|
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
7001
« on: October 31, 2009, 07:36 »
The Mac OS ( based on Unix) is purpose built to run on the Apple architecture.
This makes them inherently more stable and faster.
For me, that is the REAL advantage.
7002
« on: October 30, 2009, 16:50 »
This is good news for me, as I submit to DT and not FT.
7003
« on: October 30, 2009, 15:39 »
WarrenPrice, in all fairness, IS does the same thing. Approach touchy subjects and the threads get locked or disappear.
I am hoping that they are reconsidering their position on this whole thing. I really don't get what the big deal is from DT's point of view is. Most people aren't disputing the free section. They can have it, they just need to make it voluntary and NOT mandatory. I personally don't believe it works, but if others think it does and they want to participate, I'm ok with that.
Did they think they were going to be able to just take our images and give them away for free? what?
Frankly, I am so tired of all the bullying from credit card companies, employers, banks, etc. etc. (and now the microstock companies are going to try to intimidate their contributors?) but that is another rant for another forum.
edit: this is funny. I typed double-u tee eff with a question mark (the letters, not the whole words) and it automatically changed that to "what?" LOL.
7004
« on: October 30, 2009, 15:14 »
Ha! That's funny.
I just got a response on sitemail from Achilles.
The page you're asking about is available only to members who have images that qualify (4 years old, no downloads).
I can't see such page because I only started uploading there in 03/06 so none of my images are over 4 years old. He did neglect to answer the question for everyone else, though, who DO have images over four years. I suppose if you have images over 4 years old that are going to be donated, you will be able to easily find the page?
Seems like it's a sore point with them right now, as it should be.
7005
« on: October 30, 2009, 15:01 »
The sites that have free images are doing well and there is no sign that buyers are using the free images instead of buying, I don't see why that should change now.
As mentioned above, DT is a successful site. If they think a free area is good for business, that's ok by me. I STILL don't want them taking my images without my permission and giving them away. That's just wrong.
It was either in this thread or the thread that got locked on the DT forum where a poster kept saying how we should all support this free image section because after all, they inspect our photos for free, blah, blah, blah. It bothered me that the poster thinks that DT is inspecting FOR FREE and out of the goodness of their heart and we should in turn be willing to give up stuff for free. They don't inspect our images for free...they get paid a huge percent of the sale for that! Inspecting is a cost of doing business for them...they don't do it for free! I couldn't believe somebody actually said that!
7006
« on: October 30, 2009, 13:12 »
I created a new thread on the DT forum, asking where that specifically is located. I'll post any response.
7007
« on: October 30, 2009, 13:08 »
10/20 was my last on-demand download but most of my sales are subscription anyway. Since the announcement of SS buying BigStock, my sales at BigStock have been really slow. SS earnings are normal though.
7008
« on: October 30, 2009, 12:58 »
Message posted at 10/29/2009, 10:07:44 AM by Sid - member is an admin
There's a new option in the selection page where you can set your default to disable instead of donating the image to the free section. Whatever you choose as default will carry on to your future unattended images.
I read through the thread on the DT forum and the above was posted. I'm a little unclear as to where EXACTLY I can find this option so that I can change it to disable, not donate. Can someone please explain exactly where it is? I've looked in the management area. When he says "selection page" I went to my online files and don't see anything there. I looked on My Profile page...I couldn't find where Achilles said specifically how we go about setting to disable instead of donate.
Does anyone know and can you please share?
7009
« on: October 27, 2009, 18:28 »
That's only partly true. What you should have said was that you can't sell RF from your own website. You're free to sell RM or prints from your own website. But if you sell RF photos as an exclusive on IS, I'm pretty sure you can't sell that same photo anywhere else, RF or RM. That means you must have other images to sell RM and prints. Correct me if I'm wrong.
7010
« on: October 27, 2009, 07:54 »
I hope they get this ironed out quickly. I most definitely don't want my images to go to the free section and yes, the default should be that they get removed and if you want to donate to free section, you take action.
7011
« on: October 26, 2009, 07:11 »
Quote from: cclapper on Yesterday at 11:23
That doesn't excuse bad spelling and grammar for those born, raised and educated in the US. I forgive the rest of the world, you all have made an outstanding effort to learn English.
So you forgive the British? Grin
Or Canadian? Grin
I think you all get the drift. You know who you are. If the shoe fits...
7012
« on: October 26, 2009, 07:10 »
Quote from: cclapper on Yesterday at 11:23
That doesn't excuse bad spelling and grammar for those born, raised and educated in the US. I forgive the rest of the world, you all have made an outstanding effort to learn English.
So you forgive the British? Grin
Or Canadian? Grin
I think you all get the drift. You know who you are. If the shoe fits...
7013
« on: October 26, 2009, 07:10 »
Quote from: cclapper on Yesterday at 11:23
That doesn't excuse bad spelling and grammar for those born, raised and educated in the US. I forgive the rest of the world, you all have made an outstanding effort to learn English.
So you forgive the British? Grin
Or Canadian? Grin
I think you all get the drift. You know who you are. If the shoe fits...
7014
« on: October 26, 2009, 07:09 »
Quote from: cclapper on Yesterday at 11:23
That doesn't excuse bad spelling and grammar for those born, raised and educated in the US. I forgive the rest of the world, you all have made an outstanding effort to learn English.
So you forgive the British? Grin
Or Canadian? Grin
I think you all get the drift.
7015
« on: October 25, 2009, 11:23 »
And I guess I don't care that I can still read that paragraph with all the misspelled words. That doesn't excuse bad spelling and grammar for those born, raised and educated in the US. I forgive the rest of the world, you all have made an outstanding effort to learn English. It's pretty sad when I need an interpreter to read what my own sister types. So put me down as a whiner about bad spelling and grammar. 
7016
« on: October 24, 2009, 14:22 »
Eireann,
Andrea...good for you. Misery loves company! For me, it just seemed the right thing to do. I try to stay positive and use the time to further my photography and website building skills.
Sorry, didn't mean to derail the topic, though my point was kind of relevant.
Hope the FT thing all gets sorted out.
7017
« on: October 24, 2009, 09:59 »
Thanks for your support, Eireann, but... you are never wrong. Not ever. That just isn't true! Right now, it seems like I have been wrong a lot.  But I also agree with holgs... While this post is surely not going to make me popular at FT, I'm really not one to be bullied or cowered by the suggestion that I'll be disadvantaged because I speak my mind.I never want to burn any bridges anywhere, but I am also not a person who would let this sort of abuse go. Regarding my ex-employer, I took action the only place I could and that was on the internet, in public. Of course they threatened legal action, but that would mean they would have to prove their side of the matter, which means their bookkeeping practices would be scrutinized. So far, no legal action. Their idea is to rule with fear. Read up on dictators and you get the idea. Seems like big business is. Eireann, if you are a contributor to FT and a call goes out for support, you could help by supporting but you must also be ready to suffer any consequences. edit: by the way, I resigned from my former job. The other employees affected resigned or were laid off. Just so you understand none of us were fired because we did something wrong.
7018
« on: October 24, 2009, 07:52 »
understand your frustration mate but leave it out, for your own good. You'll get nowhere and all you to stand to 'gain' is to get kicked out of FT. Potentially very expensive in the long run unless you are going ex with IS.
I'm not a contributor to FT, but on a matter related to this whole thing...
My last employer did not pay me for the last 5-1/2 days I worked. This was done to several other people also. Once we left their employ, they said that the pay periods that were written on our checks were wrong. They verbally changed the pay periods so that, conveniently, they contend they didn't have to pay us because we'd already been paid. The amount is too little to sue over. The state will only collect minimum wage. In essence, they can get away with it. The only recourse would be for all the employees to walk out and halt any production but you can be sure that isn't going to happen now. Everyone is quaking in their boots about a job and is willing to take the abuse just to keep bringing home their paycheck.
The similarities are that these companies know exactly what they can get away with. Big business today is all about making sure the people at the top can keep their 5 vacations to Europe a year (or wherever) and their 3 homes and their Rolls Royces. Screw the people at the bottom who actually do the work. They know what they can get away with and they do everything they can to swing the advantage their way. They have planned for the collateral damage and consider it an acceptable risk.
OK, rant over. But the point is, I'm pretty sure FT has thought about all the consequences to what they are doing and have determined that the monetary gain far outweighs any number of small potatoes they might lose.
If enough contributors get together on this, you can make a difference. I watched it happen once before here on microstock. I think it's pretty wrong that they are stomping on current contributors to swing some big fish their way, but frankly, it doesn't surprise me. Look for a lot more of this to happen as the economy stays in the toilet.
I hope I'm wrong about FT and I would be happy to see them change their heart...
7019
« on: October 23, 2009, 17:51 »
Knew DT did - just wast sure of the others. I'll get one to be on the safe side.
That is always the best practice. You cover yourself legally, too.
7020
« on: October 23, 2009, 12:47 »
If you are uploading to IS, yes, you need a release for any person that is in a photo, whether you can see their face or not. Other sites might not be as picky, you should investigate each site (ask on their forum) or maybe others will jump in here with specifics on each site.
7021
« on: October 22, 2009, 13:07 »
I, too, remembered that it went live a month or so ago, and was confused by the OP. I just checked my member page and my port does indeed come up when clicking the link. And since that link went live, I have only had 2 total sales so far, so apparently, for me, it didn't make a bit of difference.
7022
« on: October 22, 2009, 13:01 »
^^ 
7023
« on: October 22, 2009, 09:33 »
or is iofoto raking in enough yearly income to steadily get a return on that 600 grand investment without having to contribute anymore, and focus his attentions to macro stuff?
I can see where contributors with huge ports would send some stuff over to micro just to use as their mortgage payment money while pursuing bigger fish. Doesn't necessarily mean micro isn't cost effective (I'm not saying it isn't cost effective, because I don't think it is). Just depends on your motivation for getting into micro in the first place. It's cost effective if it serves your purpose is what I'm trying to say.
In my business (another lifetime ago) I used to take jobs with a very low profit margin just to pay the bills, while concentrating efforts on the big accounts to make the profit.
7024
« on: October 21, 2009, 20:09 »
And notice this caveat:
Some conditions apply: images are subject to approval. The minimum 1,000 images uploaded to Fotolia must currently be for sale either online or in-studio.
So if I have 1,000 photos on other sites that have already been approved, possibly by more than one site, and are making money, and they want to entice me to join their site, why on earth would they run all of those images back through the approval process with the possibility of rejecting some? That seems like a huge waste of time, unless that's the loophole to get them out of giving tons of new members gold status right off the bat.
7025
« on: October 21, 2009, 19:55 »
Quite frankly exclusivity with IS just got a whole lot more attractive. At least you know where you stand with IS and can have a reasonable expectation of being treated fairly.
I respectfully disagree. I think exclusivity would be the last thing I would consider now. With everything so volatile and companies being devoured by bigger companies, the last place I would want to be is exclusive with the last man standing. If there's no competition, there's bound to be a lot more abuse of the contributors. They won't have the choice of taking their toys to another sandbox if they're being bullied. Just my take. And hopefully we won't ever have to worry about that.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
