MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - ShadySue

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7
iStockPhoto.com / November stats in
« on: December 19, 2018, 18:49 »
For me, worst Nov ever (started Dec 2006).
True, I haven't uploaded for over 2.5 years, so it's all passive income: but OTOH, I still see lots of reports about recent uploads not selling - for at least a year now.

I see they have made a DACS claim, and presumably my share was 30%. I don't remember them doing that before, and I have for a few years now claimed any relevant found in-uses along with my Alamy claim. I guess I'll have to sort that out with DACS.  :(


Someone smarter than me can tease out the import of this, and the likely impact, if any.
If it's bad news, don't shoot the messenger.  8)

Newbie Discussion / MOVED: oxguddgb
« on: April 06, 2018, 08:54 »

Newbie Discussion / MOVED: yfhldcnn
« on: April 03, 2018, 05:41 »
This topic has been moved to garbage bin


Just posting for info.
I can't get my head round any possible implications; we clearly need to know more.

Shutterstock.com / Curious - enhanced licences
« on: August 29, 2017, 06:59 »
A UK newspaper called the Daily M*il (Yuck, a right-wing tabloid) used to buy RM editorial pics from Alamy. They were notorious for not reporting re-uses and had regularly to be chased for payment, and indeed yesterday I received payment for 21 unreported usages online, going back two years, of one particular image which had been used over 40 times in total. Low payment per image under the UKNS (but still 10x each what I'd have got from SS just once), but yay for RM.

Anyway, they now buy from SS rather than Alamy. I see that their print run in Dec 2015 was nearly 1.5 million. SS require an enhanced licence for print runs over 500K. So, are people seeing loads of enhanced images from sales there and on their sister free publication The M*tro (1.3 print run daily)? Or have they got a 'special deal' which doesn't require them?

Found one of my pics on http://animalia-life.club being offered as a free download.
It's not like they don't know, it's actually got iStock as part of the URI! (Unwatermarked).

You can't search the site as such, you go onto pages via links and at the bottom of each page are some photos to freely download. Getting from page to page is random, I found my file via a Google reverse search. I'm imagining a fair number of these images are stock files.

I have reported my file to iStock. (not holding my breath).
Gotta luvvit: on the first page of that site, they say: "Any reproduction or publication of information from our website without permission - is prohibited".  ::)

Image Sleuth / lookanimals.com
« on: November 29, 2016, 16:22 »
Trying to reverse search a file I recently sold on Alamy, I didn't find that use, but I did find the file on a site called www.lookanimals.com - my file, watermarked from FAA.
There were other files on the page with the FAA watermark and several with the DT watermark, some with Science Photo Library w/m; as well as those with watermarks by the authors and plenty with no watermarks, quite possibly from legit websites.

The disclaimer beggars belief:
"LookAnimals.com does not host any of the images embedded here. All images are uploaded by people / animals fans to websites like National Geographic or Others. Our mission here, is to organize those images and to make your search for the latest animals picture easier. We simply link to the images that is already hosted on other web sites. If you are concerned about copyrighted material appearing in this website, we suggest that you contact the web site that is hosting the video (sic) and have it removed from there. Once the content is removed from the website hosting your content, it will automatically be removed from LookAnimals.com."

I'm just going out so have only skimmed the longish list of changes to the Alamy contract, but this one jumped out at me:
"29: "Promotional/Marketing Material" means promotional and marketing material that shall include, but not be limited to ... ... ...  supply of Images to third parties for use in Image galleries (Images unaccompanied by copy) and editorial pieces (Images accompanied by copy), websites and blogs in return for publicity, specific ad-hoc marketing campaigns, supply of Images to third parties for use in conferences/presentations/keynote speeches in exchange for publicity, and other uses by third parties in return for publicity.",

a definition  applying to:
15:1 "You agree that the Images may be used worldwide at Alamy's option without charge and without prior consent or approval from you in Promotional/Marketing Material or in any other manner at the sole discretion of Alamy designed to promote sales of Images and/or to enhance awareness of the Alamy name/brand or that of the individual Contributor,"

Apart from the 'no free images for publicity' mantra, how would they ensure that the 'publicity' was more than a tiny credit in the corner, and in that case, why wouldn't just about everyone do that to get free images?

Ha, a few days ago I have my first FAA sale in months.

Today I had a look at another image there and underneath it and all other images is a really stupid auto-populated text which reads:

Title is a piece of digital artwork by author which was uploaded on Month, date, year.   The digital art has colors ranging from e.g. ghost white to dim gray and incorporates your first keyword, your second keyword, and your third keyword design themes.

Well, the image concerned had many colours outwith the range of "ghost white to dim grey", e.g. red, yellow and brown (etc).
And the original pic I clicked on apparently  has colors ranging from gainsboro to bole . To how many people will that mean anything at all?

I want MY description to be there (it's still tiny low down the right hand column), and no 'gainsboro' or 'bole' (I didn't even know these were colours!)

The auto text looks so incredibly amateur. They seem be trying to do everything possible to 'downmarket' their site. I bet they think they're "improving SEO". Well look what happened when iS tried that, but at least they only messed up those who had opted in.

Photoshop Discussion / Photoshop tools down left hand side
« on: April 02, 2016, 13:34 »
Just curious:
A couple of months back, I moved all the PS tools to the right hand side (as I'm right handed). After a bit of 'protest' from muscle memory, I'm now doing it intuitively, and wonder if there is some reason I can't think of why the tools are down the left hand side by default. ( I don't have a great memory for all the keyboard shortcuts, so I actually 'go for' a lot of the tools). Surely as a 'rightie', having them down the right hand side makes a lot more sense. But I've never seen any tutorials which suggest that, or which show the tutor having the tools down the right hand side.
Am I missing something obvious about why the tools are usually down the left?
Or do most people have all the shortcuts right at the front of their mind, so it's not an issue?

Some people may find this interesting:

Photoshop Discussion / PSCC and NVIDIA GeForce drivers
« on: November 07, 2015, 09:28 »
Since PS CC2015, I seem to be having a lot of problems with my Nvidia GeForce driver which seem to be related to Photoshop, even though I'm not always actively using PS when the problem happens (but PS and/or Bridge is nearly always open). I am upgrading my driver about twice a week, but the problems seem to change ...
Anyone else?
(Please don't waste your valuable time giving me technical instructions, I'm just trying to find out whether I need to get some other sort of graphics driver. I wouldn't actually be installing that myself.)
(I didn't have any of these problems before PS CC2015.)

iStockPhoto.com / Any iS exclusives in TS?
« on: July 02, 2015, 14:26 »
If there are any iS exclusives in TS, can you explain all of the bizarre and out of order percentage rates in the rate schedule for the Partner Program? The table doesn't work arithmetically, but where do all of these extra percentage rate points come from?

Software - General / EXIF change
« on: June 16, 2015, 09:24 »
I needed to change times in EXIF after the event.
I don't use LR, but have it, so followed the instructions here:
First problem: they only do full hours, not useful in my case (I needed to shift by -4.5 hrs), but we can cope.
So now, the times are showing as changed in LR but even after quitting Bridge and opening again, the changes don't show in the files in Bridge, nor in Photoshop 'Info'.
Anyone know what I've done wrong? (editorial for iS, date needs to match EXIF)

Print on Demand Forum / 'Featured' on FAA
« on: May 04, 2015, 15:10 »
I don't spend enough time on FAA discussion group, so miss a lot that's happening.
Seems it's well known that the owner is 'aggressively' targetting known artists with large collections which get 'featured' (promoted) on FAA:
E.g. http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=2493055

Interesting on that page that some people are asking what 'featured' means. That must be something which rotates on the site. I read about 'featured' here on msg first, and at that time and for some time afterwards, I couldn't see it.
Now I know that at some times, and on certain searches, there are 'featured' artists or groups at the top of the page, as well as in the main body of the search (some searches, even without any 'featured' have the whole first search page by one artist other than if someone has 'sponsored' the page, in which case three images will be by other/s on rotation).

BTW, it has to be said that just because someone posts a lot and is authoritative in certain matters, it doesn't mean they're always correct. (not referring to that thread in particular).


iStockPhoto.com / Feb subs started
« on: March 07, 2015, 09:02 »
Just had a sub come in from 4th Feb.

iStockPhoto.com / SEO - how did you fare?
« on: March 04, 2015, 18:01 »
'According to Lobo' stage 1 of the SEO test has shown that those 'asssets' with 50-word descriptions have "pulled away from the pack", and "What we are saying is that the files we added 50 word descriptions to in our earlier test fared considerably better than the 30/100 word descriptions."
However, to curb anyone's enthusiasm, he qualified it by saying "you have to appreciate we are talking about SEO and not customers"
And now apparently they're going to nominate another 50k 'assets' to have their descriptions rewritten for SEO (it won't be seen by site customers.
I heard anecdotally and read in the forums that some of the descriptions were just factually wrong. I also wonder how many actual potential customers arrive via SEO. I'm thinking relatively far fewer than those who might be hacked off by already being a 'customer' but not able to see a helpful, and possibly accurate (who knows?) description.
Did anyone who was in the experiment find that their selected files suddenly started selling better, rather than just getting a higher position on Google?

iStockPhoto.com / Last chance to choose payment method at iStock
« on: February 09, 2015, 14:40 »
I know there are many iS contributors who, like me, don't get iS newsletters (though we should). Unlike me, several of them don't frequent the iS forums.
So a link to Kelvin's post: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365371&page=1
This applies to everyone, even if you had a payment method chosen previously.
There's a link in Kelvin's post where you can check that your choice has been correctly registered in the system.
Any questions, ask over there.

Site Related / MOVED: Seattle SEO
« on: January 28, 2015, 12:06 »

Image Sleuth / pixgood
« on: January 27, 2015, 09:01 »
I found one of my iS images being offered as a free download on pixgood dot com (no direct link to avoid boosting SEO).
Like so many of the others, it would be a PITA to check for your images there; I happened to find mine on a Google reverse image search.
I have contacted CR at iS.
It is unwatermarked, so presumably lifted from the site of a legitimate buyer.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7


Microstock Poll Results