roll out for the next video. I'm planning to have an interactive sidebar menu. If you want to sit and watch all of the video and get all the little details, you're fine, if you're impatient, just click on a menu item and zoom ahead  I didn't even know you could do that until after I made the first video. From the looks of my data, I seem to be connecting well with the right people and I've achieved many of my desired goals. BTW - you'll never find an advanced tutorial crammed into only 5 minutes, not a good one anyways
68
« on: October 03, 2012, 15:26 »
And finally, the pricing model we plan to use is dead simple. You set the price of your photos, and thats the cost to download. No need for credits, subscriptions or other nonsense.
That doesn't sound "dead simple" for buyers. Every picture has a random price.
Seriously, don't worry about it. Find a different project.
I'll be sure to pass this advice on to Wal-Mart. Too many different prices for different products, even ones that technically "do the same thing".
69
« on: October 01, 2012, 17:08 »
Major companies like Adobe saw the writing on the wall years ago about the inevitable failure of copyright law. This is why so many programs are going online, eventually, you either have to pay a huge premium for a local machine install, or, it just flat out won't be an option. I've already found software products with zero plans for local install options.
It's happening.
70
« on: October 01, 2012, 12:49 »
I bet this won't change a single thing.
71
« on: September 24, 2012, 22:06 »
I use onlinestoragesolution.com for my remote backup. If you don't have a remote backup, you're not really backed up.
72
« on: September 01, 2012, 15:26 »
You'd be better off just producing you're own content for less money.
73
« on: August 30, 2012, 12:51 »
Buyers simply want a manufactured, model released version of reality that looks like an amateur shot it. No need to use your iPhone, just relight, reframe, and rethink how the images are posed/composed. I don't think any real art buyers seriously want an iPhone quality shot when they can get the exact same look and feel shot on a pro camera. Photoshop can grunge it up if they want....
74
« on: August 26, 2012, 16:34 »
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/11/google_search_punish_pirates/
Apparently Google will implement an algorithm to ranks pages lower if they have a history of copyright infringements...
Maybe sites like Heroturko and the like might sink to the bottom at least on Google.
One step in the right direction. Right?
I find this sort of tactic better than trying to sue people. It's much more free market, far less fascist.
75
« on: August 19, 2012, 21:48 »
Flickr was a great way for me to make sales via clustershot, but now clusthershot is a total disaster that doesn't function. I tried to move over to photoshelter, but that site blows. No one, I mean NO ONE wants to bother making an account to buy one image from a site they will never again use. Clustershot had no such issues.... it was super easy and I loved it.
Oh well.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
