|
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 - cathyslife
6501
« on: April 08, 2010, 06:38 »
It also might have been wiser to leave all your other accounts open until closer to the applying time, so you could continue to make money on those accounts while waiting out your 6 months.
There have been a number threads on this forum about preparing for exclusivity (in fact one of them was named exactly that). Might shed a little more light on the subject for you.
6502
« on: April 07, 2010, 14:55 »
Congratulations...very cool!
6503
« on: April 07, 2010, 14:53 »
I would think that the writers of the books and publications would be filing a suit as well. Their writing material must be copyrighted, too. Even Google assumes that everything printed must be in the public domain. 
6504
« on: April 07, 2010, 11:22 »
Here are my numbers:
IS - 1.28
SS - .69
DT - 1.62
BigStock - .76
6505
« on: April 05, 2010, 06:44 »
i use a laptop as my main computer so i have everything available when i travel, but at home i also add another monitor for more consistent photo results.
when traveling i try to limit my image work to captioning, etc that doesn't rely on the monitor
s
Thanks. Looks like I will have to go down the seperate monitor route if I want to get any worthwhile work done. I was under the impression that laptop screens were all brilliant nowadays but it seems that the main issues remain, if perhaps not as badly as before.
This is what I do too. I have worked on images with the MacBook Pro laptop screen when traveling, but for everyday work I have a 22" monitor to use. My opinion is that the laptop screen is more than adequate to do the job, I just like to see things much bigger on the bigger screen.
6506
« on: April 03, 2010, 06:35 »
Well there's no requirement on the electronic items for resale that thing like templates actually be charged for, so I guess you could give it away if you weren't very smart.
Maybe I didn't ask that right.
I'm guessing that the image that's used in these is from a Microstock site and is being used RF by many people. Nice shot, maybe getting over exposed, but still a nice shot.
When someone pays for the license, I thought there was a clause about not using it for redistribution with a product, but these free templates use stock images and distribute them for free?
If that's true, someone has one heck of a good shot, was paid once and it's being used as a loss leader giveaway. That doesn't seem right?
There are some sites that have extended licenses for images to be used in templates. For instance, Big Stock: http://www.bigstockphoto.com/licensing-buyers.htmlscroll to bottom so what sean was saying is that if someone (presumably) bought the correct extended license and used the image on his site and gave away his templates for free, that would be his business. As long as he paid for the correct license to use it in a template. If the person DID NOT purchase the correct license or didn't purchase the image at all and was using it and giving away the templates, that would be redistribution.
6507
« on: April 02, 2010, 13:46 »
I bought two 800s and a 400 for backlighting. I never use 100% of power on them for product or food photography...they are powerful enough at about 50%. But when I decided to shoot full body shot models, I found I did not have enough power to evenly light the whole length. I wished then I would have gotten the 1600s.
So it just depends on what you plan on shooting. If you are going to shoot models, you should get the 1600s right off. If you want to start off simpler for less money and shoot product for awhile, then I would get the 800s. You can always add 1600s later on, and you will still get plenty of use out of the 800s.
Just my two cents, worth about 1 cent.
6508
« on: April 01, 2010, 15:10 »
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. 
6509
« on: April 01, 2010, 15:09 »
Relieved it's just an april fools joke.
@Powerdroid, no, 123 would not be a big loss, but the big picture of Getty working its way closer to monopoly is not a happy one....
+1 on that sad notion.
6510
« on: April 01, 2010, 15:08 »
No it was never there. Just another deceptive way to get people to click referral links or check out blogs. It's an April Fool's Day joke. Ha ha.
But then again it wouldn't surprise me either. Getty has so much money to burn they can just buy up the competition.
Fine!! spoil my fun!! 
Don't drag Lee through the mud, he's not aware of this.
Just call me buzzkill!
6511
« on: April 01, 2010, 09:21 »
No it was never there. Just another deceptive way to get people to click referral links or check out blogs. It's an April Fool's Day joke. Ha ha.
But then again it wouldn't surprise me either. Getty has so much money to burn they can just buy up the competition.
6512
« on: March 31, 2010, 17:17 »
Judging by the way sales are soaring month after month at FT it is unlikely that they are going bust anytime soon and with today's interest rates (i.e. virtually zero) they won't have much incentive to hold on to your money either.
Just putting my two cents in, but I am not a contributor to Fotolia. Just because sales are soaring, doesn't necessarily mean that a company is solvent. There are millions of people (including executives at companies) that spend WAY more than they make, and at some point, sometimes it catches up to them. Just a thought.
6513
« on: March 31, 2010, 11:44 »
Congratulations!
I still have squat, but have only been there a month.
6514
« on: March 31, 2010, 06:49 »
I just got the opposite of this. I had a message about a bunch of keywords added. This has never happened to me at DT. Anyone else have this? Somebody must like you a lot.
It was probably my mom. 
6515
« on: March 29, 2010, 10:22 »
the big question remains ... how should we react ? and will Getty or iStock move a finger
against these sites or just say thank you for the feedback and good bye ?
did anyone wrote already to iStock and Getty ?
any news ? any reply received ?
It's irrelevant whether anyone or 500 other people did or not. Did you? And when i say "you", I mean every single person on this forum who is a contributor to ANY stock site.
6516
« on: March 28, 2010, 17:24 »
lol!! I did think Dog Grooming, and then I thought, what customer wants the image of their dog being hung up to dry with a clothes peg while the groomer smokes into the bath
It must be put into some kind of concept advertising.. but over 100, wow... I would love to know too, hopefully some of the designers upload their design to show how it was used..
I think it would make an awesome postcard or cd cover too, but postcard would require el I think.. cd cover yeah, it would be cool, but would you want the next band to have the same image on their cd? The thing with an image like that, is that the designer has nowhere to go, it's ready to use, there's not much you can add or take-away to make it look different, if someone else does choose to use it.. so I dunno!!!
When I first saw it I thought it was funny, but wondered if she used real puppies and hung them up and photographed them. PETA would be all over this, if so.
6517
« on: March 28, 2010, 17:20 »
Whatever her reasons for submitting this as microstock is, seeing such talented work is always inspiring.
Maybe a nice chunk of change?
6518
« on: March 28, 2010, 13:19 »
IMPORTANT: the images have not been taken down, the order has just been shifted. I just found my image that was on page 12 is now on page 16.
The Rapidshare link should be the same, so report it to Rapidshare.
yes but it will be a neverending cat & mouse game.
what we need is SS, IS, Getty, Corbis, making some legal move in order to shut down these sites.
besides, what's the point in asking rapidshare to take down the files.
THEY are actually hosting pirated/warezed content, why should they ever get out
as innocent "middleman" ?
Rapidshare is a german based company, in the EU we have clear laws about IP
infringment, and judging from the recent lawsuits against YouTube the ones
hosting illegal contents are even more guilty than the guys simply providing links.
I agree but I feel I must do something rather than nothing at all. According to whois, the nameserver for this company is www.enom.com (I think). I sent them a DMCA notice, too. It's kind of like shell corporations...you can never really get to the bottom of anything because it all disguised in another phony layer.
6519
« on: March 28, 2010, 12:49 »
As the pages of uploads increase every hour, it seems to shift all content around so your images may not be on the same page as they were a while ago. I sent an email to www.getvn.com and got a response back from [email protected]. It is just signed Admin. When you go to the DMCA notice at the bottom of the rapidshare pages and click the link, it takes you to a DCMA policy. There is a link in there that says Send the Written Infringement HERE. That opens up a form that goes to Admin. Apparently getvn is rapidshare. This is so phony I cannot believe people can get away with this stuff. Very frustrating, that's for sure. EDIT: After providing a screenshot of my image on the page, I received an email back from the above saying it has been removed. After searching pg 16 and a few before and after, I do not see it. But they are definitely shuffling content all the time. What is on page 1 right now is not what was there this morning. In fact, right now, there is an image pack with Dreamstime's logo on it.
6520
« on: March 28, 2010, 11:49 »
sean locke is, and as far as I know always has been, exclusive with istockphoto. His images can ONLY be downloaded from istock. He is not participating in Thinkstock, as far as I know. Yet his images are there with a shutterstock watermark!
I can't seem to find this one with an SS mark. Can you link me to it again?
lisafx found it Friday, Sean, and today I discovered they have all moved around. My image was on page 12 and now is on 16 so maybe yours has moved too?
6521
« on: March 28, 2010, 10:33 »
Well, if the stock sites aren't doing anything about this ,than maybe it is pointless. How can you stop it? I went through the first 10 pages and found a bunch of my images, not about to start emailing everyone, would take forever. They would probably just show me the finger anyway. Best solution is to protect your future and don't sell Subs, or live with it ,because it's not going to stop unless the sites get involved. Not even sure if that will help.
I emailed several people, took about 1/2 hour of my time. If you found a bunch of images, think of the lost revenue you are suffering because of this. Sure, they will ALL show us the finger, that's what thieves do.
Please stop pointing the finger at the subs on this! I don't know why everybody is accusing subs...that's not the only problem. There are MANY pages with Getty watermark, brand x watermark, veer watermark, istockphoto watermark...sean locke is, and as far as I know always has been, exclusive with istockphoto. His images can ONLY be downloaded from istock. He is not participating in Thinkstock, as far as I know. Yet his images are there with a shutterstock watermark! This affects every single site and every single contributor!
And the sites ARE involved. And you don't even have to draft the letters! They have been written for you. Many can be found on this forum. All you have to do is provide the link of your stolen image and the link to your copyrighted image. Do you know the saying "it takes a village to raise a child?" It takes a village to get something to change. We all need to help each other on this. I sound like a cheerleader. 
6522
« on: March 28, 2010, 10:22 »
IMPORTANT: the images have not been taken down, the order has just been shifted. I just found my image that was on page 12 is now on page 16. The Rapidshare link should be the same, so report it to Rapidshare.
Done. Sent to several different admins at rapidshare. Sent to the ISP hosting their domain. Sent to istockphoto, shutterstock and dreamstime. They ARE involved.
6523
« on: March 28, 2010, 08:07 »
IMPORTANT: the images have not been taken down, the order has just been shifted. I just found my image that was on page 12 is now on page 16.
6524
« on: March 27, 2010, 15:07 »
I just started at pg 793 and worked backwards to pg 777. In those pages I saw packs with photodisc, veerfancyfresh, digital vision getty, getty, shutterstock, inmagine and brandx watermarks. Just incredible.
6525
« on: March 27, 2010, 14:55 »
If he has an exclusive image at Fotolia and the same image at DT, he is still violating the exclusivity terms. If it is just one or two images, it could be just a mistake, as in he forgot he marked an image exclusive and then accidentally uploaded it somewhere else. If it's a bunch of images, then I'm guessing intentional.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
