|
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 - bunhill
Pages: 1 ... 57 58 59 60 61 [62]
1526
« on: November 14, 2010, 12:03 »
So what is definitely legal to sell? AVI and WMV? MPEG depends on the encoding? I'm confused...
AVI (like Quicktime) is a container format rather than an encoding / compression algorithm. The Wikpedia page for AVI is useful. An AVI file may carry audio/visual data inside the chunks in virtually any compression scheme, including Full Frame (Uncompressed), Intel Real Time (Indeo), Cinepak, Motion JPEG, Editable MPEG, VDOWave According to the Library Of Congress site Motion JPEG = Licensing and patent claims -- Apparently none, except as indicated for JPEG. That site is a good place for looking up encoding methods.
1527
« on: November 13, 2010, 17:43 »
I would think that if they went after anyone, it would be the end seller, as in istock
iStockphoto uses Motion JPEG for the encoding not h.264. So unless this issue also really affects capture it would not be an issue. And if it affects capture then it affects the entire industry, all of TV and nearly all world govts and companies, directly or indirectly. So capture probably is not in issue. I would guess.
1528
« on: November 13, 2010, 17:39 »
Does it mean that producing any MPEG video, also animations, etc, is not allowed for commercial purposes?
This really is one where it is best to go to Google for the various opinions and counter opinions - nobody is quite sure where this is going to end up. Here is a CNET article about h.264. h.264 especially is potentially affected by all sorts of potential licensing liabilities - but these are for the moment being ignored. The issue is further complicated by the fact that many of the companies producing equipment and software which use h.264 also have stakes in its ownership - and further complicated by the fact that many of them also hold patents which may or may not be connected to issues around it. And it is even further complicated by the fact that software patents may not even be enforceable or legal in some countries (eg the EU) but there have been no definite rulings. What this means is that at some point in the future there is the possibility that there may be license fees. EDITED: What SL said is right - and this issue even affects many high end broadcast cameras. Chances are it will get sorted out some time before the patents expire. Similar issues have affected software in the past. Even JPEG was under doubt for a while. It might all end in a truce. But it is one of the reasons why it is unlikely that h.264 will be adopted for stock anytime soon IMO.
1529
« on: November 13, 2010, 14:48 »
ALL modern video cameras and camcorders that shoot in h.264 or mpeg2, come with a license agreement that says that you can only use that camera to shoot video for "personal use and non-commercial" purposes (go on, read your manuals)."
And software. Final Cut Pro License15. H.264/AVC Notice. To the extent that the Apple Software contains AVC encoding and/or decoding functionality, commercial use of H.264/AVC requires additional licensing and the following provision applies: THE AVC FUNCTIONALITY IN THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED HEREIN ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD ("AVC VIDEO") AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR AVC VIDEO THAT WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. INFORMATION REGARDING OTHER USES AND LICENSES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA L.L.C. SEE http://WWW.MPEGLA.COM.
1530
« on: November 13, 2010, 12:56 »
... and there I was trying to decide between the Canon 550D and the Red One.
1531
« on: November 13, 2010, 11:40 »
Does it makes much difference how the capture is encoded given that the content will likely be transcoded to an intermediate format for editing / post production and then output to whatever format is required for distribution ?
1532
« on: November 13, 2010, 06:54 »
Both are great images.
1533
« on: October 21, 2010, 17:50 »
I will check again tomorrow but IIRC you can write keywords to jpegs in Lightroom without having to re save them. IE you can change the metadata without having to re export the image.
1534
« on: October 21, 2010, 02:43 »
According to their Twitter feed they are doing maintenance.
1535
« on: October 18, 2010, 02:44 »
Thanks corepics. Interesting post. I wanted to have a read of the ktools support forums - always a good way of getting a sense of the sorts of issues which people are having. But we have to buy the product in order to even read the forum. They say that is to prevent spam - but given that they are programmers I feel certain they could have made it readable. I suppose yearly support is pretty much essential in terms of keeping the site secure with fixes etc ? if you don't host the site yourself, the costs of storing the high-res images can be quite an unwelcome surprise.
Please forgive my ignorance here. Are the images literally stored in the MySQL database or does the database only reference their location ? The reason for my question being .. I am wondering whether it is feasible to distribute the storage of the images - even perhaps using a service like Amazon S3 for example. (Not that S3 is necessarily any less costly than conventional hosted storage) ?
1536
« on: October 17, 2010, 17:52 »
On the various freelancer sites and classified listings there are often ads from people wanting to hire coders and designers to do customized ktools installations and modifications. The fact that the product has a hinterland and is also supported by 3rd party and independent coders means that it is potentially a better solution than sites designed from scratch. At least there are people out there who know how it works, the database architecture etc.
It certainly looks like a great choice for events and wedding photographers, charities etc
But I was curious whether anyone here has any ideas or information about the scalability of solutions built around ktools.
1537
« on: October 15, 2010, 18:06 »
Great portfolio.
Do you do your editing on a laptop or do you wait until you get back to a base somewhere ?
1538
« on: October 15, 2010, 15:22 »
Thanks for the link, I know this thread.
Unfortunately, scouts and moderators (especially in istock) use similar excuse to reject everything containing word 'Auschwitz'.
So... sometimes not existing 'Nazi war memorabilia', sometimes 'elements protected by Intellectual or Industrial property laws'?
As I said before - people in Museum and lawyer don't see any problem, Fotolia and iStock do?
Pawel
Such sensitive subject matter belongs in the world of editorial-use-only photography IMO. It trivialises the issues (and any other equally significant issues) if these sorts of images are sold for commercial use in the same collections which also include handshakes and pretty models. There should be a layer of editorial or bureau interjection which takes a subjective opinion about these sorts of things.
1539
« on: October 13, 2010, 01:17 »
it really isn't necessary to trash all the other sites just to justify your decision.
Exactly right. And more than that: It remains a diverse and evolving industry. Most of us are probably hoping to build on what ever we have achieved so far as the industry evolves. The people we deal with professionally at one company might be working at another a few years later. If we are well behaved and act professionally - well that goes with us to some extent as our reputation. In a competitive environment all of the companies are interesting. But it is really important to remember that we are ultimately also working with individuals.
1540
« on: October 12, 2010, 15:54 »
They would already have the photo and they can't very well return it.
It's not really about the photo though. What they are buying is a licence to use it. If they decide not to then it makes sense they should get a refund. That just good customer relations. I think we all like to deal with companies which trust us as customers 
1541
« on: October 12, 2010, 15:37 »
Is there any way to terminate the contract with Dreamstime before the 6-months period? I know there are no nice ways like contacting them and telling them that I want to leave DT but is there any alternative like telling them to go to hell... spam with photos that have porno content or whatever... or anything like that?
What you are suggesting would be unprofessional and basically offensive. And it would not put you in a good light. You would likely end up regretting it. I had a difficult conversation with Dreamstime when I de-activated my images from them a few years ago. I regret that now because it was childish of me. There is never any point in being anything other than quiet and cool about these things. Especially when you have signed an agreement. And six months is no time. Think of it as a cooling off period, a chance to think about whether you are sure. Be professional about it if you decide it is for the best. Over the years I have begun to make more sense of why DT and some other agents require a time commitment. It makes much more sense to me now. They have invested time and resources in your images. Potential buyers may have bookmarked your images. They have taken you seriously and they are asking the same in return. It's a small commitment. (A lock in was the norm in the days before microstock btw). More than all that and as someone who very much believes in diversity and competition, I am starting to think that requiring work to be online for an agreed period of time may help protect the industry in general (and therefore all of us contributors) against short-termism. It reduces the possibility of huge numbers of artists jumping ship on a whim.
1542
« on: October 08, 2010, 18:43 »
from this article - now only on the wayback machine
The 2006 item about the sale is still here at the PDN website. The world was very different back then. Here on the iStockphoto forum is an old thread about the rumor of a rumor of a takeover.
1543
« on: October 05, 2010, 09:51 »
From what I understand of this. The executor of the estate is the only one who can sign a model release of someone ...
Thanks for that. This is the route which I am likely going to explore. So I am beginning to work out the questions I will need to get answers to. I am beginning to work out what I will want a lawyer to establish for me. For example: - I am not clear whether (in this jurisdiction) an executor remains an executor after an estate has been settled.
- I have no idea where to go if the executor is also deceased.
- I wonder how to date a model release when the exact date the image was made is not known.
