Author Topic: Earn money from your (rejected) pictures (Read 17702 times)

bobek · « **on:** January 25, 2009, 10:40 »

You know the feeling. You take a picture, process it in Photoshop, upload it, fill all the titles, description and keywords, find suitable category and than your picture is rejected because of something silly like (this is not what our buyers are looking for, or we already have enough similar photographs). All your time and energy was just wasted.

Not necessarily. There is a website called Public Domain Pictures.net which allows you to submit your pictures and earn money from them by referring people to stock photo websites.

If you submit your picture under public domain license:

- the pictures are resized to 1280 x XXX pixels (so if visitors require a higher resolution, they could contact you and you can sell them high-res versions)
- keywords from the image title perform a search on Fotolia and thanks to their API they show search results with your Fotolia number - you get affiliates
- you can also let visitors to donate you money for your pictures thanks to PayPal donation button
- you can also promote your Fotolia portfolio and your website (if you don't have one, you could fill it with a link to another stock photo website)

Here is an example of a page where the girl promotes her portfolio on Fotolia with PayPal button and pictures at the bottom include her Fotolia number.

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=404

Statistics show that in average every 10 pictures refer 1 paying member to Fotolia per month.

So if you're interested, feel free to give it a try on http://www.publicdomainpictures.net

Please don't trash this post unless you try it. It's a great service and for example this girl doesn't submit almost any pictures to Fotolia any more as she's just happy with earning she makes by referring new members.

cathyslife · « **Reply #1 on:** January 25, 2009, 12:21 »

Hmmm, interesting...I noticed that you built the website that you are linking to. Doing a little pimping, are we?

I wonder how successful this type of marketing for microstock really is. I think that people that aren't willing to pay even $2 for an image aren't going to buy from the microstock sites anyway. They will continue to surf the publicdomain site and get all the free images they can. Otherwise, wouldn't they just go to the microstock sites to begin with? Heck, most of the micros have a free image section now, too.

It would be interesting to hear from this girl herself, and others on that site, and talk about how much money she has earned by all the referrals and the $1 images she has sold. We are getting the statistics about this girl secondhand, from you. It might be nice to hear some first-hand experiences.

sharpshot · « **Reply #2 on:** January 25, 2009, 12:28 »

I don't have a rejection problem but I do have some old photos that I might think about using on a site like this. It would be more appealing if we could use lower sized images. It is easy to upsize from those 1280x xxxx photos for most uses. I don't want to risk losing paying customers to try and get referral fees.

bobek · « **Reply #3 on:** January 25, 2009, 12:56 »

Quote from: cclapper on January 25, 2009, 12:21

I think that people that aren't willing to pay even $2 for an image aren't going to buy from the microstock sites anyway.

That's the thing. Many people don't have a clue about microstock. They just look for free images and then when we show them what kind of images they could get from just $1, they go for that.

We started that service with Fotolia API in the middle of September 2008 and I asked her how many people she has referred (it was in December). Fortunately she was willing to share that information. In 3 months she has referred 26 paying members (she also told me how many credits she has earned but I think that it's too private to share it here).

If you want to you could contact her by clicking on white envelope next to her name.

Quote from: sharpshot on January 25, 2009, 12:28

I don't have a rejection problem but I do have some old photos that I might think about using on a site like this. It would be more appealing if we could use lower sized images. It is easy to upsize from those 1280x xxxx photos for most uses. I don't want to risk losing paying customers to try and get referral fees.

Smaller images wouldn't bring that amount of visitors. The website also started at the time when the smallest image on Fotolia was 1600 x 1200 pixels

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** January 25, 2009, 13:11 »

What do you get out of it? Just the google advertising income?

"If you intend to use an image you find here for commercial use, please be aware that no model release was obtained and pictures featuring products or property should be used with care." You have no other legal statements anywhere that I can see.

That's pretty risky. You know who's going to get bit in the butt? You (the site) and the contributor when the lawyers come a callin'. They aren't going to care about that little statement.

Giving away images to build a referral base - ie. consciously trying to get competitors to join up and submit images that compete with yours - does not sound like a smart business move to me. And these submitted images would be competing with others you have.

Remember - free doesn't work. We've already been there.

biedy · « **Reply #5 on:** January 25, 2009, 13:39 »

This is a nice but unsuccessful try to catch referrals.

With his own page (www.publicdomainpictures.net), Bobeks (= Petr Kratochvils) catching for referrals is not very efficient. At Dreamstime he catched 11 "photographers" who have uploaded 0 (=zero, nill) images.

