|
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 - Zero Talent
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 94
751
« on: August 13, 2021, 17:57 »
..., the same way we are hurting each other at the contributor's level (instead of competing fairly)
how is it unfair when competitors all have the chance to opt in/out?
This is equivalent to dumping. My paid photos cannot compete aginst your free photos, even if mine are better, the same way your better photos stand no chance against my free stuff. Fair competition would be to let our photos compete based on their merit, instead of nuking and obliterating each other's sales through dumping. There are no winners in a nuclear war.
752
« on: August 13, 2021, 17:49 »
Adobe is not gambling with your future at all. They are a corporation motivated by profit. However any small expendable minion that gives away work for next to nothing is guaranteeing their extinction. I am perplexed why so many are jumping for joy to give their work away for next to nothing to promote a corporation.
Yes, of course. What I'm saying is that they hope to earn more than they have invested in these free photos and make a profit. This hope to win by betting that a new model will work, when it goes against common sense logic, can be called gambling. And I say that our future earnings are gambled, because we give up better future earnigs against petty gains today.
753
« on: August 13, 2021, 10:42 »
without factual data there is no proof.
That's if you only want to rely on empirical data, without trying to understand the medium/long-term logical consequences of these actions. We can safely predict that the night follows day, without having to wait for the dark. 
Such a large collection of good quality free assets is rather likely to deter buyers from buying more stuff, instead of stimulating them to buy more.
That's because nothing beats free, especially when the quality is sufficient for the purpose.
So when your work is offered for free, even if you got your precious $5, you will kill potential sales not necessarily from you, but rather from your fellow contributors who are competing in the same category.
In return, their free stuff will kill your sales in other categories, very likely beyond your precious $5.
The bigger this collection becomes, the bigger the losses will be for the contributor's community.
Too bad that many of us are wearing horse blinders, seeing only their narrow and individual short-term interest, instead of seeing how fast we are cutting the branch we all are sitting on!
okay, say you're right. Wouldn't this kill Adobe as well? For Adobe to do the second wave they must have seen their sales (not free) go up as well right?
Adobe is gambling with our (future) money. It's rather likely that they will also be losing money, indeed. Rest assured that other sites will have no option left but to compete against Adobe, offering even more stuff for free, thus hurting Adobe, the same way we are hurting each other at the contributor's level (instead of competing fairly) The vicious circle will continue, now that Pandora's box is open.
754
« on: August 13, 2021, 10:12 »
without factual data there is no proof.
That's if you only want to rely on empirical data, without trying to understand the medium/long-term logical consequences of these actions. We can safely predict that the night follows day, without having to wait for the dark. Such a large collection of good quality free assets is rather likely to deter buyers from buying more stuff, instead of stimulating them to buy more. That's because nothing beats free, especially when the quality is sufficient for the purpose. So when your work is offered for free, even if you got your precious $5, you will kill potential sales not necessarily from you, but rather from your fellow contributors who are competing in the same category. In return, their free stuff will kill your sales in other categories, very likely beyond your precious $5. The bigger this collection becomes, the bigger the losses will be for the contributor's community. Too bad that many of us are wearing horse blinders, seeing only a narrow and individual short-term interest, instead of seeing how fast we are cutting the branch we all are sitting on!
755
« on: July 29, 2021, 17:01 »
embedding info to metadata won't work for videos, interestingly only adobe recognize that, but not others I am using Adobe Bridge to embed metadata to videos...
... which works for: AdobeStock, Dreamstime, IStock, Ponds
... and does not work for: DepositPhotos, Shutterstock
... or use StockSubmitter, which keeps the meta in a thumbnail associated with the video. It works on all sites.
756
« on: July 06, 2021, 15:17 »
. Nothing to assume if I have my own statistics.
Your own statistics are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Besides, you, like many others, changed your strategy when you began to offer your stuff for free.
Therefore your past performance is not a predictor of your future performance, anymore.
Too bad you fail to understand how bad this model is for all of us!
Your personal opinion, you have right to have one.
Disagree as since 4 years I see only growth that slows down when my performance slows down. I don't live in past and present won't stay same forever im aware of that. If you won't adopt you stay behind. And complaining changes nothing.
I am not complaining. I am explaining. Obviously, not everybody is ready to admit when they made a bad call and explanations are futile, in such cases. Good luck, and while you are joyfully sawing off the branch you are sitting on, remember that you shouldn't complain when you'll break your legs 
757
« on: July 06, 2021, 14:18 »
. Nothing to assume if I have my own statistics.
Your own statistics are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Besides, you, like many others, changed your strategy when you began to offer your stuff for free. Therefore your past performance is not a predictor of your future performance, anymore. Too bad you fail to understand how bad this model is for all of us!
758
« on: July 06, 2021, 08:05 »
If something is perceived as better than free then it can compete...hence people pay for mineral water in restaurants rather than free tap water. Price is rarely the only factor in purchasing decisions.
Do you mean like this: https://youtu.be/EL5O_9HnN4E?
Indeed.....there have been a few cases of companies bottling municipal tap water and selling at a premium......
Then the conclusion is that buyers can be fooled and made belive that something is better, but only for limited time. Isn't it the same for the photos "perceived" to be better, you gave as an example? It's just a matter of time before the buyers realize that the free alternative is equally good, or simply good enough for the purpose.
759
« on: July 06, 2021, 01:43 »
If something is perceived as better than free then it can compete...hence people pay for mineral water in restaurants rather than free tap water. Price is rarely the only factor in purchasing decisions.
Do you mean like this: https://youtu.be/EL5O_9HnN4E?
760
« on: July 05, 2021, 21:21 »
another so far unsupported claim - we'll see how much AS commissions decline - they didnt when AS first introduced a limted free section awhile ago.
Also we already compete against each other when we submit images to agencies!
It looks to me like John Nash's game theory, described in A Beautiful Mind: what is the best outcome for the individuals is not always the best outcome for the group.
not really - the tragedy of the commons concerns individuals exploiting a shared good - here there is no shared good as all artists are seeking to maximise their income while competing directly against other artists
an interesting counter view is https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2018/09/18/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-not-a-nash-equilibrium/
Maybe I didn't make myself clear.
I am not talking about the tragedy of the commons. It's not applicable here, because we don't have a pool of common assets. Besides, even your article is stating that the tragedy of commons is NOT a Nash equilibrium.
...
you were clear - you said this was Nash game theory and what you described is the tragedy of the commons which is based on his game theory. (i only included the link to offer another POV - if it's correct, then your claim to nash's theory is still incorrect)
if you still disagree please show some evidence backing up your claim that this is based on Nash
if you were really referring to prisoner's dilemma, that is not from nash AND also doesn't apply
basically your claim that that individuals who take the $5 hurt the group just doesn't make sense
No, you are wrong. I didn't describe the tragedy of commons. That's what you assumed. " In the Nash equilibrium, each player's strategy is optimal when considering the decisions of other players. " Even more, "the prisoners' dilemma is a common game theory example and one that adequately showcases the effect of the Nash equilibrium." So yes, you fail to consider that others are also getting those $5 and making their assets free to compete against your non-free assets, maybe even against your best sellers. So your strategy is not optimal, but narrow-sighted. And you'll lose more than the little gain you make with those $5. Just think about how the game can evolve: the more free assets will exist, the less our best sellers will earn because of the increased competition from free assets. We will be incentivized to make even more of our assets free because we will be happy to get those $5, instead of nothing (or almost nothing). The game ends when all assets are free and our lifetime earnings for each photo will stop growing, being limited by the last $5 we get when we make it free. When we accept the $5, we are not in a Nash equilibrium, therefore our strategy is not optimal. So yes, I am claiming that the individuals who take the $5 do hurt the group (and indirectly will end hurting themselves)
761
« on: July 05, 2021, 12:24 »
...giving away free images is marketing and promoting for me (still not free as they pay) always did it and it worked for me every time...
Weird, I havent found this at all.
I see these sorts of collections as promotion/ marketing for the agency, to increase traffic to them over a competing agency.
I have never seen any significant untick from an agency putting my work front and centre, even when I have been photographer of the month/ week or whatever with my work / portfolio on the front page of a site.
Mileage may vary I guess.
Same here, I was featured by Alamy, by Dreamstime, by Shutterstock... with no visible change in my sales pattern.
762
« on: July 04, 2021, 21:08 »
So instead of driving additional sales (as this new business model is expecting), it will rather prevent regular sales to be made.
Yes, we get $5, for a photo, but that will kill sales and the earnings for other contributors with a similar subject. The losses will exceed $5, because nothing beats free.
possibly, but currently unsupported - images that made < $2 in the last year are less likely to suddenly bring in $5+
We rather shoot each other in the feet (because we will both lose more than $5, when we compete against each other with free vs paid)
another so far unsupported claim - we'll see how much AS commissions decline - they didnt when AS first introduced a limted free section awhile ago.
Also we already compete against each other when we submit images to agencies!
It looks to me like John Nash's game theory, described in A Beautiful Mind: what is the best outcome for the individuals is not always the best outcome for the group.
not really - the tragedy of the commons concerns individuals exploiting a shared good - here there is no shared good as all artists are seeking to maximise their income while competing directly against other artists
an interesting counter view is https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2018/09/18/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-not-a-nash-equilibrium/
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I am not talking about the tragedy of the commons. It's not applicable here, because we don't have a pool of common assets. Besides, even your article is stating that the tragedy of commons is NOT a Nash equilibrium. I am talking about us, being those boys in the bar all instinctively competing for the gorgeous blonde, instead of paying attention to the other girls, thus smartly aiming for a win-win situation. In my opinion, we should let all our photos earn their fair competitive share (even if it's less than $5), because this way, we are protecting the rest of our more valuable assets against the kiss of death coming from free alternatives. If we do that, we are obviously continuing to compete, but, at the end of the day, each one of us is earning more. Competition is great for progress, but there is no winner in a nuclear war. With this new "free" weapon, we obliterate each other, instead of competing. The bigger the free collection becomes the worse it will be for each one of us. I'm happy to see that only a negligible amount has been selected. Hopefully AS will realize the mistake and stop the experiment, before it's too late.
Stock isnt Art what i try to say.
I agree with this: microstock is not art.
763
« on: July 04, 2021, 15:29 »
At the end of the day, this is not a good deal for us.
Many of my proposed photos gathered much more than $5 elsewhere, while AS didn't do a good job in promoting them..,..
1. so, adding them to AS makes sense as you'll get more than they've earned
2. buyers at other sites are unlikely to find same images among AS free
and have those images made $5 on other sites in the last year??
My point is that many "buyers" will just be satisfied with free, instead of paying for something else.
So instead of driving additional sales (as this new business model is expecting), it will rather prevent regular sales to be made.
Yes, we get $5, for a photo, but that will kill sales and the earnings for other contributors with a similar subject. The losses will exceed $5, because nothing beats free.
We don't shoot ourselves in the foot, indeed (because we get $5).
We rather shoot each other in the feet (because we will both lose more than $5, when we compete against each other with free vs paid)
It looks to me like John Nash's game theory, described in A Beautiful Mind: what is the best outcome for the individuals is not always the best outcome for the group.
"Yes, we get $5, for a photo, but that will kill sales and the earnings for other contributors "
I produce couple hunderets assets per month and giving away free images is marketing and promoting for me (still not free as they pay) always did it and it worked for me every time. I dont mind giving away assets that not selling and im constantly working on making better and more saleable assets.
I think the problem starts when someone expect his old portfolio to sell forever then other contributtors that produce new assets will outpreform them in few months free or not anyway.
If you active and working to make more, customers always will need new and actual photos. If there will be free photo of location that travel agency will use they will need more most likely and wont use one photo forever because it was free. If there is customer that use only free photo he wont be on adobe but pexel, unsplash etc. so someone i dont care about anyway and most likely he never bought photos anyway.
Its about real customers that constantly need photos for company etc. If someone come for free photos only most likely he never bought photos anyway.
"We rather shoot each other in the feet"
There is no we in sales, we compete against each other free or not best assets gets more sales and everyone is assessing best that works for them. Would be silly to lose oportunity to earn more because i want someone else to sell their photos better.
Just my point of view.
I understand your point of view. My experience is different. I have solid assets that sell well over and over again, since many years! Producing more of the same, will only devalue my best sellers. Yes, you have to shoot more, indeed, but different themes and subjects. Otherwise, you are really shooting yourself in the foot! Taking this in consideration, if now AS has in its free collection assets that compete with my best sellers, I will lose, even if my stuff is better, because nothing competes with free. Of course we are competitors, but as the boys in A Beautiful Mind went home without getting laid, because they all set their eyes on the gorgeous blonde while neglecting the other girls, the same way we will lose because we set our eyes on those $5, without seing the big picture and the science behind this game theory. 😉
764
« on: July 03, 2021, 20:57 »
At the end of the day, this is not a good deal for us.
