|
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 - MSBS
Pages: [1]
1
« on: June 19, 2010, 11:06 »
anyone had dealings with this site?
i request my account be closed over 30 days ago, and still nothing. Email, phone.
2
« on: April 15, 2010, 06:07 »
have they actually posted any Stinkstock earnings this month?
3
« on: March 25, 2010, 13:41 »
Anyone know who it gets its micro images from? ie. fotolia? DT? etc
4
« on: December 15, 2009, 08:02 »
I'd be pretty certain that the model release policy on Dreamstime loses them sales, buyers are too savvy these days and they're concerned of any possible legal implications, if you were a buyer who wanted a shot that contained a body part would you buy it from the site that says it has a model released attached or the one that says it hasn't?
On the other hand - what possible cause of action does a model who has an unrecognisable body part used commercially have against an image user?
The ridiculous thing about microstock is that there is a requirement for all sorts of releases that just aren't necessary.
Question is tho, how unrecognisable is the torso and bump of a pregnant woman in her favourite dress....? I'd prefer to cover my a*se. I wont upload the images without a MR, so will sell them elsewhere. No biggy.
5
« on: December 14, 2009, 14:34 »
Had a few rejections a few weeks ago of a woman's pregnant torso.
Rejected for HAVING a model release. Yes you did read that right.
Upon questionning it, I have been told to upload without the MR.
Is it just me, or is that crazy? I would have thought it would be better to eer on the side of caution, not reject a file cos it does have a MR....
Anyone else have any simliar experiences?
6
« on: November 23, 2009, 17:53 »
Problem is when you have a roll over attitude, it sets the precedent. Times like this make you release that a stock trade union would be a good idea.
It's nothing to do with having a roll over attitude, it's having a realistic knowledge of how the industry and running a business works, if a buyer is determined to get out of paying for something they will, you will not set a precedent despite your good intentions you will only end up alienating yourself with the agencies and the buyers. Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating the practice and fortunately the vast majority of buyers do stick within the license terms, as the old saying goes time is money if you feel you can spend the time chasing something like this for no return then good for you.
From the agencies point of view what advantage is it to them to chase something like this, as I said you're non-exclusive so there's no loyalty involved on either side, it would cost them more money in manpower than they'd get back in return.
By the way about your comment re RM on your other thread, I sell a fair bit on Alamy and two of my RM this month (well reported this month) were for UK national papers (The Sun) which both netted me less than $8 in commission and one was front page, I'd get more with a RF EL sale on microstock!
And there is a (kind of) stock trade union, but they are powerless and always will be because we are self employed and nobody who is self employed is going to be dictated to by a union because I and you will make our own decisions on how we sell our product.
You talk alot of sense. (i take it is was Alamy's UK Newspaper Scheme? - a similar purchase from PL would have netted much more). Thanks. Just so frustrating though isnt it.
7
« on: November 23, 2009, 17:22 »
I had one in a major UK newspaper, and the print run was over 3 million. Thats per day. So when its run over a 28 day period.....
Exactly...
Probably why 90% new goes RM.
8
« on: November 23, 2009, 15:36 »
Any thoughts?
You could have made more money creating more images in the time you've spent pursuing this and the examples that you've mentioned in other threads than you'll ever get from the extra commission for an EL.
I'm not saying it's fair but then business and life in general isn't fair, you're a non-exclusive contributor - the sites don't care about you, face the fact and move on otherwise you'll be the only one who loses out in the end.
Who said its about the money? Its principles, and they for me are worth fighting for. And I love a fight. Problem is when you have a roll over attitude, it sets the precedent. Times like this make you release that a stock trade union would be a good idea.
9
« on: November 23, 2009, 14:58 »
Got an update for you....
Still nothing from Getty, so i contacted the purchaser of the image, who stated that they had settle with a chap at Jupiter Images in Sept 09 (no-one told me) and more shockingly, they were told that their standard licence covered the distribution of my image on their product for resale - contrary to Jupiter's T&C - Extended Licences (EL):
'E3: Physical items for resale - Limited run
By obtaining this license you may use the Image on items for resale such as t-shirts, postcards, mouse pads, coffee mugs, calendars or similar, even if they contain the Image in a dominant way. You may print up to 10,000 items of each category. If you exceed that amount, you must purchase this license again. All other restrictions from the Prohibited uses section of the Standard license terms still apply.'
The purchaser wrote to me originally stating that Jupiter had advised them that the purchase only required a normal licence, so i reckon this is some sort of cover up, hence no-one saying anything to me (other than the purchaser).
Any thoughts?
10
« on: November 22, 2009, 18:38 »
Think I'd prefer to spend my legal fees taking stockxpert/Getty to court out of principle rather than chase $30!
It's wrong that they should be able to get away with just washing their hands of it.
11
« on: November 21, 2009, 08:08 »
Hey
about 3 months ago, i found one of my images being sold on a Licence Plate (vehicle) in the US. The image had never been purchased under an EL, so i contacted the vendor, who told me they had bought the image through photos.com.
So i contacted Stockxpert. They then contacted jupiter/photos.com, and then it went off to Getty to investigate.
3 months now, getty ignore my emails, stockxpert cant get hold of the getty people.... and the licence plate is still being sold with my image on, without the correct licence.
What would you do...?
12
« on: November 20, 2009, 07:38 »
I think you'd better re-read it. The additional royalty does not apply because the license includes a perpetual, unlimited license for advertisements. C(1).
I take it you are talking about 3 c(1), where it states permitted use includes 'advertising and promotional projects, including printed materials' 'Prohibited Uses. You may not do anything with the Content that is not expressly permitted in the preceding section or permitted by an Extended License. For greater certainty, the following are Prohibited Uses and you may not: 'either individually or in combination with others, reproduce the Content, or an element of the Content, in excess of 500,000 times without obtaining an Extended License' This clause USED to exclude newspapers and magazines, but no longer does. You will see it is now scored out. This position was confirmed by the Compliance Officer at istock, i quote ...(the) '...licenses were purchased before there was a limit imposed on the print ads...'
13
« on: November 20, 2009, 07:27 »
What kind of advertising use requires an EL from any site?
the kind that runs over a certain print run in mags and newspapers, as it does in istock updated licencing terms.
No, it doesn't. No micro that I know of has a limit of advertising usage.
Add into that Shutterstock's terms http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml?type=standardPart I 2 l
14
« on: November 20, 2009, 07:21 »
What kind of advertising use requires an EL from any site?
the kind that runs over a certain print run in mags and newspapers, as it does in istock updated licencing terms.
No, it doesn't. No micro that I know of has a limit of advertising usage.
i think you had better look through your licencing terms at istock a bit more throughly then... http://www.istockphoto.com/license_changes.php4. 14
15
« on: November 20, 2009, 03:02 »
perhaps you could ask the advertiser where they purchased the image.
yep. Might have to.
16
« on: November 20, 2009, 03:01 »
Another thought. Even if you see a company using the image, it is not necessarily the buyer - and since it's advertisement, it's likely another company purchased for their client's use.
Indeed, I used an image I bought from DT for a client's print ad. My company name was no where on the ad, so if DT or anyone else looked for the client's name, they wouldn't find it in their records. They'd have to contact the client who would then give them my company's name.
yeah I guess this is their arguement. But still, bad attitude, have never received such arrogance from any other sites. And makes u worry about the potential problems if an image falls into some dodgy use etc, as would appear they would be quick to say they can't help. All stock agencies have an inherent duty of care to their contributors to ensure that the images they sell on our behalf are licenced correctly.
17
« on: November 20, 2009, 02:52 »
Moreover, such attitude sounds dangerous for any non-exclusive.
Those are the inevitable consequences of not being exclusive on one site. DT would give you the same answer.
actually dt didn't give me that answer last time I needed them to track down a misused file. I have found them to be nothing more than utterly helpful.
18
« on: November 20, 2009, 02:49 »
What kind of advertising use requires an EL from any site?
the kind that runs over a certain print run in mags and newspapers, as it does in istock updated licencing terms.
19
« on: November 19, 2009, 19:38 »
How about asking the other two sites?
If it wouldn't have required an EL from iStock, then presumably even if it was sold through them there was no license breach... so it's the others that matter.
Already have requested the info from the other 2, just istock have come back quicker. Surely a yay or nah should be possible, not the evasive 'no reliable means' bull. They know who bought it. What happens if that image WOULD have required an EL from istock, and had been purchased from them - would i still get the 'no reliable means' answer?
20
« on: November 19, 2009, 18:56 »
Right i'll keep this short.
Image used in advertisement. Could have been downloaded from 3 sites. On 2 of the sites, would require an EL. On iStock, it wouldnt.
When contacted iStock about whether they could confirm if the image had been purchased from their site, the reply was...
'Unfortunately, because you are not an exclusive contributor, we have no reliable means of verifying if the image was licensed through iStockphoto.'
How on earth can they not know who bought the image, or confirm that it was bought through them!? A simple yes or no would suffice...
Moreover, such attitude sounds dangerous for any non-exclusive.
Anyone else experienced anything similar?
21
« on: November 19, 2009, 18:47 »
dum de dum, la la la
Pages: [1]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
