You have to login first in order to be able to post messages.
Click here to login or register if you are a new user.


Page:
< 1 2 
3
 4 5 >
 of 5
Showing posts 41 - 60 of 81

Cropping cover photos on Timeline Images

Author Message
Bobbrooky
450 posts
<10
Message posted at 09/16/2013, 11:37:51 AM by Bobbrooky
I agree with your sentiments Igordabari, so much time and effort appears to be put into these ideas and promotions with little return for contributors. But I do understand the need for continual innovations. Professional users of facebook, ie companies, advertising and promotions may use timeline, but as for your average facebook user, this is a lost cause! Recently I searched to see if any of my images were on timeline, and I found one of a village cricket match, when I tried to go to the image it said this picture was no longer available. Now I havent done anything with timeline, I just wonder why this current picture isnt available on it?
Nikon D700, 70-300vr, Sigma 180 f3.5macro, Sigma 20-40 f2.8,...

Uploaded files:813 | Total Sales: 759
Jsnover
128 posts
<10
Message posted at 09/16/2013, 11:39:44 AM by Jsnover
I do have a Facebook account, but I try very hard to avoid using it to log on to other sites, especially if I think there is a risk some business will spam my friends list with ads purporting to come from me.

When I went to log in to Timeline Images.com it said you'd have access to my friends list and my photos - why would I want to give you access to those?

I would have cropped a few of the images that I think might work as a Facebook-sized slice, but I don't want to see ads for TimelineImages showing up on my friends accounts .

Why can't I use my Dreamstime credentials to log in and crop my photos?
Canon 5D Mk II

Uploaded files:1712 | Total Sales: 9741
Message posted at 09/16/2013, 11:44:33 AM by Mariaphotography10
I have a Facebook account, but it is on my name, not on Mariaphotography10. I logged in and I searched one of my images. It was there but I couldn't crop it because the name of my facebook account is different from Mariaphotography10. In this situation what can I do?


Uploaded files:337 | Total Sales: 83
Dirkr
31 posts
73
Message posted at 09/16/2013, 12:55:46 PM by Dirkr

Originally posted by Achilles:
Quoted Message: We will get back with a more thorough legal explanation. Until then, yes, images licensed from Dreamstime can be used on social media accounts. It is in fact very important to raise awareness towards personal users that images need to be proper licensed and not downloaded from search engines. If we expect users to stop stealing images we should also give them the chance to purchase a license.It is true that FB`s terms are very broad, but they should be read in conjunction with FB`s services, not taken out of context. Their sub-licensable RF should be treated in connection with the personal value (post, comment, etc.) added by the user not solely for the image itself. As I said, we will followup with more details about this subject.


Looking forward to see the explanation, because I can't imagine how to resolve the contradiction between the license terms.
If FB has such broad terms for a not so broad use, they should adapt their terms. Their current terms allow them to re-license all images uploaded by their users if they wish so in the future. That their current services do not include such re-licensing does not prevent it from happening in the future.

While I fully agree that raising awareness to "normal" users about image licensing options is very important, one even more important point is missing: Raising awareness towards both users and Facebook that the current terms from Facebook are simply unacceptable.
And if that means suing users who upload content they don't own to FB, then so be it.
Just accepting anything FB does because it's FB (and they are so big and so important...) is not the right way.

What I would expect from my agent (DT) is to talk to Facebook and try to convince them to change their terms to allow their users to legally upload content they have licensed from DT.
And if Facebook does not follow through, then to follow each and every instance where DT licensed content appears on Facebook, if neccessary with legal action.


Uploaded files:938 | Total Sales: 770
5xinc
3 posts
61
Message posted at 09/17/2013, 00:41:31 AM by 5xinc
Is it possible to reset crop and/or make more than one version of crop?


Uploaded files:1068 | Total Sales: 5522
Celiaak
803 posts
75
Message posted at 09/17/2013, 02:50:16 AM by Celiaak

Originally posted by Alvera:
Quoted Message: Celiaak, you can see this link and my comment please? http://www.timelineimages.com/details.php?imageid=32991476&preview=1#.Ujbv1CiJx70.facebookand this please: http://www.timelineimages.com/32991476/border-line-with-chocolate-eggs-easter-cover-photoIf yes, do you like my crop? :)


Alvera, I cannot see the crop because there was no aproval. Only can see the comment. Also in both links I see same thing.
Nikon D3100, Inkscape, Imagination, Hands

Uploaded files:935 | Total Sales: 892
Dudau
616 posts
76
Message posted at 09/17/2013, 03:45:19 AM by Dudau - member is an admin

Originally posted by Igordabari:
Quoted Message: From my point of view it`s a very bad tendency. And also it`s a bit unhonest. I can understand that DT has to look for new tools to be stable at the stock market. No way to avoid it and it`s OK. But why all the efforts related to these new tools are supposed to be done by contributors?! Yes. I would like to `increase drastically chances of my images to sell`. But try to count the time needed to pre-crop 1029 images from my PF.


Igor, you don't have to do it. It's not mandatory. It's a feature which could improve your presentation, if you want to improve it. Buyers can do it too, but they will probably be more attracted to the already cropped images. Again, it's your choice. Your images will still be available on TimelineImages.com, even if you don't want to pre-crop them and make them look more appealing for eventual buyers. So, there are no broken promises, everything is still the same, you provide the content, we're selling it.

Sure, there are contributors who take their presentation a little further and promote their portfolios on their own, even if they don't have to. Depending on the success of their actions, they become more or less successful, and continue or stop doing it. From our side, each contributor has a fair chance, but we won't stop anybody from promoting their work. Cheers!
Canon 1D Mk III, Canon 7D, Canon 20mm f2.8, 28mm f1.8, 50m...

Uploaded files:3802 | Total Sales: 12146
Igordabari
3758 posts
62
Message posted at 09/17/2013, 03:54:30 AM by Igordabari

Originally posted by Dudau:
Quoted Message: Igor, you don`t have to do it. It`s not mandatory.


I understand this. But if I will not use this feature, my images will become less exposed comparing to others, be agree. Accordingly, sales will decrease. So, formally it's not mandatory, but in fact I will just have to do this.

And this is just what I do not like.
I, me, myself + cameras: Canon 450d (for astrophoto...

Uploaded files:1886 | Total Sales: 2481
Dudau
616 posts
76
Message edited at 09/17/2013, 04:02:17 AM by Admin

Originally posted by Dirkr:
Quoted Message: What I would expect from my agent (DT) is to talk to Facebook and try to convince them to change their terms to allow their users to legally upload content they have licensed from DT.And if Facebook does not follow through, then to follow each and every instance where DT licensed content appears on Facebook, if neccessary with legal action.


If Facebook would do something unacceptable, we would take action. But they didn't, until now, and harassing them for the possibility of doing something wrong, does not match our business philosophy.

They proved their good intentions on this subject until now, by having a strict policy regarding copyright infringement.

We're actively monitoring any change that could affect the industry, but we still have to respect other companies out there and let them have their own way of doing business, especially if they don't interfere with ours.

An update regarding social media will follow.
Canon 1D Mk III, Canon 7D, Canon 20mm f2.8, 28mm f1.8, 50m...

Uploaded files:3802 | Total Sales: 12146
Dudau
616 posts
76
Message posted at 09/17/2013, 04:10:42 AM by Dudau - member is an admin

Originally posted by Igordabari:
Quoted Message: I understand this. But if I will not use this feature, my images will become less exposed comparing to others, be agree. Accordingly, sales will decrease. So, formally it`s not mandatory, but in fact I will just have to do this. And this is just what I do not like.


Igor, there are many things you could do to promote your portfolio, and they are not mandatory, but would help your exposure.

Many contributors are taking action in one way or another, and they are getting more exposure because of their actions, so in fact you should do it too, if you want to maintain your exposure compared to them. We live in a competitive world, there will always be someone ahead and someone behind.

But, I repeat, it's not mandatory.
Canon 1D Mk III, Canon 7D, Canon 20mm f2.8, 28mm f1.8, 50m...

Uploaded files:3802 | Total Sales: 12146
Igordabari
3758 posts
62
Message edited at 09/17/2013, 04:47:44 AM by Igordabari

Originally posted by Dudau:
Quoted Message: so in fact you should do it too, if you want to maintain your exposure compared to them..... but it`s not mandatory.


On my opinion, the first sentence and the last one are in some contradiction to each other, are not they?

But I understand quite what you said. And once again: I do not like when my agent (DT) pushes me to promote my images myself ('not mandatory, but you should do it!') spending more and more time and efforts from year to year. I believe that promotion activity is DT responsibility, not mine.

So, according to you contributor should shoot, should upload, should promote... What is the DT part, then? Just taking from 40% to 80% from each sale?

UPD. If complemantary to shooting and preparing the image for sale (which was the only responsibility of contributors 2-3 years ago) we now have to promote the images (which was responcibility of DT 2-3 years ago) the royalties should be some higher, no? It's not mandatory, but DT should do this, otherwise contributors will start to sell themselves :)
I, me, myself + cameras: Canon 450d (for astrophoto...

Uploaded files:1886 | Total Sales: 2481
Dudau
616 posts
76
Message posted at 09/17/2013, 04:54:30 AM by Dudau - member is an admin
I agree there may be a language barrier somewhere between us, since both of us are not native english speakers.

"Should" is an incentive, "Must" is mandatory. So, as you can see, I didn't say "you must do it", i said "you should", as in "if you want to [...], you should [...]".

Actually, we do promote, and on a quite large scale. Even the simple fact that TimelineImages.com does exist, and it's developed by us, it's a prove that we don't just follow the traditional steps in promoting the business, we're trying to push the limits and constantly find new, innovative ways to overcome competition.

Some of our users have the same urge go above competition, and we're just helping them to identify the ways of doing it. If you're not in the same race, nobody's gonna hold this against you.
Canon 1D Mk III, Canon 7D, Canon 20mm f2.8, 28mm f1.8, 50m...

Uploaded files:3802 | Total Sales: 12146
Igordabari
3758 posts
62
Message posted at 09/17/2013, 05:11:30 AM by Igordabari
Viorel, I understand the difference between 'should' and 'must'. But the point is not linguistics but rather the essense of matter: if to be competitive I should use new crop feature, it means that I have to use it volens nolens. Which (if we forgot linguistics and speak on the essense) is practically the same as MUST :)

Please try to understand my point. Some years ago to be successful contributor I needed just make photos and upload them to DT. Now I have to do much more (for less money, by the way) including promotion. Which I do not like. Besides, all the promotion issues MUST be exceptional agency (not contributor) responsibility.

So, to keep DT incomes contributors should ('must', 'have to', 'made to' or whatever you want) perform more and more work for less and less money. Which on my opinion can ot be considered as a normal tendency (even in competitive world).



I, me, myself + cameras: Canon 450d (for astrophoto...

Uploaded files:1886 | Total Sales: 2481
Costa007
429 posts
84
Message edited at 09/17/2013, 05:21:42 AM by Admin
@Igor: Dreamstime promotes its business, and this is a fact. DT is not pushing you to promote YOUR images yourself, but rather gives you this option. This promotion will return to you in sold images. It's not like we were giving you the option to promote a separate business of ours (like a bread factory) but the option to promote your images present in out database - and of course everybody will win something out of this.

And let's think of it from another point of view: how long do you think it will take for us and how many resources to have 18 million images cropped? It surely took some time to have them online.

Sometimes people must work together for the good of all of us. If by working you understand only "shoot and upload" it's your choice, but context (ex: internet) might change the same way all the things around us do. We can embrace changes, we can disagree them, and we can just accept changes as a normal part of everything.
Sharp eyes, opened mind, two cameras, paper, pen, books, mus...

Uploaded files:3984 | Total Sales: 16906
Bobbrooky
450 posts
<10
Message posted at 09/17/2013, 08:34:31 AM by Bobbrooky
Igor, regardless of the arguments presented in the last few posts, you have to consider the best way to spend your individual time. Spending possibly days, cropping your images for "pie in the sky", timeline images for a tiny return. Or, spending that time uploading new images with excellent keywording.
I know which option I would go for every time, you are never going to get a PE-L sale with timeline, stick to what you know best, is always the advice given to photographers, and thats what I do. I still stand by my statement that your average facebook user is never going to pay for anything, facebook is free, why pay anything at all to personalise a page, when there are so many free images out there to take?
Nikon D700, 70-300vr, Sigma 180 f3.5macro, Sigma 20-40 f2.8,...

Uploaded files:813 | Total Sales: 759
Igordabari
3758 posts
62
Message posted at 09/17/2013, 08:55:08 AM by Igordabari
@ Bobbrooky

Perhaps you are right. I have not any experience with FB and Timeline, so I can not have some reasonable opinion. But I have not time to deal with both them, that's for sure.
I, me, myself + cameras: Canon 450d (for astrophoto...

Uploaded files:1886 | Total Sales: 2481
Igordabari
3758 posts
62
Message edited at 09/17/2013, 23:09:11 PM by Igordabari
@ Dudau & Costa007:

OK, I understand your point of view and I see no sense to repeat mine once again.

The principal difference between our opinions is that mine affects nobody while yours affects all the contributors.

Besides, as always your point of view will bring profit to DT (that why DT has just THIS point of view) and losses for majority of contributors (that's why contrinutors never like innovations from the DT side).
I, me, myself + cameras: Canon 450d (for astrophoto...

Uploaded files:1886 | Total Sales: 2481
Achilles
4451 posts
77
Message posted at 09/19/2013, 05:02:56 AM by Achilles - member is an admin
@Cglightning and Dirkr, here is the promised legal update:

We completely understand that Facebook's IP terms are extremely broad, and we understand the fear that Facebook could conceivably misuse images that users post on their timelines. Any Dreamstime contributor who is concerned that Facebook is imminently planning to misuse images may exclude their library from our TimelineImages platform by using the Dreamstime Alliances opt out setting we have provided. With respect to the actual license grant language on TimelineImages quoted by Cglightning above, we will be implementing within the next day or two an update of the license terms to make it clearer that the personal use license is not the only thing provided to the purchaser.


With all of that said, let's discuss in a bit more detail Dreamstime's thoughts on these issues. Although Facebook's IP terms require users to provide a broad license to Facebook with respect to the content that is posted, as we understand it the reality is that Facebook has crafted their IP terms in very broad language to protect themselves from users who might threaten a copyright claim - which could potentially have a very high damages award - over normal usage of images to implement standard social networking functionality (i.e., displaying images on users' timelines where they may be visible to many other users). Of course Facebook could probably cover all of its intended uses with more carefully crafted IP license language, but it is likely safer for them from a liability standpoint to overreach and claim more than they actually need. Also, overly restrictive IP terms might limit Facebook's ability to add new functionality to the site or require frequent revisions each time a new feature is added to the site.


Facebook's IP terms are not new. There has been much debate over what is the worst thing that Facebook could do with all of the IP licenses it acquires every day from its users. So far, Facebook has lived up to its commitment to only use content on the users' own pages and the timelines of those users' friends, followers, etc. - based on the privacy settings configured by the user. As mentioned above by Dudau in this thread, Dreamstime is not overly concerned with what Facebook might do with images licensed from TimelineImages. If individual contributors are concerned, then we have provided the option that permits them to exclude their images from Dreamstime Alliances, which will completely address those concerns.


With respect to the actual license granted by contributors through TimelineImages, it is important to note that there are additional rights granted besides the ones stated in the one sentence appearing in the post from Cglightning above. She is correct that the personal use license grant is limited, revocable, non-exclusive, and non-transferable. The immediately following sentence in the license grant, however, gives permission to upload and display the licensed image on Facebook, Google+, MySpace, or any other social networking service to which the purchasing user is a member. Naturally, such permission is dependent upon the terms and conditions specified by each individual social networking service. As mentioned above, we will be implementing within the next day or two an update of the license terms on TimelineImages to make it clearer what rights the purchasing user has and what are the restrictions on those rights.


Uploaded files:4723 | Total Sales: 28564
Achilles
4451 posts
77
Message posted at 09/19/2013, 06:05:33 AM by Achilles - member is an admin
@Jsnover, the Ti application has no access to your friends list. Please advise where you saw that notification and perhaps email us a screenshot.

Post on your behalf This app may post on your behalf, including status updates, photos and more. Access posts in your News Feed Why is Timelineimages asking for these permissions? From Timelineimages: These allow our application to upload the image straight into your Facebook account, once you download it from our site.

@Mariaphotography10 you can crop any photos, but ensure that you are logged in. You should delete cookies and attempt to do it again.


Uploaded files:4723 | Total Sales: 28564
Alvera
2680 posts
77
Message posted at 09/19/2013, 23:49:44 PM by Alvera
We can opt out ONLY from Facebook alliance?
Nikon. 4x4 car for wildlife adventures. Inkscape for vectors...

Uploaded files:3965 | Total Sales: 4689
Page:
< 1 2 
3
 4 5 >
 of 5
Showing posts 41 - 60 of 81
Current Server Time: 10/21/2014, 14:14:59 PM