- I wonder whether there needs to be a different release for each photograph in a collection of images of the same person taken on different unknown dates.
See this is partly about trying to shape the right questions to even ask.
1544
« on: October 05, 2010, 04:14 »
Want one that's just as much fun and probably impossible to answer? I have a photo of myself, that a professional photographer took about 50 years ago. I have the original and the hand colored framed version. He's dead. His studio closed 40 years ago. I own the photo and it's myself. Who owns the rights? Or like the situation here, can I legally sign a release for it, and submit it to a stock agency, since it's me?
You could sign a model release yourself assuming you are not posting from the beyond. Ownership of the rights to represent the image would be a separate issue AFAIK. For the OP, throwing out a vague question with multiple correct answers and expecting some reasonable solution, isn't going to work. Neither is arguing whenever someone suggests a possible answer, by changing the situation, specifics and conditions. Those seemingly potentially contradictory multiple correct answers about model releases are from the advice given to contributors at various stock sites. My intention in starting this thread is to open a useful discussion focused as tightly as possible on the subject of model releasing the deceased. My sense is that the rights to represent images we did not take ourselves is a related but different question. If not answers then a good result would be, at least, some of the right questions. Last of all, not a disagreement either, the agencies make up their own rules, sometimes on the fly. They require releases for things that don't need releases, like property releases for buildings before 1990, which don't require them. (stupid but true) Also for old photo postcards (just one example) from before 1923, which are Public Domain. Surely for a different thread, but I believe there is sometimes confusion around 'property releasing' an old image (the object) vs 'property releasing' what is shown in the image. IE an old postcard is also an object.
1545
« on: October 04, 2010, 19:43 »
Thanks 10 Print "So then I'm back to my original question really" 20 Goto 10
1546
« on: October 04, 2010, 19:12 »
It depends on how old the photo is.
Why does it depend how old the photo is ? Is there a cut off period with respect to model releases ?
1547
« on: October 04, 2010, 18:56 »
Thanks. Yes I am only asking about model releases.
Not about property releases or copyright issues.
1548
« on: October 04, 2010, 18:45 »
This topic is just another example that lawyers control sites. I'd like to ask a lawyer where has there been a lawsuit brought by heirs over a 100 year old picture. My question was not about 100 years old pictures. It was a practical question about who can model release the deceased I was thinking about the much more recently deceased when I asked the question. But since we are also talking about old photographs - is there some cut off meaning that photographs taken before some date do not need to be model released (or some period of time after a person has died) ? I do see old stuff from various stock sites which is available to licence either RF or RM (apparently released - not editorial) and I cannot believe that all of the surviving relatives have signed. (Focusing on model releases here if possible rather than property releases or issues of copyright).
1549
« on: October 04, 2010, 13:18 »
Hello.
My question relates to model releases for the deceased and specifically the question of who can sign on their behalf.
Various sites and web resources seem to slightly disagree. Broadly there are 4 possible answers: Some say that the release should be signed by the "next of kin"; others say a "close relative"; others say that it should be the "heirs"; others say that it should be the "executors of the estate".
Hence my question. Clearly the "next of kin", the "heirs" and the "executors" may be different people. And there may be many close relatives (however closely close is defined).
So how to begin to decide who has ultimate priority (also potentially taking into account the possibility that the laws of the jurisdiction in which the image is finally used may also be a factor) ?
Eg - would hierarchically equivalent 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc cousins have to sign for some shared ancestor ?
Eg - suppose the "next of kin", the "heirs", the "close relatives" and the "executors" are different people. Do they all have to sign ? Who has ultimate say ?
Whilst these are obviously ultimately questions for a lawyer skilled in international rights law, I am hoping to crowd source some opinion and perhaps links here - if only so as to know what questions to ask if and when the time comes for me to talk to a lawyer.
1550
« on: September 25, 2010, 14:51 »
How would these sales work out practically ? Can anyone give an overview of the process by which ownership of the images is transfered ?
Can we transfer the images and then continue to upload new images ?
Is this something which iStockphoto or any of the other agencies recognise and will be cool with ?
So many questions. Like say my current exclusive portfolio currently averages $x00 per month .... what factor of x is that worth on the scrap market ?
Pages: 1 ... 57 58 59 60 61 [62]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
