|
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 - Microstockphoto
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 49
576
« on: August 04, 2016, 16:57 »
i have read it again, and i think they actually say you can remove 100 images in any 90 day period, so you can remove 33 images per month, still takes you 7.5 years. maybe write them an email asking if you can speed it up. feels like they're holding you for ransom
577
« on: August 04, 2016, 16:50 »
rebranding my behind https://graphicleftovers.com/ it is still in the url and on their blog they call themselves graphicleftovers, worst name for an agency trying to sell high quality images
579
« on: August 04, 2016, 15:32 »
shitshow, mobile hostile... too funny
580
« on: August 04, 2016, 15:31 »
why do ALL agencies start news about taking your earnings with EXITING... are they from mars..
we have heard your concerns,... we cut your royalty down to 40%... are they actually for real??
581
« on: August 04, 2016, 10:41 »
toothpaste hahaa love it
yeah, poorly written
582
« on: August 03, 2016, 17:13 »
583
« on: August 03, 2016, 01:28 »
yes Metadata is part of the search when looking for similar images, CanStockPhoto and dreamstime use it as well
584
« on: August 02, 2016, 14:59 »
i still see people going on about that these images were in the public domain, here and on dpreview, the images werent in the public domain! getty was claiming copyright of the images and then selling copyrighted images of someone who didnt give them permission to sell them, when the images were donated to the LoC to be used for free.
585
« on: August 02, 2016, 12:17 »
when i upload a similar image to ss they reject it they tell me because i already have that image in my portfolio.
ss also uses propriety software to review images
why dont they use that software then to scan their database (instead of my portfolio only) for similar images and when a flag goes up, they can review what is the matter
586
« on: August 02, 2016, 12:04 »
just got an email from imagebrief trying to make money on the back of this case, vultures
587
« on: August 02, 2016, 12:03 »
not sure why you explain this to me, i know all that, never said pd is illegal to sell either
edit: i noticed i made a typo in my comment, you cant copyright original pd work
588
« on: August 01, 2016, 16:05 »
ss is not keeping a bigger part of your earnings
analyse your sales reports instead of asking other people why your sales are down. cant be that hard to figure out. sales the same, earnings down, means you have more lower paid downloads and less of the higher paid downloads, there you go
nothing to do with ss taking a bigger cut, they take a fixed percentage
589
« on: August 01, 2016, 16:02 »
all of the above
590
« on: August 01, 2016, 10:49 »
i am with a few RM agencies who pay out 50%, but one of their distribution partners is getty, so when a sale comes through getty i actually get 10% of the sale, not bad considering i am the creator, producer, investor, and owner of the images i sell. it is well worth the risk spending tens of thousands on nikon equipment these days,
but then again james cameron got only 13% of sales of avatar
591
« on: August 01, 2016, 10:41 »
he does that for other contributors, so things get better for them, hence hes insulting them in the process, he also doesnt need the money, stock is only 20% of his income, thats why hes submitting to DP for 3% royalty, hes said he'll leave SS after hes hit 50000 posts on the forum, he loves helping newbies, which he thinks are fools, it all makes sense. ... 
592
« on: August 01, 2016, 10:38 »
2 big sods and a couple of reasonable sods made it a poor month
593
« on: August 01, 2016, 10:31 »
well, thats what mike said
594
« on: August 01, 2016, 09:25 »
your image is not being resold, it is used to create a new product with is then sold, which is allowed by several agencies, such as CanStockPhoto and fotolia
595
« on: July 31, 2016, 23:49 »
thats hilarious, isnt that name a registered trademark by pixar? http://pixar.wikia.com/wiki/Buy_n_Largecould getty be in violation here as well? violating copyright under a stolen name haha
596
« on: July 30, 2016, 02:20 »
theres contruibutors who blow up PD or Nasa images and improve quality, so there is something to say for that, but then again, some indeed just sell originals, in the end, an original pd image cant be copyrighted. its a mine field
597
« on: July 29, 2016, 04:34 »
you make a good point shelma, not related to this case, they are asking for compensation on pd images, of which no one can claim copyright, unless they created derived works. selling pd images is a tricky business
598
« on: July 29, 2016, 01:03 »
yes, theyre saving up to pay out 1 billion dollar to a certain photographer
599
« on: July 29, 2016, 01:02 »
so getty is certain that the images are in the public domain, if that was the case, i dont think the photographer would have made such a fuss. unless there is indeed a twist to this case. if the images are not in the public domain, getty is going to bite the dust
600
« on: July 28, 2016, 17:27 »
her images are not in the public domain
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 49
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
