|
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 - MarcvsTvllivs
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15
326
« on: July 25, 2012, 02:17 »
As someone who only recently started to upload on Age, I was wondering: In the unlikely event that something does sell, what kind of money can one expect? I know this is hard to say for regular RM, which can vary greatly - what I am interested in is the LBRF (where I have dumped much of my small micro portfolio). There appears to be nowhere on the site that says anything about the prices (and thus commissions) to expect.
327
« on: July 24, 2012, 07:20 »
What everyone seems to be ignoring is the physics of light itself.
If you want a fast lens, there needs to be a large expanse of glass to gather in all that light.
Imagine sticking an 85mm 1.2L prime on a "M" body?
However, this is relative to the circle of light you are trying to create on the output side of things. Thus, as the sensors get better, physics become less of a restriction.
328
« on: July 24, 2012, 03:29 »
Just when I was beginning to think that they don't actually offer any of the pictures I upload for sale, there are 3 sales through their partner DDP at a whooping .49 commission each!  Oh well, two of them are micros, so I guess those are actually good commissions. The third one is a RM picture though. How . can they sell an RM license for .49 commission?! Price was set to "standard", which makes me wonder what happens if you set the price to "micro"...
329
« on: July 20, 2012, 05:33 »
What Apple was doing with all the law suits was more than just a little over the top. I think it's right they learn a lesson the hard way (and amusing for many) and get a bit humiliated along the way (that'll make them think twice before putting out more or less bogus law suits).
But the thing is that what you say or imply in court is something entirely different from what you state in other public forums. And for good reason - otherwise any court battle could go into a "second round" where the winner now sues the looser for calling him names just by attacking/defending in court. This kind of thing still happens, but the suits are usually laughed out of court. On an entirely different level, I am not so sure Apple really is the patent troll they are made out to be. Most of these suits do have some merit, as they are about outrageous design similarities and the like. It's not like these are the kind of "we have a patent on combining a camera with a mobile phone" bs.
330
« on: July 20, 2012, 03:20 »
Being a lawyer (albeit not an English one), I find this decision quite problematic. This goes way beyond the accepted practice of forcing someone to publicly "take back" what they previously stated. The way I see it, this is an instance of forcing someone to publicly state an opinion that isn't theirs, which where I'm from is - with narrow exceptions in the area of commercial speech, like product information ruels - considered an infringement on the freedom of speech.
Once the state can force private citizens to express certain opinions, it becomes hard to tell what people really want to say. And that is integral to a democratic society.
331
« on: May 30, 2012, 10:18 »
I'm with them through zoonar but I've given up bothering uploading to Zoorar as virtually no sales there.
+1 and Age seems to accepts everything from Zoonar (in my port in any case), so that will mean no sales at Age as well.
But do you actually find any of your stuff on Age? Zoonar shows accepted on everything for me, too. But I cannot for the life of me find a single of those pictures on Age.
332
« on: May 18, 2012, 11:10 »
I just noticed that a photo of mine was taken off Flickr without a license. On the up side, at least they gave credit. But this can't be ok, can it (as in this can't be covered by Flickr's terms)? Here's the link: http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981276875
I am also selling a slightly different version as RM through Alamy and the like.
Is there anything I can do? I usually don't bother, but then the other cases were mostly Russian websites where I figured it's not worth even contacting them.
Here's a case which may or may not be relevant. This was a well-publicised case of where Virgin Australia used a Flickr image, which had been released through the CC, probably without the photographer being aware of all the implications.
http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/01/22/no-personal-jurisdiction-over-australian-defendant-in-flickr-right-of-publicity-case
Virgin claimed that as the photo was released CC with commercial rights, they had a binding contract with the photographer. The photographer was making the case that as he had released the photo CC with restricted use, inasmuch as uses had to be credited to him, and by not posting a credit, Virgin had broken their 'agreement' with him, no contract between them existed.
However, the case was knocked out of court on a geographical technicality:
"Virgin moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that it lacked minimum contacts with the forum state of Texas to satisfy constitutional due process. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case. "
So much for international law. 
Well, being a lawyer myself, I think the court was right. U.S. law has some decent tools to throw out cases that should not have gone to a particular court. That is not a bad thing. If you want to sue Virgin, sue them in Australia (or wherever their U.S. subsidiary is based), don't do it in Texas just because that's where you are likely to get better damages or a more sympathetic judge. I clerk for a commercial court judge right now and we keep getting those downright frivolous cases where companies from the U.S. sue companies from Switzerland in ****ing Hamburg, Germany, just because they can. Annoying as **** when you are the clerk who has to prepare the file, believe me  . As for the merits of that case, the photog should definitely have won. In my case here, however, I haven't even granted a CC license. The photo is under the All Rights Reserved setting on Flickr.
333
« on: May 18, 2012, 10:45 »
I just noticed that a photo of mine was taken off Flickr without a license. On the up side, at least they gave credit. But this can't be ok, can it (as in this can't be covered by Flickr's terms)? Here's the link: http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981276875I am also selling a slightly different version as RM through Alamy and the like. Is there anything I can do? I usually don't bother, but then the other cases were mostly Russian websites where I figured it's not worth even contacting them.
334
« on: May 14, 2012, 07:01 »
I don't know anything about the workings of SS, but in this case, it seems it's the same as iS.
You'd think as soon as they discovered that images of something might lead them liable to legal action, they'd chain a serf to the servers to expunge all images of same, but it seems not to work that way.
Well, iStock accepts my editorial stuff from Harvard campus like a trooper. It's just very Shutterstock to have broad exclusions on perfectly legal things. I understand their very restricted editorial concept (only newsworthy images) but of course that is exactly the type of images one can shoot on Harvard - or any major - university's grounds: Celebrities giving speeches, graduation ceremonies and the like.
335
« on: May 13, 2012, 17:11 »
Ok, I should have made one thing a lot clearer: the thing I think is "stupid" is to have a general rule that excludes pictures taken on a campus from editorial licensing. I wasn't suggesting they should allow the use of Harvard logos in commercial stock.
Also, the fact that there is plenty of pictures that fall within the exclusion being sold on the site, with creative licenses is pretty "stupid".
336
« on: May 11, 2012, 07:48 »
"Images taken on the Harvard University campus are unacceptable as commercial content or editorial."
One of the most stupid rejection reasons on Shutterstock. And especially annoying because my Harvard pictures sell well. What . is the rationale behind this? There are hundreds of images taken on Harvard campus on SS right now, by the way. Some of them mine. *sigh*
337
« on: May 01, 2012, 16:31 »
Yes Dyxum is a great resource for Sony DSLR users and has a great lens review section. AlphaMountWorld is also really good. I haven't used the 16-50mm but I can tell you that the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 is also a good lens.
I don't know. I am not a huge fan of Tamron. I had the 17-50 on my Canon and I sent it back immediately... the AF was a joke. And I own a 70-300 USD which, while having a very decent autofocus, just doesn't get along with my T2i very well. AE (which works fine 95% of the time with my other lenses) is erratic, mostly overexposure issues. Might be the T2i's fault, but wouldn't happen with a manufacturer lens.
338
« on: April 29, 2012, 14:13 »
I'd recommend the Zeiss 16-80mm for a wide-angle/zoom.
What about the kit 16-50 SSM? It looked pretty impressive to me.
339
« on: April 29, 2012, 13:32 »
I am currently using a Canon Rebel T2i but have been thinking about an upgrade for a while. I love the 7D, but in the end it's got the same sensor as the T2i and is getting a bit dated. Fascinated by the SLT technology, I played around with a Sony a77 at a store the other day and I was completely awestruck. I might have to change systems... the handling and the ergonomics are amazing, the price is good, and build quality feels a lot better than Canon. Of course I couldn't test IQ or anything in depth.
So my question is: Is anybody here working with an a77? How do you like it? What's the pros and cons?
340
« on: April 22, 2012, 12:35 »
Deutsch und derzeit (leider) in Deutschland. Oh, Fernweh!
341
« on: April 18, 2012, 17:44 »
US based agencies withhold taxes only from sales that are made by US citizens AND only when the contributors country has no tax treaty with the United States.
So if I understand this right: Does Panthermedia withhold taxes from ALL sales made by German as well as not German buyers and is it after that not needed to give up the not withholded part of the sales from Panthermedia as an income to the tax department in your own country?
If the answer to this question is Yes: Is it not possible to do this the same way as the US based agencies does: only withhold taxes from sales made by German buyers AND only when the contributors country has no tax treaty with Germany?
I am paying all taxes from all my income (even from all stockagencies) in my own country, for my country has a tax treaty with the US. I am not sure the taxdepartment will accept that I do not give up income from Panthermedia for the reason taxes are already paid in Germany.
I do not know what your country is so I can't look up what their double taxation treaty with Germany provides for. If there is a treaty between your country and Germany, you will only have to pay taxes on one end and the treaty will say on which. This, then, will have to be accepted by both countries and you should be able to sue your revenue administration if it doesn't (happens all the time). The problem is if there isn't a double taxation treaty. Depending on what your country's tax law says, you may end up being taxed on both ends.
342
« on: April 17, 2012, 17:31 »
For what it's worth - this is not PantherMedia's fault. Apparently the applicable tax treaty provides for income to be taxed at the source. That is unfortunate, but the agencies can't disregard the law.
343
« on: April 17, 2012, 08:51 »
close to a full year there and I had 60 sales for 82.49EUR
Wow. How many pictures do you have there?
344
« on: April 15, 2012, 11:19 »
have no idea but I know I have my pictures there from YAY and Zoonar too, not much sales from yay or zoonar..
Somehow my pictures don't show up in searches there, neither the ones from Zoonar nor the ones from Yay. So I wouldn't use that as a benchmark.
345
« on: April 12, 2012, 10:07 »
Wait a minute. Cell phones are perfectly capable of taking stock worthy photos. Take a look at the sample photos on Apple's web site taken with the iPhone 4s. They would pass inspection on iStock. Just not as high a resolution as Nikon's top of the line.
The problem with the photo in question is that it is crooked, washed out, a terrible composition, and was submitted by an inspector. Not the camera. You can achieve bad photos with any camera.
Very true. The threads here made me curious so I took a decent iPhone shot of mine last week and uploaded it. Many agencies accepted it with metadata stripped. Canstock even with metadata.
Oh lord. Now my iPhone-experiment has sold three times within a few hours of being online at Shutterstock. This is embarrassing.
346
« on: April 11, 2012, 17:20 »
No problems here ... except for S L O W sales.
I upload almost daily but go directly thru BS upload. Maybe your problem is in the Bridge to BS?
Nah, I have the same issues with direct upload.
347
« on: April 11, 2012, 17:15 »
They are coming through steadily at about the 24hour mark. Just check carefully as I had two batches come through with a duplicate image. Caught myself, just in time, about to submit the same image twice (though I guess their similars policy would have dealt with that  ). Regards, David.
Same here.
348
« on: April 10, 2012, 17:04 »
Wait a minute. Cell phones are perfectly capable of taking stock worthy photos. Take a look at the sample photos on Apple's web site taken with the iPhone 4s. They would pass inspection on iStock. Just not as high a resolution as Nikon's top of the line.
The problem with the photo in question is that it is crooked, washed out, a terrible composition, and was submitted by an inspector. Not the camera. You can achieve bad photos with any camera.
Very true. The threads here made me curious so I took a decent iPhone shot of mine last week and uploaded it. Many agencies accepted it with metadata stripped. Canstock even with metadata.
349
« on: April 09, 2012, 05:37 »
I just started uploading to PhotoDune and must say I am disappointed so far. I realize the site is new, in fact still marked "beta" so Envato if you are listening here are my suggestions for improvement:
1) Approval seems to be taking about a week. I am at 8 days on my oldest batch. This is not terrible, but not good either, I appreciate a site that can turn my images in 3 days or less.
2) Inspection, or inspectors seem a little random and worse, much too eager to reject for: "Unfortunately we're not able to accept your submission at this time as it does not meet our general requirements. Images must be well composed, technically and aesthetically sound, and provide utility for potential buyers." I have no issues with rejections for quality or if you just do not want that image, it is your site. I do take issue when an inspector decides there is no value to any of the millions of potential buyers all by themselves. Most of the images rejected were accepted at other sites, and some have already sold. Again, not a complaint, I send the same images to all 6 agencies and they can take what they want. But for a new site, I hate to see you go down the Low Commercial Value route. If it is a good clean image give it a chance please.
3) Errors for having too many keywords. Probably the most irritating thing on the site. I get you only want 50 words, I disagree that 50 is the right number, but it is your site. But why on earth do make us manually figure out how many keywords there are? If you know it is over 50 then obviously you counted them, right? Then put the silly number on the screen. Do you have any idea how much time I have wasted trying to figure out which ones to delete and get to 50? Without knowing how many I need to delete? Silly, Silly, Silly. That time should be spent creating images not counting keywords.
4) The site appears to have been designed with a far lower number of items in mind. The list for "currently processing" on my dashboard stretches for pages, and I am only uploading a few at a time. My portfolio is tiny and it seems cumbersome, I cannot imagine how folks with a real portfolio are getting along. Again, not a complaint, just a suggestion that if you are going to be a stock photo site, you will need a little different look than what works for some of the other items you sell on your sites. How are you going to handle 20 million images?
5) Acceptance/rejection emails. Is it possible to get them in a single email? Maybe there is a setting for this and I missed it. I only upload 25 at a time but getting 25 emails is still a bunch and those sending 100's or 1,000's of images must be deluged.
Thanks for listening.
All you say is truth, and the keyword count issue is indeed the most annoying problem for me.
350
« on: April 06, 2012, 10:45 »
Two sales so far, a total of U$3.16. The 100.-U$ payout minimum is set too high. They should lower it to 20.-.
That will be a great improvement, I can then get a payout 2032 and not 2107!!!
Haha my thoughts exactly.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
