|
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 - Pixart
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 131
751
« on: January 31, 2013, 21:55 »
Our contributors are extremely important to us.
OMG Lobo, we just caught you in a big fat lie!
752
« on: January 30, 2013, 10:25 »
I put in Getty/Istock Breach of Trust.
753
« on: January 29, 2013, 14:16 »
I couldn't wait until Saturday and just deactivated everything but one. My blackberry is sitting on my desk going Ping Ping Ping.....
I am kicking myself that I didn't leave my shot of the snake pit live for a bit of symbolism, it was too late when I thought of it - but I left the grasshopper shot. In this part of the world grasshoppers are more hated than snakes anyway.
I took screenshots of everything and of thinkstock and photos.com first.
It's a relief. I am so lucky I never depended on this income. I really feel for you guys that do. I know that many readers will say "Do you think Getty gives a rat's a$s?" The answer is No, I don't - but I do.
754
« on: January 28, 2013, 11:42 »
Yes, GREAT POST. Thanks Joanne.
Are our blogs moderated on Istock? This has likely come up, but can't we all post a blog on our IS profile?
755
« on: January 27, 2013, 16:56 »
I am days away from buying Ktools (just waiting for the Provincial Gov to approve my corporation) .... If there is anything I can test over the next couple weeks I would be all over it! I wish I could help with the programming. I have a hard enough time with Wordpress!
757
« on: January 26, 2013, 19:29 »
I just found it applied closely to MY situation - after a decade at iStock, 10K images approved (although many now deactivated) all the time spent with disambiguation, etc - its simply too much to consider packing up and going elsewhere.
OMG, that's what most battered wives say too!
758
« on: January 25, 2013, 16:12 »
Ah, this is funny. I clicked the "buy this image" and ie tells me I shouldn't trust the site. We recommend that you close this webpage and do not continue to this website. .... I click the next image and I tell ie to go there anyway - thinking it would be Mark Ryan's own website and I'd like to check him out - it goes to ISTOCK!!! haha, even explorer doesn't want me to shop there!
Sorry to laugh at your expense... I'm so bitter about Istock Getty right now. But your work looks very nice!
759
« on: January 25, 2013, 13:31 »
I have no idea what YOUR shrub is - but the proper label should be something like "Ribes Sanguineum King Edward VII or Flowering Currant Shrub". All of the libraries have a huge number of nature photos. Unless you label it scientifically and with it's commonly known name it really doesn't stand a hope of being added.
760
« on: January 25, 2013, 11:27 »
Good read!
I had 2 subs refunds today on Fotolia I wonder why a "thief" would bother with subs download limits if they didn't want the full rez photo for something else....
761
« on: January 24, 2013, 22:02 »
Hey Spike, I can see your point of view, I really can. But, at the moment I personally feel like I've been such a freakin idiot to be selling photos for 16% cut. I don't have files in this deal, but tomorrow - who knows. It's like I just woke up from a bender and said "OMG what did I do last night? How will I show my face again?" I just pulled all my files from 123 because they chopped royalties - that were much higher than Istocks I should point out. How in good consience could I stay with Istock?
I think I must have been glamoured by those blood * vampires.
762
« on: January 23, 2013, 20:49 »
Guess I better get uploading. Got a sale notice and don't know if I've been approved a week with just the first 20 files.
763
« on: January 23, 2013, 20:44 »
That sucks Suljo. And it sucks that you have to pay a lawyer to protect your property.
764
« on: January 23, 2013, 00:14 »
I changed the title of the post, might get more attention.
765
« on: January 22, 2013, 13:31 »
M@M don't forget January's sub sales don't come till Feb. Deactivate but don't delete so you can collect what is due.
766
« on: January 22, 2013, 11:22 »
I found 123 unacceptable and dumped them as soon as they dropped my royalties. I just did a check to see if my photos have reappeared as posted above and they are still gone. I find lots of photos with keywords that have been plucked right from mine though, because my user name is in them. Seriously - check out other people's keywords, but don't cut and paste without even verifying that they are appropriate!
767
« on: January 22, 2013, 11:03 »
http://www.digimarc.com/Digimarc for Images allows you to embed imperceptible, persistent digital watermarks into your images to communicate ownership and other information wherever the images travel across the Internet. According to them, they can run a scan of the Internet and find your photos wherever they appear. (I was wondering if anyone could still track our images in the free Google program). This product has been offered with Photoshop for at least 10 years but the first time I looked there was an additional cost and I didn't buy into the idea. Now, I'm wondering if it is an application that we can use? I even tried to phone them to ask a few questions but when I asked for the operator it took me to a mailbox (I've got a serious issue with this point and it has already lowered my impression of them). -If you use this embedded watermark can you submit these photos to agencies? (Presumably no one can remove.) It looks like Corbis may already use it: Many companies and organizations, including Corbis, Microsoft, the Smithsonian Institution, Sony and others rely on Digimarc for Images to communicate ownership of their content, find where their images are being used online, and provide valuable business intelligence regarding their digital image assets. Now, by adding LicenseStream, you can effectively monetize your images with automated licensing, royalty settlement and renewals.On page 5 of their best practices guide they state that it works best when images are not comprised of a single flat colour (like a white washing machine against a white wall). Would this not actually alter the appearance of a photo like a watermark we are accustomed to? For those of us who have or are thinking about starting their own stock site it may be something worth looking at. Anyone done any research on these guys? Here is their PDF "Best Practices Guide" http://www.digimarc.com/docs/digimarc-for-images-resources/digimarc-for-images-digital-watermarking-best-practices-guide.pdf?sfvrsn=2
768
« on: January 21, 2013, 16:07 »
BS has absolutely the WORST image categories. Worthless. Just about everything ends up in miscellaneous because there isn't a category for it.
769
« on: January 21, 2013, 11:11 »
ahh.... I had the pop up this morning and didn't have time to look so I hit "remind me in 4 hours" . Thanks Race.
770
« on: January 20, 2013, 20:19 »
Today is the first I have heard of this, I'm not in any of the forums much. It would seem to be a way of sending a message that perhaps won't be commented on much, but will alert them to the level of discontent (surely they already know, but this is a bold statement).
I do have to ask a sincere question, especially of those who are exclusive with very large portfolios. Since you are exclusive, all your eggs are in one basket at this time. Is it really worth dumping all the thousands of hours spent building your portfolio, not to mention the significant monthly income to make such a point? Not arguing, but I have no time or energy to reload my 7000 photos anywhere else (especially when I would be worried that most companies will have similar issues in the future it they don't yet). I read a great deal of dissatisfaction in other microstock company forums. The grass is perhaps greener, but will it remain? I think not. I fear microstock has irreversibly entered the world of big business, maximum profits with minimal cost to suppliers (us). I am sure many of you will follow through and deactivate real sellers, not just 2005 images that clearly do not reflect your current standard of excellence, but don't sell anyway. But the thought runs through my head that I could jump in and deactivate a few hundred that have never sold, make myself feel better, but iStock will recognize exactly what I am doing and not feel at all bad about it. I respect your decision, but it seems a little like shooting yourself in the foot unless you have little or nothing to lose. Multiply your anticipated total de-activations by 5 and iStock will fill those slots in very short order with new uploads, ti won't even be a blip on their graph. Not defending iStock/Getty or disagreeing with your cause and passion. Just asking if you really think it will change the way things work there, and is it worth it to you personally?
It must be very anguishing, being an exclusive right now - I feel for you. I just have a couple comments. If you are curious about your options, contact the other agencies and from what I understand, the most important ones will accept a drive and help you with getting your photos online. On another note, if you have people photos in these programs now or in the future, how will you feel if a photo of your child has been downloaded by a pedophile or a dating site and they claim "it's public domain - I can do what I want" because that is what your exif will say. Also, you may be subject to lawsuits by your models - you may feel you are not in the wrong - but they will sue you and Getty and Google and you will still have to lawyer up.
771
« on: January 20, 2013, 17:49 »
Now I'm paranoid. I was walking by a table of USB drives and it said "100 free photos". Momentary panic - until I read the package and it was actually 100 free prints. Worried for a minute there that this might have been another bright initiative!
772
« on: January 20, 2013, 01:31 »
is it possible to opt out of subscriptions with photos?
I know you can with video.
From what I hear this is what many people would like to do- send images to ss only for regular single sales.
Yes, is this possible?
Are you asking about Shutterstock? No you can't opt out.
773
« on: January 19, 2013, 20:41 »
Isn't no award a bad reward? If they don't even make bronze?
774
« on: January 18, 2013, 17:21 »
not a fan of the ribbons. aren't we creatives? shouldn't they look modern, not so old-fashioned and cliched (and clip arty)? few awards like this are ribboned nowadays.
I thought SAC was good but now that you've mentioned the slang equivalent (used in australia too, but not by me) is it out?
Totally agree - I was the one who inserted them - that was just for example sake of having a rank and a year on the award. And on the other subject, I was thinking it also had a K on the end - but this is what the dictionary says (pretty accurate description hahah) SAC noun
a baglike structure in an animal, plant, or fungus, as one containing fluid.
775
« on: January 18, 2013, 13:59 »
Thanks Joanne!
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 131
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
