|
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 - cardmaverick
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18
76
« on: August 13, 2012, 12:50 »
Yup, China keeps the value of its currency down by as much as 35% below what the market would set, guaranteeing they can export cheaper than any Western nation.
Just think on that when considering international competition. It makes the idea of a free market a bit of a joke.
It's not a free market.... no system of banking controlled by government instituted central banks is free. As for undervaluing, it's true, China does, but it's only hurting them in the long run, eventually they will see they don't need to sell to countries like the US. They can sell to their own domestic market and do just fine.
77
« on: August 13, 2012, 02:04 »
All this talk about money.... the real culprit is the Federal Reserve and useless paper money that's being printed like crazy. Heck, there are foreign currencies being printed like crazy that are backed by US dollars being printed like crazy.... If you want to blame something. Blame those two things and you're on the right track. Don't blame Yuri, he's just trying to survive and thrive in a world that is destroying his gains via printing presses.
78
« on: August 09, 2012, 23:38 »
I've been well aware of the "forgotten" credit thing for a long time....
This really isn't any different than selling gift cards. Millions of cards expire each year with a few bucks left on them. That's a lot of easy cash every year no one misses.
I'm not sure how this really matters to you however, you're not paying a commission to anyone but yourself. I suppose you could say they need to pay more for extra shots they could have purchased with expired credits, but I don't really know how much of a factor that really is.
79
« on: July 26, 2012, 18:19 »
It falls under a thing called "trade dress" - which has been the subject of many Getty Images law suits recently... it's the on form of IP law that could really shut down this business.
80
« on: July 22, 2012, 23:27 »
She also mentions, it doesn't matter if: if the picture is embedded and not saved on your server which is actually stealing bandwidth and makes for more problems.
The whole story makes me wonder. How did someone get her to pay when we can't? SHe claims to have removed the image in minutes, why did she have to get a lawyer involved and also pay? I want some of that action. 
Is this a stunt to get people to read the blog and link to it, for SEO?
Maybe it's a photographer posing as a writer with a blog. LOL. False flag attack...
81
« on: July 21, 2012, 23:54 »
My first question was...
What successful photographer has time to troll the web looking for his images used on blogs?
Total waste of time. Go find a client....
82
« on: July 20, 2012, 14:42 »
With one policy change, crestock has guaranteed it's demise....
83
« on: July 16, 2012, 13:20 »
Negotiate a rate 2 or 3 times higher than what you normally ask for and just tell them it's because of the contracts language regarding copyright. Never be afraid to walk away from a crap job. Never.
84
« on: July 15, 2012, 17:50 »
That won't stop a single thing....
85
« on: July 06, 2012, 13:27 »
just to clarify :
yes, my concept is that for the internet to be cleaned up and regulated on a worldwide basis the only way is for the internet to become completely out of control, a gigantic dump and the biggest hotbed for unlawful activities ever seen.
if it stays the way it is now, nobody will move a finger, nobody will shut down youtube or flickr or pinterest or Heroturko etc .. governments need a smoking gun and pressure from the top to make bold moves.
after all it's not such a big deal, there are already police units monitoring the web 24x7 for pedophiles, terrorists, gun dealers, drug dealers, prostitution, why not a unit for copyright infringments ?
So in other words you want to shut down the web. I don't see any form of progress doing that.
86
« on: July 05, 2012, 22:02 »
We'll have to just disagree. Personally, I'm moving forward with ideas and business models that do not rely on IP or copyright laws to succeed.
Selling stuff on eBay?
Far far from that....
87
« on: July 03, 2012, 23:57 »
Technology is revealing all the flaws and in my opinion, fantasies, that copyright laws represent. Technology is pushing us towards a society that will eventually abandon IP laws either formally or by an even greater force - the market - as well as business models that rely entirely on such a shaky system. Look at the Adobe cloud, I know a lot of people swear they will never "cloud compute" but the message is pretty clear - if you can't reliably control something, you can't reliably sell it. Subscriptions to cloud hosted programs is one of the ways a company can control it's programs more reliably. Forward thinking companies see the writing on the wall with IP laws being a relic of the past. It's the beginning of the future like it or not.
My personal prediction for photography is that photo libraries will always exist, but you'll be paying for advanced search tools and other services you can't just download from a torrent site. I also think there will always be a place for assignment photographers, but only the best shooters will be able to compete in that arena since it tends to require far more business skills than the typical photographer has.
