|
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 - Marburg
26
« on: July 10, 2009, 08:21 »
Sorry you had that happen to you. Glad to hear there are ways to take corrective action without having to hire a Lawyer.
Marburg
27
« on: February 26, 2009, 16:45 »
Thanks 
28
« on: February 24, 2009, 14:37 »
In my profile, my link to CutCaster appears to be broken. I don't know how to fixt it. I sent an email to the Admin but haven't heard from them. Does anyone know how to fixt the broken link? I get an error 404 page not found. For some reason when it tries to go to http://www.Cutcaster.com/ it thinks the link is http://www.Cutcaster.com/pgae.html. Any help would be appreciated. Marburg
29
« on: August 21, 2008, 16:20 »
Just my 2 cents--it isn't worth the $35. I bought one. It is easy to set up but very flimsy as in the slightest movement of the table or any vibration will knock the set up over. The lights are extremely weak. I could get better lighting holding a flashlight than the set provided. I promptly returned it. Most of the products I've tried that were made by Digital Concepts have not been worth the money spent, including the memory card reader. Marburg At first this item looked like a good idea at a reasonable price ($35). I do not have much space at home but I want to learn how to photograph small objects.
The tent is decent and the portability is excellent. However, the lights are woefully underpowered and the bulbs create uneven color casts. The tripod is flimsy. I guess I need to buy other lights at a local home builder's store ;-)
30
« on: August 21, 2008, 10:31 »
You are correct. Also, they are very new only a few months old in terms of being live. If you stop uploading the chances of sales go down. I have found that with any site, especially new ones, it can take up to 6 months to start seeing sales. So, stop if you want. Or be more patient and at least give them until the end of the year. They said all along that they wont market the site until the summer is over. We will have a better idea by the end of the year.
Exactly.
So far they have been straight forward with their intentions. If October rolls around and they still aren't advertising, then you pull the plug before they turn into Albumo2. But losing patience now is folly. What was anyone expecting? They came right out from Day 1 and said they would begin advertising in Autumn.
31
« on: August 21, 2008, 09:53 »
I completely agree with you. Why can't the stocksites require the payment be verified before releasing the photo for download? Not only that, but give the buyer a specific time frame during which they can download the photo (say 3-5 days) once the payment has been processed. If you go to a store and make a credit card purchase you can't leave with the merchandise until the credit card transaction has been approved (as in it goes through immediately or is denied). Why can't stocksites do the same or more specifically why don't they? If I make a purchase at an online store the merchandise isn't shipped until the transaction has been processed. Marburg I saw that yesterday and it's indeed odd. Maybe as they are a smaller business, they can't afford the risk. But in a way this is better than what people reported here from FT (cancelled sales).
It annoys me more to think that apparently people can download images before their payment is authorized, so in the end they get the images (even if the license becomes void) but we get no pay. I wonder why sales are only after its authorized by the credit cards. If I purchase something online, it's not delivered to me until payment is clear.
Regards,
Adelaide
32
« on: August 15, 2008, 13:25 »
Hi TreeOfLife, I have uploaded a few at other sites. I am finding myself uploading more at Cutcaster. I have uploaded exclusives there also. Even though Cutcaster is new and still in beta my sales there in July far surpassed my sales at other sites. I know it is risky because they are new. I am obviously willing to take that risk. For me, the personal interaction, responses, and ability to set prices and accept bids outweighs the risk. I would rather help make a site like Cutcaster make it than continue to sell photos for $.25 or lower. So, my advice is to take a chance...join Cutcaster. So to those of you who did sign up with Cutcaster- are you continuing to upload the same images at other agencies (including subscriptions)?
That's why I was asking about exclusives. It seems to me that if I upload all of my images everywhere, I'm just shooting myself in the foot; a buyer will just go the "cheaper" site to get the image instead of downloading it from Cutcaser.
Is this making any sense at all? 
33
« on: August 15, 2008, 13:14 »
Yes it was. congrats marburg, was it one of those old photos you were asking us about, in the other thread?
hey johngriffin, nice to see you here too! hope all's well at cutc!
34
« on: August 15, 2008, 13:11 »
I am quite happy to be a sheep at cutcaster. My sales have increased at cutcaster, I'm earning more and the team is great to work with. Yeah, most of the sheep are with you.
If by sheep you mean successful high earning micro stock photographers, I'm happy to be a sheep ..
:-)
35
« on: July 22, 2008, 16:11 »
The following site has an excellent photo recovery tool. It doesn't need to be installed, and recovers virtually 100%. Plus it is free. I used it to recover over 10,000 photos for a friend. http://www.artplus.hr/adapps/eng/dpr.htmMarburg
36
« on: July 17, 2008, 11:22 »
I agree. I always give them a chance too. I also have a much smaller portfolio than many of the other photographers. If they don't generate sales within 6 months I don't upload to them anymore. I always give them a chance I don't have as many images as some of you other picture takers
37
« on: July 15, 2008, 12:05 »
Mine was for a shot of a purple beach bucket. The rejection said the blue bucket appears as purple. Possible purple fringing.
Of course the bucket appeared to be purple. It was PURPLE.
38
« on: July 14, 2008, 14:13 »
Although Cutcaster is new - I think their terms present a win-win situation for everyone. The buyer gets product that is priced reasonably (or they can bid), the photographer gets a decent percentage (somewhere around 40%) and the site gets a decent percentage. Only time will tell if they are successful. Given a chance I think they will. Perhaps I did not make my question plain enough.
It's not about sales amount, or the amount of money to be made.
The question is which site serves both the photog and buyer equally from a fair price point of view.
39
« on: July 14, 2008, 14:09 »
For me, July has been my best month ever. I'm fairly new so it doesn't take a whole lot to make that happen. Marburg  Having a horrible month on IstockPhoto so far. I normally go with the ebb and flow of stock earnings, but in this case I am on pace to have my lowest earnings in 2 years on that site! Making it even stranger, I had my 2nd BME on ISP last month.
SS is doing rather well, but not enough to make up for it.
Also, the traffic based on Alexa seems to have crashed for ISP beginning in mid-June.
Anyone noticing the same thing?
40
« on: July 14, 2008, 14:07 »
For me the goal is the same as Smiling Jack. $500-$1000 per month in total sales (all stock sites and fine arts prints) would pay the overhead and give me a little profit to expand. To make between $500 and $1000/month.This would pay for the overhead on my aerial photo buss. and allow me to expand it.
Smiling Jack
41
« on: July 10, 2008, 12:39 »
Do any of you sell and frame your photos to customers directly? Do you put a title and signature on the face of your framed "art?" If, so, how do you do it? What software do you use?
While I sell some stock photos, I am also building a client base that buys framed photos and it has been mentioned that I should put the photo title and my signature on the photo.
42
« on: July 09, 2008, 15:07 »
Thanks. I hope so too. Congrats!
All the best for more.
43
« on: July 09, 2008, 15:01 »
Hurray! I just had some sales at CutCaster.
Marburg
44
« on: July 09, 2008, 14:29 »
Thanks. Galleries sound like the way to go. Marburg good point. Some of them are really antiquated. ...
There are approximately 1,000 of these and while many are of deceased family members there are also a good number of landscapes, cityscapes, etc. So, a gallery could be an option.
No Marburg, a gallery should be THE option. I suggest you take some digital shots of every single one of them, to have some backup in case of loss . then make a slide show with something like Ppt.
Then hit the pavement to go to galleries, public libraries,etc...
Even your local , provincial or even national art grants society.
As a big fan of archives, I wouldn't even bother with microstock.
This collection deserves more than that. If you can even gather some
of the original equipment, ie. view camera, glass negs,etc...
this would make the exhibition even more interesting.
Research with someone who is knowledgeable of photo history,
and team up with a good speaker.
You got something good there. Aim higher. Good luck
45
« on: July 07, 2008, 10:29 »
good point. Some of them are really antiquated. A photo expert told me the negatives date from 1890's through 1950's and camera used was the old box kind where the negative is shot onto a plate glass and photographer had a hood. Chemicals were mixed and it took about 3 minutes of exposure for the photo to take. There are approximately 1,000 of these and while many are of deceased family members there are also a good number of landscapes, cityscapes, etc. So, a gallery could be an option. Marburg, unless I misunderstand, you are referring to something authentic
and perharps, really antiquated.
If so, aren't we talking about something specialized, rather than generic?
Would you not be better off getting in touch with a gallery, perharps,
instead of selling it on microstock.
Can you see your ancestors' image on a box of xxx brand cookies,
or flyer,etc?
46
« on: July 07, 2008, 10:13 »
My guess is to get a model release from your siblings for deceased parents. I really don't know about aunts and uncles and cousins unless you get a model release from their heirs? What if its a family photo that your parents took, you inherited the rights to it but your brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles are still alive - I would imagine you need a model release for those that are still alive? What about the aunts and uncles if they are deceased? Do you need to get a model release from your cousins if they inherited their parents estates?
Like, how complicated does this get???
47
« on: July 03, 2008, 15:10 »
This could become really tangled as I know each country has it's own laws. So, how does all this work via internet where the website the photos may be uploaded to are in one country and the owner is in another? And since the internet is worldwide....?lots and lots to think about. In terms of myself, I have inherited a large amount of negatives from 1890-1945. All the people in them have passed away. Some have no heirs while others have a few. The person who posed the question has some photos that her parents took back in the 1930's and she is the only living heir. Now in the United Kingdom:
To be sure you have the rights to post the photographs.
Ownership of photographs taken before 1 January 1945:
The only way in which copyright can exist for such photographs is where it has been revived.
Ownership of photographs taken on or after 1 January 1945 but before 1 August 1989:
If you are the owner of the material on which the photograph was taken, then you are the first owner.
After this 70 years after the photographers death "family or next of kin" of the photographer.
But if the Photograph was paid for as in taken as a commision, or as part of a paid job, then the copyright is not with the photographer
I would think to claim any of these as a right you would need the negatives, I used to collect vintage glass and plastic negatives as they could not be copied that easy.
For full details:
www.patent.gov.uk/copy/c-applies/c-photo.htm
Simple 
48
« on: July 03, 2008, 14:31 »
Hmm...lots to think about. I would guess, to be safe, if people are involved you would have to go around and get a model release for each living person. But what about those who are deceased? Would the estate own the rights to their likenesses and would you have to get a release from the estate's executor?
All good points to ponder. What exactly does happen if the photographer passed away and had sold photos online? What if the photographer specifically stated in a will that their worldly possessions pass on to theirs heirs? If it is a single heir, would this be sufficient? What about multiple heirs?
Marburg
49
« on: July 03, 2008, 09:21 »
Thank you Native for validating what I was thinking. Marburg Yes, as long as you are the copyright holder you may sell them as stock. Copyrights can be transferred from the original maker to someone else so even though you did not take the photographs you can still be the copyright holder.
50
« on: July 03, 2008, 09:20 »
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who takes pictures is a photographer. If they earn their living with their photographs then they are "professional." If they earn pocket money with their photographs they are "part-time." If they just like to take pictures they are hobbists. As for me? I am a "part-time" photographer as I do earn pocket money from my photos both from the web and from people to make purchases in person. My little 6 year old niece is a Hobbist. Yes, she takes pictures. She takes some excellent, some good and some bad photos just like the rest of us. She is a photographer despite her age.
Marburg
quote author=rjmiz link=topic=5136.msg53685#msg53685 date=1214624038]
There appears to be an issue with a few members as what constitutes a photographer.
Some arrogant weenie headed idiots claim you need experience, formal education, training, or be professional.
Well if I employ my life skills od the last 57 years, and I bring them in to bare on this issue.
I can't help using some analogies.
If I am behind the wheel of a car; I AM A DRIVER
If I have a gun, walking thru the woods looking to shoot some game to eat; I AM A HUNTER
If I am pushing a shopping cart thru a supermarket; I AM A SHOPPER
If I'm in a DR's office waiting to be seen; I AM A PATIENT
It's unfortunate that some seem to be very possessive with the term photographer.
They believe it's a title bestowed upon them from the heavens.
Their egos are tremendous and leave little room for others they refer to as "snap-shooters" or "Picture takers".
Watch out for these people. They lurk in the forums, but are totally identifiable.
some terms to watch for:
"Been a pro for Many, many years"
"This is a game for talented people only"
"This business is specialized and only wants the best"
"I'm so good, I even wrote a book"
Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason
[/quote]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
