Yeah Ron a little math might come in handy!

Debut album released in 2006 Forbes says she is worth 200 million this year alone so how much has she made over 9 years?

Oh and lets not forget that is just her album, LP, Cassette, CD sales and concerts.

So now we have to consider products and marketing.

Taylor Swift Dolls, Toys, clothing apparel, perfumes, jewelry, hair and makeup products, food endorsements Etc.
of her goods and merchandise.

So she is easily worth Billions to an industry driven by sales and greed.

If it sells market it if it does well market another way.

You ever work in the retail business industry Ron?

Doubt it.

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 22, 2015, 11:35

But that single artist alone is worth Billions not to mention marketing and advertising.

What single Micro shooter is worth billions to any micro company?

Yuri aside.

Not to forget to mention that the music industry is completely different then Micro is by miles.

The music industry will back their artists with everything they have, what micro site is willing to do that for one contributor?

None.

Quote from: leaf on June 22, 2015, 05:02

Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 22, 2015, 01:23

There's a big difference. Music Artists seem to be far more collective than us. They withhold content collectively we operate as individuals only interested in our own little world. I  am referring to the big guns. Factories never pull their content collectively.

This wasn't a collective move by the industry.  It was a single artist saying - enough is enough and refusing to add her latest work to iTunes

billions? Lol

Alrighty there Pete! ☺

But at the same time aren't you still pissing in someones Wheaties?

I mean after all this just throws out all the conspiracies that are out there.

Old images are selling for the first time. I thought they were just dead.

New uploads are getting sales next day or shortly after being accepted. And repeat DLs after that.

And some older popular images get DLs day after day. It's like they have some magic popular sign and buyers are attracted.

I'm really happy and finding that my earnings on IS have also been improving.

WOW I'm really happy...

Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 wrote:   
I'm glad it isn't just me that this is happening to - I had my first 0 download day yesterday!! At the beginning of January I had a couple of reasonable days with 10 downloads per day but I am averaging about 2 downloads a day in January whereas in December I was averaging between 6 - 16 downloads a day! Fingers crossed that it picks up again.

Yeah, that's right. 2005! ;-) A whole thread about how the search changed and earnings are down. So let me say, after 10 years, nothing changed?

Someone dug up an old thread and nothing has changed except for the years

Six hours or more down and earlier this morning they said they were working on it and it would be back soon!

Well  I guess NOT!

You have to ask them about it then they will send you a response.

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on May 28, 2015, 07:59

On FB they say they are working to fix it.

Not seeing anything on their FB page or either Twitter page. OTH, people have been complaining on their bugs forum for 2 days about flaky behavior.

It's down then it's up then down then up.

Can get to the home page but nowhere else.

Time to find out on their FB page WTFIGO!

Does he trolling Instagram and others? Anyway person which did not give a release has the right to sue him.

He was sued and lost then he appealed to a higher court and won, (probably cause on appeal the other party never showed)?

http://uproxx.com/media/2015/05/prince-instagram-art-show-thousands/?utm_source=FBTraffic&utm_medium=mountain&utm_campaign=CMfacebook

    Prince has been �rephotographing� since 1975, and has been taken to court in the past after a French photographer claimed 35 of his images were lifted by the lazy �artist�.

    In 2011 a US District judge ruled against Prince and the Gagosian Gallery, which displayed the photos, stating that Prince�s use of the images did not fall under fair use. A US Court of Appeals, however, mostly reversed the ruling two years later, stating that the majority of the works were transformative while a lower court was to review the other works.

http://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/richard-prince-is-a-jerk/

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150415

Military vehicles and property.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=110200&highlight=army+vehicles

May be of some help?

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on April 27, 2015, 16:16

You can not shoot and sell commercial images taken on private property without a release, what are you missing?

Nobody is disputing this.

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on April 27, 2015, 16:16

When you buy something you are not buying the copyright you are buying a product the copyright stays with the designer of the product.

Nobody is disputing this. As you know.

Your argument above, the point we are addressing concerns buildings - houses specifically. Copyright is not typically the issue with houses. The issue is one of permission. (Sometime a Property Release covers copyright - sometimes a Property Release covers a different sort of permission - eg with houses).

You will find the information you need here:

Getty Images Contributor Community - Model and Property Releases

and also here:

asmp.org

If those links are not good enough for you then why not contact Getty directly or whoever you sell via.

Man I have more links concerning copyright then you can image.

Did you not read the ARCHITECTURE link from the Us copyright office?

An original design of a building created in any tangible medium of expression,
including a constructed building or architectural plans, models, or drawings, is
subject to copyright protection as an �architectural work� under section 102 of
the Copyright Act (title 17 of the
United States Code
), as amended on December
1, 1990. Protection extends to the overall form as well as the arrangement and
composition of spaces and elements in the design but does not include indi
vidual standard features or design elements that are functionally required.
The term �building� means structures that are habitable by humans and
intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office build
ings and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occu
pancy, including, but not limited to, churches, museums, gazebos, and garden
pavilions.

I don't need to check anything with any sites I am with I know and understand the copyright / trademark  issues.

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on April 27, 2015, 12:26

If the property is a building like a house the owner doesn't count because whoever has the blueprints drawn up for the building is the only one who can sign a release, just because you own it doesn't mean you own the copyright to it.

No. I have no idea what country you are in. But this is not the case in any European country I have ever lived and it is not the case in the USA according to www.copyright.gov.

Quote

� 120 . Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works

(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.�The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

The owner of a building is the person who would sign a property release. Not the architect. The point being that a property release in this context is a permission-thing rather than a copyright-thing. Therefore the copyright of the design is normally going to be irrelevant except where there are specific exceptions. Unlike the design of, say, furniture or cars.

Also see: https://asmp.org

If you are shooting it on the property then it must be released from the architect!!

Learn to read.

which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

The designer of any building has the original blueprints and is the copyright holder in the US!!

Therefore if you are on the private property where that building is located it must be released from the Architect not the owner!

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf

I am not asking exact numbers here just trying to see where we all fall in as a majority.

Do we all make it as middle class or are we in the upper or lower income levels.

JHCFMFA!!!!!!!!!

I have asked Tyler to delete the thread.

OK Tyler since no one understands what the thread I started is about I am requesting it be deleted thanks.

You are asking for income on a microstock forum. That should give it away right there.

And what are you telling anyone?

No one not even I will know who voted and what they voted.

So if you voted less then $25,000that could be anything from nothing to $25,000 which is pretty much 25,000 possible incomes and no way for anyone to determine what anyone is making.

It is to see what income levels we are all from. They are just income brackets

crap I know of at least one person who should be answering  anywhere from $100,000 - $250,000 if not more if they tell the truth and like I said no one even I will know who voted what.