|
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 - hqimages
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11
51
« on: March 24, 2010, 15:48 »
What you can do legally, if someone sells a yellow tractor, or purple bar of chocolate, is sue them on the basis that they are IMPERSONATING your company, in order to make a sale. And by the way these law suits almost never win because it's extremely hard to prove.
Really, they almost never win?
http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bt/int/20071018/20071018_wham-o.html
Following a seven-day trial, Slip 'N Slide manufacturer Wham-O Inc. has won a $6 million jury verdict that found that rival ToyQuest willfully infringed its federally registered trademark for the color yellow for water slides.
http://www.colormatters.com/color_trademark.html
A federal district court ruled in favor of Dap and granted protection to their red packaging.
http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/news-announcements/60683-mlb-properties-settles-trademark-lawsuit-upper-deck.html
Upper Deck agreed it will not make any new sets of cards using MLB logos, uniforms, trade dress, or Club color combinations.
I'm sure if you go speak to the lawyer involved in that case, you will find the argument included 'impersonation' of the business as part of the suit, otherwise they would not have won.. "The jury rendered a verdict against ToyQuest for willful infringement, intentional false advertising, and willful dilution of WHAM-O's famous YELLOW trademark." "The verdict is a major victory for WHAM-O in its ongoing efforts to prevent others from using its federally registered trademarks to deceive consumers into thinking they are purchasing original WHAM-O products." Anyway, back on topic.
52
« on: March 24, 2010, 05:47 »
Re. colours, as some intelligent lady mentioned earlier, Cadbury don't want chocolate companies to use purple, but they know, that other companies ARE ENTITLED to use purple if they wish on their packaging since Cadbury DID NOT INVENT THE COLOUR!  So let's get a little bit real here.. What you can do legally, if someone sells a yellow tractor, or purple bar of chocolate, is sue them on the basis that they are IMPERSONATING your company, in order to make a sale. And by the way these law suits almost never win because it's extremely hard to prove. The person using the colour of your branding would have to take money knowing that the customer may be mistaken in the identity of your brand, as distinct from a trademarked one, in fact the trademark doesn't even have to exist to sue on this basis.. You can use any colour you want, as long as it's not red with a yellow M, for a chip shop that isn't MacDonalds, not because they own the colours red and yellow, but because it could be proven that the customers think you are MacD's, therefore you are impersonating another business.. but their legal team would even still have to prove that you took money from people who believed you were MacD's. With stock images and copyright/branding, I mean, I do think they are taking it too far at times, but then I have absolutely no idea what trouble they get into if they leave something slip by.. if the legal consequences are very bad, then I understand 'over' vigilance.
53
« on: March 23, 2010, 18:18 »
Here it is: disclaimer, this IS A DISTURBING image, so if you don't feel like looking, don't.. the guys name is Kevin Carter so you might get some stuff about him without having to look at the image but, personally I'm glad I came across it many years ago because as a photographer, I know I don't want to photograph death/suffering.. http://photoninjas.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/vulture-stalking-baby/
54
« on: March 23, 2010, 18:13 »
Who was that guy? He took an extremely famous photograph of a starving African baby on a barren landscape, with a Vulture in the background, that looked HUGE compared to the baby, and it was like it was waiting for the baby to die..
Anyway apparently he took the photo home, but when people asked him how he as a human, felt about watching a baby in that position, he said he had only been thinking of how to make it a better shot, and he said he knew it would be a better shot if the vulture would open it's wings, which it didn't.. he later committed suicide a few years on, after scooping the Pulitzer prize, but he had said to friends that the whole thing haunted him, he just couldn't cope with it in the end.. very sad story but it did make me realise where that line is..
55
« on: March 23, 2010, 07:11 »
lol!! I did think Dog Grooming, and then I thought, what customer wants the image of their dog being hung up to dry with a clothes peg while the groomer smokes into the bath  It must be put into some kind of concept advertising.. but over 100, wow... I would love to know too, hopefully some of the designers upload their design to show how it was used.. I think it would make an awesome postcard or cd cover too, but postcard would require el I think.. cd cover yeah, it would be cool, but would you want the next band to have the same image on their cd? The thing with an image like that, is that the designer has nowhere to go, it's ready to use, there's not much you can add or take-away to make it look different, if someone else does choose to use it.. so I dunno!!!
57
« on: March 23, 2010, 06:14 »
You guys are funny  'Her work is lovely but...' This is your competition.. wow.. you can't compete with that.. not many people could compete with that.. As a downloader.. couldn't use them for anything, they're too harsh.. I don't know if harsh is the right word but, shiny happy people sell stuff.. not so much red 'blood' on a wall.. Can't see her getting a lot of downloads, but then at 40 quid a pop for the high size, at how much return to her? Under 50% anyway.. I guess if she gets 5 downloads on each one she might think it's worth it? Who knows, I'd love to hear from her though, and why she uploaded them to micro being such a niche market.. you'd have to be in some kind of fashion/alternative business to buy from her, and even then I don't know..
58
« on: March 17, 2010, 05:03 »
Some sites I have tried have had success selling the same microstock images at higher prices. Perhaps some buyers will spend time looking for cheaper prices but there are also buyers that are used to paying a lot more and find midstock cheap. When FP lowered their prices, it didn't make any difference, sales are still low there, I made much more with zymmetrical selling at higher prices. I don't think prices are the problem with cutcaster, the buyers can put in a lower bid if they want to. There just aren't enough buyers there at the moment and that is probably because they started much later than the other sites, they haven't had a big enough collection of images to attract new buyers and they have spent much less than the big sites on marketing. I still hope cutcaster can attract more buyers but it is going to be a difficult task.
Well I'm a buyer, and the reason I haven't moved to cutcaster for example, is because I see a lot of istock images there, and my company already uses istock, the only way I could get my company to use a new site, is if they have images we want, that we can't get/are hard to get on istock.. Then on top of that price the istock image at a higher price on the new site and you have put the nail in the coffin really as regards buyers who already know the market.. I'm sure you'll get some new buyers, but then the opposite might happen to them, where they see the same images they are buying from cutcaster on istock, and realise they save money with istock.. so you'll have to deal with that no matter what or where the buyer came from.. (Also you mention Zymettrical as making you more money, but Zym could never survive long-term selling istock images at inflated prices, Yuri had just joined before Zym closed down, and you saw a flood of istock images, at a more expensive price, not blaming anyone, but it is a problem.. however on cutcaster I think he has actually stuck to the istock pricing pretty much, still I won't move unless he's half the price he is on istock - but then, that might still give a larger return to him so you should include this kind of thinking in your strategy.. ie. if the web site gives me 50% return, then I can afford to price my image cheaper than istock, but still make more $ in my pocket per download, now THAT would get me/my company to move - istock images at a cheaper price, and exclusive images of the type we are looking for, with the pool being added to frequently)
59
« on: March 17, 2010, 04:57 »
The exclusivity issue was subject of an intense discussion back in the early days of the cutcaster forum. It is sort of a damned if you do; damned if you don't kind of issue. Making images exclusive means you have to trust cutcaster to find a buyer. That could mean a long wait with no sales. My idea was to make them exclusive for a year; give cutcaster a chance. If no sales, spread them around. Spreading around, of course, would mean cutting the prices. I got lucky. 
It's true it's tricky.. it's a problem for each photographer really, the fact that you are uploading to a new site means you are NOT exclusive with istock, so you enjoy that bit of independance.. maybe have a set of exclusive images separate from the rest of your work, and move it around choosing whichever site gives the best % back to you! If everyone did it, the photographers could actually ensure the success of a new web site.. but you'd have to do it in conjunction with pricing for your other non-exclusive images, so only price at the lowest price you sell elsewhere if the image is being sold somewhere else.. Oh and giving exclusive images in order to price them a bit higher/lure customers to the better web site for return to you, they need to be properly exclusive, not one outtake from a series you have on istock with the same model/set/lighting.. I will still recognise that as an istock image, as will others, I think an exclusive image should be a series of pics that go together, keep them all together and exclusive rather than splitting them up, cos again, buyers are more clever than you think 
60
« on: March 17, 2010, 04:48 »
And actually, I am trying to get my company to change from istock to another site that gives better return to the photographer, but at the same price or cheaper than us.. but there's no enough consistency with pricing yet to implement it.. for example on cutcaster, if we move our account to there because there are three photographers producing lots of new images we like, who's to say on their next batch of images they won't increase the price.. it's a tough model to sell..
isn't there a site that does price comparison across the board for a particular image? wouldn't that be more helpful to you?
so, as a buyer, are you placing all the images you like into your own private lightboxes and then search for them cheaper elsewhere? this seem to be happening to me at is. my lightboxes that covert to sales are about 2.5:1.
No not at all, as I said above somewhere, I buy on istock every day practically, and I'm always searching for images on that web site.. I then go to visit a new web site, and I can pick out the istock images IMMEDIATELY (they usually form about 90% of images on a new site on the market imo), so obviously if I have already seen them on istock, or I know that photographer is on istock, I can then look at the price on the new site and compare.. basically any new site that enters the market, needs to compete with istock, and if it's the same image they're selling, at an inflated price, they can't break into that market.. It's not just cutcaster, I saw it on Zym (rip), and on em.. whats that one Crestock.. Crestock I really thought was a joke, because you have an entire database of instantly recognisable istock photos being sold at inflated prices.. I don't know how they are still around, but I guess they did create a more clean database of a higher standard so maybe some buyers will pay extra in order to find the image they want faster..
61
« on: March 16, 2010, 19:07 »
I could believe that people are finding images on CC and then immediately searching for them cheaper elsewhere. Of course since I'm not even getting any views, I guess that's not my problem.
I search everyday for images on istock as part of my work.. I then go visit another web site, and see the same images.. doesn't take much brain power really
And actually, I am trying to get my company to change from istock to another site that gives better return to the photographer, but at the same price or cheaper than us.. but there's no enough consistency with pricing yet to implement it.. for example on cutcaster, if we move our account to there because there are three photographers producing lots of new images we like, who's to say on their next batch of images they won't increase the price.. it's a tough model to sell.. But besides that my main gripe is people charging more when they set the price themselves, than their lower price elsewhere, it will put all midstock sites offering a higher return to them, out of business..
62
« on: March 16, 2010, 19:05 »
I could believe that people are finding images on CC and then immediately searching for them cheaper elsewhere. Of course since I'm not even getting any views, I guess that's not my problem.
I search everyday for images on istock as part of my work.. I then go visit another web site, and see the same images.. doesn't take much brain power really
63
« on: March 16, 2010, 18:34 »
Are you making any of your cutcaster images exclusive?
No, I haven't exclusive files there?
Is it point in that???
I think there is. Prices at Cutcaster seem to be higher, at least mine are. Only my exclusive images have sales.
Finally some stats to back up what I said here months ago, and most members laughed at the idea! Web sites like cutcaster will HAVE to get exclusive images in order to survive.. you simply cannot stick a price of 70 euro on an image (as I saw heavyweight stock uploaders do on Zymmetrical) and sell the EXACT same image on istock for 5 euro same size.. it just makes a laughing 'stock' of the mid-stock model, pardon the pun I'm a heavy buyer of stock images, to the point that I browse the sites so much looking for similar type of images I can spot a duplicate a mile off, and I'm not the only buyer this astute, even if the price different is 2 euro, it's still the exact same product, at a more expensive price, would you pay extra?
64
« on: March 08, 2010, 05:23 »
It's a bit like someone in a web design forum asking what's the best camera to shoot a wedding with Do you have any web design/development experience? If not, why not hire a web designer?
65
« on: January 05, 2010, 16:51 »
Where is everyone seeing the tax percent being taken off? Also I cannot find where to view whether it was a US or non-US sale? If i am a US resident and i already filled out a form in the past do I have to do it again? Or does this only apply to non-US residents. Sorry I am very confused...
If you live in Europe, and the download is made in Europe also, America cannot take any tax on that sale.. if you live in America, I'm not sure, you may just get taxed on every sale regardless of where the download occurs..
FT is US agency. One would say your statement holds true even if the sale happens through US agent. Yet I assure you tax laws are not fully logical. So I wouldn't be surprised if under some conditions the income would get taxed.
There is absolutely no way that a sale made in Europe, using a European contributor, is subject to this particular American tax, Shutterstock checked this with both their legal team and American revenue, and subsequently split all sales on their web site so that American tax is only charged to American clients.. it does sound a little complicated, but for obvious reasons if both the buyer and the uploader are located in Europe, Europe has it's own trading laws that apply, and American revenue have nothing to do with that sale as regards withholding tax at least..
66
« on: January 05, 2010, 08:23 »
Where is everyone seeing the tax percent being taken off? Also I cannot find where to view whether it was a US or non-US sale? If i am a US resident and i already filled out a form in the past do I have to do it again? Or does this only apply to non-US residents. Sorry I am very confused...
If you live in Europe, and the download is made in Europe also, America cannot take any tax on that sale.. if you live in America, I'm not sure, you may just get taxed on every sale regardless of where the download occurs..
67
« on: January 04, 2010, 16:28 »
I do find it strange if you're not offering downloads of your images from Flickr under the cc licence.. they don't allow you to display thumbs as part of your own photography portfolio? What if you had a web site with a gallery, not for download, but just for display, you can't display your own work??
68
« on: January 04, 2010, 08:24 »
Most countries outside of America (including Ireland and the UK) have a tax treaty with America to prevent double taxation, ie. The money is taxed in America, and is then taxed again in Ireland. If you live in one of these countries, you pay 0% tax once your itin (or whatever that form is) has been filed..
If you live in the US, I presume you would have declared your stock earnings and been taxed on it anyway, so again I'm presuming you will not be taxed twice, your simply being taxed at the source, instead of submitting it as part of your annual return..
Please note: You are ONLY to pay tax on sales made IN AMERICA. Any sales to Europe are not effected. We pointed this out to shutterstock when they brought this in, and they initially tried to charge tax on every sale, so if Fotolia try and tax every sale, you need to fight them on it. (it's robbery essentially because they keep the money, American revenue does not want it)
69
« on: December 24, 2009, 19:06 »
I made mention of this because I notice this topic is brought up a lot, and I think some people would like the idea to happen, but think it never will. Just wanted to let everyone know that this idea has taken fruit with a number of photographers, and is going to happen at some point in the future. The exact shape/form isn't definate yet, but when it is I will post more about it.
Sorry, some people would like the idea of a free giveaway site to happen, but think it never will? I'm not sure that market research is correct.
A free site that could ultimately promote a paid section/website, Sean, this idea isn't something you would ever be interested in, and that's absolutely fine.
70
« on: December 24, 2009, 17:17 »
Free images will attract plenty of traffic,
Bandwidth is expensive.
So is advertising space Happy Holidays!
71
« on: December 24, 2009, 17:01 »
You are going to need a lot of money.
I do not understand what you are planning to offer buyers better than what fantastic sites like the Getty family already do. If you talk to buyers you will find that they have very positive opinions of IS and the Getty sites.
No point in knocking something before you've seen it. Free images will attract plenty of traffic, and my hope is that can be converted into cash at some point, in a similar way to istock's use of sxc, anyway, Happy Holiday's all
72
« on: December 24, 2009, 16:41 »
Woo! Free images! Whose smart idea was that?
Isn't that how iStock started to operate ?
Yeah, 8 years ago! And look where we are today. No reason to go backwards in time. Also, once the collection went past Bruce's images, you had to upload and be downloaded to get credits to download others' works.
Not 8 years ago, Istock currently own and run sxc.hu, a stand-alone free image web site.
73
« on: December 24, 2009, 16:36 »
It is possible to compete, and to be a success in the microstock market even with the stiff competition, stockxpert proved that..
That was set up at a time when there was investment money slopping around
When microstock first came along it didn't exist It filled a hole in the market which, it turned out, existed. IE much lower prices for RF.
If you were looking to invest in an idea I think that the thing to do now would be to find a different model which works in a world where microstock does exist.
I keep imagining something more like a stock market, an interface between buyers and sellers with a transaction fee. And probably a fee to post content too. A completely different model.
Not that I think it will likely happen because I cannot see how it would offer the buyers anything which does not currently exist.
Stockxpert didn't attract an investor until it was already a success and pulling a profit, and it was only launched in 2005, so I do personally think that proves you can enter the market even today, and make a thriving web site. I can understand people who think it isn't possible, but I believe it is.
74
« on: December 24, 2009, 16:06 »
Funny, Getty seems to quite like free image web sites.
Boy, that is funny.
There is a web site being developed currently for free images, made for and managed by the photographers themselves.. it won't be online for a while, but it is developing very fast, and that site could evolve to include a paid section along with the free images.
You obviously made mention of this to get some attention, so what's the deal?
I made mention of this because I notice this topic is brought up a lot, and I think some people would like the idea to happen, but think it never will. Just wanted to let everyone know that this idea has taken fruit with a number of photographers, and is going to happen at some point in the future. The exact shape/form isn't definate yet, but when it is I will post more about it. That alright with you Sean?
75
« on: December 24, 2009, 15:55 »
Don't worry about it Sean, it's not something you would be interested in.
If you're offering to give away what all of us are producing for revenue, I'm sure we're all interested in it.
Funny, Getty seems to quite like free image web sites.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
