|
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 - RT
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 77
126
« on: May 11, 2012, 10:45 »
Time will tell how this new search will affect our bottom line, in the mean time six of my latest batches are missing AGAIN
Two of my latest uploads have disappeared over night.......again. I wonder if there's as many bugs on the buyers side of things.
127
« on: May 10, 2012, 13:08 »
@ Elena Pretty much the same experience on SS as you. Re FT when they started that 'new images' page I used to get one in there out of nearly every batch, guess I must have fallen out with someone because I haven't had one in the collection for ages, new files can disappear to never be seen again 
128
« on: May 10, 2012, 13:04 »
Perfect example of why you shouldn't upload to every single agency out there.
129
« on: May 10, 2012, 13:02 »
Also, gty.im isn't a logo, particularly.
It's the web address for the image, not sure they're considering using it as the logo, when you enter the address in the search bar it takes you to the appropriate image on their site which then has the usual Gettyimages logo as the watermark.
130
« on: May 10, 2012, 12:57 »
..... but I've never heard anyone selling more at IS than at SS.
I sell more at SS but make more money at iS.
131
« on: May 10, 2012, 12:55 »
I don't have Windows but it sounds like you're attempting to do what iStock haven't been able to do themselves ever - i.e. have a search engine that actually works.
132
« on: May 10, 2012, 12:53 »
Wish you'd said it was by Paul Melcher, that would have saved me the effort of clicking on the link.
133
« on: May 10, 2012, 08:06 »
he also probably needed exclusivity thus he picked up RM images to avoid having other people using the same image.
Bearing in mind that lagerreek named the agency I think you should add a disclaimer to your comment above, because a professional ad agency would no doubt be fully aware that just buying a RM image from Getty or any other traditional agency does not offer them any form of exclusivity whatsoever.
RT! actually you hit on a very important point here ( I really didnt find out if they bought it exclusive or not) however, thats what I have been saying for years now, even if you buy exclusive-rights today, there is absoloutely no guarantee at all that a to 99% similar image doesnt exist somewhere else, does it? I mean with hundereds of millions of images, copying, etc, there is no security at all.
Which leads me to the IS, exclusivity lark, its just, BS, thats all.
Actually I wasn't inferring towards similars that may be available on other sites by other contributors, I was referring to antistocks statement that inferred that buying s standard RM gives you some form of 'image' exclusivity, which as you know it doesn't. The only thing buying a RM licensed image from Getty does is to afford you the ability to ask them what industries/usage the image has been purchased for in the past, it doesn't however mean that another person at a later date can't purchase and use the image in the exact same industry/sector that you've used it for - if you want that then you need to purchase a RP or RM exclusive license which runs into the thousands.
134
« on: May 10, 2012, 06:42 »
he also probably needed exclusivity thus he picked up RM images to avoid having other people using the same image.
Bearing in mind that lagerreek named the agency I think you should add a disclaimer to your comment above, because a professional ad agency would no doubt be fully aware that just buying a RM image from Getty or any other traditional agency does not offer them any form of exclusivity whatsoever.
135
« on: May 04, 2012, 08:14 »
I'm confused, is he getting a puppy or not.
136
« on: May 04, 2012, 08:10 »
At IS, last I knew, by dls, it was Yuri, Lise, DNY59 and then me. You can see my number on my profile.
Just think where you'd be if you weren't such a forum chatterbox 
137
« on: April 18, 2012, 09:55 »
Maybe it's possible that he could get someone to fix all the bugs at SS
138
« on: April 13, 2012, 17:08 »
I have no idea what's happening at FT, at a time when sales at other sites seem to be prospering due no doubt to iStocks recent self inflicted implosion, sales at Fotolia are getting worse.
139
« on: April 13, 2012, 17:00 »
Wasn't it by that man that takes photos of elephants anhd/or piglets? Gosh this mush inside my skull can't remember if that's the same bloke, or if that was an Alamy sale or from somewhere else.
Bob Elsdale and he sold the one you're thinking of on Getty for $60k. The fish market shot was sold on Alamy to an American bank for $65k if memory serves me correctly and the big one the OP is talking about was a photo of a can of Tuna I believe.
140
« on: March 27, 2012, 15:22 »
141
« on: March 22, 2012, 14:18 »
Ah...just seen Sharpshot has started an identical thread. Leaf can you combine these?
142
« on: March 22, 2012, 14:17 »
Just completed a survey I got from Fotolia via email, reading between the lines I think they may be waking up to the fact that treating contributors like crap is losing them sales.
143
« on: March 14, 2012, 17:47 »
I just had three shots rejected for shadows.
The photos deliberately had shadows as they were shot in the late evening sunshine !! I even included shadows as part of the description.
I'm gobsmacked sometimes that agencies employ reviewers that clearly don't know the first thing about photography.
144
« on: March 13, 2012, 17:57 »
Interesting, I wonder if they'll include a video version of ACR so you can just drag the clips in and start editing and export them as whatever you like.
I've often hoped they'd include vectors into PS, tried Illustrator once and it was like having to learn the whole interface all over again.
145
« on: March 13, 2012, 14:55 »
Thanks for your post - I think everyone here now knows one thing 100% 
Yep despite being shown by various people that not everything you see on the internet is fact, you're stubbornly sticking to the self belief that you're right about everything  And it appears you've decided to start insulting people based on the country they come from: Finally, I find it just a little odd that a Swede can lecture anyone about wrongful accusations without any evidence, how do you know my real name isn't Julian Assange?
