|
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 - MarkFGD
1
« on: November 10, 2010, 13:46 »
Should I care that they completely miss the mark in terms of design utility for many of the people who download them? Maybe. But it's not my job to care.
I wish you the very best of luck with your future endeavours.
2
« on: November 10, 2010, 12:17 »
I'm not worried whether it's one business card, eight business cards or thirty-two business cards; I'm worried that it's business cards.
Selling business cards under the microstock model is as dumb as selling ready-made, made-to-measure suits by mail order.
3
« on: November 10, 2010, 10:43 »
A business cards and an icon set are completely different things. The latter has the word 'set' after it and that should give you a clue as to where I'm coming from.
4
« on: November 10, 2010, 08:51 »
oh man you'r a dumb little prick.
Molka, while I agree with most of the comments you've made on this page, I feel compelled to pull you up on that one. FD makes some very sharp observations in these forums and has a very healthy sense of humour too.
5
« on: November 10, 2010, 07:34 »
Would you rather have three sets that sell for $60 in total in a year, or would you rather have $500 in a year by putting them in one?
That's how the SS machine works. If you get a lot of downloads within the first week, your image shows up among the most popular and that's critical for its longevity.
You don't have to put 100 business cards in a set, but if you want to compete with the rest of the industry it's a good idea to do so
And I just found large sets at Fotolia and BigStock as well.
Hi Thomas, Think your statement through. What is a business card? What does it do? Who is likely to need one? How many do they need? Would you want your business card to be the same as someone else's? Who are likely to be the biggest buyers of microstock? How will they react to seeing these files at this price point?
6
« on: November 09, 2010, 11:05 »
I'll have that tenner though 
I thought you might. To me, gay and ethnicity are a million miles from baldness. I could understand if this model had had a rash retouched on his face with the headline 'This person is contageous' but the implication that he might be going bald doesn't give him much of a case as far as I'm concerned. Okay, if this person walked into your legal practice with the cure for baldness ad, would you advise him to go for broke or gently persuade him to stand down as there's likely to be little in it for him?
7
« on: November 09, 2010, 09:30 »
The very fact that you've come out with this bizarre analogy sums up your knowledge on the subject.
What can I say? You've rumbled me! It's people like you that use to make people like me very rich.
On the contrary, it was your mother who made you 'Rich', Rich, when she christened you.
There's a saying in the legal community - "Lawyers don't make the law, they make money from people who don't understand it"
Never a truer word spoken. Here's a tenner, go and get yourself a haircut.
And back to the subject at hand: The model signed a release in which he granted permission for his likeness to be modified. His character has not been defamed. Anyone who says otherwise opens the door for every bald person to counter sue as it implies that a hairless person has less character than a hairy one.
8
« on: November 09, 2010, 08:39 »
Of course it's a defamation of his character, going bald might be a fact of life but if he isn't going bald and this image portrays that he is then it's defamation.
Defamation refers to character. This ad is misrepresentation (of truth).
Without seeing the ad you can't say it's misrepresentation, if the image of this guy had a speech bubble saying " I use to be bald but thanks to xxxxxx I now have a full head of hair " that would be misrepresentation, in this case it sounds like they're just portraying a guy as going bald which isn't misrepresentation because people do go bald, the unfortunate issue here is that the person they're using isn't bald and he has suffered as the result of their altering his image, which would fall under defamation of character.
It worries me that so many people have no idea about the law and what can and cannot be done with stock photos, it also worries me that so many people rely on the comments made by stock agencies and presume them to be legal.
Having worked in law I can tell you 100% that from what the OP has stated it would fall under defamation of character because by legal definition it is, and I can also tell you that if this guy decides to persue the matter he will win, and also that he will sue the photographer because he signed a contract with the photographer (the release) and therefore the legal process begins here, now the photographer will have a legal defence because presumably he has a clause in the release that he uploaded to the agency that excludes any defamatory use of the person in the image, so therefore the process moves onto the agency and then down the line until it reaches the stage whereby somebody is identified as having breached the defamatory clause.
To the OP, if you haven't got it yet make it your first priority to get legal insurance, I take it your model release has a defamatory clause, presuming as such you have nothing to worry about as you're in the clear but if this guy does decide to take the legal route you will be involved initially. My advice to you would be to speak to the model and attempt the amicable route by getting him to allow you to contact the hairloss company seeking some form of 'out of court' settlement, the reason for this is because if it did go the legal route you may not end up out of pocket eventually but you'll spend a lot of time in the process, either way make sure all of your communication with the model from hereon in is recorded in some way.
I've got a mate who makes animal-shaped fluffy slippers. There's a dog, a cow, a fog, a monkey and a sheep. They're all made out of wool apart from the sheep, which is made out of a synthetic material. Do you think any of these animals have a case because I think they've all got more chance of suing someone than this geezer?
9
« on: November 09, 2010, 07:33 »
He's signed a release that clearly states the image may be modified and going bald is a fact of life, not a defamation of someone's character.
Of course it's a defamation of his character, going bald might be a fact of life but if he isn't going bald and this image portrays that he is then it's defamation. It's a fact of life that some people are gay, some are criminals, some are cross dressers it doesn't mean that you can portray somebody as that if they're not.
As for the two examples that shadysue has given, it doesn't matter whether iStock 'considered' those uses to be 'OK', when we send a photo with a release the agency accepts the terms of that release, they cannot make the decision that it's 'OK' if those terms have been broken it's for the courts to decide.
He's not being portrayed as going bald; he's being portrayed as someone who used to be going bald -- a situation which, if we we're dumb enough to believe the examples in the ad, has been rescued by the product or treatment the advertiser offers. Besides, if the model can't laugh with his mates on this one and has to go and sulk in the corner, he's got no character to defame in the first place.
10
« on: November 09, 2010, 07:00 »
I would guess that Shady Sue's interpretation is the correct one.
As a member of the public, you might have a case if you wanted to take on the hair-loss company for misleading you by showing a fabricated example of the benefits of their product. However, I don't think your model has a case. He's signed a release that clearly states the image may be modified and going bald is a fact of life, not a defamation of someone's character.
11
« on: November 09, 2010, 04:53 »
Stockmarketer, my dear fellow. The spaces between your sentences are a little too big and a touch uneven for my liking. Be careful you don't fall into one of them. You might not find your way out again. This forum, once a place for optimism and learning from each other, has degenerated into a place for demanding unionization, government regulation, and a general tearing down of the very people who created microstock.
If you bother to look through the current threads on this forum, you'll quickly realise it's pretty much the same as it's always been: a healthy mix of microstockers reacting to what's going on at present and sharing opinions and knowledge along the way. I'm not aware of anybody tearing down the people who created microstock. I think microstock evolved, I don't think it was ever created.
12
« on: November 07, 2010, 15:24 »
They've introduced a stupid 1-to-5 ratings system. They'd look even more stupid if they then turned around and told people they can't give anything other than a rating of 5. It's there. It's meaningless. Ignore it.
13
« on: November 07, 2010, 15:16 »
Molka, it's easier to get mugged when you're disguised as a photographer; it's easier to mug people when you're disguised as a stock photography agency. If you want to start mugging people yourself, you need to upgrade to a different class of shooter.
14
« on: November 05, 2010, 21:44 »
DoctorEd There you go. Fixed him. He's not gonna screw with anyone now. 
15
« on: November 05, 2010, 20:53 »
What brings us back to cclapper's statement that I commented: "I can't figure out why big corporations get such hefty discounts...they are the ones that can afford to pay more! " Big companies have more money, can afford images without any significant impact on their budgets, and yet they are the ones who benefit more from subs or any other discount prices. If there were no subs, I am certain they would buy images anyway. Maybe less images, but at a higher, non-subs price.
Bigger corporations get bigger discounts because they buy more credits in one go or because they commit to buying longer subscriptions. That's the way the corporate world works and always did -- long before stock libraries existed. I don't like it any more than you do but it's not going to go away. If subscriptions didn't exist, I agree that some companies would buy credits instead but many others wouldn't. Subscriptions is the only model that's going to work for many large corporations for the reasons mentioned in my earlier post.
16
« on: November 05, 2010, 19:25 »
I would prefer that they used free images from someone else than they buy them so cheap from me. And images in PPT presentations are reused over and over, so it would still be a good investment if they buy credits (and they would likely need mere XS and S images).
The reason those big corporations buy subscriptions instead of credits packages is because they're so big. The bigger they are, the more time-consuming it is for one department to get money out of another. Bear in mind the people using images for Powerpoint presentations are admin staff who are unlikely to have company credit cards, and are thus unable to replenish credits when they run out. And then there's the fact that credit packages are near impossible to police. A subscription package is a fixed monthly amount and finance departments in big companies love those almost as much as not spending any money at all!
17
« on: November 05, 2010, 19:10 »
^^ Very enlightening.
Mark, I always get a lot out of your posts. It's good to hear about how the large scale design industry works from someone who is on the inside. 
Thanks, Lisa. I'm aware that there's a thin line between being perceived as preaching and someone who's willing to share information, and that always makes me slightly nervous about posting here. I feel like I've hijacked this thread already! 
18
« on: November 05, 2010, 16:36 »
On the other hand, teachers are a huge market out there (I was one until last week). Where I worked there was no way we could buy images for our powerpoints (I probably used upwards of 60 images a day) through requisition, and we'd have had to buy personally. I only did it once, then agonised whether it should be a multi-seat licence if I wanted my colleague to be able to use it, and that was just ridiculous. I don't mind buying occasional posters - they might be on the wall for a month - but paying for an image which would be seen for about ten or twenty seconds was a non-starter at the small bundle rates.
But I'm still far more concerned about the people who really don't know they should be buying ELs, so don't.
The multi-seat license is a bit of a red herring, isn't it, Sue? It's applicable to software and fonts which are permanently installed as tools and in use at the same time on several computers in the same location. But images? Well I suppose I could be retouching an image, while Joe Bloggs two desks behind me is preparing the layout for it. If we were carpenters we'd need two hammers but, metaphorically speaking, we'd both be knocking nails into the same piece of wood. There's no way we'd expect to pay for an extended license in that situation. According to iStock, the multi-seat license is for content installed in more than one location at the same time. Do you install photographs, illustrations and videos? No. You download them or copy them over from one disc to another, you print them and you publish them; you never install them. Before Vetta and Agency, you'd need to use the same image in many locations before a multi-seat license became more cost effective than buying individual standard licenses. With Vetta and Agency files I guess there might be a place for it. I've never purchased a multi-seat license, though I did sell one a couple of years ago on 123rf (even with my little portfolio) and that's the only one. I'd be interested to know whether Sean, Lisa and some of the other full-timers ever sell MS licenses. And my take on you wanting to share an image with your colleague, Sue, is that a multi-seat license was definitely not required. Whether you should have purchased two standard license is a grey area. Personally, I see it as one license because you're both working for the same institution and using the image at different times.
19
« on: November 05, 2010, 09:52 »
I can't figure out why big corporations get such hefty discounts...they are the ones that can afford to pay more! It was a rhetorical question...I know the answer. (...) Of course big corporations will continue to take advantage...the more the majority needs them, the more they can take advantage.
This represents my feelings when I found out AOL and J.P. Morgan buying images at subs packages in FT (back when we would know who purchased each image). They could certainly afford credit prices, but they were the ones benefiting from subs.
If J.P. Morgan is buying images directly, you have to ask yourself what they're likely to be doing with them. I'll tell you. It's most likely to be for in-house Powerpoint presentations which are shown to half-a-dozen people in a meeting and then chucked in the wastepaper bin. So what if J.P. Morgan buy a subscription package and get images for 36c or whatever? That's brilliant, as far as I'm concerned, because before microstock they'd have been trawling the web for suitable images, copying and pasting them into Powerpoint and not paying a penny for them. This is one area where microstock got it right because it expands the market for licensed photography. When you see a big name buying images, it's most likely in-house admin staff doing the buying and it's probably just for internal usage. The 'real' stuff is done by design consultancies and ad agencies whose names you're unlikely to recognise. Now the design and advertising agencies on J.P. Morgan's roster who take out a subscription package and can print 499,999 copies of an annual report before they need to buy an extended license is another matter entirely. The extended license is where microstock got it horribly wrong. Very few print runs reach anywhere near 500,000. When you get 36c for your image and see it used on the cover of J.P. Morgan's annual report or go into Barnes & Noble and see it on a paperback cover, that's a reason to start jumping up and down. Why didn't you get royalties for an extended license in these instances? Because the terms of the extended license state that the buyer didn't need to purchase one.
20
« on: November 04, 2010, 18:32 »
Thanks for the info, Oksancia. Much appreciated.
21
« on: November 04, 2010, 16:39 »
I see, it's a bookmark combined with an applet.
A quick question. Would contributors making images intended for use on web pages as backgrounds be able to include your bookmarklet next to their images so buyers have instant access to it or do buyers need to install your software first?
I was in a situation, only yesterday, where this would have been useful.
Thanks, Oksancia.
23
« on: November 04, 2010, 15:26 »
This sounds like a very useful tool. And now 1,328 pages of my dictionary need adjusting to accommodate your new word. For *'s sake, don't do anything that uses the word 'toy'!
24
« on: November 04, 2010, 14:00 »
I am so far ahead of you, I can't even see ya in my rear view:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54009&page=1
That's because I'm about a dozen posts down the page now I'm finally replying. I'm glad you did that, Sean. Cheers. For what it's worth -- and I can only speak for myself here -- I'm a designer and I want to see that requirement for the print EL reduced to a much lower number across the board in microstock. Why? Because I have clients I can charge it onto. On the other hand, publishers probably love the fact they don't have to purchase it because they make their own products -- and perhaps they're the biggest purchasers of stock images and the sector iStock will not want to frighten away and why the change needs to be implemented simultaneously across all microstock agencies.
25
« on: November 04, 2010, 13:46 »
Not hard at all if they use my picture 15 times in a book -which they have. They would only need a run of 33,334 books to reach 500K impressions. And that's if they bothered to purchase my picture 10 times (once for each book). If they just downloaded one picture and put in ten different books (the average number of times the picture appears is 11/per book), they would only have to have a total of 4,546 books to reach 500K. Of course, Istock won't tell me how many times Michelin downloaded the picture.
The most frustrating thing is the lack of any answers. Just a blanket "You're wrong. Case closed"
You can't know for sure that the total print run has exceeded 33,334. You wouldn't be willing to bet on it and neither would iStock. That's the problem and that's why they're blanking you because there's a reasonable probability that the buyer has printed fewer than 500,000 impressions (even if the image is printed fifteen times in each book across the ten different variants in the series). What you can't know but would be willing to bet on is that they've printed more than 5,000 or more than 10,000 copies. Reduce the requirement for an extended license to around these numbers and you can be fairly confident every time you confront a buyer that you believe should have purchased an EL, that they did actually need one. Most times they turn around and say we haven't printed 500,000 copies, they're probably telling the truth because if it ain't something like the Dorling Kindersley encyclopaedia of Star Wars it ain't going to be anywhere near that many.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
