|
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 - MarcvsTvllivs
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15
276
« on: February 10, 2014, 11:06 »
Hello everybody!
I suddenly find myself on the buyer's side and being a contributor I of course want to abide by all licenses. That has led me to realize that some licenses do not allow (or severely limit) the use of photos on Social Media sites like Facebook. Can someone help me? Where should I go to buy photos for commercial use on our company profile and in Facebook-ads?
Thanks,
MT
277
« on: January 28, 2014, 08:34 »
As someone whose main income is not photography (I am a lawyer), I feel like I have to speak up. There is nothing morally wrong with what this guy is doing. Just because there are professional babysitters, am I being evil for taking care of my niece for free now and then?
And while this particular case may hurt our particular photographer, the majority here has already realized the one thing that makes most of these cases play out in favor of pros eventually: He's got another job. He may enjoy photography (certainly when there's hot dancers involved), but he isn't -- can't -- give it the same devotion that a pro can.
278
« on: January 25, 2014, 08:50 »
Royalties---> left tab "Export"--->Export PDF--->Done! 
Thank you! I would *never* have guessed.
279
« on: January 25, 2014, 06:11 »
I just received my first payment from Getty/Flickr. It's even decent ($71). However, I can't for the life of me figure out how to see which of my images on Getty sold. There is nothing on the Getty/Flickr "Sales and Stats" tab (and some text about it not being used anymore? Why display it then? Weird.) and in my Getty "Royalties" page it just states the amount and the month of the sale, not which image sold. Am I missing something?
281
« on: January 21, 2014, 10:39 »
I have some sales, and since they take non-exclusive files -- why the regret?
282
« on: January 18, 2014, 11:47 »
For me this is the only agency that I have ever joined which after almost a year still hasn't sold a single one of my images.
283
« on: January 15, 2014, 15:46 »
I really don't get the business logic behind a move like that. Are they dying anyways and have they decided to take the whole market with them?
Anyways, gotta love the fact that the article calls it Fotolia's first microstock offering. Whut?! And what would they call, uhm, FOTOLIA?
284
« on: January 11, 2014, 12:23 »
You seem to be right -- even though it says so on the bottom of their page, Magic Lantern doesn't seem to support the 6D yet, at least not in any of its main builds. Must investigate.
285
« on: January 11, 2014, 12:00 »
I'm currently testing the Mark III with a bunch of lenses and it sure is a lot (!) of fun.
I saw that the 6D comes pretty close to the Mark III. IS anyone here shooting with the 6D? What's your verdict on it?
The "only" issue I have at the moment is that the video performance of the 6D is noticeably weaker than on the Mark III and footage is an important part of my work. Also, I was surprised to read that even the HDMI output is compressed.
However, I was thinking that the 6D with its WIFI feature and Android app to control it (time lapse shooting etc.) would be a (cheaper) camera to use until the 5D Mark IV hits the stores which supposedly should perform significantly better in terms of video (instead of buying the Mark III now...).
Your input is much appreciated!
Have a great weekend to all of you!
I have the 6D, had it since September. I came from a T2i, so naturally I think the 6D is amazing. The only FF digital camera that I have used it next to once or twice is my friend's D800, and I think the 6D is not really a worse camera than that (but I am of course very much not used to the "Nikon look" as opposed to the "Canon look", nor do I ever find the right button on the D800, so it drives me nuts). The 6D's build quality is great. This cannot be stressed enough, as on paper it's a piece of plastic as opposed to the magnesium of the 5D. But it is a very very well built piece of plastic. My friend with the D800 was shocked, in fact, when he first held it. He fears for Nikon's future.  The low-light capabilities of the 6D are a marvel, RAWs come out with absolutely no need for NR up until ISO 3200-6400 (colors already suffer there though of course) but then deteriorate quickly after that. I personally find RAWs taken at anything above 12800 to be very blotchy and can't seem to correct that well in software. HOWEVER, JPEGs look surprisingly clean and are usable (when downsized) all the way up to ISO 51200 or whatever it is up there. Coming from the T2i I cannot stress enough how amazing it is to be able to shoot ISO 400 and have it look exactly the same as ISO 100, with ISO 800 and 1600 not being much different either. In a way, this has completely freed my photography from the laws of physics as I had to accept them before. I mean, this is ISO 2500, pretty much SOOC, taken without giving it much thought at all while walking through the city night:  Sorry, but it really still amazes me.  Wifi and GPS work great, too. I had feared that Canon would rush these things out the door just to have the nice buzzwords that Nikon doesn't have, but they really work. Nothing to complain here, it is exactly what you'd expect it to be. The Canon App for iOS isn't pretty, but it does the job. Now, video... I don't know. I don't do video. But I think this is probably the camera's greatest weakness out of the box. However, isn't there a Magic Lantern firmware yet? If not, surely it can't be far off...
