|
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 - Noedelhap
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 90
901
« on: January 20, 2018, 18:11 »
What does a woman's period have to do with the rejection of your images?
I know it's meant as a joke, but it's not very funny and in today's society, where women still have to stand up for themselves to get paid the same as men, to be believed when they claim to be sexual assault victims, you decide to liken the 'irrational' rejection of your images to a woman on her period? Utterly misplaced.
902
« on: January 20, 2018, 17:48 »
It takes three months for a payout these days. Used to be once a month.
904
« on: January 20, 2018, 06:24 »
I see it often on Twitter. Someone tweets a self-made photograph of some event (say, the aftermath of a rainstorm or a fire) and national newspapers or news networks ask for permission to publish the photo online on their website or in the paper, with credits.
Which is fine, of course, they're at least asking permission instead of stealing it.
But most of the time the photographer in case is an amateur and gives his permission because he simply doesn't care about the money (being credited is fun enough, right?) or doesn't value his own work in terms of money.
Of course, the majority of amateur content creators is uneducated about this issue, so newspapers and magazines often get away with it.
905
« on: January 18, 2018, 11:21 »
I 've tried cmsaccount a few years ago, and it took me a while to set it up, but I got it working pretty good. Updating it would've been a hassle because I customized a lot of it.
Also, at the time the script was unable to deal with charging VAT, I don't know if they updated it know. Anyway, due to lack of sales I decided to pull the plug.
906
« on: January 16, 2018, 06:32 »
It should be slightly slower than other months, but your mileage may vary. For me this January is doing fine.
907
« on: January 16, 2018, 06:29 »
They've removed my images from Alamy.
I don't know what's worse: them purposefully continuing selling my content and keeping the money from sales, or them not being aware of content sold at partners. They're either unethical or very sloppy, or both.
My advice, steer clear of this agency.
908
« on: January 14, 2018, 12:57 »
Yes market your work...but as was pointed out you MUST watermark the footage. Otherwise you are actually just giving it away to unscrupulous editors.
Here is an example of what I do:
LP
Kinda creeps me out tbh, the people staring at me without doing anything in combination with the melancholic music.
909
« on: January 12, 2018, 14:01 »
I have the feeling that their rebranding has been a disaster.
They had made quite a name for video sales, but then they made the incredibly strange decision to change their name to enter a market totally dead (microstock photo), and I have the feeling that they hurt their video sales very badly.
Of course they made nothing on the photo market
Same here. I did get video sales but less frequently. No images sales, so I too get the feeling their rebranding hurt video sales.
910
« on: January 11, 2018, 12:24 »
I ended my account in November 2016, which resulted in a complete deletion of my account 6 months later.
By coincidence, I just noticed that some of my work (if not all) is still available on their partner site Alamy, being sold under their name. Apparently they've been cashing with my images 6 months after the cancellation?  I sent them an email to get some answers.
Just like Zoonar and of course the answer will be your images never sold thru Alamy ~ yeah right 
Write to Alamy tell them the images are being put up for sale and they should take them down
Received the following reply: Hello Mr. xxxxx,
thank you for making us aware of this. We regret that your images were still online by a partner, despite of on time notification. We have contacted Alamy and we will make sure, that your images will be deleted immediately.
We have reviewed sales reports and there were no sales of your images by Alamy.
kind regards
PantherMedia Support Team
I have to take their word for it. I'll keep an eye on this though. if the images aren't removed within 3 days, I'll write to Alamy.
911
« on: January 10, 2018, 15:04 »
Same here, December was the worst month ever on 123RF. A drop of 80%-85% of my average monthly revenue. I wonder what caused it.
912
« on: January 10, 2018, 15:01 »
Dear All,
I would really appreciate any constructive comments/ideas/info on the post.
Just to make myself clear: I assume if my images have passed quality control in the Top Tier "Big 4" at the local microstock Poll at the right of this page, and they sell daily, - there should be no questions regarding "are they salable or marketable"? They do 100%... 
The question is why in the past (2-3 years ago) CreStock accepted all my photography and every one was sold many time so far, why it does not do it anymore? Do they face financial crises? Do they change "some politics" I am not aware of...? If you know something, please, share your thoughts and/or your experience!
Many thanks!!!
The question isn't why they reject your work, the question is why would you spend any more time and effort to an agency that doesn't value your work and, more importantly, doesn't sell?
913
« on: January 10, 2018, 13:22 »
I ended my account in November 2016, which resulted in a complete deletion of my account 6 months later. By coincidence, I just noticed that some of my work (if not all) is still available on their partner site Alamy, being sold under their name. Apparently they've been cashing with my images 6 months after the cancellation? I sent them an email to get some answers.
914
« on: January 07, 2018, 12:11 »
Oh yea I clicked on Edit and now I can see 'Save and submit for review.' However, it's not clickable (it's greyed out.) Ive filled in all the required fields.
By the way, is the 'seamless looping' option for the preview - when someone's cursor hovers over a thumbnail?
If your video loops seamlessly, you can tick the checkbox. If not, then keep it unchecked. It has nothing to do with the preview.
915
« on: January 04, 2018, 05:55 »
I think the white generic 3d guy (sometimes he's orange or blue) is becoming more and more of a clich in microstock. And 3d renders like these start to feel a little bit dated, perhaps.
On a technical level I think the white model is a bit too blobby. His head seems disfigured and the way he is holding the shopping cart looks strange.
Ok , but there were sales upon that images on 2016 , overall the amount where pretty low on whole , i,m afraid that if i do improvements on these scenes and render again the money making scenario would be equal to the past .