Many of my proposed photos gathered much more than $5 elsewhere, while AS didn't do a good job in promoting them..,..
1. so, adding them to AS makes sense as you'll get more than they've earned
2. buyers at other sites are unlikely to find same images among AS free
and have those images made $5 on other sites in the last year??
My point is that many "buyers" will just be satisfied with free, instead of paying for something else. So instead of driving additional sales (as this new business model is expecting), it will rather prevent regular sales to be made. Yes, we get $5, for a photo, but that will kill sales and the earnings for other contributors with a similar subject. The losses will exceed $5, because nothing beats free. We don't shoot ourselves in the foot, indeed (because we get $5). We rather shoot each other in the feet (because we will both lose more than $5, when we compete against each other with free vs paid) It looks to me like John Nash's game theory, described in A Beautiful Mind: what is the best outcome for the individuals is not always the best outcome for the group.
765
« on: July 03, 2021, 20:30 »
What? It's not just pressing buttons on a camera. How about trying to upload hundreds if not 1000s of photos, keywording, then trying to pass finicky reviewers. You obviously don't do microstock or know anything about it. but another that likes to wind ppl. up on forums. By the way, your mate shutter view is banned.
Apologies! Not just pressing buttons on a camera, but also pressing some buttons on your keyboard! Hard work indeed!  Go an tell that to a construction worker, a miner or to a strawberry picker, and wait for their reaction. Anyway, rest assured that being responsible with the employment of thousands of people is much harder work than pressing your dear buttons and spamming the forum with your marxist ideology!
766
« on: July 03, 2021, 20:11 »
It turns out that he started SS because he wanted to sell his own photos.
Yes, so? Why didn't you have that idea?
Or any idea, any invention, any innovation able to re-shape a whole industry and convince the world to pay you for it?
I'm sure you also wanted to sell your own photos, but somehow, something prevented you from having that idea!
What was it, I wonder?
Good god I wrote that post ages ago. You totally miss understand my post I only said that's how he started which is true. How he expanded from there is anyone's guess.
July 1st, 2021 is "ages ago", indeed! Sadly, you are not just a luddite, but a nostalgic marxist, too 😖
767
« on: July 03, 2021, 12:44 »
It turns out that he started SS because he wanted to sell his own photos.
Yes, so? Why didn't you have that idea? Or any idea, any invention, any innovation able to re-shape a whole industry and convince the world to pay you for it? I'm sure you also wanted to sell your own photos, but somehow, something prevented you from having that idea! What was it, I wonder?
768
« on: July 02, 2021, 21:16 »
At the end of the day, this is not a good deal for us.
Many of my proposed photos gathered much more than $5 elsewhere, while AS didn't do a good job in promoting them.
Since everybody jumped this opportunity, it didn't make sense for me to sit on the bench and watch everybody else selling themselves short. So, I submitted a couple of dozens of photos, out of the several hundred requested by AS.
I am now happy to see that only a negligible amount has been selected.
I can only hope that this free collection initiative will be a big financial failure and a tough lesson to be learnt by AS!
769
« on: July 02, 2021, 08:48 »
This J. Origner and the likes of him don't work hard, Geeks like him have only found a clever & maybe unethical way to leech of everyone else.
Says the guy who believes that pressing camera buttons is hard work. 
770
« on: June 28, 2021, 16:12 »
From a recent CopyTrack email:
...
Now, you have to let us know if this is a copyright infringement or not. If it is, our hearts go out to you. It sucks to get your images stolen.
On the bright side, we are here to help you. Login to our app and identify if this hit is legal or illegal. If it is illegal, the sooner we can get started, the better it is for you.
Submit the claim and let us do the work. What happens next?
1. the opponent deletes the image (hurrah!)
2. we are able to sell him a post-license or collect compensation costs for accrued damages
3. we go to our partner law firms and proceed with a law suit should we be unsuccessful should we fail with 1. and 2.
So don't wait and help us protect your copyright now! Please act swiftly so we can protect your images in the best possible way!
Thank you for your trust in Copytrack.
Kind regards,
Marcus Schmitt
Founder & CEO
771
« on: June 28, 2021, 07:34 »
Someone download my bestseller and resell it at Etsy. I report for infringement. Etsy took it down. Now the thief counter claim it. Etsy says they cannot take side. Etsy says "Unless you notify us of a court action seeking a court order against the allegedly infringing member, the member may reactivate or repost the material specified in the counter notice". I am determine to take a court order, but how can I do it?
Try Copytrack.com. I wrote them describing a similar case and they are willing to pursue it. Now I'm waiting for the infringing material to be reinstated, before engaging them.
772
« on: June 17, 2021, 12:05 »
I saw many people use my artworks in their merchandise products (stickers, mugs, scratch cards, etc) at Etsy. And I wrote to them to check if they have an Extended License for them.
All of them do not have Extended License. Some of them thought they have it, but they actually bought the wrong license. The honest and good will then proceed to buy the Extended License from me... usually they will buy even more artworks (Extended License) than the existing one.
This is exactly what just happened this morning. Someone showed me the licenses he purchased from DepositPhotos. But these were Standard licenses. I explained that these are not valid for the purpose. He apologized and immediately after he purchased Extended licenses. See the attachment.
773
« on: June 16, 2021, 10:47 »
Copytrack worked with me and chased some famous photographer who was selling his worldwide photography tours using my photos. While it was very wrong from an ethical point of view, legally he was ok since he purchased licenses from SS. He apologized and blamed his website administrator for the "error".
The other thing I just realized, it that some Etsy sellers are purchasing and reselling Prints made by others who may or may not have the right licenses. In this case, it's harder to go to the source and check if the printing shop has the correct licenses. indeed.
Hahaha it's getting funny, a travel photographer using unlicensed travel images from somebody else
Why i'm not surprised ...
Etsy "arbitrage" ? Yes, and it also happens on Fiverr and other platforms, as i said already it's a total sh-itshow and a digital wild west, nothing is going to change until new draconian laws are enacted worldwide to protect digital artists from theft and copyright infringement.
No. As I said, that internet celebrity was using legally licensed photos from SS, to promote his photography skills and sell his tours. But I am curious about one thing: what are you trying to achieve here by trying so hard to convince this community that any fight against thieves is futile? I'm asking because, as someone pointed out to me, in your very first post made on this forum, you were looking for free extended licenses exactly for selling "Prints and Merch on PODs" (see attached).
774
« on: June 16, 2021, 08:48 »
Any such experiences? I thinking about filing a claim with Copytrack, if Etsy doesn't listen.
Copytrack won't listen as well if the thief is based in a third world country, moreover you probably haven't registered your photos to the US copyright office (copyright.gov), and what about the photo in question, do you own the RAW file or it was just shot as JPG ?
Etsy legally isn't even obliged to give you an answer or to deal too much with all this, the DMCA full covers their as-s, so ...
Their remarks are correct, either you sue the thief or it's none of their business, actually if the thief is selling a lot more than you they could wisely kick YOU out of their platform.
Using your language, the seller is from a "first world country" and I have the original RAW images, of course. Copytrack worked with me and chased some famous photographer who was selling his worldwide photography tours using my photos. While it was very wrong from an ethical point of view, legally he was ok since he purchased licenses from SS. He apologized and blamed his website administrator for the "error". The other thing I just realized, it that some Etsy sellers are purchasing and reselling Prints made by others who may or may not have the right licenses. In this case, it's harder to go to the source and check if the printing shop has the correct licenses. indeed.
775
« on: June 14, 2021, 23:16 »
I saw many people use my artworks in their merchandise products (stickers, mugs, scratch cards, etc) at Etsy. And I wrote to them to check if they have an Extended License for them.
All of them do not have Extended License. Some of them thought they have it, but they actually bought the wrong license. The honest and good will then proceed to buy the Extended License from me... usually they will buy even more artworks (Extended License) than the existing one. The lousy one will just remove the listing. The worst one will pretend they didn't do anything wrong and dare me to report (which I did).
Is all good. Is not as complicated as you thought it might be. All of this translate to instant reward.
What do you do if some guy shamelessly claims that he made my photo 32 years ago? LOL. He refused to share a higher rez photo where the identical details would have been even more obvious, like cloud patterns in the sky, etc. He countered my DMCA report. Etsy says that if I don't follow with a legal action they will re-instate that listing after 10 days. I wrote them back saying that I'm 100% certain that the photo is mine, asking them to not re-instate it. Any such experiences? I thinking about filing a claim with Copytrack, if Etsy doesn't listen.
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 94
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
