121–130 of 141 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has changed. It's hard to tell they're fake. For example, each reload of https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ produces a new computer-generated image of a person.
I reloaded the page ten times and every single one had something clearly off.
https://gaminghistory101.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/goldene...
Registered on Shutterstock 11 months ago, added 9 photos, sold 3 for a grand total of $0.75. Selling stock photos made sense for photographers 10-20 years ago, not worth it anymore unless you're at the very top. For the reference: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/MateoSan
The reason people didn't buy these is because there isn't enough continuous color anywhere to put text on top of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice photos but they are very "run of the mill". I can probably find thousands of "snowy mountains" pics, many of them with a free license.
Right, photos are average at best. I was looking to sell based on location / area where the photos were taken and it worked to some degree - all 3 purchases are from Germany and France. It's just that there are too many photos and photographers out there these days. All pro photographers I've met were struggling to make a living off of it.
I used to earn over 100 usd per photo sale on 500px. Since they started licensing through Getty I get pennies. Litterally. Just a few days ago one of my photos got licensed where I received less than 1 usd in fees. I went to check on Getty's website and saw the cheapest you could license it from there was 50 usd. Talk about greed and getting screwed. I'm removing all my photos from 500px within a month.
How much do you get when it's licensed on Getty for $50? It's an apples-and-oranges comparison to talk about your cut from 500px and the gross fee on Getty. I'm sure your cut on Getty is bigger, but I'm curious to know if it's 10x bigger or 50x bigger.
There are so many free stock photo sites out there these days that I can't understand why anyone would be hitting Getty up for anything. The quality across the free sites can vary but some are incredibly good. I made a list of about 50 a year ago, there's probably twice that number now. https://www.mattcrampton.com/blog/mega_list_of_free_image_si...
I still don't understand how making a purchased company responsible for the debt of its own purchase is legal: > Getty’s private-equity owners had financed the purchase of Getty with massive debt — $2.6 billion in the case of Carlyle — which became Getty’s debt.
Can you point to a law that makes it illegal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, which is why I raised the question - why isn't it illegal? Given the acts with a social cost that soon follow to "pay" for the company's acquisition? Redundancies etc.
It isn’t illegal because no one made it illegal, it’s pretty obvious no? But being a little less flippant, I can’t see any reason why it should be illegal. If I buy a company I should be able to do whatever I want with it. If shareholders didn’t have the power to make choices about the company they own, the very fabric of capitalism would be undermined.
I don't understand why photographers don't sell their services as opposed to single photos for a few cents each. I've written plenty of articles for a popular website (now defunct) where I looked through Google Images for hours to find an "appropriate, interesting and HD image" (exact job requirements).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason people didn't buy these is because there isn't enough continuous color anywhere to put text on top of.
Yep, I download probably 25 images a month on Shutterstock to make ads with, and I need continuous color to out text on.
I appreciate the work of photographers, but plunking down $500 for a high-res photo and knowing they're going to resell that same photo to others god knows how many more times has always rubbed me the wrong way. I get there's hardware/time involved in setting up a single photo, but hell, not that much.
> I appreciate the work of photographers, but plunking down $500 for a high-res photo and knowing they're going to resell that same photo to others god knows how many more times has always rubbed me the wrong way. Honestly, that doesn't bother me that much. What's truly absurd is wedding photography. Photographers get paid $1000+ and keep the copyright. Almost every other work-for-hire intellectual job involves an IP…