286
« on: January 10, 2014, 04:02 »
I'll third Dave. I started out with a T2i and acquired some glass from there. While I have upgraded to a 6D now (and it is a truly amazing camera), more than 90% of my portfolio comes from my T2i. Some comes from (not that well-)scanned 135 and 120 film. Some even comes from my iPhone 4S. No camera with sufficient megapixel count to pass the formal requirements is inherently "not good enough".
That being said, I do agree that you may want to upgrade that zoom. Being on Canon gives you a wonderful option, especially if you happen to be in a large city with an active second-hand market: buy the 24-105 f/4L IS USM. It may not be the best zoom ever, but on APS-C cameras like the Rebels its sharpness and general image quality are amazing. It has a very useful zoom range both on APS-C and FF, it is very well built and it has fast and accurate autofocus and great IS. Most importantly though it is a kit zoom for all of Canon's FF cameras, meaning that it is in abundant supply in new or like new condition from people who got it with their new body and don't need it. That's how I got mine, a little over a year ago, brand new, for less than $800.
287
« on: January 05, 2014, 18:48 »
I am leaving, too. RPD is abysmal here and the whole site just has an icky, cheapo feel to it that I don't like my images being associated with. Also, their SEO is way too good -- too often they are among the first results on google when searching for my images, and I don't want that.
288
« on: January 05, 2014, 18:23 »
I agree with the 40mm 2.8 STM pancake being surprisingly useful. Also, I think the kit 24-105 f/4 USM is pretty good, especially since it has IS.
289
« on: December 31, 2013, 05:00 »
I think BS needs to educate its reviewers on their own (and industry) standards for what's "editorial" and what needs credentials. They usually place some photos of mine in the "needs to be editorial" section that absolutely don't (like far-away aerial cityscapes without any visible signs etc.) and that everybody else (including SS) accept for commercial RF. Annoying, but then again -- who cares, BS doesn't sell much and that which it does sells for 25c subs.
290
« on: December 16, 2013, 05:22 »
But how (i.e. where) would one even join it today?
I think you would need to apply.
Just that they seem to have replaced their initial submission with a ****ing competition... just the sort of professionals that other professionals work with...
291
« on: December 13, 2013, 19:53 »
But how (i.e. where) would one even join it today?
292
« on: December 11, 2013, 07:58 »
Ich kenn nur das,ich wei aber nicht wie gut sie sind:
http://www.fotograf.de
Das kannte ich noch gar nicht. Die Partnerlabore zumindest sehen ja vielversprechend aus.
293
« on: December 02, 2013, 19:51 »
Bigstock -- low earnings, low commissions, lots of work to submit
Yaymicro -- almost never sells and if it does it's for .15
GLStockimages -- has literally never sold a single of my photos
Depositphotos -- all sales are subs, and too few to make it worth it
294
« on: December 01, 2013, 09:34 »
Thanksgiving weekend promotion?
295
« on: November 22, 2013, 11:38 »
Still waiting for the Photodune and Bigstock fixes. Not on ios7.
If there isn't a way to get PD working please refund.
We do not support the older versions since iOS 7
Well, it's not like PD works on iOS 7, either. I understand that may be beyond your control (Captcha), but it is just not okay to have something as an in-app purchase that only works for some users.
296
« on: November 21, 2013, 17:47 »
It's not really a problem unless you get rejections
Very observant.
297
« on: November 20, 2013, 15:00 »
It totally depends on what he wants...
You guys shouldn't make the assumption thought that illustrators are so different though... I mean, good is good and bad is bad right? When I wasn't exclusive, 350 images ago, I was spending a great deal of time uploading to SS, DT, FT, and DP (Wouldn't go near iStock)... so 350 images and my total sales in a month were (drum role please)... less than $150...
go figure...
Maybe then Dreamstime (who I really like, by the way) is doing something mind-bogglingly stupid: Artificially funneling so much business towards their exclusives (who are their most expensive contributors) that very little remains for the independents. As a result, judging by their meager independent earnings, said independents would never want to go exclusive. Is that really what's happening? Because if it is, I am considering going Dreamstime exclusive, too! (Did I mention that I like them?) 
298
« on: November 19, 2013, 21:09 »
ok, I am confused now. Do you want to be exclusive to DT? If so, please shift your eyes to the right part of your monitor and notice that DT is a Middle Tier company not a top Tier thus why would you want to be exclusive to them? Just upload 50 images to them but don't mark the box exclusive or agree to being exclusive if you don't want to be- still confused now?
Ok, now I'm really confused, because anybody who uses the chart on the right to base their business decisions is making their first huge mistake.
Going exclusive at DT is fine if that's what you choose to do.
I'm exclusive, I have a 90% + approval rating and I rank pretty high up on the pages I don't have a huge portfolio but my 700 images make me about $700 a month
I upload to one site, almost everything I send is approved and I'm treated like gold.
To answer the OP's question, they just want you to have 50 pics uploaded once you request exclusivity they will convert all your images to exclusive content
And, Spray and Pray, for the longest time I've left these sort of remarks alone, not ever bothered to comment on them, but your ignorance put me over the top.
Fair enough, but you are an illustrator. The game is different for photographers, and I would agree that becoming exclusive at Dreamstime -- especially when you are so new to the game that you have no idea what you are doing -- is a bad idea.
299
« on: November 19, 2013, 09:27 »
The irony here is that editorial content -- the stuff they take, i.e. things that are editorial in subject matter but happen to not include unreleased people or property -- does rather well at Fotolia.
300
« on: November 18, 2013, 15:42 »
Well, I kinda think that what we need on the legal side, licensing terms for the Symbiostock network that force people to use certain disclaimers and pre-defined licenses and the pre-defined licenses themselves, could be done by pro bono people.
I'm curious -- are there any other lawyers around? I am not an IP lawyer and my admission status is a bit wobbly right now, but I would generally be willing to help.
As I have only loosely followed Symbiostock so far (didn't have the time to make a site), excuse my possibly stupid question: is there some sort of legal entity (i.e. a corporation) behind it? Otherwise that would likely have to be created, too.
As far as forcing SY site owners to do anything, i dont see how that will fly. SY is a wp theme for photogs to use to build individual sites. Decisions about licensing terminology, prices, etc. are all the responsibility of each individual site owner and they are responsible for their own legal bills, etc. NOT SY. A library of suggested copy would be good though, as a starting point.
I disagree. "Symbiostock" as a term and the use of the Wordpress theme as well as access to the network part of it can be provided only on certain conditions. Through those licensing terms -- and even something like "I disclaim any responsibility for what happens with this" is a licensing term -- the IP owner and network operator can tell community members what to do. This could be handled through something Co-op-like (as Leo suggested). It does *not* mean that things won't be free of charge anymore, but it will mean things are a little more governed -- Basically: "use our standard licenses or you will not be a part of the network and won't be allowed to use the brand "Symbiostock", but you can still use and adapt the theme".
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
