And again 4 ridiculous rejections out of 6 for 'quality problems'.

Perfect photos - never had this in my 12 year doing fulltime stock, my rejection rate has always been 0 to 1%

Oops, sorry,

See I could download the old one, where - if you have a tax treaty - line 10 can be left blank

Quote from: Luuk on September 16, 2022, 05:46

Just looked around, first portfolio I saw sells stockphotos from other authors:

https://www.pictorem.com/profile/Shamudy (did a tineye search on some photos, all other authors)

I don�t know how bad this is at FAA, but this doesn�t give me a good feeling about uploading artwork.

You're right to question that artist. The usual world traveler, which we know is unlikely. Same happens on FAA and stock sites.

What we can see on FAA is recent sales "activity" and I don't follow like I did years ago, but I don't see the Public Domain images getting any sales. And for myself, the sales have dropped off this year and I get the usual postcard, small print or a T-Shirt now and then.

Still Pictorem is one more outlet and uploading is easy. I'll make that a Winter project. I can't see just giving up without at least trying?

I wish I could have �photographed� all the places he has been to, he must have been all over the world...

I think I will try pictorem as well, just being demotivated lately of all copied artwork I see around.

I had 3 sales on FAA early this year for a total of $450, other than that nothing over $5 for 3 years now.

My acceptance rate has been 95-100% for many years, now this week 80% is rejected for 'quality problems'.

This is not a 'quality' issue.

My Canon 5D Mark II now is about 10 years old and it still is an everyday work horse (I do stock fulltime).

I am thinking about upgrading this year to the 5Ds or the 5D mark IV, but I am wondering if this would yield better sales because of the larger image resolutions both offer; otherwise I don't see a benefit.

Problem with the 5Ds is that my 100-400mm L and 24-105mm L aren't good enough for that resolution.

It's a lot of money anyway...

The list states they also look for all kinds of cars, rv's etc. but when you submit these (I do a lot of vintage cars photography), with brands etc. removed they are almost always rejected for Intellectual Property Violation.....

I keyword my images with adobe bridge, but deepmeta doesn't read the 'date created' field when importing photos.

With all batches from the last weeks it sets all my images at 12-2-2017, whatever the date they are made.

Anyone else having this 'problem'?

lucagavagna: I have sent them this question, got a reply 'you can view your earnings in your contributor area...', simply ignoring the VAT question I wrote them.

Video-StockOrg: that's very interesting, if that's the case it would all be ok.
I think it is also strange that they pay in dollars from a EU account.

Anyone else also sharing Video-StockOrg's accountant view, to be sure we are ok when not going to deal with VAT?

I am trying to sync, but the page just refreshes and comes up again blank.
I already have an adobe cc account, but it doesn't seem to accept my fotolia login - also, to be sure - I changed my password on fotolia, didn't have success with that either.

And, btw, the login is pretty much insecure: the browser address shows the username and password unprotected when submitting: https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/nl/onboarding/sync-fotolia-2?username=******&password=***** (the * are your current fotolia username and password)

Edit: I always use google chrome on my mac, just tried with safari, now everything went ok and I am synced, so maybe this can help if you run into problems like I did.

That's my point, it is really confusing. It has happened 2 times in a year now (and those are the ones I noticed in my little village!).

In an earlier post (452117) I mentioned that istock had licensed this file with an extended license 'products for resale'; now, a few months later, I see this photo sold as greeting cards in my local book store. I don't know if it was this license that 'permitted' this use, it can also have been licensed through ss, 123rf or dreamstime as editorial or just being misused.
I don't want to complain about possible abuse of the photo (probably useless), but what bothers me is that I choose to upload certain photos as editorial because of their content, so that I will not be held liable if problems occur.

As said, I also have some beautiful photos waiting to be submitted as editorial, but I am afraid - due to their content, nice vintage cars with people in a beautiful setting - these will also end up being printed on greeting cards and other commercial items.
I have had issues with the first greeting card, because the owner of the car came after me, until I explained how I uploaded this photo as editorial, and telling him the licensee was wrong, not me, things were eventually ok.

It really confuses me, are we indeed protected with an editorial license (I still think so) or can these EL's cause problems in terms of liability for us as contributors?

Last week I saw one of my editorials printed as a greeting card for sale in my (very small) village, so I can imagine that it happens more often (this was the second one in 1 year I saw used this way).
I sometimes shoot special vintage cars and upload these pics to ss, istock, 123rf and dreamstime as editorial; brand names and people are visible on the photo's, that's why I only want them licensed as editorial.

But both with istock and dreamstime you can select an extended license with all editorials permitting resale a.o. on t-shirts, postcards, greeting cards, mugs, mousepads, posters, calendars. Actually, it looks that any commercial use is permitted as long as you download these with an extended license.

The greeting card shows volkswagen beetles with license plates taken on a car show. This week I have taken really beautiful shots of vintage cars with people driving these cars; I now doubt if I should even upload these pics because they show the drivers in the cars... I don't want to get sued by these people.

I don't get this. Isn't this illegal use of editorial photos?
And what about liability, where do we stand as photographers?

Thank you, will do that, I was just wondering if anyone else was having the same issues