Noedelhap do you know where these are used , i have sales ranging from 10-25 per day , i don,t know where this is used , may be for employees in corporate,s ?
Whats about backgrounds or seamless patterns like these
I've seen the 3d generic guy (not yours) on websites and in powerpoint presentations. The first seamless pattern looks like a cheap MSPaint illustration. The second one looks like the ribbon is made from plastic. The third one, I have no idea what I'm looking at. But I don't think there's any commercial value.
916
« on: January 04, 2018, 04:59 »
I think the white generic 3d guy (sometimes he's orange or blue) is becoming more and more of a clich in microstock. And 3d renders like these start to feel a little bit dated, perhaps.
On a technical level I think the white model is a bit too blobby. His head seems disfigured and the way he is holding the shopping cart looks strange.
917
« on: January 02, 2018, 07:34 »
When the money gets into my bank account, that's when it is reported.
Exactly. It'd be too complicated and time-consuming to keep track of every single unpaid sale on every agency, if not impossible. You can get refunds, clawbacks and accounting errors from the agency. If the tax collector is gonna say I'm doing it wrong, I'll happily invite him for a cup of coffee and a place at my desk to manually investigate thousands and thousands of individual sales. He'll be gone as quick as he came.
918
« on: January 01, 2018, 07:37 »
Even though your evidence indicates that he probably stole some designs and put derivates up for sale, ultimately it's up to Shutterstock to decide what to do with his account. The only thing we can do is report him to SS. There's no point in publishing his name or any of his social media channels in here. We're not a court of law.
AFAIK, only the infringed artist can sue him if he or she wants to. And then it's up to the judge to decide whether he's guilty or not, if it ever comes to that.
919
« on: December 31, 2017, 13:27 »
Yes seems a soft target I would have thought there are far worse things to go after.
Just because murder is generally far worse than a DUI case doesn't mean the police should ignore the latter. It's not mutually exclusive.
920
« on: December 31, 2017, 13:20 »
Why is it important that it is obviously fake? What's the point of this? To protect people from seeing animals in unnatural situations or to protect animals from being placed in unnatural situations?
What I meant is that you should be able to tell whether the monkey is, for example, actually wearing a real hat or a photoshopped hat. If you can't distinguish real photos from fake ones, a photographer could get away by simply denying it's real. Which wouldn't be possible if the photo is an obvious fake.
921
« on: December 31, 2017, 08:23 »
I know I'll get booed here for saying this, but I'm glad to see this change of policy.
If you want to photograph apes and monkeys, do the hard work of seeking them out in the wild. It's the right and "natural" thing to do.
Apparently you didn't read the blog post. According to the new rules, you can still photograph them in zoos, no need to venture into the wild.
I understand and support PETA's goal to minimize exploitation, but I don't think this rule is a great idea. Certainly banning animals being exploited by dressing them up in clothes or forcing them to do things they wouldn't do in the wild is understandable, but even photoshopping them? If you photograph an animal at a zoo, cut out the image and use it to make a humorous card, for example, where is the harm in that? What about editorial photos of animals being exploited that could be used to dramatize the problem and bring about its end? Blanket rules to enforce someone's idea of purity are almost never a good idea in my experience. Banning photoshopped images and editorials goes too far (I don't have either of animals, BTW, so this won't affect me personally one way or the other).
Wearing clothing or accessories, such as hats or sunglasses
Being shown in a studio setting or human environment, such as an office or circus
Exhibiting trained or unnatural behavior, such as dancing or performing
Engaging in unnatural interactions with humans, such as holding hands or being held
Situations like these are often set up without the animal being able to resist. What if it feels threatened or afraid, just because clients want a 'funny' photo of a monkey wearing sunglasses or performing dancing routines? Don't forget that animals like monkeys, elephants, tigers and lions are often mistreated during training for tourist attractions or the circus.
Agree 100%. Except what about when a baby animal is rescued - it could be interacting with a human protector. And no animals are hurt during photoshopping.
True, the policy change is maybe a bit too much. There should be exceptions to the rule such as your example. And photoshopping animals is okay IMO, if they're obviously fake.
922
« on: December 31, 2017, 07:55 »
Idiots. PETA and SS
Why? Wearing clothing or accessories, such as hats or sunglasses Being shown in a studio setting or human environment, such as an office or circus Exhibiting trained or unnatural behavior, such as dancing or performing Engaging in unnatural interactions with humans, such as holding hands or being held Situations like these are often set up without the animal being able to resist. What if it feels threatened or afraid, just because clients want a 'funny' photo of a monkey wearing sunglasses or performing dancing routines? Don't forget that animals like monkeys, elephants, tigers and lions are often mistreated during training for tourist attractions or the circus.
923
« on: December 29, 2017, 09:35 »
Surprisingly, this December is my best month ever on SS as well, thanks to some nice video sales and SOD's.
924
« on: December 23, 2017, 10:06 »
And about the other answers that I got to my simple question? I will not lose my precious time to comment the stupid answers!!
You just did. It's like asking where the gold can be found during the Gold Rush. Although in the case of microstock the rush is over.
925
« on: December 23, 2017, 08:08 »
The article states that this ruling does not mean ALL stock photos aren't subject to copyright, only in the case of this particular photo.
But I don't agree with the verdict. In my opinion, every photo is a photographer's creation, whether or not the subject is 'boring', or 'not creative enough'. It's created because the photographer pushed that buttonm so by definition it should be subject to copyright laws.
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 90
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
