|
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 - HerrMursilgo
Pages: [1]
1
« on: August 07, 2009, 14:56 »
not relevant but does make me think of urban myth of the guy put a fridge out the front yard with a sign saying "free" and after 3 days of noone taking it he changed the sign to for sale $50. Someone stole it that night. When it was free it must be no good 
Not Urban Myth, Phil. That same guy who stole the fridge started his own micro stock agency many years later  That's why they don't go after stolen images 
2
« on: August 05, 2009, 21:00 »
sjlocke, we go back in circles to square one here, you've got your opinion and I have mine, TIME WILL TELL...as far as the legal side, I'm sure John and his legal team already did their homework before using that name, I really don't think that such a professional like John craw out from under a rock, or is making legal decisions without researching his legal options.
This comment crossed mine as I was writing it, and once again, I echo m@m to say, Hear ! Hear! Well said, caballero !
3
« on: August 05, 2009, 20:59 »
But go on thinking what you like. It's probably good that John doesn't have you on his legal team ...
I am sure John doesn't NEED any of us on his legal team. He made that decision way before we did here on this forum. It isn't our idea that is BETTA THAN VETTA It's John's idea. ..
Also, controversy on this board won't do anything. Buyers certainly do not read this stuff.
Then you have nothing to worry about. If as you say, " controversy on this board won't do anything. Buyers certainly do not read this stuff." So why are you shouting so loudly in this thread? lol Buyers certainly do not read this stuff. BUT, just for a moment, you could be wrong for once, then you know what? BETTA THAN VETTA is going to be what we all have been waiting for. ..and that will make it all BETTA!!! for John, Cutcaster and the sites contributors...just the way I see it.
Amen ! m@m I second that.
4
« on: August 05, 2009, 18:52 »
Jokes aside, IS exclusives,. The thing is that buyers are going to wonder , "Betta than Vetta" ... what is Vetta. Then they will go to IStock and see your Vetta images. If they think your Vetta images are indeed BETTA THAN BETTA , ha!ha!... you laugh your way to the bank. So, really, you Vetta exclusives will profit too, because BETTA THAN VETTA refers to Vetta. And since you say that your Vetta images are BETTA THAN BETTA, well, that's for the buyers to decide, and which ever ways either one or us get a sale. So, everyone's happy. BETTA THAN VETTA actually makes it BETTA FOR VETTA too. but if we contributors of BETTA THAN VETTA make sure our images are in fact BETTA THAN VETTA then the buyers will come back to BETTA THAN VETTA because in fact, CC has images that are truly BETTA THAN VETTA. capische ? everyone get happy ! 
5
« on: August 05, 2009, 18:37 »
we can still be friends agreeing to disagree .
Or a love-hate relationship (we love to hate you and you hate to love us, heh!heh).
6
« on: August 05, 2009, 17:19 »
Vetta is only available to exclusives at IS, and if history is correct, only select exclusives ever get their work accepted. Betta is open to all CC contributors who submit outstanding work. I will admit I'm not fond of the name but at least CC has some variety and is not making up a payment system so confusing that you can't figure out what your royalty is supposed to be.
This pretty much sums up how I feel. Maybe "Betta than Vetta" isnt the best name, but at least its a collection of the truly best photos Cuctcaster has to offer, where as the Vetta collection is only the best of what their exclusive contributors have to offer.
Is photo really any "betta" just because it's coming from an exclusive photographer?
Is photo really any "betta" just because it's coming from an exclusive photographer? There is not enough proof of this. And if there is a case, the onus of proof will be on Vetta, not on CC. I'm with John and CC on this one, for sure 
7
« on: August 05, 2009, 16:52 »
Adeptris right.
The basis of civil cases is a set precedent.
If you bring in Vetta and Betta and said this is liable, all the lawyer for Cutcaster needs to bring in Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola.
If the Cola name can be used without Coca charging Pepsi. Vetta has no leg to stand on. If so, it will open a can of worms for Pepsi .
We have been taking the Pepsi challenge for as long as I can remember. From highschool to past adulthood. Cheapshot for Pepsi? I don't think so. Pepsi actually gained momentum with this.
So if that is unprofessional and cheap shot, you don't have any idea about marketing and brand competition.
I highly doubt that Vetta is going to change the legal name world in an amazing case of the micro stock .
Vetta is not an original either. So even if they succeed to stop Betta to use it,
some other Vetta before IStock will come after IS and this is highly unlikely that Vetta wants to encourage.
It cost money to retain a lawyer. Getty already has one case with those photographers sueing them.
I don't think Getty wants to get themselves tied up in court with Cutcaster as well.
That would have to take a lot of subscription sales to pay to retain the lawyers and a lot of time spent in court.
Highly unlikely.
Is Betta than Vetta provable ?
Sure, ask any of those Cutcaster contributors who will submit their images to Betta Than Vetta.
There will be enough people to uphold the proof that BETTA is in fact BETTA THAN VETTA.
And since Vetta has no history beyond a reasonable doubt than it is in fact better than Betta than Vetta, it is their word against some others' words.
You don't win court cases this way. It will be thrown out of court in an instant.
8
« on: August 05, 2009, 16:42 »
As long as photographers are supplying 20 agencies who are involved in the price war, and flocking to every new agency that pops up like a weed, the prices will always be as low as they can go. The only way to stop the undervalued photos is stop supplying start-ups, stop feeding the dormant sites, stop competing with yourself and driving the prices down.
The root cause of the low price problem is the photographers who are willing to take pennies for their work. If everyone on this forum quit tomorrow and removed all their photos from every site, in a week, a new batch of photographers would fill all the sites with new images.
The prices are low because there's no bargaining power on the supply side, the photographers provide the labor and materials and get paid slave wages. The agencies sell for low prices, because they get them cheap and can make a profit turning over the stock at a high volume. The buyers are happy because they get good quality images, for a low price.
You say all I wanted to say, and you say it better than I can. So I will just copy paste the most wise words of you below>>> ===========The root cause of the low price problem is the photographers who are willing to take pennies for their work. If everyone on this forum quit tomorrow and removed all their photos from every site, in a week, a new batch of photographers would fill all the sites with new images. ============ AND THE BIG 6 KNOW THAT. Even if a large number with the biggest portfolios quits and withdraw their zillion images , the Big 6 will not miss them. Not even blink one eyelid. Oh well, maybe if Yuri and others like him quit, but for the rest below the top layer, I don't think it matter. ie. like Racephoto say, the layer that never reach payout. Why? because they wait for a miracle to happen. Maybe the next new site will make us money, they think.
9
« on: August 05, 2009, 16:34 »
Elena,
I didn't go through Flickr, I went straight to Yahoo, but yes I agree the red tape that the US have created for themselves over copyright does seem to delay things for those that live in the US.
USA don't give squat for anything . They have more crooks in USA that are running around free. I don't expect too much change to come for stolen images on the internet. They don't even solve serious crimes, so I am sure stolen microstock images are far from their Important Crimes to Solve Listing. If the Big 6 don't do nothing. Why anyone else must do it?
10
« on: August 05, 2009, 16:28 »
I am sure Mr. Griffin considered his actions well before making it known to us. He is not a silly person and of course not unprofessional. He would not send us an email just to act like an idiot.
I am all for Mr. Griffin BETTA THAN VETTA.
What is the worse that can happen? He makes a fool of himself?
Well, I don't think whatever Mr. Griffin do can exceed whatever Getty has done, and any other CEOs of the Big 6 before him.
11
« on: August 05, 2009, 14:20 »
So interesting I see war now between lisafx - PixelBytes and puravida -oblidihell. The rulers hier are not friends no more. Disagrement to insultive fighting worts.
Helarious to me to eye . Hohoho!
12
« on: August 05, 2009, 12:55 »
No, you didn't miss anything.
You think it's OK for gostwyck to be offensive with one woman, or two..
so it's OK for me to be offensive to you , woman or otherwise.
You cannot play both sides of the fence.
Either both of us are wrong in being offensive or both of us are entitled to be offensive,
to man or woman, or the homo that gost calls me.
According to gost, I am both man and woman, so I am entitled to be offensive ...
ROFL.
Sorry, you missed my point. I will try once more because I have some time to waste with you today.
It isn't the "being offensive" I objected to in Lisa's post, or yours either. Offensive is a relative term anyway.
What I object to, is people pretending to be an authority on a subject they know nothing about. That goes for everyone and really has nothing to do with gender at all.
I am not offended by your tone. I can take it or I wouldn't be here. Same goes for Lisa4s, Stacey (who you keep alluding to), or anyone else on this forum. While your attempts at chivalry are rather quaint, these women aren't/didn't ask for your help in defending them.
Gonna have to sign off now. Got a life to live, and friends and family to spend it with. Besides, I have a feeling you aren't going to understand this post any more than you have any others.
Give my regards to that next windmill you tilt at, would you Don Quixote?
ETA: And here comes puravida moving up on the outside. Do I see 50%eggs joining in too? C'mon, it's a party!! Thanks again for the diversion
I am not sure, maybe you should ask lisafx
Pages: [1]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
