|
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 - pixel8
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12
26
« on: January 12, 2017, 22:15 »
What I took umbridge at... was somebody getting an image rejected for intellectual property reasons, and not even considering, for one moment, that it might have actually been rejected... for intellectual property reasons.
I get that, however I have had images rejected for intellectual property reasons before, but once I explained to them that I created the image in question they passed the images. Of course that was with SS and I have never tried until now to explain to Adobe Stock that my image was created by me so we will see if they will reconsider.
27
« on: January 12, 2017, 17:21 »
Once I had a Photoshop-created business check image rejected by SS (Trademark or copyright infringement) although I designed all the layout myself. After removing the part containing the words "Security features included. Details on back." along with the accompanied pad lock icon and the registered trademark symbol (), I successfully resubmitted it to SS, FT, IS with the words "fictional bank" in the description.
Ahh thanks for that, someone who knows what I'm talking about, trying to help solve a problem instead of just accusing me of things and ready to sue and haven't even seen the image yet. I probably just need to make some slight adjustments as well.
28
« on: January 12, 2017, 16:34 »
I get that the earth images are in the public domain and thus no copyright restrictions, I was not arguing that, I was making the argument that regardless of wether the earth is copyright free or not, you looked to something that was not your own to create your work.
As far as copyright is concerned stock photography is skirting a grey area, for instance if you photograph a iPhone then there is a problem, but if you photograph a lesser know phone there doesn't seem to be a problem. The lesser phone has been designed by someone, produced and sold just like the iPhone, but because its not as popular their copyright doesn't seem to matter to stock sites.
As far as lotto tickets are concerned many of them look alike, especially in their layout. I am no copyright expert, but the name and logo I created for my Lotto Ticket does not look like any in existence, my layout I admit is probably to similar, but that is where my argument is, in that if my layout is to indifferent it will not resemble a lotto ticket.
P.S. I'm no Troll, everyone seems to think people are Trolls, why because they are trying to understand something? Make a point? Ask a question?
I agree they did not reject me for fun, I was under the assumption they rejected me because they thought I photographed a real lotto ticket, I made that assumption because SS, Alamy, DT and 123RF accepted my Lotto Ticket. Those sites didn't see an issue with copyright.
29
« on: January 12, 2017, 16:32 »
I get that the earth images are in the public domain and thus no copyright restrictions, I was not arguing that, I was making the argument that regardless of wether the earth is copyright free or not, you looked to something that was not your own to create your work.
As far as copyright is concerned stock photography is skirting a grey area, for instance if you photograph a iPhone then there is a problem, but if you photograph a lesser know phone there doesn't seem to be a problem. The lesser phone has been designed by someone, produced and sold just like the iPhone, but because its not as popular their copyright doesn't seem to matter to stock sites.
As far as lotto tickets are concerned many of them look alike, especially in their layout. I am no copyright expert, but the name and logo I created for my Lotto Ticket does not look like any in existence, my layout I admit is probably to similar, but that is where my argument is, in that if my layout is to indifferent it will not resemble a lotto ticket.
I agree they did not reject me for fun, I was under the assumption they rejected me because they thought I photographed a real lotto ticket, I made that assumption because SS, Alamy, DT and 123RF accepted my Lotto Ticket. Those sites didn't see an issue with copyright.
30
« on: January 12, 2017, 15:41 »
Anyway you are probably right! Maybe my design resembles to closely existing lottery tickets, my logo and name and graphics are all original for my lotto ticket but maybe my layout is to similar, thats the only thing I can think of, I will just have to try again! At least they accepted my Scratch Off Lotto Ticket!
31
« on: January 12, 2017, 15:29 »
Or you used someones map!
My point is you referenced other material to get the planet correct just like I referenced material to create a believable Lotto Ticket!
So I could 'reference' a Beyonce album,,to create an almost perfect replica of a Beyonce album... and then just sell that album on multiple times?
I am simply saying that you referenced other material that was not your own to create your image as you have no way to know what the earth looks like unless you looked at nasa photographs or looked at existing maps in order to make your earth! If you did not look at images of earth or maps then your animations of earth would not look correct or what everyone expects to see. Anyone who buys a Lotto Ticket expects it to look a certain way based on what actually exist, therefore if I am going to create a lotto ticket it needs to resemble what is already in existence. So naturally it only makes sense to reference existing Lotto Tickets when creating Lotto Ticket so that it will resemble a Lotto Ticket, otherwise a buyer would not make the connection that what I have created is a Lotto Ticket. If you did not reference earth photos and maps then people would not know they were looking at the earth in your images as it would look different.
32
« on: January 12, 2017, 15:04 »
Or you used someones map!
My point is you referenced other material to get the planet correct just like I referenced material to create a believable Lotto Ticket!
33
« on: January 12, 2017, 15:04 »
The 'design' of our home planet isn't subject to copyright.
Well how do you know what shape the contents are? You had to look at someone elses image unless you have a way to get to space that the rest of us don't!
34
« on: January 12, 2017, 14:53 »
You seem to be missing the point. It's not about whether you created it or not... it's about it looking so real that you can barely tell it apart from the real thing. So is it just some giant coincidence that your unique design looks almost exactly like a real lottery ticket, or did you actually copy a real lottery ticket?
Well I certainly looked at existing lotto tickets for reference in create my design, if it does not look like a lotto ticket why would anyone buy it, just like you looked at images of earth and other space things to create your images! If you made a earth that did not look like earth why would anyone buy it if what they want is an image of earth? All of this gets to the very heart of Stock Photography, contributors photographing things they did not make, things that are copyrighted since the original creators of those things made them not the photographers who took photos of them. And as for designers most have looked at other things to create their content so unless you are inventing something completely new then you have copied someone else!
35
« on: January 12, 2017, 14:16 »
Well you've copied an existing design, one thatbis no doibt copyrighted, that's the issue. Maybe I could copy one of your illustrations, and when it gets rejected, I'll come back here and complain that 'what's the point in creating something in photoshop if my creations are only going to get rejected for copying somebody else's work?'
The other issue, is the potential for fraud and wrongdoing. Try creating a passport or a banknote that is 'so real looking' and see how far you get!
Wow! First of all I did not come here to complain I came here looking for answers on how to get original content past a reviewer who does not recognize the fact that my image was created by me! What makes you think I simply copied someone else work? As for creating a bank note I have and it has had no problem as for a passport I have submitted photos of those too with no problem. My question to you is why are you being so Rude and jumping to conclusions?
36
« on: January 12, 2017, 13:42 »
So I created an image of a Lotto Ticket in Photoshop so real looking that it was rejected for Intellectual Property! What is the point in creating in Photoshop if your creations are only going to get rejected for being to real looking? My Lotto Ticket was accepted at SS, Alamy, 123rf and Dreamstime no problem. I even marked it as an Illustration when I submitted it.
How can I get past a reviewer who does not take the time to realize its not real?
Maybe someone from Fotolia or Adobe Stock on here will look at my case?
37
« on: January 05, 2017, 18:41 »
There is no free section at Adobe Stock. If you submit your content through the portal your images will not be added to the Fotolia free section.
Mat
Thanks Mat, one less thing to think about!
38
« on: January 05, 2017, 13:21 »
I now Upload using Adobe Stock instead of Fotolia since they are linked, my concern is that when you upload with Fotolia often times the "add photos to free section if not accepted" box is already checked, so if you forget to uncheck it your photos are going to be given away for free. On Adobe Stock I have not seen that box but since Adobe Stock is linked with Fotolia and since Fotolia has that free box checked on Auto, does that mean my photos are given away for free if not accepted when uploading through Adobe Stock?
39
« on: January 05, 2017, 12:51 »
Hi,
No it doesn't matter what order you put them in for shutterstock
Do you have any reference for that? I could not find anything on Shutter Stock that spoke about it, but since Alamy and Adobe Stock have you place the most relevant keywords first it got me thinking that it is possible that by placing most relevant keywords on SS first might help in the ranking of searches. Although this would be a total pain to do as you would have to manually submit your keywords in order that you wanted them since SS does not let you move the keywords around once they are imported from the photo.
40
« on: January 05, 2017, 12:44 »
Just wondering when keywording on Shutter Stock if you need to put the most relevant keywords first like on Adobe Stock? When SS pulls my keywords they are just thrown in there at random so I was not sure if it really mattered or not?
41
« on: December 23, 2016, 21:11 »
Buy a Domain name right now for your Niche then put together a basic site that is optimized and then see if you can get it to rank on Google 1st or 2nd page before you put a lot of work into it. If you can't be found then its pointless unless you plan to spend a lot of money marketing online and offline to drive traffic to your site.
Not trying to discourage you but Stock Photos and keywords related to the industry is very competitive and hard to rank for in the organic search on Google so that is why you should do a trial run if you plan to run your own site.
No traffic means no sales no sales means your in the hole for time, and cost of making and operating the site.
42
« on: December 22, 2016, 13:31 »
Whatever happened to submitting only two or three best versions of an idea, if I was a consumer I would be annoyed if having looked at the first one I didn't like it and wanted to see other graduation caps and had to get through these repeats with slight variation.
43
« on: December 22, 2016, 13:25 »
So commas or no commas, I keyword in Lightroom so when it imports into Alamy now all the spaces have been taken out so its keyword,keyword,keyword,keyword - either way I have to now put a space in between the words which is a pain when you upload 100 images with 50 keywords for each image. Adobe Stock just made it easier and Alamy Harder.
44
« on: December 22, 2016, 13:20 »
I think when people post sales stats they are trying to figure out if there is a shift in the industry, or in sales overall amongst other contributors and so they ask how are sales trying to figure out why they have a sudden shift up or down. Is it just them or is it everyone who is experiencing what they are.
I think this is natural when the stock industry is so secretive in how the entire operation is carried out. Its a constant battle to figure out where you stand and why in this industry.
45
« on: December 16, 2016, 15:07 »
I used to do programming which is why I named them that way, that is how I was taught, but I am wondering for keyword searching by the secret micro stock sites programming if the underscore will make a difference or not.
If you don't keyword your image name when saving then imagine if you were a Google bot and you were choosing between DSC_3456.jpeg or tin_can or Tin Can, which one do you think it's going to pull up first? This is why I asked the question and why I rename my files.
Who knows what the stock agencies use to pull up photos when a consumer is searching their site but I imagine it is similar to Googles process!
46
« on: December 16, 2016, 12:51 »
Just wondering how others save their files. Lets say you photographed a tin can. Would you save your file for uploading to the micro sites as:
Tin Can.jpg
or
tin_can.jpg
I was taught to save as tin_can.jpg
Does it even matter which way you save your file for upload?
47
« on: October 27, 2016, 11:28 »
My advice would be for you to start your own media company and put together some commercial type animations and then present them to local businesses in your town to either enhance their company websites or for creating local commercials for tv for advertising their businesses, once you have found success in that I would branch out to local towns and then keep expanding!
Other wise I would suggest creating vectors for stock photo sites as you could probably pump out a lot of those, I would focus on vectors that other designers could buy to manipulate for their own purposes.
48
« on: October 27, 2016, 11:13 »
Well I agree on all that was mentioned above, to me its simply a way for DT to make more money, key wording is not that difficult, the only benefit is that DT knows what buyers are typing into their search boxes and what will pull up as a result of those searches. So if you are lazy to do your own key wording or can't figure out how to key word then I guess it might be worth your money!
49
« on: October 25, 2016, 18:53 »
Dreamstime has a Keymasters Program that says it will increase your sales by 140%. For only .60 cents per image. Has anyone here used this program and seen their sales go up by 140%?
50
« on: September 08, 2016, 13:51 »
You really want to set your camera to Adobe RGB shooting in Raw format and also the iMac. Don't know how involved you are in photography but most of us will calibrate our monitors with an external calibrator at least for professional use.
I too do it like gyllens said. Just want to add that I convert the images to sRGB at the end. All the shooting and editing is made in AdobeRGB and before saving to JPG at the end I convert to sRGB. The AdobeRGB color space represents a wider range of colors and sRGB is the standard in the web, devices and printers.
So if you convert to sRGB in the end what is the advantage of shooting in AdobeRBG as any advantage is then lost in the conversion to sRGB? Any recommendations on a external calibrator for iMac Monitor?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
