Editorial on SS

RacePhoto

« Reply #25 on: August 31, 2010, 02:38 »

#link

Quote from: danhowl on August 23, 2010, 10:05

Is there any way of limiting a particular image on Shutterstock to Enhanced License? I have a newsworthy image that might prove to be in demand as the anniversary of the event approaches. It sort of rankles to see the license royalties at $.25 for this particular image.

If there is, I'm missing the boat. I have thousands (not just tossing out a number, actual thousands!) of images that I will not upload to SS or any other micro that takes editorial, because of the 25c sales or low prices. They do sell for a reasonable price on Alamy.

As far as I've seen, my SS editorial sell for the same prices as the RF and I've never found any way to limit the choice of license available to buyers.


	Ignore \| Logged

Ploink

« Reply #26 on: August 31, 2010, 03:52 »

#link

Quote from: RacePhoto on August 31, 2010, 02:38

Quote from: danhowl on August 23, 2010, 10:05

Just out of curiosity: Which type of editorial photos do you have on Alamy? I'm asking because I have a bit more than thousand editorials on SS - all of them sport photos - and they outsell my non-editorials by 3:1...


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #27 on: August 31, 2010, 18:26 »

#link

Quote from: Ploink on August 31, 2010, 03:52

Quote from: RacePhoto on August 31, 2010, 02:38

Quote from: danhowl on August 23, 2010, 10:05

Auto racing, and I don't want to sell them on SS for 25c a download. If IS took editorial I'd jump on that and sell on both SS and IS.


	Ignore \| Logged

danhowl

« Reply #28 on: September 02, 2010, 12:37 »

#link

Just went thru the QC process on Alamy. Will be selectively moving things from SS, IS and DT if there is any indication that the type of images I have would do well there. I will be moving my one big event shot there immediately. Thanks for the suggestion.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #29 on: September 02, 2010, 15:53 »

#link

Quote from: danhowl on September 02, 2010, 12:37

SS doesn't take my Editorial any more since it's not "newsworthy", although my top seller there is an older editorial. In general, editorial doesn't sell too well on micro.
I'm on DT only for now with Editorial since I deleted it from 123RF. I was thinking of putting all my Editorial in the future on Alamy but their on-site blablabla essential, accessory and other check boxes give me a headache.
Racephoto is brooding on something and I hope he replies soon the PM. Wink

- Any new stock site needs a USP or it goes down the drains. A great USP would be an Editorial-only midstock site (around 50$) with exclusive images in a certain niche - let's say motor, transportation, aviation. Roll Eyes


	Ignore \| Logged

BaldricksTrousers

« Reply #30 on: September 04, 2010, 09:05 »

#link

Quote from: ap on July 24, 2010, 17:03

Quote from: WarrenPrice on July 24, 2010, 08:53

Quote from: Kone on July 23, 2010, 22:23

Have you try some of editorials (sport) on Alamy?
If yes, how does it compare with SS.

I have not, Kone. I was surprised by seeing them sell at SS and just have not taken time to size them for Alamy. Plus, this is not hard news (current).

it's a good thing you didn't for editorial (as everything else) sells royalty free on ss, but anything with people are royalty managed on alamy. so, once it's been sold as rf can no longer qualify for rm (except zoonar).

Wrong. You can sell them as Traditional License (L) with unreleased people in them, in fact that is what Alamy defaults to. For some reason, they shifted all my RM stuff to TL.

A TL license does not provide any guarantees to the user that the image is not being used elsewhere, so there is no conflict with the RM license at all.

Alamy seems to like to keep the myth going that RF cannot be sold as TL but if you try to get a straight answer from them they avoid the question.

It is true that an image that has been sold RF cannot subsequently be made rights managed (RM), but TL is OK.


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #31 on: September 07, 2010, 19:59 »

#link

Quote from: FD-regular on September 02, 2010, 15:53

Racephoto is brooding on something and I hope he replies soon the PM. Wink

And that's keeping it quiet on the forum? Huh

Yes, I'm thinking of a news/editorial, specific market niche, agency that operates flat rate like micro. I'm not sure how the publications would accept a new one or how difficult it would be to market. The up front expense of getting the name out would be large and it could be a couple of years before it would make a profit. As usual, it all looks great in theory but when the details get written down, it's a little more complicated. 50/50 split artist and agency is always something on the bottom line, so it's fair and more appealing than the 20% we see now.

About the below quote:

How do I open myself for this kind of stuff.

TL? Please explain where we have a choice of TL on which agencies? L on Alamy is RM, it's just a different name. (OK shoot me if I'm wrong) Grin

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 04, 2010, 09:05

Quote from: ap on July 24, 2010, 17:03

Quote from: WarrenPrice on July 24, 2010, 08:53

Quote from: Kone on July 23, 2010, 22:23

Have you try some of editorials (sport) on Alamy?
If yes, how does it compare with SS.

I have not, Kone. I was surprised by seeing them sell at SS and just have not taken time to size them for Alamy. Plus, this is not hard news (current).


« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 00:01 by RacePhoto »	Ignore \| Logged

dnavarrojr

« Reply #32 on: September 07, 2010, 23:22 »

#link

Quote from: danhowl on August 23, 2010, 10:05

Nope. SS is all about subscriptions, so they're not going to do anything to deny their subscribers access to everything.


	Ignore \| Logged

luceluceluce

« Reply #33 on: September 08, 2010, 10:51 »

#link

I haven't uploaded much editorial yet... but what i have uploaded, they accepted (except one because of some confusion about exactly which god - out of 2 million - was being celebrated) even though they weren't 'newsworthy' as such, more illustrative...

You just need to stick some info in the caption

for a portrait of a chai seller, for example, the description was 'a chai seller waits for business' and the extra caption (the news) was "The informal economy generates 90.3 per cent of all livelihoods in India."

For a young chap with an elephant, the 'news' was "Elephants have been domesticated in India for over 3,500 years."

Put an interesting fact in the description and it's newsworthy : )


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #34 on: September 14, 2010, 14:02 »

#link

Attention: BaldricksTrousers can you please explain this to me? TL is RM isn't it and that would mean anything RF can't be sold as RM or TL.

What's the myth? I don't understand.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 04, 2010, 09:05

Quote from: ap on July 24, 2010, 17:03

Wrong. You can sell them as Traditional License (L) with unreleased people in them, in fact that is what Alamy defaults to. For some reason, they shifted all my RM stuff to TL.

A TL license does not provide any guarantees to the user that the image is not being used elsewhere, so there is no conflict with the RM license at all.

Alamy seems to like to keep the myth going that RF cannot be sold as TL but if you try to get a straight answer from them they avoid the question.

It is true that an image that has been sold RF cannot subsequently be made rights managed (RM), but TL is OK.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #35 on: September 14, 2010, 14:43 »

#link

Quote from: luceluceluce on September 08, 2010, 10:51

Put an interesting fact in the description and it's newsworthy : )

I haven't had a single editorial accepted on SS in 2 years. Yap the caption was as complete as you can stick in 200 characters. They said it didn't follow the rules, but it did. Should have sent an email to Anthony C., but what the heck. Uploading and emailing costs too much time on all these sites. I think I have about 100 batches approved on Alamy, but clicking all their boxes and splitting all keywords on site is just too much, especially when you read shots are sold there for 0.25$ as "novel".


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #36 on: September 14, 2010, 21:29 »

#link

Quote from: FD-regular on September 14, 2010, 14:43

Quote from: luceluceluce on September 08, 2010, 10:51

Put an interesting fact in the description and it's newsworthy : )

Two issues here. The 25c NU on Alamy was some old credits from an experimental program and hardly anyone had those old delayed payments from last year or maybe longer ago. They squealed and squeaked, but the fact is, very few people had those crummy 25c sales. It's an exception and not common, but reading the forums and Alamy detractors, you would think Alamy went micro for two-bit downloads. Not True! Grin

I had some problems with the SS editorial format. It's either cast in stone or the reviewers are mindless robots. Maybe both? I had one refused for lower case in the first section. I mean how chicken-crap can they be? If the format isn't exact and identical to the examples, the reviewers seem to just click refused without helpfully explaining the real reason. I sent one in that was from before 1923, therefore out of copyright. Didn't use the exact format. It was refused for not editorial and no model release. Hey wait, it doesn't need a model release and it wasn't submitted at editorial.

I can understand your frustration with the SS editorial guidelines and their system of not clearly explaining rejections. For 25 cents, it's a nice little loophole for getting unrelesaed images into the system. I believe that some "editorial" downloads, OK I know that some of my downloads, are not used for news and the people buying them know it's not editorial, but they also know that they don't need a release for the image. The SS editorial requirements are ridiculous CYA efforts.

With that, I'm happy to play the game, send them shots and get downloads by using the exact format, punctuation and case that they require.

Quote from: SS Help File

For a newsworthy editorial image/footage clip to have any value, long term, the image must have some basic identifiers such as: Who, What, Where & When - as a caption/description. Just explain what is going on in the image. Simply write the facts (accuracy is very important). When writing, be concise. Please keep it under 200 characters (including spaces).

Here is an example of what kind of caption we are looking for:

JACKSON, NJ - JUNE 16: Singer Deborah Harry performs onstage at Six Flags Great Adventure June 16, 2008 in Jackson, NJ.

A 'dateline' style always comes before the caption: 'JACKSON, NJ - JUNE 16:'

For images taken in any 'major' city in the world such as Los Angeles, New York or London, you do not need the state identifier (or country) in the dateline, just in the caption. As examples:

LOS ANGELES - JUNE 16: Singer Deborah Harry performs onstage at Six Flags Great Adventure June 16, 2008 in Los Angeles, California.

LONDON - JUNE 16: Singer Deborah Harry attends a charity benefit June 16, 2008 in London, England.

If you are submitting from an event today in Sydney, Australia, the dateline would be: SYDNEY - JUNE 16:

For a motorcross event in Sydney, your caption may be: John Doe of Australia participates in the Extreme Motorcross Event June 16, 2008 in Sydney, Australia.

Put the dateline and caption together, this is what the complete caption would look like:

SYDNEY - JUNE 16: John Doe of Australia participates in the Extreme Motorcross Event June 16, 2008 in Sydney, Australia.

** Please keep your title (caption) area description to under 200 characters (including spaces), for now.

Here's my guide:

LOCATION - DATE: Description of photo contents and facts, date it again, location again

That's: Where - When: Who, What, Why, Whatever Else, date again, location again.

Good luck if you should choose this mission. This message will self destruct in 15 seconds. Wink


	Ignore \| Logged

cascoly

« Reply #37 on: September 16, 2010, 16:49 »

#link

i'm starting to think that the strict requirements for SS ed are BECAUSE their reviewers are so varied and inconsistent - if they have a simple item by item checkoff for the caption, they can at least avoid those problems. meanwhile, they still need to train reviewers to understand the difference between newsworthy and editorial - some reviewers think the 2 are synonymous - most of my images are not newsworthy, but instead are real people doing things in places where a model release just isn't a possibility - eg, groups at ski areas, markets, etc

steve


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: 1 [2]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Editorial on SS

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results