|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 291
951
« on: September 10, 2020, 11:12 »
952
« on: September 10, 2020, 10:28 »
"Licenses issued by Playstock for any of your Content that is later removed by yourself will remain in full force and effect in perpetuity."
Yea, NO!!
Well, to be fair, thats true of all agencies.
Mainly true. Motion Elements is two Years. I just completed my two years post account closing and was finally able to delete my already sold vids that were locked for that two years.
You're muddling a hold on your work - to continue licensing it after you want to leave - with the validity of licenses sold while you're active (every RF site does this). However, look at this language in the contributor TOS: "Any Content uploaded through the pre-launch (Upload Bonus) event cannot be removed, and in cases where you suspend your account for personal reasons the Company has the right to retrieve the previously issued Upload Bonus payment." I'd echo the comments above: uploading to a site that hasn't said anything about pricing is insane. Don't do it! Looking at the contributor TOS and the TOS, it looks as though many details have yet to be worked out (such as which payment services will be supported - "Online payment processing services, such as Paypal and Payoneer will be used."). https://www.playstock.net/contributor-terms-of-servicehttps://www.playstock.net/terms-of-serviceOdd sections from the Contributor TOS include things like this at the end of the list of things you may not upload: "Other insignificant, personal Content that the Company deems is misfit for the Site"I have no clue what that would be referring to There's also some VAT related wording that says if VAT is owed, the contributor is on the hook to pay it, not the agency. In the TOS, it says you can't change your account email! "You maintain sole access and control over all details in your personal profile and may alter these information at any point of use. However, you may NOT modify your email address and username required for Service management.: They will not register "Accounts that reflect discrimination and hate, racism, abomination and pornography, violence of any sort" I would stay far away...
953
« on: September 09, 2020, 10:46 »
So I bought a picture for my blog article. The author wanted to cancel the purchase, but I refused.
As noted above, what you purchased was a license (I assume royalty free). It's very unusual for a photographer to want to "cancel the purchase" - can you explain why someone who licenses their work would want to undo a license sale? You would need to abide by the terms of the license (most prohibit you from re-licensing the image, for example) but otherwise you're OK to use the image.
954
« on: September 09, 2020, 09:42 »
Just went to take a look at their site. They're a copyright infringement site - they chase up uses and seek payment after the fact. Their web site is rather sluggish, and when I went to their "About" page, it tried to load Flash (remember that) which it can't because it's turned off in my browser. No sane site still uses Flash They licensed the Kodak name for their business as it's recognizable (it is, but as a business whose time has passed) Here's the text from their about page: "RYDE Holding, Inc., through a brand licensing agreement established in 2017 with Eastman Kodak Company, created the KODAKOne platform and the KODAKCoin cryptocurrency to empower content creators, content owners and photography agencies to take greater control in image rights management.
RYDE Holding, Inc. will provide digital asset management and protection under the Kodak brand for photographers and image-related intellectual property holders worldwide.
Based in Venice, California, RYDE Holding, Inc. has a development and operations team with deep expertise in proprietary blockchain development, big data, copyright law, artificial intelligence-enabled image recognition and post-licensing monetization systems."So they have buzzwords and a well-known brand name. Here's the team. https://www.kodakone.com/our-team/I didn't find any price information, but I'm assuming they charge for this service. I clicked the "Sign Up" button and it gave a page where I can book a call with Calendly for them to show me around and we discuss my needs. I assume that means they're really expensive  They have a client story about how a photographer specializing in climate change had hired them, but the bulk of the story is about him and only one short piece about the service (no pricing information) https://medium.com/@kodakoneofficial/client-stories-a-talk-with-environmental-photographer-ashley-cooper-from-global-warming-images-315bbb6f3bd7"The Guardian newspaper in the UK ran that photograph as the lead story on the front page. About a week later, I just googled that image, and I was shocked by the number of people that have just used the image on websites. Even places like La Republicca, which is the largest daily selling newspaper in Italy, they had taken the image and used it. This is the kind of thing that you would like to think that newspapers should know better than that. "I ended up getting some money out of La Republicca, but it is complicated. As an individual, I dont have the time or resources to chase people. Reality is that I am sure that for every case I find out about, there are probably a thousand other cases I am not aware of and, there is very little I can do. This is why I use the services of KODAKOne to chase these things for me in a way that I would not be able to do as an individual." One more PR piece from KodakOne staff that suggests they want to tackle the lower priced Royalty Free market - possibly why they've started advertising on Instagram? Seems heavy on the metaphor and light on the details to me https://medium.com/@kodakoneofficial/the-future-of-post-licensing-what-does-it-look-like-1a83325284de
955
« on: September 07, 2020, 13:45 »
With respect to the DMCA in the US (I have no understanding of European case law); several cases in the US have covered the issue of CMI removal and made it clear that the removal has to be with the intent of facilitating copyright infringement. Without that intent, the DMCA doesn't help.
It's a shame that's how the law was written, but the solution is legislative (change the law) not a lawsuit. Right now the US congress is utterly dysfunctional, so this is a longer-term goal
957
« on: September 04, 2020, 13:51 »
Platforms are the new moneymakers - whether it's Uber, Fiverr, Apple's App store, GrubHub or any similar company. Given what stock agencies keep, 15% doesn't sound bad, but I'm not sure what value the site delivers exactly. Developers are furious at Apple keeping 30%. I think Fiverr's take is 20%. Spotify and the whole ecosystem around musicians leaves the people who create the music and record companies with about 56% of the total (artists only getting a fraction of that) https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/streaming-platforms-keeping-more-money-from-artists-than-ever-817925/This HBR article talks about why platforms fail, and it includes this quote: "The consumer, the producer, and the platform all win if the division of value works for everyone. But if one party gets insufficient value, then they have no reason to participate....A simple rule for platform managers is to take less value than you make, and share value fairly with all participants."0 https://hbr.org/2016/03/6-reasons-platforms-fail(It'd be nice if the stock agencies took note of that) This article talks about GrubHub leaving restaurants with barely enough to pay for the ingredients. Services are different from a product with materials costs, but as a tutor can only work a certain number of hours a day, it's possibly more analogous than stock agencies or music streaming https://www.eater.com/2020/5/1/21243966/giuseppe-badalamenti-chicago-pizza-boss-shares-grubhub-earning-statement-on-facebookThis article on Spotify's model goes beyond the 30% cut Spotify takes. If a person buys a $10/month subscription and listens to only one artist's work, the artist doesn't get 70% of the $10. The subscriptions and streams are pooled, favoring some artists and penalizing others https://www.theringer.com/tech/2019/1/16/18184314/spotify-music-streaming-service-royalty-payout-modelI guess the bottom line for me is that the percentage is only part of the story, but for any of these platforms to work long term, it has to (a) create value and (b) divide up that value fairly
959
« on: September 03, 2020, 16:26 »
...
Given at least one of the ones I found is also on Shutterstock, and that they can identify duplicates on upload in your own portfolio, it beggars belief that they don't even check against their own collection when approving images.
Another F for the Ai review-bots.
it's likely a CPU issue - search doesnt put a lot of stress since only a few images are found. dupes w/in a portfolio are easier since total images are relatively few. but a check dupes on everything means 300,000,000 calls to the dupe-checker.
while the thefts are egregious, again, it's a tiny fraction overall, so, as usual it's likely a matter of $$
What they need to do is closely monitor the first hundred or two of a new contributor's uploads (and put back the 7/10 acceptance for new contributors as well). That would largely weed out the thieves who won't have the patience (or competence) to deliver real images. Think of the money involved if they get unlucky and there's a big lawsuit over something they licensed that they didn't have the rights to - Shutterstock is playing with fire by allowing almost anything into the collection.
960
« on: September 03, 2020, 16:20 »
I figured I'd keep "nagging" on twitter until lazaralinsilviu's portfolio is gone
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1301550615798005760
I can't tag @Shutterstock because they've blocked me, but if anyone they haven't blocked wants to retweet any of these public shaming messages, that can't hurt
I will.
Whether your tweet tagging them did the trick or they just got around to my email about this, I received a message that the portfolio had been terminated. It's now down to about 400 images (from 1400)
961
« on: September 03, 2020, 11:10 »
I figured I'd keep "nagging" on twitter until lazaralinsilviu's portfolio is gone https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1301550615798005760I can't tag @Shutterstock because they've blocked me, but if anyone they haven't blocked wants to retweet any of these public shaming messages, that can't hurt
962
« on: September 02, 2020, 18:29 »
963
« on: September 02, 2020, 12:04 »
Portfolio is all still there - Kermits & all - so I broke down and wrote to Compliance at Shutterstock. They're being idiotic and while I don't care if they scare buyers away from Shutterstock, an environment where buyers are leery of the legality of agency images isn't good for any of the agencies, so I think that portfolio really needs to come down.
I also think this gives an F grade to their AI review-bots, dropping a 7 of 10 new contributor requirement and absence of any program to check on the first hundred or so new uploads from a new contributor (where most of these types of scams would be caught).
964
« on: September 02, 2020, 10:34 »
I did find an example where Shutterstock's licensable tag was linked to a specific image (versus a keyword search) but they still don't name the copyright holder in the description
965
« on: September 02, 2020, 10:21 »
Now what I don't understand is why a search on my (bestseller) images ONLY shows stock agency results, and no "images in use". Why is that? Are the agencies stripping them of metadata on download?
I think the stripping is on upload. I found a number of my images when doing searches in Google images (not with my name, but with keywords I knew should apply to some of my images). Take a look at this comparison of the metadata I found in an image used by a customer (of Adobe Stock) versus what I originally uploaded. Many other images I found, I assume from other agencies, had stripped my copyright info URL but kept the copyright notice, my name, title, description & keywords. I don't know how we pressure agencies to retain metadata, but stripping it is part of them making us, the creators, "invisible" in searches and to buyers. Adobe's approach is the least destructive, but they do not own the copyright and I think it's incorrect for them to put the agency name into the copyright notice (and why they removed the year I have no idea)
966
« on: September 02, 2020, 10:13 »
As Jo Ann said, ...
This means that Adobe and Shutterstock are running far behind those 4.
I said that Shutterstock and Alamy don't show author details. They do show the licensing tag, but what you see when you click on the tag does not name the copyright holder. All the tags - product and licensable - are spotty. Not all images from an agency show the tags. I didn't find any for Adobe (but given their program for tracking image history, perhaps they want nothing to do with this Google initiative) Shutterstock appears to be linking to searches versus the image shown, and they also use the product tag, but I've so far seen that only for videos, not images or illustrations Here are some examples
967
« on: September 01, 2020, 20:11 »
I spent some time looking at image searches to see where the new "licensable" badges appear.
Some images from some agencies are already showing badges.
Three agencies, Dreamstime, Getty & iStock, show the name of the copyright owner in the details (when you click on the licensable icon).
Alamy, Shutterstock, & several others don't show author details.
123rf and DepositPhotos show a "product" tag not a "licensable" one, but do show contributor information.
Adobe Stock doesn't show anything.
Interestingly, if there is metadata in an image - used in a blog or from a contributor's own site - Google displays that if you click on the image. There's no tag as there is with product or licensable.
This is much more interesting than the agency's image showing licensable tags as it means that anyone happening upon the image in a search can find who owns it (and one more search on your name can easily find you, especially if you have your own site).
Some of the agencies strip some of the metadata - in particular the copyright info URL which in my case points to my own site. Adobe Stock leaves that in, but changes the copyright notice.
In one example I found, it changed from " 2014 Jo Ann Snover" to "Jo Ann Snover - stock.adobe.com". They also changed the modification date to reflect when they made those edits (when I uploaded).
So from the agency perspective, making the metadata lead back to them, or nowhere, is preferable. From a contributor perspective, I want the metadata left in there, unmodified, so that the uses of my images on any site, blog, publication, etc., will all lead back to me, not any agency.
969
« on: August 31, 2020, 14:15 »
I just found this portfolio: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/lazaralinsilviu
It looked suspicious so I checked random 5 images, they were all on pixabay (under different authors). I wonder were he gets the videos from..
I think SS does not care at all, there are I think hundreds of "contributors" like this.
I tweeted about this earlier today after seeing your post in the Coalition group. It's outrageous on so many levels. Usually I email Shutterstock about things like this, but at this point I decided public shaming was appropriate https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1300503016198385664They can't take my account away twice I have messaged the three artists via Pixabay. I also contacted Pixabay support to suggest they contact Sutterstock to get this portfolio taken down. Uploading to Shutterstock is a violation of the Pixabay license https://pixabay.com/service/license/
970
« on: August 30, 2020, 16:27 »
In the current environment, I'd be open to image exclusivity in the right circumstances, but iStock requires contributor exclusivity by media type and that's much, much harder to justify (a) given the current market and (b) given Getty/iStock's abysmal track record.
I was an iStock exclusive for 3 years (but that was a long time ago) and while I can fathom why current exclusives stay (given the crappy choices if they become independent), I can't see why anyone would become an exclusive now.
If you want to have your work on Getty Images you can submit to EyeEm (which is now seeing lots of low value sales via the Getty partnership) or one of the other agencies that submits work to Getty (Westend61, Mint Images, Brand X, Cavan, etc.). But there are so many low-ball royalties with Getty - and no opt out for you - why would you consider them any better than Shutterstock?
I know there's a phrase "any port in a storm" but I couldn't convince myself that Getty is a port
971
« on: August 28, 2020, 11:26 »
...What's their explanation? I have received zero communication from them...
A cynic would see signs of cash flow problems I listened to a podcast recently where Canva's Global Partnership Lead mentioned that the majority of Canva's users are on the free tier, not the paid ones. I think it's the Pro tier that includes all the stock images https://www.canva.com/pricing/I'm not sure how they make the business model work - other than hoping everyone uses the Pexels & Pixabay images which are free to them. It would be in Canva's best interests to slant things to encourage use of the free stock images (on which they pay no royalties to eat into their subscription revenue).
972
« on: August 27, 2020, 13:29 »
Interesting. This could bring more traffic to the platform (good). In general, editorial and commercial images don't compete with one another much, so if there's extra competition, it would probably be for Alamy's other editorial content. This quote left me wondering just what the new objectives are... "As part of this evolution, there are proposals to reorganise the business in line with Alamys new strategic objectives" This is the new managing director's LinkedIn page. She seems to be from the editorial side of the business... https://www.linkedin.com/in/emily-shelley-0b71a149/
974
« on: August 25, 2020, 10:51 »
August sales at Adobe Stock have been good (not spectacular but almost exactly the same $$ as 2019 for August 1-25). Given the economic situation, that's reassuring
975
« on: August 24, 2020, 10:40 »
You may well have disabled on May 31, but as far as I know not for long.
Wrong again. I disabled it on May 31 and it was not re-enabled at any point.
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 291
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
