pancakes

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] 8
151
iStockPhoto.com / Cutting off their nose
« on: December 06, 2011, 13:13 »
It's now well over a year since I've been banned from iStock forums for telling uncomfortable truths.

However, as they're so buggy, from time to time, I'm able to post.

So about a month ago, I posted about two bugs. These posts were deleted, and in each case, a day or two later, the bugs were reported again. In the last couple of days, I posted a request for a keyword (there would be no point in me uploading a photo without that keyword, as it already has four unrelated DAs in other languages) and a note of a necessary - and constantly repeating - batch wiki.

I'm just uploading an image, and noticed a mistake (mis-spelling) in a DA of an important keyword. I was just about to post a note in the keywording forum about it when I noticed that my two most recent posts have also been deleted.

What on earth is the point of that?
Why do I even bother?

152
Site Related / Site outages
« on: November 27, 2011, 08:02 »
Seem to be getting a lot of site outages here (and only here) this morning.
Getting a message:
"Website Offline, No Cached Version Available...
The website you are trying to access is currently offline. The most likely causes are the server is down for maintenance, there may be a network problem, or the site may be experiencing excessive load.

The site uses CloudFlare in order to help keep it online when the server is down by serving cached copies of pages where they are available. Unfortunately, a cached copy of the page you requested is not available, but you may be able to reach other cached pages on the site.

If you continue to receive this error after you believe the site is back online, you can retry a live version of the site."

153
Off Topic / [OT]HELP please - Odd symbol in Tiscali email addy
« on: November 20, 2011, 10:17 »
Totally off topic.
I need to email someone urgently. She wrote her email address but I didn't look at it when she wrote it.
Her email addy, in very clear writing, is name.name*[email protected], where *= a O with a diagonal line through it, which I can't even see how to insert here.
I can't see any way to put that symbol into the To line of an email in any of my three webmail programs. More confusing still, the way she's written it, clearly, it's not the usual non-ASCII O-slash, as her diagonal line goes top left to bottom right.
She seems not to be in the phone book and I have no other way of contacting her. Teach me to look at someone's email in future.
HELP please!

154
iStockPhoto.com / Inspection times
« on: November 09, 2011, 05:44 »
I uploaded some main collection (not editorial, not V/A candidates) on Saturday and haven't 'caught' them even locked for inspection yet. Is this the new 'normal' (exclusive), or just the backlog from the Milan'lypse?

155
Off Topic / Dangers of sport
« on: October 12, 2011, 08:35 »

Amazing footage shows mountain biker ambushed by African antelope

156
iStockPhoto.com / Simplified ingestion/inspection process
« on: September 28, 2011, 05:59 »
OK, any idle speculation about what JJRD means in his 'Member rogermexico and Content' post when he says, which he already hinted at in an earlier post (something about 'impossibly compressed files'):
"we are on a mission to simplify the ingestion process as well as the inspection process, enrich our collections with fantastic files that are fully relevant to Key Regions needs as well as making sure that we cover major markets as never before."
Does it mean they'll be re-examining my naturally-flat-light rainforest rejections, and it might be worth submitting more?
I doubt it.
I'm guessing that there is going to be a huge ingestion of files from some of Getty's other partner sites that would not meet current inspection requirements. Whereas there should be a long process sorting out EdStock's captions and keywords.

I'm not sure why he keeps making these uninformative posts which only lead to the sort of speculation I've indulged in above. And the reality is always worse than anything I've speculated. :-(

157
Image Sleuth / Photobucket
« on: September 19, 2011, 15:07 »
I'e just found one of my (very) few Vettas on Photobucket, under someone else's name, though not directly claiming to be photographed by her. It seems anyone is invited to download the pic or share it on a gazillion of social meda, many of which I haven't heard of. AFAICS, the image is available at c600x400.
There's no watermark on it, so it may be that she has bought the original, or it may be she's copied it from a legitmate buyer.
Even assuming she is a genuine buyer, is that allowed?
(I checked and each of her images I clicked on seems to be 'all over the web'. I also found it a bit disconcerting that clicking on my pic on her page didn't turn up iStockphoto in the first few pages, unlike TinEye, and in fact nor did clicking on the pic in my iStock port.)

158
Photoshop Discussion / Unfortunate Bridge 'feature'
« on: September 15, 2011, 06:38 »
A warning to those who may not have found this feature yet.
The other evening I was looking for something else inside preferences and found that I could rename the coloured labels. Oooh, I thought, that's good, I can name yellow Alamy, green iStock and blue Flickr, as I was using these colour anyway.
I didn't imagine for a moment that this would cause any harm.
Grief, am I the only idiot on the planet who ever did this? All my colour coding has gone to white - i.e. all the previously green, yellow and blue labelled files now have white labels, so I'm having to go in and manually change them all.
It's not a problem if someone should question my ownership of a file, as my backups are in separate iStock or Alamy folders, but these backups are the actual jpegs, not the original RAWS which are now all white in their original 'shoot' folders.
Anyone know the best channel to contact at Adobe about to get that changed in future releases? The fact that all the labels changed to white, which AFAICS isn't a system label colour means they saw it would be a problem, but didn't think to change that behaviour or at least give a pop up warning about it.

159
iStockPhoto.com / Changes to privacy policy
« on: September 08, 2011, 16:51 »
Hmm a short locked note from Joyze about changes to iStock's privacy policy, but the changes don't seem to be highlighted.
http://www.istockphoto.com/privacy.php

161
iStockPhoto.com / Check your Privacy settings on iStock
« on: September 02, 2011, 06:26 »
I've read here some people saying that they don't read iStock's forums any more, only here.
These people might like to check their privacy settings on iStock if they have hidden their real name or location from public view.
If you opted to keep them hidden, they were now showing again.
You need to go into Preferences > Profile > Edit Profile to change them back.
Appalling.
Mentioned on the Help thread or I might not have noticed for several days.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333908&page=1
In fact, it was sheer luck that I rechecked that thread, as the privacy issue wasn't there last time I looked, just the best match.
That should definitely have its own thread, or a group email sent out, though I and many others don't get the group emails.
ETA: also, but not as crucially for contributors, what details you see with the thums.
I see there's now a locked thread in the discussion group. Kelvin's response was a bit disingenous, as at the time of writing at least there was nothing in the title of that Help thread that indicated the serious privacy breach.

162
(corrected in next post. sorry.)

163
iStockPhoto.com / Hugh Pinney Live Chat
« on: August 10, 2011, 15:48 »
Could someone who is going take part in the live chat tomorrow please ask Mr Pinney what he means by, "imagery that has a different kind of integrity".
Does he just mean 'a different kind of imagery', i.e. editorial-lite for blogs, which is where he seems to have located iStock editorial offerings.
Or does he mean 'a different kind of integrity' in like wise to JJRD's "different kind of trust"?

164
iStockPhoto.com / iStock exclusive RF + Alamy RM
« on: August 02, 2011, 08:18 »
Any iStock exclusive who also sells RM at Alamy might be interested in a recent development at Alamy which might compromise your position. I feel it's more an Alamy issue, so posted the details there rather than here.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/alamy-com/alamy-premium-rm-as-rf/msg212264/?topicseen#new
and humbly suggest discussion, if any, should be there to keep just one thread.
Added: I now see that the proposed new license is not RF, but a very wide RM license - use within the purchasing company, 10 year time limit, no advertising. So that shouldn't impact on IS exclusivity.

165
Alamy.com / Alamy Premium - RM as RF
« on: August 02, 2011, 08:14 »
New Alamy scheme discovered by contributor, not notified to contributors first.
I can't seem to provide links to the Alamy forums which work, but it's the Discussion Forum thread headed 'Premium Account'.
First post was about this article:
http://www.abouttheimage.com/4332/hello_alamy_what_exactly_is_a_premium_account
Followed in the thread by a lot of disbelief etc.
Alamy Sales Pitch
"Regarding photo rates were working on a new package called the Alamy Premium Account, the benefits are:
$49 (US) per image
Unlimited repeat below the line use over 10 years, worldwide*
Un-watermarked try before you buy downloads.
No print run/impression limitations.
Unrestricted file size (typically 50MB).
22 million images available on http://www.alamy.com/bespoke and growing.
No credits, subscriptions or volume commitments.
Unlimited shared access to your library of purchases.
No differentiation between Royalty-free and Rights Managed images. "


