|
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 - ppdd
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12
51
« on: February 01, 2016, 11:44 »
I mostly agree, but again, the affiliation with Shutterstock is the funding mechanism - for both sites, actually. Complaining to Shutterstock may get them to crack down.
52
« on: February 01, 2016, 11:40 »
I'm sure Freepik will say that they are just indexing allfreedownload.com (the real site has dashes between the words) and the voilation is not theirs. And I think they have point. The allfreedownload.com is a major violator, but the use the Shutterstock API, so they have been vetted and apporved by Shutterstock. If Shutterstock shut down their API access, they would not exist. Shutterstock is funding sites like this who are very careless with their content. So complain to Shutterstock, not Freepik. Shutterstock should do a better job researching their API partners.
53
« on: February 01, 2016, 11:36 »
I am also posting it twice in case it is missed:
The site began as a search engine of free images and it used to take free images from the internet and it used to index them.
So you don't do this any more? because I just took a look and it seems like you have still got work pulled from sites clearly violating people's copyright. Here are two examples I found after looking for 1 minute that you have pulled from allfreedownload.com
Yours:
http://www.freepik.com/free-vector/cute-cartoon-animals-zoo-vector-graphics_684648.htm
The actual owner:
http://www.123rf.com/photo_3429873_stock-photo.html
Yours:
http://www.freepik.com/free-vector/free-vector-misc-fine-drums-art_676795.htm
The actual owner:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-48535954/stock-vector-vector-drums.html?src=pp-photo-33926740
There have been 3 million plus downloads from your site of files from just this one warez site, most of these are likely in violation of artists copyright (in my opinion).
It is no good hiding behind the DMCA waiting for artists to get in touch with takedown notices when your whole model is based on giving away other people's work in violation of their copyright. Artists can't spend their whole time looking through your millions of images. Shame.
I'm sure Freepik will say that they are just indexing allfreedownload.com (the real site has dashes between the words) and the voilation is not theirs. And I think they have point. The allfreedownload.com is a major violator, but the use the Shutterstock API, so they have been vetted and apporved by Shutterstock. If Shutterstock shut down their API access, they would not exist. Shutterstock is funding sites like this who are very careless with their content. So complain to Shutterstock, not Freepik.
54
« on: January 07, 2016, 16:31 »
http://www.freepik.com/about
Examples of work that has been lifted has already been linked to. The above explains their "model" What else did you want?
They seem to produce close copies of existing popular works, which is completely different than what you said they do.
55
« on: January 07, 2016, 13:01 »
They mainly use bots to trawl other sites for images then offer them on their site, mostly from warez sites as far as I can work out, then charge for subs if you don't want to have to provide attribution, yes for images that aren't even theirs to begin with.
Do you have some examples of this?
56
« on: October 27, 2015, 12:47 »
To me, it looks like they are trying to compete with the free photo site Unsplash, which is quite popular. https://unsplash.com/The hipster, non-stock looking stock look is all the rage.
57
« on: September 28, 2015, 16:02 »
I believe they basically own all the content on the site - so they can do whatever they want with it.
58
« on: September 21, 2015, 12:17 »
Shutterstock owns none of these. The sources are pretty easy to find - there are lot of photographers releasing a lot of decent photos into the public domain, and those sites aggregate the images and post them (since that allowed, with CC0 public domain license). All these site drive traffic to shutterstock for an affiliate kickback.
59
« on: September 10, 2015, 11:54 »
I offer them 5$ for settlement because on deposit photos i have see similar images to this price.
They rejected 
How can it be that i can get images at starting price from 5$ or in this case up to hundreds $ for single image?
So you steal a $50 shirt, and once you get caught, you say "I offered them $50 because that's what it cost, but still they made go to court and made me look like a criminal! I'm so confused!" It's not a steal-all-you-can and pay if you get caught kind of world.
60
« on: September 08, 2015, 16:11 »
There is a zero percent chance that anyone on this board gives a crap about your argument.
61
« on: September 08, 2015, 15:49 »
excuse me but i really dont understand the reaction from cathyslife?
it felt like that im accused and im the guilty part
It sounds like you are taking images that interest you from Google Images and using them in your designs. Is that what you do? That is illegal, and any time you do that, it directly takes money from people on this forum. So, people are trying figure out if that is what you do. Images you use should be licensed from the people who create them or the agencies that represent them, not stolen from elsewhere online.
62
« on: September 08, 2015, 14:49 »
So here's the business model: You live in a place where you know all content is stolen. You pretend to be the copyright owner and send out random demands for payment, which will be taken seriously since everyone is in violation. If they pay, they still won't be in compliance, but no one cares one way or the other. I don't much care for either side in this battle.
63
« on: May 13, 2015, 18:03 »
I'm guessing P5 is using technology from Imagga. If anyone wants to try this out, you can play with the demo at http://imagga.com/It works great for some things, and not great for others (as you would probably guess.)
65
« on: March 02, 2015, 17:31 »
66
« on: February 27, 2015, 16:25 »
Sure but the got $8 million in funding...
67
« on: February 22, 2015, 19:08 »
But their 1099 wont match your accounts then? Just asking as I am not US taxed, I dont know how it works in the US.
I don't get 1099'd by Envanto.
Not up to now, but read their license change that JoAnn posted. They are planning on 1099ing US controbs for 2015 and reporting your gross income, not the net they actually paid you.
Ok understood, but for us in the US I will just report their cut as an expense, keeping my total income from Envanto what I actually net. I am not a tax attorney but it seems pretty simple to write off their cut as a cost of doing business. So if I make $1000 in a year and they report $3300 income, I am going to write off $2300 as an expense. Maybe I'm oversimplifying it.
Yes, but you're paying taxes on $3300, and expensing $2300 is not the same as paying taxes on $1000. I think that's the catch in this whole system.
Genuine curiosity: How is it not? It is here in Europe.
Maybe I'm totally wrong - it also may depend on whether you get income as an individual, LLC or other. I haven't really seen a great explanation of how this works.
68
« on: February 22, 2015, 19:01 »
But their 1099 wont match your accounts then? Just asking as I am not US taxed, I dont know how it works in the US.
I don't get 1099'd by Envanto.
Not up to now, but read their license change that JoAnn posted. They are planning on 1099ing US controbs for 2015 and reporting your gross income, not the net they actually paid you.
Ok understood, but for us in the US I will just report their cut as an expense, keeping my total income from Envanto what I actually net. I am not a tax attorney but it seems pretty simple to write off their cut as a cost of doing business. So if I make $1000 in a year and they report $3300 income, I am going to write off $2300 as an expense. Maybe I'm oversimplifying it.
Yes, but you're paying taxes on $3300, and expensing $2300 is not the same as paying taxes on $1000. I think that's the catch in this whole system.
69
« on: February 19, 2015, 11:25 »
It should be noted that many, if not most of these sites either currently are, or will soon be (once they get a bit of traffic), affiliates of Shutterstock or iStock, and act basically as lead generators for larger sites. Free sites drive millions and millions of dollars worth of buyers to their affiliated search partner sites in exchange for a revenue kickback.
70
« on: January 28, 2015, 17:55 »
Old thread alert
71
« on: January 07, 2015, 15:01 »
Curious that they use the ktools script if they're just using the yay API
72
« on: December 30, 2014, 16:58 »
These Ktools sites are looking better and better!
73
« on: December 12, 2014, 13:18 »
Seems like this may reflect the market's feeling the Adobe could fix and strengthen Fotolia as part of a larger publicly traded company; this makes it a potential threat, so the market could adjust. I don't think much will come of it short term, but it gives a primary competitor more money/power - Fotolia will no doubt be bigger/stronger for this deal. I seems like an overcorrection, but SS has been somewhat unchallenged by well funded competition. iStock is a mess and others are budget constrained. Adobe can make Fotolia whatever it wants and it may be unavoidable, long term.
74
« on: December 05, 2014, 11:13 »
I've had lots of problems over the years, and still do. I think most people who sit a lot either have problems or will soon. I bought a Geek desk (motorized sit/standing desk) and it's been great. I stand when I'm working at home, but still sit at work. I need to get another one so I can go back and between sitting and standing at work.
Don't go straight to just standing - that's hard as well. Take time to adjust and find your mix. Overall, you'll be happy with this purchase, I think.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
