|
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 - leaf
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 390
901
« on: June 09, 2013, 16:42 »
Hi All,
Shutterstock aggressively enforces the intellectual property rights of its community of contributors and does not tolerate infringement or piracy of any kind. We investigate every claim of infringement of Shutterstock's or its contributors' intellectual property rights and take appropriate steps, including the institution of legal action. We cannot provide specific details about such efforts. Shutterstock's anti-piracy efforts are ongoing and we appreciate your input and patience as we work to combat this global issue.
As I mentioned previously, for any other issues, inquiries or complaints regarding potential legal issues with content on Shutterstock, please email [email protected].
Thanks and Regards,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Thanks for the post Scott. It's great to hear you guys are on this!
902
« on: June 07, 2013, 16:23 »
I think the power is still really with the contributor and when/if a good alternative ever comes along (good commissions, good sales) people will jump ship extremely quickly. It's only a matter of time before it happens.
Fully agree. Hopefully, Picturengine or Symbiostock (or both) will be that alternative.
Yeah, something like symbiostock can be a turning point. Stocksy is also a really ground breaking concept (or at least ambition initiative) but perhaps a bit too boutique to be a photographers primary income source... but time will tell. I'm still hoping for the best
903
« on: June 07, 2013, 15:46 »
I think the power is still really with the contributor and when/if a good alternative ever comes along (good commissions, good sales) people will jump ship extremely quickly. It's only a matter of time before it happens.
905
« on: June 06, 2013, 02:31 »
Ok, this isn't totally directed at microstock photography but it has a lot of very valid points and applies in most every case. Work hard, stick it out, take a risk, limit risk with calculated decisions, don't go into debt, live within your means, do what you love
906
« on: June 05, 2013, 03:04 »
With income like that I find it surprising that he pursued the micro's at all. Perhaps he was scared and decided to test the waters when he saw his income falling, but still.. a bit surprising.
907
« on: May 31, 2013, 16:16 »
I don't mind Photodune's payment method. They pay exactly the same time every month - the 15th, as Disorderly said. Several sites pay only once a month, including Veer, Pixmac (now), 123RF, and Shutterstock.
The trick with PD is you have to request before the end of the month, if you have enough money. Also, if you are in North America, by the time it's the end of the month here, it's next month in Australia, where they are headquartered. I always have to remind myself to request two days before the end of the month to be on the safe side.
You can actually request before you have the funds in your account. I just request on the first of the month, like with all the other sites, then when the end of the month comes around I get paid for the tabulated monthly earnings. Or to be more clear. My earnings were just tabulated and move to the 'pending payment' area. I have $0 in my account. I can then request payout right now for whatever is in my account at then end of the month.. then I'll get that 15 days after the end of June.
908
« on: May 31, 2013, 15:17 »
OK, ok, I think everyone has had a chance to voice their opinion on this. Lots of good thoughts - thanks. And, unfortunately a few casualties at the mere mention of the idea. That still makes me scratch my head  I'll lock this thread now and think on it for a bit. Nothing will happen without a good warning and like I've stated earlier, even if I do decide to implement some version of what I proposed, nobody's account will all of a sudden become 'exposed'. Any info that is shown in the 'shown identities' will be entered AFTER the change... if there ever is one. I have to think a little on this.
909
« on: May 31, 2013, 06:23 »
Ok I'll take that  Actually as far as giving pluses or minuses go we are all anonymous
I would think that leaf can see all..... 
Yes I believe he can at least I hope so.
Yeah, I can easily see who has voted on a post, but can't see who voted + or - unless I look at the mysql database or unless there is only one vote and then it is obvious.
910
« on: May 30, 2013, 12:53 »
I'm surprised how stocksyesque it looks. I would say Stocksy looks a lot like OFFSET but Stocksy opened over a month ago ... so, OFFSET sure looks a lot like stocksy.
911
« on: May 30, 2013, 06:49 »
well, i just saw that the site sold with 'Buy it Now'.. for $20,000
A big price to pay for something that could get shut down in a day with a take down notice.
912
« on: May 30, 2013, 04:10 »
Nope. No one has been banned from iStock based on anything they have said here. I can attest to this fact as I have been responsable for the majority of the bans since well before I was a member here. I first opened my account here in 2008 and since then I have been actively lurking, with an occasional post here and there.
Account bans and Forum bans are entirely different things, however, the contributors in these boards are entirely free to say whatever they like. And as you might have noticed there are plenty of choice comments directed at iS, Getty, and myself which haven't translated into any repercussions with peoples accounts.
Leaf, good luck. It's not easy keeping a community rolling without upsetting a few people along the way. Whatever you I hope it continues to push the discussions towards civility and conversation rather than trolling and flamethrowers.
1) I don't believe that the things Sean said/posted had nothing to do with his banning - OK, he said them on the iStock forums as well as here, so maybe it was the comments on your forum rather than this one that caught the eye of whoever decided to dump him, but I doubt if the outcome would have been different if he had only been posting here.
Why do I believe that? Well, it wasn't the quality of his photography that got him dumped. He hadn't actually submitted anything to Stocksy - and it seems unlikely that he ever would have done given the cost of abandoning exclusivity. What he did that made him different was the way he alerted people to what was going on at iStock and the greasemonkey scripts he wrote.
2) I do believe that dumping Sean was quite deliberately intended to send a "nobody is safe" message throughout the stock community. Otherwise, why not talk to him about his scripts and Stocksy and how he needed to get more "on board" with company thinking? According to his account of the events there was never any intention to have a proper discussion.
3) Having iStock ban-hammer wielder "Thor" Lobo tell us that it is a really good idea to remove anonymity because nobody will get hurt is like hearing the wolf (pun intended) tell the lambs that they don't need to hide inside a guarded enclosure because they won't be at any risk if they roam around in the woods.
The mere fact that Lobo thinks its worth the trouble of advising Leaf (on a chummy moderator to moderator basis) that dumping anonymity would be a good idea should set alarm bells ringing.
And you know what? I already feel ever so slightly nervous about posting this, because I am clearly taking a position that opposes the wishes of the iStock spokesman .
Frankly the thought has crossed my mind that the sites might have been pushing for this behind the scenes, that is pure conjecture of course.
Only one site has ever expressed their wish for exposed identities on the forum, and that was 3 years ago. When I said it wasn't going to happen they said they'd stop visiting the forum. Whether they have or haven't I don't know but it didn't really matter.
913
« on: May 30, 2013, 01:01 »
The voting is so close that this reminds me of the election between Al Gore and Georg Bush where the state of Florida demanded a recount which took months to decide.
Okay, I know it's totally OT, but I live in Florida, and I voted here in that election. Since it was personal for me, let me clarify something for you. THE RECOUNT DIDN'T HAPPEN. It was blocked by the US Supreme Court. So no, a recount didn't decide the election. To this day nobody knows for sure what that recount would have shown because it wasn't allowed to be completed.
Another OT, but I think relevant to this discussion about trolls and general unpleasantness:-
I'd love to know why someone gave Lisa a -1 for this statement of fact.
Is the person brave enough to explain? Thanks!
Actually 2 minuses and a plus. .. I really need to work on the mod to show how many +'s and how many -'s. I'm just worried how much of a mess it will be to get working that i don't dare start.
914
« on: May 30, 2013, 00:18 »
I reported the auction to Flippa, and they say they have now been in contact with istock about the auction and are awaiting a DMCA claim from them.
I reported it too but it sounded like they weren't going to do anything unless iStock sent a DMCA. If iStock is too lazy to do anything or doesn't care then the auction won't be removed Thanks for contacting Flippa Customer Support.
Flippa will remove a listing with contents infringing on copyright or a trademark, upon receipt of a Digital Millenium Copyright Act ( DMCA ) notice from the affected party, or a signed official document from a legal body.
More information on Flippa's policies regarding listings containing potentially copyrighted or trademarked material can be found at
https://flippa.com/help/forbidden-copyright-material
Please let us know if you need further information or clarification.
Kind Regards
Flippa Customer Support.
915
« on: May 29, 2013, 16:52 »
I don't think first name last initial and a portfolio link is at all unreasonable.
Personally I don't see a huge problem with trolls here, I do sometimes see a problem with lack of respect. Some seem to think a "troll" is someone who disagrees with the majority opinion...loudly. Just because they annoy you and you disagree does not mean they are "trolling." I think many get confused by someone that has an unpopular opinion versus some bored 13 year old that comes on a board just to rile people up for fun. There is an ignore button if you don't feel like wasting your own time refusing to agree to disagree.
The second thing is it makes me really sad to see so many people thinking that the solution to the behavior of companies like Fotolia is to hide and censor themselves rather than deciding to work with better partners or pushing for a change in policy. There seems to be a ton of complaining about bad policies but when people refuse to fight back what change can be expected?
I also see a people that feel comfortable behind anonymous user names sometimes making personal attacks that they wouldn't consider if they were being held responsible by being identified. I've often taken breaks from reading MSG after being turned off by overly passionate mob mentality that can up with certain subjects. Maybe the conversations would be kept more civil if there was more accountability.
Some of the more civilized forums and communities I frequent are the ones where people use names or at least links to their work and have open discussions that tend to remain more civil. Then I look at things like Youtube comments and see anonymity at work. I lean toward humanizing things as much as possible. I like the idea of a name and initial, maybe just that is enough to remind us that there is a person behind that opinion and you can express yours without insults.
Very nicely summarized. I am surprised at how close the voting is. Interesting to say the least.... Lots of great comments btw.
916
« on: May 29, 2013, 16:22 »
I guess I'm not really seeing the problem with 'trolls'. It's just text on a screen, people. They're not camping in your front lawn and using bullhorns.
Is this really about cleaning up the forum to attract more and better advertisers? If so, I totally understand. Leaf has every right to make money from his efforts. Maybe the answer is 2 forums, one 'sanitary' and one not.
This is more about sleeping soundly at night and not being in a panic every morning to check my emails in case something 'broke loose' while I was sleeping. I was also given a taste of what a 'real identities' forum is like, and I like it and wondered that that would be here. In regards to advertisers, the advertisers have been pretty steady the last few years, I don't feel the need for more. I've also considered have a sub site many times and even registered a few domains for that purpose but never figured out a good way to implement it.
917
« on: May 29, 2013, 15:25 »
Click...
What you say is reasonable and I do not disagree much, we could dig into nuances and find or not find consensus.
Im not accusing you, im pointing a finger at the whole anonymous mechanism.
Which I dont like, it is not productive.
What is not productive is trolls!
It has nothing to do with people that are anonymous!
Anonymous members don't equal trolls.
However, 99% of the trolls are anonymous.
So you're basically shooting birds with canons by eliminating anonymity. That's not a very eloquent approach IMO.
Leaf pulls the strings, he should "rule" over who he deems is worthy participating on his forum, although this already sounds a bit weird... - Point is, Leaf will have to ban the exposed trolls.
And let me throw something out there for a second for everyone to think about:
Assuming all microstockgroup members would have their identities revealed instantly, right now - do you really believe that fact would make all the discussions more "refreshingly positive and constructive"?
Seriously, by taking the members that already post here any given day, if we change all of their identity status, would we really have better discussions? It' still the same people, same opinions...
Call me ignorant or whatever, but I cannot see a correlation between existing forum members having "better" discussions because now they can look at each others portfolios.
Anyone, please, what am I missing?
You may be right.. and might not be.. I don't really know. That would be what the 1 month trial would find out. And I'll repeat myself just so no one misunderstands. If I decided to implement this (as a test or permanent) everyone's identities would not all of a sudden be revealed. People would have to physically type in their identity, which would then be shown. Nothing would be automatic.
918
« on: May 29, 2013, 14:56 »
How about just enforcing these rules on suspected trolls. Or just delete trolls as soon as they start trolling rather than leaving them so long before deleting.
Poor Leaf can't be reading posts 24 hours a day. What about appointing some pseudo-administrators to help out? I don't want to propagate a police-state, just get some help for Tyler if this is the solution.
Yeah, it is a bit of a daunting task to keep up I admit. Threads that I know are friendly I skim. Controversial threads I try to keep up to date with. I have avoided having additional moderators because I fear it would just open up another can of worms that would be hard to regulate. I like having myself only to blame for what happens here and setting rules for other moderators would be tough as there are many grey zones. Many people report out of line posts or plain spam posts which is appreciated, and members with over 1000 posts can move threads to a hidden area if things get crazy while I'm MIA.
920
« on: May 29, 2013, 14:18 »
yes, we should all report it.
921
« on: May 29, 2013, 14:15 »
Thanks for all the thoughts everyone. I've plussed a lot of posts, both for and against the idea.
A good point was made that creating just a dummy name isn't hard and would be rather hard to disprove. A portfolio link would be a better, more reliable solution but would be quite a bit of work to double check. perhaps the idea with both was to set the tone of a professional meeting place where we came with our real identities. If there was ever an issue with a poster, then things could be double checked to confirm their identity.
I have also toyed with the idea of having a special area for either those who are willing to show their identity or special area for those who don't want to reveal their identity. I think that could be an alright solution and would be quite easy to implement but would have the danger of multiple threads on the same subject for each group would be very confusing and nonconstructive. It is a solution that finds a bit of middle ground however.
I agree that there are a lot of respected and respectful members that are anonymous and it would be a shame to loose them. What is easy to forget however, is the people that may join the conversation if it were to become more transparent.
922
« on: May 29, 2013, 07:57 »
Leaf. I know you have something good in mind when you make some changes in forum but as you see many are against it, why dont you just stop people creating new IDs/accounts after deleting old ID/accounts of their own rather disclosing the real identity. And if some one closes his/her account purposely or mistakenly then he/she can only recreate same login ID as earlier (from same IP address) and that too after admin or your approval.
By this way, atleast the IDs or nicknames will remain familiar to everyone. Just a suggestion.
It's pretty impossible to stop people from signing up under multiple accounts. All you need is an email address or 10 to sign up. I can see IP address and a person with 2 accounts will be visible that way but you can also skirt around that problem with an ip proxy (a pain to try and use long term) .. but also ISP (internet service providers) .. the people you pay for internet, also often change you IP, so if I ban someone, their IP address will eventually change and they will be able to sign up with a new email and user name unknown to all. Having to confirm your account should stop some of this.
923
« on: May 29, 2013, 07:53 »
Leaf if you decide to go ahead with this can you make sure that we are informed in good time so that if we don't want our names made public we can delete our accounts in time. If we choose to pay would this be instead of as well as our normal yearly payment? I'd also rather not confirm links through site mail as I'm sure the companies have access to site mail.
I'm still in the brainstorming stage so nothing is set in stone and I'm open to suggestions if anyone has a brainy idea. Everyone would be given a little warning (perhaps a week or so) but nobody's name would be published without their consent. If I did decide to go with the 'showing names' route, it would be published from a new field on your profile - which means currently it is blank for everyone and it would be impossible to publish anything without someone manually typing it in first. For those who never fill anything in, their profile would still be active, they just wouldn't be able to post until they filled in their required info. For the payment upgrade of hidden identities - I don't really know how it will work. I wouldn't have a problem including it as a premium membership feature.. but I'd have to see.. perhaps it would be separate. It surely isn't meant to be a 'money grab'. If nobody paid for the 'hidden identity' I'd be quite happy. It is simply meant as a slight deterrent for those who really feel it is important to be hidden but still want to participate in the discussion. To confirm identities.. there are lots of ways to work around this problem. A site mail could be sent on MSG saying you just liked image X on dreamstime, or some othersite activity. I'm just trying to avoid someone giving a bogus portfolio as a link.
924
« on: May 29, 2013, 07:41 »
Wouldn't matter. They just open another account.
They'd have to do ip rerouting though and perhaps they'd run out of credit cards.. eventually?? Surely there is some way to shut the site down given the weight of the Getty Gorilla?
925
« on: May 29, 2013, 07:15 »
Hilarious. Since IS hasn't figured out how to stop them, maybe the details will help. Doubtful....
Assuming all high tech ways of figuring out who they are fail, it would be pretty easy to buy 5 pics through their site and look on the iStock back end and see which account is purchasing those images. Or... perhaps they just don't care that this site is illegally reselling our content???
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 390
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
