|
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 - Gregor909
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9
76
« on: December 06, 2008, 09:48 »
Sorry folks, didn't have time to read the whole thread, so maybe it is already mentioned! But did somebody see the Zeitgeist lately? http://www.istockphoto.com/most_popular.php ( click on zeitgeist) Almost all Contributors On The Rise are NON-exclusive, while almost all contributors with Highest Average Downloads Per File are Exclusives! This can't be a coincident is it?
77
« on: December 01, 2008, 11:25 »
Congratulations! Now someone try ISO 25600 with the new 5D! 
78
« on: December 01, 2008, 05:08 »
I uploaded a vector yesterday. They usually get accepted within a few minutes. But not his time. And it looks like the preview thumbnail gets stuck loading. Looks like another bug! 
79
« on: November 06, 2008, 12:04 »
Hahaha beautiful, I love this kind of humor! Does every Istock customer want only exclusive content??? What's wrong with adding "search exclusive images only" to the search options instead of making it mandatory? That's a good question! What's the big deal with exclusive content anyway? It's good for Istock, but what's the difference for customers? They don't get the image exclusive, so the chance of seeing the same image used elsewhere isn't that much smaller with Istock being the largest microstock company.
80
« on: October 29, 2008, 08:04 »
81
« on: October 23, 2008, 20:20 »
All stocksites merging would be convenient , having the same income but less work!
But somehow I have a bad feeling about this. Like someone said before; ne company dictating the market, and less rights for us contributors!
If there is much competition, we can run of to the competitor if the price isn't right. But what if we're all dependent on ne lare company?
82
« on: October 18, 2008, 07:49 »
If you own a store, you'll put your best selling products in the shelves that are on eye level, and you'll put the un-popular products way down below, so customers have to kneel. If you keep re-aranging the shelves all the time, customers have to search all over again, they become annoyed and go to another store! But hey, that's just the opinion of an unsignificant un-exclusive contributor!
83
« on: October 11, 2008, 18:07 »
Sir,
Product placement works for name brand items. A random shot from an extensive portfolio is clearly not product placement, unless you used those flowers SPECIFICALLY to "brand" your name to.
No need to call me Sir, Im only your colleague!  I didn't mean my image is also product placement. I wish you much success with using your free sites. However, remember. You get what you pay for.
Not sure what you mean by this. 
84
« on: October 10, 2008, 04:50 »
Thanks, you have a point!
Although the movie isn't mine, I removed the screenshots!
85
« on: October 09, 2008, 18:07 »
This copyright thing is getting beyond a joke. So what now ... the film producers have to run around and get approval for every isolated object in a set? The cups, the chairs, the vase, the flowers?
A joke?? Are you familiar with the advertisement business? Being a member of microstockgroup I would suspect you are! Then you should know that the movie industrie is the most lucrative advertisement business there is! Large companies like Coca Cola are lining up to have their product shown in the movies. It's called the "product placement industry". Yes they have to clear copyrights on all intellectual property visible in the movie! You wanna know why I put images on a free site like SXC? Because I want to build a reputation, I want to be a name in the graphic industrie. That's why they have to give me credit in return for a free image. What do you think I am some kind of moron who has nothing better to do than spend his precious time working hard on his images and doesn't expect something in return? I need to pay rent every month, and I would like to have some food now and then!
86
« on: October 09, 2008, 17:43 »
I am video producer and director and I can say that if they buy picture from any stock site they buy rights for use it in movie but if they download from free site they don't have rights.
In any case they have to place credit at the end of the movie.
World famous case like this is Giger case in Alien IV (I think it is IV). They don't have to pay anything for his work but forgot to put his name in credits. After he sue production company they pay him as off-court agreement.
I hope that some of this facts can help you what to do.
Dario
Thanks for your input! The name Giger was coming to my mind also. I didn't expect to become as famous as Giger did. But I thought at least they could give me credit! I watched all the names at the end of the movie; there's hundreds of names, including several photographers, but I didn't see many photographs in the movie!
88
« on: October 08, 2008, 17:51 »
Thanks for your input and compliments!
Our images are actually not only background decor.
They also play some sort of role in a way.
After Kiefer Sutherland finally convinced his exwife that the mirrors are evil, they start to paint over everything in the house that has reflections, including our images! Then later the little boy has removed the paint from our images, and again they are visible.
[images deleted]
89
« on: October 07, 2008, 10:29 »
Don't know what to say! I was wondering where he was.
Condolence to friends and family!
90
« on: October 07, 2008, 08:24 »
Oh and besides, I never received an EL on that image anywhere!
91
« on: October 07, 2008, 08:20 »
What is it with you people? You really think I got no rights because I put it on a free site? There are more restrictions on SXC than on all the commercial sites! Look what is written right under the image: Standard restrictions apply and Gregor909 must be notified and credited when using the photo for any public work. That would mean that they should have asked me for permission, and that I would not have give them permission without a proper payment. And if I would have give my permission, they also had to give me credit, which they didn't either!
92
« on: October 07, 2008, 06:40 »
Thanks for the helpfull answers!
93
« on: October 07, 2008, 06:23 »
You have an image on both micros and a free site and you sound surprised that they used the free one (?)
Yes I am suprised that they have a budget from 50 million and are so greedy that they didn't pay me one single cent! What so funny about that? 
94
« on: October 07, 2008, 05:05 »
It has come to my attention that the movie "Mirrors" has displayed one of my images, along with another stockphoto! I watched the movie myself yesterday and it's true, no doubt about it! My image is on IS, SS, StockXpert and DT as an illustration, but I have also a low resolution photo on Stock.XCHNG. I think they used the one on SXC! That would mean that I didn't receive any money at all. And they should had ask me permission and giving me credit, which they didn't! This is my image:  And this one is from Leah-Anne Thompson: 
95
« on: September 30, 2008, 20:03 »
Was ist das hier fr ein gelaber? ich dacht ihr wart allen auf dem Oktoberfest in Mnchen? jetzt die schnauze halten und weiter saufen!
96
« on: September 30, 2008, 19:48 »
Looks like the guy owns the same trophy. The light reflections are different, I don't think he traced yours.
97
« on: September 19, 2008, 09:48 »
Again, I mostly agree with you. However, like I said I don't think it would hurt. I think it would. All the time you spend trying to promote your work, should better be spend on producing imagery. And I said "trying" because in the end it is Shutterstock who decides who gets in their lightbox, and it is Istock who decides who becomes image of the week etc etc etc..... there is very little you can do to promote your work on microstock sites! And Microstock agencies market THEMSELVES, not their contributors.
Ofcourse they do, they market their work! It's important for you to get YOUR images in front of buyers. That is correct. And the best way to do that is to produce imagery buyers want! If your stuff is not showing up well in search engines..........
Then it's time to start working on improving your skills, to produce better quality. In your case, your portfolios are probably large enough and of outstanding enough quality that you don't need to bother. But others like the OP are not in the same boat.
Nope, just a tiny one. And Im still in the learning process to produce more quality.
98
« on: September 19, 2008, 08:11 »
I was talking about microstock only! The microstock agencies do all the marketing. And they spend way more than a few hundred bucks.
The only thing you have to do is make sure you end up high in the search results, and the only way to do that is by producing stuff that sells!
99
« on: September 18, 2008, 07:50 »
You don't need to promote your portfolio! It's all a waste of time. Better spend your time on producing stuff that sells, and it will cream to the top all by itself! 
100
« on: September 03, 2008, 06:45 »
Still nothing. And most of my stuff is still not visible!
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