Which ironically is something people have been banned from this forum for, so on that note I'm done with this thread.
146
« on: March 13, 2012, 14:32 »
I did read your post carefully. Can I say if you had read my posts carefully you would have seen that "the German guy" took his picture on 3 February 2012. I even posted a screen grab off the DT page which listed this date from the EXIF data. Not even Houdini could have posted an image before it was even in his camera.
According to the 'EXIF data' on one of my latest images uploaded to DT the photo was taken in 2009, it was taken and uploaded last month.
There must be either something wrong with your camera then or DT are publishing inaccurate information on their site. Take the matter up with them. I am sure they'll be interested to know something is a miss.
Actually it's neither and I know why it appears like that, but my point to you once again is this - you do not know 100% of the facts about the two images in your OP. OT FYI - I did a hard reset on my camera and didn't reset the date hence it shows the wrong date on that image, but as gostwyck points out above I could put in any date I wanted, the EXIF data only shows info that the user has set, it's not something that can be relied upon.
147
« on: March 13, 2012, 13:38 »
I did read your post carefully. Can I say if you had read my posts carefully you would have seen that "the German guy" took his picture on 3 February 2012. I even posted a screen grab off the DT page which listed this date from the EXIF data. Not even Houdini could have posted an image before it was even in his camera.
According to the 'EXIF data' on one of my latest images uploaded to DT the photo was taken in 2009, it was taken and uploaded last month.
148
« on: March 13, 2012, 12:34 »
I did respond to your scenario:
The 'original' poster is a resident in the Russian Republic. The copycat poster is a German guy. I checked as I have stated a few times before posting the OP (aka Original Post)
I checked the people were not the same.
And regarding the link, it is the same actually. The person was named exactly the same.
So are you saying only the affected artist can identify a copycat on this forum site and no-one else can?
I read that but it doesn't respond to my scenario, all that shows is that it's two different artists and that one uploaded the image to SS before the other, it doesn't show who created the original image first, which, if you read my scenario carefully it may make sense - in short my scenario asks - what if the Russian guy had copied the image from the German guy who used to be an exclusive on iStock. As for your last line, it's not my forum but if you applied those rules at least it would lessen the chance of wrongly accusing someone. FTR - I don't think what you've done is morally wrong and I'm sure you had good intent for something that the majority of us agree in, I just think it's risky to 'out' someone like this unless you are 100% certain of the facts, which, when it concerns images appearing on stock photography agencies is very hard to judge for sure. And as I and others have noticed from this and other examples the agencies just appear to make snap, possibly income affecting decisions and then ban someone.
149
« on: March 13, 2012, 12:02 »
I beginning to be convinced that many of the people commenting here just don't get it.
I get it, and I think a lot of others get it to, I just think you went about it wrong, there's no denying that the two images are very very similar (they're not identical) and I take your word that the description and keywords were identical, but as has been pointed out to you they 'may' have been copies of copies of the original - that doesn't justify anything IMO, here's something that I don't know if you've considered, what about this hypothetical scenario:
It's no secret that iStock have upset some of it's exclusive contributors over the past year and many have 'jumped ship' and gone independent, what if the guy who's portfolio you've just announced to the world contained the "blatant copy" was in fact the original creator of the image but has only recently uploaded it to SS, what you've inadvertently done would have in actual fact had the original artists account closed and allowed the copier to continue. Feel good about yourself now?
Blatant copying is wrong no doubt about it, but this is not the place to make judgement and we're not the people to do it - contact the artists direct and let them deal with it.
The 'original' poster is a resident in the Russian Republic. The copycat poster is a German guy. I checked as I have stated a few times before posting the OP.
It's amazing how the general attitude of poster s on the MSG site has changed in only 13 months, there was a time......
http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/happy-so-far-about-the-way-this-copycat-has-been-handled-by-the-agents/
Funny that.
It's not really the same, the post you've linked to was done by the person who alleged that others had copied his work - as for attitudes changing, from what I read out of the few people that replied some didn't think it was an exact copy and others agreed. Either way I notice you've chosen not to comment on my possible scenario and my suggestion that you should have contacted the artists involved and let them deal with it rather than announce to the world what you 'think' has happened. Unless of course you are Preto Perola? Either way what's done is done now, let's hope you we're right.
150
« on: March 13, 2012, 11:41 »
I beginning to be convinced that many of the people commenting here just don't get it.
I get it, and I think a lot of others get it to, I just think you went about it wrong, there's no denying that the two images are very very similar (they're not identical) and I take your word that the description and keywords were identical, but as has been pointed out to you they 'may' have been copies of copies of the original - that doesn't justify anything IMO, here's something that I don't know if you've considered, what about this hypothetical scenario: It's no secret that iStock have upset some of it's exclusive contributors over the past year and many have 'jumped ship' and gone independent, what if the guy who's portfolio you've just announced to the world contained the "blatant copy" was in fact the original creator of the image but has only recently uploaded it to SS, what you've inadvertently done would have in actual fact had the original artists account closed and allowed the copier to continue. Feel good about yourself now? Blatant copying is wrong no doubt about it, but this is not the place to make judgement and we're not the people to do it - contact the artists direct and let them deal with it.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 77
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
