|
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 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 390
926
« 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???
927
« on: May 29, 2013, 07:12 »
It is the agencies that are giving away my sales data on the internet, not msg. And I react by selecting what goes where.
Agencies that show individual file download numbers will get a lower choice in content from me and many files they will never see unless the numbers are removed.
But this is a different discussion for another thread.
I see no reason to hide my name because some agencies are clinging to concepts that might have worked in 2000-2004, like you said, but are counterproductive today where more people actually make money from their work.
I think this is a good point. If someone wants to start copying, looking at one individual's port for inspiration isn't going to get you very far. If you want to copy and create the best hamburger image you'll be a lot better off searching the entire istock / Dreamstime / Shutterstock collection and sort by best sales than searching one individual's piddly little portfolio. Sales on 20,000,000 images are going to give better eye popping results than sales on a few thousand images in a single port.
928
« on: May 29, 2013, 05:06 »
This thread was mostly sparked from my participation in that other forum which seems so much more .. well, .. professional.
What other forum may I ask?
http://forum.freeflysystems.com/index.php
929
« on: May 29, 2013, 04:55 »
Well I'm protective of my privacy on the Internet as a whole, for perfectly rational and logical reasons and I would never sign up to any forum or other form of social media that insists that I have no right to my own privacy. I'm not sure what sort of assurance it is that 'only members' would know people's real names, since anyone could become a member and I'd have no idea as to the kind of person they were in reality or what they might do with that information.
If you make it compulsory, then I'll be out too.
Thanks for the thoughts. The reason I thought to hide names publicly was to make it so google search wouldn't pick them up.
930
« on: May 29, 2013, 04:24 »
I'm not sure I agree. Sean wasn't booted for simply disagreeing with iStock's google deal.
How do you know why Sean was booted? Were you the Getty manager who made the decision or, alternatively, have you had his reasons in writing explaining it to you? Or are you just speculating? I don't think even Sean truly understands what happened and why. I certainly don't.
I have no idea why he was booted other than what he posted on his blog and on here. But from what he wrote, I felt the reasons were more than simply a forum post. Did they say why?
Well, it took a while for me to get reasons, as mostly I was told that discussion would not be productive. However, I was told they did not like how I handled the Google Drive situation, on and off-site.
Also, they did not appreciate the deactivation addition to my Greasemonkey script. The most odd part of this was that I was accused of leading the February 2nd deactivation day. Odd (and a complete lie), because I didnt start it, never said I was going to participate it, and never actively encouraged anyone to participate in it, although I did encourage everyone to study the available facts and make a decision on what they felt was appropriate action. In fact, I sent several emails the week prior to iStockphoto/Getty managers to initiate a phone conversation, thinking I could provide suggestions on how to defuse the situation.
They also knew (somehow!) that I had joined this new stock site, even though it was closed to all but a relatively small group, and declared that this was against the spirit of the exclusivity agreement. Im not sure what the issue was there, as I am not an indentured servant, and if I want to investigate things, that should not be threatening to them. It seems they either see this new venture as a danger to them, or are just vindictive towards anyone involved with it, for some reason. Looking at this now, I think they mistakenly assumed, or were told, that I was a bigger part of the picture there than I actually was.
Also, when I said that this seemed like something personal, I was told it was just business. Since it affects my family, obviously I find it a bit more personal than they do; iStockphoto and Getty provide nearly all of my income.
So, it appeared they were never interested in a discourse at all. It was just a way to cut me off. At least I got a phone call.
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/02/11/a-change-in-things/
931
« on: May 29, 2013, 04:10 »
I have some understanding for the people who want to hide their identities from the agencies as well, however, when you consider it, many of the people who have the most to loose (the full time photographers) are posting with their real names or at least a known identity. Andres, Yuri, Lisa, Sean, photorob, etc. etc. If it was a big issue those people wouldn't post with their real names. Agencies don't have, and have never had a problem with people expressing negativity towards an idea - it's the way it is delivered that they (and I for that matter) have a problem with. If it is delivered in a professional, respectful manner, no one should take offense, and if they do, one could ask themselves if they really want to work with such a company in the first place.
I really can't believe you wrote that or even started this thread. In case you've been on another planet for the last few months you should be aware that some bloke called Sean recently lost an income of about $400K per year through posting 'negative but professional' posts on here and elsewhere. Maybe it's just me but I'd call that a pretty "big issue". Duh.
BTW __ it's 'lose' not 'loose'.
But that hasn't stopped Sean from posting with his real name. I also added a bold highlight to a part you may have missed. re:spelling. It's never been my strong point.
932
« on: May 29, 2013, 03:53 »
We know some stock sites have booted people for saying things they don't like - the name "Locke" comes to mind these days and iStock has been more tolerant than one or two other agencies.
I guess allowing agencies to check up on who is saying what about them is a good way to ensure that we only get "Woo-Yay" threads here from now on. Apart, of course, from cases where people are not members of a particular agency and will still be free to criticise it. So if this thread was sparked by the exchanges about Stocksy, then using real names isn't likely to change anything.
I'm not sure I agree. Sean wasn't booted for simply disagreeing with iStock's google deal. There were many public people more vocal about it than him. Also, having identities shown haven't stopped people from disagreeing with what sites are doing. I deleted lots of images from my port in protest as well as did many other public people. The difference between an agency forum and this one that on this forum, posts aren't deleted for being critical of an agency. This thread was mostly sparked from my participation in that other forum which seems so much more .. well, .. professional.
933
« on: May 29, 2013, 03:44 »
It looks like this site is now being sold on Flippa https://flippa.com/2932098-pr2-photography-site-with-2-000-000-indexes-tool-to-make-3000-monthlyIt also explains how the system is working. When customer presses the Download button:
+ If this photo has been previously purchased by another (and has already been stored on the server), the code automatically resizes the original photo into the size requested by the customer (the secret account of admin on istockphoto will not have to make any more payment Buy one time and use forever)
+ If this photo does not exist on the server yet, the code automatically orders from istockphoto and download the photo (each different photo is purchased only once with the largest size) Obviously against the iStock Terms of Service
934
« on: May 29, 2013, 03:44 »
Well I'm out too, bye
wow, that was quick. I was just throwing the idea out there to hear thoughts and opinions and you deleted your account... I'm very interested in trying this out and from the poll it looks like there are others as well but I'm going to listen to the feedback people have first.
935
« on: May 29, 2013, 03:09 »
Definitely worth trying it out for a month. Might even discourage the use of multiple accounts.
exactly
936
« on: May 29, 2013, 03:08 »
The real name would be hidden to protect the search results for people who don't want to mix up their mircostock business with their regular photography business (or whatever else the case may be)
I have some understanding for the people who want to hide their identities from the agencies as well, however, when you consider it, many of the people who have the most to lose (the full time photographers) are posting with their real names or at least a known identity. Andres, Yuri, Lisa, Sean, photorob, etc. etc. If it was a big issue those people wouldn't post with their real names. Agencies don't have, and have never had a problem with people expressing negativity towards an idea - it's the way it is delivered that they (and I for that matter) have a problem with. If it is delivered in a professional, respectful manner, no one should take offense, and if they do, one could ask themselves if they really want to work with such a company in the first place.
But.. if it's still a problem, like I states in the first post - people could still choose to hide their identities. They'd just have to prove it was really important to them by buying an upgrade.
@jareso, Yeah I should make the signature show for premium members.
937
« on: May 29, 2013, 01:15 »
I know we've hashed this out a few times, but feelings can change and I have a few suggestions to make a confirmed identities system work better.
What do you think of..
Everyone on the forum has to add a portfolio link and their real name to their profile (at least first name.. or possibly first name and last initial.. for example). Their name will be displayed under their user name but will NOT show publicly .. only to logged in users. The user name is all that will show publicly.
The portfolio link would not be shown publicly (to help those who feel they have a niche they don't want copied) only to other logged in users of MSG.
Lastly.. for those who really feel for some reason that they need to hide their real name and port they can purchase that 'upgrade'. What I'm thinking initially is $5.00/month .. I don't need the extra income from the forum but it would create a barrier for the trolls who just want to hide and for those who really feel it is important but still want to be part of the discussion it shouldn't be a big deal. I'll donate half that amount to charity and keep the rest for the pain of getting this all working and keeping it in order. The people who want to hide their identity will still have to prove their identity to me through an istock / Dreamstime / stocksy etc.. site mail.
Why do this?
Well, frankly, I've been visiting another forum (about a different topic) that simply requires you to have your real name as your user name.. and the conversation there has been refreshingly positive and constructive. It is a quite small forum so I'm guessing that has a lot to do with it and I don't have the illusion that it will remove all negative discussion here but I certainly think it will help. Hidden identities are starting to feel a bit 'last decade' internet culture, especially for a website that is trying to be a 'professional' meeting place.
As a trial .. I thought we could see how it goes for a month. What do you think? Dumb idea? Good idea? I'm open to hearing people's thoughts.
938
« on: May 29, 2013, 00:53 »
OK - this thread isn't discussing things any more.. just bickering. I'll lock it.
Interesting how Stocksy is bringing out such emotions in people.
939
« on: May 25, 2013, 16:13 »
Edited message: MSG - please take my image down in the post above. I think I asked nicely, but the request has been ignored by the poster above.
I've sent a message to admin - but I don't think anyone is "in". If there is a forum admin who can make a call to action - please do.
Sorry, I wasn't online earlier today (believe it or not I do step away from the computer once in a while). I've removed the images now.
940
« on: May 24, 2013, 08:45 »
... but we're a stock photography website not a template provider for designers.
I agree that you are a stock agency not a template site but would argue the opposite way. Accepting just the one image is simply providing a template for designers to use.. accepting them all is providing a finished product, ready to be used... stock photography. Lots of designers know how to use Photoshop but many image buyers (especially microstock buyers) just want something simple that they can use right away. They don't want to have to edit it themselves. You also chose an image which was easy to modify, the guy in the forest example is quite a bit harder to create variations.
941
« on: May 22, 2013, 15:59 »
You have a nice design.. it looks like the site is built on CMSaccount though.. not a bad thing for a personal site but could be an indicator of the size of budget
944
« on: May 18, 2013, 15:18 »
SS seems to be the only place where Yuri has no longer files which must have been the main request by Getty (all other its fine), that shows their fear of SS and the desperation of selling
interesting to see how exclusives can't have a single file anywhere (except RM), believe they must be very happy about this different treatment
I would imagine that it is the easiest place to remove files. You just hit the off switch. That and if his issue was with subs, then it's the biggest target too.
Agreed, Shutterstock is the only site with a main breaker switch to turn the lights off. All other sites require an image by image deactivation or at least an email sent to someone in the office to disable the account on the back end.
945
« on: May 16, 2013, 04:59 »
It looks like they are trying to encourage uploads (again).. which is interesting. Perhaps it seems like enough people giving them the cold shoulder is working.
946
« on: May 16, 2013, 02:52 »
You could also consider just opting out of everything on your Shutterstock profile page. That will remove them from the searches and give you a quick way back if you change your mind.
And the neccesary question... are you sure you wan't to go iStock exclusive??
947
« on: May 16, 2013, 02:16 »
Another very fun ad made by AlmapBBDO
948
« on: May 13, 2013, 06:31 »
.. like what ShadySue says..
what an advertiser is allowed to do and what they do do are two totally different things. If they do something they are not allowed to do you could probably get the ad taken down but after you / the model / his co-workers discover the ad, the damage is probably already done.
949
« on: May 13, 2013, 05:21 »
My experience is that when an image is borderline acceptable it can go either way. If it is a stunning no brainer super image it will get accepted both times, if the reviewer says.. mehh.. then it is just a matter of chance and mood if they reach for the reject or accept button.
950
« on: May 13, 2013, 01:17 »
I'm pretty sure you don't have to remove the name when submitting it to the micros.
On the other hand, I certainly would - to protect his identity and to avoid any extra confusion when he is used in an ad or article for something.
And to echo what tickstock is saying, I never use a person in his own profession. If I have a doctor friend I'll use him as a contact and use his location for the shoot but stick my architect friend in the shoot as the doctor. Then maybe use the doctor as an architect in the architects office. When someone models within their own profession it creates so much more ambiguity to wether they are actually just a model or actually support the cause / thing they are advertising. Your doctor images WILL show up in a medical publication and his co-workers WILL see him advertising medical glove X or medication Y or malpractise insurance Z. He could show up in an ad saying "When you make a big mistake and the patient dies in surgery.. like happened to me, who has you covered". would you rather have your doctor friend or architect friend in that ad? If it is the architect friend, first no one in the industry will recognize him and if someone does they will know he is just an actor.
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 390
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
