Alamy sent out an email featuring "Top Selling Content Of 2021" at the end of last week. Been waiting for a discussion about the best selling images, but when I just checked out the lightbox, it was empty.
Any ideas what this is all about?
Did you check out the images? Strikingly many bestsellers were historic images.

Does anybody know Tetra Images? Any experience with them? They seem to be selling RF.

Are you all seeing this offer when you click an image on Alamy:

"Save up to 30% with our image packs
Pre-pay for multiple images and download on demand."

Who needs 25 images for "personal use"?

https://www.alamy.com/image-packs.aspx

Anyone else experiencing serious upload problems with 123RF?
Just recently several of my files show up corrupt - if they show up at all.
Tried both web upload (error messages with a couple for files which do not show at all) and was lucky to have 1-2 files show properly. "Processing" took about one hour. The rest of the files, corrupt.
FTP does not work, have no idea where my files end up, to Mars? Another solar system?
Does anybody else experience similar problems?

Check out your images on the new site.

How do you disable a file on the new site? Did not find that any more.

Hi all,
Just lately I've seen some of my Editorial photos used in social media in either promoting or advertising a product. No photographer credit line. They've all been mid-size or small businesses doing this, and I don't know where they have purchased the images. In one incident I was quite sure the source was Bigstock (and still am) and wrote in, but they denied it and nothing followed.

It is perfectly clear that images of property, featuring a logo, etc, or people, need appropriate releases and without them the contributor will need to sell them under Editorial.
It's not OK that the buyers are using them in advertising. The photographer/ contributor is the one who will face the blame and responsibility eventually, everyone will ask "who took this photo?" and no one blames the buyer who used it wrongly.

What would you do in a situation like this? Any help/insight will be welcome.

I don't know how long it's been there, but I was quite shocked to notice today the 2048 x 1365 image preview & download at Istock. Downloaded two of my own images at that size...

Some square images can be downloaded at 2048 X 2048.

Don't know if there is a thread already about this, but I find this quite shocking. Images with a light background and lots of white are under little or practically no protection.

Have you checked out Shutterstock Tab 1.1.2 ?

It's a Chrome extension. Everytime you open a new tab you get the time and weather with a lovely contributor image from Shutterstock.

http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/try-shutterstock-tab-time-weather-and-inspiration-at-your-fingertips?utm_content=buffera7640&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Wonder what WE are getting out of this?

What's up with this site freecodesource.com?

It has tons of Shutterstock photos. If you click Download Photo Without Watermark
it directs you to SS, but look at that HTML under the image:
"Display this Stock Photo on your Website or Blog"
and then there's HTML code.

Displaying someone else's SS watermarked photo on your website/blog can't be legal??
Anyone know about this?

See for yourself
http://www.freecodesource.com/stock-photos/210358807--Camera-Flat-Icon-With-Long...-stock-photo.html

http://www.freecodesource.com/stock-photos/210033592--Closeup-Of-Pictures-A-Kind-Of...-stock-photo.html

(just borrowing random examples)

Hi,
I would need advice regarding a credentials issue. Thanks in advance for everyone who have the strenght go through this:

I asked editorial credentials for a small-ish event, to make the submission easier for SS and Bigstock. Actually that might not have been necessary (not a ticketed event, open area etc...) but I wanted to avoid the song and dance with the stock agencies. Usually getting the credentials hasn't been that hard anyway.

This time the organizer of the event sent me an email, which contained the editorial credentials form. OK  so far, BUT the email said further: "The credentials are ok if we can use your images later. We will give the participants (ie who bring an item to the event) a photo of their X (X being whatever item they bring) at the venue."

Can someone tell me what does this mean, and do I need to mind the added sentence? Their condition is not reasonable, and doens't seem even legal.
I was thinking that, sure they can use my images, if they download them from a stock agency. No problem. But then I thought, wait a minute, they cannot actually "give" my images away. They don't have the rights to pass on my images to a third party.

The email just said "images", not how many, nothing about the price of images (not "for free"). No one, not even a child would let 30-50 of their images used without a charge, and the form of EC, that is really not that valuable!

I later learned that the event organizer is not a professional (wasn't hard to guess eh) so maybe he was just ignorant.

I can't accept the condition of providing images for free. Is that kind of a condition, attached to an editorial credential, even legally binding?

Provided that it is probably legally ok to shoot at the event without the editorial credentials anyway, and licence them as editorial, can I just ignore the editorial credentials form? I would shoot at the event and never submit the form they sent me.

What would be the best way to proceed?

Thank you for your help!

Does anyone know what's going on with Most Photos? Their Mediacloud doesn't work properly, it doesn't save any changes made to captions, keywords or licences. This has been going on for two weeks or so.

I have emailed the support but received no reply... and the problem continues. There is not even any info on the site about this.

I would just like to know if they ever plan to fix it, and when?