|
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 - munrotoo
1
« on: December 14, 2017, 08:43 »
...instead would start a new email to them, copying and pasting the content of the email, and explaining that you have not sold an ext license for that illustration and therefore the person at redbubble had no right to use it, etc....
BTW I did take this advice and write Getty directly through the ESP site. Now I am of course in a long cue but it will be interesting to see what they say.
2
« on: December 14, 2017, 08:39 »
my line has been "print on demand" and the other "rule" that really bothers me is I can not ask them to take certain pieces down. I feel like this is my copyrighted work and I should be allowed to determine what pieces I want in my protfolio and which ones I do not.
3
« on: December 13, 2017, 11:31 »
I tried to deactivate individual files and they told me no. They said they do not allow contributors to deactivate individual files because it makes for a bad client experience.
4
« on: December 13, 2017, 11:12 »
how do you deactivate your account?
5
« on: December 13, 2017, 10:47 »
I got this email this morning. Which sounds similar to what you were saying Sue.
I also wanted to delete some items from my portfolio and Getty will not allow you do that either, evidently.
Maybe time to leave. Will they make it hard for me to just pull the portfolio all together?
--------------
Hi Norma,
Thanks for the reply.
It appears that you are only looking at the terms of one of our license agreements. We offer this this content multiple platforms such as iStock, Thinkstock and Getty Images. According to the Artist Supply Agreement which you accepted, we are permitted to offer this content on all of our platforms. We have a custom agreement in place with this client which allows for this use.
Should you wish to discuss the agreement which you have accepted in further detail, please feel free to reach out to our contributor relations team for more details.
Please confirm you will cease this erroneous claim against our client.
----------------
6
« on: December 13, 2017, 10:35 »
Originally I had no idea the illustration was from istockphoto. I am not exclusive to istockphoto. I asked redbubble to check on the image because print on demand is not allowed in the standard licenses of the several sites I contribute to and through my own EULA. I assumed redbubble would ask the seller if they had an extended license, and redbubble may have done just that.
I got this odd email from supposed Getty out of the blue. I have no idea how or why they would even know I was the one who contacted redbubble.
7
« on: December 12, 2017, 20:49 »
well I suppose Getty could have sold them an extended license but that is hard to believe. No one makes any money on redbubble. Not enough to by an extended license anyway.
8
« on: December 12, 2017, 20:29 »
I found one of my illustrations being sold on a t-shirt on redbubble.com. I contacted redbubble. They said they removed the product and informed the contributor.
Then I get this email, supposedly from Getty Images, today. I can't decide if it is even legitimate. paragraph 8 of the istockphoto eula clearly states no "on demand" sites without an extended license. Do you all think someone is spoofing me? Or would Getty really send something like this email? It does not seem very professional or something a "legal team" member would write.
--------------------
NofrmNor--
Norma,
I am writing to you from the legal team at Getty Images. It has come to our attention that one of our customers has been contacted regarding an image they have used from your portfolio. Further details of this notice can be viewed below.
Our client has licensed the image in question and the use is within the terms of the Agreement that they have been granted. We ask that you please ensure that this false claim to our client ceases immediately.
Please confirm that this will be taken care of.
9
« on: September 23, 2014, 07:47 »
Seattle must not be a key global market - iStock's searches are generally painfully slow and Shutterstock's generally very speedy. Shutterstock's results look a ton better visually - 2014 vs. 2004
This is still the key problem. They promised a faster site. It is unbelievably slow. I don't see any change at all in the speed of the search. Why stick with them if you have many images to search for a business presentation. Shutterstock just saves you so much time.
10
« on: September 16, 2014, 10:36 »
in the new system are there any guidelines for how they determine how many credits a vector illustration is worth or is this still just up to the scouts? do you think they tend to lower credit worth of non-exclusives?
All non-exclusive vectors are now one credit.
Here is a non-exclusive with a 3 credit piece. confused? http://www.istockphoto.com/vector/golf-easter-egg-row-36553560?st=0c802f2
11
« on: September 16, 2014, 09:15 »
in the new system are there any guidelines for how they determine how many credits a vector illustration is worth or is this still just up to the scouts? do you think they tend to lower credit worth of non-exclusives?
12
« on: September 06, 2014, 17:33 »
it think it is a lot of sports. They have several clipart illustrations from shutterstock. The photos are probably from there also.
13
« on: September 04, 2014, 08:46 »
Found this site that is allowing people to download high resolution images for free. I found two of my illustrations on the site. You may want to check for yours. http://guemblung.biz/
14
« on: June 10, 2014, 16:51 »
"what would you peeps advice??"
Don't get into microstock.
ditto
15
« on: June 09, 2014, 06:41 »
That's like giving a new kid on the block a penny to fight the neighborhood bully.
16
« on: June 03, 2014, 07:57 »
I can't get on. Not sure if it is my connection, which is certainly iffy, or they have a problem.
Norma
17
« on: May 31, 2014, 07:26 »
If their coding department keeps up the good work, it's probably going to last forever.
yeah I was thinking that
18
« on: May 31, 2014, 04:57 »
istock removed $14.00 from my account last night. How long is this suppose to go on?
19
« on: April 16, 2014, 04:40 »
thank you
20
« on: April 15, 2014, 11:21 »
I am trying to set my "author options" in the symbiostock settings, but it will not keep "Save as defaults" checked. Does anyone know what I should do? I need this, I think, so I do not have to enter prices for every image I upload. Right now all the prices are blank whenever I upload an image.
21
« on: April 12, 2014, 03:49 »
I have just opened a tick with their support asking them to credit me. Otherwise I will file a complaint with CanStockPhoto. The least they can do is credit me since they sell my photos.
"YOUR ULTIMATE SOURCE OF WEB GRAPHICS!" still isn't crediting your work to you sadly.
ETA - That link is throwing an error now, anyway - Keep 'em peeled.
Here is a reply I got from them back then when I asked them. They were really helpful and Dillon explained it all.
Ronald, I apologize for the delayed response. We each thought the other person had responded to you. When an image is purchased from GoGraph, the buyer is provided your username and credit information. GoGraph provides this image credit line with each purchase, so that the images are easily credited, as per the licensing requirements. I will send you a screenshot to your email so you can see what this looks like. Again, I apologize for the slow response.
I just came across gograph. This is not good enough. We need to be credited otherwise this is nothing more than factory piece work. These partner programs are really horrible.
22
« on: April 11, 2014, 07:16 »
you are not allowed to do that! Read your Getty contract your images including similars or same session are exclusive to Getty!
So if a contributor goes non-exclusive on istock or they going non-exclusive on Getty also? Or do they have to inform istock they want their images back from Getty?
23
« on: April 09, 2014, 08:33 »
This section in the terms is a bit odd
" If a Creator wants to remove a Creator Image from their portfolio after a Publisher has paid to use that Creator Image, the Creator must contact Imgembed [email protected] with the request. Imgembed will then contact the Publisher, who will be offered both (y) a refund of all payments made to use the Creator Image that the Creator wishes to remove, and (z) the use of a comparable Creator Image to replace the removed Creator Image. Imgembed will arrange for the refund of payments via PayPal. In addition, Publishers who have paid to use Creator Images may do so without attribution to the Creator."
(I've no idea why "y" and "z" are floating in there).
It says the terms are governed by the laws of California but the company is based in Singapore. I don't know whose laws the company is working under, but if it is the US I don't think it can make overseas providers responsible for paying withholding tax that would presumably be applicable for US earnings.
Yeah. This sounds like even the licensed images are going to be hosted on the imgembed server. I was thinking it was just the free images. So I was thinking if you used the image for free you were actually just putting code to show an image from the imgembed server on your website, but you could license the image and then download it for use under the terms of the license. I don't see people wanting to pay for an image that is streaming from somewhere else. Maybe but that is a lot more problematic.
24
« on: April 09, 2014, 07:49 »
I don't know about anyone else, but I am certainly ready for a new model. I don't like Shutterstocks subscription pricing any better than Gettys.
25
« on: April 09, 2014, 06:39 »
between this site and liscensing.pixel.com it looks like everyone is seeking a better way to do stock. Definitely we need a change from the big stock agency model that has become no more than factory piece work now.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
