MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Vivozoom  (Read 47893 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: November 04, 2008, 17:00 »
0
Yep... but in many shoots we get shots of (say) just the vacant dining table taken before the models are seated.

If the sites agreed on a metadata standard, you'd create that list once and if all sites supported it, it would be worth the effort

The suggestion of attaching all releases to all shots for all models may end up with a still-life shot (of a dining table) showing "model released".  Now this may not seem like a big deal, but when we're trying to attract a buyer who seeks high provenance credentials, it doesn't set the right scene.

There has to be a better way without every site doing its own thing...

Tom

Yeah, i don't know any microstock shooter who keeps track of their releases that way.  If no one allready has that typed in, it would be a LOT of work to get it all set just for one site.

typing the image names of thousands of images and then typing which model releases follow along sounds like a daunting task.

It would be easier to be able to upload 200 images then click a button and say 'attach all 200 images with release X' ... submit

2 clicks and releases for 200 images are done.


« Reply #101 on: November 04, 2008, 19:44 »
0
Yep... but in many shoots we get shots of (say) just the vacant dining table taken before the models are seated.

If the sites agreed on a metadata standard, you'd create that list once and if all sites supported it, it would be worth the effort

The suggestion of attaching all releases to all shots for all models may end up with a still-life shot (of a dining table) showing "model released".  Now this may not seem like a big deal, but when we're trying to attract a buyer who seeks high provenance credentials, it doesn't set the right scene.

There has to be a better way without every site doing its own thing...

Tom


Hi Tom

Sorry - I'm not good with smilies and I forgot to turn on my sarcasm filter......so here's a few smilies to make up for it -  :) :) :)

I don't know about other microstock shooters' workflow but in my case I upload files from my camera to a folder with that day's date and a bit of descriptive info for the title, then title, describe, keyword, adjust in Lightroom, output to a psd or tiff, further adjust in Photoshop, then save as a jpg, then copy to another folder specifically for uploading.  Although it could happen, it would be very unlikely that I would inadvertently attach a model release to a photo of an inanimate object.

However, it would seem fairly easy for someone with some good software skills to devise a program with an easy to use interface to do exactly what you're recommending - and which would avoid the necessity of entering data over and over again - a model release attachment method like these other sites Leaf has mentioned but running locally on your computer and compiling the csv file that you mention.

Also I'm wondering if you're able to see how some of these other sites handle the model release issue since you're probably not a contributor (but maybe you are or have access to someone who is) - so you may not fully realize what Leaf has proposed for how to handle model releases on your site.  And if so, I would be glad to email some screenshots of the relevant pages to you if that could be helpful.

Ken

« Reply #102 on: November 05, 2008, 02:10 »
0
Yep... but in many shoots we get shots of (say) just the vacant dining table taken before the models are seated.

If the sites agreed on a metadata standard, you'd create that list once and if all sites supported it, it would be worth the effort

The suggestion of attaching all releases to all shots for all models may end up with a still-life shot (of a dining table) showing "model released".  Now this may not seem like a big deal, but when we're trying to attract a buyer who seeks high provenance credentials, it doesn't set the right scene.

There has to be a better way without every site doing its own thing...

Tom


well in that case - say 5 shots of the candlesticks, table, chairs etc.

i would click 'attack all 200 shots with release X'
then I would 'unclick those 5 shots with no model'
click 'submit'
that would be 6 clicks.  still pretty quick.

also as download mentioned most people have their images organized in folders so images are uploaded in an organized fashion.

« Reply #103 on: November 05, 2008, 14:48 »
0
model / property releases... what about a totally new system? Suppose that a photographer were to embed a special code in the IPTC data (one of the rarely used fields - say maybe the 'writer/editor' or some other field) that had a specific key to their model / property release. Then, when the photo is uploaded, it could be matched to an uploaded model/property release. Obviously, the release upload would have to have that same special key in it - that way the files could be matched.

Doing it this way would even save the photographer time since once the release is uploaded and the photog puts the release numbers in the IPTC data, then for each subsequent file, they wouldn't have to do anything since the system could automatically pick up the model release out of the IPTC data and match it to the existing release.

I'd use a unique code made up of my name and my own release number - say something like "mitch-aunger-MR001'. This wouldn't mess up the keywords, and would still allow everyone to know which release went with which image very easily especially if the site managed releases based on this same unique key. The data would be imbedded in the files, so things would be easy to keep track of.

All of the sites could easily use the same methodology and maintenance would be much easier on everyone as long as everyone found the same IPTC field to use (which might be the only sticking point in this scheme?)

Obviously, it would be up to the photographer to ensure that the special IPTC data were applied to files with the model in it (not including just the table example).

« Reply #104 on: November 06, 2008, 17:46 »
0

Yes the "exception" route makes a lot of sense in this scenario.

Yep... but in many shoots we get shots of (say) just the vacant dining table taken before the models are seated.

If the sites agreed on a metadata standard, you'd create that list once and if all sites supported it, it would be worth the effort

The suggestion of attaching all releases to all shots for all models may end up with a still-life shot (of a dining table) showing "model released".  Now this may not seem like a big deal, but when we're trying to attract a buyer who seeks high provenance credentials, it doesn't set the right scene.

There has to be a better way without every site doing its own thing...

Tom


well in that case - say 5 shots of the candlesticks, table, chairs etc.

i would click 'attack all 200 shots with release X'
then I would 'unclick those 5 shots with no model'
click 'submit'
that would be 6 clicks.  still pretty quick.

also as download mentioned most people have their images organized in folders so images are uploaded in an organized fashion.

« Reply #105 on: November 06, 2008, 17:54 »
0
Mitch - this is good stuff.  I think the core IPTC is being extended, but only to include a flag that indicates whether the image is or is not Property and/or Model Released.

IPTC is meant to be a self-defined data structure in that all information describes the image content and there is no "meta-meta" construct.

However, if the industry could agree on (what is called) an "escape sequence" in (say) the keywords, then we could hi-jack the keywords fields to provide a list of property and model release filenames.

For example, suppose we agreed that a keyword commencing %%M was the filename of a model release and %%P was a property release, we could then match available releases automatically.

This would be an unauthorised and unsupported use of the IPTC standard, but many good ideas like yours have originated from a bastardisation of standards.

Tom

model / property releases... what about a totally new system? Suppose that a photographer were to embed a special code in the IPTC data (one of the rarely used fields - say maybe the 'writer/editor' or some other field) that had a specific key to their model / property release. Then, when the photo is uploaded, it could be matched to an uploaded model/property release. Obviously, the release upload would have to have that same special key in it - that way the files could be matched.

Doing it this way would even save the photographer time since once the release is uploaded and the photog puts the release numbers in the IPTC data, then for each subsequent file, they wouldn't have to do anything since the system could automatically pick up the model release out of the IPTC data and match it to the existing release.

I'd use a unique code made up of my name and my own release number - say something like "mitch-aunger-MR001'. This wouldn't mess up the keywords, and would still allow everyone to know which release went with which image very easily especially if the site managed releases based on this same unique key. The data would be imbedded in the files, so things would be easy to keep track of.

All of the sites could easily use the same methodology and maintenance would be much easier on everyone as long as everyone found the same IPTC field to use (which might be the only sticking point in this scheme?)

Obviously, it would be up to the photographer to ensure that the special IPTC data were applied to files with the model in it (not including just the table example).
« Last Edit: November 06, 2008, 18:05 by donnelt »

« Reply #106 on: November 06, 2008, 18:03 »
0

Ken - I've used many of these sites and yes, they have their distinct advantages.  I know we can improve this release-attach process on VZ but the next improvement (to avoid duplication of effort) really ought to be an industry convention at minimum and standard at best for a many-to-many correlation. 

Given a free hand and some good suggestions I'm sure we could design the ultimate system, but if it remains a unique and proprietary model, we're still stuck with doing things differently for each site.  And then another site will invent something better and then... etc..

Tom

Yep... but in many shoots we get shots of (say) just the vacant dining table taken before the models are seated.

If the sites agreed on a metadata standard, you'd create that list once and if all sites supported it, it would be worth the effort

The suggestion of attaching all releases to all shots for all models may end up with a still-life shot (of a dining table) showing "model released".  Now this may not seem like a big deal, but when we're trying to attract a buyer who seeks high provenance credentials, it doesn't set the right scene.

There has to be a better way without every site doing its own thing...

Tom


well in that case - say 5 shots of the candlesticks, table, chairs etc.

i would click 'attack all 200 shots with release X'
then I would 'unclick those 5 shots with no model'
click 'submit'
that would be 6 clicks.  still pretty quick.

also as download mentioned most people have their images organized in folders so images are uploaded in an organized fashion.

« Reply #107 on: November 06, 2008, 18:26 »
0
I paid a programmer to create my own DAM software where I am storing all the release file names an image has in the 'people' iptc field. I am sad no agency can read it but at least it is very easy for me to create shot-model relation .XLS files for those agencies who need it.

rinderart

« Reply #108 on: November 06, 2008, 23:49 »
0
Just an idea... The easiest and best web tool to attach MRs to uploaded images is the one 123RF has. It's worth the time to check it. I wish all agency would have the same.

Agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rinderart

« Reply #109 on: November 07, 2008, 00:02 »
0
This is getting silly........... Again. you Honestly think 100,ooo photographers are going to do any of this stuff, ?? Please get real guys. Just a simple attach release to this image is suffient. your WAY Over thinking this if you want to succeed. Think of the lowest common issue. if I started asite tomorrow. my biggest concern would be ease of use. Not some stupid spreadsheet listing your Model releases. no one does that except geeks. and people with 50 releases.  sorry.

« Reply #110 on: November 07, 2008, 00:22 »
0
This is getting silly........... Again. you Honestly think 100,ooo photographers are going to do any of this stuff, ?? Please get real guys. Just a simple attach release to this image is suffient. your WAY Over thinking this if you want to succeed. Think of the lowest common issue. if I started asite tomorrow. my biggest concern would be ease of use. Not some stupid spreadsheet listing your Model releases. no one does that except geeks. and people with 50 releases.  sorry.

Agree!.............

And I guess I must be a geek and a person with 50 releases (but I'm planning to have 3 million releases some day  :) ) and I STILL want it to be easy - and that would be because I'm lazy - no, really it's because time is money and all that.  So I guess I better temper my reading of the forums, unless it's the really good stuff - like this!

This is something I agree with Rinder about.  Please keep it easy and trouble free.

Ken

« Reply #111 on: November 07, 2008, 08:40 »
0
This is getting silly........... Again. you Honestly think 100,ooo photographers are going to do any of this stuff, ?? Please get real guys. Just a simple attach release to this image is suffient. your WAY Over thinking this if you want to succeed. Think of the lowest common issue. if I started asite tomorrow. my biggest concern would be ease of use. Not some stupid spreadsheet listing your Model releases. no one does that except geeks. and people with 50 releases.  sorry.

Agree!.............

And I guess I must be a geek and a person with 50 releases (but I'm planning to have 3 million releases some day  :) ) and I STILL want it to be easy - and that would be because I'm lazy - no, really it's because time is money and all that.  So I guess I better temper my reading of the forums, unless it's the really good stuff - like this!

This is something I agree with Rinder about.  Please keep it easy and trouble free.

Ken

I can't think of a more simple solution than integrating IPTC data with model releases... that way the site's system and your personal system are easy to manage. Sites could even implement a "show me more with this model" very simply. A spreadsheet is not the right solution.

Granted, for people like Rinder with 6000 old images, that would be a total pain in the tush to go back and update all images. But going forward, it would be so simple if all sites were to come to an agreement and did it the same way (yes I'm a dreamer). Someone's got to start and set an example... :)

Everyone loves how easy it is to put keywords in the IPTC once and all the sites use those upon upload... why not do something similar with model/property releases?

« Reply #112 on: November 13, 2008, 07:57 »
0
Micth .. looks like you were onto something.  I contacted a couple of experts in the field of metadata.  One of them (David Riecks - www.controlledvocabulary.com) pointed out that the PLUS coalition has established some advanced principles for embedded release information.  You can see the structure at http://ns.useplus.org/LDF/ldf-XMPSpecification.

Of course there are some drawbacks, there are not many tools that allow the creation of this data, but he provided me with some great examples of stuff available today and the impression that Photoshop CS4 will probably support these fields.

It also seems that it's getting widespread industry endorsement:

http://www.abouttheimage.com/3978/mcgraw_hill_houghton_mifflin_harcourt_pearson_plus_image_licensing_standard/author2



I can't think of a more simple solution than integrating IPTC data with model releases... that way the site's system and your personal system are easy to manage. Sites could even implement a "show me more with this model" very simply. A spreadsheet is not the right solution.

Granted, for people like Rinder with 6000 old images, that would be a total pain in the tush to go back and update all images. But going forward, it would be so simple if all sites were to come to an agreement and did it the same way (yes I'm a dreamer). Someone's got to start and set an example... :)

Everyone loves how easy it is to put keywords in the IPTC once and all the sites use those upon upload... why not do something similar with model/property releases?

« Reply #113 on: November 13, 2008, 09:35 »
0
Micth .. looks like you were onto something.  I contacted a couple of experts in the field of metadata.  One of them (David Riecks - www.controlledvocabulary.com) pointed out that the PLUS coalition has established some advanced principles for embedded release information.  You can see the structure at http://ns.useplus.org/LDF/ldf-XMPSpecification.


Darn, i guess they aren't gonna name it after me then LOL!

Good work.

« Reply #114 on: November 29, 2008, 23:14 »
0
A couple of questions:

I attempted to upload a batch of images via FTP about a week ago, but now can't see the images coming up anywhere - do these just take some time or am I missing a page somewhere?

I also received rejections on two of the images I submitted - one was of some 4WD vehicles with plates etc removed, another of a boat with a resort in the background, again with identifying features removed - both images were rejected for property release issues. Is the policy of your site to require releases for all property or vehicles, even where all trademarks and number plates have been removed, or are there areas where such images can be submitted?

« Reply #115 on: November 29, 2008, 23:58 »
0
This is getting silly........... Again. you Honestly think 100,ooo photographers are going to do any of this stuff, ?? Please get real guys. Just a simple attach release to this image is suffient. your WAY Over thinking this if you want to succeed. Think of the lowest common issue. if I started asite tomorrow. my biggest concern would be ease of use. Not some stupid spreadsheet listing your Model releases. no one does that except geeks. and people with 50 releases.  sorry.

+1

« Reply #116 on: December 09, 2008, 10:36 »
0
A couple of questions:

I attempted to upload a batch of images via FTP about a week ago, but now can't see the images coming up anywhere - do these just take some time or am I missing a page somewhere?

I also received rejections on two of the images I submitted - one was of some 4WD vehicles with plates etc removed, another of a boat with a resort in the background, again with identifying features removed - both images were rejected for property release issues. Is the policy of your site to require releases for all property or vehicles, even where all trademarks and number plates have been removed, or are there areas where such images can be submitted?

Hi Holgs.. sorry for the delay in responding...  I'll take a look at the missing images and respond to you via email.

On releases, we are trying to take a very safe approach to all releases to satisfy the needs of corporate clients, but if you want me ask our team to provide a better explanation or supplementary information on a particular image, let me know.

Tom



« Reply #117 on: December 11, 2008, 13:33 »
0
A couple of questions:
................

I also received rejections on two of the images I submitted - one was of some 4WD vehicles with plates etc removed, another of a boat with a resort in the background, again with identifying features removed - both images were rejected for property release issues. Is the policy of your site to require releases for all property or vehicles, even where all trademarks and number plates have been removed, or are there areas where such images can be submitted?

Holgs - Provenance is very important to our clients and we warrant the use of the images whereas most others so not.  That's why you may see us doing things that don't jive with other sites' approach.

On this occasion, we decided to double check with our lawyer (probably the most experienced in the stock industry) who said we were overly cautious.

The 4x4 and the boat were NOT deemed to be "Trade Dress" - a term meaning that although no logos were visible, you could still identify the make/model.  For instance, a VW Beetle.

Please resubmit and there will be no release issues.

Now, I'm sure many are thinking this is way over the top, but please remember, we're trying to open Microstock to a whole market who do not have faith in the Provenance of many sites' images.

It's a differentiator and one that we hope will increase your revenues rather than canibilize existing sales from other sites.

Tom

« Reply #118 on: December 12, 2008, 11:54 »
0
A couple of questions:
................

I also received rejections on two of the images I submitted - one was of some 4WD vehicles with plates etc removed, another of a boat with a resort in the background, again with identifying features removed - both images were rejected for property release issues. Is the policy of your site to require releases for all property or vehicles, even where all trademarks and number plates have been removed, or are there areas where such images can be submitted?

Holgs - Provenance is very important to our clients and we warrant the use of the images whereas most others so not.  That's why you may see us doing things that don't jive with other sites' approach.

On this occasion, we decided to double check with our lawyer (probably the most experienced in the stock industry) who said we were overly cautious.

The 4x4 and the boat were NOT deemed to be "Trade Dress" - a term meaning that although no logos were visible, you could still identify the make/model.  For instance, a VW Beetle.

Please resubmit and there will be no release issues.

Now, I'm sure many are thinking this is way over the top, but please remember, we're trying to open Microstock to a whole market who do not have faith in the Provenance of many sites' images.

It's a differentiator and one that we hope will increase your revenues rather than canibilize existing sales from other sites.

Tom

Hi Tom - I see VivoZoom also has a similar policy regarding property releases for photos of residential homes, taken from public streets, where there are no identifying numbers, logos, people, property visible through windows, etc.  Could it be that since these kinds of images are typically accepted on most other microstock sites (one in particular with very stringent acceptance rules in this regard) that your lawyer would consider this another case of being overly cautious?

Otherwise looking forward to the launch of the site.

Ken

« Reply #119 on: December 13, 2008, 23:20 »
0
A couple of questions:
................

I also received rejections on two of the images I submitted - one was of some 4WD vehicles with plates etc removed, another of a boat with a resort in the background, again with identifying features removed - both images were rejected for property release issues. Is the policy of your site to require releases for all property or vehicles, even where all trademarks and number plates have been removed, or are there areas where such images can be submitted?

Holgs - Provenance is very important to our clients and we warrant the use of the images whereas most others so not.  That's why you may see us doing things that don't jive with other sites' approach.

On this occasion, we decided to double check with our lawyer (probably the most experienced in the stock industry) who said we were overly cautious.

The 4x4 and the boat were NOT deemed to be "Trade Dress" - a term meaning that although no logos were visible, you could still identify the make/model.  For instance, a VW Beetle.

Please resubmit and there will be no release issues.

Now, I'm sure many are thinking this is way over the top, but please remember, we're trying to open Microstock to a whole market who do not have faith in the Provenance of many sites' images.

It's a differentiator and one that we hope will increase your revenues rather than canibilize existing sales from other sites.

Tom

Thanks for the reply Tom... I understand the differences between what you're trying to do and other sites, I guess what I was after was a general guide so that I can pre-screen uploads so as not to waste everyone's time.

« Reply #120 on: December 16, 2008, 03:10 »
0

Hi Tom - I see VivoZoom also has a similar policy regarding property releases for photos of residential homes, taken from public streets, where there are no identifying numbers, logos, people, property visible through windows, etc.  Could it be that since these kinds of images are typically accepted on most other microstock sites (one in particular with very stringent acceptance rules in this regard) that your lawyer would consider this another case of being overly cautious?

Otherwise looking forward to the launch of the site.

Ken

Ken - possibly, but in general, if the property is an identifiable house (as in the owner would recognise and be able to prove that it was his or her property), then a release would be required.

I know this can be infuriating as the rules seem to change, are different at many sites and can be interpreted incorrectly by reviewers from time to time.  With your help, we'll try to codify the rules as acuurately as we can, but there will always be gray areas.

If you have an image in particular that you felt was judged too harshly, I be grateful if you could let me know. 

tom <at> vivozoom.com

« Reply #121 on: December 16, 2008, 12:28 »
0

Hi Tom - I see VivoZoom also has a similar policy regarding property releases for photos of residential homes, taken from public streets, where there are no identifying numbers, logos, people, property visible through windows, etc.  Could it be that since these kinds of images are typically accepted on most other microstock sites (one in particular with very stringent acceptance rules in this regard) that your lawyer would consider this another case of being overly cautious?

Otherwise looking forward to the launch of the site.

Ken


Ken - possibly, but in general, if the property is an identifiable house (as in the owner would recognise and be able to prove that it was his or her property), then a release would be required.

I know this can be infuriating as the rules seem to change, are different at many sites and can be interpreted incorrectly by reviewers from time to time.  With your help, we'll try to codify the rules as acuurately as we can, but there will always be gray areas.

If you have an image in particular that you felt was judged too harshly, I be grateful if you could let me know. 

tom <at> vivozoom.com

No Tom, my question is not so much about any one photo of mine that was rejected for the need of a property release as it was a general question about whether property releases were needed for photos of private residences which were shot from public streets.  I will not upload any more photos of houses unless the situation changes - or unless I can get property releases (which I'm not planning to do).

« Reply #122 on: December 16, 2008, 15:16 »
0

No Tom, my question is not so much about any one photo of mine that was rejected for the need of a property release as it was a general question about whether property releases were needed for photos of private residences which were shot from public streets.  I will not upload any more photos of houses unless the situation changes - or unless I can get property releases (which I'm not planning to do).

Ken, checked with my colleague and the answer is yes, a release is required in these situations.

Tom

« Reply #123 on: December 19, 2008, 10:49 »
0
Nice new contributor login page. Is the site going live soon?

« Reply #124 on: December 29, 2008, 16:18 »
0
Nice new contributor login page. Is the site going live soon?

Wish I could see that contributor page. My password is not accepted, and when I change it successfully... it doesn't work at the next logon. Last October I found out that the password has to be very short, but there is no hint whatsoever how long or short exactly... VZ promised this issue would be solved then but it's apparently still there. So sorry but I don't have time any more to help debug a site. Once bitten by LuckyOliver, twice shy. Too many sites, too little time  ::)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3957 Views
Last post January 19, 2009, 15:23
by leaf
42 Replies
10986 Views
Last post April 21, 2009, 01:09
by leaf
18 Replies
4246 Views
Last post July 09, 2009, 03:10
by Magnum
15 Replies
4635 Views
Last post November 06, 2009, 11:32
by PeterChigmaroff
11 Replies
3486 Views
Last post June 20, 2016, 23:15
by stryjek

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results