|
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 - Minsc
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 23
76
« on: May 13, 2019, 13:35 »
I have been all over Etsy reporting my images being sold illegally and I have also contacted several other stock artists when I found their work for sale.
I know of one seller that has probably had 30-40 successful copyright reports in the past week and they're still active and selling stolen digital files daily.
Although Etsy is quick to remove the listing when reported, it appears they will not take any action against the seller.
It's often difficult to find the copyright holder because their Shutterstock profile name doesn't match any other name online. Something to consider when selling stock, you may want to make it easier for people to find you.
Can you post a link to the shop? we may be able to find some of ours too.
Edit: Here's a couple of offenders worth also worth a look:
https://www.etsy.com/shop/BigSvgBundle?
almost 7000 sales in the last year or so, conservatively making 2-3 dollars per sale. Evey items seems to infringe someone's copyright.
https://www.etsy.com/shop/MetalClipart? lots of stuff I recognise in this one
https://www.etsy.com/shop/BestCutDesign?
Etsy's form for DMCA:
https://www.etsy.com/legal/ip/report
I'll add some more prolific offenders when I come across them
BigSVGBundle is one of the biggest snakes at Etsy. I think a lot of people have already reported her, but Etsy is still keeping her shop active. I wonder if notifying companies like Disney would get them to throw their weight around and get shops like these banned for good.
77
« on: May 11, 2019, 00:38 »
The more I look, the more I find. I've never see such a clusterfuck of copyright infringement on any website.
I found one of my images being sold by at least 20 shops. Every profile I go into, I find more infringement. It's one rabbit hole after another. A lot of these images are being spread by just a few people who sell bundles for cheap. If Etsy would ban a few of them, it would stop flow of copyright material by at least 50%.
I wish Disney, Marvel, DC, and HBO go after infringers on Etsy. There are literally hundreds of thousands of Disney items on sale, without Disney's permission. Maybe Disney see them as free advertisement for their brands so they don't even bother.
The whole Etsy submission system encourages copyright infringement. They don't review anything. Any buyer can list an item for cheap and it goes to the store instantly and every time Etsy list something, they make money. Every time something is sold, they make money. They have no incentive to after copyright infringers.
78
« on: May 06, 2019, 15:00 »
Maker
Best match to a Visionary.
79
« on: May 01, 2019, 12:46 »
Looks like a big holiday across Europe.
80
« on: April 19, 2019, 17:55 »
.
Regarding the Ansel Adams image, I would be careful about reporting that as copyright infringement.
I spoke to a young lady recently who worked on app that encourages people to follow Ansel Adams's footsteps and recreate his photos. This project was sponsored by Adams' relatives. This particular photo may have been the result of that.
While Adams own the original photo he took, he doesn't own the landscape. Unless the photo on SS is the exact same photo he took, I'm not sure SS is obligated to take it down. The composition is similar, but the lighting in the mountains is different and the clouds are different. It may not be original, but the contributor probably owns the photo.
Gotta imagine some parts of the landscape, tree placement, tree size, foliage, even the flow of the river, would look a little, if not dramatically different than it did in 1942 when Ansel Adams took that image. Not to mention the shadows, reflections, lighting, ripples in the water, etc. Unless this Shutterstock contributor took this image around 80 years ago and in the exact same spot at the exact same time of day, I'm not buying this theory. The Shutterstock image replaced the clouds from the Ansel Adams shot and darkened the rest.
Shutterstock should be ashamed of themselves for removing their forum thread about this, essentially condoning the theft.
Actually, the SS photo does belong to Adam: http://shop.anseladams.com/v/vspfiles/photos/1502016-2.jpgThere was no cloud replacement or alterations. Brasilnut compared the wrong image.
81
« on: April 19, 2019, 13:11 »
I recently found a person stealing much of my work and uploaded in his portfolio.
Having sent a DMCA to SS, they did took action but... but they only deleted the mentioned images which I complained for, the profile is still active.
I complained for about 10-12 images as a ref out of 100s and they only took action for complained images. I mentioned in the DMCA that the entire portfolio is full of copyrighted content.
Its little worrying that company don't respects artists.
Based on my own experience, they seem to have kind of strike rule. If 1 person submit a DMCA takedown letter against a contributor, SS usually take the images down. If 2 or more people submit DMCA takedown letters against the same contributor, they usually take the entire portfolio down.
