pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - ComfortEagle2095

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
51
Image Sleuth / Re: Ignored DMCA, now what?
« on: March 28, 2014, 19:46 »
Thanks for the suggestions.  I will for sure do the Google thing.  I didn't know about that.

I'm not sure a registered letter would be of any help unless I'm going to sue them.  I'd consider doing that but it would probably cost more than it's worth.

Goofy:  I'm more partial to the 26 myself.  A little less noticeable.  :P


52
Image Sleuth / Ignored DMCA, now what?
« on: March 28, 2014, 13:54 »
I found one of my images posted on a gardening forum site.  The poster posted it as a link from a catalog site that probably licensed the image properly.  On the gardening forum site, however, the poster identified themselves as the copyright owner of the image. 

See it here: http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/fp.php?pid=8460635

I contacted the forum website and told them about the violation.  They replied with a request for proof the image belonged to me.   I provided them the link to the image on Shutterstock which identifies me as the copyright owner.

I got no reply and the image wasn't removed.  I sent several more requests referencing their original reply and was ignored.

I found out the website is owned by a company that owns several websites.  The parent company is apparently their own ISP for the sites they own since only parent company's host servers were identified by a "who is" search for the gardening site.

The parent company web page does not have a way to notify them of copyright issues on line.  So, I sent them a written, signed DMCA notice in the mail.  No reply after 6 weeks and my image is still posted on the forum site.

Any ideas what else to do?  This image gets pirated a lot but this case is particularly galling because the poster has identified themselves as the copyright owner.  That really makes me angry.

53
I see this all the time too.  Often it's an obscure image that doesn't sell very often making it even more strange.  I've wondered for years if there was some reason for it but I don't have any ideas.

54
Liability protection from an LLC isn't really very strong either.  My tax accountant told me it wasn't worth it in my case since my income from photography is modest.

He said the only real liability protection is a good insurance policy.  I carry a $1 million liability policy on my photography business which isn't really too expensive.

I do have an LLC for another business but that one generates more income (and I have a separate liability policy for it as well).

55
I really don't get all the grousing about the headquarters location.  It makes perfect sense to me:

1) Big advertising agencies, media corporations and other enterprise level purchasers of stock images are often located in New York.  It's always good to be close to your clients.

2) New York is the financial center of the country and now SS is publicly traded.  Being close to Wall Street is an advantage to a public corporation.

It may be more expensive to be located there but judging by the fact they've floated a successful IPO, these are smart business people.  To me it makes sense to think they did a cost to benefit comparison on their decision and made the move that makes the most sense to them.  Maybe they could pay out more to contributors if they were in Texas but then maybe they'd be less able to compete for big clients and have to cut payments.  I'm certainly not going to second guess them on it.

56
That stinks.  I've bought a lot of specialty studio stuff from Calumet.  Not sure where I'll go for those things now.

57
I don't think it matters whether this is widely adopted or not.  I think there's a more important issue here.

By making this move, Getty has established the idea that they can use images in any number of ways to generate income for themselves (via advertising or whatever) without paying anything to the image owners.  So long as they don't collect a licensing fee, it's "promotional use" and anything is fair game.

I'm sure they are thinking of even more clever ways to monetize the image collection in ways that avoid a licensing fee.  If they get away with this one they'll roll out more and so will other agencies.

Unless someone fights this in court and wins, the precedence is set.

58
You can only do so much with software and sensors. 

The limiting factor is the lens and lenses are bulky because you can't cheat physics.  Unless someone can come up with new unknown materials that can make lenses with the characteristics of our large bulky DSLR lenses but small enough for a smart phone form factor, smart phones will not be able to outperform DSLRs. 

Mirrorless cameras are a different story. 

59
In my case the September and October sales levels were pretty average but they are taking money back anyway.  After the correction, my sales for September and October are considerably lower than normal.

There was never any reason for me to think there was anything unusual happening with my account.  That is until IS announced unspecified and vague "irregularities".

I have good reason to be suspicious of this behavior.  I think we all do.

60
I appreciate that an agency rep would post here with constructive information and encouragement.  We don't see that here enough.   It's nice to feel that at least some agencies recognize that contributors are essential to their business.


61
Adobe Stock / Re: Open letter to Fotolia: What's going on here?
« on: February 22, 2014, 00:44 »
What Fotolia says doesn't make any sense.  If it was what they claimed you earned vs. what you have been paid, then they could claim you earned a million dollars through some accounting error. Even though you haven't been paid the million dollars you'd theoretically owe taxes on it.   Then later they could go "oops" and claw back the balance.  Meanwhile the IRS sends you a bill for a couple hundred thousand dollars in back taxes.

62
Software / Re: article on Adobe Creatice Cloud
« on: February 09, 2014, 20:09 »
I go back and forth on whether the cloud subscription is a good idea for me right now.  I'm using the purchased version of CS6 and expect to stay on it for some time.  However, I'll probably get a new camera somewhere down the road and then I'll be forced into the cloud for an updated ACR.

If the subscription rate stays where it is that wouldn't be much of a burden but I expect when most people have been migrated to the cloud the price will go up.  When everyone has forgotten about CS6 or left it behind because of new features or new equipment support you just know the subscription fee will go up as much as the market will bear.  Given the dearth of options to Photoshop, that will be pretty high for those of us working on our own without the resources of a corporation.

63
Off Topic / Re: Fired!
« on: January 30, 2014, 21:19 »
I have to say I'm one of those guys.  I have a great job as an engineer.  Although I love my day job, I love photography too.  I've spent much more on the equipment I own than I've earned back from my photos.

My hope when I started shooting stock was that eventually it would make me an income so I could retire earlier from the day job.  It hasn't worked out that way and I no longer think it will.

But, I have to say, I am cognizant of the fact that other people's livelihoods depend on photography.  Although I have done work for friends and relatives for free I don't believe I've ever taken a job away from anyone.  That's important to me but I suspect many people like me would not care.

When it comes to microstock I'd say we are all undercutting each other in the current climate.  Maybe I should feel guilty about settling for .36 commissions when all I'm doing is making a few hundred bucks to help buy a new lens or whatever.  On the other hand, there's plenty of other folks out there doing it.  I don't think what I personally do hurts anyone financially, practically speaking.

In the mean time, I have fun and I'm becoming a better photographer each year.  So I feel good about what I'm doing.

Maybe someday, if my skills improve enough, I'll create work that gets featured a gallery and sells for thousands of dollars.  Then maybe I'll make enough to quit the day job.  You can dream, right?

64
Image Sleuth / Re: What Constitutes Evidence?
« on: January 25, 2014, 10:53 »
I have't done a DMCA yet and I didn't really want to go through the whole rigmarole.  I guess it's time to learn how to do it.  Being nice doesn't seem to get me anywhere.

65
Image Sleuth / What Constitutes Evidence?
« on: January 25, 2014, 00:58 »
I've discovered one of my best selling images being posted on a discussion forum site.  It's obviously a stolen copy (it still has my watermark partially visible although the thief tried to photoshop it out).

Anyway, I wrote an email to the site publisher and received a reply saying they would be glad to remove the image provided I could give evidence that I was the legal copyright holder.

What would constitute evidence in a case such as this?  I certainly don't want to send them the original RAW file as evidence since I don't know where that might end up...

66
All I know is that I have virtually the same portfolio on SS as I do on IS.  Monthly income from that portfolio on SS is now 3 times what it is on IS.  Two years ago the monthly income from both was almost equal.  I don't fee taken advantage of by SS.

67
If they have enough money in the budget to pay more than one model, how come they can't cough up a reasonable fee for the photog?  Sounds a little funky.

It's an all day assignment with post-processing.  I wouldn't do it for less than $600 and I'd normally ask for $900.

68
I like the 24-105 f/4 IS too.  I find I rarely have to change a lens when I have this on my camera.  For close in work I use the 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens and for long reaches I use the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS.

69
Shutterstock.com / Re: Success at last
« on: January 03, 2014, 22:03 »
And don't even think about shallow DOF or selective focus.

70
Newbie Discussion / Re: Fotolia and lesson to be learnt.
« on: December 24, 2013, 12:18 »
In my experience, it isn't so much about quality with Fotolia.  They clearly have specific types of images they are looking for and if yours isn't one of those, it'll get rejected more often than not.

It seems to me they don't like landscapes, concepts, objects or things like that.  They tend to take all my people photos, especially white isolations.

That being said, the income from FT has dropped so much that it hardly matters if they take anything or not.  I don't care about pleasing them anymore.

71
You simply can't enforce the rule against companies building internal databases from subscription services.  I've talked to at least three designers who work for mid-sized companies.  They have all built internal databases from subscription downloads.  Two of the designers didn't know it was against the rules and the other one didn't care.

72
<snip>

I am exploring over Internet these days, which "ufology site" has credibility...

</snip>

Yeah, good luck with that.


73
Software / Re: Adobes Profit Falls 59 Percent !
« on: September 18, 2013, 09:21 »
I don't want to go to the cloud either and I'll stick with CS6 as long as I can but I know I'll eventually be forced to do something different.  Adobe refuses to support new cameras in older versions of their products.  I was perfectly happy with CS4 but I was forced to go to CS6 when I got my 5D Mark III.  Eventually I'll upgrade to a new camera body and I'll be forced to make a move again.  I hate that.

74
General Stock Discussion / Re: Anyone selling on Smugmug?
« on: August 23, 2013, 20:11 »
I've used smugmug for years.  I don't make enough money to pay for the pro account I have but it's useful for other things.  When I have photo sets I want to deliver to someone (e.g., TF photos for a model or a set from a portrait shoot) it's great.  Every now and then I get someone who finds something from the stock collection and downloads it.  This used to happen more often than it seems to now and I notice things from my smugmug portfolio don't show up as high in Google searches as they used to.

75
For myself, I considered myself a photographer when I could envision an image and then create the lighting, set the camera and compose the shot that would realize my vision.

I considered myself a professional when my photography business reached the break-even point.

I do not yet consider myself a Fine Artist but it is a goal I am working towards.  I will consider that I have reached it when I can envision an image that represents a concept I feel strongly about and then realize that image to successfully communicate that concept.

To pursue these goals, I have and continue to complete educational activities (both formal and informal) and practice, practice, practice.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors