How to make money in Stock Video and Photography

Of course that "link" is only a component plug-in for other apps that are still required. Then you have to learn how to use these apps etc..

But don't you think there is an issue with what you write in your blog?
In the blog entry you encourage copyright infringement. Not good. It basically contradicts your whole theory - You are basically saying, go ahead and steal from others and try to profiteer out the other end. Credibility of any sort just vanished.

How would you feel if people started "stealing" your footage that you claim to make so much on?

Quote from your blog:
"You’re not actually going buy these programs… you’re going to borrow them via file-sharing torrents and of course buy the full version once you make that first $10k. If a person becomes semi proficient in Photoshop/Gimp and learns the fundamentals of Particle Illusion you can produce some fantastic images and amazing video clips. I’ve made over $1000 on one clip that was a Photoshop/Particle Illusion composition."

It's a reality. Something like 60% of all Photo and 3D apps in use are pirated copies. Make that 90% outside the U.S.

But then again I don't care because I'm going Linux and open source.

What are you talking about... you do give away your clips for practically free on microstock.

My best selling clip on Pond5 that has 25 sales here is available as a free download elsewhere. It still sells here. I give away an 800 photo download and my microstock sales have gone up. Go figure.

And speaking of free check out Artist X. An Linux build with the most amazing photo/video/audio tools available under one hood
http://www.artistx.org/site2/

Where do you get your information? You are a little off base - I don't sell microstock. I would love to see where you get your statistics from. "Something like 60% of all Photo and 3D apps in use are pirated copies. Make that 90% outside the U.S."

Even if that were true, it doesn't justify encouraging others to go down that road. We have a simple concept and it also applies in the world courts - ignorance of the law does not relieve you from prosecution.

I believe I encouraged people to go Linux and open source.

How would someone prove their ownership of licensed software? if you buy it online there is no barcode. Even if there were a barcode it does not prove that particular user is licensed to use that title. I find the whole issue moot actually. Pond 5 is not here to police contributors are they? Honestly, are they responsible for the legitimacy of the software or hardware that their contributors use?

What if a top artist here was using stolen cameras or lens(es)? How does that make a service like Pond 5 to blame? Can someone please explain, cos that don't make sense.

I agree that there are a lot of CG clips sold, most are priced well under HD video. If a person wants a high count then CG may be the way to go. For bottomline profit I tend to think that CG is not the way of the future. CG is saturated more than video, especially when an artist makes minor or only a color change to the same CG resulting in a dozen clips. There is a place for both, and I personally hope everyone will sell their cameras and do nothing but CG ... oh ya everyone who goes exclusive CG will become millionaires within the next year ... no more HD video CG only from everyone ;)

AllFract if you buy software online you are usually given a license key and if you buy ie/ an Adobe product you are given a license number, the barcode is not a license.

If you are doing any graphic/video work, a company can (and some do) ask to see your license for the software you used.

What cracks me up is that in many cases it takes a lot more time and even skill to create good CG than it does video - so this in turn becomes and oxymoron - that which takes longer to create is sold for less, and vice-versa. Now I know that there are many simpler CG projects being delivered, but some of the really amazing good stuff is just as valuable or more valuable than straight forward video clips. Yet, it still gets handled as if it was substandard to video. That part I don't understand.

Makes no sense to me either. A CG that takes hours to render and still sells for a few dollars, yet most video clips take a few minutes to process and render. Sure glad it's that way ... more people need to drop video stock and get into CG stock ...

Yea, everyone go sell that CG