82
« on: April 19, 2019, 13:07 »
.
Regarding the Ansel Adams image, I would be careful about reporting that as copyright infringement. I spoke to a young lady recently who worked on app that encourages people to follow Ansel Adams's footsteps and recreate his photos. This project was sponsored by Adams' relatives. This particular photo may have been the result of that. While Adams own the original photo he took, he doesn't own the landscape. Unless the photo on SS is the exact same photo he took, I'm not sure SS is obligated to take it down. The composition is similar, but the lighting in the mountains is different and the clouds are different. It may not be original, but the contributor probably owns the photo.
83
« on: April 05, 2019, 15:33 »
https://www.etsy.com/shop/RutaFoziSVG
See if your work is in this shop. This lady is a big time infringer.
Lucky me I don't make Vectors for her to steal. But please help someone who doesn't understand the art side. How does she copy others vectors to easily? Is this a matter of download a sample, make a SVG and upload or how is it so easy for people to do this?
There are numerous pirate sites they can download it from. I'm not going to link to them, but they're almost impossible to squash. The files are usually in EPS format, but it's a simple "Save As..." in illustrator if they want to to convert it to a SVG.
84
« on: April 05, 2019, 02:31 »
I don't think many vector artists design at a minimum of 4 megapixels. This is a bad change that's going to cause a lot of headaches for designers.
I like that I can reuse the same files for multiple agencies. This will force people to create a file just for SS and that's just more work.
86
« on: March 18, 2019, 19:44 »
You used to be able to do that manually on FT. I doubled the credit cost of all my best sellers.
I don't know what happened to that feature on AS.
87
« on: March 18, 2019, 18:22 »
No. You're basically taking other people's work and selling it.
You risk having your entire portfolio taken down.
88
« on: March 14, 2019, 13:07 »
I've reported my fair share of infringers over the years and the process has gotten slightly more complicated. I appreciate all the work you've done in getting all these infringers' portfolio taken down, but I think the few legit portfolios that was affected gave SS second thoughts about this process. It opened them to facing potential lawsuits. It just takes one to throw a spanner into the system and it blows up, and I think that's the case here.
I don't think anyone is happy with the new reporting process, but DMCA notices are probably the safest route for them. It protects them legally because the copyright holder that is filing the claim is legally liable if they make a false claim. Once you create a DMCA template, the process can be just as quick as before.
89
« on: March 13, 2019, 14:46 »
With video, it's incredibly tough. Too much production time and content gets outdated too quickly. A few years ago, people were happy with 1080p and now everyone is downloading 4K. It's not that sustainable in the long run so you constantly have to upload.
With images, you have a better chance, but like many have said...you need time to build a portfolio and establish your position in the search rankings. You have to be among the best at what you do and you have be willing to spend thousands of hours on your work. It gets harder everyday with so much content in the market, but it's not impossible. Just don't expect immediate results and don't get discouraged.
I have a mixed portfolio with a strong focus on design. I'm not close to $150k, but it's a reachable goal provided the market doesn't change too much in the next 5-10 years.
90
« on: March 11, 2019, 01:13 »
They've been almost too consistent for me. Barely any ups or downs month after month.
They can't take on the big guys, so I don't see much upside with with 123RF. I think they've been cutting review staff which is probably why images don't get reviewed for months. I just hope they continue to remain consistent.
91
« on: March 05, 2019, 12:17 »
I saw a pretty big decline.
I've been tracking my overall ranking and it hasn't changed much. The search results have not changed.
How do you track your overall ranking on SS?
Looks like sales are back to normal again.
If you have a partial or complete vector portfolio, you can use m-rank.net to track your position.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
92
« on: March 04, 2019, 18:44 »
Anyone else seeing their sales take a dive since SS introduced the buyer's page with the not so obvious filter buttons which appeared last week?
How come mine shows more images, is the filter doing that? Do you have a small monitor?
It's based on monitor size. I have 3 images (with sidebar) on the first row in my standard 15 inch laptop.
93
« on: March 04, 2019, 12:30 »
I saw a pretty big decline.
I've been tracking my overall ranking and it hasn't changed much. The search results have not changed.
I think the biggest culprit is that stupid giant sidebar that took up the valuable search result space. This created more scrolling and buyers are scrolling less often to the bottom, and download less images that appear at the bottom of each page. If they scroll less to the bottom, they're also less likely to go to page 2.
