|
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 - ingwio
51
« on: August 24, 2011, 09:21 »
After I've telephoned with Fotolia I don't think that Digimarc watermarks are really practiced at Fotolia. I wrote them a notice.
52
« on: August 23, 2011, 10:59 »
rubyroo, many governments have made their work by creating (international) rules for copyright. I don't think they will do more for us. Please have a look at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright.It's our turn to fight against illegal use of our work. That isn't a simple problem (look at the music industry). Digimarc watermark could be a secure toggle, but I don't know if and how it works in practice. And it's a paid service. The image ID of the agency together with the license ID, generated when an image is downloaded, would work like a "passport" for the legal license. If the image appears in web with the "passport" (the IDs are in the image file information), mostly it will be licensed (legal) use. If the image appears without "passport" you could send a notice about that to the site owner and he can show you the "passport" (by sending you the IDs). If he has no "passport", it could be illegal use. If he has lost the "passport" (i.e. by deleting the original downloaded files) he could find the IDs in the list of his downloaded files at his agency account. If he has no agency account, he will not use the image legally. A hacker could delete the "passport" of the image. No problem, the owner of the site in which the image is used, has a look to the list of the downloaded files at his agency account. Then he can show you the "passport" of the image. I don't think, that there are stupid ideas, when fighting against illegal use, except the idea to do nothing.
53
« on: August 23, 2011, 05:48 »
...
For this to work you will have to work with ALL possible agencies in the world!
Please read this again: All - agencies - in - the - world!
Not even if all members on this forum would help we couldn't do it. Too much work!
You don't know who is submitting his/her images to which agency so it is important that every agency on this planet is working with this system.
There is no need to get all agencies in the first step, but some of the top and middle tiers, especially the agencies I'm uploading to and the most of us distributors too. If one of the agencies makes the necessary changes, we could give them our new uploads. Others would follow us - and other agencies would follow, too (or they wouldn't get new uploads). Secondly, you are not going to pay money to the agency to make all necessary changes to their database and testing the system.
Do you really think the agencies do all that work for free? What are their benefits?
Yes, I think they have to do it for free, because they would sell more licenses and get their commissions. Are you going to share your lost revenue 50/50 with the agencies?
If the agencies would fight against illegal usage, they would sell licenses and the agency and the contributor get their commission. If I would have to fight against illegal use, there is no need to share the revenue with the agencies. If 12,483 agencies in the world participate but iStock doesn't, then what?
If iStock wouldn't participate I wouldn't care, because I don't upload to them. If you would further upload to iStock, you would have to live with their decision. Designers select, copy and paste parts and bits of pieces of our images. Tons of images are being manipulated that way and therefore lose the IDs. How do you prevent that? Prohibit the act of designing?
I don't want to prohibit the act of designing - I want to prohibit the act of using our images illegally without paying for our work. The designers want to be paid for their work too. I don't know how to prevent your described case at this time, it's part of working out the plan. In the first step we will not find all images in all cases of illegal use. But let's begin to fight against illegal use. In all examples of my entry post the owner of the sites try to make money with the help of the images. I think at least the half are in illegal use. Some are used in composits. If I can't see image ID and the license ID of my images in the image file information, I would write a notice about that to the owner of the site. In the past music industry wasn't very successful in preventing illegal usage of music files. But there is a difference between music industry and microstock image industry. Most of illegal users of music files have downloaded them to hear the music alone or with their friends, not public. Most illegal users of images want to show them public, in paper prints or in the web - and in the web we have the chance to catch them worldwide. Microstock images became an industry - there is no industry without politics. We have to work on politics - no one else will do this for us. But it's not a thing one can do alone. Who is interested in working on that plan? Who has some experience in international group working via web?
PS: Come on, go shoot some pictures. It ain't gonna happen.
Yes, click_click, I want to shoot some pictures - for two or three hours a day. But I don't want to add up to 24 hours a day working for the illegal users - I do need my sleep really.
54
« on: August 22, 2011, 18:27 »
Adding Exif/IPTC data is pointless. It can all be easily removed.
If image ID and license ID are removed the image looks like in illegal use. I would send a notice about that to the site owner.
55
« on: August 22, 2011, 18:15 »
madelaide,
thanks for your post.
I didn't read the different license agreements of all agencies. But I know that they are different, so it's hard work. And I do not want to do the work allone (have a look at my previous post.)
A buyer may reuse a license several times. But I think, a buyer who uses an image for a site of an owner in Japan will mostly not have a client in France or US. I think most images are used for one client.
With the license ID we can't recognize illegal paper prints at this time. But let's try the first step - let's catch illegal online users. As click_click said, a perhaps 5 times higher commission would be enough.
I believe the agencies will hardly do something, it's easier to cut commissions for the contributors. But let us convince them. License ID would give us - the contributors - a chance to recognize legal/illegal use of our work. Because of international laws mostly the contributor must fight against illegal usage of his work.
Because Digimarc is a paid service we would never get all agencies to pay for this service. License ID is a feature, the agencies can realize on their own. I don't know if Digimarc really works in all cases, so far I haven't seen a Digimarc watermark in practice.
Let's look foreward. Let's fight against illegal usage of our work.
56
« on: August 22, 2011, 17:30 »
Once you have your system running with a rate of 5 times higher (not necessarily 9) PM me and I will sign up without even knowing your name.
It's not a system or a machine, it will be hard work for the contributors to convince the agencies. The agencies would have to create a datafield "license ID" in their databases, which is filled when a legal download happens. Not just difficult (I think something like that already exists but not visible for the contributors). It has to be switched visible in the list of the downloads for the contributor. The second thing is, that the image ID and the license ID have to be written in the image file information (IPTC etc.) before the image is downloaded legally. I think that's no problem. In the image file information (IPTC) is a datafield "Copyright information". I.e. FT puts the contributors name in this datafield and adds "- Fotolia", when the file is downloaded legally. They are able to write other datas too. I explained my idea and I want you - the distributors - to think about the idea and work on the project. This idea has to be checked and has to be realized. There is a lot to do: - The work plan has to be made.
- The agreements of the agencies have to be read.
- The results have to be written down.
- The suggestions for the agencies have to be made.
- We will have to find an agencie for testing.
- We will have to convince the agencies.
- The posts in the forums of the agencies have to be made, to get their members too (most of them are not active at this site).
- etc..............
This is a little like working in a union. But this "ad hoc union" would have a clear mission: Find tools for recognizing illegal use of our work. This union could go to the agencies and say: "Let's all together earn more money." And that's because not only the contributors would earn more money, even the agencies would, by selling more licenses. I think this is a better mission for a union than saying: "Give us higher commissions." (Look at: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-to-fight-against-lower-and-lower-commisions!/ and http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/new-commissions-at-fotolia/ and others.
PS: @ click_click: ...
Real world sucks.
They suck our images illegally - we want to suck their money but legally.
57
« on: August 22, 2011, 15:44 »
PS:
... I asked FT about the legal/illegal use of my image two weeks ago - no answer so far.
FT Germany answered today in German, therefore in short (and without comments): The operator of the website is located in US. The operator could not be assigned to a member account on Fotolia. They will notify me once they receive feedback from US. "... Please understand that Fotolia in the pricing of the microstock market is not able to check every image usage without specific cause. If you have any helpful hints that constitute an abuse, we take it gladly."
58
« on: August 22, 2011, 15:17 »
@ click_click: I don't bother as long as it's not on a product for resale or over 800 pixels width.
(Quote from http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/an-experiment-about-watermarked-images-in-use/)
...
Picscout has already established that 9 out of 10 images online are used without a license. Speaks volumes...
This shows that your commission could be about 9 times higher, if all illegal users would pay for the licenses. A 9 times higher commission would make me happy - and I think all the other contributors too. But you don't bother? Your other post I will reply later.
