|
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 9 ... 11
76
« on: December 24, 2009, 15:28 »
Assuming for a moment that this discussion is anything other than academic, wouldn't it be easier to either start a new agency or acquire one and let the contributors become stockholders in the new firm? That way they could make money either from their sales or from the value of their shares. And entrusting decisions to a management team will work better than waiting for a consensus to form.
Of course, that leads to the first big hurdle: making that agency a success against much larger and well entrenched agencies that are already in place. That'll require marketing, and that takes money. Unless submitters are willing to front the expenses of a startup, someone else will have to be found. That someone will expect equity, which takes away from the submitters' share. And we're back to a set of big questions: is there room for another agency, how will it differentiate itself, and how will it find a large enough customer base in an already crowded market?
It is possible to compete, and to be a success in the microstock market even with the stiff competition, stockxpert proved that.. unfortunately they did it a bit TOO well and attracted a take-over, but it does show that a new site, once it has the backing of the community, can thrive.
77
« on: December 24, 2009, 15:08 »
 True to form I see Sean.
Maybe you'd like to enlighten us as to the rationale behind a site to give away images for free "managed by the photographers themselves" and why we should be excited?
Don't worry about it Sean, it's not something you would be interested in.
78
« on: December 24, 2009, 12:44 »
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.
As regards legalities, it is a legal minefield if everyone own's the web site (co-op), if you get sued what happens? 500 of you have to go to court? That's why it's generally better to have one person responsible for the web site.. I don't know what the solution is but it will be interesting to see how this web site works out that problem and I'll post a link and more info here when it's launched!
Woo! Free images! Whose smart idea was that?
True to form I see Sean.
79
« on: December 24, 2009, 09:33 »
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.
As regards legalities, it is a legal minefield if everyone own's the web site (co-op), if you get sued what happens? 500 of you have to go to court? That's why it's generally better to have one person responsible for the web site.. I don't know what the solution is but it will be interesting to see how this web site works out that problem and I'll post a link and more info here when it's launched!
80
« on: December 21, 2009, 16:44 »
Guys advertising and politics are linked, I'll give you that, but not in the way you're talking about it..
Government regulation of businesses or social welfare or whatever, is a totally different thing to regulation of advertising companies as regards false advertising. There should be a fine imposed by the ASA for false advertising in my opinion. A product should be good enough to stand on it's own merits, without companies needing to totally lie and get the innocent public (including childen, teens, and other vulnerable people) to believe their bs..and there is a line, for example we had the recent advert for Gucci I think it was, with a severely emaciated model on the ad who had been photoshopped to look that way, there needs to be a way to stop that kind of thing without having to mount a massive internet campaign/public outcry etc.
A quick penalty, and some legal teeth to not only make them pull the advert, but to issue an apology, and an explanation that this in fact is not how the real model looked.. I hate regulation, but when it comes to advertising, I geniunely can't believe the ASA still doesn't have legal teeth in this day and age of overexposure and false/misleading adverts.
81
« on: December 21, 2009, 11:39 »
82
« on: December 21, 2009, 11:35 »
Unfortunately the ASA has no teeth legally, so I'd imagine that advert will stay exactly as it is until the thing blows over..
I think they do. Here's an example of an Apple advert that was banned after 17 people complained that the sequences had been speeded up to give an unrealistic impression of what the iPhone could do;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7749435.stm
As far as I know, they can make 'recommendations', but they cannot sue anyone, because there is no law that allows the ASA to do so, maybe an individual could under the various consumer protection laws, but it's my understanding that the ASA, while it's recommendations are usually followed by the company, there is no legal penalty from the ASA for not following it's recommendations.. hopefully that situation has changed..but that's how I learned it. http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/rss/950088/ASA-given-power-fine-errant-advertisers/
83
« on: December 21, 2009, 08:22 »
Right you are, Fred. Only the most gullible among us could be shocked, shocked, that an ad may be skirting the truth. They need the government to "save" them? Why not a "truth" csar for every facet of our lives? God, how boring.
The most gullible among us would be children and young teens, now obviously the age-group that cream is targeted to an age-group that probably knows better, but in general the idea that photoshopping someone's face to that extent, and placing it in a magazine that kids and teens can read, is totally wrong. You want your kids to think they are meant to look like that at 60? Or is each and every parent in the world going to sit down with their kids, take the magazines they have with pictures of models and explain to them, that they should never ever aspire to look like this because it's not real, and that they are beautiful just as they are? I know my parents didn't do that, and a lot of parents won't, they just aren't aware of the impact this has, not on adults perhaps, but on more vulnerable age-groups.. being a woman who was once an impressionable teen, something has to be done. Unfortunately the ASA has no teeth legally, so I'd imagine that advert will stay exactly as it is until the thing blows over..
86
« on: December 17, 2009, 08:59 »
...how are they expected to know that an image they see online is also protected?
Well for instance they could think (by using common sense) that someone else in this world must have created this image since it's highly unlikely that images just create themselves or that the internet creates them.
I don't believe that the same people are aware of the term "public domain" either so it's not a case where they have been actually thinking about their actions.
Furthermore, as I mentioned before in other threads the "thieves" (whether they know about their wrongdoings or not) will always claim "I didn't know". If we keep giving everybody the benefit of the doubt we (photographers/illustrators etc.) will eventually not license one image in the future since everybody just steals them and then claims "I didn't know". That can't be a solution either.
And I have yet to find a thief who stole my images who actually offered to pay for a license to use the image.
They all knew what they were doing.
This week alone I found four (4) Zazzle members using my images. Shall I really just let them be and start educating them about what they did wrong or try to get some licensing fees that they should have paid in the first place...?
Exactly, not knowing the law is not a defense in any country: 'Sorry Officer I didn't KNOW speeding was illegal' etc etc..
87
« on: December 17, 2009, 08:14 »
I went to the site sharpshot posted above, www.dreamcsoport.hu to sign up to keep in touch with what Peter Hamza and partner are doing now that they've sold 100% to Getty.
I think it interesting to note that on that splash page, at the bottom, are some urls listed, one of which is stockxpert.com. Does anyone think that maybe Peter & co. retained that site name, since Getty is obviously merging their stockxpert business in with istock? If they sold, I would imagine they signed some sort of no-compete, but I'm wondering why that url is on that page.
Omg.. that's it.. wow, can't blame them really.. bet they made a pretty penny too for that 10%..
88
« on: November 27, 2009, 06:44 »
Two long-time/full-time reviewers left Stockxpert due to disagreements with new Istock management.. the one or two reviewers that are left have been told the work will NOT be picked up by replacement staff from istock..
Honestly I have to commend the skeleton staff that are left for even bothering to keep the site going, and it must be tough on them too being understaffed, the forum is full of complaints but of course no-one knows or has been told what's going on.. the reviewers must be working flat out to try and get the queue down with, I repeat, NO REPLACEMENTS for the missing reviewers now, or in the future..
89
« on: November 25, 2009, 13:12 »
The general rule I abide by with RM and Macro RF is that if it is the same model in the same location and wearing the same clothes then it is a similar, a slightly different angle on the head in the same situation is regarded as a similar, this is just plain common sense and also protecting your investment in the macro images.
RM images are generally placed on an image exclusive basis, that is the whole idea behind RM, exclusivity,...to try and place those same, or similar, images on a micro site is not only irresponsible but also a potential breach of contract with the rm agency.
* sigh
If you upload the same stuff to an RM site, that you have on istock for 1/10th the price then no, it won't work for you, and you're also giving company 2 a bad name, since a client really doesn't want to pay out all that money, and then come across the same image on an rf site at a much cheaper price..
Pick a price for your individual and unique image, then go find the sites that reflect that price..
I would hope so, but then there are pricing discrepancies across the board for the same image, but the guys head is turned slightly to the left or whatever (it doesn't break the rules, but still why is the client paying extra $$ for something that is almost identical as another image in the photogs RF portfolio).. or if you make vectors, you would make a new one for RM, that in reality looks the exact same as what you already have on RF..
The image exclusive standard has been made a lot more flexible on RM in recent years..
Absolutely agreed!!
90
« on: November 25, 2009, 11:59 »
RM images are generally placed on an image exclusive basis, that is the whole idea behind RM, exclusivity,...to try and place those same, or similar, images on a micro site is not only irresponsible but also a potential breach of contract with the rm agency.
* sigh
If you upload the same stuff to an RM site, that you have on istock for 1/10th the price then no, it won't work for you, and you're also giving company 2 a bad name, since a client really doesn't want to pay out all that money, and then come across the same image on an rf site at a much cheaper price..
Pick a price for your individual and unique image, then go find the sites that reflect that price..
I would hope so, but then there are pricing discrepancies across the board for the same image, but the guys head is turned slightly to the left or whatever (it doesn't break the rules, but still why is the client paying extra $$ for something that is almost identical as another image in the photogs RF portfolio).. or if you make vectors, you would make a new one for RM, that in reality looks the exact same as what you already have on RF.. The image exclusive standard has been made a lot more flexible on RM in recent years..
91
« on: November 25, 2009, 09:07 »
* sigh
If you upload the same stuff to an RM site, that you have on istock for 1/10th the price then no, it won't work for you, and you're also giving company 2 a bad name, since a client really doesn't want to pay out all that money, and then come across the same image on an rf site at a much cheaper price..
Pick a price for your individual and unique image, then go find the sites that reflect that price..
92
« on: November 25, 2009, 09:04 »
Nothing wrong with re-submitting.. sometimes one reviewer will reject, while the other approves.. especially if you know yourself when an image really should not have been rejected, sometimes the reviewer can even click the wrong button by mistake..
93
« on: September 29, 2009, 14:07 »
If you're selling the EXACT same images on microstock sites for 1/10 of the price, that would be the reason there are less sales on the mid-stock sites..
I got a sale on Zym almost immediately, and I made sure I wrote in my profile that these images are not available anywhere else for cheaper, so if they want it, they may aswell get it now from there. Why don't you guys try uploading some exclusive content to these sites, different to the usual stock stuff, maybe some high quality unusual shots and perhaps you could say they are exclusive to that site in the description? It would massively help those sites, and I wish they would adopt an exclusive model to ensure their success!!
94
« on: September 16, 2009, 07:47 »
Web Sites where you set your own price, CANNOT survive unless they implement this. Basically the idea is that the photographer sets the minimum acceptable price, and then seeks out web sites where this price is not compromised, if it goes lower on any web site, you remove your images.
95
« on: September 16, 2009, 07:26 »
I think everyone in business, at some point during their work week, gives away advice for free. But when doing the free stuff starts using so much time that there isn't any left to do the stuff that pays, that, for me, is when it is time to move to another career or do something drastically different with the business model.
If I have 600 pictures in my portfolio, and I want to offer one for free for 30 days, I'm still making money on the 599. That still earns me a living. If I offer 599 pictures for free all year, and only one makes me money, well you see what has happened.
I think this is the point Sean was trying to make.
Carla is in a bad position...everyone else offers exactly what she offers, free stuff. Carla will need to find some way to change the balance of free vs paying. It might be very difficult for her to do that. Maybe offer more tangible products that are higher in demand and no one else carries that will earn her money to cover the free advice she gives?
For what it's worth, that is happening EVERYWHERE. Isn't that the exact same discussion we have here on the forums every once in awhile? The "professional" photographers think microstockers have ruined the industry because they sell a photo for $1.00 instead of $100.
It's not quite the point Sean was making, because he would never give away an actual image for free, and considers those that do so to be idiots pretty much! But I do get the point that YOU are making, which is that free is relative, and actually, this really applies to the topic.. in the case of microstock it might be giving away one photo, with the balance of 599 left, in the case of fashion photography, it's giving away one shoot, with the balance of (unknown number) paid shoots.. I guess really what it comes down to is having a great business sense and financial tracking, unfortunately most photographers struggle with this! It's also to be expected that if you give something away, people will not value it, and that's just an unfortunate aspect of human psychology.. so you might well get no thanks (or a door slammed in your face after they take your free image and run), sad but, the more they pay, the better they treat you.. it's a balance everyone needs to find..
96
« on: September 16, 2009, 06:31 »
You questioned her RIGHT to call her chosen career her 'profession', because she gives advice for free. And you don't know that this 'advise giving' isn't factored into her costs, you are presuming.. and you also ride the back of other people's free work without advising them not to do it, so your opinion is worth nothing.
Sigh. Again, I crossed her post with someone else's when I questioned whether how you it was a "profession" if she was working for free. Again, as I mentioned, a "profession" is something one does to earn a livelihood. So if she is selling product, that is her "profession" - the advice is something she does towards that goal. Again, this all falls under the "crossed post" note. Clear yet?
I'm not advising anyone to do anything. Apparently you're having a bad day. I'd suggest another few hours of sleep.
lol! I'm having a great day. I just know exactly what you are. And I do understand you mis-posted, I responded to your inability to understand how the word professionalism relates to profession, they aren't poles apart you know.. Suggest moving swiftly on. _______________________________ Thanks to everyone for their point of view by the way, I've been reading this over the last few days and your opinions have been really helpful!!!
97
« on: September 16, 2009, 06:13 »
How is this a "profession", when you don't make any money?
Not when questioning someone's professionalism no..
"profession" != "professionalism"
profession = "occupation or career"
occupation = "An activity that serves as one's regular source of livelihood"
So, you see, questioning whether working for free qualifies as a "profession" is questionable. Glad I could clear that up for you.
and I am glad you didn't address that to Carla, because I think her business model is real, and it's what we all have to do.
She said she sells medical related products in a store and gives out free advise on those products. I'm not sure that's what "we all have to do". I do give out "free" advise to iStockphoto buyers on my blog, but I have that figured into my overhead costs. If I weren't making enough to spend the promotional time on it, I would shift gears to something that would cover my paycheck.
You questioned her RIGHT to call her chosen career her 'profession', because she gives advice for free. And you don't know that this 'advise giving' isn't factored into her costs, you are presuming.. and you also ride the back of other people's free work without advising them not to do it, so your opinion is worth nothing.
98
« on: September 16, 2009, 05:53 »
Well what's the point in attacking Carla about giving advise away for free, when you're happy to ride on the back of your peers work that THEY give away for free. Why is your point of view valuable to us at all, since if what she did benefited you, you wouldn't tell her to stop doing it then would you?
Sorry, I mixed up her post and someone else's. Of course you don't charge for advise when you are selling product. But that's not "working for free". That's part of the business overhead and time that should be figured into the cost of the product. If you're selling product at a loss and standing around all giving out advise, well, then maybe that isn't the best business model.
btw, "attacking"? A little dramatic, don't you think?
How is this a "profession", when you don't make any money? Not when questioning someone's professionalism no.. and I am glad you didn't address that to Carla, because I think her business model is real, and it's what we all have to do.
99
« on: September 16, 2009, 05:42 »
She does make a sale if they buy from her after she gives her free advise.
It's the EXACT same as giving away a free photo of the week or whatever it is on Istock.
Or you know what else it's like, it's like using those 'idiots' over at sxc that are fool enough to give away their photos in order to promote your work. But you won't say no to that out of principal will you? No. Because it serves your own interests and that is ALL you're interested in.
I think you're mixing up posts. Your quote was from the original post about doing an entire photo shoot for free. You've munged that about to be something about selling product based on giving out advise. Of course, someone selling product wants to draw in customers by giving advice on the products they sell. Was that your point? I can't tell.
Hey, if you want to give away your work to promote mine, why would I say no? Doesn't seem very sensible for you, but I can't control your desires.
Well what's the point in attacking Carla about giving advise away for free, when you're happy to ride on the back of your peers work that THEY give away for free. Why is your point of view valuable to us at all, since if what she did benefited you, you wouldn't tell her to stop doing it then would you?
100
« on: September 16, 2009, 05:29 »
Why I dont charge anything?
Easy.
Nobody in my profession does (at least not in my country).
The moment I charge my customers money for my advice they are gone. Next retail is directly on the other side of the street.
Its just a sad reality in modern business that sometimes you have to work for free. Nevertheless I like my profession, and I knew about this before I started, so I wont complain too much...
How is this a "profession", when you don't make any money?
She does make a sale if they buy from her after she gives her free advise. It's the EXACT same as giving away a free photo of the week or whatever it is on Istock. Or you know what else it's like, it's like using those 'idiots' over at sxc that are fool enough to give away their photos in order to promote your work. But you won't say no to that out of principal will you? No. Because it serves your own interests and that is ALL you're interested in.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
