|
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 - ShadySue
14251
« on: January 23, 2011, 06:39 »
But back on topic. It appears that the programmers at IS don't bother to test the software before they release it, just make it run and unleash it. There's never time to do it right now, but always time to fix it later?
But what's the reason they're being rushed? I don't know of too many developers who rush rolling out updates. In fact, quite the opposite. They usually like to make sure it's right. I'm thinking management is pushing the IT dept to deploy updates on hard deadlines and deal with the issues later.
Which is totally counter-productive. Which level of management isn't seeing this? Is it Kelly or is it the puppeteers?
14252
« on: January 23, 2011, 06:31 »
Thanks guys for letting me know about the model release issues. My legal team is preparing a letter to them as we speak. We take this very seriously. This is absolutely not allowed for many reasons.
Best Yuri
I hope heads roll (metaphorically).
14253
« on: January 22, 2011, 18:09 »
I wouldn't say Scotland is representative of any food culture ... other than Scotland itself. I remember once choosing a pizza in a Glasgow chippy as a relatively 'low fat' option compared to what else was on offer. I was utterly stunned when they said 'Aye' and then chucked my precious pizza into the deep fat fryer. Arrgghh! Well, yes, you were in a chippy - what else would you expect? They even deep fry steak pies and mars bars in chippies. Apparently a significant proportion of the Scottish population think that a large portion of chips actually counts as part of the 'five-a-day' nutritional recommendation for fruit & veg.
So does a Chocolate Orange. 
14254
« on: January 22, 2011, 17:46 »
Isn't it interesting how the 'generic' for a fizzy drink varies by locality.
When I was young, weans in the west of Scotland often called any variety 'lemonade', but in the east of Scotland, it was often called 'juice'.
But nowadays, it's just 'a can'.
14255
« on: January 22, 2011, 16:57 »
Has anyone alerted IS/Thinkstock/whoever? I have not.
I really feel for the model, so i dropped Yuri a line.
Thank you. I hope he really kicks up a stink about that.
14256
« on: January 22, 2011, 16:55 »
Please someone, explain to me, how RF images from one agency can be lawfully licensed RM on another site.
They could be, legally, if the RM was only for usage and not for guaranteed unique usage of any type. A bit like buying the same soap in from your local supermarket or in Harrods brand packaging at four times the price. You couldn't legally sell an image, which had previously sold even once as RF, RM if the buyer wanted unique usage, e.g. of use, geographic region and/or timespan.
14257
« on: January 22, 2011, 16:34 »
I love this picture. I didn't know the right honorable gentleman from Aarhus sold model releases.  - (Info: no model release required )
Keywords: QC, inspectors, recursivity
Perfect illustration of why Thinkstock does not deserve our work. What an utter shambles that place is.
This is a real disgrace...must be nice having all your details online like that...
Wouldn't that qualify as a BIG invasion of privacy?
Absolutely. I've read again and again on iStock forums that people's details can't get out of the system, because they're in a jpeg, not a database, so models should be totally reassured about giving away all that information. I guess we'd need to know if these were transferred over from iStock before we knew that it counted as an iStock cock-up.
14258
« on: January 22, 2011, 11:15 »
I'd definitely agree that the non-exclusive agencies have been largely stagnant in recent years. The SS site and experience hasn't changed much at all since I started there years ago.
That might not always be a Bad Thing.
14259
« on: January 22, 2011, 08:25 »
14260
« on: January 22, 2011, 07:49 »
The original point of the discussion is totally irrelevant. It is just a norm that does not prevent at all from expressing opinions. To do of this a drama, in my opinion, it turns out to be almost comical. You can agree or disagree with any post and add your own arguments. Maybe that wasn't "the point", but it is what really matters.
Sometimes you don't have anything else to add, because the OP has posted so well. But you still want it known that you agree. If you don't, they could imagine that the OP is the only one who thinks that.
14261
« on: January 22, 2011, 07:45 »
I posted this link before on my Facebook page as well as the Microstockgroup's FB page. But maybe it provides some food for thought about what to do: Photographers Turn to Fair Trade to Beat Microstock
Sorry, I'm not trying to slam either you or Photographer's Direct. But again, another quote from the article you link to: "When microstock photographers produce images of the lowest common denominator they widen the gap between the quality of budget pictures and the excellence of the kind of images offered by the professionals on Photographers Direct. " with a link to PD's images. Just choosing a few images of the type I like from that linked-to page, I can see images as good or (subjectively) better on iStock.
14262
« on: January 22, 2011, 07:11 »
"A stereotypical computer programmer dreams up a piece of software and insists that humans work by its rules. In contrast, office ethnographers tend to assume that people know what they are doing. So if a computer program isn't being used as intended, it's the program's fault, not the human's."
Excellent! This is supposed to be the logic behind the iPad isn't it? To create products more in line with the way we work instinctively? Great stuff. It will probably take a while for the message to seep through...
Sounds as though 'Office Ethnographer' is a new term for the old 'HCI Specialist'?
To think, I really thought at university I'd love to do Social Anthropology, but there were "no jobs in that"!
14263
« on: January 22, 2011, 07:02 »
I posted this link before on my Facebook page as well as the Microstockgroup's FB page. But maybe it provides some food for thought about what to do: Photographers Turn to Fair Trade to Beat Microstock
Chris Barton should do his research better. You quote him as saying, "Chris Barton asks why Time magazine would pay more when a cover image is available for only $30".
In fact, Time Magazine has a circulation of over three million, which would require an Extended licence of 125 credits for a 'normal' file or 250 for Vetta/Agency, which would come to well over $30. Though both times they used an iStock image on their cover, they had to be chased up for the EL payment.
I do not quote anyone. I only link to a piece of reading. If it is good or bad I leave up to everybody elses judgement. And just because there may be some mistakes in it, it may still be of value in other areas of the article (or not). 
Indeed. But it erodes someone's credibility when they don't 'know their enemy' and attack them with distortions of the truth. (Or outdated truths, which I guess could be a problem with the nature of the net, with old quotes all over the place, ripe for the picking.) I see the same all the time on the Alamy forums. There are some people with big chips on their shoulders against micro. I see exactly where they're coming from. But they frequently use lies inaccuracies or very out of date information to slam the micros, especially iStock. If anyone tries to correct them (even on points of fact), they're jumped on instantly.
14264
« on: January 22, 2011, 06:41 »
I read this quote today from this page http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/21/postits-digital-tools-tech-intel-cz_lg_0122postits.html?feed=rss_mostemailedThe article was talking about how most people prefer to use paper post-its to the many computer programs offering the same functionality. I couldn't help thinking about all these bits of advice, on educating the buyer how to use the search on iStock, all the instructions to 'empty your cache and cookies' (which can be a d*mned nuisance if you do) etc. Here's the quote : "A stereotypical computer programmer dreams up a piece of software and insists that humans work by its rules. In contrast, office ethnographers tend to assume that people know what they are doing. So if a computer program isn't being used as intended, it's the program's fault, not the human's."
14265
« on: January 22, 2011, 06:25 »
I posted this link before on my Facebook page as well as the Microstockgroup's FB page. But maybe it provides some food for thought about what to do: Photographers Turn to Fair Trade to Beat Microstock
Chris Barton should do his research better. You quote him as saying, "Chris Barton asks why Time magazine would pay more when a cover image is available for only $30". In fact, Time Magazine has a circulation of over three million, which would require an Extended licence of 125 credits for a 'normal' file or 250 for Vetta/Agency, which would come to well over $30. Though both times they used an iStock image on their cover, they had to be chased up for the EL payment.
14266
« on: January 22, 2011, 06:16 »
{sorry: triple post, which I think is a record, even for me}
14267
« on: January 22, 2011, 05:35 »
Somehow I had forgotten that bit "Price is 20%-30% more to guarantee an exclusive licence".
Actually, 30% is a very, very low maximum for an extensive exclusive licence which could cover a geographic area or even worldwide for a specific timeframe, e.g. 5 years.
14268
« on: January 22, 2011, 05:29 »
[Sorry, still hitting 'quote' instead of 'modify'} 
14269
« on: January 22, 2011, 05:22 »
Seems yet another thing is broken. People are reporting $0 royalties.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=294962&page=1
I see that Steel Cage suggestion was made. You'd think they could have some way of reporting that. Also, if someone redeems free credits, e.g. if they manage to work out how to do it via a Moo card, how does that show on our uploads page?
14270
« on: January 21, 2011, 18:51 »
I agree 
C'mon seriously with the cuts in royalties, many seeing downloads declining and a deluge of bugs..... to make such carry on about something so triival ? 
Yes, that is trivial, and you wont' find at the big microstock sites a forum where so much dissension is allowed as istockphoto's. If I'm wrong, tell me which one, please.
Is there one which has so many problems and issues running concurrently that people are legitimately concerned about?
14271
« on: January 21, 2011, 18:49 »
I guess I got hung up in that paragraph on the term " 'whine' in the design world". What does that mean?
I thought maybe he meant 'buzz', but maybe not ...?
14272
« on: January 21, 2011, 18:18 »
What a pure waste of money and time... !!! They should take care of all their bugs instead !!!
There's a specific name in politics for this sort of distraction activity that's supposed to wick attention away from the real issues.
14273
« on: January 21, 2011, 12:50 »
People will just find an alternate way to say "+1". Funny though, if the "+1" was replaced with a hearty "Woo Yay", would they be forced to ban that phrase?
Briulliant. Do it, people!
14274
« on: January 21, 2011, 12:30 »
I spent years overcoming my desire to please others with my work.
Sorry to say, that's why artists starve in garrets. I've got one at home. If you're trying to sell, you have to please the market. In microstock that's especially true as you need many sales of each image to make it worthwhile, you're not looking for the one person who connects with your vision.
14275
« on: January 21, 2011, 11:21 »
how about " plus one" "+ one" "plus 1" etc.
Or the more conventional "Me2"
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
