Really nice image! I would give it a try, you have nothing to loose. Maybe they will take it if you submit it without the frame.

Really nice image! I would give it a try, you have nothing to loose. Maybe they will take it if you submit it without the frame.

On some sites there is a penalty for rejections.  For example, on DT, placement in the Best Match results is partly a function of acceptance rate.  So submitting experimental shots can have a negative aspect to it on some sites.

very nice shot! feel free to submit it everywhere. I would have removed the frame. this way
the attention will be solely on the tiger.

I agree with some of the posters. That is a great shot but I think it doesn't belong to the micro market, if I were you I'd keep that shot for some macro like Alamy or Photoshelter (I think the latter would love it).
I learnt it seeing how in microagencies "simple and stupid" isolated food (which can be used in a gazillion different ways) sell a lot more than nice but specific table setups (usable just for some specific projects).

I think your image is grrreeaat.  (As Tony the Tiger would say.)  I would upload it to every site you can find that sells stock images or prints.  If the reviewers don't like that image, in my opinion, they should be fired!  My question is: If you think it is good then why do you care what we think about it?  Make your own decisions that way the mistakes you make will be yours.  Your mistakes and your successes will give you the personal knowledge to know what to do in the future.

Correct that the copyright must in fact be registered.  Violating the copyright of a registered image is bad.  Altering the image to remove any watermarks is extremely bad as it shows intent to circumvent the copyright.  A non-registered image really isn't copyrighted under the protection of the law.

The only reason I asked what people here would think is because motion shots to me are a mystery with stock, and I am still formulating "what is stock" in my mind, I know what photos I like to look at, but that does not agree with what stock buyers like to buy.  I love taking motion shots and seeing well done ones, but the technical perfection typically required by stock is something that really isn't possible with an average motion shot.  If I had a absolutely technically perfect motion shot, there is no way I would sell it via micros, it is worth much more than that (except possibly race cars which are more common (and much easier to capture)).

Quote from: Waldo4 on February 14, 2008, 09:04

A non-registered image really isn't copyrighted under the protection of the law.

Actually, at least in the U.S., even if you don't register the image, it is still protected, but by registering you gain additional advantages. First - it is easier to prove who owns the images. Second - Without registering, you can sue only for actual damages whereas if it is registered, you can also add in such wonderful things as court costs and lawyer fees and potential earnings that may have been lost and compensation for the general headache of having to jump through hoops to protect your property, etc.

If you keep the RAW files, proof of ownership isn't that difficult to maintain, however, unless the actual damages amount to something very significant, there really isn't much point in suing as chances are you'll lose money, especially if your time is worth more than $0.00/hour.  Hence, though it technically is copyrighted, the chance of anything bad actually happening to the thief for a non-registered image is minimal.

to me, there's no definition of "stock" any more - other than to say it isn't a snapshot (tho i've seen a lot of those lately). There's all sorts of stuff selling on MS sites - i don't know if you can just say they only accept isolated on white (tho those do sell the best).

i'd submit it - it looks wonderful at this small size.