|
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 - Noedelhap
Pages: 1 ... 78 79 80 81 82 [83] 84 85 86 87 88 89
2051
« on: August 07, 2012, 20:15 »
LOL, what a horrible feature.
So technically, buyers can -if they have the patience- almost always get a lower price for these images, because most bids get accepted anyway, under the motto: 'a small sale is better than no sale at all'. And after one successful low bid, what will stop buyers from trying to bid even lower?
The contributor will be getting lots of cheapass commissions for their images, all sold at a price lower than the original price. Sounds like an instable system that is bound to lower the value of most images.
2052
« on: August 05, 2012, 16:29 »
Why are there no views AT ALL? Some of my approved images are online for weeks (after a month review time!) but they get no views whatsoever? Does it take another month to make them searchable?
2053
« on: July 18, 2012, 18:51 »
I need some advice on pricing an exclusive user license:
Someone wants to buy an exclusive license for use of a character I originally created for microstock. He wants to use the character as a mascot for his company. Sounds good, although it means I have to delete all images containing the character from all microstock sites. So I have to come up with a price that surpasses the amount of money the images would normally generate in a lifetime.
But how many years is a lifetime? Would you use a revenue-generating period of 30 years as a guideline? Or 20? Or maybe just 10 years, taking into account the possibility that the industry will change?
So let's say the image generates a hypothetical $10 a year. How much would you charge?
2054
« on: July 16, 2012, 21:42 »
Wait a second? Now when a high level image gets sold via subscription, it won't cost the buyer 2 downloads anymore, but only 1? So we will earn less money on high level subscription downloads?
2055
« on: June 27, 2012, 21:20 »
Just had my first single sale, $4,75. It's nowhere near $150, but cool nonetheless 
2056
« on: June 24, 2012, 19:51 »
Fair enough. But I still dont see the need to go public with it. Reporting is one, going public with it is two. Completely unnecessary, no value add whatsoever. I'll leave it at that.
Because it's hard to have a conversation on a public forum without it being public. And that was the point of the original post: to talk about this peculiar violation or reviewing failure or misunderstanding or whatever it turned out to be. It wasn't about reporting the violation, but about talking amongst ourselves. What you're suggesting is that we should not talk about certain subjects because of ramifications of their being made public. Sorry, but I'm here to talk and listen and learn and maybe even teach. Can't do that and keep others' potential transgressions secret.
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. This was a witch hunt. If the OP wanted to discuss acceptance/rejection at IS then he could have used his own images. We all get some accepted and others rejected that conflict with one and another. This person chose to take out his own frustration on ONE contributor, not on the situation as a whole. If he truly was concerned about infringement then go to Istock directly, not a public forum. Instead he did both. That is a * shame.
Frustration? No, I'm not frustrated. The reason I chose to show this obvious similarity-example on this forum, is not shameful imho. This is a place where we can discuss all good and bad things of the microstock industry. I wanted to share this with you guys, so you could all have a good laugh on how Istock passes these images as being genuine. Not to say: "Look he's a witch, burn him!" That was just a side-effect. Just as I couldn't have known that Istock would remove the entire port instead of these two images. You seem to blame me for that.
2057
« on: June 23, 2012, 15:08 »
Fair enough. But I still dont see the need to go public with it. Reporting is one, going public with it is two. Completely unnecessary, no value add whatsoever. I'll leave it at that.
Because it's hard to have a conversation on a public forum without it being public. And that was the point of the original post: to talk about this peculiar violation or reviewing failure or misunderstanding or whatever it turned out to be. It wasn't about reporting the violation, but about talking amongst ourselves. What you're suggesting is that we should not talk about certain subjects because of ramifications of their being made public. Sorry, but I'm here to talk and listen and learn and maybe even teach. Can't do that and keep others' potential transgressions secret.
No need to post links for a discussion imho... Or do you need pictures to have a discussion?
Often we do. How many times do conversations start in the abstract and get specific because too many of us aren't getting the point without a real example? Again, I'm sorry if the subject of the original post got punished, but not that they got caught. If catching him or her was the intent, reporting to iStock would have been more effective. But that's not what the OP did, so I assume that wasn't the intent. Call it a side-in effect if you like.
Actually, I did report these images to Istock as being wrongfully accepted if there's such an obvious possible copyright infringement. It wasn't my intent to 'catch' the contributor though, I never accused the guy in the support ticket I sent to Istock. And I opened a topic here, to discuss Istock's weird reviewing mistakes. Couldn't do that without showing the examples, as you said. Poncke would have done it differently, which I respect. But anyway, could we stop the discussion about whether it was immoral, too damaging, too hasty or too judgmental?
2058
« on: June 22, 2012, 23:13 »
I did not even bother to check which two images they were talking about, but the big sum of $0,41 I received is for two images that are not mine, either.
2059
« on: June 22, 2012, 18:27 »
You concluded guilt before innocence or you would have never posted it in this public forum.
No I did not. I posted this to show Istocks bizarre reviewing habits. Not to turn the contributor into a scapegoat.
2060
« on: June 22, 2012, 18:16 »
If the guy/girl got his/her account suspended over this then I hope the OP can sleep well. It might have been someone's livelyhood taken away over 2 images. Not even stolen from the OP, it had nothing to do with the OP. OP himself said all the other content was fine.
One should contact the person first before you take action. It might even have been an honest mistake or misunderstanding of this person to create these images.
Prejudice. Think before you judge.
Please note, I am not condoning copyright infringement
Oh please. I never intended for his entire portfolio to be removed. I never accused the contributor of infringement. I never even mentioned his name here. I simply asked whether Istock agreed this was a similarity with trademarked characters. I just brought the bad reviewing on Istock's part to their (and this forum's) attention, because it affects the microstock industry, the company and us contributors in a bad way. And it was Istock, not me, who decided to (apparently) put his portfolio on inactive to investigate the matter. It's understandable though, however drastic the measure may seem. If it's indeed a mistake (which I doubt), then it's too bad, but then it would have happened eventually (with Istock being sued). If it's not an honest mistake, it's probably better for all of us that this user can't upload any more images.
2061
« on: June 20, 2012, 17:39 »
Is it common to rat out other contributors about there images? Who are we to judge? Or is this about copyright? Isnt that up to IS what they put in their database?
I clearly said I'm NOT out to screw this contributor, since his other work seems his own, but when infringement of copyright is involved (and proven) then I don't feel sorry for that contributor.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out something this obvious, either.
Sure, I was just surprised that you posted in public you reported this guy and sounded quite content with it. I would keep that to myself instead of bringing it to a public forum and publicly shame the guy. Unnecessary in my humble opinion. I would have thread differently. But thanks for the response. I agree infringing copyright is not cool either.
Thanks 
Well, it's more publicly shaming Istock than shaming the contributor. That's why I didn't mention his name.  Although anyone can look it up for himself. Are you Flemish, btw? Your name (Poncke) sounds Belgian.
2062
« on: June 20, 2012, 11:41 »
Is it common to rat out other contributors about there images? Who are we to judge? Or is this about copyright? Isnt that up to IS what they put in their database?
I clearly said I'm NOT out to screw this contributor, since his other work seems his own, but when infringement of copyright is involved (and proven) then I don't feel sorry for that contributor. There is nothing wrong with pointing out something this obvious, either.
2063
« on: June 19, 2012, 09:11 »
A quick search with Google Images showed the images were also approved at Dreamstime and 123RF 
There are reviewers from all over the world. Maybe whoever approved the images didn't recognize them as cartoon characters that are well known in the US (and possibly the rest of the Western world)?
It probably could get them in trouble though, if Hanna Barbera, or whoever owns the rights to the cartoons discovers it...
Maybe I should have contacted Time Warner, in an effort to punish Istock for what they did to us in the past
2064
« on: June 19, 2012, 08:51 »
A quick search with Google Images showed the images were also approved at Dreamstime and 123RF
2066
« on: June 10, 2012, 03:33 »
Stylistically, I find these cartoon illustrations a bit boring.
- They don't have a unique style, and there is no variation in line weight. It reminds me of those medical illustrations.
- The colors are also too flat and the lighting is inconsistent.
- The expressions on their faces don't match their depicted emotions. The player looks angry while celebrating, for instance.
- Their poses look rigid.
So that needs some work. You have potential though.
They might get accepted on some (most?) stock sites, but I doubt these will be big sellers. Then again, who knows? There are much worse cartoon images to be found there.
2067
« on: May 25, 2012, 08:24 »
I received an e-mail today inviting me to a new vector stocksite called "Image Toons" ( http://www.imagetoons.com), run by Chud Tsankov. Another website promising 70% commission and plenty of sales. The site looks decent, but I'm always a little bit sceptical. Has anyone else received this invitation and what do you think of it? Worth the effort?
2068
« on: May 24, 2012, 05:14 »
Breaking news: I heard Yuri wore his cornflower blue tie to work yesterday, instead of his red one. And he went to the toilet, too.
2069
« on: May 20, 2012, 17:41 »
I deleted a vector file from my portfolio and dropbox folder, to replace it by a better version, but when I resync, the new file with the same name can't be found.
It does work when I rename the file to something else, but imo it would be nice if it would work the normal way (for instance, checking the modification date of a file to check for updated files?)
2070
« on: May 19, 2012, 05:46 »
With these type of keywords no buyer will ever find your illustration:
santosalaksana, stock illustration, royalty free illustrations, stock clip art icon, stock clipart icons, logo, line art, EPS picture, pictures, graphic, graphics, drawing, drawings, vector image, artwork, EPS vector art
You need to use words like the ones provided by chromaco, that are more relevant to your image...and by the way, I really like the illustration of the tiger, very nice.
Those keywords get added by CanStock themselves, except for the first one.
2071
« on: May 17, 2012, 23:12 »
I cant submit through the Content Editor.
2072
« on: May 16, 2012, 21:38 »
I've decided to give it a try after all.
2073
« on: May 10, 2012, 13:37 »
He now understands the need for the full rights, and I suggested a good price deal for him. He asked me if I would consider a royalty on each sale instead of a fixed price. I think I gotta steer clear of this one. It sounds to me like he isn't willing to spend some money on it.
That's dodgy: how would you know he was telling you his true sales. If you had designed a product, a royalty could be a good way to proceed, but not for a logo.
Does he actually want an actual logo? I've seen sometimes on iStock where someone has said that one of their images is being used as a logo, and other people have said, no, that's not a logo (even though to all appearances it is being used as a logo).
I usually find that these people don't come up with the goods in the end. It might be worth just saying, no, that's my price, take it or leave it. Once you start haggling, he'll keep trying to drag the price down further.
Exactly, I have no idea how much he sells, therefore I would have no idea how much money I could make. I think he's an honest guy (after all, he e-mailed me asking whether he could use it), but the whole process of royalty-based payment is unnecessarily complicated and non-transparent. It's an image of a cartoon head, so it's more of a mascot than a logo. Still, it's an image to enhance his company identity, so I'm going to treat it as a logo. He now understands the need for the full rights, and I suggested a good price deal for him. He asked me if I would consider a royalty on each sale instead of a fixed price. I think I gotta steer clear of this one. It sounds to me like he isn't willing to spend some money on it.
Ahh, he is one of THOSE customers.
Simple thing: If he doesn't meet your price you initially quoted then forget about him.
Some people simply don't have the cash for the image they want, then they will have to settle for something else.
I've "lost" many customers that way (although I could have negotiated my way down...) but there are still plenty of people/companies out there that pay your price without acting up.
Those are the people you want to deal with.
Yeah, I'll offer him the option of paying in instalments, maybe he agrees on that. If he doesn't, too bad.
2074
« on: May 10, 2012, 09:46 »
He now understands the need for the full rights, and I suggested a good price deal for him. He asked me if I would consider a royalty on each sale instead of a fixed price. I think I gotta steer clear of this one. It sounds to me like he isn't willing to spend some money on it.
2075
« on: May 08, 2012, 16:20 »
E-mail from Dreamstime:
"Hello ****,
The regular RF license allows use on product packaging in a non-essential manner.
i.e. a picture of a cat used for a cat food package
The SR-EL is always required if the image is used in a logo.
If he is going to use all or part of the image in a logo he will need to buy the full rights whether he wants exclusivity or not.
You can tell him to send an email through the Dreamstime site if he has other questions about usage.
Please let us know if you need any further assistance.
Kind regards"
Now, I don't really understand why someone MUST have full rights if he doesn't want an exclusive logo. He won't agree on my price for the full rights, so would it be okay to sell him a non-exclusive logo license?
Pages: 1 ... 78 79 80 81 82 [83] 84 85 86 87 88 89
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
