|
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 - oooo
1
« on: April 22, 2024, 13:20 »
See, at least in Germany this would actually be a case of editorial content that is not allowed. I see a lot of editorial content like this on all kinds of stock sites, but at least here, you are only allowed to photograph people without their consent for editorial use images if they are either not the main subject of an image (for example a city scene full of people or a historic building, but there are people in front of it), or if they take part in an event of public interest like a demonstration. exact, told this before, but what was meant as a friendly advice, was understood as a personal attac here ... but still the problem with the newspaper example is missing
2
« on: April 19, 2024, 14:03 »
...any claim that the Content or Metadata infringes ...
and that for there is editorial.
of course you cant offer everything under editorial,
but in case of the newspaper-rack the contributor likely did nothing wrong,
and must not be charged (it doesnt matter whoever wins that lawsuit)
If alamy gets away with this,
contributors have to delete all their editorial content,
to avoid possible horror bills in further cases
3
« on: April 17, 2024, 18:28 »
I multiplied 6050 images x a charge to the OP of 11.43 yes, and i concluded if there were only one newspaperrack image then -> 69k figure for legal costs to date would be devided by 1 = 69,151.50 for the contributor
4
« on: April 17, 2024, 13:48 »
Thank you!
If 'Sell for editorial only'-checkbox was checked than thats quite crazy in this case.
+ One have to assume that others likely also can have success with a claim.
So what about 69,151.50 is on one image?
This needs instant clarification.
Alamy contributors seem to be INSECURE TO OFFER EDITORIAL CONTENT from now
5
« on: April 16, 2024, 13:28 »
Please let me have a question JustAnImage:
Did you set a checkmark on - i dont yave a signed property release
and checked for edttorial only ?
and for all:
what about the case: bild is restricting freedom of press-
if a newspaper have a crazy headline - this can be news
6
« on: April 04, 2024, 13:40 »
told this since ever,
theres is only one reason customers buying content:
they need it.
But its useless here, its an army of hobbyists,
paying for get their stuff used
7
« on: May 20, 2023, 16:26 »
in short, as soon as "this thing" is trained one will get 0,00000000...
same like it was with enough images video etc
Ps: may i ask what you define with good money and do you know
how often and how many images are used and where the outlet goes?
8
« on: May 20, 2023, 14:07 »
-there must be an opt out
-and in case, like at adobe - an undone and unlearn
it would be absurd getting some ridiculous compensation
for training final enemy, rich companies cash cow,
with ones hard work
9
« on: May 12, 2023, 19:15 »
What do you mean with "unlike the rest of the industry which just stealing images to train their machines" ?
Contributors at adobe have no choice.
Ah yes, one can delete portfolio, ok, really?
-if your content is used to train an AI model, it may not be possible to make the AI forget any learnings from your item.
10
« on: February 05, 2023, 14:38 »
-according to your wiki-list i dont wrote something wrong -btw the pic is allready displayed nearly worldwide but its not that simple like just the list - editorial rules (this is not a editorial shot anyway) ->as im not into editorial better ask a professional also consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulationnote: just really interested in the news stand case! and wanted to leave something useful for exchange- and not any lecturing yes the multiple posts are unhappy, will edit if i have time.
11
« on: February 04, 2023, 17:46 »
image in the link is a nogo (imho)
people as main subject, no news content, father with minor in swimwear-
you are not allowed to even display this in the internet in europe.
No newspaper would dare to print this (and if, dont forget they have a legal department)
As for VIPs maybe, but arent their kids protected?
12
« on: February 04, 2023, 17:36 »
.
13
« on: February 04, 2023, 17:35 »
i meant the news stand
"Had them not been deleted / managed to recover, I would have marked them as "editorial only"
you would had marked them, but have not because the images were deleted and recovered,
did i get this rhight?
14
« on: February 02, 2023, 17:10 »
dont always agree on your editorial statements
(esp. with recognizable people + non matter of public concern (and data privacy concerns))
but in this case (unless shots were on non-public ground) i cant see the problem
did you ticked theres property and you dont have a release
+ sell for editorial only ?
would you like to provide some more information for readers here
to avoid a maybe unseen mistake?
thank you!
15
« on: September 30, 2022, 13:15 »
Simple.
Copyright owners have to be asked for agreement
BEFORE the use of ai training.
16
« on: September 18, 2022, 14:18 »
looks like my guess wasnt totally off i have no clue about all this ai,
but for me it looks like results are generated (stolen)
from existing keyworded work - without consent, compensation and regard of copyright
17
« on: September 02, 2022, 13:53 »
i have no clue about all this ai,
but for me it looks like results are generated (stolen)
from existing keyworded work - without consent, compensation and regard of copyright
no way a cgi can have the idea of dof, light etc
18
« on: August 15, 2022, 20:02 »
How many people have E&O Insurance in the Microstock business? i guess not many, but lets say you missed a pattern, in the end you pay the bill. you have signed this I already have Internet and cameras and lenses, that if I already took and edited a photo for some other agency, then uploading to more places, is = Free Money. The work is done. if you upload you lose a lot because you further devalue prices-> other agencies will also follow down if you upload your computer + router needs at last lets say 200W/h if you upload you spend time thats the opposite of free, dont feel offended, its just my honest opinion.
19
« on: August 14, 2022, 12:06 »
free money even if you work for 0/hour there are costs for internet electricity equipment insurance for copyright infringements etc, just to name a few its your money that gets tossed i strongly advise you a business consultant!
20
« on: July 26, 2022, 14:22 »
In my experience, turning off my portfolio on SS (or leaving my work there) didn't affect my sales on Adobe (or any other agency). Different clients, different preferences. thats just lame thinking. If all turn off portfolio, clients move over in a day. But its pointless argueing here on msg...
21
« on: July 03, 2022, 20:39 »
it would not be wise to focus on companies that only lowering royalties and never will cover production costs
especially big clients are able to pay a ridiculous low 33, 66, 99 licence
22
« on: July 02, 2022, 19:55 »
Not long ago, alamy was imho one of the best,
now i get 0,02 for exclusive hq images
Always got a professional reply in a working day,
now no replying at all.
ALAMY DRIVING HULL LOSS
ALAMY forcing me to delete portfolio
23
« on: May 04, 2022, 13:24 »
kiss of death lets hope this ... nobody can produce content for 0,1 flatrate - not even in cheapest places
24
« on: April 25, 2022, 13:28 »
lol...
agencies must be stupid not to further decrease your royalties to zero
25
« on: February 05, 2022, 13:03 »
I can't opt out of the novel use until april. Opt out for distributor and novel use does not make a difference, contributors who have always been opted out, regardless get the cent sales
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