I don't agree. Technology isn't pushing us towards it, we're pushing us towards it. Technology can be used to protect IP, but who's going to bother when there's such a small demand for it? We keep sending the message out there "do whatever you want with our images, we won't do anything about it". Even our own micros have little respect for our IP these days. We've done this to ourselves. Imagine if every photographer, illustrator and artist in the world banded together and packed the streets in protest over our copyright issues. That would send a clear message to the world about how we feel about it and it would educate the world on IP and copyright. But as a group, as a whole, we don't care. As a group, we're too lazy to even speak up about it let alone take the streets in protest. Every other profession would never allow something like this to happen. Every other profession has their peers protesting together over everything and we can't even round up even 50 people on this forum to agree to protect the very backbone of our business. There's no hope, not because of technology, but because of our poor attitudes. [/quote] We'll have to just disagree. Personally, I'm moving forward with ideas and business models that do not rely on IP or copyright laws to succeed.
88
« on: July 03, 2012, 22:38 »
At your earliest convenience:
Frenetically REPIN as many images as you feel like from pinterest.com/pinhammer
Make a statement!
Do I have to join pinterest in order to re-pin? If so, I will, but I sure don't want to.
Yes you do.
I'm waiting for them to send me an invite and then i can re-pin. To have any sort of real impact, we'd have to have a few people pinning all the images at the same time to fill up a page. The thing is though, I don't see too many people here that are overly concerned about Pinterest or copyright for that matter. It kind of feels like we're wasting our time.
I have found it strange that so many photographers not caring about their own property. If we ourselves don't care, how can we expect our micros to care. Why would we expect the general public or sites like Pinterest to care? The lack of response here and everywhere has sent a clear message to Pinterest and probably the legal system that copyright isn't to be taken too seriously.
It's disappointing to say the least.
Technology is revealing all the flaws and in my opinion, fantasies, that copyright laws represent. Technology is pushing us towards a society that will eventually abandon IP laws either formally or by an even greater force - the market - as well as business models that rely entirely on such a shaky system. Look at the Adobe cloud, I know a lot of people swear they will never "cloud compute" but the message is pretty clear - if you can't reliably control something, you can't reliably sell it. Subscriptions to cloud hosted programs is one of the ways a company can control it's programs more reliably. Forward thinking companies see the writing on the wall with IP laws being a relic of the past. It's the beginning of the future like it or not. My personal prediction for photography is that photo libraries will always exist, but you'll be paying for advanced search tools and other services you can't just download from a torrent site. I also think there will always be a place for assignment photographers, but only the best shooters will be able to compete in that arena since it tends to require far more business skills than the typical photographer has.
89
« on: July 01, 2012, 16:58 »
Describe how a "more advanced search engine" would work.
Weed out or penalise spam in the keywords.
Oh, iStock was going to do that with BM2, but they gave that up.
Istock actually the worst results for us. They are biasing results towards exclusive images, even if they are highly irrelevant or a low match to my search. Drove me crazy! The only way I could find something decent was to do a very broad search and then weed threw a few thousand shots.
90
« on: July 01, 2012, 16:41 »
Describe how a "more advanced search engine" would work.
One of the biggest uses of stock images is in composites, what we really needed was the ability to search based on specific perspectives and angles. I would gladly pay money to access a search tool that let me sketch out what I want to find and then search based on my own visual sketch - even better would be the ability to also search based on lenses and camera bodies used as well..... I know of only one agency right now that is actively working on making this happen.
91
« on: June 30, 2012, 22:15 »
Most people are not asking for free content. If you provide a mechanism which enables people to pay for how they want to use content then in many, probably most, cases they will.
The mechanism is there. It's called "go-to-an-online-site-and-license-an-image".
I think the real problem is that what people really wan't - better search returns - isn't there. I had to find a background for a client and we simply gave up. We would have paid money just to use a more advanced search engine. We ended up just finding a location and shooting it ourselves.
92
« on: June 30, 2012, 00:07 »
Carls Jr. is much better tasting.....BY FAR
+1
93
« on: June 29, 2012, 02:45 »
I've been working with meat recently. There is no way that burger, even if it's just seared lightly, will remain juicy looking. Give it a few minutes and all that nice looking juicy shine is dried up. Something has to be added. Most likely oil, corn syrup, or glycerin.
What law says they have to use real food? Lot's of cereal companies would be guilty of breaking it...
94
« on: June 25, 2012, 18:56 »
Last but not least, Pinterest is just another billboard for us, but only if you make sure your images look like one in the first place.
How can it possibly be a 'billboard for us' if pages with our images that have been licensed by third parties are pinned with no way (other than, maybe GIS) for someone to find us, even if they wanted to?
It's called "collateral" damage. If you think there's too much collateral damage, then pull your stock portfolio from the web and leave the stock photo business. Pretty simple.
95
« on: June 24, 2012, 02:31 »
The people who whine and complain about what's going on tend to be people who have photos being passed around that they didn't get paid to shoot in the first place.
Yes. You are right. What's wrong with that?
As stock producers, most of us shoot on spec, hoping to get our money back. The more people who share your IP for free, the more difficult it is to recover your costs and make a profit.
Seems like a pretty obvious thing to complain about.
I understand exactly what you're saying, I shoot stock myself... however, I shoot it knowing that there will be collateral damage. Watermarks have never been easier to remove before thanks to photoshop and I don't see any stock shooters protesting Adobe like they do Pinterest... Think about that. Anyhow, see my last post above. I've moved more into higher end assignments in addition to very calculated stock media production. I think there will always be people willing to pay for higher resolution images, and hopefully with the advent of 4K monitors, larger web page layouts, etc... stealing a 500x300 pixel image just won't suffice. I doubt very few people using images without buying them ever use them in print, they simply look horrible. Last but not least, Pinterest is just another billboard for us, but only if you make sure your images look like one in the first place.
96
« on: June 24, 2012, 02:20 »
The people who whine and complain about what's going on tend to be people who have photos being passed around that they didn't get paid to shoot in the first place.
So copyright infringement is OK, as long as the contributor got paid for the shoot? Surely that can't be what you mean.
I post *some* of my work on Flickr and encourage it to be taken, on purpose. The difference between what I do and what others do is I do it knowing, expecting, and encouraging it to happen. They are very effective billboards and that's how I treat them. I always laugh at the millions of pathetic, hard to read, totally useless watermarks I see on peoples flickr images. You've got peoples eyes, in my case for some images, over 11,000 eyeballs. You should take advantage of that, and I do! I've sold plenty of stuff via Flickr as well. As for IP laws, if you read around here, you'll find I no longer believe in that stuff. I get paid to SHOOT and be a CREATIVE FORCE. I don't get paid to nickel and dime people based on how they use my images. They may be under that impression (I list "usage" on invoices and estimates like others do), but I'm simply catering to their own beliefs. They are really paying for my skill. I'm only going to charge what I'm worth to them. If it makes them feel better to see $1000 for labor and $9,000 for licensing instead of simply $10,000 for labor and $0.00 for usage, so be it. Either way, I'm charging what I'm worth. Screw the IP stuff. I don't care if you only use the image on your store front - if I'm shooting a complex high speed water image - you're paying what that is worth for me to shoot it for you, to your specific liking. I'm not discounting a nickel because of the low usage. A lot of people in this business think that IP laws mean more money for them. BS. It easily means less money for you. Think of all the money you lost simply because of "small usage". Seriously. Think about it. I say Screw that. Charge what you're worth and forget usage. List it if you really need too on an invoice/estimate (many legal departments still need to see a formal "rights transfer"), but don't base your price on it.
97
« on: June 23, 2012, 15:26 »
The people who whine and complain about what's going on tend to be people who have photos being passed around that they didn't get paid to shoot in the first place.
98
« on: June 23, 2012, 01:22 »
this needs to be shown to magazine editors, restaurant owners and other non-photographers, so they can see how long it takes to make a truly professional food image. The magazine I work for expect this type of result, but of course think it only take 5mins to snap a pic.
LOL. I totally know what your talking about. I've spent 6 hours on just one shot.
99
« on: June 22, 2012, 02:11 »
Glue for milk is really old school and really fake looking. Use white tempera paint and cut it with a little bit of water. The consistency is way more correct and you can get better looking milf like froth.
100
« on: June 21, 2012, 21:03 »
I'll bet you money that the meat patty is brushed with either corn syrup or some kind of thick oil. I've been shooting food for a food company for months now.... There's now way on earth that burger is totally edible, or at the very least, exactly the same as what your sold. I hate eating anything with corn syrup... but it's the best food glaze around for things like meat, even does a great job faking sprayed water drops on things like garnishes. Once it's on, it'll keep a moist wet look for.... days.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
