Maybe this is part of the grand plan to grow business when they promised us last year they would grow the business to the point that we would not notice the cut to royalties?

Thanks guys...

See here
http://www.microstockgroup.com/pixmac/pixmac-merges-with-pond5/msg302411/?topicseen#new

Zager,

Will Pixmac's existing partnerships with Depositphotos and Yaymicro continue?

For $25 million, I'm certain you could learn.

Wow, Lobo does really seem to be a bit wound up about an innocuous post. 

Wow, Pieman is furious.

Link?

Quote from: Sadstock on February 26, 2013, 12:35

In general the Constitution only lays out what the government is allowed and not allowed to do, not private individuals.  Note that the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law..." meaning the U.S. Government and by extension state and local governments are not allowed to abridge free speech.  There is nothing in the constitution that prevents a private land owner from imposing conditions on access to his property by another private individual including something like no foul language or no commercial photography.  If there is, party at RacePhoto�s place!  I�ll bring the foul language, beer, some naked people, and the camera.   

Is NASCAR or the NCAA part of the government?

News is News and it's protected as freedom of speech. Only the commercial rights for reproduction are restricted and controlled.

Part two remains as I've pointed out many times. The agency makes it's own rules, and they don't always follow the actual laws. Often times they make things Editorial which are actually public domain. They don't take public domain out of copyright images. That's their right.

But when NASCAR or MLB or some other organization says, NEWS services can't use photos of their events, it's a rights grab and it's outside of the US laws.

If you are saying NASCAR or MLB (or any of the others) make laws, that's an interesting viewpoint? Can you explain how?

If it's real news, we're allowed to take and use the photos. This right cannot be taken away, illegally, by some club, or entertainment organization.

The Constitution only says the government can't stifle free speech.  It still says nothing about the right of one private individual to the news/information another private individual has.  What legal principal do you base your argument on that you or I have a right to know the results of a NASCAR race or to have pictures from an NCAA tournament?  It is not found in the First Amendment because the amendment only applies to the government.  In fact, I don't think there is any general right to access news that another person has.  NASCAR and NCAA are private entities and are entitled to do what they want with their property and any information they create.  If they want to let you onto their land under the condition that you won't sell pictures of what you see there, that may be a shame or pathetic, but it is their right because they own the land, the designs, the names and all the rest. 

Going back to my example of the party at your house (the one with the foul language, beer, some naked people, and a camera), would you want me claiming "free speech" to come onto your property without your permission, take pictures of you and some drunk naked people, and sell it to some news organization?  If that is not "real news", what is "real news"?  Who gets to define it?  Is it what I say it is, or is it what you say it is or something else?

If you want I can go dig up the link, but YES. (OK I did)  http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=119653&start=0

I scanned credentials and submitted them to [email protected] got registered as media. Then you will get a case number to include in notes to the reviewer which they can check to see if you are approved.

Remember the exact SS format with all the caps and commas. And newsworthy caption.

Here's what's happened in the real world. Buying a ticket doesn't give you the right to sell images from sporting events. However, licensing for Editorial should be allowed.

Personally I think there's something that needs to be challenged, in court, because of News and First Amendment rights in the US. NCAA is one on top of the list, the Olympics are as tenacious as a bulldog. NASCAR, MLB, NFL and some others, you  can't include a logo, or you are in deep trouble.

This is all about protecting image rights and their "product". I still think, the first amendment trumps their lawyers claims. Must be newsworthy, see where SS gets that? People have been skirting the legality claiming pretty much, anything without a release is Editorial. That creates more problems.

One of the events I shoot, I just read the latest agreement and it says something to the effect, I can only transmit or allow the images to be used for the publication that requested my credentials. what? So if I shoot for a specific website and a newspaper or magazine wants the coverage, I can't license it.

Remember when I write = USA legal, and opinion, I'm not a lwayer. Have to include that disclaimer before some dunce says, well I'm in Iceland and the laws are different here. 

First Amendment part that applies: The amendment prohibits the making of any law "...abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press..."

If it's real news, we're allowed to take and use the photos.


[

In general the Constitution only lays out what the government is allowed and not allowed to do, not private individuals.  Note that the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law..." meaning the U.S. Government and by extension state and local governments are not allowed to abridge free speech.  There is nothing in the constitution that prevents a private land owner from imposing conditions on access to his property by another private individual including something like no foul language or no commercial photography.  If there is, party at RacePhoto�s place!  I�ll bring the foul language, beer, some naked people, and the camera.   

Is NASCAR or the NCAA part of the government?

Quote from: bortonia on February 08, 2013, 23:54

Quote: from Suljo: I just watching What a pile of crap from you mouth is slightly increased from page to page on this forum.
I dont want to be clairvoyant but if I take look at this crappy thread after two days I will see eg. that upload limit of 160/week will be normal as is. > end quote >

Again, apologies that I can't check in here more often, but I do promise I'll follow up as much as I can.

I find suljo's post a bit confusing but I'll do the best I can here. Again, apologies if I'm missing the main message: Feel free to email me if I'm having translation issues and missing the real problems! I'll do my best to clarify

Suljo, the weekly upload limit for vectors on iStock currently starts at 40 uploads per week. I know our uploads have been posted here already but you can view them on the Xnet blog on iStock if you're interested in how they increase by canister.

Not really sure where '160/week' comes from. So to reply to your post: No, two days (or in this case two weeks) in, the numbers aren't 4x what we originally announced.

If they change, I promise I will do my best to post them here. But for now the weekly limits for a new contributor are indeed 40 a week, NOT 160 as Suljo posted. I hope this helps, and hopefully reduces confusion for newbies here. I'd hate for new contributors to think they were given 160 upload slots per week based on this post!

160/week is wannabe joke from my side 2 or 3 weeks ago.
But how do you explain that today upload limit is 60???

So is it mean that you will slightly increase No of upload every week or two to reach my worst prediction (160 vectors) or in worst case upload limit for vectors will reach 4 or 5 figure like snowball?!

maybe the clipartdotcom account has had enough sales to increase their canister (or whatever it is that vector artists get) and the number of upload slots?  I don't do vectors, so I don't know what the thresholds are.

.

I don't get many real ones either, though nothing from Arizona.  I've taken to resetting the counter when I get a bot search so I don't have to look at it again.  Tedious, but gives me a tiny sense of control.

Sounds to me more like somebody purchased a single tee shirt or coffee mug from a place like Zazzle for their own use with your image on it.  Would you need an EL for a single tee shirt?

ETA they do have a relationship with Cafe press https://www.bigstockphoto.com/partners/

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 22, 2013, 12:01

Quote from: Mantis on February 22, 2013, 11:03

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 22, 2013, 09:54

Quote from: Tror on February 22, 2013, 09:34

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 22, 2013, 06:56

Let's be clear, a pay rise for us means a price rise for the buyers.

If you vote for a pay rise then you need to be sure that increasing the subscription rate is something that the market will tolerate, without buyers heading off to TS or BS or elsewhere.

Not necessarily. A pay raise would mean they make less Profit. They would only have to raise prices if they would want to keep the same or more profit numbers technically. They would only be forced to raise prices if they would make no profit.

Get real, how do you think the shareholders' meeting would go when they announce that profits are down because they decided to pay artists more without changing the prices?

At least where I work we do give raises out annually and we are also publicly traded. However, we strive to find ways to become more productive internally in ways that hit the p&l.  I am in no way connected to SS but there are always ways to conduct lean assessments of an organization to identify waste, remove it and redeploy process. Raises aren't JUST about increases for contributors=increases for buyers. There is a middle component missing in this dialog....productivity, growth strategies, etc.

Your confusing being employed with being a supplier. SS may well give its employees annual pay rises etc., but suppliers are not employees, the relationship is quite different.

Obviously, I'd like more as much as the next person but I have some doubts about it being feasible in the current economic climate (since the reality is pay rise = price rise) and I agree with jsnover's assessment that Bigstock is pointing to the shape of things to come.

The current economic climate cannot be so bad when they are able to raise profit every quarter...

I don't think the current overall economic climate is particularly relevant to the stock price.  I do think completion from the other micros, which limits the ability to raise price without losing market share is relevant.  When SS's current growth in market share and entry into new markets slows, raising prices (IS model) or reducing costs (BS model) are the other ways to keep earnings per share growing.

Oringer's personal net worth is up something like $85 million today alone and when the time comes, I'm sure he does not want to give that up for the sake of being nice to contributors.