|
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 - JPSDK
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 74
751
« on: July 06, 2013, 05:53 »
Which type of licence do you need to use a picture commercially on FB?
affiliate links and such.
752
« on: July 06, 2013, 00:23 »
Is delay of payment not breach of contract?
753
« on: July 04, 2013, 07:02 »
Considering the mallard photo.
1.. mallards are super common and everybody photographs them.
2.. the mallard hen has domestic genes in it and is unnaturally dark on the body and unnaturally light on the head. That may lead the reviewer to think uneven lighting.
3.. the blurred branch does not ad to the picture, and since it doesnt the mallards are too small in the frame.
754
« on: July 02, 2013, 11:39 »
No, need to bring lawyers into this.
As long as both parties are mentally sound. Witnesses could be important. They sort of guarantee the entities, and thats an important part.
this is not a big deal, it compares to selling a machine or a piece of land.
It can be done on a piece of paper in handwriting.
But it is relatively important that both parities know what copyright is and are reasonably familiar with legal terms and such know what they sign.
And actually most people know a lot about law per instinct, without ever going to lawschool. Everybody knows about an agreement and consequences of breaking it. Thats something we learn at the playgrond in childhood.
And laws are usually made to mirror common (contrary to exploitive) behavior among people.
So, in this case its all about getting the entities right and describing the good.
Describing the good would in this case mean to both describe the images and which amount of copyright is transferred.
"Full copyright of all my images forever" would do.
755
« on: July 01, 2013, 02:41 »
756
« on: July 01, 2013, 02:35 »
My own is maybe not my own.
All kinds of legal entities such as a person, a group, a company or an heir can sell images.
They must of course have the rights to do so.
Such rights can be aquired in many ways.
Fx if you find old pictures at your property, but mostly rights are handed from one entity to another by a contract.
It could be relatively simple
I (entity) hereby sell my copyright of (well described images) to person, so that he in all future can distribute them in any way he wants.
etc etc..
A contract is binding if the entities and the agreement are well described and it is signed. It can even be written on a piece of wood. There are examples.
Things like: " its ok with me, you can sell the photos from last year".
is not good enough
757
« on: June 30, 2013, 21:12 »
SS up 10%, steady
FOT average, steady
DT weakening, turbulent.
The small ones are also weakening.
758
« on: June 29, 2013, 09:47 »
he does even better than yuri, so now he is our new hero.
759
« on: June 27, 2013, 09:54 »
The yard would work, but it is best if you have a pole to dance around. turkey feathers would work, but only on the western hemisphere. You have better settle on hens feathers, they are global and fx teh cock Y bondhu comes in 2-3 colours that would ensure global downloads of pictures in many colours.
if it is really bad you might want to add sacrifice to the whole menace, which could start with tobacco and rice and escalate up to virgins and newborn boys.
Its heard of before.
760
« on: June 27, 2013, 09:21 »
Whenever shutterstock sales are low, I open my box of flytieing feathers materials and stick a couple in the hair and go down in the garden and do a pagan feather dance.
In pagan the gold dance and the feather dance are related and are sure to bring prosperity and downloads to the performer.
And since its quite easy to do and do not take a long time, i have always managed to get my downloads come back in a day or two.
in other words.
We have 20 million picures, and a lot less search words, what do you expect?
Im surprised that old pictures sell even sometimes.
One thing I can conclude is that ss sells a lot of pictures.
761
« on: June 27, 2013, 03:54 »
There is no end to it....
I mean, it first stops when numbers are at ZERO.
Disgusting.
Im glad Im out of there.
762
« on: June 25, 2013, 15:03 »
There are many problems in this photo:
Tech....
Underexposed
DOF too shallow
Uneven light
Noise and grain
not sharp
composition...
All elements in the frame does not support the main subject. ( background meaningless and the light spot draws attention from the hen.
the hen is cut in halves.
Perspective. Level yourself with the animal.
763
« on: June 21, 2013, 20:15 »
Atlantis
springs to mind.
764
« on: June 21, 2013, 19:07 »
There are restrictions: "Demeaning usage and identity theft".
Actually I have somtimes wondered...
I have a picture of an ant, that sells well.
But it might be for ant poison purposes.
That is demeaning use isnt it?
765
« on: June 21, 2013, 07:05 »
shutterstocks.
It filters out all spam.
766
« on: June 21, 2013, 05:03 »
why not....??
Why not make "xxx-LUX" version of your port, with another legal entity and go exclusive here and there.
767
« on: June 21, 2013, 04:28 »
That makes sense.
Im going to photograph the queen soon, and I think I will not distribute those pictures via micros.
768
« on: June 20, 2013, 06:51 »
no.
What kills the industry has not to do with quality of images.
But relevancy.
it is not so important if the picture is good, bad or grainy as if it is actually taken on the spot.
And everybody has a cellphone with a camera or an ipad.
....and that is actually a good thing.
because now the pictures are real, as they should be in news and not set up by some photog who arrived at the scene 2 hours after it happened.
And yes, I have heard about news photogs who always carried a teddy bear to place in the lower golden section when they photographed car accidents.
769
« on: June 19, 2013, 18:55 »
no it is not. There is more to it.
The end user can do things with a photo and place it in a content.
Like a newspaper article and The President in front of the flags.
It it is within the newspapers responsibiity.
But can you imagine, what kind of usages are possible with these photos.
They can show up at loo paper in Afghanistan.
Then suddently the provider of the photos has a responsibility.
770
« on: June 19, 2013, 17:41 »
that is correct
Look at the pixel size.
Then it does not matter if its full of white on white or whatever.
771
« on: June 18, 2013, 16:04 »
Nikd90.
Many of your buildings suffer from lens distortion.
You can work with that in photoshopfilters--> lens distortion.
772
« on: June 18, 2013, 15:51 »
It sounds like they have sold a file exclusively and then have deleted your file.
That does not make much sense, since you might have that file for sale at other agencies.
773
« on: June 18, 2013, 09:50 »
They will put it on google then.
774
« on: June 18, 2013, 09:40 »
I'm trying to remember -- didn't it end last year? Or has it been even longer?
There are so many threads about "the end" that I can't tell when it was ... or when it is supposed to be?
Oh, wait, maybe it was December 21, 2012?
we are having a solid case of istock procrastinating and us suffereing from wishfull thinking.
775
« on: June 18, 2013, 09:38 »
NO!
I know why.
They want to compete with the low performing agencies.
All those agencies who take in all kinds of crap.
They want to be able to say... WE have it all, from crap to splendid. Authentic to styled.
There is no reason to go elsewhere, everything can be found at istock.
I bet their next step will be to have super low prices on the low grade content.
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
