pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Newbie question  (Read 5674 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 03, 2008, 09:56 »
0
Hello,
I am totally new to microsock, and I am interested to know how can I know where are my sold photos used? Is there a way to know this?

Thanks, and sorry for this newbie question.


« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2008, 10:09 »
0
Won't hardly ever happen. Once in a great while you might get a site mail from an end user. Figure about 99% of the time you won't. Just be glad they bought. Fotolia used to have a button to find out what company or individual downloaded it but I can't find that link on their site anymore.

« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2008, 10:16 »
0
Fotolia do indeed still have the "Download Details" link on the sales page.

They are the only one who do though.

« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2008, 10:18 »
0
Yes, after 3.5 years and thousands of downloads, I've only found two images of mine used and both were accidents. One was used in a local magazine without proper attribution (that really burned me) and one by a local wine association for the cover of their brochure. Otherwise, the best way to look is on google and search for  your name...

« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2008, 10:26 »
0
After 2 years in this business, I only know about 3 uses of my pictures.  All three were because the user was nice enough to share the information with me.  Other than that, I just continue wondering and hope more sales come my way - lol

« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2008, 12:49 »
0
I can see that, at Dreamstime, some people write in their profile something like "let me know where can I see my photos" and give their email address. Perhaps I can do that and see what happens.

Thanks for your responses.

« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2008, 15:03 »
0
FT's sales info is indeed the best to find our images in use.  Most of what I found was through it.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2008, 15:58 »
0

I can see that, at Dreamstime, some people write in their profile something like "let me know where can I see my photos" and give their email address. Perhaps I can do that and see what happens.


In my experience it's probably not worth doing even that.

I used to do it on iStock - a polite little note in the description field asking users to kindly let me know where my image was used.

Response?

A big ... fat ... 0

« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2008, 00:22 »
0
Yes, after 3.5 years and thousands of downloads, I've only found two images of mine used and both were accidents. One was used in a local magazine without proper attribution (that really burned me) and one by a local wine association for the cover of their brochure. Otherwise, the best way to look is on google and search for  your name...

Something similar happened to me with an image on the cover of a brochure - first usage I had ever found - there was no attribution but on the back it credited a number people for photos.   I gave them a call to be sure someone else had not sold my image as theirs.  The people were very nice.  Told me they had gotten it from Fotolia and apologized for not crediting me - other credits were for pictures provided by their staff.  They eventually used the same photo on their website and made sure to credit me there.

c h e e r s
fred

« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2008, 08:24 »
0
I don't read a lot of magazines, but I was paying more attention to the photo magazines I occasionally buy, and I noticed that many of them use microstock photos without proper attribution - for example "photo by istockphoto" , they don't mention the name of photographer. Only one magazine I found using FT has "John Doe/Fotolia.com" which is very nice.

I am shocked that -photographic- magazines don't give proper attribution to photographers. And why they don't just use their reader's photos I have no idea.

Are magazine editors just plain evil or what?





« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2008, 08:32 »
0
I don't read a lot of magazines, but I was paying more attention to the photo magazines I occasionally buy, and I noticed that many of them use microstock photos without proper attribution - for example "photo by istockphoto" , they don't mention the name of photographer. Only one magazine I found using FT has "John Doe/Fotolia.com" which is very nice.

I am shocked that -photographic- magazines don't give proper attribution to photographers. And why they don't just use their reader's photos I have no idea.

Are magazine editors just plain evil or what?

You'll also find that many photo magazines also invite photographers to enter competitions to win goodies, when in the small print it gives the magazine a royalty free license to use the picture however they want.  The magazine industry is not the most honest.

Also, if you're in the UK, keep your eye on nuts and zoo if you shoot glamour, they tend to take photos without asking and only pay up when you see your picture and send them an invoice.

« Reply #11 on: March 07, 2008, 15:36 »
0
I don't read a lot of magazines, but I was paying more attention to the photo magazines I occasionally buy, and I noticed that many of them use microstock photos without proper attribution - for example "photo by istockphoto" , they don't mention the name of photographer. Only one magazine I found using FT has "John Doe/Fotolia.com" which is very nice.

I am shocked that -photographic- magazines don't give proper attribution to photographers. And why they don't just use their reader's photos I have no idea.

Are magazine editors just plain evil or what?

You'll also find that many photo magazines also invite photographers to enter competitions to win goodies, when in the small print it gives the magazine a royalty free license to use the picture however they want.  The magazine industry is not the most honest.

Also, if you're in the UK, keep your eye on nuts and zoo if you shoot glamour, they tend to take photos without asking and only pay up when you see your picture and send them an invoice.

Worst part of it, some of the most photographically prestigious magazines are doing this.   I know that NG is one of the culprits, kinda sad really.

« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2008, 18:27 »
0
Worst part of it, some of the most photographically prestigious magazines are doing this.   I know that NG is one of the culprits, kinda sad really.

If you are talking about the rights over the image, in the case of NGM I can see a possible "investment" for the photographer.  The worldwide exposure a prestigious magazine like NGM gives you is huge. 

What I think it's not correct however is that, if I remember the terms correctly, they retain those rights even if your picture is not published. 

Regards,
Adelaide


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
4879 Views
Last post May 31, 2006, 11:44
by fintastique
3 Replies
3116 Views
Last post October 07, 2006, 01:19
by fintastique
2 Replies
3114 Views
Last post June 18, 2007, 00:58
by Karimala
2 Replies
3743 Views
Last post February 01, 2010, 23:04
by FD
16 Replies
5326 Views
Last post July 19, 2010, 17:30
by rubyroo

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle