|
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 - leszek
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10
51
« on: September 03, 2008, 17:04 »
It happened before, it is happening again. Basically - Mozilla Firefox can't see fotolia on the net. How did this happen ? I use SpySweeper, which pics up some cookies as low-risk threats. Normally I do not clean these cookies, but yesterday I did. As a result - when trying to get Fotolia website, all I get is a message "Done" at the bottom of a blank page. It happened in the past every time I cleaned out cookies (among them the Fotolia cookie). I used to have an original E0mail from Fotolia with a link - which worked, and after using this link I could use Mozilla, where Fotolia is bookmarked. Nothing works now, however. I restored the cookies from Quarantine, disabled SpySweeper on Startup - no cigar. The options are: 1) Get rid of Mozilla 2) Get rid of SpySweeper 3) Get rid of Fotolia 4) What ? If anybody can give me some tips regarding option 4) - this would make my bloody day 
52
« on: August 30, 2008, 21:29 »
53
« on: August 28, 2008, 17:53 »
Fotolia is my No 6 - after SS, StockXpert, Dreamstime, 123RF and BigStock (OK, IStock is quickly moving up the ranks, but is not included in the list due to the fact that IS only started accepting my pics 3 months ago).
Fotolia is very picky with acceptance (for reasons like the ones listed above), and rather inconsistent with rejection reasons. At the same - it does not seem to generate many sales (probably because they managed to reject many of the images which sell very well on other sites).
54
« on: August 26, 2008, 21:48 »
Ver nice article: still, not a word about photographing the protected items. In fact, the whole purpose of protection (including Trade Dress) seems to be preventing the competition from stealing the design, colors, packaging etc. - and the photograph of a protected item seems to be totally out of scope. But again, I am not a lawyer.
Still - it seems to me that a lot of strong arm tactics and bullying is used - chiefly because it is quite easy to intimidate a regular person with obtuse legal statements which in fact have nothing to do with the perceived "infringement".
55
« on: August 25, 2008, 23:53 »
As a matter of interest - what is in the image is a cheap (Chinese I guess?) product which I bought for $3 a bag (containing about 150 pieces)...
56
« on: August 25, 2008, 23:45 »
I think it is time for the consumers to pass a law which would forbid any brand/trade names to be put on any sellable product then...I do not want to be a walking advert for the big boys. Actually - I do not buy anything which has any visible logos/names anywhere.
We are very good at building our own prisons - and I have to say that some people who say that Western civilization is rotten to the core may actually have a point...
57
« on: August 25, 2008, 22:05 »
OK, so where is the infringement ?
58
« on: August 25, 2008, 20:45 »
It looks like Fotolia is hell-bent on destroying their business...
59
« on: August 25, 2008, 20:36 »
Well, not a word in the above link about photographing the blocks - all they statements refer to their logo, photographs on THEIR product packaging etc.
60
« on: August 25, 2008, 19:30 »
"Lego bricks have always been protected. This is no surprise."
The name - yes. The logo - yes. The looks - that's where I get confused.
Essentially this means that plastic blocks can't be photographed - because they may look like something which has a copyrighted/trademarked name and logo...
Note that there is no name or logo in the image.
Everything should then be protected - each and every item ever manufactured - after all it has been designed and manufactured by someone...Which effectively puts an end to photography (at least for microstock).
61
« on: August 25, 2008, 18:18 »
Sometimes some of the rejections leave me scratching my head. The example below has been rejected by some of the microstock sites. Historically - the use of logos and trademarks (belonging to other people) was a no-no (no problem with that). Then - photographing subject with any logos/trademarks has become a no-no (quite debatable, since they have no problem with including their logos on any piece of clothing which I may buy - which in itself presents an interesting legal problem: does that mean that I can't photograph MY shirt for which I paid monies ?). Then - the whole bunch of buildings/objects/sites to which all of a sudden someone claimed "copyright", although the law in most cases does not protest architectural appearance of a building. Then - the example like the one below: what is wrong with it - except that one may say "it looks like Lego blocks" - so what ? No logo etc. is present in the picture - but somene seems to have a problem with it... Does that mean that soon we will have to ask manufacturers of our clothing to give us "product release" before we take photo of any person (unless that person is naked - which presents quite different set of problems) ? 
62
« on: August 22, 2008, 20:13 »
"It is not making people pay for the air that they breath but making companies pay for the air they pollute. Which is a good thing." Dirkr, mate, get some reality check...there is already a market for carbon credits and where do you think the monies for buying those credits come from: from the company's bottom line ?! In other words: the polluters will buy carbon credits and keep polluting. The cost will be passed onto customer (with some additional margin, after all - why not make some more profit here, while appearing to be environmentally responsible ?). The governments will grab their share of cash in the process...and nothing will change, except you will be out of pocket. I hear all these wishful thinking plans by all the do-gooders: the customers will dump the products which are too expensive due to built-in carbon tradindg costs etc. and "clean" companies will come up on top. Yeah, and Santa Claus comes in through the chimney every Christmas. What will really happen - more effort and study directed at how far the manufacturing costs and quality can be reduced by placing manufacturing in some dark corner of the world. It is good to care about the world around us: it is even better to be realistic at the same time. When one is realistic - some of one's plans may eventually be put in practice. But dreams...remain only dreams, always. People who cry for reducing pollution etc. are just that...dreamers. And a lot of people who rushed to implement "reduction" are only interested because they see it as a business opportunity and a lot of cash to be made quickly and without any effort. Cheers 
63
« on: August 22, 2008, 06:27 »
I am not sure. Why don't you contact the site ? I have quit this site some time ago - but it is run by very decent and helpful folks. I would be surprised if they didn't help you in this predicament. And...start backing up yout pics, I thought everybody did...
64
« on: August 21, 2008, 16:46 »
"I think someone got up on the wrong side of the bed....."
Sure, sure...the obvious is not so obvious, is it ?
65
« on: August 20, 2008, 21:09 »
All this still does not prevent certain sites from rejecting images even if no logos etc. are present in the image. They call it "potential" copyright issue. Basically - the writing is on the wall for photographers. Soon it will be impossible to photograph any item or object which has been produced or created by any human being by any manufacturing process. Also, you will not be able to photograph landscapes - there are already a lot of places where you can't take pictures - and this includes national parks, landmarks etc. - even if this is public area. Usually one trust or the other sees the opportunity to cash in, and usually under pretences of "protecting", "preserving" or some such - and usually this is a lot of pure BS. Basically - anything of value on this Earth has a claim staked out. So, if it has even the slightest "potential" of creating some buck - even from a photograph someone may take - it becomes either "protected", or "culturaly significant", or some other dodgy reason. While the law does not go as far as the above description - the popular perception certainly shifted the balance in this direction. And the law is usually a representation of perceptions as to what is acceptable and what is not. It does not matter - it will happen sooner or later. I guess this will also be the time when they will make you to pay for the air you breathe - and don't laugh, the recent activities in the "carbon trading" is a beginning of that - it is just that the general public is too stupid and indifferent to care. Well, the average citizen will care when this happens and I just can't wait to hear all the bleating... Like or not - the world is slowly becoming one large prison. 
66
« on: August 19, 2008, 20:18 »
What is going to happen ? Well, for starters, four men in black suits and black shades will knock at your door in the middle of the night (well, scratch "knock", I think they most likely will just bust the door). Then you will get a full body search, then 3rd degree interrogation, then all your gear will be confiscated, then you will be thrown into jail with $10,000,000 bond set as a minimum. You will be held there indefinitely - or at least until such time that you produce the required forms for every picture you shot (in triplicate, with 3 witnesses each). In the meantime - no visits from the family, no phone calls, and - no taking pictures 
67
« on: August 16, 2008, 18:56 »
Voted. I did have a look at all of the pics first, though, and was pleased to find out that this image is actually one of the few worth voting for. I have nothing against saturated colors and slow shutter speed - but many of these pics are going over the board (with Photoshop "improvements too). Anyway, I am relieved that mine was more or less a honest vote Good luck.
68
« on: August 14, 2008, 23:31 »
ProStockMaster is evolving. I talked to David some months ago and suggested a number of improvements. Some of them are already incorporated in v1.5 (like manual editing of the image data to track accepted/rejected images on various sites etc.).
I also had the pleasure of having an early look at beta v1.5 and I believe that ProStockMaster wil be further developed and improved. Lots of good features there, and more are coming.
69
« on: August 14, 2008, 18:59 »
Well, let's wait and see. It would be pity to dump StockXpert, it is a good site.
70
« on: August 13, 2008, 03:49 »
Depends. Sekonic L558 is sometimes indispensable - when shooting something in a softbox.
71
« on: August 13, 2008, 03:45 »
Well - I am not sure. The stuff looks good, has some impressive specs, but God knows how long it will be around and what kind of support one may expect in 5 years time. That's why I am getting "budget" White Lightning set (4 monolights with 300" Ws total).
73
« on: August 12, 2008, 05:21 »
As far as I am concerned - Fotolia is pretty much dead. Sure, I had a payout and the second one is closing, but Fotolia became extremely picky regarding acceptance - and somehow it goes hand in hand with very poor sales and very poor number of views. It is quickly becoming No 7 on my list...oh, well...
74
« on: August 11, 2008, 00:29 »
If you need to run it on Mac - there are Windows emulators available for Mac. You should be able to run Windows program through the emulator.
75
« on: August 10, 2008, 22:39 »
And (the original OP): Thanks, mate, I was not laughing this loud for a long time after reading your blog. "Australians can now look at Rudd and see if he can continue the work done by his ALP predecessors and drive the economy in the direction it needs to take." Sure he can ROFLMAO  It did not take him long, did it ? Time to update the blog with something like this maybe: "Australians are now looking at how quickly they can kick him out in order to save whatever is left of the economy"
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
then look no further than here:
