MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Show Posts

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 - unnonimus

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 16
sold 64 videos yesterday for 84 cents each under 'clip packs'

Alamy.com / Re: Caution: Don't Question Alamy
« on: June 23, 2020, 05:52 »
I uploaded some photos when my router had crc errors. the photos arrived damaged, with 90% color banding across all the images. they were obvious garbage.

you could not see any detail in the photo or tell what they were

they were all approved by alamy.

they do not do a visual inspection

Pond5 / Re: RF footage on youtube
« on: June 03, 2020, 07:46 »
I did.

just an FYI, lots of views but watch time is too low for youtube monetization

Shutterstock.com / Re: financial district rejections
« on: May 27, 2020, 14:11 »
...buildings themselves are not works of art and cannot be copyprotected.

...but they can be rejected by agencies for whatever reason they like, which is what you seem to miss, every single time.

I have never missed it a single time. what you are missing is that people should know true interpretation of copyright law and not incorrect interpretations of law. I am merely educating people on mistakes they are making on copyright law.

istock removed a lot of their restrictions on buildings after I educated them.

Shutterstock.com / Re: financial district rejections
« on: May 27, 2020, 14:08 »

Shutterstock.com / Re: financial district rejections
« on: May 04, 2020, 19:46 »

United States Law

Beginning in December 1990, U.S. copyright law added protections for architectural works. Designs that were published after December 1, 1990, are protected. So are unpublished designs from before 1990 as long as they were constructed by December 31, 2002.

the above refers to the architectural drawings, not the construction or photos of the building.

that means no one can take your design and go build another building that is identical. it does not prohibit or limit photos of any building. buildings themselves are not works of art and cannot be copyprotected.

Shutterstock.com / Re: financial district rejections
« on: May 04, 2020, 19:44 »
copyrights protect works of art.

buildings are not works of art

the copyright protects the work (photo), not what is in the photo. there is no copyright protection for something within a photo.

you can legally take photos of almost anything and sell it, including logos, trademarks, etc.

Andy Warhol famously did paintings of logos and products because it is legal in almost every country.

no building owner can demand a license for you to sell your photo.

123RF / 123rf no longer accepting video?
« on: April 03, 2020, 05:27 »
got a weird difficult to understand message from 123rf where they are saying they are no longer accepting video.

has anyone had any experience with a stock agency terminating your account or contract, and then allowing you to reapply so they can force you into starting over again at the lowest pay rate?


CanStockPhoto.com / Re: Is CanStockPhoto still alive?
« on: February 23, 2020, 04:25 »
I make from $10 to $25 each month on canstock, but they reject anything I submit now (100% gets rejected)


21/02/2020   109   42.62   41.04               1.50   0.08      

iStockPhoto.com / strange istock policy
« on: January 30, 2020, 17:12 »
Istock is telling me via email that images that have the same person, doing the same pose, where one is a close up of the face and another is a full body shot is 'too similar', and that a full body vertical shot of a person vs a horizontal torso shot are 'too similar' and have limited  my uploads (to an unreasonably low number).

I have 50,000 photos. they want me to upload a max of 50 per week.

no advance warning.

I am going to lose out on all those 1 cent photo sales.

I am not complaining, I am just notifying the rest of you because they do not warn in advance, they just place the restriction and refuse to resolve it.

Software / keywording app for twenty20?
« on: January 21, 2020, 00:35 »
does anyone know a keywording app for twenty20?

Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe Stock Creative Cloud Bonus Program
« on: January 06, 2020, 21:20 »
I had 300 accepted and never received the code

Photography Equipment / Re: Aerial photos without a drone
« on: December 31, 2019, 11:04 »
Any other creative ways to get aerial photos without a drone?

I have rented airplanes and helicopters, and gone to the top of towers.

airplane / helicopter rental costs about $250 per flight. with a helicopter, you should use a stabilization system, and the rotors are in some of the shots.

in general, most sites take editorial except for:

adobe / fotolia

General Stock Discussion / Re: Trademarks at FAA
« on: August 20, 2019, 12:01 »
U of Alabama vs Daniel Moore:

judge rules it is legal for photographers to sell photos that contain the trademarks of others

I think you mean that is legal under restricted terms of use (editorial).
At the contrary, It would be difficult to understand why stock agencies reject images with copyrighted items or logos.

About FAA, it is not for editorial use, for sure

no, I meant it is legal to take photographs of the trademarks of others and sell them for a profit.

trademark protection prevents others from using your brand to identify themselves. there is no trademark protection that prevents a photographer from selling a photo. it is how the photo is used that matters. selling the photo is not considered 'use'.

General - Top Sites / any stock photo site have an RSS feed?
« on: August 20, 2019, 11:56 »
does anyone know of a stock photo site that has an RSS feed for live search results or portfolios?


General Stock Discussion / Re: Trademarks at FAA
« on: August 13, 2019, 12:18 »
U of Alabama vs Daniel Moore:

judge rules it is legal for photographers to sell photos that contain the trademarks of others

see U of Alabama vs Daniel Moore.

judge ruled that photographers can sell photos that contain trademarks.

Shutterstock.com / Re: 5 word minimum
« on: May 19, 2019, 11:41 »
Good idea. Descriptions are used in searches, and adding relevant words in your descriptive sentence(s) gives you additional keywords if you hit the max of 50.

Plus, descriptions get placed in the page's title, which is good for search engine indexing.

I hardly think this new minimum should cause anyone any grief.

increasing the length of a title increases the length of the URL which is then penalized by search engines. this will have the opposite result of what was intended.

having more keywords reduces your keyword density which is also penalized by most search engines

minimum word length = bad idea

now the "okay" hand gesture is being rejected by at least 1 stock agency

you wrote: "If you are getting mass rejections what has that to do with CanStocks financial status?"

new uploads go onto a hard drive on their privately owned servers, with no rental fees for disk usage

approved content goes out to a CDN which they have to pay a daily / monthly fee per megabyte

if they stop accepting new submissions, people think they are going out of business

if they approve new content, they have to pay more in CDN fees

that is how I know they are having financial problems.

the DMCA protects the stock agencies.

however, I am pretty sure there is a copyright law that predates the DMCA that states that once they know there is infringement, they become liable from that date. so even if you are not the owner, the site is still liable if they do not take any action.

same here.

used to get lots of unjustified rejections, saying all my photos where too similar (they absolutely are not)

now they accept everything

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 16


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle