|
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 - unnonimus
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18
276
« on: February 21, 2017, 17:31 »
Feb.21, 2017 1080 On Demand $0.32 $0 (0%) $0.32
I had a sale today on depositphotos for a 1920x1080 HD video for 32 cents.
277
« on: February 19, 2017, 15:56 »
I have the old stats page bookmarked on the istock site and it is showing sales data for the past 2 months.
278
« on: February 16, 2017, 13:53 »
I have had 5 or 6 video sales in the last year, about $100 total. I uploaded a few thousand videos.
279
« on: February 06, 2017, 08:47 »
xray's and mri's are not creative works, and cannot be copyrighted.
280
« on: February 06, 2017, 08:46 »
the physical server is in the netherlands:
AS60781 LEASEWEB-NL Netherlands, NL (registered May 13, 2013)
check the procedure in the netherlands for copyright notics. folloow the procedure for European Electronic Commerce Directive Article 14, which is the EU DMCA. it will tell you what to do, and there will probably be penalties for him if he does not comply
281
« on: January 20, 2017, 01:02 »
you said: "then I'm pretty sure he doesn't know for certain."
You are completely wrong.
I read the US copyright laws, and I read the documents filed in court cases, and I read case law. I have filed over 100 trademarks and copyrights for my own work. I know the laws.
This woman will lose this case. However, ultimately, it is up to a jury to decide, and jurys can make stupid decisions (such as the Marvin Gaye copyright case which was clearly not infringement).
If you want to be educated about copyright laws, go to copyright.gov. Stock media agencies are completely clueless about copyright laws and their beliefs and understandings of copyright law are mostly incorrect.
And last of all, stop mocking people who are better educated than you are.
282
« on: January 20, 2017, 00:56 »
copyrights for photography are not owned by the person who clicks the button on the camera. they are owned by the person who produces the work. the person who funds it, owns the equipment, directs it, and uses his creative input in the creation of the image. according to US copyright law, it is a 'work for hire' and the copyright ownership transfers to you immediately upon creation if your wife is merely clicking the camera under your direction, and she at no point is the owner of the photo.
283
« on: January 20, 2017, 00:51 »
I always contact them and they almost always tell me why.
but here are some possibilities:
- you should put your address and phone number on the release
- you should put the model's phone number on the release
- you should sign the release
this increases the chances your release will get approved
284
« on: January 18, 2017, 00:57 »
there is a possibility that photoshop is changing your ethernet card to half duplex.
285
« on: January 18, 2017, 00:53 »
you said: "If you want to go CSI on this and proving this or that, pull her cell data, track it via GPS or triangulate it and you will find out if it is her or not."
if she proves it is her in the photo, she has no rights whatsoever. rights are not determined by whether the person appears in the photo, it depends on whether the general public recognizes it to be her in the photo. stock agencies do not understand this aspect of privacy and likeness.
second, it is clearly *not advertising*. it is artwork. advertising has to promote a product or service. the product for chipotle is food and beverages. the photo does not make any mention of food or beverages. it does not mention any product or service. the logo on teh side of the building is not sufficient for the photo to be an ad. it is artwork, and decoration, and she will never prove it to be advertising because it isn't.
she will lose this case.
286
« on: January 18, 2017, 00:48 »
I have the most success with the canstock release form.
many people have success with the Getty form.
I recommend the Getty form and the Shutterstock form (use both).
287
« on: January 18, 2017, 00:46 »
some web sites will penalize your portfolio in search engine rankings if you have a low ratio of earnings per upload.
for some web sites, you can improve your search engines rankings by removing uploads that never sell.
I recommend you contact the contributor support of each site and ask them if they penalize people with large portfolios and unsold content, and ask if you can improve your rankings by reducing your portfolio size.
288
« on: January 16, 2017, 18:54 »
you said: "Found the site (espaws.com) but wasn't able to log in"
the espaws login and password is not the same as istockphoto.com or other web sites. so if you have an account on one, it does not create the account on espaws.com. you need to have a new account created. it is possible they will port your account over at some point in the future.
289
« on: January 16, 2017, 18:51 »
it is possible that the license agreement permits the refund after a longer period of time. there are benefits to some license agreements or purchase arrangements for the buyer, but they are paying more up front.
there are no laws (in the US) regulating refunds, but most banks voluntarily negotiate refunds for as much as 6 months after purchase. the refunds are negotiated between the financial institutions (the payer and receiver).
the stock media agency can offer refunds to whatever limit they desire.
290
« on: January 16, 2017, 18:46 »
you said: "There doesn't seem to be any logic to which images take longer to review"
if you submit certain media types, they might take longer to review.
- anything that has a release form might go to a different reviewer with a longer review time
- some categories might go to a different reviewer and longer review time, such as anything where they think you might need a release form even if you didn't provide one. for example, if your category is People or Buildings, they might assume you need additional examination in case a release is required
- if they pre-process the media to check for unstable video, levels, incomplete metadata, bitrates, codecs, etc, your individual media submissions might get flagged and delayed
291
« on: January 16, 2017, 18:39 »
there are many video clips now at 60fps especially in HD.
my experience is that I did not have any increase in sales from selling clips with the speed adjusted.
I do not have any additional sales from my 120fps clips.
in terms of length, I did not have any additional sales from longer clips. for example, a 10s clip of traffic vs a 30s clip of traffic. the only exception is any clip that might be suitable as a screensaver. for those, I have been able to sell 120s clips.
292
« on: January 16, 2017, 18:33 »
be aware that even though these stock agencies may refuse it, it is perfectly legal for you to sell your photo as stock photography.
when a submission is rejected, you can email them and ask why. they will almost always tell you why it was rejected, even though they will complain about it.
it is nice work. I saw similar work where someone took photos of miniatures, outdoors, with real trees in the distant background so the trees made the miniatures look full size.
293
« on: January 16, 2017, 17:44 »
the full size version is irrelevant.
1. it is not advertising. it is artwork. it is a legal use. the artwork is not being sold for profit to the general public. based on this alone, she will lose.
2. the woman will never be able to prove that the general public would recognize her as the person in the photo, which would be required for her to win the suit. if chipotle could convince a jury that it could be another person, it would prove that her likeness is not being used.
3. she will never be able to prove that she is the person in the photo.
294
« on: January 16, 2017, 14:16 »
When purchasing a laptop, the fastest laptops (intel) will have MQ or HQ or a similar designation. Do not buy laptops with processors that end in U (they are low power consumption and slow) even if it is an i7.
use passmark.com cpu benchmarks to find the fastest laptop processor.
for graphics cards, use wikipedia to see how many iterations it does per second.
295
« on: January 16, 2017, 13:35 »
I have uploaded a few thousand videos with 0 sales in about 1 year.
I have a small collection of photos for 1 month, no sales yet.
296
« on: January 16, 2017, 12:28 »
you said: "You have absolutely no idea what the original image and the poster look like."
I do have an idea what it looks like, I saw it on page 9 of the initial court filing and examined it carefully.
the photo is clearly artwork and not advertising.
this is a frivolous lawsuit.
297
« on: January 16, 2017, 11:42 »
You said: "I was so clueless"
I agree.
More info on this photo:
- you cannot tell the gender, race, age, skin color, etc of the person in the photo
- you cannot see any details such as eye color, wrinkles, strands of hair
- you can't see the mouth, nose, ears, or cheeks
- you can only see the shape of the hair, forehead, and eyes, without a single detail within.
- the eyes are just 2 oval dark spots. no pupil visible, no eye color, no white part
- the hair is a dark shape with no detail
- the forehead is overexposed and you just see the shape
- it is not an ad. it does not have any price, quality, call to action, product, or service
- it is hard to believe that the alcoholic beverages and other items were photoshopped into the image
it is a frivolous lawsuit
298
« on: January 16, 2017, 11:12 »
I have around 8,500 videos on dreamstime and earn around $50 per month.
299
« on: January 16, 2017, 11:10 »
you should always be aware when doing underwater photography that the water pressure beneath the surface is enough to crush your camera and make it inoperable. just being waterproof only allows you to take photos or video near the surface. to go deeper, you need an enclosure that is water proof and can withstand the pressure of the water.
300
« on: January 16, 2017, 10:59 »
you said: "Thanks for explaining what advertising is to me."
all photography is not advertising. in addition, I have seen the photo and it does not look like advertising to me. in fact, the woman is not recognizable and she will probably lose the lawsuit.
in fact, she states in the lawsuit that she is looking at the camera, but that she did not know the camera was there, which makes no sense.
again,I have seen the photo and it is not advertising. it does not promote any product or service.
the photo has 3 people in it. 2 of them, you can only see from behind. the woman in question is not recognizable. being able to self-recognize yourself does not grant you any rights, regardless of what stock agencies lead you to believe.
the photo is not a photo of her, it is a photo of the restaurant and she happens to be in the photo. she will lose this case.
last of all, the photo was taken from outside the restaurant and she is seen sitting behind the window at a table, with her hand covering her face. she is a minor portion of the photo. the average person would never recognize her, and it might not even be her.
she does not even account for 5% of the photo, maybe she is even just 1% of the actual photo (her forehead and arms).
- the photo is clearly not an ad. it is a photo of the restaurant
- being in the photo does not grant her any rights
- being able to self identify herself in the photo does not grant her any rights under US law
- the majority of the face is covered by the woman's hand
- it might not even be her, and she will never be able to prove it was her
- based on her testimony, I do not believe she is the woman in the photo
she will lose this case.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
