|
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 - Firn
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26
76
« on: August 07, 2022, 10:32 »
Even though it does not seem to cover stock images at this time
How could it possibly ever cover stock images? I don't know of any stock agencies that sells licences that would even allow customers to resell the images they have licensed. And, honestly, I think this is all a bit strange. I am all for supporting artists, but this is taking it to far. You buy something and when you re-sell it later, the original buyer gets a share? Where is the line? If I sell a used BILLY Ikea shelf on ebay, IKEA gets are share? Sell a book at the flea merket, author gets a share? It just seems strange. The artist had one piece of art, a physical item, he sold it for the price he asked for it, he got the money.
77
« on: August 07, 2022, 02:51 »
Funny Scientific Fact:
In fact, carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent.
Is that the best you can do? Just make up some stuff?
It's neither funny, nor scientific, nor a fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
0.04% ... FACT...Now go and accuse real scientists they are inventing stuff you don't like!
The current molecular composition of Earths atmosphere is diatomic nitrogen (N2), 78.08 percent; diatomic oxygen (O2), 20.95 percent; argon (A), 0.93 percent; water (H20), about 0 to 4 percent; and carbon dioxide (CO2), 0.04 percent. Inert gases such as neon (Ne), helium (He), and krypton (Kr) and other constituents such as nitrogen oxides, compounds of sulfur, and compounds of ozone are found in lesser amounts.
SOURCES:
https://www.britannica.com/science/atmosphere
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/
https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/air-quality/resources/glossary/carbon-dioxide
https://ballotpedia.org/Carbon_dioxide
https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
So, its a FACT, its SCIENTIFIC, and its FUNNY and there's nothing you can do about it. 
We already had this conversation.
Funny Scientific Fact:
In fact, carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent.
That's not a "scientific fact", or at least it's just a twisted part of it without looking at the whole picture.
It's true that natural resources cause high amounts of carbon, but, unlike human caused carbon it does not add any net CO2 to the atmosphere. It's a cycle where carbon is added and taken again from the atmosphere.
Any biomass which decomposes must first have grown the CO2 released during rotting. It was first taken from the atmosphere by photosynthesis and then later added again.
It's all explained better than I could here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/the-global-co2-rise-the-facts-exxon-and-the-favorite-denial-tricks/
Fun scientific fact:
The theory of global warming in its core assumes maximum warming at the poles.
At the same time the average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88C over the past 50 years.
Can't comment on this, as I don't understand where these numbers are coming from. I found numbers of the average temperatures in the Arctic rising by 3.1C over the past 50 year. (Source: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme ). I did find one article with your numbers, but it didn't specify where exactly the number was suppose dto come from.
78
« on: August 03, 2022, 10:21 »
When I look at pages, I see more of Getty Images than any other agency.
I just browsed the images on some German news sites I frequently go to and there too Getty is the one most often credited. Other than that it's IMAGO, picture alliance or dpa - All german agencies and two I have never heard of before: Contentity and bitprojects. Upon googling them Contentity is another German agency and I have no clue what bitprojects is as google gives me results related to bit coins. But none of the images used are from free sites. I don't think I have ever consciously seen free images used anywhere but on (mostly personal) blogs.
79
« on: August 02, 2022, 03:48 »
Yes, you can only opt out of distributor and novel use sales in April.
But people who opted out reported they still get these sales. I do too, though I only opted out of novel use and distributor sales from certain countries like china.
80
« on: August 01, 2022, 01:29 »
US solved that problem (thru inaction) - we just store the waste at 'specially designed pools' at individual power plants!
That's not solving the problem, it's delaying the problem.
What happens in 500 years when the containers start to leak? When the walls of the power plant start to become bristle? What happens in 10.000 years (if the world still exists)? Do you know what "Nuclear semiotics" is? A field of research to come up with a long-term nuclear waste warning message, the attempt to warn humankind in the far future of the danger of location of nuclear waste without the assumption that they speak any language known to us.
Storing them in a facility is just postponing to solve the problem and the only solution to this problem would be finding a method to make nuclear waste not-contaminated and no one has solved that problem yet. In the menatime storing nuclear waste anywhere is just delaying the problem to future generations. Because the containers WILL leak eventually. But it's the whole climate change problem all over again and why I think we won't be able to stop it: "Why should I care what happens in 500 years? That's not my problem. I'll be dead by then. I want my cheap electricity now. Don't care that future generations will have to pay the price."
sorry - sarcasm lost! - i agree w you completely
Oops, sorry, my sarcasm detector is way off. With what weird opinions some people display on the internet you can never know whether they are being serious or not.
81
« on: July 31, 2022, 13:39 »
US solved that problem (thru inaction) - we just store the waste at 'specially designed pools' at individual power plants!
That's not solving the problem, it's delaying the problem. What happens in 500 years when the containers start to leak? When the walls of the power plant start to become bristle? What happens in 10.000 years (if the world still exists)? Do you know what "Nuclear semiotics" is? A field of research to come up with a long-term nuclear waste warning message, the attempt to warn humankind in the far future of the danger of location of nuclear waste without the assumption that they speak any language known to us. Storing them in a facility is just postponing to solve the problem and the only solution to this problem would be finding a method to make nuclear waste not-contaminated and no one has solved that problem yet. In the menatime storing nuclear waste anywhere is just delaying the problem to future generations. Because the containers WILL leak eventually. But it's the whole climate change problem all over again and why I think we won't be able to stop it: "Why should I care what happens in 500 years? That's not my problem. I'll be dead by then. I want my cheap electricity now. Don't care that future generations will have to pay the price."
82
« on: July 31, 2022, 07:05 »
Well, Germany did invest huge amounts of money in renewable energies, but it takes time to rebuild the whole energy generation of an industrial country.
Not really. The Germany government spends around 37 BILLION subsidizing the coal industry each year. In 2021 they only spent around 13 billion for the development of renewable energies. And there was plenty of time. Only that for the past 20 years the governmet wasted all the time. Compared to the support of other industries, they basically did close to nothing for renewable energy industries.
I do not think that much more would have been realistic, particularly as we have reached a point were much more electric energy from Wind and Solar does not make a lot of sense without the possibility to store the energy and we did not make any real progress in this area during the last decades and I do not see any country really having more success there, except some countries with large resources of hydropower.
Also not really. We could store much more energy if the government had spend more money on building strorage facilities, instead of supporting the coal industry. The technology is there. We just don't spend enough money on it. And right now we don't produce enough renewable energy to have any kind of storage problem. Also, we could produce a lot more energy through renewable recources that don't need to be stored, but could be used right away. Put a solar panel on every single building. A solar panel on a roof can cover around 40% of the electricity needed for a residential building. That's 40% less energy you need from other recources. But for that, a law that would require solar pannels on roofs of newly build buildings should have been passed 20 years ago. Didn't happen till today.
83
« on: July 31, 2022, 01:13 »
The German government made another big political blunder when they decided to shutdown all their nuclear power plants, only to increase their dependency on Russian gas and oil.
That was as stupid as banning fracking.
Reopening coal power plants and validating Putin's war crimes is definitely the worst alternative: pollution is worsen and innocent people are dying.
I disagree. The political blunder the (past) German government did was not to decide to shutdown nuclear power plants and ban fraking - These were the right decisions. As long as we do not know what to do with our nuclear waste and as long as fracking poses a health and environmental risk due to toxic chemicals and water pollution these are no acceptable alternatives. The big blunder the German government did was do decide to shutdown nuclear power plants and ban fraking, while not pushing renewable energy resources in a way that they could compensate for nuclear power and fracking.
84
« on: July 27, 2022, 01:25 »
Too bad this facts don't fit in the equation in this summers European record temperatures
Again, confusing temperature with climate and not understanding that single high temperature records don't have much menaing: For example, According to your numbers Island might have had a record of 30.5 degrees in 1939 on a single day - Doesn't say much about whether the avarage temperature in the year 1939 was higher or lower than in for example 2022. Here is an overview of the annual temperature by year in Stykkishlmur, Island:
85
« on: July 26, 2022, 11:30 »
Funny Scientific Fact:
In fact, carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent.
That's not a "scientific fact", or at least it's just a twisted part of it without looking at the whole picture. It's true that natural resources cause high amounts of carbon, but, unlike human caused carbon it does not add any net CO2 to the atmosphere. It's a cycle where carbon is added and taken again from the atmosphere. Any biomass which decomposes must first have grown the CO2 released during rotting. It was first taken from the atmosphere by photosynthesis and then later added again. It's all explained better than I could here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/the-global-co2-rise-the-facts-exxon-and-the-favorite-denial-tricks/Fun scientific fact:
The theory of global warming in its core assumes maximum warming at the poles.
At the same time the average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88C over the past 50 years. Can't comment on this, as I don't understand where these numbers are coming from. I found numbers of the average temperatures in the Arctic rising by 3.1C over the past 50 year. (Source: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme ). I did find one article with your numbers, but it didn't specify where exactly the number was suppose dto come from.
86
« on: July 24, 2022, 11:46 »
If there is one thing I can't stand hearing anymore, then it's the constant denying or downplaying of severe issues with the claim that these issues were not really bad and someone was making them appear more serious just so he could earn money with them. It's the same with the corona virus issue. "The parma industry just wants to make money!".  Oh my gosh. People actually want to make money and not work for free! What a shock! Are there people profiting financially from crises? Yes, of course! But it's not the pharma industry or the solar energy industry or whatever that is warning us about climate change or pandemics. It's scientist. And not just individual ones who, of course, get paid by various industries as well, but it's scientific consensus all over the world! One has to be nuts and nose deep in conspiracy theories to assume that prrofiting industries managed to manipulatre scientist all over the world to come to the same conclusions. Also, why is it held agains one industry to want to make money, but not the other? Take Germany. One of the reasons we still haven't ditched coal mining is the constant whining about all the jobs that will be lost. So what's the plan? We keep supporting a not sustainable production of energy, so people don't lose jobs, creating new jobs in that industry all the time so we have a neverending cycle till we run out of coal and these people lose their jobs anyways? Why not instead focus on creating jobs with another energy? Solar energy? Wind energy? Geothermal energy? Biomass from plants? Hydropower? But, oh no, it's the evil sustainable energy industry that "just wants to make money" and manipulate us. Because the coal mining industry is a charity and does not want to make money at all. Yes, someone profits from changes that would come with measures to fight climate change. But there is always also someone who profits from not taking these measures. Why not point fingers at these people? The ones who do not want the change, do not want to fight climate change, because it would mean they'd make less money? Why is it always the people who want to fight climate change that get blamed for "just wanting to make money", why not the people who want to fight these measures, because, just the same, they "just want to make money?" For example Porsche just successfully influenced german politicans to fight the EU wide stop of production of fuel based cars. There sole motive to fight this change was the fear of losing profit. But people who want to fight climate change and would profit from it financially are somehow the bad guys? All of this doesn't make sense.
87
« on: July 21, 2022, 00:37 »
It is quite simple actually:
Right now inflation for most products is simply caused by production costs rising: The material to produce a product costs more, so do transportation and energy costs.
In 99% of all cases the person/company that produces the product gets to decide the price for which they sell them to end-customers and retailers. Their production costs have risen, so in order to keep the same profit, they sell their product for more.
But Microstock is one of the few industries where the producer - the person who now has higher production costs, for example by higher fuel prices when driving to shooting locations or higher prices for gear - does not get to decide the price. It's the agencies that decide the price and they aren't the ones who have higher porduction costs, so they see no reason to raise prices for end products as, unlike contributors, they have no financial loss due to rising production costs.
That's the whole problem. In microstock producers can't decide their prices. We can't forward our rising expenses to customers and microstock agencies don't have high enough morality standards to do it for us.
88
« on: July 20, 2022, 13:53 »
LOL. Like man has any power over changing the climate.
You could benefit from following up with some science. You know, the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment which scientists have devoted their lifes to in order to accumulate knowledge that makes them come to the conclusion that, yes, man has power over changing the climate. It's embarassing how many people think they have more knowledge over things others have studied for decades or how they think something like a quick youtube video can give them better education that decades of scientific study.
89
« on: July 20, 2022, 02:59 »
Average month (again).
But speaking of iStock - No one else got a mail from them with a "special opportunity" offer? I can't be the only one.
I did and rejected their offer.
Similar to AS only worst.
Also rejected it. Much worse in my opinion!
90
« on: July 19, 2022, 14:02 »
Average month (again).
But speaking of iStock - No one else got a mail from them with a "special opportunity" offer? I can't be the only one.
Do you have less work on IS than elsewhere?
No, should be pretty much the same as on SS and slightly more than Adobe because of editorial content.
91
« on: July 19, 2022, 11:01 »
Average month (again).
But speaking of iStock - No one else got a mail from them with a "special opportunity" offer? I can't be the only one.
92
« on: July 18, 2022, 07:39 »
Hi everyone, i just checked my photos still in review, just wonder how much photos will selected. How many we can know the result ?
No more photos will be selected: I have confirmed there will be no additional waves of approvals for photos from the current group of nominated files.
93
« on: July 17, 2022, 01:54 »
Good. Though I seem to be one of the ones for whom this option is not yet available.
If you go to settings and in the search bar at the top type in Embeds, it will pull up. You can toggle it off from there.
Ah, I see. Thanks! I followed the "a new option" link from the article and it just lead me to an instagram page that said "This function is not available to all users." But it worked the way you described it.
94
« on: July 16, 2022, 00:57 »
It is the companies that are ready to pay a lot of money that the agencies want and that we want.
Again, I disagree. Agencies are pushing subscription plants like crazy. That's what they want the most, but not what we want as for us that's the 0.10$ sales. And these costomers - the ones with subscription plants for 750 images per month are very often the customers that need hundreds of images per month for random news articles online and will not hunt down the best quality image for each of these 750 images.
95
« on: July 15, 2022, 15:41 »
Good. Though I seem to be one of the ones for whom this option is not yet available.
96
« on: July 15, 2022, 05:18 »
Of course they do, customers always prefer the site that has the best quality and selection.
I doubt that. There are countless examples in various industries that show that the cheapest prize is the main attrackting factor for most customers. Stores like Primark that sell shirts for 3$ that fall appart after you have worn them 5 times being extremely successfull. Governments buying face masks of qustionable quality from China during a pandemic instead of supporting local companies, because they get to save 0.05$ per mask. There are retail researches out there that show: Low prices are the most important thing to draw customers. There is a also reason why there is a race to the bottom regarding lowest prices/commissions between agencies and not a race for the highest quality images. Of course there are customers who will prefere high quality over a cheap price - I imagine mostly customers who use images for physical merchandise and in advertisemet. But I have high doubts that all customers always prefer quality over price, like you claim. If you look for example at blogs or news sites online you can often easily tell that they didn't even bother to spend time browsing the database for the best quality image within that microstock database, but just picked the first image that popped up. They just need something to illustrate their article.
97
« on: July 14, 2022, 01:33 »
I don't understand why Alamy has to nickle-and-dime the contributors so much.
Today is the 13th, or the end of the ninth working day. my pittance has not arrived yet.
We used to get paid in the first week of the month, now it moves to the middle of the month.
I got my payment yesterday. But for me it's always coming at the latest day possible. They say payment will be processed "within 9 working days" and it's always on the 9th day for me (yesterday was the 13th and 4 of these days were saturdays and Sundays), never a day earlier, so the " within 9 working days" should rather be called " after 9 working days".
99
« on: July 11, 2022, 02:06 »
Ah, I see. I had not looked at the poll before you mentioned it.
100
« on: July 11, 2022, 01:45 »
I see them on the poll chart.
They are listed as second behind Adobe.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