59
« on: August 22, 2011, 13:28 »
@sjlocke: With an image ID and a license/download ID there is no need for me to know who licensed it for what use. License/download ID may be something like a timestamp (date and time of the download). Together with the image ID it's unique and anonymous. If I find one of my images with those IDs on one website and I find this image and license IDs in my list of downloaded files, then usage mostly will be legal. If I find more than one website using one of my images with identical IDs, it mostly will be illegal use (only one use can be legal). In this case I would fight against. If I find one of my images without those IDs, it mostly will be illegal use. I would fight against. Such an unique (and anonymous) license ID would give us control over legal/illegal use of our images in internet (and over agencies). Watermarks may be fine things, but: - Visible watermarks (i.e. of FT) are deleted in a few seconds in Photoshop (content aware fill - a highlight of PS5, even for illegal use).
- Invisible watermarks (i.e. Digimarc watermarks used by FT as declared in their blog) I didn't find. So I don't know, if they are used or not.
That's why I do not want to rely on watermarking.
60
« on: August 21, 2011, 17:45 »
Some weeks ago I tried Google image search. First search - Bingo.
Here is my image at FT:http://de.fotolia.com/id/22390470Here are the search results:
1. http://halwatishop.com/Arome-CaramelLooking at file information in PS5: The file information is empty. No (Digimarc) watermark found. There are two of my caramel images used in this image. There is no copyright information given. I can't recognize legal/illegal use. 2. http://boralipbalm.com/main.scLooking at file information in PS5: The file information is empty. No (Digimarc) watermark found. There is no copyright information given. Filename: 110_F_22390470_vkIc9s8aPe7lcpiJGdsXtCcb61eHBxux.jpg Size of the image: ImageLength 74 pixels, ImageWidth: 110 pixels This filename and imagesize one gets, when he views the search results for "toffee" at FT in Firefox, makes a right button click on the image and choses "image info". Then he gets a new Firefox window with the page info and graphics info, where he can download the image with the button "save as". He gets a file with that name, size and whithout file information, whithout fotolia watermarks and whithout Digimarc watermarks. I think, this image is in illegal use. 3. http://pixers.fr/papier-peint/chercher/togethernessThis company seems to use Fotolia's stock. I don't want to think about them now. 4. http://fukuoka.shoplog.jp/worlddrive3/15354.htmlI don't know, what this company deals with, handbags, caramel sweets, images? I'm not good in Japanese. Looking at file information in PS5: The full file information is there (IPTC etc.). No (Digimarc) watermark found. Copyright information is given (ingwio - Fotolia). I think it's a legal use (and hope I've got my commission). 5. http://www.worlddrive.jp/15354.htmlThe same as no. 4. 6. http://www.rydnails.eu/no/boutique-onglerie/soin-manucure (and some other pages of www.rydnails.eu) Back to the north of Europe and in the homeland of Tyler Olson. The file information is empty. No (Digimarc) watermark found. My caramel image is used in this image. There is no copyright information given. I can't recognize legal/illegal use. 7.... Several sites of microstock agents (FT, SS, 123RF). And here are my questions:
Why can't I see a Digimarc watermark (no. 4 and 5)? Fotolia describes this feature http://blog.fotolia.com/de/2005/08/23/digimarc-schutz-fur-ihre-fotos/. It's in German, I couldn't find it in English. The company is still at the market: http://www.digimarc.com/DigimarcForImages/.Have the buyers to put copyright information in the files, when they use our images in their images? How do you recognize a legal/illegal use of your images? What do the agents do to prevent illegal use? What could we do to let the agents prevent illegal use? Would a license ID for each download help recognizing legal/illegal use? The images have IDs. If we had a license/download ID too, we could recognize images whithout legal licenses, we could find double uses on different websites and we could check the commissions.
PS: I don't want to write a book, I want my images earn money. And I don't trust the agents. I asked FT about the legal/illegal use of my image two weeks ago - no answer so far.
61
« on: August 20, 2011, 03:15 »
...
Such a thing will never happen. I have never seen Yuri protesting or trying to change the industry for the better, (he could, if he wanted to), and I highly doubt big names will ever unite and act in unison.
...
@Eireann:
Look at Yuri's website. There you can read, that he has been working on a selling platform for the direct selling of the YA collection of images, videos, vectors, etc. since some years. Maybe he doesn't want to change the industry for the better, but it seems that he wants to change his business for the better.
If people here are looking for a knight in shining white armour, they're going to have to look elsewhere.
@holgs: Nobody here looks for a white knight, especially no white knight, who wants to change his business for the better (in the meaning of " his better"). Have a look at the other topic: "How to fight against lower and lower commissions!?" at http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-to-fight-against-lower-and-lower-commisions!/ and try to follow the discussion there.
62
« on: August 19, 2011, 15:36 »
Yeah, it seems to have died now though!!!
...
Yes, and that's allright. The name of this topic is: "Fotolia: New Subscription Commissions". In the meantime most of the contributers at FT have noticed this. And the discussion here turned in "What to do against lowering the commissions by FT". But that's not only a problem at FT. It's the problem at other agents too. And there we have another topic: "How to fight against lower and lower commissions!?" at http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-to-fight-against-lower-and-lower-commisions!/. So let's go on there.
63
« on: August 18, 2011, 16:45 »
...
Such a thing will never happen. I have never seen Yuri protesting or trying to change the industry for the better, (he could, if he wanted to), and I highly doubt big names will ever unite and act in unison.
...
@Eireann: Look at Yuri's website. There you can read, that he has been working on a selling platform for the direct selling of the YA collection of images, videos, vectors, etc. since some years. Maybe he doesn't want to change the industry for the better, but it seems that he wants to change his business for the better.
64
« on: August 18, 2011, 16:20 »
I actually don't like this idea about setting up another agent. But it's better than going to another existing agent for 50%. My solution isn't another agent. My solution is everyone selling direct with their own stores yet pulled together in one search engine. My solution wouldn't cost much and it would pretty much run itself. My solution would earn you 100%. My solution gives you full control of your own images. My solution would allow us to still upload to agents but agents would be kept in check. My solution wouldn't ... ahh I can't give too much away 
My solution probably wouldn't hurt the existing micros so much... maybe the really greedy ones. Overall it could save the industry.
You say that your idea isn't setting up another agent. But you describe an idea, where everyone is his own agent. Everyone makes his own prices and everyone will be in competition with everyone. And because you are in competition worldwide, you are in competition with people in US, Europe, China, India, Africa. There are countries, where living is not so expensive like in US or Germany.
What will one do if he can't sell his images? My experience in other industries is: He will lower the price. What will you have to do then? You will lower your prices too!!! Or you will have to change your business, because you can't earn your living. Remember - that's business as usual.
You say that agents would be kept in check. By what? By higher prices? My experience in other industries is: Buyers will not pay higher prices. By lower prices? When you lower your prices you do just the same like FT and the result is just the same. But you have done it on your own. Is this your solution of full control of your own images?
You say that your solution would earn me 100%. Remember: At last 100% of nothing is nothing.
Don't be angry, pseudoanonymous, but your ideas are not realistic. Dream on.
I don't say "do nothing". My suggestion is something like "agent hopping". I posted it yesterday.
65
« on: August 16, 2011, 16:20 »
In their mail FT told me about the highlights of V3. And it seems they think, reducing the revenue/download will help them to become no. 1 microstock agency worldwide. - I don't agree that reducing the revenue/downlod for the submitters is a highlight for me.
- And let me laugh about FT's idea, that lowered revenue/download would encourage me to help them getting no. 1 - good joke
 .
What I have done in the past, when the payment/download was lowered: - In 2010 I changed most of my images from "Partial Exclusivity" to "Non Exclusivity" and started uploading them to other agencies.
- In 2011 I reduced uploading images to FT.
What's to do now? - I will look at my payment at FT in relation to other agencies.
- If the payment at FT goes down, I'll stop uploading to FT and perhaps I will delete my images at FT.
- If the payment at FT remains the same, I'll decide later.
- If the payment at FT grows, I'll upload more images at FT.
What will you do? Please, don't tell me, that they will not notice my decision. I know, that I only have a small portfolio at FT. But I want to sell it - it's not to give away.
66
« on: August 11, 2011, 15:25 »
Gre aus Niedersachsen.
67
« on: July 28, 2011, 18:01 »
It looks as if now would all get their payment. And the experience of this story? It is good to be a contributor at SS, but... - It would be better to transfer payment on time.
- If there are problems with the payment, it would be better to send a message to the contributors, than to wait if they would miss the payment.
- It would be better to answer questions of the contributors.
- It would be better to fix problems faster (more than 3 months are a too long time).
What's to do? - Contributors: Calm down, shoot and contribute.
- Shutterstock: Look at the list above, but sell, sell, sell...
- All together: Forget it.
My personal wish to Shutterstock: If there are bad messages, don't send them before breakfast, please.
68
« on: July 28, 2011, 11:48 »
Hurray. I received the payment via Paypal just now  .
69
« on: July 27, 2011, 02:53 »
ingwio you forgot that there could be a problem with your paypal account and that's why it wasn't made. Why did all the new people appear here for the same subject at the same time when they don't come here before. All just to beat on SS. You changed payment and cause the problem to start not them.
Milinz: - You didn't read my post completely. I asked Paypal and there were no problems with my account. And as I declared: I made no changes at SS and no changes at Paypal and I did not change payment method.
- You wonder about the posts of the new members. Look at their profile and you will see, that some registered at Microstock Group long before they had trouble with the payment and long before you. You registered in July 2009, but you are a new member too. That's because you only posted 4 times since you have registered.
- I think it's no wonder that people begin to post, when they have problems. Most of the threads of all forums worldwide are opened, because people have problems with something.
70
« on: July 26, 2011, 15:26 »
RacePhoto: Yes, you're right. I'm a new member here, like some others, who replied in this thread. But I'm not a greenhorn in business and payment. And yes, you're right. Something is very suspicious.
What happened in the past? - I got an email from SS about the payment 2011-3. But I didn't receive the payment via Paypal.
- I asked SS about that. Answer by SS: Paypal denied the payment.
- I asked Paypal. Answer by Paypal: "For privacy reasons we can not give you any information about PayPal accounts of third party, which also includes payment attempts. But I can confirm that your account at the time of payment was properly opened and unlocked for receiving payment."
- I received the payment for the months before and after without any difficulties. I didn't change my profile at SS all the time. I didn't change my account at Paypal all the time.
- I asked SS for the payment several times. Last answer by SS: "Payment is still waiting to be sent as of 2011-05-06."
In the Shutterstock Submitter Terms of Service is declared, that the payment "will be issued monthly, on the 15th day of each month for the previous months downloads". I'm waiting for the money since 2011-04-15. In my experience there may be three reasons for a bank like Paypal to deny sending of payments: 1. The sender has not enough money. This looks like financial trouble. 2. There are technical problems, when transmitting the data to the bank. 3. There are problems between the ears of employees. In all cases SS has to solve the problems. In all cases SS should answer the emails. Sending money via Paypal by hand takes 3 minutes - not 3 months or longer If there were only a handful of contributors, who didn't get their money, it would take only one hour to solve the problem. But I think there are many more contributors, who didn't get their money. Look at the Shutterstock Forum for Contributors and search for the keyword "payment".
71
« on: July 03, 2011, 13:45 »
Hi Slovenian, it seems your are a little nervous because of the missing sales. Calm down and look at your sales at the end of the year not at the end of the day .
72
« on: July 02, 2011, 17:36 »
Send an email to the support once more and more and more... I didn't receive the March payment. Answer: Paypal hasn't accepted the payment. But Paypal accepted the payment before and later. Last answer: Payment is still waiting to be sent as of 2011-05-06. It still waits and waits and waits...  Did you receive your payment in the meantime?
73
« on: March 05, 2011, 08:07 »
...
Dreamstime continues to be the biggest disappointment due to their lack of understanding what images should be approved and which rejected. Veer, Canstock, 123rf, some local agencies are all above Dreamstime this month.
...
Here is a nice example for submitting images on dreamstime. I uploaded an image on fotolia, shutterstock and dreamstime. fotolia: accepted after 3 days. shutterstock: accepted after 1 day. 3 downloads (Australia, Europe, USA) in the first 2 days online (=2.38$). dreamstime: rejected after 5 days because of the title, description or keywords. I changed the title and keywords a little and resubmitted the image. 10 days after the first upload the result was: again rejected because of the same reason (title, description or keywords???). For such things at dreamstime I have no time. Then the image is just only sold at shutterstock.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
