What is with the extremely slow site?  Even clicking on the upload button took over 30 minutes to get to the upload screen.  Then the file(s) never uploaded after an hour.   I've tried on Inter Explorer (latest version), Firefox and Google Chrome.

I've used photorec aka photorescue with excellent results.  Once recovered over 10,000 images for a fellow photographer.

Quote from: shotupdave on January 15, 2014, 08:38
I have been in the computer sales/service business since 1986. I can't tell you how many times I have people come in who want me to load Windows 7/8 or the latest version of OS/X. I ask them idf they have the DVD's or at least the license to show they purchased it. And many times when they buy a new computer they want to know what extra software I am going to load on the computer (ie Photoshop, MS office). When I explain to hem that is theft and copyright violations, I get this blank stare or they come up with that these companies are worth Billions and what would it hurt.

I hear you.  I had the same problem when I worked in computer building and servicing.  They wanted everything free. 

The good news here is I found out the site he was talking about can block him from downloading before purchasing a photo.

Quote from: ShadySue on January 15, 2014, 00:43

Quote from: Ron on January 14, 2014, 08:02
Thats brilliant, let him steal the images, let him put them in his book, and then send a DMCA to the publisher once the book is published, and sue him. Thats going to cost him dearly.

If in the US.
(Marburg may be in the US, I don't know).

Yes I am in the Us

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on January 13, 2014, 20:56
I think I'd point him to some of the write ups of Getty's lawyers going after people for unauthorized use and make it really clear that doing this is putting him (and his employer if he's doing this for work) at risk of getting a very large bill or being sued.

This suggestion appears to have done the trick.  He said, "you are serious about this stuff.  Ok, I won't do it."

Quote from: ShadySue on January 13, 2014, 23:43

Quote from: Marburg on January 13, 2014, 23:01
He's not a friend.  He's just someone taking the same class I am.  As far as I know he doesn't work anywhere.

It is scary how he thinks everything should be free for him.

That's not at all unusual, in fact, I think it's pretty general in those under 30. If he doesn't work, what was he intending to do with the image?

He is a senior citizen and from I understand he plans to include them in a book he is working on that if published will be for sale lol.

He's not a friend.  He's just someone taking the same class I am.  As far as I know he doesn't work anywhere.

It is scary how he thinks everything should be free for him.

Quote from: noodle on January 13, 2014, 21:12
Why would he even suggest of your images illegally to your face?
Something is just not right with such a person.

I completely agree.  Of course, he feels everything should be free.  He scares me.

Good idea!  The sad thing is I no longer trust this person.     If he had simply asked for a copy I probably would have printed one, signed and framed it for him.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on January 13, 2014, 20:56
I think I'd point him to some of the write ups of Getty's lawyers going after people for unauthorized use and make it really clear that doing this is putting him (and his employer if he's doing this for work) at risk of getting a very large bill or being sued.

Also tell him that you will send him a bill for the license fees only if he uses it - because you're his friend - but no one else will be that generous if he gets caught.

I have had situations where people I know who license work (not photos) were using photos they found via Google (without buying licenses) that I recognized as stock - you'd have thought people in that situation would have been more aware... In that case though, they changed the images once I pointed out the issue.

Use Getty as the big scary example even if that's not where they were planning to steal from this particular time - they're the clearest example to drive the point home, IMO

You are right.  I meant illegal to use copyrighted content without proper license and/or authorization.

What you meant was that it illegal to _use_ copyrighted content without a proper license.  Since, by the mere viewing of the content on the site, you've downloaded it locally.

What does he think is "flattery" exactly?
[/quote]

I had an odd conversation with someone I know recently.  He saw some of my images at a stock photo site.  He noticed they were watermarked.  He commented that the watermarks were too large but some photos had smaller ones and that he could download those without paying for them. 

I informed him that he did not have the right to download any images on any site without paying for them.  I told him that by doing so he would be in violation of national and international copyright laws. 


He said he's thinking about doing that to some of my images (and some other photographers) and thought it was flattery and not theft.

How would you folks handle this?

Marburg

One additional comment:  tax forms that were previously uploaded are missing.

Nice look, but has some problems.  In my case, I have files that were approved in Jan missing from my portfolio.  Sales from 2008-2010 are appearing as 2011.  No option to request payout from referrals.  Shows only referral earning but no balance.  Duplicate photos that were removed over a year ago have reappeared.  Photos that were rejected appear as approved.  Also--double check spelling and grammar for the site.  Found several instances where "Royalty" was spelled "Royality."

Marburg

PS--I sent an email with the photo numbers in question.

Quote from: Cricket on July 16, 2010, 00:15
I send files to Cutcaster that have gotten accepted by other agencies-- agencies that do far more business each day than probably Cutcaster could ever hope for in a year... and yet they get rejected by Cutcaster for "poor lighting" or "over filtered".   

Is Cutcaster even worth bothering with or should I just blow them off altogether??

Has anyone had any consistent sales with them?? 

Cricket

I'm having the same issue.  Photos that have been accepted at other agencies are being rejected at Cutcaster as "poor lighting" "over filtered" etc.  Now--I can't see why I got rejected for over filtering when no filtering was applied during the shoot or in post.

Looks great John.  I like it

Congrats on the sale.  I think you might find that more of your sales at CutCaster may be from ones that haven't sold at other sites.  At least, that has been my experience. 
Marburg

Quote from: melastmohican on January 28, 2010, 21:31
Great that I finally have sale. Image bought was huge surprise for, I do not recall it was ever bought on any other site.

Quote from: sharpshot on December 11, 2009, 08:46
I have sold a few and had some EL's, still a long way off the top 9 sites but I will stick with them for a while and hope for the best.  Yaymicro came good this year so perhaps Cutcaster can surprise me in 2010?

I've had some decent sales at CC.  Sure, they still have a long way to go to reach the top 9 sites.  I'm sticking with them.  Give them enough time and things will pick up.

John--for me the site was slow to load.

Just wanted to know if anyone is having experiences at Gimmestock good or bad.

Marburg

Can get to main page, but account log in never loads.   

Marburg

I haven't been able to get to the CutCaster site since last night.  Does anyone know if it is down?

Marburg

Good attempt.

I did find a lot of errors.  I did a search alternately for American Bald Eagle, Bald Eagle, and Eagle.  The search for Eagle returned the most hits and had the most errors.  In all cases not all Eagle photos were included in the search.  In the Eagle search what came back included Euro coins, Castles, Flags (with no eagle in the photo or description), landscapes (some had Eagle as part of the name but no Eagle in the photo so I can understand those), owls (some were called Eagle Owl-which are not Eagles but I can see how the search engine would include them), hawks (same as for Owl), etc.

Still--the search is easier to use and returns more hits than the old search engine.

Marburg

Quote from: WarrenPrice on October 05, 2009, 01:05
Is there no longer a forum at Cutcaster?

It's still there in the sitemap.  From what I understand it is being revamped and will be back up.

Same thing here.   

Quote from: sharpshot on September 28, 2009, 23:50
I did have a few sales, some of them EL's and I had 2 payouts but it has been a long time since my last sale.

Another thought:

Why not market to publishing houses with a contract that takes into consideration Print Runs and Seat Restrictions?  A number of publishing houses do not use stock photos because the licensing contracts do not take into consideration Print Runs and Seat Restrictions.  You could even charge a slightly higher price.

Although, I'm not so sure about limiting photos to a specified list of cameras.  New cameras come out every year or two and keeping up with that list would be daunting.  Also, there are some point and shoots on the market whose quality is equal to a low end to mid point SLR.  I have one such camera and a lot of my sales came from the photos produced using it.  But, then again--I'm fairly new to this.

Marburg

I like this idea.  Sure there are many pitfalls to overcome--what new business doesn't have that?  As for the "too many sites can do it now and better" kinds of comments--the same can be said for any business, i.e. restaurants, clothing stores, etc.  The trick is to find and establish a niche and market the niche to the hilt.  You may have to start small with a group of photographers willing to give it a chance and shoot for the long haul.  You would have to make sure you have enough capital to make it work.

As for who would be willing to read our thoughts and comments--John Griffin at Cutcaster comes to mind.  He is very open to ideas, suggestions, etc.

Marburg

Quote from: tan510jomast on July 09, 2009, 16:05
I like this discussion. I just finished watching a whole slew of movies (old ones, as I don't watch TV , don't own one, only DVD player via my computer), and there is one scene, can't remember which movie, where the protaganist asks, "How can I trust you to do what I want?" The answer was , "It has nothing to do with trust, mutual interest is the only bond here!" (I think I saw someone else said the same thing, but in a different way. Maybe they watched the same movie...).

Anyway, the point is , this sums it up for the success of any  relationship, not just business, and even more here in micro stock.

At this moment it seems absence of mutual interest is growing. I like to see the sites find and re-establish this mutual interest. Without that, there is really no one anyone with common sense will be moved to accept exclusiveness, or even be faithful to one site, no matter how many sales you get.

I truly feel getting the consensus of a topic like what Perry has here, would be a good first step towards achieving that. But which of the big wigs will be interested in reading what we say here?