|
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 - Sean Locke Photography
6801
« on: June 28, 2009, 07:38 »
You should probably hire a copywriter. This doesn't read well, and some of the sentences aren't even sentences: "Pixamba is for color, freshness and creativity. We deliver digital vitamins for design and advertising projects. Our high resolution stock photos and illustrations are everywhere, used online on thousands web sites, in digital documents, presentations, brochures, welcomed by publishing houses and magazines, adopted in packagings designs and merchandize. Hundreds thousands hi-res images available online at Pixamba worth more than thousands words. These are milllions of words and a zillion of new concepts and inspirations, all at one low price. " Also, you may want to be more careful of images like this: http://www.pixamba.com/beim-doc-business-medicine-stockphotos-236771.html which may be illegal in some countries. What country are you marketing to? Your splash is in English, but images are titled "Frau legt Geschenk unter Weihnachtsbaum" and the like. I don't know what that means. I don't see anything at all in your legal about the terms of the licensing agreement: http://www.pixamba.com/legal.html ie. what the images can be used for. You have a little bit here: http://www.pixamba.com/prices.html , but that is an info page, not any kind of contract. I would be wary of submitting anything to this site until your legal work is up to speed.
6802
« on: June 26, 2009, 21:51 »
Yes, a square thumbnail would use more of the available thumbnail pixels, but since we all use non-square camera sensors, it would have to be cropped from the rectangle, and for the most part, I think (composition willing) it's better to give the buyer more information then less, and then they can create their copy space where they like.
6803
« on: June 26, 2009, 11:48 »
This is a very expensive system to outright purchase. It looks like you hire an outside shooter with the equipment and just direct. Is that the case?
6804
« on: June 26, 2009, 11:25 »
Look, we've already discussed this here. You can probably find the thread if you search. I have an article somewhere on my blog about value for the money about just this. There is nothing illegal about it. It is up to the seller as to whether they find it ethical or not.
Oh, and you may certainly sell something RM after it was RF. However, the added option of image history or exclusivity would not be available.
6805
« on: June 24, 2009, 07:43 »
In case you hadn't heard yet, iStock announced its (formerly known as "Premiere"  ) Vetta collection this morning of 35,000 higher priced hot shot style images. http://www.istockphoto.com/vetta.php
6806
« on: June 23, 2009, 16:39 »
You'll have to find some time and patience at this point.
6807
« on: June 23, 2009, 10:34 »
Can I have one for my tupperware business?
LOL, why, are you gonna start making official Tupperware announcements that might be called into question?
Oh, you know, claims that a Salad Bowl Itm 446, works great as a flash diffuser.
6808
« on: June 22, 2009, 22:34 »
Can I have one for my tupperware business?
6809
« on: June 22, 2009, 11:21 »
Without the full size, complaining is pretty useless. However, I can see the banding in the thumb, and here, I've pushed it for you, so you can see it too. 
6810
« on: June 19, 2009, 21:53 »
I must say that I don't feel ok to charge US$100 for a small modification in an image that I am selling for US$10 or so, unless this is a complicate modification.
It's an hour of my time at least. Find the file, open it, change the shaders, run the long render, process it for meta data, etc.... I'm not here at their beck and call for cheap.
6811
« on: June 19, 2009, 15:54 »
Florida has other taxes you're supposed to pay, but probably don't. I remember something about being supposed to list investments and having to pay taxes just for having them.
I'd like to know how they would know how much. "the only thing I bought was a lens cap".
6812
« on: June 19, 2009, 07:19 »
I normally ask $100 or so. Get the money first. These type of requests always flake and you never hear from them again.
6813
« on: June 18, 2009, 21:10 »
ou have to go to the image page. You can't do it from your details page.
I did that, did not see anything for deleting or deactivating my image. Just so I am understanding, click on one of the images from the details page right? The same way you would edit an image, change the keywords or categories, correct? Where the heck is the delete button?
No, not the edit page. The image page.
6814
« on: June 17, 2009, 22:07 »
Seriously, that's all I thought of when I heard the bing.com name. That's the best they can come up with?
6815
« on: June 17, 2009, 21:19 »
Bing? That's this guy, right? Chandler Bing? 
6816
« on: June 17, 2009, 19:49 »
No, I was expecting the strong minded exclusives to form a coalition to migrate en masse out of exclusivity in protest to show their disapproval to Getty's heavy handedness. If that doesn't move Getty to retract their action, it would at least shift the power with a great number of strong portfolios being made available elsewhere.
Shaking the tree that buyers would move elsewhere too, but Getty knows none of these strong hearts would dare move a muscle like this. NATO.
Sorry, I'm opting out at this point. I don't see anything huge to protest over right now. Either you want to participate or you don't.
6817
« on: June 17, 2009, 12:29 »
Unless the lingerie was designed and sewn by the store, a PR from the store is irrelevent.
Everything is designed and produced by someone, whether it is Walmart or Fredericks. The question is more, does it really stand out as the subject of the image and how recognizable is it as a product of said company, also, how litigious has the company shown to be in the past?
6818
« on: June 16, 2009, 10:21 »
Yep. You can't have your cake and eat it too,
6819
« on: June 15, 2009, 14:27 »
That reads like they want to shut down StockXpert.
6820
« on: June 15, 2009, 14:17 »
Ah, yes. Well, I only looked at the smaller version. Poking about I can see the wrinkles in the sheet in the larger version. If you can clean those up. It was mostly the color I liked.
6821
« on: June 15, 2009, 13:44 »
I like it. The grey works for me.
6823
« on: June 14, 2009, 09:10 »
Sean, have you never had a Limited Commercial Value reject?
Ah, thanks! Yes, the occasional one with 3d work or other illustrations they think are too simple.
6824
« on: June 13, 2009, 20:12 »
After looking at Jonathan Ross' talk it's obvious that those images are available, but at RM prices.
That was my impression about Avava's presentation too. He has a lot of very creative and wonderful stuff and I wondered if it would pass the LCV barrier of microstock.
LCV?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
