|
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 - Hannafate
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16
226
« on: March 19, 2018, 08:15 »
Don't upload your stuff to Pixabay.
Lots of downloads from there doesn't mean an image is good, it means it is free, and people will download stuff they don't even want because it's free.
227
« on: February 22, 2018, 08:16 »
The world is coming to an end, and your reaction is to post here? Get your priorities in order!
228
« on: February 12, 2018, 10:52 »
Are you asking about editing your own images, or images already on the site?
229
« on: February 10, 2018, 20:17 »
Not everyone can open and work with pdf files.
230
« on: January 21, 2018, 12:32 »
Colourbox has turned down my application, even though they were hosting some of my image stolen by one of their accepted contributors.
To be fair, they took down the stolen images promptly, but it just makes them look unprofessional.
However, many of us sell at chaotic agencies, for less than .20 per sale.
231
« on: January 19, 2018, 10:11 »
Just a bit of information. Myloveiew is a Shutterstock outlet, and the images deleted from Shutterstock will vanish from there, but sometimes still show up as for sale for some time. However, purchases are disabled.
Shutterstock has several outlets like that.
232
« on: January 16, 2018, 09:55 »
Shutterstock is stirring their algorithms to spread sales out among contributors. The idea being to continue to take in money from sales, but not have to pay out as much, because no one contributor will make enough for a payout for a long time.
233
« on: January 04, 2018, 11:04 »
So we can all stop repeating the factoid that you must be the author to complain at ShutterStock. DMCA and other places may be different. I'd say if any Microstock site comes back and says we must be the author, then they don't care and are deflecting any efforts to protect us.
We only say that because Shutterstock keeps telling us that. Tigershoot, let us know if Shutterstock responds to your report, what they say.
234
« on: January 04, 2018, 09:29 »
Thanks for pointing that out. Shutterstock has had a serious problem lately with not noticing that someone is uploading images stolen from Shutterstock.
I think you should report it, as a buyer. I know Shutterstock only takes contributor complaints from the owner of the infringed image, but they need to know that this sort of thing makes buyers nervous. If you can't be sure of the image's bona fides, why take the risk?
235
« on: December 31, 2017, 10:16 »
Hm. No notice about this from Shutterstock. I wonder if they know about this decision?
236
« on: December 29, 2017, 10:56 »
I'll bet you the company in question would vigorously protect any image THEY owned the copyright to.
It's Shutterstock. They don't vigorously protect their contributors' work.
237
« on: December 29, 2017, 10:52 »
...a clear blue sky... Anyone can reproduce it...
Not if you live in the UK...
Please explain why not? I'm not in the UK and don't know the clear blue sky laws.
Any sightings of clear blue sky should be reported immediately to the National Observatory for verification.
238
« on: December 24, 2017, 18:13 »
The "E-marketer" you paid was using your account to launder money.
You are lucky all that happened to you was losing your Shutterstock account. Interpol objects to that sort of thing.
239
« on: December 23, 2017, 21:41 »
$800 in sales?
Would you mind showing us some of your work? Maybe we can sort it out. Apparently Shutterstock thinks your images aren't good enough to justify that many sales in such a short period of time.
Is there anyone you are supposed to pay for those sales?
240
« on: December 23, 2017, 09:37 »
I can see the judge's point on some images. Shutterstock has accepted several images of clear sky. The photographer simply pointed their camera at a clear blue sky, and submitted the result. A blue rectangle. Should that really be copyrightable? Anyone can reproduce it. Are all of the clear blue sky photos infringing on each other?
If I were daft enough to submit such an image, would I be "copying" them?
241
« on: December 22, 2017, 12:36 »
*snork* at the bottom of their page: All rights reserved.
242
« on: December 22, 2017, 09:36 »
Considering how often SS has claimed to have "fixed" something they really haven't, I won't believe them if they say they have fixed their code.
243
« on: December 22, 2017, 09:32 »
I thought I should add this.
I started to make the previous post using the word "fake", but corrected it to "forgery", which is the correct term.
It occurred to me that some submitters might have made the error of thinking that fudging on documentation was no big deal. A model release gets rejected because the dates don't all match, and it's tempting to just paste in a new date. After all, it was supposed to be that way. That is actually forgery. It's a forgery that probably will never be challenged and examined, but it is.
Making up a model release for some street person you are sure won't ever see their picture in use, so you can sell the picture, is a felony.
Committing a felony just to get a couple more images into your portfolio is not a practical decision.
Just so you know, when I was remarking about how simple the act is, I wasn't condoning it. Just pointing out that thieves probably also commit forgery with the same smugness.
244
« on: December 22, 2017, 09:18 »
Well, he was amusing while he lasted.
He (or she) posted useful information about weaknesses in image security, nothing really new, though.
And, 50%, forging model releases, property releases, or other image documentation is absurdly easy. It always amused me when Shutterstock asked for image references for my illustrations. All the reference image would prove is that I have some minor skills with editing programs, which I had already shown by submitting the eps and matching jpg file properly.
Forged releases would probably not stand up under scrutiny, but as Mark Hofmann pointed out, if you do it right, your work never gets examined.
245
« on: December 21, 2017, 20:03 »
I'm not falling for it. I know you're wearing your asbestos underwear, so I refuse to breathe flames at you.
246
« on: December 19, 2017, 09:38 »
I just went over and looked at Arcangel. Talk about all "vroom" and no "zoom"!
The site is very pretty, with lots of cute presentation tricks that make it a pain in the ass to find any useful information in. It's like swimming in loose pages. The contributor information is presented as a catalogue with pages to flip. You can't search for key phrases to get to what you want to know. Everything has to load, Flash has to be activated, it's a mess. The "help desk" link is maximum 404.
If they spend this much bandwidth and coding on promoting themselves to contributors (who don't need to be sold to, since we are actively looking for outlets) the buyer end must be hellish.
I wouldn't expect to sell much there.
247
« on: December 15, 2017, 10:22 »
 In case it doesn't show, I'm feeling cranky this morning.
248
« on: December 15, 2017, 10:19 »
249
« on: December 12, 2017, 11:20 »
They probably just need to renew their certificate. That happens a lot. Usually, though, IT picks up on it quickly and fixes it.
250
« on: December 12, 2017, 09:20 »
SS seems to have problems with secure coding.
This morning, Firefox didn't want to go to their forum, because the code was not secure.
*sigh*
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