Kngkyle · « **Reply #6 on:** January 25, 2009, 13:41 »

My god could you have made the button with our referral link any smaller?

That is what the submitters get, that little fotolia logo.

And then he gets his own referral links on every page with these nice big buttons that you can't miss.

I think you could be a little more generous...

sharply_done · « **Reply #7 on:** January 25, 2009, 13:42 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 25, 2009, 13:11

...
Remember - free doesn't work. We've already been there.

Yep. In the world of client-driven photography, this is akin to being approached with an offer to use your imagery without paying, instead being offered to give you credit/mention and/or magazine samples. Unless circumstances are extremely unusual, you should avoid such things.

Aside: Seen the movie "Get Shorty"? This would be the equivalent of being offered an 'Associate Producer' credit.

bobek · « **Reply #8 on:** January 25, 2009, 13:42 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 25, 2009, 13:11

What do you get out of it? Just the google advertising income?

Yes, but unfortunately it only covers server costs

Quote from: sjlocke on January 25, 2009, 13:11

That's pretty risky. You know who's going to get bit in the butt? You (the site) and the contributor when the lawyers come a callin'. They aren't going to care about that little statement.

Well, contributors have to agree that they own all copyrights before releasing the picture. Also we have to approve the pictures before they are visible to public. So if we think that there is something 'wrong', we reject the picture

Quote from: sjlocke on January 25, 2009, 13:11

Giving away images to build a referral base - ie. consciously trying to get competitors to join up and submit images that compete with yours - does not sound like a smart business move to me. And these submitted images would be competing with others you have.

Well, what data show us is: more pictures = more visitors = more referrals. And I believe that a bit of competition is a good thing.

bobek · « **Reply #9 on:** January 25, 2009, 13:48 »

Quote from: Kngkyle on January 25, 2009, 13:41

My god could you have made the button with our referral link any smaller?

That is what the submitters get, that little fotolia logo.

And then he gets his own referral links on every page with these nice big buttons that you can't miss.

I think you could be a little more generous...

Come on. All 'Sponsored pictures' below her image have her Fotolia number. And that's the area where people click

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=504

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #10 on:** January 25, 2009, 13:51 »

Also, you should change your title.

You're not "earning money from your rejected pictures". You're giving away your rejected pictures for free, and hoping to make money from referrals.

SD: haven't seen the movie, but I get it ...

bobek · « **Reply #11 on:** January 25, 2009, 13:59 »

Quote from: biedy on January 25, 2009, 13:39

This is a nice but unsuccessful try to catch referrals.

With his own page (www.publicdomainpictures.net), Bobeks (= Petr Kratochvils) catching for referrals is not very efficient. At Dreamstime he catched 11 "photographers" who have uploaded 0 (=zero, nill) images.

Well, we added that links on left hand side in December, before that there was only Fotolia. And as I wrote before the area where people click is on the image page under 'Sponsored pictures' title.

Just wait 2 weeks and I'm sure that some of microstockgroup members will share their experience.

Kngkyle · « **Reply #12 on:** January 25, 2009, 14:16 »

Quote from: bobek on January 25, 2009, 13:59

Just wait 2 weeks and I'm sure that some of microstockgroup members will share their experience.

I hope the experience will be good. I did upload 10 images, still undecided on whether it was a good idea or not. $:-\$

hali · « **Reply #13 on:** January 25, 2009, 14:40 »

unless an image is crap, ie. noise, bad lighting, fringe,etc.. no site in general will reject in uniformity.
what i mean is, across the board, it is not unusual to have one site reject an image only to find that same image being approved on another and going on to be a seller.
so really, unless you are only submitting to one or two sites, you really should not have problems with a folder marked REJECTED IMAGES.

cathyslife · « **Reply #14 on:** January 25, 2009, 17:31 »

That's the thing. Many people don't have a clue about microstock. They just look for free images and then when we show them what kind of images they could get from just $1, they go for that.

I guess I disagree. When people are used to getting images for free, they will think $1 is too much. Sure, they will go to the microstock sites then, and start ripping off the thumbnails and using those, with or without the watermark, because what the heck, those are for free.

But I will keep my eyes out on this site to hear from other microstock users who think this is a good idea and is making tons of money from the referrals that make it worth the effort.

null · « **Reply #15 on:** January 25, 2009, 18:05 »

In general, I don't have rejected pictures any more. Sure, not all get accepted on all sites, but over sites with a real inspection (not MP, not FP, not YAY) at least half accepts them (DT, SS, IS, BigStock, FT, StockXpert, 123RF).

If I have a picture that is crap enough to be rejected everywhere, I just don't like to put time in postprocessing, - and if I did, I would never degrade my "brand name" with bad shots, even for free.

m@m · « **Reply #16 on:** January 25, 2009, 22:59 »

Right on the money FlemishDreams

shank_ali · « **Reply #17 on:** January 26, 2009, 02:22 »

I think the site looks cool.I can't however send my rejected images to this site or any other as i am an exclusive artist to istockphoto!

anton9 · « **Reply #18 on:** January 26, 2009, 02:49 »

I think the site sounds more beneficial to ppl with a much lower acceptance ratio and are struggling with getting sales. I do think that if someone is looking for a free image though $1 will seem too much to them and they will keep searching.

bobek · « **Reply #19 on:** January 26, 2009, 02:56 »

Quote from: cclapper on January 25, 2009, 17:31

I guess I disagree. When people are used to getting images for free, they will think $1 is too much. Sure, they will go to the microstock sites then, and start ripping off the thumbnails and using those, with or without the watermark, because what the heck, those are for free.

But I will keep my eyes out on this site to hear from other microstock users who think this is a good idea and is making tons of money from the referrals that make it worth the effort.

We expect that everybody knows about microstock websites, but it's not true. They simply don't know that there is a possibility to buy quality pictures cheaply. They still think that pictures cost around $300 each. The data shows us that 51% referred members also spend money there and some of them even buy subscription (very good if you referred them

).

I'm sure that Kngkyle (who submitted around 10 pictures) will share his first experiences in 2 weeks time.

You see, I only posted it here because it's working for me and some other members, so I just tought that some of you might be interested in it.

RT · « **Reply #20 on:** January 26, 2009, 04:26 »

If you spent as much time trying to improve your skills rather than trying to make money off the backs of other peoples talent (or lack of in this case) you might find it pays better.

Apart from Dreamstime which give you a payment for just referring people I can't see anybody making any money from this, ( I notice you've kept the Dreamstime referral just for yourself) your site is aimed at freeloaders and the sort of people that trawl the internet searching for sites like yours are not the sort of people that will buy an image, no matter how cheap it is, but they are the type that 'cclapper' has highlighted and will no doubt increase the number of images that are being ripped off each day, especially if they're willing to download an image that is so cr*p that none of the hundreds of microstock sites would even accept it.

As 'flemishdreams' mentioned above why anybody would want to be associated with a site like yours is beyond me.

I only hope that when your site fails which it will, you will be out of pocket.

And please drop the smokescreen of trying to help others make money, this is pure and simply just another tacky referral site.

sharpshot · « **Reply #21 on:** January 26, 2009, 05:03 »

The large size of the free images rules this site out for me. I don't mind giving away a few blog size photos with heavy jpeg compression but I think it is wrong to make them big enough for lots of uses. My biggest sale was from two small photos I had on my website when a newspaper requested larger versions to print. I would probably of lost that if I put those on this site. People thinking of doing this might be better off using some free web space and making their own referral page.

bobek · « **Reply #22 on:** January 26, 2009, 05:13 »

Quote from: RT on January 26, 2009, 04:26

If you spent as much time trying to improve your skills rather than trying to make money off the backs of other peoples talent (or lack of in this case) you might find it pays better.

Apart from Dreamstime which give you a payment for just referring people I can't see anybody making any money from this, ( I notice you've kept the Dreamstime referral just for yourself) your site is aimed at freeloaders and the sort of people that trawl the internet searching for sites like yours are not the sort of people that will buy an image, no matter how cheap it is, but they are the type that 'cclapper' has highlighted and will no doubt increase the number of images that are being ripped off each day, especially if they're willing to download an image that is so cr*p that none of the hundreds of microstock sites would even accept it.

As 'flemishdreams' mentioned above why anybody would want to be associated with a site like yours is beyond me.

I only hope that when your site fails which it will, you will be out of pocket.

And please drop the smokescreen of trying to help others make money, this is pure and simply just another tacky referral site.

In my first post I asked people not to trash it until they see the results. All your arguments are based only on what you think, no core data to proof them.

I don't understand why do you want this website to fail so desperately (do you see it as a competition for your pictures?)

I'm sorry to disappoint you with this graph which is showing how the website is ' failing '

Facts:
Unique visitors: 2,300 a day
A year ago: 900 a day

All I do is that I give you an opportunity to get something from your pictures if the agencies rejected them. Not interested? Fine by me.

Somebody else will surely enjoy this option.

Phil · « **Reply #23 on:** January 26, 2009, 06:06 »

trying the free image thing at 123 never did anything for me, and this is different but personally I dont see the need to give images away, but each to there own.
Personally I agree with Flemishdreams. Considering my quality has never been amazing

, my photos are not great 'stock', and I am the first to admit that I'm still learning still my worst case is that an image will rejected by 1 or 2 sites (mostly IS and / or FT (for me it would be ironic linking to FT the site where I have highest rejections

. I'd be hard pressed to think of an image that would be rejected by every site that I hadn't deleted out.

Phil

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #24 on:** January 26, 2009, 06:09 »

More important than your increasing chart of freeloaders, would be the sales increase for people who are contributing to your site.

I agree with RT and the others. Wasted time and wasted effort.

RT · « **Reply #25 on:** January 26, 2009, 07:54 »

Quote from: bobek on January 26, 2009, 05:13

Facts:
Unique visitors: 2,300 a day
A year ago: 900 a day

Here are some Facts for you:

-I could include the words 'free porn' in the metadata of my website and get probably more unique visitors a day than you've highlighted, so therefore the statistic means absolutely nothing.

-Anybody in the business of buying images in any sort of quantity will be very aware of Microstock by now.

-Anybody looking to purchase images by searching via Google will be presented with vast numbers of microstock sites long before they come across yours.

-One decent stock photograph uploaded to iStock photo plus the other top sites will produce more revenue than any money you'll ever receive via referrals.

-Reading through any microstock site forums for the posts of anybody who's ever participated in any 'free image' scheme and the result will be that it does not produce any significant extra revenue.

-People will willingly take something if it's free for no reason other than the fact it is free.

-Unless I'm mistaken you are not a registered charity and therefore the sole reason you've created this site is to generate revenue for yourself and not to help others.

-I have more 'core data' to prove that your site won't work than you have yet provided to the contrary.

anton9 · « **Reply #26 on:** January 26, 2009, 08:04 »

Your second to last point is exactly what I thought

tan510jomast · « **Reply #27 on:** January 26, 2009, 08:26 »

not sure if it's any better than submitting your images to the newer agencies or agencies that do not produce any sales. but at least, with the agencies, if it finds a buyer, at least they pay for your image. 25 cents is still 25 cents. rather than give it away.

bobek · « **Reply #28 on:** January 26, 2009, 08:57 »

Quote from: RT on January 26, 2009, 07:54

-I could include the words 'free porn' in the metadata of my website and get probably more unique visitors a day than you've highlighted, so therefore the statistic means absolutely nothing.

- I'm not going to comment this one as it is complete rubbish

Quote from: RT on January 26, 2009, 07:54

-Anybody in the business of buying images in any sort of quantity will be very aware of Microstock by now.

- Not true, otherwise we wouldn't be referring new people

Quote from: RT on January 26, 2009, 07:54

-Anybody looking to purchase images by searching via Google will be presented with vast numbers of microstock sites long before they come across yours.

- try this search - http://www.google.com/search?q=red+hearts and look at fourth image (I'm searching from the UK) - red hearts, so close to valentines, quite a traffic volume

Quote from: RT on January 26, 2009, 07:54

-One decent stock photograph uploaded to iStock photo plus the other top sites will produce more revenue than any money you'll ever receive via referrals.

- that's why the title says 'REJECTED'

Quote from: RT on January 26, 2009, 07:54

-Reading through any microstock site forums for the posts of anybody who's ever participated in any 'free image' scheme and the result will be that it does not produce any significant extra revenue.

- their free image section leads only to your portfolio. If people look for 'Labrador' there are 11 other pictures of Labrador below your image with your Fotolia number

Quote from: RT on January 26, 2009, 07:54

-Unless I'm mistaken you are not a registered charity and therefore the sole reason you've created this site is to generate revenue for yourself and not to help others.

Of course I'm probably making the most revenue because I have there over 800 photos but for example that girl has much better earning per member than I do. And if somebody submits 1000 pictures they will probably make more than I am.

Quote from: RT on January 26, 2009, 07:54

-I have more 'core data' to prove that your site won't work than you have yet provided to the contrary.

- my answers above

loop · « **Reply #29 on:** January 26, 2009, 10:44 »

Quote from: bobek on January 26, 2009, 05:13

Quote from: RT on January 26, 2009, 04:26

If you spent as much time trying to improve your skills rather than trying to make money off the backs of other peoples talent (or lack of in this case) you might find it pays better.

Apart from Dreamstime which give you a payment for just referring people I can't see anybody making any money from this, ( I notice you've kept the Dreamstime referral just for yourself) your site is aimed at freeloaders and the sort of people that trawl the internet searching for sites like yours are not the sort of people that will buy an image, no matter how cheap it is, but they are the type that 'cclapper' has highlighted and will no doubt increase the number of images that are being ripped off each day, especially if they're willing to download an image that is so cr*p that none of the hundreds of microstock sites would even accept it.

As 'flemishdreams' mentioned above why anybody would want to be associated with a site like yours is beyond me.

I only hope that when your site fails which it will, you will be out of pocket.

And please drop the smokescreen of trying to help others make money, this is pure and simply just another tacky referral site.

In my first post I asked people not to trash it until they see the results. All your arguments are based only on what you think, no core data to proof them.

I don't understand why do you want this website to fail so desperately (do you see it as a competition for your pictures?)

I'm sorry to disappoint you with this graph which is showing how the website is ' failing '

Facts:
Unique visitors: 2,300 a day
A year ago: 900 a day

All I do is that I give you an opportunity to get something from your pictures if the agencies rejected them. Not interested? Fine by me.

Somebody else will surely enjoy this option.

The more traffic, the worst. This is just about giving away images and rigths, risking model-realase conflicts and lawsuits, and contributin to a culture of "prhotos for commercial use should be free".

bobek · « **Reply #30 on:** January 26, 2009, 11:32 »

Quote from: loop on January 26, 2009, 10:44

The more traffic, the worst. This is just about giving away images and rigths, risking model-realase conflicts and lawsuits, and contributin to a culture of "prhotos for commercial use should be free".

I'm sure that the same fear had stock agencies with microstock at the beginning. Pictures from $1? Madness.

The way I see it:
- pictures for not very important projects - free
- pictures for projects where a good picture is important but exclusivity isn't - microstock
- pictures where quality must be excellent and exclusivity desired - traditional stock image libraries

And of course, these categories will be overlapping a bit.

hali · « **Reply #31 on:** January 26, 2009, 13:30 »

bobek, we are not saying it's ok to sell our images for peanuts, and that giving it away free like you are pushing here is silly. we already know how popular or unpopular subs and cheapies are. we take it , some happily, others grumbling under our breaths. we know where the top microsites esp SS is heading (ie. down , as in bread crumbs for the dogs under the table). but why encourage it ? we know it's going down to zero, but let's not push it to zero that quickly.
does it make sense?

Peter · « **Reply #32 on:** January 26, 2009, 14:01 »

giving something that you put your time in process of creating it, for free, is like flushing down the toilet...

i dont support any "free images" site.

shank_ali · « **Reply #33 on:** January 26, 2009, 15:16 »

I review and continue to learn from my rejections.I have a nice option at istockphoto if i feel an inspector has dropped a bollack in regards of rejecting a good image...Scout.Scout viewed two last week.One remained rejected.One image added to my portfolio.That will continue and i make enough money from my accepted images at istockphoto to start thinking about making money from rejects.

hali · « **Reply #34 on:** January 26, 2009, 15:19 »

Quote from: shank_ali on January 26, 2009, 15:16

I review and continue to learn from my rejections.I have a nice option at istockphoto if i feel an inspector has dropped a bollack in regards of rejecting a good image...Scout.Scout viewed two last week.One remained rejected.One image added to my portfolio.That will continue and i make enough money from my accepted images at istockphoto to start thinking about making money from rejects.

Shank, does Scout actually respond to you to say whether it's been re-rejected or approved? Just curious as to whether this is a sensible recourse to a rejection.

bobek · « **Reply #35 on:** January 26, 2009, 15:38 »

Quote from: hali on January 26, 2009, 13:30

bobek, we are not saying it's ok to sell our images for peanuts, and that giving it away free like you are pushing here is silly. we already know how popular or unpopular subs and cheapies are. we take it , some happily, others grumbling under our breaths. we know where the top microsites esp SS is heading (ie. down , as in bread crumbs for the dogs under the table). but why encourage it ? we know it's going down to zero, but let's not push it to zero that quickly.
does it make sense?

I understand that but the website is not here to compete with microstock but to support more sales there by referring new members.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #36 on:** January 26, 2009, 16:29 »

... and lowering their expectations of value.

shank_ali · « **Reply #37 on:** January 26, 2009, 17:35 »

Quote from: hali on January 26, 2009, 15:19

Quote from: shank_ali on January 26, 2009, 15:16
I review and continue to learn from my rejections.I have a nice option at istockphoto if i feel an inspector has dropped a bollack in regards of rejecting a good image...Scout.Scout viewed two last week.One remained rejected.One image added to my portfolio.That will continue and i make enough money from my accepted images at istockphoto to start thinking about making money from rejects.

Shank, does Scout actually respond to you to say whether it's been re-rejected or approved? Just curious as to whether this is a sensible recourse to a rejection.

Hali,the inspection process is human and as such mistakes are made.When you know an image is pretty dam perfect,no camera shake as it's been shot on a tripod,with a remote switch or timer.No adverse photo enhancements in adobe to introduce artifacts.No sharpening and other photos from the same shoot with the same lighting conditions being accepted you send the rejection to Scout with an explaination to why you disagree with the inspectors decision.
I have found the 'poor lighting' rejection to be a pain in the arse these past 6 months..and as such my exposure compension now stays at +1/2 and stays there even when shooting outside in good light.
Scout is a very good part of the overall inspection process at istockphoto but should be used wisely and not abused with over use.I have perhaps sent 7/8 images for scout to view in the 15 months i have been a contributor.

Phil · « **Reply #38 on:** January 26, 2009, 18:19 »

Quote from: bobek on January 26, 2009, 15:38

Quote from: hali on January 26, 2009, 13:30
bobek, we are not saying it's ok to sell our images for peanuts, and that giving it away free like you are pushing here is silly. we already know how popular or unpopular subs and cheapies are. we take it , some happily, others grumbling under our breaths. we know where the top microsites esp SS is heading (ie. down , as in bread crumbs for the dogs under the table). but why encourage it ? we know it's going down to zero, but let's not push it to zero that quickly.
does it make sense?

I understand that but the website is not here to compete with microstock but to support more sales there by referring new members.

by offering pics at any price point whether that is by a stock agency, flickr, or another site you compete with every other stock agency regardless of their price point. whilst you may be supporting a micro agency, there is absolutely no doubt you are also competing with it.

madelaide · « **Reply #39 on:** January 26, 2009, 18:41 »

Guys, why don't we give bobek a break? Those who want to join his idea, go on. I think there was already a lot of discussion about this... $:-\$

Regards,
Adelaide

alias · « **Reply #40 on:** January 26, 2009, 19:15 »

Sooner or later someone will upload a bunch of pictures which they do not own. Happens at Flickr all the time. Also at the microstocks.

Flickr have got Yahoo's legal people to smooth it out for them (+ considerable good will in the photographer community). The microstocks presumably know between themselves that it will happen from time to time.

alias · « **Reply #41 on:** January 26, 2009, 19:25 »

Quote from: hali on January 26, 2009, 15:19

does Scout actually respond to you to say whether it's been re-rejected or approved?

Yes.

I've done it twice I think in about 3 years. Both times I was sure that the rejection was a mistake and that the image had good potential. Both images now sell. The messages from Scout were very friendly and encouraging. It takes a while.

I think I waited a few days after the rejections before deciding to send them for evaluation. Gave me a chance to give it some consideration and have another look.

eric.zx · « **Reply #42 on:** January 26, 2009, 20:21 »

The site is definitely missing any sort of a legal structure. Thus, it makes the end-user unaccountable for their actions, meaning the model release goes out of the window. The downloader may use the image in any way possible, which may not be acceptable to the model. At least the free sections like on FT or DT apply the same rules to free images as to the ones you have to pay for.

I'm not trying to rip on you bobek. I think you may have good intentions, while earning a few bucks on the side, and I don't see anything wrong with that personally. "See a need, fill a need" sort of thing. And I've seen some good photographers featured on your site. I'm personally not a huge fan of providing my photos for free, although I'd consider it in some cases to help boost my sales or charitable reasons. But I'm not sure how my rejected images that do not particularly meet the standards that buyers are currently looking for would benefit me, unless I provide a good image for free as means of advertising. Maybe you should try to distance yourself from providing "rejected" images and focus on providing advertising to the photographers that would like to be featured on your site.

And you definitely have to include some sort of binding agreement between downloaders and your site, like making them sign up for an account and agreeing to terms of use. It may not be as important for photos not featuring people, but otherwise it could be a nasty lawsuit waiting to happen.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Earn money from your (rejected) pictures (Read 17702 times)

hali

m@m

shank_ali

tan510jomast

hali

shank_ali

hali

shank_ali

alias

alias

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors