|
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 - yingyang0
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30
651
« on: December 20, 2006, 20:32 »
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV or anything, but I think that if you alter the text of the document after it's been signed, that invalidates the signature. It might be a good idea to alter the document first (so that it's generic), and then use that to get model signatures. That way, if you ever do run into any trouble, the original model release exactly matches what you're uploading to all sites. Just my two cents worth.
It doesn't matter as long as the photographer has an authentic, unaltered, original. Also, he's not editing out any of the actual text of the agreement. Only the logo at the top and the copyright notice at the bottom. But I agree that it would be a lot easier to do the operation just once and have the model sign the altered version, rather than edit it out every time you want to up load a model release.
652
« on: December 19, 2006, 23:19 »
The zip code you gave puts him in Lansing MI, which most likely doesn't have a photography shop large enough to carry a wide seletion of Canon L lens. The nearest place would probably be Detroit. But once again he would have to drive to Detroit (1.5 hours) and try and find a photo shop.
Lansing is the capital of Michigan, and it does infact have many camera shops able to sell this type of gear. Here is one: http://www.castle-photo.com/Why people make comments like the one above when they don't know the area is beyond me. I grew up in Kalamazoo, MI (about 45min to 1hr from Lansing). Kalamazoo has one of the best camera stores in the midwest, Norman Camera Co.
653
« on: December 16, 2006, 03:25 »
Sorry to disappoint you dbvirage because you are a great person, but that photo doesn't use the your photos that you point to. I ran a comparative program that says that you're photos are only a 10% match to the photo. So, there is a 90% chance that you are not the father.
654
« on: December 16, 2006, 03:21 »
I get my inspiration from god, or maybe nature, or maybe intelligent deisign. Oh, wait. I actually just try to shoot anything/everything and learn from my past experience (rule of thirds, rejections, etc.).
P.S. My favorite mag is Outdoor Photographer. My favorite photographer is Adams because he got out there before all the other nature photographers.
655
« on: December 15, 2006, 17:48 »
I live near Montreal, Quebec, Canada. I am not quite sure the name of my IP address (feeling quite stupid where to look)?
Maybe someone can guide me where to look 
If I understand properly it would be Bell Sympatico
People on this thread seem to have ISP and IP mixed up. Your ISP is your Internet Service Provider. Your IP is your Internet Protocol address. The IP is number. Here is a site that will give you your IP address: http://www.lawrencegoetz.com/programs/ipinfo/
656
« on: December 15, 2006, 17:13 »
Now on Bank of England notes there is a (C) symbol there was actually a case of an artist who would make drawings of currency and use that as payment in restaurants etc. The treasury were not amused.
This was actually done in the US too. The treasury department charged him with forgery, but the courts threw it out because the currency wasn't being pasted off as genuine US currency and so was protected by the first amendment (free speech).
657
« on: December 14, 2006, 19:53 »
The law in England is very clear on this subject. People shouldn't worry about US currency. You can sell photos of US currency as long as it can't be used for forgery.
658
« on: December 13, 2006, 21:11 »
That's exactly correct. Just like you can't sell a photo of the McDonald's arches, you can't sell a photo that includes Wifi. It is a trademark.
659
« on: December 13, 2006, 00:21 »
I wouldn't be that worried about using the concept.
1) it's not illegal (you can't copyright an idea)
2) With as may photos that there are out there, I doubt the idea was truely original.
660
« on: December 10, 2006, 13:43 »
Whining about things like that on the forums isn't going to help anyone. (although the crazy scout queues tend to add to the tendency for people to complain). Given they are paying for the bandwidth and it's their sandbox I suppose in the end they have the right to control discussion.
Here's the thing Susan, it wasn't whining. It wasn't even a complaint. I corrected someone on the forums about a question that had nothing to do with iStock. As far as bandwidth, we pay more for are bandwidth than iStock does. Yes, it is their sandbox but there is a difference between controlling a discussion and complete repression of speech. If they want to be a dictatorship fine, but don't then go around professing to be a "community" environment. Especially don't call my house over such a trivial matter (Note: the person later admitted they were in the wrong and had to open a new thread to do it because iStock had locked the other one). I also want to say that the OP's original posting was completely correct. What makes it through the exclusive queue (especially the admins' stuff) is amazing considering that Getty is going to let them submit some of their stuff. Makes me wonder when I'll be seeing a row of trash cans with blown-out highlights on Getty. (I don't think I will, because Getty doesn't lower it's standards for "exclusives".)
661
« on: December 09, 2006, 21:39 »
If this is the same Susan S. from the iStock forums that I think it is, then welcome.
While posting an admin's photo of garbage cans that shouldn't have been approved was "improper". The point of the posting was valid. iStock does play favorites for admins and exclusives. I'd also like to point out that this forum is the only place you can post your frustrations because iStock blocks all discenting opinions that aren't favoriable to iStock.
As far as this place being "anti-iStock", I think that anyone that is of this opinion should consider what they are use to. iStock is so full of "why I love iStock" threads that when you come here it may seems anti-iStock. To me it is the diffence between the freedom of speech in China versus the U.S. (China = iStock, this place = US). If you don't think that iStock sensors like China, then I have some voice recordings from an iStock admin you should listen to.
662
« on: December 07, 2006, 22:36 »
Interesting concept, but kind of pointless. Most models would only want to do this if they saw a photo used in a way they didn't want, but they wouldn't have a right to do anything about it.
I'd also like to point out that if you added this "buyout clause" to your model release then you couldn't legally sell it as RF, so you couldn't sell the photo on DT, SS, IS, etc! You would have to sell it as Rights-Managed.
It also defeats the whole purpose of the model release. It invalidates the indemnity clause, which is the main purpose of the release.
663
« on: December 05, 2006, 13:29 »
They're going to be paying net, meaning that they are going to pay you different comissions depending on how many credits the purchaser purchased. Your earnings are going to start looking very strange.
The important thing here is they are pulling the wool over all the contributors eyes. Yes you're getting more per download but they are also reducing your commission percentage. You use to get 20%, now when people buy credits in bulk you are going to get around 17%. Istock use to absorb the cost of the discounts that are bought in bulk, but now they are passing that cost onto the photographers.
So to review...Istock is increasing the prices and decreasing percentage paid to photographers. Not to mention they keep the interest earned on money that has not been paid out because the contributor doesn't have the $100 needed, and they also keep the interest earned on the money paid for unused credits.
664
« on: December 03, 2006, 14:21 »
I agree that Istock is squeezing the non-exclusives out, but I had my best month ever this month (Nov.) So I think phil's theory is based only on his own sales.
665
« on: November 30, 2006, 17:26 »
still problems with the code 
every day this week when i try to log in, i get the message "Failed to get user info"
today when i finally got past that, i got a mysql error again  , clicked the back button, and was logged out and just received that 'failed to get user info' message when i tried to log in again.
Do you have "cookies allowed" enabled on your web-browser? It sounds like they're not able to save your user info in a cookie.
666
« on: November 27, 2006, 21:20 »
No, my average has been the same. $0.67ish.
667
« on: November 26, 2006, 13:18 »
51% Istock
30% SS
9% Dreamstime
6% Fotolia
5% BigStock
Even with all the problems over at iStock, the changes have caused my sales to sky rocket there. Whereas SS, the sales have taken a nose dive. I haven't been seriously uploading in two months and SS really penalizes photos for not being brand new.
668
« on: November 26, 2006, 01:54 »
yingyang - for old members inst the limit 2mp and it is only 4mp for new people (since about 2 months ago). imagine buying an upsized 2mp image.
Ok, but that doesn't effect my point. For SS size doesn't matter. 
669
« on: November 24, 2006, 22:19 »
SS are my biggest earner and they only pay 25c regardless of size (thats why i only ever send them 4 mp)
Do you think you limit your chance of a sale (and future sales) by only havnig 4mp pics. A designer might like it but not buy as it is small.
SS upsizes everything so it doesn't matter how big of a photo you sent them as long as it is over their 4 mp minimum.
670
« on: November 24, 2006, 17:24 »
The exclusive clan may have gotten another perk: getting first in line for having their pictures approved 
They've always had that perk. It's called the exclusive queue. About the other "perk". I don't think they would rank exclusive photos over non-exclusive. Their business model depends more on the buyers, and ranking an exclusive's photo over a better matching photo is bad for business. Not to mention that they make more from selling the non-exclusive person's photo.
671
« on: November 23, 2006, 12:50 »
jaha.. very interesting
now a totally NEW member from mystock has signed up. Funny that developer #1 signed up, but now has deleted his account.... but it wasn't Jon Philips. Did he feel bad about making his account, so he deleted it.
Funny that you didn't know about as you are both coming from the same IP address. or wait, could you be the same person possibly!
I would like to point out that they come from the same IP address because they probably use the same router/hub at work. If the MAC addresses are the same, then we are getting somewhere.
672
« on: November 20, 2006, 19:19 »
it wasn't working in the morning for me. It's working now.
673
« on: November 20, 2006, 12:58 »
Is it just me or is iStock down right now? I'm getting a 505 error when trying to access the site.
674
« on: November 17, 2006, 03:29 »
Yep, today the counts have been getting messed up.
675
« on: November 14, 2006, 17:05 »
Admins have said that "Auto" means you haven't fixed the keywords yet. "Manual" means you've already fixed the keywords.
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
