A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 19th 17, 04:32 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo

"Eric Stevens" wrote

| I never had CS. Over the years I variously had Gimp, ... PhotoPaint,
| Paintshop Pro, NIK, DxO and various plug ins to extend them. Updates
| kept arriving and no matter what I had at the time it still cost me
| money to keep them up todate. The costs were accumulating and when CC
| arrived I leapt at it.
|

That's what I don't get. Why did you need to keep
buying updates? I don't find that I'm missing functionality.
I guess if I bought a new camera I might have to buy a
new Aftershot Pro to get RAW support, but aside from
that, I have PSP 5 and 16, and most of the time I don't
even need the latter.


  #22  
Old December 19th 17, 04:45 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| I never had CS. Over the years I variously had Gimp, ... PhotoPaint,
| Paintshop Pro, NIK, DxO and various plug ins to extend them. Updates
| kept arriving and no matter what I had at the time it still cost me
| money to keep them up todate. The costs were accumulating and when CC
| arrived I leapt at it.

That's what I don't get. Why did you need to keep
buying updates? I don't find that I'm missing functionality.


you don't do anything beyond the basics, so for you, the free stuff is
fine.

other people have more sophisticated needs and therefore can justify
more advanced apps.
  #23  
Old December 19th 17, 02:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo

"nospam" wrote

| | nospam called me a "mooch" for using wikimedia,
| |
| | i never said any such thing, you lying sack of ****.
|
| -----------------------------------------------------
| Personally I usually find what I need for things like
| website work at wikimedia.
|
| in other words, you mooch off of other people's hard work.
| ------------------------------------------------------
|
| oh yea, but that was one specific instance, not an forever
| classification.
|
| you still can redeem yourself.

Being mean to people is not a game. It's just being
mean. You demean yourself and coarsen your own
sensibility, regardless of whether it bothers the target.


  #24  
Old December 19th 17, 05:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


Being mean to people is not a game. It's just being
mean. You demean yourself and coarsen your own
sensibility, regardless of whether it bothers the target.


think about that next time you call people 'apple seeds' and other
derogatory terms.
  #25  
Old December 20th 17, 05:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo

On 12/18/2017 6:52 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:34:42 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
wrote:

...snip...


You are a contemptible leech upon society.


yep.



OMG I agree with nospam, without reservation.

--
PeterN
  #26  
Old December 20th 17, 05:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo

On 12/18/2017 8:43 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote

| So filesharing kind of levels the playing field and affords
| everybody an equal opportunity to enjoy an abundance of
| software/content, regardless of their socio-economic status.
|
| You are a contemptible leech upon society.

He's a utopian socialist. Probably doesn't have
to work for a living. The sad part is that the
socialists usually turn out to be the most selfish
capitalists once they get used to having a job.

He does have a point, though. Not everyone
agreed in the early days that software should
be copyrightable. I found it very inspiring, back
in the 90s, that so many people were setting
up websites and just offering whatever they
could to "chip in". Lots of free information and
software. I did the same thing. Set up a website
and gave away things that others might find
useful. I still do. And most of the software I use
is free, written by someone who does it for the
love of it. Also, I get free information almost daily,
often provided by some anonymous person who
was just trying to be helpful.

nospam called me a "mooch" for using wikimedia,
but that's what it's there for. Thousands of generous
people have made it possible. The same is true of
wikipedia. And Craigslist. They're all great examples
of sharing and improving peoples' lives with the Internet.
One could just as well say it's mooching to get free
info online. Yet we all do that.

Which is not to say I think PS should be free. The
GIMP and Linux are good examples of the limits of free.
Free products are not so likely to be polished and
user-friendly, because the authors don't need to
satisfy customers.



I see a large difference between using another's work product, with
their consent, and without their consent. If I have a software, or
hardware issue and ask, if I receive an answer, in a user forum, such as
this, or the Adobe community,the person responding does not expect to be
paid, I feel an obligation to help someone, if I have sufficient
knowledge to give what I think is a helpful answer.

--
PeterN
  #27  
Old December 20th 17, 05:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo

On 12/19/2017 11:45 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Mayayana
wrote:


Being mean to people is not a game. It's just being
mean. You demean yourself and coarsen your own
sensibility, regardless of whether it bothers the target.


think about that next time you call people 'apple seeds' and other
derogatory terms.


I don't consider calling someone an Appleseed if a derogatory term. I
have some personal friends who I call Appleseeds, regularly. Yet some
got very insulted when I mentioned I called Apple Support, instead of
them. Also in my capacity as a stockholder, I love Appleseeds. They have
made me and my daughters, a lot of money.

--
PeterN
  #28  
Old December 20th 17, 06:16 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo

On Dec 19, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 12/19/2017 11:45 AM, nospam wrote:
In , Mayayana
wrote:


Being mean to people is not a game. It's just being
mean. You demean yourself and coarsen your own
sensibility, regardless of whether it bothers the target.


think about that next time you call people 'apple seeds' and other
derogatory terms.


I don't consider calling someone an Appleseed if a derogatory term. I
have some personal friends who I call Appleseeds, regularly. Yet some
got very insulted when I mentioned I called Apple Support, instead of
them. Also in my capacity as a stockholder, I love Appleseeds. They have
made me and my daughters, a lot of money.


Intent on the part of the user of the term, and how it is received by the
individual addressed are going to be the determining factors as to whether,
or not the usage is derogatory.When I see Appleseed used, my first thought is
that it is intended to be derogatory, and provocative.

Appleseed is not a term used by users of Apple products to describe
themselves. It is a term used by non-Apple users to label Apple users. While
you might not have intended your usage to be derogatory, you have used it to
segregate/differentiate yourself from Apple users, and to establish your
standing as somebody who uses a different OS (...and I know you own and use
an iphone).If I were you I would stop calling your friends Appleseeds
regardless of how good APPL has been for you.

In the case of Mayayana, and his anti-Apple bias, his usage of Appleseed is
undoubtably, and intentionally derogatory. He has a similar anti-Adobe bias.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #29  
Old December 20th 17, 06:29 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:


Being mean to people is not a game. It's just being
mean. You demean yourself and coarsen your own
sensibility, regardless of whether it bothers the target.

think about that next time you call people 'apple seeds' and other
derogatory terms.


I don't consider calling someone an Appleseed if a derogatory term. I
have some personal friends who I call Appleseeds, regularly. Yet some
got very insulted when I mentioned I called Apple Support, instead of
them. Also in my capacity as a stockholder, I love Appleseeds. They have
made me and my daughters, a lot of money.


Intent on the part of the user of the term, and how it is received by the
individual addressed are going to be the determining factors as to whether,
or not the usage is derogatory.When I see Appleseed used, my first thought is
that it is intended to be derogatory, and provocative.

Appleseed is not a term used by users of Apple products to describe
themselves. It is a term used by non-Apple users to label Apple users. While
you might not have intended your usage to be derogatory, you have used it to
segregate/differentiate yourself from Apple users, and to establish your
standing as somebody who uses a different OS (...and I know you own and use
an iphone).If I were you I would stop calling your friends Appleseeds
regardless of how good APPL has been for you.

In the case of Mayayana, and his anti-Apple bias, his usage of Appleseed is
undoubtably, and intentionally derogatory. He has a similar anti-Adobe bias.


along with anti-microsoft, anti-google, anti-yahoo, anti-facebook,
anti-aol and many more.

sum it up as anti-everything.
  #30  
Old December 20th 17, 06:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo

On Dec 19, 2017, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In iganews.com,
Savageduck wrote:


Being mean to people is not a game. It's just being
mean. You demean yourself and coarsen your own
sensibility, regardless of whether it bothers the target.

think about that next time you call people 'apple seeds' and other
derogatory terms.

I don't consider calling someone an Appleseed if a derogatory term. I
have some personal friends who I call Appleseeds, regularly. Yet some
got very insulted when I mentioned I called Apple Support, instead of
them. Also in my capacity as a stockholder, I love Appleseeds. They have
made me and my daughters, a lot of money.


Intent on the part of the user of the term, and how it is received by the
individual addressed are going to be the determining factors as to whether,
or not the usage is derogatory.When I see Appleseed used, my first thought
is
that it is intended to be derogatory, and provocative.

Appleseed is not a term used by users of Apple products to describe
themselves. It is a term used by non-Apple users to label Apple users. While
you might not have intended your usage to be derogatory, you have used it to
segregate/differentiate yourself from Apple users, and to establish your
standing as somebody who uses a different OS (...and I know you own and use
an iphone).If I were you I would stop calling your friends Appleseeds
regardless of how good APPL has been for you.

In the case of Mayayana, and his anti-Apple bias, his usage of Appleseed is
undoubtably, and intentionally derogatory. He has a similar anti-Adobe bias.


along with anti-microsoft, anti-google, anti-yahoo, anti-facebook,
anti-aol and many more.

sum it up as anti-everything.


Does that include anti-Twitter, and anti-Hupmobile?

--

Regards,
Savageduck

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stock photo agency now accepts phone camera images Rob Digital Photography 0 January 25th 13 05:16 AM
Size of photo in Adobe Photo de Luxe Query Blair Digital Photography 7 February 21st 06 07:05 AM
Adobe Stock Photo Service Alan Browne Digital Photography 0 May 4th 05 11:39 PM
Adobe Stock Photo Service Alan Browne Digital SLR Cameras 0 May 4th 05 11:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.