Congrats!

Thanks 

I take it I won't get any kind of royalties from it ? Not really that bothered as it certainly adds weight to my portfolio.

you can be proud, it is a very good image!

Quote from: Herg on December 14, 2012, 06:58

Thanks 

I take it I won't get any kind of royalties from it ? Not really that bothered as it certainly adds weight to my portfolio.

Not any more than your $0.38 from Shutterstock no.  Unless they needed to buy an extended license that is, then you should see $28

It almost breaks your heart when you think of the vast sums of money spent on producing films.

That IS a nice find - interesting what they did with it also, congrats.

all the whining about low sales and it turns out an amazing picture in action, congratulations!

Quite surprised they took this from a Jpeg and didn't want to use it from the RAW file for a movie poster.

Very nice use. Congrats

Nice feather in your cap - congrats! Use it in your blog, website or whatever... interesting to see what can be done with your images in production work.

Quite surprised they took this from a Jpeg and didn't want to use it from the RAW file for a movie poster.

It's plenty big enough as it is. Posters are intended to be viewed from a distance, I'm sure it wouldn't look so good from 30cm away.

It's a great image though! Well done for spotting it's stock potential.

Congratulations on "winning the business", and commiserations on a royalty that's way too low for the usage. But that's the game we're in.

What truly surprises me, is why on earth they opted to use a stock image in this poster. They paid for the central object in the image to be created, with a little more expense, the whole could have been done. Or they could have sourced an RM image on an exclusive basis.

There's nothing stopping anyone using the stock photo in another dark, blue toned composite. What recourse would that leave the film-makers? It's practically impossible to protect copyright of an image if it is a derivative of another. "Penny wise, pound foolish" comes to mind.

Quote from: leaf on December 14, 2012, 07:05

Quote from: Herg on December 14, 2012, 06:58

Thanks 

I take it I won't get any kind of royalties from it ? Not really that bothered as it certainly adds weight to my portfolio.

Not any more than your $0.38 from Shutterstock no.  Unless they needed to buy an extended license that is, then you should see $28

Shouldn't they need to buy an EL if they sell the poster?  From SS Standard terms:

"Standard -- print run limited to 250,000. Posters must combine words with the Images and must be used to promote the sale of products other than the posters, etc., containing the Images"

And the EL:

"Incorporated in merchandise for resale or distribution, including without limitation, clothing, artwork, magnets, posters, calendars, mugs and mousepads"

Seems to me as a poster for a movie they can go with a Standard License, but if they sell the posters they need an EL.  Bottom line I'm surprised that for a movie this large they wouldn't just go for ELs to cover themselves later...

In any case, fun to find that one!

and make them pay you a little more than 28$, just a little