|
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 - drugal
26
« on: June 08, 2012, 14:27 »
Constantly increasing income, about 25% of SS with basically the same port... I started uploading to 123 a lot later. I have no idea whether the port's / images file age 'maturity' on 123 matters at all. Any opinions on that?
27
« on: June 08, 2012, 14:24 »
...this is another one of the reasons I'm moving away from microstock. If you sell your image for pennies, then logically, that image is worth pennies and it's not even worth your time to pursue those who steal your work.
This may change in the future with the establishment of a small claims court for copyright violations but that's the reality of it these days.
I'v been telling this to everyone since forever. Ppl either realize and live with the fact that this model itself is a copyright-killer because nobody in the effin universe is going to represent anyone for $1 infringements on confusing, near limitless usages - or they are naive. Of course as children usually do, they came up with an all-solving logical answer to this: I'm a dribbling evil troll : ) * sigh * 
28
« on: June 07, 2012, 02:54 »
Forget sending requests for DMCAs through your agent. That's proven to be a waste of time and you don't get any value (or real satisfaction) out of it. Sending an email ourselves isn't any more of an effort than gathering all the details to provide our agents for them to send one. Sending it ourselves allows us a chance to earn money, reimburses us for the stress this causes, educates violators to reduce the number of incidents in the future, while at the same time, directing traffic to our own websites/blogs.
Here's how it's done:
PayPal provides us with tools that enable us to request money from buyers. We can use the Buy Now now buttons and PayPal gives us two options for this:
1. If you use Outlook Express, you can attach a Pay Now button on your email.
2. If you don't use Outlook Express, you can create a button on PayPal and add the html code on a page on your website or blog. When you send your email, direct the buyer to that page and you will increase traffic to your site.
Your email can be something like this:
You have used an image from {my business name} without purchasing an appropriate license and have therefore infringed on copyrighted content. The original source of the image can be found here:
http://my.yourwebsite.com/imagepage.jpg
Below you will find a link to a screenshot of the image that you have used without a license, to be recognized in a court of law as evidence of the copyright infringement:
http://www.yoursite.com/screenshot.jpg
If you pay ${specifiy an amount} using the {Paypal button/link} provided below, no further action will be taken and the payment will be accepted as a license to use the image as it's currently being used on that page only.
If this request for payment is ignored, formal proceedings will ensue.
Formal proceedings could mean anything - taking legal action or sending a DMCA. They don't need to know what you plan to do. Leave them guessing. This way they're more likely to pay up.
You would have to alter the text depending on where the infringement is at. You might word it differently for people stealing your images on Pinterest and ask for a different amount for commercial and non-commercial uses.
The way I see it, this could turn out to be just as profitable as microstock. It will gain you some extra traffic on your site and I'm confident that person will think twice before stealing another image.
I might even leave my the Pinterest 'pins' of my images there and if people take the image, using the embed code, I will send them one of these emails.
Just keep doing that to get banned all over the place, suspended and/or banned at payment systems, and get in a lot of serious trouble and lawsuits. Would you like to get charged with extortion? Just one slip, you misinterpret a situation and with that quoted routine of yours you lost before you go to court. You' are going mental there, dude. You seriously need a reality check.
29
« on: June 06, 2012, 13:15 »
You gonna have to create original content of your own, instead of scanning stuff. How terrible.
30
« on: June 06, 2012, 08:42 »
a virtual presentation would have been much more effective and to the point.
So, do it then!
why? I don't care about this crp
31
« on: June 06, 2012, 02:15 »
Another lame 'performance artist'. These are circus gimmicks for people who haven't got any talent but crave being called some kind of an artist or at least perceived as an 'intellectual'. It's pointless, a virtual presentation would have been much more effective and to the point.
32
« on: June 06, 2012, 02:04 »
{more dribble}
You know it would be really great if that ignore feature worked even when people are signed out.
If you hate getting some insight into things, and you don't have anything to say basically, why do you come to a forum?
