|
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 - yingyang0
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 30
26
« on: February 24, 2009, 14:25 »
She said it was on Dreamstime that the title and descrption was relevent. That's why the search is more relevent on DT
Thank you , Vonkara, someone understands me! 
Regards,
Adelaide
99.999999999% of people understood what you were saying.
27
« on: February 17, 2009, 13:25 »
Gettying back to the original topic. I'm not a fan of the new look, especially the new monthly stat look.
28
« on: February 16, 2009, 23:57 »
Again, I know nothing of micrtostock [sic] and leave it to you to figure out if it makes sense for you.
The quote above from the post should have been at the beginning of the rant so that no one had to read it.
29
« on: February 14, 2009, 13:01 »
If we're talking legalities, certainly here in the UK supplying the personal information that is on my model releases to any microstock agency is actually breaking the law under our Data Protection act, I'd be interested to know whether the same applies over in the US.
Nope. We don't have a data protection act anything like what you guys have. The closest thing we have is HIPAA, but that only applies to medical records.
30
« on: February 10, 2009, 17:53 »
Q..what is the quickest timescale too have two payments from your istock account into your personnel account.
A....
That's a good question to ask iStock.
31
« on: February 05, 2009, 12:26 »
Below is a quote from IRS publication 463.
"If your trip was primarily for personal reasons, such as a vacation, the entire cost of the trip is a nondeductible personal expense. However, you can deduct expenses you have while at your destination that are directly related to your business."
I am new to this so how this applies to microstock photography, I don't know. I think one would need to consult with an accountant.
That is correct for US tax codes, but rest assured that you're odds of being audited go up exponentially the more of these "business" expense deductions you take. However that's not saying much because the odds of an audit are abysmally low (it's less than 1% anymore).
32
« on: February 05, 2009, 12:19 »
Wow awesome site, thanks for sharing.    "It's not really stealing right? I mean you still have it and I'm just copying it, so it's not like stealing....I'll give it back to you." -A Teenager (during discussion about music downloading)
33
« on: February 04, 2009, 19:57 »
if you have your office in a seperate room that is only used as your office you can deduct a % of the heating, house rent, electricity etc. The % you can deduct is the % of the house your office takes up.
Be careful of this if you live in the UK and have a mortgage, seek advice from an accountant and they'll explain what I mean.
I don't know that it is difficult to document but do know that it is a key to getting audited in the US.
That's exactly what I was thinking. If you're nickel and dimeing 'business' deductions so much (and these look like non-deductible personal expenses by IRS standards) then you're sure to be audited.
34
« on: February 03, 2009, 12:59 »
^ lose the racist, fairly offensive example....
Offensive and racist? Sorry buddy I live in Mindanao, Southern Phils. Want to see my shots of what the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) did on August 6 in the city of Kauswagan with the houses of my friends? Apart of being taken with a cellphone, they are unsuitable for stock. I will never be a dhimmi. Never.
Glad you added the meaning of the acronym because here in the US MILF has a different, funnier meaning.
35
« on: February 01, 2009, 14:33 »
Isn't it possible that you're misreading the termination clause? I think that what they're addressing is that they have the right to take 30 days to stop selling all the content if you leave the site altogether. IOW, that this clause isn't talking about a switch from exclusive to non?
If it's an issue for anyone, I'd suggest contacting contributor relations to see if this delete your exclusive uploads interpretation is really correct.
Yes, I'll grant that it's possible I misread/misunderstood it, but I think either is extremely unlikely. And here's why:
If it was possible to turn exclusivity on and off in 90 day intervals without incurring a penalty, I'd jump aboard that ship in a second. When I wasn't exclusive I'd upload only to SS, FT, StockXpert, and 123. After 90 days I'd remove my images from those agencies, switch back to exclusive at IS, then upload my new images to them. After 90 days I'd cancel my IS exclusivity and repeat the process. This would give me the best of both worlds, allowing me to have similar/identical portfolios on all agencies, effectively nullifying the exclusive image advantage that IS enjoys.
But then again, maybe it is possible to do this, but nobody's tried it yet. If this is the case, you can bet that IS will shut that door pretty quickly now that it's been mentioned on a public forum.
Sharply, I think you are infact misreading the contract. You'll note that the same clause is found in the non-exclusive contract! The termination clause is meant for when you completely quit selling at iStock. It's unfortunate that they cut and pasted without thinking that people may misread the contract's intent, but hey you can't foresee what people are going to read into a contract. There are plenty of people that have gone exclusive, then went non-exclusive and they didn't have their portfolios removed. Before flying off the the limb it is important to actually get the facts by contacting former exclusives.
36
« on: January 29, 2009, 17:39 »
I'd call it above average. I'd also like to point out that I think iStock should block this. No one should have to put up with their financial information being spread all over the internet in such detail.
How can you say that? Aren't we all here to share and encourage others?
You're right sjlocke, so in the spirit of encouraging others I'll post a link to images of my tax returns and W-2s. Heck, while I'm at it I'll attach copies of my birth certificate, SS card, and driver's license. Seriously, no one should have to sitemail anyone to prevent such an intrusion into their personal financial data and making the person a ? doesn't protect them from being identified, as shown earlier in this thread.
37
« on: January 29, 2009, 11:42 »
Not so strange, Liliboas relies a lot on her abundant,popular and very well done portfolio of Christmas images.
Yes, and it's hardly average.
I'd call it above average. I'd also like to point out that I think iStock should block this. No one should have to put up with their financial information being spread all over the internet in such detail.
38
« on: January 26, 2009, 13:16 »
Hi Packerguy,
I was told the other day that one of the new Micro agencies makes you personally responsible for all legal matters if they are sued or asked for a settlement of some kind. They are not going to protect you. I suggest all of you get to know all your contracts in detail.
All micro agencies have indemnity clauses in the contracts, not just new ones. As for the original question, opinions very and the answers will very depending on jurisdiction. I'm cautious, so I wouldn't be photographing new electronic equipment, especially anything made by Apple (they're extremely litigious).
39
« on: January 24, 2009, 13:34 »
Wow, congrats on the big adventure. I've always wanted to do the same, but I've never had the cojones to just quit and go on a vacation.
40
« on: January 24, 2009, 08:42 »
...just to correct you the "one pressing the charges" is known as the 'claimant' not a plaintiff, and the ones facing the charges is known as a 'defendant'.
But my point I was making was not in regards to who has to press the charge, it was regarding his comment "prove that the defendant knew it was illegal and intentionally try to defraud" which is different for criminal and civil cases, and over here any IP legal issues would be covered under civil jurisdiction.
Sorry for the confusion, your answer appeared to me to imply that the burden was on the defendant. Here, across the pond,it is plaintiff or 'claimant'. But "thank you for the lecture" and there's no reason to be condescending.
41
« on: January 23, 2009, 23:04 »
But IMO it is more likely the slowing world economy that is responsible for softening sales...
I agree.
42
« on: January 23, 2009, 22:16 »
If someone pressed charges on the contributor. It is the onus of the one pressing charge to prove that the defendant knew it was illegal and intentionally try to defraud.
That's criminal law - 'Innocent until proven guilty' , IP is civil law and doesn't work that way, over here anyway.
RT you're British right? All common law countries have the burden of proof on the "one pressing charge", aka the plaintiff. The difference between civil and criminal is not who has the burden of proof, but the level. In civil case the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence, whereas criminal requires beyond a reasonable doubt. necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit
43
« on: January 23, 2009, 11:57 »
Okay okay, let's rewind a little. What is the legal consequence of this? Is there an expert here? Who is liable? The photographer? we'll say who is not well-informed about the copyright restriction;
the buyer who uses the images , we assume since they are in the business they know about Intellectual Property Infringement,
or the agency, who obviously know the rules and regulations of the need for MR, PR,etc.
Can someone stand up and confirm who is liable?
Again I can only speak about US copyright because I'm not licensed in any other country, though I can say that basti is mistaken about grouping all countries outside the US because the Berne Convention governs most countires, including the US, but that's getting off the point. The photographer WOULD be liable if it was infringement because only the copyright owner has reproduction rights and the rights to may derivative works. The buyer/end user WOULD also be liable for the same reasons. BUT READ BELOW! I would like to reiterate that I don't believe that the specific image in question would be copyright infringement. There have been several people in this thread that have equated it to photographs of cars and this is an incorrect analogy. Maps are treated under copyright law in a special way and don't really receive the same copyright protection that other works have because of the non-original nature of maps and their utilitarian function. Only the original elements of a map are copyrightable. So for instance, on most maps the names, symbols, key, etc. are not copyrightable. Most map makers know that in court it's hard to win an infringement suit unless it can be shown that the infringer didn't create the map independently. This is why almost every modern map has at least one intentional mistake, and most have several. On world maps they will normally misspell a few names or add fictitious names. On local maps they'll add fictitious streets. It is a common practice to "seed" maps with "trap" streets and names. It's really the only way to prove infringement of maps. So, unless that portion of the map that was photographed contained one of those trap elements, it really wasn't copyright infringement because it would be impossible to prove in court.
44
« on: January 22, 2009, 16:16 »
hi, as a cartographer I know for sure that maps are protected by a copyright.
Don't be so sure about what you know. I can only speak about copyright in the U.S., but here the mere fact that a work is copyrighted does not mean that every element of the work may be protected. Originality remains the sine qua non of copyright; accordingly, copyright protection extends only to those components of a work that are original to the author. In this case you have only a small portion of the map so it would be extremely difficult to prove what map was use to create the photo, let alone that there is some original element embodied in the portion of the map used.
45
« on: January 16, 2009, 17:08 »
If I understand well, you are not U.S. citizens ...
Why they send you this form 1099!?
Income from sources within the U.S. is subject to taxation in the U.S. under 26 USC 861(a)(4) when you're selling copyrighted material. "(a) Gross income from sources within United States.--The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States: ... (4) Rentals and royalties.--Rentals or royalties from property located in the United States or from any interest in such property, including rentals or royalties for the use of or for the privilege of using in the United States patents, copyrights, secret processes and formulas, good will, trade-marks, trade brands, franchises, and other like property."
46
« on: January 12, 2009, 17:51 »
I do not see you practicing what you preach, Yuri and other Istock Exclusives also upload Different Images to the traditional sites like Alamy without affecting thier status.
When did Yuri go exclusive? And what other exclusives are you talking about?
Sorry rephrased, "Yuri and some Istock Exclusives", Yuris does contribute to Alamy, and so do some Istock exclusive contributors, and many non exclusive, I will not name anyone as some use different names on Alamy, but a search of the forum here and at Alamy will return some answers.
It is not against Istock exclusive policy to contribute images to other Traditional agencies just not other microsites, it is not even against Alamy terms to put the same RF Miro images on thier site and similars as RM, but is not welcomed by other and could lead to crediting back a sale.
I'm aware of istock policies, and the differences between RM and RF. They were simple questions that only needed simple answers. 1)Yuri is not exclusive, and 2) "unidentified" others.
47
« on: January 11, 2009, 02:28 »
I do not see you practicing what you preach, Yuri and other Istock Exclusives also upload Different Images to the traditional sites like Alamy without affecting thier status.
When did Yuri go exclusive? And what other exclusives are you talking about?
48
« on: January 06, 2009, 00:43 »
These are pictures taken with telescopes paid by public money: it is not that silly to let anybody use them freely. Well... at least any US citizen
Good point, all you foreigners should keep your hands off our goods, especially you tricky Canadians (we know about your invasion plans). 
49
« on: January 02, 2009, 13:21 »
I think the posts in this thread show that the "earnings rating" poll results shown on the right side of the page don't actually correlate to real people's information.
50
« on: January 02, 2009, 10:35 »
I am glad they go, I hate amateur photographers supplying free photos to magazines, and magazines taking advantage of that.
Now I hope all microstock sites, other than SS and IS, go down the same path.
Having seen IS go from 1st of the "Big Six" to 5th I would be more concerned about that!
I remember when "safe" stores chains that have now gone into liquidation were the pride of the high street
David
David, you're basing this on the poll results of 140ish people where the people chooses between 0 and 10 on earnings and that has little to no discernible meaning. Not to mention many people don't participate in the polls because they're exclusive to iStock. You end up with a poll that is negatively skewed against iStock that doesn't really measure anything to begin with. When I was nonexclusive iStock was still my best performer because I had close to the same number of images on each site. That's the main problem with the poll, the only objective way to measure one site against the others when using many people's opinions is revenue per image per month.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 30
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
