I don`t understand your point. You can fill out the IPTC metadata fields with every photo software. Photoshop, Lightroom., ACDSee... you can use every programm you like. After that you start uploading to your agencies including Zoonar. We offer FTP and the Zoonar Media Manager for uploading photos to our database.

yes you simply put the data into IPTC, upload and wait for review

Once reviewed, you put proper licensing data to all accepted images, that's it. No categories, no attaching releases one by one.

Yes, it's a bit unusual but uploading = submitting for review. Similar logic at Graphic Leftovers.

They shouldn't ding you for releases that you weren't able to attach before you uploaded. And to my knowledge they don't do this. However, there is one aspect of German law you need to keep in mind. Unlike Shutterstock, and IS you can't submit editorial images as RF. You must submit them as RM. ALL RF must have model and property releases...editorial included.

I don't think that's true. You don't have to have releases at all. It is ultimately the buyer's problem to figure out if a release is required for his usage. Your responsibility is only to make a correct statement as to whether a release exists or not.

If you can point me the the aspect of German law you're referring I would be interested to see that.

And Zoonar does not require you to upload releases at all, neither do you have to make a choice between editorial or commercial. From their FAQs:

"You are not required to add model or property releases at Zoonar. But we reserve the right to ask for a release if your photos are sold for commercial purposes. It is, however, important that you use the correct release settings for your photos or else they can�t be sold. If you have a release for one of your photos assign it to the photo in question in the �Manage pictures� section. Use the drop down menu and select �is available�. If you don�t have a release select �is NOT available� and if a release is not necessary (only appropriate for photos that neither show people as primary subjects nor copyright protected objects, designs, works of art, buildings and registered trademarks) select �not necessary�"

Essentially this is the best way to deal with the problem, leave it where it belongs (at the buyer).

Hi!  and thanks for your help!  it sorted itself out!  Im not doing edotorials anyway.

I am very impressed with this site! fantastic interface and typical German high quality on just about everything, they are also partners with Mauritius images which have got a very good name, probably the biggest in Germany.

I do have releases on every single shot ( when needed)  but they dont require you to upload them with the files,  you should have them in case youre asked.

cheers!  Christian

For RF you need some of the booth release conditions:

model release available
model release not necessary

property release available
property release not necessary

But this is not only for Zoonar. You should NEVER do photos into RF, if you are not sure, that you are not offend some copyrigths like design, logo, trademarks and so far, because RF-Photos can be used for all marketing uses. For example: You have a photo with a jogging man who has adidas sneakers (with the three stripes). Some other sport shops buys this photo and adidias will ligitate that. At the end you the photographer have to pay the amount of loss !!

But: At Zoonar you also can release all RM photos to our partners. So I don`t understand your problem...

This is not how the Zoonar website works. You can enter "release NOT available" and still offer as RF. And I could not find any hint that this is not allowed.
And I don't see the reasoning. On Zoonar the difference between RM and RF is only the allowed number of usages (RM is one single usage with limited print run and limited lifetime, RF is unlimited). Nothing is specified on the context of the usage. Therefore it does not make any difference (for sales on Zoonar) if an unreleased image is offered RM or RF - there is no restriction on something like editorial only usage.
Granted, images with "release not available" are obviously automatically not distributed to some of the partner agencies.
But I don't see the legal problem.
From the photographers agreement:

"Photographer shall guarantee and must prove that persons featured and/or the
owner of the rights to this and/or the owner of rights to featured works [e.g.
decoration, stage scenery, costumes, (public) buildings, etc.] of the visual or
applied art (paintings) and/or its use for artwork has given the required consent �
also for use of the picture material at a later date by Picture Agency and/or thirdparties.
If pictures of people or works for which consent has not been given or
which has been given under certain restrictions is submitted to Picture Agency, they
shall be identified accordingly by the photographer in clear written form (e.g. with
the words �not for advertising� or with the Model Release option �is not available�
selected). The photographer is liable for the full amount of damages incurred by
Picture Agency as a result of missing and/or insufficient identification."

Therefore I conclude, that it is my duty to clearly mark pictures without releases as such. Not more.

Quote from: Michael on May 04, 2011, 05:55

For RF you need some of the booth release conditions:

model release available
model release not necessary

property release available
property release not necessary

But this is not only for Zoonar. You should NEVER do photos into RF, if you are not sure, that you are not offend some copyrigths like design, logo, trademarks and so far, because RF-Photos can be used for all marketing uses. For example: You have a photo with a jogging man who has adidas sneakers (with the three stripes). Some other sport shops buys this photo and adidias will ligitate that. At the end you the photographer have to pay the amount of loss !!

But: At Zoonar you also can release all RM photos to our partners. So I don`t understand your problem...

This is not how the Zoonar website works. You can enter "release NOT available" and still offer as RF. And I could not find any hint that this is not allowed.
And I don't see the reasoning. On Zoonar the difference between RM and RF is only the allowed number of usages (RM is one single usage with limited print run and limited lifetime, RF is unlimited). Nothing is specified on the context of the usage. Therefore it does not make any difference (for sales on Zoonar) if an unreleased image is offered RM or RF - there is no restriction on something like editorial only usage.
Granted, images with "release not available" are obviously automatically not distributed to some of the partner agencies.
But I don't see the legal problem.
From the photographers agreement:

"Photographer shall guarantee and must prove that persons featured and/or the
owner of the rights to this and/or the owner of rights to featured works [e.g.
decoration, stage scenery, costumes, (public) buildings, etc.] of the visual or
applied art (paintings) and/or its use for artwork has given the required consent �
also for use of the picture material at a later date by Picture Agency and/or thirdparties.
If pictures of people or works for which consent has not been given or
which has been given under certain restrictions is submitted to Picture Agency, they
shall be identified accordingly by the photographer in clear written form (e.g. with
the words �not for advertising� or with the Model Release option �is not available�
selected). The photographer is liable for the full amount of damages incurred by
Picture Agency as a result of missing and/or insufficient identification."

Therefore I conclude, that it is my duty to clearly mark pictures without releases as such. Not more.

Ok, my mistake. This is how our partner network works !
If you have not one of these release statements:

model release available
model release not necessary

property release available
property release not necessary

you cannot submit the photos to our RF-Partners, because they go to them as normal RF in the sale...

just a questions, is the RM license on zoonar is the same as RM license such as alamy?

I found out some of my RM licensed on zoonar is listed as budget RF on agefotostock...

I have removed my portfolio there, after some very long time without sales. I got sometimes nice sales (even had one of 80$) but extremely rare. Also, I didn't like the way things are managed with partner agencies. I asked repeatedly support what's going on with the files approved at AgeFotostock and every time the answer was that it takes time to actually see the files there. I couldn't find any of my photos at AGE, in about an year since they started with it. I mean c'mon, how long could it possibly take? Something doesn't feel right about it.
It's just another low earner I "fired", I'm quite confident that I won't miss it.

Quote from: Xalanx on August 14, 2011, 05:19

I have removed my portfolio there, after some very long time without sales. I got sometimes nice sales (even had one of 80$) but extremely rare. Also, I didn't like the way things are managed with partner agencies. I asked repeatedly support what's going on with the files approved at AgeFotostock and every time the answer was that it takes time to actually see the files there. I couldn't find any of my photos at AGE, in about an year since they started with it. I mean c'mon, how long could it possibly take? Something doesn't feel right about it.
It's just another low earner I "fired", I'm quite confident that I won't miss it.

Today, long after this thread started, I view this agency as a total waste of time. Its a nice site, everything works, EXEPT the search-engine, its really dreadful, probably the worst one of the lot, doesnt show any relevance, popular or anything. Its based on the old trad-agency filing system which was "first pics come, first pic served".
An internet based agency is only as good as its contributors and Search, thats it.

Yes, shortly that will sum it up: total waste of time.

Well, until today I would have agreed! I've been steadily uploading since some time last year, and the last earnings had been on 1 January. I checked in today (to finish the upload of some files to make them available to partner sites) and found that one image had sold on DDP for 45 euros. Not great for 8 months works, but perhaps those partner sites will actually do something at the end of the day!

Steve

going to pull my port...sales disappeared, views pretty good but don't pay the bills. Had my 2nd highest SS image rejected yesterday with the tag of " Sorry, there is no call for this kind of picture" ...F'm and feed them fishheads...really a waste of time. They'll die before the end of next year. Mr. Krabs, Spongebob could do a better job : )

P.S. and as Franky said, I went from 79% approval to 2%...pretty ballsy for a site with no track record.

Rejection rate much too high for me, too.  Cultural difference, perhaps?