MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Show Posts

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 - michaeldb

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 37
I haven't submitted any 3D renders for months, but the last I recall SS and DT and I think also Adobe required that you include certain specific words and phrases like "3d render" in the keywords and sometimes in both keywords and title. SS was very picky about it.

General Stock Discussion / Re: ebook cover license question
« on: March 08, 2018, 22:51 »
If possible, you could try to contact the person who made the image and offer to buy the license you need direct from him/her.

I don't really get bitcoin but I do get that had I invested in it a few years ago, I would be a multimillionaire now.  Steemit is part of Steem, one of the big alt coins that could be huge or could be part of a massive bubble.  It's a bit like investing in the early days of the tech bubble. It could be a good way to make money, at least in the short term.  As the microstock bubble doesn't look too healthy right now, I thought I might as well get into another one :)

Thanks for the link. I signed up and am awaiting confirmation. It looks like blockchain money could be an interesting way to handle the microtransactions which gave "microstock" its name in the first place. Worth experimenting with maybe.

Be interesting to see if Shutter decides to remove a lot of the images that have never sold. The 'House Cleaning' should happen soon...
Why would you think that?  They obviously want more images, hence almost no QC standards and an easy contributors entry test compared to previous years.  I can't see them accepting almost everything, then removing most of it.


Above, you also said, "Or perhaps the bigger collection entices more buyers?  Otherwise, why are the sites with the most images so much more popular than those that were more selective?"

I think that it is one thing that observant old timers should have realized from watching this business over the years: Curated collections don't do as well. One underlying rule of microstock: Let the buyers decide what they want. They know better than the curators do.

So they build a pretty amazing watermark removing tool and identify a solution. What would be really helpful is if they took their discovery and built a watermark generating tool.
Indeed. Why did they build a watermark removal tool if they planned that no one would ever use it? So they could sell software to defend against their watermark removal tool once it "accidentally" gets into the hands of the public?

Google has been fighting a long battle to get of the copyright which is the basis of our ability to make money. Google's real motto is "Do evil and sell ads which profit  from the work of creatives while paying them nothing."

The issue of whether or not you can use in your renders for microstock elements you bought at places like Turbosquid comes up now and then. It can be complicated. The last I knew, Shutterstock will not accept any renders of architectural interiors, for the reasons mentioned in the thread you linked to. However they will accept some other kinds of CG renders.

It is my experience that some elements, such as obj meshes, textures, etc can be used legally and can be accepted at most microstock agencies, but it depends on what license you get from the vendor. It can be hard to know since most such licenses are written in bad legalese. But it is my understanding that most vendors do not grant a license to use elements in stock which you sell. E.g. my reading of Turbosquid's license is that they do not allow this. However some vendors do grant such a license. You just have to read the license and try to figure out what rights it grants you.

(DISCLAIMER: I've done quite a bit of CG rendering though not much animation.) Looks perfect me to me. Very nice work. I could see a lot of uses for this. Probably the reviewer just screwed up.

It is "exciting news". As that phrase has taken on a special meaning in microstock. Looks like Adobe is beginning to implement the sort of divisive and inexplicably self-destructive policies which allowed iStock to successfully blow the huge headstart it had in the industry while simultaneously alienating almost all of its suppliers. As the saying goes, history doesn't really repeat itself but it does rhyme.

The exciting news will be good news for Shutterstock and Adobe's other competitors - who will enjoy seeing Adobe shoot itself in the foot the way iStock did so often - and Stocksy contributors.

My broker's analysis of SSTK:

Financial strength Analysis: SSTK has little or no debt and, thus, little financial risk.

Effectiveness Analysis: SSTK is consistently one of the most efficient companies in the Internet Software & Services industry. With a Return on Assets, Revenues Per Employee, and Return on Equity of 6.93%, $591,945, and 11.97% respectively, they are among the most effective companies in the industry.

Profitability Analysis: SSTK is one of the more profitable companies in the Internet Software & Services industry with a net margin of 6.52%. Its net margin and operating margin are both among the strongest of any peer, while its gross margin is inline with the industry median.

Valuation Analysis: Because SSTK is in the Internet Software & Services industry and has positive earnings, the PEG and PE ratios are the most appropriate valuation measures. The Price to Book ratio is excluded since it likely underestimates the company's book value by overlooking hidden assets such as intellectual property. The Price to Sales ratio is not as meaningful as the PE or PEG ratio, due to the company's positive earnings. Therefore SSTK seems expensive with a PEG value of 3.44x, above the Internet Software & Services industry median PEG of 2.26x, which is supported by a PE of 51.55x that is also above the industry median of 35.95x.

(Disclaimer: I have no shares of SSTK and have no plans to acquire any in the near future  :) )

General Stock Discussion / Re: about fonts using!
« on: May 19, 2017, 21:18 »
The fonts aren't usable once you convert to outline. All the sites accept images with text, as far as I know. iS wouldn't accept any illos with text for a while, even hand-drawn text, but they got over that.

This is correct. You can always use the fonts which come with Windows or Illustrator or Photoshop (but you must convert them to outlines). I would only add that while you can download fonts online for free, you may not really get a license to use them. Fonts are for sale on sites such as fonts.com and myfonts.com. You must pay for those fonts to legally have a license to use them.

@ namussi  Thanks for the link, fascinating stuff  :D

@ minsc  Thanks for posting this. Very interesting.

Exciting news: +15.03  ;D

Times are changing, but i can think of another name i would put a higher priority on.
I have two names in my mind.


Dreamstime.com / Re: Dreamstime uses AI in review process
« on: March 17, 2017, 20:10 »
Hate to disagree somewhat with a couple of the posts here, but if DT's software can change itself to be more effective then is indeed "machine learning", a term which many today prefer to "AI" but is really the same thing (also called "deep learning").

General Stock Discussion / Re: Where are the winners?
« on: March 13, 2017, 20:30 »
They are too busy actually producing images to spend time on this forum  ;D ;D ;D
I enjoy doing it a lot.
I am almost making a living out of it (I live in England, if I decide to go back to the old country, Italy, I could live very well with it) and I have only been doing it for less than two years.
I am busy producing images 4 days a week, but there are also those two days a week when I am post processing files, keywording and uploading. This is when I go on forums

Nice to see that someone can start in microstock and be (almost) making a living in a couple of years. Congratulations, you're a winner!

I had not read about Project Felix and it is very interesting. A studio-type program for compositing 3D models using a familiar Adobe/Photoshop interface and being able to render in VRay using VRray materials and tweaking the render in PShop is a compelling idea. If it is included in Cloud I will be giving it a try.

As to the future of 3D/CG it looks like Autodesk's position as Max/Maya being top dog is becoming history. If I were younger and had the money to splurge I would not hesitate for a second to get into Houdini. That is the future of CG for things like feature films and probably high end architectural rendering, animation for TV and things like that. If Adobe's Felix becomes the default for lower-end CG, Max and Maya may go the way of Lightwave.

Thanks cascoly.

Unfortunately seems that also the cia world factbook requires credits:

"Copyright Notice

Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the Central Intelligence Agency Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Central Intelligence Agency's permission. We request only that the Central Intelligence Agency be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits or bylines be similarly credited to the photographer or author or Central Intelligence Agency, as appropriate."

Where can i find a source of free flag images for microstock ?

It's a request, not a requirement. It's not possible for an image to be in the public domain and have attribution requirements. That's why it's public domain.
This is the correct answer. Public domain is public domain. The creator cannot set limits or requirements on how the image is used if he puts it in the public domain. The Notice only requests that if you create bylines or credits that you credit the CIA.

If you are not sure about the microstock site's policy on using such images, I suggest that you include a note with your image when you submit it making it clear where you got the image in question and that it is stated as being in the public domain and that your usage is derivative and so can by copyrighted by you. If the site wants to reject it for that reason, they will. You will not get into trouble.

I have submitted hundreds of images to many microstock sites, images which have used elements (such as fonts) which I had the license to use in the way that I did. No such image has ever been rejected if I included that information. People who claim that you have to have created everything in your image are not correct. You just have to be able to show that you have a license or permission to use it in the way that you have.

Those aren't really very high quality renders. You could do images like that with e-on software Vue, which is not too expensive, and models and textures purchased from http://www.e-onsoftware.com/resources/?page=cornucopia

michael db

Sorry for the poor English language.

It's obvious that if I create an animation or graphics (Blender, Photoshop), then I am the author of the file and have copyrights. So I can give the Royalty Free license to microstock.

I'm not going to use the same free photos, graphics for Licence CC0 to microstock only to its assembly 3d animation or graphics as it says SpaceStockFootage.

That's why I asked about the requirements of Fotolia and other microstock as in the case of such use (You must be the author of the file and Total elements of art.)
No reason to apologize. I could have made myself clearer. I think that microstock sites say things like "You must be the author of the file and Total elements of art." to try to protect themselves as much as possible without really meaning that. The key concept is copyright. I used to submit a statement with my images saying, "I am the copyright owner" and if there were any questionable elements include evidence that I had a right to use them. For example if you use a font in your image, include a link to the site and even to the usage license on the site. It is like a model or property release in a way. It always worked for me (I don't do microstock anymore).


I do not understand Adobe Photoshop does not allow commercial use filter noise, blur in the pictures? Which filters? Where can I find the source?

The program Blender is free for commercial use. https://www.blender.org/about/

The blender program is free or say open source, but the resources have license associated to it, there are plenty of websites which say free for commercial use but when you go through their license terms, they do not allow re-selling.

Why don't you directly ask them about it, we can only share suggestion but a concrete answer can be provided by their team only.
This is correct. I do not know how to explain the basic idea of intellectual property licensing here but I will try again. Most graphics software, such as Blender or Photoshop, DO allow you to make images using them, else what is the point of having such software? The question is, after using the software do you own the copyright to the image you made? If the answer is yes, then you can sell the image on microstock sites, because what you are selling to other people is a license to use your image. And you can only do that if you own the copyright.

Owning and licensing copyright is the basic concept of microstock. If you do not understand what that means, find some way to learn what it means. Otherwise you will never understand what business you are in.

michaeldb are you an Aspie?

Stacey, I've never been diagnosed but I wouldn't be surprised. I admire Temple Grandin for sure, the way she used her disabilities to create abilities is a wonderful story and inspiration. Thinking in pictures is a useful ability for us illustrators. 

The relevant question about using any graphics software, elements, plugins, actions, textures or whatever is: Does the software license allow you to use the software to create images of which you are the copyright? If the answer is yes, then you can use the software to make microstock images. Because when you "sell microstock" images you are really granting a license to someone to use the image to which you own the copyright.

For example, what if Adobe did not allow you to use the fonts or filters in Photoshop to create images of which you are the copyright owner? Adobe would go out of business overnight - their software would be virtually useless because that's what people use it for, to create images of which they own the copyright.

Most 3D software grants you the license to create images of which you own the copyright. A few do not. One example is Turbosquid, the largest seller of 3D models for 3DS Max and other 3D software. Turbosquid's license forbids the use of models to create stock images. But, as I said, this is an exception.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 37


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle