pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Large image previews on SS ?  (Read 78457 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #225 on: October 29, 2015, 16:51 »
0
Ok


marthamarks

« Reply #226 on: October 29, 2015, 17:13 »
+2
(notice Shelma1 and marthamarks (my two archenemies, who just HAVE to dispute everything I say  ;) )

Wow. Just wow.

Gig

« Reply #227 on: October 29, 2015, 17:14 »
0
The new watermark is just as useless http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-286685414/stock-vector-chicago-skyline-big-city-architecture-engraving-vector-illustration-hand-drawn.html


You have to check those who have the black footer ... In my port there just three files with the second version filigree

marthamarks

« Reply #228 on: October 29, 2015, 17:15 »
+2
The new watermark is just as useless http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-286685414/stock-vector-chicago-skyline-big-city-architecture-engraving-vector-illustration-hand-drawn.html


You have to check those who have the black footer ... In my port there just three files with the second version filigree


So we have to browse through our entire portfolios on SS to find which images have the "new and improved" V2 WM?

Really, Shutterstock? This is the best you can do?

« Reply #229 on: October 29, 2015, 17:24 »
+1
Next SS message to us will be:

"Considering your expressed discontent about watermark, SS team has decided to listen you and take an action about this. Therefore we have decided to remove the watermark from high quality previews.

Yours, SS Team.
"

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #230 on: October 29, 2015, 17:31 »
+1
(notice Shelma1 and marthamarks (my two archenemies, who just HAVE to dispute everything I say  ;) )

Wow. Just wow.

Lol.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #231 on: October 29, 2015, 17:37 »
+2
Here's the thing...if people start stealing our images and not buying, Shutterstock will lose even more money than we will. After all, they keep 72%. The minute they start losing a penny of moola-la they'll jump right into action to strengthen that watermark. I just hope it's soon enough that all our images aren't indexed by Google and spread all over the place.

I was the first to speak in their defense when they started offering unwatermarked images to large enterprises for comps, because I could see the potential for large sales in a controlled environment (which has panned out). But I really don't see an upside to allowing the general public to download a large percentage of our work for free.

« Reply #232 on: October 29, 2015, 17:49 »
0
in answer to the comment ...
" how long do we have to wait for an effective watermark and
a non-canned response to joanne and all"...

dear faithful contributors of ss,
the effects of marijuana can linger from hours to a lifetime.
pls be assured we are taking your concerns seriously.
we are servicing concerns on a priority basis.

(huh, what??? oh, ok... sorry i haven't inhale enuff of the stuff yet. because i needed to type this email to those msg buggers. ..
wow, this is really good stuff !!! where did you get it???...


Fab

« Reply #233 on: October 29, 2015, 20:07 »
+3
I've noticed this large preview a few days ago...
I usually make my vector images very fast, so it's not a huge problem for me if somebody downloads a few of them without paying. But I know, there are many of contributors who put large amount of time into their works.
(The images I've put the most work into are never purchased...)

Am I right, that now previews are not as large as a few days ago?

Yep, they look smaller

Anyway its not a problem of sales only its a problem of copyright

I dont like the idea of some random people saving image with invisible filigree by right-clicking on it and put it on fb cover :)

« Reply #234 on: October 29, 2015, 20:27 »
+3
I'm thinking that if this problem doesn't get fixed very soon, like within a week, I'll start pulling my images out of SS and going exclusive with FT.

I don't believe any single agency. Who knows what FT will do in future? May be they are to follow SS. We (at least I) had more faith with SS before, but they ruined it.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2015, 21:02 by anathaya »

« Reply #235 on: October 29, 2015, 20:35 »
+1
Next SS message to us will be:

"Considering your expressed discontent about watermark, SS team has decided to listen you and take an action about this. Therefore we have decided to remove the watermark from high quality previews.

Yours, SS Team.
"

I guessed they have already sent something similar to their beloved customers.

Next msg to customers would be:
We have large previews with no watermarks, but you need to buy monthly subscription to see those previews and save them.

Then SS doesn't have to pay their contributors at all. All in one bag...

marthamarks

« Reply #236 on: October 29, 2015, 21:14 »
0
I'm thinking that if this problem doesn't get fixed very soon, like within a week, I'll start pulling my images out of SS and going exclusive with FT.

I don't believe any single agency. Who knows what FT will do in future? May be they are to follow SS. We (at least I) had more faith with SS before, but they ruined it.

Anathaya, I totally agree with that! And it's one big reason I may not jump. SS has always treated me (and most/all of us, I think) very well. Hard to leave them for the unknown.

I also have resisted exclusivity. It just goes against my grain.

So, for now, I'm sitting tight.

« Reply #237 on: October 29, 2015, 21:26 »
+2
Quote
Yep, they look smaller

They made them, indeed, look smaller. Because the shown picture is resized just prior to the actual display.
If you right-click on the previewed image and save it, the image will be saved as 1500 pixels on the longer side.
 

marthamarks

« Reply #238 on: October 29, 2015, 21:31 »
0
Quote
Yep, they look smaller

They made them, indeed, look smaller. Because the shown picture is resized just prior to the actual display.
If you right-click on the previewed image and save it, the image will be saved as 1500 pixels on the longer side.
 

So, Les, is the intent to deceive us so we feel more confident? Lull us into complacence? Sure seems like that.

Geez.

marthamarks

« Reply #239 on: October 29, 2015, 21:34 »
0
The petition now has 486 signatures. Surely we can get to 500!

Come on, folks:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock

« Reply #240 on: October 29, 2015, 21:48 »
+2
Quote
Yep, they look smaller

They made them, indeed, look smaller. Because the shown picture is resized just prior to the actual display.
If you right-click on the previewed image and save it, the image will be saved as 1500 pixels on the longer side.
 

So, Les, is the intent to deceive us so we feel more confident? Lull us into complacence? Sure seems like that.

Geez.

Martha, I wouldn't want to speculate about the intent, but some may interpret it that way.
And then there will be others, who won't bother figuring out the intent at all, but will get busy saving those large images.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2015, 22:44 by LesPalenik »

marthamarks

« Reply #241 on: October 29, 2015, 21:54 »
+2
And then there will be others, who won't try to figure out the intent at all, but will get busy saving those large images.

Agreed. Which is why it's really hard to stick with SS.

Why do they have to put us in such a bind? The only answer has to be that they just don't give a d*mn about us.

Geez.


« Reply #242 on: October 29, 2015, 23:28 »
+2
The support reply me back by saying there is no plan of improving another watermark.... and when I ask them the time when the new watermark will change over the old one in my portfolio (which they say all will be finish this weekend), they say that they can not pin point the date because the process is complicate.

By the way, the latest version of watermark completely giveaway my vector icon and illustration for free.  >:(

« Reply #243 on: October 30, 2015, 00:05 »
0
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in order to see the big watermark preview, you have to be signed into shutterstock where the company knows who you are. Are you guys worried that registered buyers or contributors on this site will take time out to cover up and steal your images? I'm probably gonna get flamed but i think theres a bit of over reaction going on over here.
I am one of those that get really irritated by seeing obnoxious watermarks. At some point it really starts to affect the image and i think thats a fine line that is different depending on who you ask.
HOWEVER, I do believe that they have to make the watermark better for the vectors and photos that is mainly flat shapes as that is real simple to level out in photoshop.

marthamarks

« Reply #244 on: October 30, 2015, 00:08 »
+1
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in order to see the big watermark preview, you have to be signed into shutterstock where the company knows who you are.

How do you know that?

It's a serious question. Not snark. Please clarify.

« Reply #245 on: October 30, 2015, 00:13 »
+3
Consider yourself corrected - you do not have to be signed in to see the large preview.


Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in order to see the big watermark preview, you have to be signed into shutterstock where the company knows who you are.



« Reply #246 on: October 30, 2015, 00:14 »
+3
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in order to see the big watermark preview, you have to be signed into shutterstock where the company knows who you are.

I just went to a browser I don't use so that I wasn't logged in with my "buyer" account and I was able to see previews just fine

« Reply #247 on: October 30, 2015, 00:24 »
+3
Consider yourself corrected - you do not have to be signed in to see the large preview.


Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in order to see the big watermark preview, you have to be signed into shutterstock where the company knows who you are.

Just Google, you will find them :P

marthamarks

« Reply #248 on: October 30, 2015, 01:30 »
0
Just Google, you will find them :P

Yikes! That's quite a collection you've got in that link. I'm curious to know what keywords you Googled to turn all those up.

After seeing that, I took your advice and Googled a couple dozen of my own images, unusual ones without thousands of competitors that I could hone in on precisely.

Maybe half of them turned up from FT (but not from SS), and those were clearly watermarked by FT.

But several others that did turn up from SS showed the "black footer" v2 WM and they actually were much better protected! The WM was stronger and more visible. Not all had that, but about 1/3 did.

So now I'm beginning to think that SS actually is rolling out a version that may help at least some of us (or at least some of our images), if not all.

It would be nice to think that all may be better protected soon. Holding my breath and crossing my fingers

« Reply #249 on: October 30, 2015, 01:56 »
+1
Just Google, you will find them :P

Looking at this search result, I just found out that square images are even bigger, 1500px x 1600px. I didn't know that before.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4947 Views
Last post February 17, 2012, 21:51
by antistock
2 Replies
2994 Views
Last post January 11, 2014, 03:56
by Leo Blanchette
2 Replies
2778 Views
Last post January 24, 2016, 06:39
by Karen
6 Replies
6099 Views
Last post June 05, 2017, 05:11
by BigBubba
16 Replies
3432 Views
Last post May 27, 2020, 03:40
by photographybyadri

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors