|
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 - UncleGene
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14
76
« on: April 24, 2010, 17:00 »
Gone again?
77
« on: April 23, 2010, 18:10 »
Did you ever donate images? AFAIR favs page includes downloads from donated ones, earnings one - does not
78
« on: April 23, 2010, 09:35 »
I have a different question. Recently I saw an example of a clear copycat (not one but multiple photos have exactly the same composition, people in the same postures, very similar props, etc.), but done with far superior quality comparing to original (sorry for not giving examples, original author may read this thread, I do not want him to be insulted)
From one side - this is clear theft (I know that author did not give any approval because he found and posted examples himself on other forum), that has to be punished
From other - we care about art and industry level, and this thief clearly helps to raise it.
What do you think?
79
« on: April 23, 2010, 09:28 »
In order to protect works in such a way that doesnt preempt future works, copyright protects the expression of an idea, yet not the idea itself. If copyright extended to the underlying idea and granted exclusive rights in an idea to one author, it would ultimately discourage thousands of original works for every other person.
I think you should re-submit your request ti IS - you probably worded it similarly to one here and left space for misunderstanding. Emphasize that it is not idea, but image copy, and add 1-to-1 comparison of fragments. More we catch such guys (and advertise catching), less (I hope) we'll see new attempts
80
« on: March 24, 2010, 09:22 »
I do not see mine - it is probably CanStock (Fotosearch). I've closed my account there exactly because of "partners" with weird or absent copyright notices.
81
« on: March 21, 2010, 22:37 »
If you wanted to err on the side of caution, you would not put it under 'royalties' . At least that's what my CPA said.
Did he/she give you any reasons? Though it may really depend on income proportions. That's really confusing with the code - everything is very subjective and relative. Situation for somebody getting 10% of income from microstock may be absolutely different from one for somebody with 11%.... (I still earn less than 1%  )
82
« on: March 21, 2010, 11:58 »
The typical use for those in microstock are the 'hobby' photographers, like myself, that upload vacation photos etc. I couldn't deduct any of my expenses related to my photos under IRS regs., and if I tried and was audited there would be penalties involved. For me and other hobby shooters it would be just as legitimate to report the royalty income as 'hobby income' (line 21) as to use Schedule E and report it as royalty income on line 17.
Reviving old thread - it is April again... Why do you think it is impossible to deduct expenses for 'hobby' photographer? My understanding of line 21 is that it shows _net_ income, and schedule E have all possible expense lines. Where am I wrong?
83
« on: March 18, 2010, 21:42 »
I've looked at my top 10 by earning
#1 not accepted by SS
#2 - by IS
#5 - by DT and FT
#8 - by both IS and SS
#9 - by IS
What is interesting, IS and SS were consistent in their reviews (tried to re-submit with minor fixes)
85
« on: March 17, 2010, 09:26 »
His gain, monetary, ego, hobby or otherwise.
I absolutely agree that author used these photos (links) for his gain. What I cannot agree with is that this usage violated any rights. P.S. He was forced to change IS images to links (did not finish yet). How it is different from "gain" point of view?
86
« on: March 17, 2010, 08:55 »
It is interesting that author removed all IS photos, but left all getty ones. Waiting for another letter? IMHO: if this blog violates the law - there is something wrong with the law What is next - letter to Leaf to remove all mentions of IS on this site (and in users posts) because name is copyrighted? It looks like subject of your editorial photo suing magazine (and you) for the editorial use.
87
« on: March 11, 2010, 10:46 »
They should reject more. I keep clicking on the links at the top of the forum, and they all link to pretty bad snaps or Yuri's pics.
I agree and do not agree. They should reject more (than before, not now) , but probably should hire better reviewers. Their rejects are (and were) in most cases unpredictable.
88
« on: March 11, 2010, 10:38 »
RT is absolutely right. Model release is an employment contract between you and model. Property release is an employment contract between you and property. Model release for minor - you'd better never use it in civilized country! (I was told couple times that even for obvious ones I have to add  )
89
« on: March 10, 2010, 22:47 »
Yet another 123 development? Images have practically no watermarks (only something tiny in the corner)
Edit: they are back, looks like temporary glitch
90
« on: March 08, 2010, 01:04 »
Did you look at CushyStock http://www.cushystock.com/? I did not try this feature myself (for my purposes old version is much more stable), but new versions have session management.
91
« on: March 05, 2010, 22:10 »
Sorry, your images can be "borrowed" from any site, one way or the other.
Confirming. Looks like nobody invests in proper protection (though it is possible)
92
« on: March 05, 2010, 11:03 »
This is weird. I read somewhere about reject for similarity to twitter bird. Is it possible that RF image become copyrighted?
94
« on: March 04, 2010, 12:58 »
Once I've heard a good definition of a pro, and it was not related to $$.
Amateur _can_ do an excellent job
Pro does a good job _always_ (though it may be not excellent)
Unfortunately this definition works best for self-rating, not external one.
95
« on: March 04, 2010, 11:48 »
I guess that pretty much sums it up. I have nothing to offer. My images must stand on their own. 
Sorry if you feel offended. I did not mean this at all - my comment was not about your photography skills, but about using "I was a Professional Photographer long before most of you got your first camera"
96
« on: March 04, 2010, 11:35 »
Why?
97
« on: March 04, 2010, 11:32 »
Off-topic. I do not think this tells anything. I also was a PP long-long time ago. Let me give you an analogy from my other life - software. I heard couple times from people: "I know how to read punch cards!". I do too, but how it can help now? 
Is this somehow relating to photography? Are you equating punch cards to film photography? Kinda like, "Yeah, you're a dinasaur but still a newbie." [/quote] Exactly, with one correction. Did you miss "I do too" part?  A little more serious - not to film photography as a class (it does not apply to anybody who did professional work on film continuously till recent years), but to any professional skill set that had a chance to get both obsolete and rusty.
98
« on: March 04, 2010, 11:10 »
By the way ... I am a late-comer to microstock. But, I was a Professional Photographer long before most of you got your first camera.
Off-topic. I do not think this tells anything. I also was a PP long-long time ago. Let me give you an analogy from my other life - software. I heard couple times from people: "I know how to read punch cards!". I do too, but how it can help now?
99
« on: March 03, 2010, 23:09 »
anyone playing with the 3 beta?  =tom
I started to play, but I cannot compare, as I did not play with 2 Some bugs, but again, do not know if it is beta or LR as such. Despite some problems seems pretty useful, especially for shoots that do not require any deep processing (i.e. can be handled by LR only).
100
« on: March 03, 2010, 15:07 »
Perhaps this is the way DT fights IS exclusivity? AFAIK any editing resets lock period?
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
