|
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 - stormchaser
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 22
76
« on: January 28, 2012, 14:28 »
Model and property releases are a distinct issue from copyright issues however. Yes too bad they don't know the distinction. The impression I get from the Envato people through all this is that "Hey, we're just going to keep doing it." That's pretty pompous. Well they won't have such a casual attitude when Getty comes knocking.
77
« on: January 28, 2012, 14:22 »
Crabs, roulette and red christmas tag. I would buy the crabs myself, but I don't buy at iStuck anymore.
78
« on: January 28, 2012, 14:19 »
But with their extremely easy upload process for vectors, don't you think it's still worthwhile to submit?
Really. It's not like you have to do any work there except get your IPTC input on the image. Maybe some would like to sit and pick categories all day.
79
« on: January 28, 2012, 04:02 »
With you people I guess you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. See the message here: http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/is-hits-rock-bottom/msg193173/#msg193173Ok so now they've done it (offered tiered pricing) and you're still not happy. You can keep slumming on photogloom or grovel for 12 cents on istock. It's all your choice. In my opinion the sizing will attract a new buyer demographic, and you have to give the new model more than 3 days before you go stamping your feet and crying Woe Is Me.
80
« on: January 27, 2012, 11:17 »
Excellent points and questions Click.
Yeah, Disney no one to fool with. They go after grandmothers who sell Minnie Mouse dolls at flea markets.
The images are being used by those who don't care to create or legally procure their own in order to increased Perceived Value, which of course can be sometime much different than the actual value.
81
« on: January 26, 2012, 16:16 »
Envato may as well just shut the house down, because almost everything people have pointed to is ripe for pending lawsuit.
This is my biggest concern (as a GR author), these copyright violations all come from 2 categories - Print templates (mostly flyers) and Add-ons (mostly Photoshop actions).
I almost exclusively publish web elements, where everything is made from scratch in Photoshop so there is never any issue of copyright, so solutions like this would really hurt me...... It's all a bit of a nightmare really.
While that's quite understandable in your case, it doesn't excuse the agent. Ultimately they are responsible for this. Asking contributors to police themselves though is quite the joke. They will do one or two, or all of the following: Ignore the agent Play dumb and claim they didn't get the notice Keep doing it anyway You would think that if people are of legal age to enter into a contract with the agent they would understand the rules, but they don't and in many cases especially in the 18 yr old bracket as mentioned, don't even read the TOS agreement. Good luck to you whatever happens.
82
« on: January 26, 2012, 14:42 »
Isn't this that Puffy Diddy Do Daddy guy? http://graphicriver.net/item/players-club-flyer-template/797602Sorry I don't follow popular music that much. When it comes to a case like this, it's not even the issue of using a stock photo. Things like Rights to Publicity and endorsement come into play, especially if a buyer was uneducated and actually used that image. Envato may as well just shut the house down, because almost everything people have pointed to is ripe for pending lawsuit.
83
« on: January 26, 2012, 08:50 »
Welll duh, why not have a member of staff that knows what they are talking about actually state You need a commercial license to use other people's images in your previews Because they're making small gobs of money with them. Yeah the little productions are slick, but they sure would be using other people's images and characters. Get a camera, shoot the images yourself, then call yourself an "Artist". Of course the real trick would be shooting an image of John Lennon. I'm not a member there and if I was I would post his over there. Image misuse, or in this case downright flagrant theft of intellectual property, simply annoys me. Signs of true amateurs. And the Youtube excuse, yeah that's a lot of crap too and that doesn't wash anymore.
84
« on: January 26, 2012, 06:38 »
http://graphicriver.net/forums/thread/an-appeal-to-gr-authors/58116?page=1
Just seen that another member has now bought the same thing up on their forum. Again with very disappointing lack of clarification from the site and a misinformed moderator muddying the water:
Quote
"The responsibility of copyrighted materials within items is left up to the individual author, the movie companies / vodka companies would need to send in a DMCA .
A lot of stock is only used for preview purposes anyway and not being sold."
The issue isn't the resale of the images, it is the commercial use of them without license or permission.
ETA also, in the end is the content posted by authors? or is it actually posted by reviewers?
That's horse hockey (envato's statement) and everyone with a professional publishing background knows it.
85
« on: January 24, 2012, 22:51 »
86
« on: January 21, 2012, 22:26 »
2. Regardless of #1 still doesn't care about Getty Images watermarks used for a commercial product. That's a no-brainer.
Yeah Getty has a big problem with watermarked stuff being used for comps that go live on the web and they have a team of venomous henchmen that hunt people like this down. Link: http://cliffordmillerlaw.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/the-getty-images-rip-off-you-copyright-the-law/A friend of mine who is a graphic designer got caught up in this (not this particular reference, but the Getty scam as a whole) - she used a comp image of a muffin or something - client posted to the web in a sort of hidden folder and forgot about it - Getty mafia found it. It's still bouncing back and forth amongst lawyers. Getty wants something like $2000 for use of the comp image, Boy they would have a small gold mine on graphicriver.
87
« on: January 21, 2012, 07:29 »
Microbius, While the item you originally linked has been removed, I ran across this one http://graphicriver.net/item/advance-comics-publication-bundle/1180517?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=mrcharlesbrownHmmm, and 10 sales. Because this infringes this infringes on Marvel Comics and the John Lennon estate, I wonder if commissions will be withdrawn from he seller's account? From the Graphic River TOS http://graphicriver.net/wiki/support/legal-terms/legal-user-terms-and-conditions/
We respect the intellectual property rights of others, and require that those people who use the Sites, or the services or features made available on or through the Sites, do the same.I call BS here. Look down the page. Sean Connery, MTV. What a load of crap.
88
« on: January 11, 2012, 18:35 »
If you put about 50 of them in one file, then maybe.
89
« on: December 30, 2011, 21:11 »
I just found a few that belong to someone I know. I will notify him.
So, if you guys have Flicker accounts why not just comment "Thief This Is Not Your Image" because that will attract attention if Flickr juts lollygags around in their usual do nothing style. Yet they are quick to suspend accounts of people who have done nothing wrong.
90
« on: December 16, 2011, 21:54 »
I was on the old StockXpert and knocked down $125 a month there on a regular basis. Yet when it came to the new SF site, they let me hang for several months awaiting their lofty stamp of approval. I just said screw it when the acceptance finally came and didn't even bother to submit. I had applied as soon as the opening was announced.
No worries. I do less and less micro stuff these days and have found much greener pastures.
92
« on: December 10, 2011, 01:03 »
Also check the memory card, it might be faulty. I don't think you can recover this image, you got the first case right because it's the embedded jpeg from NEF file.
Agreed here
93
« on: December 01, 2011, 11:15 »
Someone asked me the other day if there was a DSLR with Instagram on it. I kid you not. Nuff said.
94
« on: November 17, 2011, 08:15 »
...Landscapes,insects,waterfalls/water sources-lakes,ponds,birds,animals...weather (etc)
but problem for me is..i prefer these kinds of photographs...
+1 to what jsnover said.
You shoot for the market, not what you like. Otherwise time to consider other options. What do you think my client would do if they wanted an image of a woman cooking but I gave them my favorite landscape instead? In the world of stock and paid clients, this is the way it works unless your nature skills are stellar and can't be matched by others.
95
« on: October 22, 2011, 16:46 »
Well so far I haven't found any "great" photography. Just stuff someone unloaded off their hard drive. Tried to find license info on this pic http://alpha.thepicturepod.com/details/177/withgrandadAll I really get is your T&C which includes this statement, literally All Content is licensed subject to The Picture Pod Content Licence the latest version of which can be found at [link]. Also is the image model released? Hitting the Buy link takes me right to Paypal. So I'm buying a pic with no known pixel dimensions? Or even a valid description? I'm going to say you have a lot of work to do.
96
« on: October 21, 2011, 02:43 »
I see you can play jenga with it if you get bored of the thumbnail size pictures. : ) Despite that I bet it will be a lot of fun, and all bloggers or even semi serious online news repoters will get one.
Their terms and conditions state no commercial use without their permission. It's a consumer toy. See the Thom Hogan blog.
97
« on: October 16, 2011, 04:50 »
If there is any charging for the forum, don't expect to see any agency people here again.
As far as a "private area" isn't there already a member's only area? Really, privacy? For what? Are there some holy secrets that are meant for certain eyes only?
As far as a gear talk area etc, well you see how many replies of value are posted when someone asks a legitimate gear question - not that many.
My suggestion is put a Complain button on the posts and if someone is offended or has got their nose out of joint about something, a click notifies the moderator. Or implement a 3 strikes rule and flag the IPs. Even persistent Complain button pushers could get warned.
As they say "stop feeding the trolls" yet some just keep doing it. Flamebait isn't even fun anymore. Ignore it and the morons will just keep posting to their own audience. And the thread will die its own timely death. Some just can't keep their finger off the trigger though. The quality of the forum can only be maintained if the members themselves aspire to something better instead of engaging in childish games.
98
« on: October 14, 2011, 15:50 »
any more contributor humiliation
That's an apt phrase. I pulled out of FO last year. Just really wasn't worth the space on the spreadsheet. I do have a couple of micro friends that are still on, and some of the rejections they get there are absurd.
99
« on: October 07, 2011, 23:01 »
Why would nikon release a full frame that dwarfs their own flagship (d3x) in resolution, shooting full HD video and at a better price?
Whose to say they aren't planning an upgrade to the d3x. 36Mp does seem a bit over the top to be believed though.
You won't see that until spring 2012
100
« on: October 06, 2011, 00:54 »
At the very cheap end, I worked quite well with a couple of Midi Flash optical slave units in my early days. They cost virtually nothing but there is no control over output so you have to use distance and ISO to manage the light.
I still have my very old midis and still use them. Great for little fill lights when doing interiors. I stick them behind furniture to open up dead walls and if needed tape on a piece of white thin paper to tone them down. They are fantastic as little gel lights too and back when it was all I had used them in a small homemade softbox.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 22
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
