|
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 - zager
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10
101
« on: July 23, 2011, 10:38 »
It's not the fact you said something but what you said.
Understood. Thank you for the personal feedback. I studied design and media, worked as a designer for years. So I'm definitely on your side and deeply respect your rights. Still I like to get to the roots of things and if possible improve them.
102
« on: July 23, 2011, 09:42 »
I'm glad you said it. When taken with recent events it gives us a useful insight into your company's attitude to IP and to the rights of contributors.
OK. I thought I'd try to be better than agencies that "don't talk at all" but it seems the perception for anything I say is set already. Thank you anyway. It was a lesson for me.
103
« on: July 23, 2011, 09:32 »
For example if someone makes a shoot of a smiling businessmen wearing black suits in a meeting room with bright background. Same composition, same decoration, different models. Or those people jumping on a grass with blue sky behind. It's a thin line. One thing is copy the form which is easy to track. The other is copy the soul of the work, the idea behing. Where it seems it's widely accepted to get inspired by others.
104
« on: July 23, 2011, 09:13 »
Frankly if the examples above bring that question to mind I'm glad that I don't upload to Pixmac.
I thought I'd get an answer like this. Sorry for asking a question like that. Obviously, it was not related to images above. Maybe I'm thinking too much about stuff.
105
« on: July 23, 2011, 08:21 »
Sometimes I think about "The border between good and wrong inspiration." As we're all influenced by everything and mainly visuals around us. Some photographers and designers have the line there some elsewhere, legal stuff is also a part of the story. Still, even photographers have a shelter with books to dive into inspiration if they need to.
The question is wether we should rather strictly regulate everything or not. It's rather philosophical question.
106
« on: July 23, 2011, 08:03 »
True, regular animals, flowers, landscapes and stuff you have at home is easy to shoot and difficult to sell. As for technical quality I'd add a little saturation and a bit of dramatic lighting to version 4. Still it's center shot and that kills the dynamics.
Keep in mind this: Buyers mostly use your images to say something in advertising. Almost no-one buys documentary images in microstock agencies. If you want to make money, make less of great shorts rather than plenty of average shots/subjects.
107
« on: July 22, 2011, 13:02 »
Yeah, the market should tell what's selling. On the other hand, there are many photogs that just upload batches of pics they just made. We're working on a two level system where "a proven artist" would have faster and easier way to get his/her pics on the site. And the newcomer must prove the skills first.
So it would not be annoying as the first batch approval while still giving the agency a way to keep the cost of approval in the balance.
108
« on: July 22, 2011, 11:29 »
Hi mtkang. My advice should help you decide as we run an agency that incorporates several API's into one site.
It's fairly easy to do affiliate stuff, but running your own website might require a bit more technical skills and a good hosting company if you take it seriously. Still, even that the tech side is a must, itself will not make you money until you're great in marketing and promotion. It's the same everywhere. You can have a perfect technology but if you're not smart in marketing (and believe me, a lot of ideas were invented already) you might just loose your money and time.
There are several agencies that were in your position 5 or more years ago. Some are still operating at a loss. Some are closed already. And I guess only a few of those made it to black numbers (positive cashflow).
109
« on: July 22, 2011, 11:21 »
I have a few 7 cents. My lowest ever is on pixmac 0.042 cr.
Yeah, we were pioneers there. Luckily it's now $0.25 minimum even if we download the images for internal use.
110
« on: July 22, 2011, 02:53 »
I'd like to clarify some of your thoughts.
Let's put it this way. We can't sell content without having a working contract and technical solution with the source agency. Sure the agency would be the first to complain if we did something unacceptable (such as selling their represented content without giving them their share).
So in this sense, you can be sure it would not work for the agency in the first place. Obviously the scale would be way bigger for them. I kindly ask any of you to do a test purchase at Pixmac to see it's directly connected, before you accuse anyone from any infringement. And if any of you want your pictures removed, please do let us know the link and we'll remove your files ASAP (so you don't have to wait for the source agency to take action).
Thank you for understanding.
111
« on: July 21, 2011, 13:09 »
Yeah, 50 keywords is a de-facto standard everywhere.
112
« on: July 21, 2011, 13:07 »
Wow, $0.12 is pretty low if you see the price on the other side...
113
« on: July 21, 2011, 11:35 »
He's got ports everywhere. Look at his referral icons here. If PM is supposed to be so great, then why bother uploading to other sites? Is it for pocket change or just more spy tactics? As a site CEO one would think that a person of such lofty position would not be bothered with uploading.
What about just trying to put myself into your shoes? And thinking how you guys feel?
115
« on: July 21, 2011, 09:23 »
116
« on: July 21, 2011, 09:20 »
Does Canstock still have an agreement with them?
Never had.
117
« on: July 21, 2011, 09:18 »
To BaldricksTrousers: This discussion is related to a technical issue that was published in January 2011 and happened with our former partner. If you need technical details, please check our company blog and discussions here on MSG forum from that time.
To dirkr, cclapper, trek, sharpshot: Currently there are only two partners no longer distributed via Pixmac. In each case the reason was different. We don't have hi-res files until the file is sold. It is based on API connection, therefor the source agency is tracking all downloads.
118
« on: July 21, 2011, 02:07 »
I don't envy your position. Everyone makes mistakes. It's nice that you're making an effort to do the right thing and help improve the integrity of industry - because that's fairly rare.
Thank you.
119
« on: July 21, 2011, 01:33 »
Oh come on - this is not the way is it? These things are easily misinterpretable. People don't want to be creeped out in the middle of a trust-building exercise. Honestly... I'm sure you're intentions were good but what kind of impression does this give?
No offense. I just meet a lot of people so it was a bookmark for me to remember who's who. So I can collect the puzzle easily.
120
« on: July 20, 2011, 07:18 »
So this is your way of showing us how a "fair" agency works? Very interesting...
Sorry for a quick reaction. My impression was that the request was sent to both agencies a while ago, so I wanted to fix that on our side ASAP so you're not getting more unhappy. The rest can be explained by 123RF directly.
121
« on: July 20, 2011, 07:11 »
If after this i find out you Pixmaccers are frauds im coming over to set your HQ on fire 
Ok. Deal! :-)
122
« on: July 20, 2011, 07:07 »
Same thing with iStock, they lost many of our trust (even years ago), so I'm not expecting a whole lot from them anymore. Fotolia is also on the black-list of a bunch of contributors so you're not alone...
Thank you. I'm happy to hear all that. I'll do my best to make Pixmac better and safer. It might bring some of you guys back in a distant future.
123
« on: July 20, 2011, 05:40 »
Sounds a bit faffy. The best direction is fairness, if the name of the initiative is anything to go by. If it's going to be the kind of initiative that will only use its little finger, and tentatively at that, will it really get anywhere beyond a PR bonus?
My impression that forcing someone to do something is not going to work. So the best approach would be to write down basic rules (done) and then make agencies and contributors get a bonus when they follow the rules. It's a positive motivation. The actual form could be, for example:1. Better revenue split for contributors who support/follow the Fairstock rules 2. Auditing agencies as independent entity and ranking them 3. Taking actions together in case there's a fraud or wrong behavior 4. Being implemented in the purchase process of each agency and reporting summarized data 5. Rejecting contributors from all agencies once he's stealing/copying images of others etc.
124
« on: July 20, 2011, 05:07 »
But: although having opted out around two months ago, my photos are still showing on Pixmac. Does the opt out work at all?
We've removed your images at Pixmac just now. From all sources we're reselling.
125
« on: July 20, 2011, 05:04 »
Nice comments Collis! Good luck with the site! :-)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