A lot of contributor wrath, then on page 4, James West steps in:
"On the subject of Rights Management I must stress that we are not 'giving away rights for everything'. We are experimenting with giving *some* customers a broad set of rights with a time limit and a restriction on high value usages like advertising. I want to see RM images bought back into markets where they are being locked out by the combined forces of microstock pricing and customers requiring simplicity, and I want to see your images pick up those high value advertising sales when they come along.
On the subject of opt-in/opt-outs - (a.) we are always trying out new stuff and (b.) providing opt-in/opt-out for every idea we try is impossible.
My job is to make Alamy viable for producers and consumers of photography, but my company's fortunes are completely tied to those of our contributors. If our business practices were unsustainable for our contributors then the same would apply to Alamy. If Alamy revenues half, contributor revenues half. If Alamy revenues double, contributor revenues double.
If our sole motivation was profit we would raise the commission we charge contributors and raise the prices we charge customers. This would pass the cost of a reduced market share (because some customers would stop using us) onto our contributors (who will make less sales), whilst keeping Alamy's profit levels secure.
This industry has been in a tremendous state of flux over the past decade and the pace of change is accelerating. If we don't stay nimble and open-minded to new ideas, this business will wither on the vine."


Whatever you think or don't think of the scheme, it looks like people like me who sell RF exclusively on iStock and RM on Alamy will have to think again. (Remember, for a while iStock didn't sell editorial, so this was a logical choice,and still is IMO for less usual locations/images).

There is strong suggestion that if you set a restriction, the one suggested being a geographical restriction on selling to a small country with probably few buyers like Togo, that will get your images out of that scheme, but haven't seen that confirmed yet. BUT if you have a restriction on your images, you're automatically opted out of all the international distributors. http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2008/11/13/3765.aspx I'd say about 40% of my Alamy sales are distributor sales.

Not happy.  >:( :'( Although I make much more on iStock overall, I'm pretty sure I make more at Alamy on the images that sell there than I would at iStock with these images, so don't want to have to leave and move everything over to iStock. Don't actually want all my eggs in one basket either, but don't want the hassle of having to upload to all micros. At the moment, iStock RF/Alamy RM was a good balance for me.

166
iStockPhoto.com / Silhouette - MR?
« on: July 31, 2011, 16:03 »
Cut to the chase: is a MR needed for a silhouette of a person if it's totally black against white (i.e. photoshopped to make sure)?
This is a rough idea of what I mean http://www.lizworld.com/Sil.jpg. It's not finished - the edges are pretty jagged, and I haven't even checked that the black is all 100% black - but I'm not spending time on something that's a non-starter; I've probably got about 15-20 in the series.
No speculation please - only if you've had silhouettes without MRs accepted or rejected at iStock. Thanks.

167
Alamy.com / Does no-one care about image abuse?
« on: July 26, 2011, 12:29 »
I wrote to Alamy yesterday because I had a use last week in a UK newspaper website (at least).
Then I found the image being used in some sort of site that linked to the article in the newspaper's website.
So I wrote to ask if this was a legitimage usage - the linking site isn't linked to the newspaper.
The reply I got was:

" ...Please note that Alamy do not follow up usages in the following
situations:

1.         If an article has been linked to from another web site/ blog
article or forum/chat site.

2.         If an entire article including the image has been copied in a
web site/ blog article or forum/chat site.

This is because Alamy sold an image to a client, and another source copies this usage from the client without their permission. You are free to follow this up at your end contacting the website in question

No better than iStock, then.  :(

168
Hmm, I happened onto this website ookaboo, "ookaboo: free pictures of everything on earth". at first, I thought it was just for schools, but I see this photo, of five living US presidents:
http://ookaboo.com/o/pictures/picture/3965826/President_George_W
with this Legal Notice:
"Can I use this image for my creative project?
Yes!
This image is in the public domain and may be used for any purpose, commercial or not. We believe that you should give attribution to the photographer, but this is not required."
Which is the same notice as is on a random selection of other images on the site.
Someone is going to be in very big trouble one day, when someone uses that (or any of many others) image commercially, for 'any purpose'.

169
General Stock Discussion / Editorial keyword question
« on: July 18, 2011, 07:25 »
Does anyone know what these big slatted adverts which look like venetian blinds, where the slats individually rotate to change the adverts, is actually called? Often seen in railway stations. (Not the Jumbotrons like in Times Square). TIA.

170
iStockPhoto.com / Can you cancel a Scout ticket?
« on: June 29, 2011, 06:29 »
I've got two outstanding Scout tickets since 13th March, both editorial lighting rejections, simple to decide on.
Someone told me this week they'd had a lighting rejection overturned this week in less than 48 hours.
So I thought I should delete the outstanding ticket and submit a new one, but I can't see how to delete a ticket, just how to add more information. As I've got at least one outstanding Support ticket from about the same time which have 'fallen off the radar', but which Support assures me are still there and will be replied to, I can't see that writing to Support will achieve anything in the short-medium term.
Anyone know how to delete a Scout ticket within the system?

171
Image Sleuth / Copyright Infringement in Textbook Licensing
« on: June 23, 2011, 06:21 »
Information on the APA site about how American textbook publishers have been reusing images willy-nilly without paying for reuse:
http://searchapa.us/wordpress/wordpress/?p=2938

(Not sure if this was the correct forum. Please move if appropriate.)

172
General Stock Discussion / RF: self-killing?
« on: May 14, 2011, 05:42 »
I just had one of my bizarre thoughts regarding falling sales, which most people who've been in the game for a couple of years or more are reporting.

Isn't the RF model part of the problem? Buyers who have been buying RF for years have built up their own personal stock library, which they can use again and again. If they're smart, they'll have keyworded and catalogued them according to their own needs and workflow. In many cases, they don't really have need to buy new images, they can repurpose old ones, swapping details around between photos etc.

Against this thought: time is money, it might be worth looking for a new image that more exactly fits the purpose, especially where there's a backlog of work building up. On the other hand, many uses of stock images are heavily altered and combined anyway.
For the thought: if work is quiet and there isn't a queue of clients beating down the door, the staff have to be paid anyway, and at least 'some' money could be saved by repurposing existing images.

Obviously there will be new concepts/topics coming out all the time, which will sell; and trends (clothes, specs, technolgoy, hairstyles) will change, dating some older photos in the more popular categories, like business; but in general, I think my depressing argument holds.

Thoughts?

173
iStockPhoto.com / iStock expanding
« on: May 05, 2011, 11:26 »
Found via istockphoto thread.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20059972-264.html#ixzz1LUkpWgur

KKT's Foot-in-month Quote of the Day:
"Expansion has been tough for the company, though, because of a contributor payment system that the company judged financially unsustainable. A switch last year to a performance-based compensation scheme was painful, but in the end, only about 0.1 percent of the more than 100,000 contributors were dramatically affected, Thompson said.
Run that past me again...

"It didn't really affect most people," Thompson said. "Everyone sort of settled down."

And if we didn't, we were LOBOtomised.

Lies, damned lies, statistics and spin.

174
Photo Critique / Is this rain?
« on: April 26, 2011, 07:54 »
This was not intended as a stock photo. I'm doing a photojournalism class and we had to find events over the weekend and shoot them. "We need photos not excuses" is emphasised, and weather/light is definitely not an excuse.
So I found out that there was a charity abseil from a huge landmark crane and set off, but of course, there was a heavy drizzle. The tutor had told us that 800 ISO was perfectly standard in Scotland for pjs to use most of the year, and I'm not scared of using high ISO anyway. So as I needed to freeze movement from the abseiling, I set the ISO at 800, and this shot was 1/800 with 800 iso.
Is this what rain looks like at that speed? I doubt I've ever photographed rain at 1/800 before!
This is a full size crop, with only a bit of fill and clarity added in post, no other processing:
http://www.lizworld.com/ExhibitB.jpg
TIA

175
iStockPhoto.com / Am I going nuts? Editorial rejections
« on: April 07, 2011, 10:38 »
Within the space of a minute, I had these three rejections for Editorial at iStock, asking me to resubmit them for the main collection.
I realise that, as always, they could have been rejected for 'lighting', but please stick to the actual rejection and see if you can help me to understand them. I think I'm seeing the red mist, and I'm just not 'getting it'.
First one:

Isn't the yacht subject to IP? Also there are people on the yacht and around 30 people at the base of Liberty who can be seen at full size. Do they really think I can chase them all up and get releases?

Second one:

IMO, if I took the graffiti and sign away, there is no photo. IMO it's the juxtaposition that's the message: the solid still in use Victorian church and the long gone 'Adult fun' establishment. I can just see it in a church newletter illustrating '...fading is the worldling's pleasure, all his boasted pomp and show - solid joys lasting treasure, none but Zion's children know." (If you weren't brought up a Scottish Presbyterian, that will mean nothing to you, but sung to the tune of Deutschland Deutschland uber alles, you never forget it.)

Third one:

Again, IMO there is no picture/message/point without the writing in marker pen which helps the shop refitters to know where all the different bits go. The (only?) use I can think of this is in a textbook or OHP/smartboard for students/apprentices on day release etc in the building trade.

Again, please stick to the actual rejection. I already had one similar rejection which I scouted on Feb 13th and haven't heard back about yet.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors