MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Large image previews on SS ?  (Read 61309 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #250 on: October 30, 2015, 02:18 »
0
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.

Just type
site:shutterstock.com "Yous SS credit line"
in Google image search and then select image size "Larger than 1024x768"


« Reply #251 on: October 30, 2015, 02:21 »
0
Looking at this search result, I just found out that square images are even bigger, 1500px x 1600px. I didn't know that before.

Yes, there are many such jumbo previews.

« Reply #252 on: October 30, 2015, 03:54 »
+3
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
491!
We can do this today!

Say NO to stealing!


« Reply #253 on: October 30, 2015, 03:58 »
+6
Nothing major ever changed

Doing something may achieve nothing, doing nothing will definitely achieve nothing or, in the oft-quoted words of Edmund Burke, 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing'.

« Reply #254 on: October 30, 2015, 04:31 »
+6
Nothing major ever changed

Doing something may achieve nothing, doing nothing will definitely achieve nothing or, in the oft-quoted words of Edmund Burke, 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing'.
Exactly! When we do what we can, there is hope for the better. We know nothing for sure but only action can make a difference. Group action is what is most effective.


I only need to look at my Gigantic free images all under the v1 watermark and I know Exactly what to do. And what not to.






« Reply #255 on: October 30, 2015, 06:03 »
+1
Nothing major ever changed

Doing something may achieve nothing, doing nothing will definitely achieve nothing or, in the oft-quoted words of Edmund Burke, 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing'.


If you read carefully, i didnt say do nothing.  :)  Actually, i sent an email when this thread first started, along with others, which is when ss starting working on changing the watermark.


if you seriously think a petition with 500 names is going to change something further, then for sure, sign it! We will see what happens.


@martha and shelma  ;)

Fab

« Reply #256 on: October 30, 2015, 08:15 »
+2
30th october 2015, 14:15 in Rome, Italy. The preview with white footer is still there...among million of images.


next step: they will show the large preview directly on the sky like the Bat-Signal :)

« Reply #257 on: October 30, 2015, 08:28 »
+4
Whatever they decide, I would like to hear their final word about this subject. I have a bad feeling about something much bigger being cooked here for us and this watermark scandal is just the first step of it.

Think!
They implemented the first version instantly, for everyone,  so why is such a long delay needed for the second one? Why let Google index all highrez images with version 1 when it will be changed? It almost looks like they are deliberately delaying to implement (at least) version two in order to distract us from the big picture.

Who could benefit the most of this huge favor SS is doing?

« Reply #258 on: October 30, 2015, 08:34 »
+2
Whatever they decide, I would like to hear their final word about this subject. I have a bad feeling about something much bigger being cooked here for us and this watermark scandal is just the first step of it.

Think!
They implemented the first version instantly, for everyone,  so why is such a long delay needed for the second one? Why let Google index all highrez images with version 1 when it will be changed? It almost looks like they are deliberately delaying to implement (at least) version two in order to distract us from the big picture.

Who could benefit the most of this huge favor SS is doing?

Creepy comment :(

I think that it take a long time to implement the week (mistaked) watermark, of course we just saw the change in moment, but it must take long time to them...

« Reply #259 on: October 30, 2015, 08:47 »
+3

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.

LMAO to the red remark.
depending on who you ask, you say?

that is like asking the petty thieves in my neighbourhood do they really feel it is necessary for us to have barbed wire around our property 6 foot walls to deter them from breaking into our homes.

the only ppl who consider watermarks obnoxious are the ones who do not think it is important to protect someone's else property , in this case, the photographers and vector artists.

are you by any chance one of the mgt fellas of ss who implemented this obnoxious idea of making it easier for ppl to steal our work???

« Reply #260 on: October 30, 2015, 08:55 »
0
Whatever they decide, I would like to hear their final word about this subject. I have a bad feeling about something much bigger being cooked here for us and this watermark scandal is just the first step of it.

Think!
They implemented the first version instantly, for everyone,  so why is such a long delay needed for the second one? Why let Google index all highrez images with version 1 when it will be changed? It almost looks like they are deliberately delaying to implement (at least) version two in order to distract us from the big picture.

Who could benefit the most of this huge favor SS is doing?

Creepy comment :(

I think that it take a long time to implement the week (mistaked) watermark, of course we just saw the change in moment, but it must take long time to them...

Yes, creepy, it's almost Halloween. What if I'm right?

Fab

« Reply #261 on: October 30, 2015, 09:00 »
+2
And since some pics are blatantly given away now, customers wouldnt be thievesthey are just regular customers that accept a big xmas present from SS

« Reply #262 on: October 30, 2015, 09:01 »
+1
Whatever they decide, I would like to hear their final word about this subject. I have a bad feeling about something much bigger being cooked here for us and this watermark scandal is just the first step of it.

Think!
They implemented the first version instantly, for everyone,  so why is such a long delay needed for the second one? Why let Google index all highrez images with version 1 when it will be changed? It almost looks like they are deliberately delaying to implement (at least) version two in order to distract us from the big picture.

Who could benefit the most of this huge favor SS is doing?

Creepy comment :(

I think that it take a long time to implement the week (mistaked) watermark, of course we just saw the change in moment, but it must take long time to them...

Yes, creepy, it's almost Halloween. What if I'm right?

Which would be the worst scenario?

Maybe SS will pay us just a few cents for our images ... Oh... Wait a second... they actually pay us a few cents for our images...


« Reply #263 on: October 30, 2015, 09:07 »
+4
And since some pics are blatantly given away now, customers wouldnt be thievesthey are just regular customers that accept a big xmas present from SS

Yes, and don't forget, most web surfers are neither photographers, nor designer. Most people, still think that all what's on Google is free stuff. A good example for that is Pinterest with many backlinks to Google, not to mention other social media.

« Reply #264 on: October 30, 2015, 09:10 »
+1
And since some pics are blatantly given away now, customers wouldnt be thievesthey are just regular customers that accept a big xmas present from SS

except that
1) Santa has his elfs and wife to make the toys he  gives away; not someone else's toys
2) even the Santa at the shopping center asks for money from moms
before their child sits on his lap to get a gift from Mrs Claus.

there is nothing wrong with giving away free stuff, so long as
like dt,
the contributor chooses the option; not the agency sneakily creepily doing it on the sly
simply because , perharps, eg fotolia with adobe is gaining foothold of their market.

whatever the reason, ss is definitely not the #1 agency it used to be...
and the market (the other stock market) reflects this.


« Reply #265 on: October 30, 2015, 09:15 »
0
And since some pics are blatantly given away now, customers wouldnt be thievesthey are just regular customers that accept a big xmas present from SS

Yes, and don't forget, most web surfers are neither photographers, nor designer. Most people, still think that all what's on Google is free stuff. A good example for that is Pinterest with many backlinks to Google, not to mention other social media.

yes, like those ppl who profess, " i paid for the dvd/cd, so i bought the rights to give away the movie or music "...

i also read somewhere , in a photo magazine, some editor (believe it or not), discussing rights
saying rights-free means you can do anything you want with the photos
without having to pay for it.
imagine how that would translate to many of those ppl using watermarked,  or none ,
following his professional advice.

the problem of stealing , no doubt, is due to misinformation, rather than a blogger,etc deliberately
stealing your work.

« Reply #266 on: October 30, 2015, 09:17 »
0
perharps , another option would be having a bubble , like you get from some sites, informing you that you cannot copy or use this image without paying for it.
this way, it will not be misconstrued it is ok to use the large preview for free


« Reply #267 on: October 30, 2015, 09:19 »
0
I just had a friend post on FB this morning that she saw a commercial on TV for a local college. The stock video they used still had the istockvideo logo on it. Even colleges seem to be saying it's ok to use copyrighted material.  >:(

« Reply #268 on: October 30, 2015, 09:24 »
+1
the problem of stealing , no doubt, is due to misinformation, rather than a blogger,etc deliberately
stealing your work.
I agree when we talk about simple bloggers but many, like domain resellers are stealing everything with special software, no mercy.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2015, 09:37 by Dodie »

« Reply #269 on: October 30, 2015, 10:27 »
+1
I just had a friend post on FB this morning that she saw a commercial on TV for a local college. The stock video they used still had the istockvideo logo on it. Even colleges seem to be saying it's ok to use copyrighted material.  >:(

yes, and they all graduate to perpetuate the idea it's ok to use rights-free photographs from ss etc
... worse, find a job with ss to implement more new ways to give away our work 8)

« Reply #270 on: October 30, 2015, 11:26 »
+1
Please sign, Let's reach 500 today!

If we speak our mind AND stop uploading and they get no new images  they will have to change their attitude towards us contributors and develop a protective enough watermark.  Sure everyone is used to contributing to SS and making money. That used to be comfortable. However that was BEFORE they put all our images out there for everyone to download and use for free. People love free stuff and think that everything they Google is free. So goodbye nice money in the future.

Don't forget that what SS did to us diminishes our sales in other agencies as well.

Every trade demands more pay but stock photographers are expected to donate their work away, free. You are giving your work free you continue to upload to SS. Free work day in day out. Just think. Who wants to do THAT?



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
491!
We can do this today!

Say NO to stealing!


Rinderart

« Reply #271 on: October 30, 2015, 11:33 »
+2
We should be at a 1000 and More by Now. C-mon Guys support. Im writing everyone I know.

« Reply #272 on: October 30, 2015, 11:55 »
0
Currently 494 have signed on. Most seem to be from Russia, Ukraine, Romania, etc. And good for them! But

C'mon, Americans. Let's do our part!
« Last Edit: October 30, 2015, 12:04 by marthamarks »

« Reply #273 on: October 30, 2015, 11:59 »
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.

How do you know that?

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

If i just type in shutterstock in my web browser and the website comes up. I am still able to search images without logging in. When I click on the small image preview box, the new window i get is to subscribe to one of their image plans. Am I the only one getting this and not the image preview box that most of you guys see? Maybe you guys have cookies that the website remembers who you are even if not logged in.

« Reply #274 on: October 30, 2015, 12:18 »
0
If i just type in shutterstock in my web browser and the website comes up. I am still able to search images without logging in. When I click on the small image preview box, the new window i get is to subscribe to one of their image plans. Am I the only one getting this and not the image preview box that most of you guys see? Maybe you guys have cookies that the website remembers who you are even if not logged in.

Common, those large previews are publicly available. Otherwise, how can Google index them?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4208 Views
Last post February 17, 2012, 21:51
by antistock
2 Replies
2297 Views
Last post January 11, 2014, 03:56
by Leo Blanchette
2 Replies
2220 Views
Last post January 24, 2016, 06:39
by Karen
6 Replies
5017 Views
Last post June 05, 2017, 05:11
by BigBubba
16 Replies
2469 Views
Last post May 27, 2020, 03:40
by photographybyadri

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle