|
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 - gillian vann
Pages: 1 ... 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56
1276
« on: September 02, 2012, 01:13 »
someone else will know for sure, but isn't that one of yuri's pics on their website?
1277
« on: August 23, 2012, 06:22 »
my brain hurts.
1278
« on: August 17, 2012, 05:30 »
small business is not like a big corporation, or a govt run "business" - they often run very tight budgets and have little cashflow. I'm not on their side, obviously, and I work hard to educate business owners in my realm about the value of professional photography but... there seems to be a bit of a misconception here that small businesses are flush with cash. Why else do they resort to this theft in the first place? they are trying to save money.(and they don't want to pay for something they don't value. most of them think they can make these images with their p&s)
I'm NOT on their side, but I've been there. Don't be greedy. I think this is good advice re: sending an email with a paypal link, but if I do come across someone using one of my images (even though I'm one of those apparently "joke" microstockers with a <200 port) I will probably email them with something similar to what's been posted here.
1279
« on: August 13, 2012, 00:10 »
good to see so many of the comments acknowledge copyright issues. Can't believe they used the Google logo on the front too.
1280
« on: August 09, 2012, 03:59 »
I'm surprised the buyer hasn't tried to jump the fence (not sure what the terminology might be here, that's a real estate term) and try to find you directly. Simple google search would surely track down most of us?
1281
« on: August 06, 2012, 21:22 »
exactly, and that's probably the point of Moo being involved..... to get your business. They did a facebook promo too a while back, which I didn't utilise. Part of me wishes they'd quieten down, as the cards do make a great statement and if everyone gets them I'll have to search for something new and different, and that just smacks of effort.
1282
« on: August 06, 2012, 21:18 »
is no one wondering when he'll open up his site, take on contributors and go head to head with SS and IS?
1283
« on: August 06, 2012, 20:56 »
interesting that this has come up now, as I have just shot 2 x-rays for a children's picture book I'm working on. most of the items i'm shooting are also ending up in my stock port (although A is for apple has been rejected, how rude, don't they want another red apple on white??!) and i was wondering about a model release - how on earth is someone's skeleton "recognisable"?  Hadn't thought about the hospital "owning" the image. I'll bet the hospital hasn't given it any thought either.
1284
« on: August 04, 2012, 06:39 »
not sure why they emailed us with this - there's no mention of how it effects contributors.
1285
« on: July 28, 2012, 18:51 »
I can't work out if it's better to upload a series and purposefully include some dodgy ones, so they can have their obligatory stab at the giant reject button, or to space out the uploads on a series. Currently if I handpick my best 6 they still reject 2 of them.
1287
« on: July 28, 2012, 18:42 »
"We may select one of your images to be featured for free on the homepage. This helps showcase your portfolio. Please note that you will not earn commissions on the image that is selected during that week."
So we help promote their site and they want us to provide free imagery with the tiresome promise that "it'll be good exposure for your port"
Does anyone have any positive stories to tell out of doing this?
1288
« on: July 26, 2012, 00:57 »
the landing page looks broken to me, perhaps there's still more work to be done.
i do like the drag n drop for uploading.
1289
« on: July 23, 2012, 06:48 »
The "hundreds of $$$" that these partners are asking for are covering material, labor and other overhead plus profit to offer the products. I'm sure they are not becoming instant millionaires with this business.
but they have costs for paper, ink, amortizing whatever printing equipment they buy, staff and shipping in addition to the cost for the image.
How many here have ever worked in the retail industry?
I bet very few!
this is something I often wonder (not just here, but in real life too), although I tend to insert "run your own business" into the equation. working in retail means a different thing nowadays; most young people just turn up and stand around, there's no pride in the industry. awesome salespeople end up in other fields eventually, where their skills yield them more return. sorry, bit OT.
1290
« on: July 23, 2012, 06:17 »
Is this a stunt to get people to read the blog and link to it, for SEO?
If it's a stunt by the blog author, good on her. There are loads of places where this info is available, but people either don't go to these sites or don't believe them if they see them.
could be. As I said, i recently posted in a forum regarding how 'wonderful' Pinterest was with a gentle warning. The blog author claimed there was a 'gray area' concerning copyright and I posted that there was no such 'grayness', it's just theft etc. ZERO responses to my post, just more "wow, thanks for you great advice on how to make my pinterest boards get more traffic'. I still believe that bloggers aren't our customers, so we don't technically "lose" money, but in general the attitude of many web users is scary. They could be our customers and we need to work hard to convert them into payers, not thieves.
1291
« on: July 23, 2012, 05:23 »
I've done a photoshoot for an author. She knows the deal. I did the shoot as a freelancer for a paper, and then she paid me to own the images for her own use.
i noticed there was comment from her about how photojournos own copyright; that's false too. If they're on salary then the media outlet owns copyright (at least in Australia). and now she's closed off the comment box, even though there's more misinformation than good.
I recently posted a comment in a Pinterest forum about this issue. Not one person has replied or acknowledged it. scary.
1292
« on: July 14, 2012, 02:26 »
i love how there's 3 different conversations going.
1293
« on: July 12, 2012, 18:15 »
apart from anything else, that would be forcing model shooters to have a smartphone. Though for all I know, the overlap of these to subsets might be 100%.
It took me a while to work out what you meant..."forcing" someone to have a smartphone, lol. people still have phones that are only phones?? even my parents have smartphones now, surely there's no more stragglers after them.
1294
« on: July 12, 2012, 18:10 »
what's the point if only iStock accepts it? we'd still have to do a standard paper one for everyone else. I'm still in a discussion with DT "support" over the need for a resi address for my 19yo model. It's just so pointless. In the future we'll be finding people through google and facebook, oh wait, I mean NOW that's he we stalk find people.
1295
« on: July 07, 2012, 04:13 »
well as a fellow newbie you're doing better than me. I have @100 in my port (more on other sites) and just edging towards my first payout, coming up to 6 months now. I sell images on SS every day though, so I keep nagging myself to shoot more and increase the port, so I can be selling more every day.
1296
« on: July 03, 2012, 04:05 »
"some" ?? Anthony Robbins would either keel over or rub his hands with glee.
1297
« on: July 02, 2012, 17:36 »
This is just a sentence from the article.. but I found it humorous "Foaps founders, formerly in the travel industry, were frustrated with the quality of stock images they had to use."
So mobile phone photos are going to solve this problem...
on the plus side, instead of having peers review our work it'll be end users, who don't see CA, fringing, artifacts, focus issues, lighting issues, incorrect WB and on-camera flash use. *going to trawl through my back catalogue of phone pics taken by the kids, surely there'll be a few winners in there*
1298
« on: June 26, 2012, 17:48 »
I was under the impression if your pic was used as a promo you got paid? are you they using an unwatermarked version of your image to sell their site? yes they are, they should pay just like anyone else should.
1299
« on: June 26, 2012, 17:39 »
I agree. Fotolia reasons are completely worthless because they're vague and irrational. Their inspectors are completely unpredictable. Thus, I don't bother reading about their "reasons." I just let 'em accept what they're gonna accept, reject what they're gonna reject, and go about my business. They're a low earner for me anyway, so it wouldn't make economic sense for me to invest a lot of time there.
agree, and having just sold a sub L XL and XXL all for the whopping comm of .25 ea I wonder why any of us bother at all? how can a L and XXL earn me the same? like the rest of the answers, I just ignore it and concentrate on my other ports.
1300
« on: June 25, 2012, 06:04 »
yeah I figured from their post with its judgement of sites.... not sure if newbie means "new to this site" or "new to microstock" ? (why would you post as a newbie if you weren't actually new to both?)
Pages: 1 ... 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