33
« on: June 05, 2012, 18:23 »
Not true, 'dribble', I often have buyers buying more than of the same image at a time. I'm sure others do as well. This could only be to allow them additional print runs or multiple seats usage. If 99% of buyers didn't read the licensing terms, we wouldn't be selling ELs.
You 'would be' getting ELs... from that rare 1%. I was an art director / grafic artist at ad agencies ( both ATL and BTL - do you know what those are? ) You know, we were the guys you produced the stuff for - the buyers. Thats why I know what most of you are only guessing, how it works on the other side. I worked at several agencies over the years. Over those years I only met one, I mean 1 person who knew basically anything about licences or about the whole microstock thing's workings except for seeing that there are lots searchable pretty pics on a site from who knows (and cares) where. That was a graphic artist girl who only knew this stuff because her boyfriend was a microstock shooter. The bosses / owners who decided where to shop, and how to buy almost always got to the sites by word of mouth, and that applied to the knowledge of the terms too. They were told, that hey here is this istock site, really cheap, download the pic and use it as long as you want for anything it's great... and that was pretty much it. Everybody hoarded pics, especially really generic stuff like backgrounds in folders so they can reuse them instantly. They were mixed up there with stuff from free sites like sxc, nobody even knew or cared about which is which. Actually after a while they often hoarded so many pics, that it was faster to search on a well built website like SS, so they went back there just out of convenience.
Web reproductions: Didn't really know what to call it but basically it includes anything that's not print. Images used in software, eBooks and the like. What do you suggest I call this master 'Dribble'?
I wasn't talking about the obvious term, but the # - number of reproductions, you genius What does that supposed to mean on the web?? Lets say if there were lawyers arguing over it in court?
34
« on: June 05, 2012, 04:51 »
This is a wasted effort imho. Not because of the price, or something else being given away for free... simply because most people have no taste, sense of, or need for aesthetics at all. The 21st century unthinking majority is perfectly happy with their blurry dark junk shot that makes them and their friends look disfigured on their timeline.
35
« on: June 05, 2012, 04:13 »
Interesting. I just scanned through some standard RF license agreements and found the following:
| Agent | Web Reproductions | Print Reproductions | Seats | Resolution (pixels) | | Shutterstock | 250,000 | 250,000 | Single | 800 x 600 | | iStockphoto | 500,000 *1 | 500,000 *1 | Single | 1200 x 800 | | Fotolia | Unlimited | Unlimited | Unlimited | 1000 x 1000 | | Dreamstime | Unlimited | 500,000 | Single | 800 width | | DepositPhotos | 500,000 | 500,000 | Single | 1024 x 678 | | 123rf | 250,000 | 250,000 | Single? *2 | No restrictions | | Bigstock | Unlimited but *3 | Unlimited but *3 | Single | 1200 x 800 | | Canstock | 500,000 | 500,000 | Single | 600 x 800 | | Veer | 500,000 | 500,000 | Single | 800 x 600 | | Stockfresh | Unlimited | 250,000 | Single | 800 x 600 | | GLStockImages | 10,000 | 10,000 | Unlimited | No restrictions |
* Notes
1. Excess Reproduction Run for iStockphoto is invoiced to buyer - does this mean no additional commission is paid to the contributor?
2. Number of seats is not mentioned in the standard licence restrictions for 123rf, however they do over an unlimited multi-seat EL.
3. Limited reproduction however usage granted to only one type and must purchase separate license for each type.
Fotolia seems to be the worst of all of them. No surprises there. I might add this to a separate thread so we can keep it updated and add more agents as we go along. I've highlighted the ones that need attention in red.
RF is ragtag nonsense as always... what web reproductions # supposed to mean f.e.? But this hardly matters at all. First of all the reproduction numbers are so huge they are basically unlimited anyway. I'v done flyers for giants like cocacola, and even those don't exceed those print numbers most of the times. Second: believe me almost nobody cares about this, 99% percent of clients see microstock pictures as unlimited usage in every aspect, probably never ever read the licensing terms, just the promo text... just like many ppl here as it seems.
36
« on: June 03, 2012, 11:18 »
City of god, City of men, form the more recent stuff, Margin call is watchable.
37
« on: June 02, 2012, 02:42 »
by the way. "thief courts! thieves! thief judge.. was there a jury? thieves! they probably pin microstock images! thief law!" go on cult of whatever... 
38
« on: June 02, 2012, 02:33 »
The owner of a stock photo agency doesn't follow the argument of why an agency shouldn't benefit from exploiting it's contributors. Colour me surprised.
I can see further arguments are pointless and yet... even if it were true that sales to an agency like DT would increase from their sharing of my property with pinterest thieves, that increase in sales, let's say an even 10% for the ease of demonstration, would be spread across all 130,000+ contributors. In other words, there would be no direct benefit to me as 10% spread between 130,000+ would be negligible. The benefit to DT would be a full 10% increase in revenue since they take a cut from every single sale regardless of who's image it is but to me? I doubt I'd even notice. However I do notice that they are using my work, without my consent, to generate that increase. that's exploitation and unfair.
As I stated before though, I don't think there is an increase as pinterest is not a place where buyers frequent.
Very well stated.
Seriously?
If sales rise by 10% for the entire agency, then the average contributor will see a 10% rise on their own sales. Why on earth would you think it would be otherwise? There's no reason to divide the 10% by 130,000, or whatever you decided to use in the example. A 10% aggregate rise is a 10% aggregate rise.
yep. many here seem to have problems with basic math. and logic.
39
« on: June 01, 2012, 12:17 »
khhhmm.... besides trying to hide 'having not the slightest clue about the subject at hand' by calling me a troll... does any of you actually have anything intelligible to say? : )) I tried to help but sure, you can also make a sport of staying confused... I don't mind it that much. It has already made you create 'bout 6000 pages (and counting) of useless whining with zero effect on anything, so I guess being confused and clueless is some kind of a hobby. I knew a guy who collected miniature screwdrivers. You never know... : D
Your first argument actually was sound in it's way aside from the antagonistic approach. You seem to be simply looking for something to fight about rather than inviting debate. Make your point without insulting everyone's intelligence and you will get an intelligible response. As it is everyone is right to ignore you and call you a troll. You act like a 12 year old. I suspect you are.
No one had a reply on topic, yet I'm the troll. This is kindergarten stuff my friend. Grow up!
40
« on: June 01, 2012, 09:04 »
khhhmm.... besides trying to hide 'having not the slightest clue about the subject at hand' by calling me a troll... does any of you actually have anything intelligible to say? : )) I tried to help but sure, you can also make a sport of staying confused... I don't mind it that much. It has already made you create 'bout 6000 pages (and counting) of useless whining with zero effect on anything, so I guess being confused and clueless is some kind of a hobby. I knew a guy who collected miniature screwdrivers. You never know... : D
41
« on: June 01, 2012, 08:25 »
42
« on: June 01, 2012, 07:05 »
impossible.
i gave up a long time ago.
my only hope was on lawyers and judges but it's turning out to be a smack in the face too.
photo agencies should AT LEAST recognize the piracy problem instead of treating it like a minor issue, it's not minor, it's major, and some of them are even encouraging the scroungers at Pinterest !
yet another disaster of the RF licence, we all knew it would end up like this and it can only get worse.
I don't think it's a disaster of the RF license at all, I think it's a disaster of social media sites, their lack of respect for copyright infringement, and the lack of respect from the court system towards copyright infringement.
It is a 'disaster' of the RF license and the micro business model. You are the the happiest, and it actually works best when a pic just piles and piles up downloads. How on earth do you expect it not to pop up everywhere after that? How do you expect anybody to know if it's legal or not with the almost unlimited use RF model? That model is so ragtag even it's name is incorrect *. Whats wrong with you ppl? Are you adults? No brain? No common sense? Unbelievable...
43
« on: June 01, 2012, 06:51 »
Megaupload founder released and winning in court !!!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304821304577438641378945810.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_INTL_LSMODULE
Thank god... that case was a total farce and slap in the face for democracy. The megaupload guy was arrested because after he became wealthy he decided to give back to the community, giving most of the revenue directly to the artists uploading, offering them a way around the corporate thug's tollbooth. You wish your agencies constantly shafting you in the bunhole were as cool as that guy, you would actually be able to make living you moro.. fool. It was unbeleivable that this could happen in the so called 'free world'. Pretty north korean. Do you really cheer for the police (paid by you) being the thugs for copyright cartels, kicking down your door armed to the teeth, dragging you away face down in the mud on their order for some mp3, while that psycho Jamie Dimon and Jon Corzine just nods their shoulders after making billions and billions of dollars magically disappear? You want to live in a banana republic run by monopolists? Are you really this clueless or is this some kind of an act? I just can't believe people can be this stupid.
44
« on: May 31, 2012, 12:47 »
I hope this increases earnings or they're going to be in real trouble when they bring in the commission cuts.
If you have chinese (looking) models, it may...
45
« on: May 31, 2012, 12:44 »
I shoot a variety of pretty darn attractive gals, and it's getting really-really boring, monotonous (I'm male). Makes me wonder what ppl shooting cupcakes, flowers, ribbons.... or fluffy albino dogs in their backyard, feel like...
lmao! hey, send some of those gals my way will ya!
Adapt drugal, combine subjects, shoot attractive gals with flowers and ribbons in their hair eating cupcakes while getting legf.cked by fluffy albino dogs
Later guys
Thats gonna be expensive
46
« on: May 31, 2012, 10:30 »
I shoot a variety of pretty darn attractive gals, and it's getting really-really boring, monotonous (I'm male). Makes me wonder what ppl shooting cupcakes, flowers, ribbons.... or fluffy albino dogs in their backyard, feel like...
47
« on: May 31, 2012, 10:24 »
It's not about me liking anything. I already asked you once: If it's such a clear case, how come you are not suing, instead of this useless whining? now available in .jpg too
As I've already said, it isn't materially affecting me yet. So, I'm not suing anyone. I just don't like it, so I'm raising awareness. Speaking of useless, why not reply to this post too?
So you are wasting your time in an anti unicorn, manly way basically. By whining... good luck.
48
« on: May 31, 2012, 10:13 »
I don't really have time for this, so what this all boils down to... in a nutshell: you can't criminalize the behavior of the vast majority of ppl in a democracy (you can in the soviet union, or the nazi germany) so at the end of the day, one way or the other, you are going to be the outcast.
That's what you can come up with? Maybe change your name to "dribble".
Besides, if it is the wording you don't like, I asked for suggestions to change it. Would you prefer "Heart Heart Unicorn Rainbow, Pretty please don't pin my stuff?"...?
It's not about me liking anything. I already asked you once: If it's such a clear case, how come you are not suing, instead of this useless whining? now available in .jpg too
49
« on: May 31, 2012, 09:11 »
How is serving up an image of my choice when someone tries to have the Pinterest servers illegally copy it from my domain for redistribution against the site terms not "going to work out in my favor"?
I don't really have time for this, so what this all boils down to... in a nutshell: you can't criminalize the behavior of the vast majority of ppl in a democracy (you can in the soviet union, or the nazi germany) so at the end of the day, one way or the other, you are going to be the outcast.
50
« on: May 31, 2012, 08:57 »
Is there anyway to make it so that when they pin an image from your web site they actually get a different image - perhaps one that says "I am trying to steal content online", or maybe a really nasty porno image.
I've modified my .htaccess file on my seanlockephotography.com site, so any attempt to pin from the Pinterest agent gets this image instead:
http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/
(which I host on their server, which is awesome)
Any ideas for better text? That was just temp text... I don't think anyone takes from my domain - I just wanted to write a blog post about it...
I don't think this will work out in your favor.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