This is a user experience problem. I hope SS revert it and they will if they see a decline in OD, SOD and Enhanced sales.
94
« on: February 17, 2019, 15:28 »
in addiction payment are on hold but deduction are already active....what a great company.....really sometimes i hope we will be back to communism.......workers contributor are crap...while most of these companies pour money down the trash for ads and testimonials forgetting the importance of us. as i said we deserved all of this for accepting 10 years ago to sell photos for penny...luckily thing s will change soon cause free photos will destroy completely this business
Please don't. The last thing you want is the equally-shared miseries of communism. If Adobe made a mistake, they have the right to correct it. For that whole week, my earnings were abnormally high. I'm sure everyone was happy to see nice sales days, but it was too good to be true. That doesn't mean Adobe should pay the price for it. I can understand why people are upset, but principal is principal.
95
« on: February 15, 2019, 20:45 »
Logged into the Fotolia website and I finally saw what I owe Adobe. Looks like I have a bit of catching up to do.
What looks like a new BME turned out to be a disappointment.
96
« on: February 15, 2019, 03:50 »
I don't even see a balance anymore. I hope they get things back in order before the end of the day.
I don't mind them taking back some money if it's fraud related, but they need to be more transparent about it and let us know which sales are affected.
97
« on: February 14, 2019, 14:56 »
This February is looking really good so far. Haven't checked my account in over a week and I was pleasantly surprised when I did yesterday.
98
« on: February 01, 2019, 16:46 »
January was rainy, but sales are good. A 28% increase from the same time last year.
99
« on: February 01, 2019, 15:08 »
I think you underestimate the amount of effort the U.S. put into clean renewable energy compared to other countries.
The US has certainly done some, but it is a fact that Trump and Reagan before him are rolling back mileage requirements for vehicles. The US would have lead the world in this after Jimmy Carter was president - he even had solar panels installed on the White House - but those were all dismantled by Reagan solely to benefit energy companies. The use of solar and wind power in the US has occurred mostly in spite of the government rather than being aided by it, although there have been some tax credits passed that do help a lot (currently being phased out). It is a shame that our efforts are thwarted by companies protecting their own profits at the expense of the planet.
Solar is not nearly as efficient and it takes up land. Wind is also not as efficient and the turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds per year. Nuclear is dangerous as we've seen in Japan. The world doesn't have any solutions to remove its reliance on fossil fuels, and until it does, neither coal or gasoline are going away.
I'm not a big fan of some of the huge solar farms that take up a ton of land. There is one visible from Joshua Trees National Park and another one near Indianapolis airport that really stick out. But you could put solar cells on every rooftop without using an inch of additional land. That wouldn't solve all our energy needs, but it would allow the most polluting power plants to be closed and would reduce peak demand in the summer, limiting the strain on the power grid. Distributed solar would have many benefits, not the least of which would be tons of jobs installing all of the panels.
Yesterday I had someone over to work on my geothermal system. It is always difficult to get geothermal experts out because it is not as popular as it should be, due to the high initial cost I assume. I asked him what proportion of people use geothermal and he said in our area it was around 3%. I couldn't believe it was that low. He also said that a lot of smaller, rural power companies are making plans to tax all of their customers a certain amount and using the money to help people install geothermal loops. The reasoning is that geothermal would reduce peak demand during the winter (and to a lesser extent during the summer) and this would lower costs to the companies so that they could reduce rates overall. That was the first I had heard of that or the concept that spending money up front to install geothermal could lower power rates for everyone in the future.
Worries about wind turbines killing birds are overblown. The first time I was near the base of a wind turbine I expected to see piles of dead birds, and instead I saw none. More recent work has shown that the number of birds killed by wind turbines per gigawatt of electricity produced is 20 times less than those killed by traditional power generation. The world has plenty of potential solutions, they just need to be implemented and for that we need good governments that are not beholden to special interests.
The main reason why they had to roll back mileage requirements because it's technically not possible to achieve it today. Unless you want every car to drive like a Prius and even the Prius has reached its limits, it cannot be achieved. The weight of the vehicle is also a huge factor and hybrids gets less and less efficient with more and more weight. The max efficiency of lithium ion batteries in cars can achieve about 40-50 mpg on a regular size sedan today and that's with very careful driving. Mazda with its HCCI SkyActiv-X engine may be promising if combined with a battery, but you can only fit so much into a vehicle. Unless battery technology improves around the world, it's impossible to meet the Obama era requirements. Here is a chart of energy breakdown: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/electricity-generation-by-major-energy-source.pngHere is a chart of renewable energy breakdown: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/electricity-generation-renewable-sources.pngSolar makes up a tiny portion of the renewable section. It's just not efficient, neither is geothermal. The majority of renewable energy comes from hydro-electric with wind following behind. But if you look at the overall chart, the huge majority of energy comes from fossil fuels and it's not because of just politics. It's because it's much more efficient and it's required to meet the needs of the energy grid. People driving Electric vehicles think they're completely green, but all they did was just transfer the energy production elsewhere. A power plants burns fossil fuels so people can charge their vehicles at home. The entire airline industry runs on nothing but gasoline and short of installing a nuclear reactor on every airplane, their reliance on gasoline is not going away anytime soon. I want to see the industry make a change as well, into more environmentally friendly ways of upkeeping the powergrid. However, I will not deny the reality of the situation. We NEED fossil fuels right now and it's the main reason why governments are fighting for oil. It's the reason why China and Russia are supporting Maduro, so they can get a piece of that petrol pie in Venezuela for cheap. Sadly, it is going to run out eventually and without an alternative, we're going to be in a bad situation.
100
« on: January 29, 2019, 20:00 »
He should have been the one held responsible for letting PG&E get off easy and then signed a bill to bailout PG&E from lawsuits at the expense of tax payers before his departure. That's corruption at its finest.
Brown definitely did some shady things and should be called out on them, but "corruption at its finest" I think has to be reserved for Trump - nobody at the state or Federal level seems to have been as corrupt as Trump, and I suspect we have only heard the tip of the iceberg so far.
I don't believe we are retreating. We pulled out of the Paris Agreement because we were asked to give the world $100 billion dollars so they can do whatever they want with that money. And some of that money was going to China and India, who does doing little to curtail their pollution. Everyone is blaming the U.S. because we won't give them free money, but giant economies who claim "third world country" status like China does little to contribute. We can do our part to curtail emissions, but if the the rest of the world want the U.S. to lead, it must be a situation where we're not giving $100 billion dollars away.
Pulling out is definitely retreating.
Your idea that we were being asked to pay $100 billion so other countries could do whatever they want is factually inaccurate. The US actually paid $1 billion to a fund that was being used for projects to limit emissions in less developed countries, and our total pledge was only $3 billion. The plan if I remember correctly was for all countries worldwide to contribute $100 billion, but all of that was to go to mitigating and reducing climate change, not for anything they wanted. Everyone is blaming the US because it is a fact that we use way more energy per capita than any other country, including India and China combined. Of course those two countries have total carbon outputs that are high because of their very large populations and they need to be part of the solution. The main problems with the Paris accords were that it allowed too many countries to slide, had no hard goals and no enforcement mechanism, but at least it was a start.
France has a plan to ban gas and diesel cars by 2040 and several other countries (e.g., Norway) plan to do it even earlier. Even India and China have plans to ban gas and diesel vehicles. A couple days ago Germany announced a plan to ban coal use by 2038 and many other countries have done the same. That is what leadership looks like - countries taking firm steps to combat global warming. The US is going the wrong direction, and pulling out of the Paris accords just makes us look weak and impotent.
It may not be $100 billion for the U.S., but were were going to pay a good part of it over 10 years. With China and India claiming "third world country" status, they didn't have to pay anything. They were getting money. I think you underestimate the amount of effort the U.S. put into clean renewable energy compared to other countries. I've visited China a couple years ago and they're not even close to being ready for ban of diesel/gas cars. Neither is India, where they can't even keep the Ganges clean. It's all talk and there has been no progress. That's not leadership. We haven't used coal in our daily lives in decades. The world knows that we have about 75 years of oil left and the reduction of reliance on gasoline is on the map for most of the world powers. It needs to figure out solutions and if there isn't any, we're going to be facing a Mad Max scenario. There will be an energy crisis in the future. Coal and other fossil fuels are used to maintain the power grid. Solar is not nearly as efficient and it takes up land. Wind is also not as efficient and the turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds per year. Nuclear is dangerous as we've seen in Japan. The world doesn't have any solutions to remove its reliance on fossil fuels, and until it does, neither coal or gasoline are going away.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
