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
6926
« on: December 11, 2009, 07:51 »
Typically I'm busy with family and the holidays anyway so I have a natural inclination to not upload until mid-January. But if I did have images ready to upload, I think I would do so. I feel like sharpshot does...they don't make any money sitting on my computer. And even if they get buried in a search, there's still a chance I could sell something because they are in a lightbox, etc. There's absolutely no chance of a sale on my computer.
6927
« on: December 10, 2009, 14:36 »
more of a testing the waters scenario They're taking a page from politicians...run it up the flagpole and see if it flys. If the masses revolt, give something back to them and look like the hero. Psychology 101.
6928
« on: December 10, 2009, 14:33 »
And in the spirit of constructive criticism, the angle of the hammer should have been turned. It's hard to tell that it is a hammer at all. As a buyer, I can see where both images would be useful, but the execution of FD-amateurs shot is just far better.
6929
« on: December 10, 2009, 12:09 »
FD-amateur: your hammer guy is better, IMHO for what it's worth.
6930
« on: December 10, 2009, 08:36 »
That's incredible. I can see why people might be freaked out. The spiral pattern is so consistent.
6931
« on: December 09, 2009, 18:00 »
The reality of those sites (and I'm a RedBubble member) is that very few artists make any significant money. How often have I seen someone post 'Thanks to whoever bought a card (or a Tee)'? A dollar or two. Occasionally. There's no way these people would (or could) pay $100s for ELs. Of course they shouldn't be trying to sell their composites without an EL but most people here can understand the thrill of an occasional sale, even if it is a pittance. Stealing is stealing, doesn't matter if they only made $1.00 or $1000.00. I'll use your logic the next time I go to the grocery store. "I don't have a job now and hardly make any money at all at microstock, so you won't mind if I just take this $2.00 candy bar, right?" Not! If they can't afford $100s for an EL, then they will need to use their creative talent and come up with their own way to get source material. Stealing from others is NOT the right thing to do. I do realize some people are clueless about licenses, but we all know there are others that deliberately help themselves to whatever they can get, right or wrong.
6932
« on: December 09, 2009, 17:50 »
I think wiseguy is trying to say that the agency took his photos down while they do more investigating. The agency doesn't think he copied, but they must do the investigating before making any decisions.
This topic comes up every couple of months. We are all human beings, experiencing relatively the same events in the same world. Sure, some are more creative than others, but for the most part, a lot of contributors are going to shoot the same thing someone else has already shot, just by accident, not because they copied.
I see stuff pass through the queue all the time that looks pretty much exactly like something in my port. Nothing I can do about it. Keep shooting, try to be more creative, use backgrounds/fabrics/props/models that bring a different look to the photo.
Without seeing wiseguys' photo and the one this photographer claims he copied, I would never be able to make a decision or take sides.
6933
« on: December 09, 2009, 17:39 »
Why don't they do what they would really like to and make IS exclusive only? It's clear to me that they have been on the path to exclusive only ever since Getty bought the company. Every move they have made leads in that direction and they haven't come right out and done it in one swoop because financially it makes better sense to do exactly what they are doing. But one way or another you can believe that that is the final goal.
6934
« on: December 08, 2009, 17:13 »
Maybe companies are cracking down on designers...making them return any photos they didn't use for a project.
6935
« on: December 08, 2009, 17:11 »
Base: 1 - 499 Bronze: 500 - 4,999 Silver: 5,000 - 19,000 Gold: 20,000 - 49,000 Diamond: 50,000 - 399,000 Black Diamond: 400,000 +
Current contributors will be grandfathered in to their existing levels. So if you have 15,000 downloads when the change happens, you will remain at your gold canister for the purposes of upload limits and Exclusive royalties. No contributor will drop a level. We are aiming to make these changes on February 24, 2010.
I am currently at a gold canister with 13024 downloads. I don't understand what he means when he says "So if you have 15,000 downloads when the change happens, you will remain at your gold canister for the purposes of upload limits and Exclusive royalties". What about non-exclusives? Gold used to start at 10,000 downloads. so when he says no contributor will drop a level, I will still be a gold, correct? Little confusing, to me anyway.
6936
« on: December 08, 2009, 14:23 »
"I don't need as many downloads now to make a payout" and voil, you get less downloads because that thought has turned into a reality. The power of negative thinking!
6937
« on: December 08, 2009, 10:00 »
typical ebb and flow
6938
« on: December 06, 2009, 07:44 »
Until then you are probably better off expending the time & energy into producing more stock than chasing the tails of these hobbyists. If the person is a hobbyist, that is one thing. They can use anything they want to express their artistic inclinations. As soon as they start selling the image and saying they own the copyright, they are violating the terms of the license of the original image. In order for someone to claim copyright to a work such as whitechild posted, it was my understanding they had to own the copyright to ALL of the elements in the photo. If it turns out a person can take my image, make a minor modification and RESELL that image as their own, I am going to have to investigate all of the contributors agreements again. I thought I read them carefully, but I never understood that THAT was ok to do. Altering an image and using it on a printed piece or putting it on a website is what I understood the license to cover. Just because this person has never sold that image does not make it right that she is offering it for sale. That's like saying someone only walked into a store and stole a 5 cent piece of candy. It's still stealing, even if it was only worth 5 cents!
6939
« on: December 04, 2009, 13:41 »
Yay, we're back!
6940
« on: December 02, 2009, 11:19 »
If a buyer wants to get a photo for free and don't care about having a valid license for it, paying a license and then asking for a refund is definitively not the safest and most efficient way to proceed Valid point, and I think for the most part, people are honorable. By the same token, I don't wear rose-colored glasses. There are always a few cheaters in the crowd. Just like cheater contributors, there are cheater buyers. In the four years I have been contributing, I can count on one hand the number of times this has happened to me. I'll take those odds any day! (Hope I just didn't jinx it.) In a horrible economy, I think we can all expect things like this to happen more and more. But it's still stealing, and the bad economy is no excuse, though some are sure using it as one. Including big business.
6941
« on: December 02, 2009, 08:10 »
Basically, you're screwed. The only guarantee is the honor system, and we all know how that works. Hopefully, people are honorable...
6942
« on: December 01, 2009, 08:29 »
I wondered. Was supposed to get a payout yesterday.
6943
« on: December 01, 2009, 08:27 »
I have only had 3 sales there since August. I am trying to get my account closed as we speak.
6944
« on: November 26, 2009, 11:37 »
"Buying" of the company usually means they have the same name at the line of CEO but doesn't mean the same database, inspectors and politics of acceptance. That's how I understood it, too. For now, I think they are still two separate companies.
6945
« on: November 24, 2009, 12:32 »
I believe the microstock licenses pertain to print runs, not circulation. But the circulation numbers can give you an idea of print runs. BIG!
6946
« on: November 24, 2009, 08:14 »
What do you think is the situation when the same image is purchased on the same day, same license, size, etc., multiple times but by different agencies? Coincidence. How do you know it is being purchased by different agencies? As far as I know, microstock doesn't provide the buyers names or information like that. But... If a contributor is non-exclusive and uploads to multiple sites, a buyer can buy a photo on one site, the same photo on another site and a third from yet another site and triple their print run etc. usage, thereby having to spend less $ than buying an EL. So if you sold the exact same image on multiple sites on the same day, that could explain it.
6947
« on: November 23, 2009, 14:52 »
Yay, I'm in the top 25% on both places.
6948
« on: November 23, 2009, 07:45 »
however, there's always small claims court.
Unless something has changed drastically in the last few years, this is an even bigger waste of time. I've been through small claims court. Even when you are right, have all the documentation, the other party doesn't show up and you get a ruling in your favor, the next step is to track the person down and actually collect the money. At that point, there isn't much help from the court system. Sure, you can file the paperwork, but Vinny the Collector doesn't go over and get the money for you.
6949
« on: November 21, 2009, 16:06 »
I got three Jupiter sales today.
6950
« on: November 17, 2009, 09:03 »
OK thanks Leaf.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|