|
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 - GeoPappas
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 51
151
« on: June 24, 2009, 14:30 »
Of course, what's going to stop metro security and officials on the day of the shoot from kicking us out?
Print out the documentation with the appropriate section highlighted and bring it with you.
152
« on: June 24, 2009, 14:03 »
153
« on: June 24, 2009, 12:29 »
It definitely is an interesting article.
Here is what I have gleaned from it:
- The article states that IS revenues have increased from $23 to $200 million (or about 9x) in the last 3 years. I doubt that many contributors earnings have increased by the same amount over that period of time. I wonder where all of that extra money is going? Is it just being spread out to the crowd-sourced masses? Or is it going into the IS profit coffers? Either way it doesn't bode well for the contributor.
- IS reports that purchases for print are declining and purchases for web are increasing. In other words, smaller sizes are being bought more and more. Once again, this doesn't bode well for the contributor.
- The article mentions that the new Best Match is going live today. I thought that it went live previously, but I could be wrong.
154
« on: June 21, 2009, 13:06 »
As has been stated above, as the image attains higher levels, you will receive a higher royalty according to the following chart: http://www.dreamstime.com/level.phpBut there are many people that feel that as an image attains a higher level, it is more susceptible to be downloaded as a subscription (and thus you will receive a lower royalty).
155
« on: June 21, 2009, 12:57 »
Is it legal for someone who buys the usage of your image , use it as a composite , montage or single,
add a few text, or logo,etc.. then paste a copyright . their copyright.
This new image now belong to that copyright?
In a word, NO. On most of the large stock sites, you own the copyright to your image no matter what. The buyer is just purchasing a LICENSE to use the image. They don't own the copyright nor can they claim copyright ownership. This is similar to the way software is sold. When someone buys Adobe Photoshop (or most other software products), they are only licensing the usage of the product. They don't actually OWN the product. But you need to be careful and make sure that you read the terms on any site that you contribute to. Some sites will put in the terms that you are giving them the copyright when you submit an image to them. There are also photo contests that do this. So be careful and make sure that you read all of the "fine print".
156
« on: June 19, 2009, 17:53 »
You can't forget that buyers do have a choice in their searches. If they want the freshest they can search by most recent. If they want the most popular they can search by most downloads. They can reverse the orders if they want the most obscure. When I buy photos I usually search other than by the site's default.
True, but I wonder how many buyers use anything other than defaults.
Not many from my experience.
157
« on: June 19, 2009, 10:48 »
Most of the agencies don't allow an image to be redistributed: The DT terms ( http://www.dreamstime.com/terms) state the following: "None of our images may be resold or redistributed by any means, or made available for redistribution or resale by a third party without Dreamstime's separate written consent."
"...you may not sell, license for use, or in any way distribute the image for reuse."The FT terms ( http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Agreements#3) state the following: "... the Non-Exclusive Downloading Member acknowledges, agrees and warrants that he or she shall not... allow a third party to download, extract or access the Image as a stand-alone file"In my opinion, that is exactly what the site is doing.
158
« on: June 19, 2009, 07:58 »
I don't believe that it is a logo, but the site seems to be using the image in an improper manner.
Most licenses state that an image cannot be offered for redistribution, which is what this site seems to be doing.
They also seem to be giving the idea that the image is their creation.
Here are some statements from the website:
"Pimp your orkut & myspace profile with these great Namaskaar Graphics scraps glitter graphic codes."
"Copy and paste the code anywhere on your orkut / myspace profile or orkut / myspace comments! Even though it says it's for Orkut, you may use these on any personal blog."
159
« on: June 19, 2009, 07:50 »
The market sets the value not me
Maybe you don't see this, but you are a part of the market. The market consists of buyers AND sellers.
160
« on: June 16, 2009, 13:40 »
DT has a thread on their forums ( http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_17374_pg1) where Achilles states: "It is not a search engine update. We removed the counter for non-authenticated guests, at least for a while. The traffic is huge and the number not really useful. Views are still counted for members.
If we find out this is a vital resource, we will add it back. However, we need to optimize and to direct most resources to the important areas. You know them, the ones that lead to more sales.  "
He also states later in the thread: "... views are not a factor within the ranking."
161
« on: June 16, 2009, 09:02 »
OT perharps... btw, which of the Big 6 has the lowest payout? This could be an incentive to join them.
Can anyone who belongs to all 6 tell us?
Minimum Payout Levels: IS: $100 DT: $100 SS: $75 FT: $50 StockXpert: $50 123RF: $50 BigStock: $30
162
« on: June 13, 2009, 05:38 »
Thanks for posting that. It was a great way to start the weekend.
164
« on: June 11, 2009, 07:34 »
I don't believe that blaming the victim is appropriate.
We should all be able to leave our windows open to get some fresh air without having someone trespass and steal everything. And if someone does come in and steal something, then we shouldn't be blaming the victim for leaving the windows open. We should blame the thief (since they are the ones that actually did something wrong).
People should be able to post their family photos on the Internet (to share with friends and family) without someone stealing them and using them for profit. This photo was used in a marketing campaign to increase sales. The company should have at least asked for permission (and preferably offered a small amount of money for usage).
165
« on: June 11, 2009, 07:04 »
These two statements from the Czech store owner are particularly telling:
"Mario Bertuccio, who owns the Grazie store in Prague, said the photo was from the Internet."
He says that it was "from the Internet". I guess he feels that anything on the Internet is free for the taking! Unfortunately, I think that this is a common feeling among the general population.
"Details were sparse, but he said he thought it was computer-generated."
How could anyone think that this image was computer generated???
166
« on: June 09, 2009, 11:52 »
I forgot to add:
Please let us know what it was. The info might be useful to someone else in the future.
168
« on: June 09, 2009, 10:46 »
When you look at your earnings (@ http://www.dreamstime.com/earnings), what does it say under the Price column? Most of mine say "xx credits (2008)", where xx is some numeric amount. I'm wondering if yours says something different. What does it say under the Resolution column and the License column? Under the DT image pricing site (@ http://www.dreamstime.com/level.php?lvlimag=2#2), it states that a 12 credit image should be priced no lower than $9.24 (for a Level 4 or Level 5 image). The only thing I can think is that this sale might have come from an "affiliate" site.
169
« on: June 09, 2009, 08:51 »
The best advise that you could receive to avoid those rejections is... go exclusive! 
170
« on: June 05, 2009, 11:44 »
I am also interested to hear what Fotolia has to say about these two issues.
My understanding is that almost all credit card fraud is absorbed by the credit card companies (hence the high rates that are charged for borrowing money).
And if an image was approved by inspectors, sold multiple times, and later removed, I would think that it would be Fotolia that had made the mistake in the first place and should absorb any losses that might have occurred (although I highly doubt that they are going to contact a buyer months or years later and give them a refund anyway).
171
« on: June 01, 2009, 12:10 »
http://featureimage.com/FP-Test/
IS THE VERSION where you can make these changes.
Please login there and go to "Manage portfolio".
Login doesn't seem to work for me on this test site. It works fine for me on the real site.
172
« on: May 30, 2009, 16:13 »
It is not a Federal holiday in the U.S.
173
« on: May 29, 2009, 18:12 »
Of course, I'm not involved with all this, but I saw this post:
"So this is where it ends. After 3 years, I think is time to close my SS, account or at least I will delete my images, since I am not going to pay taxes to a country where I do not live. Taxes are paid to pay roads, public services, hospitals etc., and since I don't live in the US I DO NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THOSE."
It does make sense to me. How (in the big picture) does the US justify a claim on income earned by someone who does not live in this country?
sjlocke: First, as you are fully aware, the Internet was created by the United States under the supervision of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Al Gore. There would be no such thing as the Internet if it weren't for good old Al. Since the U.S. created the Internet, it is only fair that it reaps the rewards from any commerce done over the Internet. Second, SS employees benefit from many of the services that you mentioned (roads, public services, hospitals etc). SS could not be one of the largest microstock agencies in the world if it weren't for the U.S. infrastructure.  Third, someone needs to pay for the brand new Internet Czar and Internet agency that is being created (to shut down the Internet when all of those angry artists decide that they want to attack the U.S. with a new virus). The U.S. has spent over $10 trillion in the past few months on trying to save the world and is almost bankrupt. They need everyone else's help. I'm sure that those citizens that live in Socialist or Communist countries can understand the concept of sharing. I think that it is better to ask for help, then for the U.S. to just send troops to those countries and take what is rightfully theirs in the first place.  Fourth, these taxes are meant to help foreigners (to the U.S.) and help to reduce their tax burden. If it weren't for these treaties, foreigners would be taxed at much higher rates. So foreigners should really thank the U.S. for helping them out. Finally, it paves the way for SS (and other microstock agencies) to introduce its next benefit to contributors: free images. You see, if you give away your images, then you won't have to pay taxes on them. I have inside information that this new license will be called the Tax Free (or TF) license. The TF license will take the microstock world by storm.  
174
« on: May 29, 2009, 15:56 »
Next thing you know, the sites will be asking us to give them money for OUR images.
175
« on: May 29, 2009, 08:39 »
... I think buyers will be upset...
Why? And even if they are, why should we care? I don't care that some of my stuff sells for a dollar at some sites and then sells for over $10 at istock. Why should we all of a sudden be concerned that the same images for different prices just because we're talking about midstock, when microstock prices are all over the map?
I whole-heartedly agree. If buyers want to get a great deal, then they need to do their due diligence. If they don't do the research, then they have no right to complain later on when they find the same (or similar) image for less somewhere else. This is the same thing that happens in every other market around the world. Pick any product and I can find a very expensive price and a much lower price.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 51
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
[/url]
