As from the beginning of April this year I started getting sales paying me $0.09 each.
I just made an enquiry and was told these are via Partner sites and was given the option to withdraw from this market. Has anyone else been getting these sales figures?

Quote from: Tom23 on April 23, 2015, 12:39
Do you mean scenelinestudios from Germany ? They make there living from Groupon deals for like 19.99 Euro per photoshoot where the customer gets 1 crappy looking image not even retouched, the rest cost extra.

no, it wasn't them

Quote from: Kernowp on April 22, 2015, 23:09
Nothing wrong with a photographer using your photo as long as they do not state or imply that it is their work.  Only the same as a roofing contactor using you photo - it would be morally wrong if thet implied that this was a roof that they had fitted.

Just be happy you got a sale.

Always happy to make a sale, but I'm fairly sure that a photography studio including my image in their gallery or portfolio page is leaning ever so slightly towards suggesting that they were responsible for producing the image.

I think with a roofing contractor, as a customer I'd be happy to accept the roof in the photo was just for illustration purposes.

 
------

Many thanks for the replies - interesting to hear the different approaches.

Still mulling over the various options, pro and cons.

Would anybody be prepared to share and advice on a good system for cataloguing final finished Jpeg's after they have been uploaded to agencies?

My original RAW files and 'works in progress' are accessed and catalogued in Lightroom.
Once my files have been processed and exported, they go to a 'ready for upload' folder, usually labelled by month/year and probably subject/shoot name.

However, after these files have been sent out to the agencies, is there a best practice method for storing / cataloguing these finished files?

I'm thinking maybe in the future, I might want all files that are 'agency ready' to all be in one big folder? Then say, if a new agency comes along, I can easily just throw the whole folder at them!

This would obviously require that all file names are totally unique (mine are not at present – they probably should be!) and I was thinking whether I should update original file names with a date suffix for 'original upload / published date'?

And would this 'date published' info be of any relevance or importance in the future?

Trying to sort my life out (again) – any help much appreciated.

Thx

Paul .... any news on a fix for access to Shutterstock data?

I also thought I had finished with the Tax interview (several times), but keep receiving same email. So what is a TIN and where do I get one, in the UK? Haven't had this issue with any of the other sites.

Getty may have made small images really expensive, but on the other hand, they are also giving them away for free!

Isn't this new model designed to push web use images towards their embedded image platform - for free.

In turn, these are then used as advertising for print resolution sales at a higher price?

That's what it looks like to me anyway.

Personally, I clean my own because I get dust spots all the time and I shoot a lot at small apertures and cleaning charges are expensive. There is much 'fear' banded about regarding doing your own sensor cleaning, however, thorough research and yes, serious caution is required. I hesitate to recommend it, because whilst it's not actually rocket science, mistakes can be very expensive. Initial outlay on cleaning kit is also significant.

Visible Dust, that's the baby.

Ron .... That's exactly what dust or similar on sensor looks like. Only shows up at small apertures. Can be hard to see with out the right gear. I have a magnifying loop thing with built in LED lights, even then can be hard to see sometimes.

Quote from: Ron on February 28, 2014, 21:59
I had to delete cookies and empty cache to get the tab to show up.

Thanks - that did the trick in Safari & Firefox

Anybody in the UK (London) seeing this new button?

I'm not.

Could it be OS or browser dependant maybe?

My titles, descriptions and keywords have all been pre-loaded earlier in exif.

Is there any point in refining the Keywords in DeepMeta ..... i.e ticking the 'yellow stripe' sub-catergories and numbering the keywords in order of priority before final upload.

This is the bit that takes so much time !!!

Worth it or not?

Whoops ... found it.

Right click - Copy / Paste

lol

Still testing the waters in here - I won't be holding my breath.

Once you've done all the sub-category keywording thing in DeepMeta and added a MR ... anyway of rolling this over to the next image or applying to a batch of similar shots?

I must be missing something.

Thx

Thanks Copidosoma, but the drop down menu next to my Licence Type is greyed out and unavailable.

This seems to be the case with all my accepted images, whether RM or RF.

If you upload a file to Alamy as RM to begin with, can you switch it to RF at a later date if it hasn't sold?

If so, how?

Looks like you have to delete the file and start again?

Thx

Thanks for the comments.

For words already used in Title and Description, is it still necessary to include these in the Keywords as well?
Does this vary from agency to agency?

I've just noticed a few images in my Dreamstime port that don't have a MR attached.
(Not sure how this happened, maybe my fault at upload, I don't know).
Anybody know how I can attach one?
When you go into Edit I can't see any option to add a release.

Puzzling also, that the images are for sale as RF, but without a release?

Thanks

I accept that signed releases should not be altered.

Am I correct that iStock did not require shoot description, shoot date, models DOB a couple of years ago?

I have to admit, I did think it strange not to include this info.

So, only alternative is to go back to the model and get new release signed?

A couple of years ago I created my Model Release template.
I think I probably took the text/format etc from iStock and/or maybe from Yuri's website (I think they were the same).

This template did not include any specific shoot date or description information.
It also didn't include the Models date of birth.

I have used this MR ever since and it has never been queried or declined by any of the agencies I have been uploading to (SS, FT, DT, BS, CS + others).

After much moral/ethical dilemma and soul searching; financial pressures have forced me into finally giving up my resistance and I've decided to give iStockphoto a go.

However, with my first upload the reviewers are telling me that the model release is missing that above information (dates and description etc)

Was this a change in policy at some point?
I can see that the current iStock MR template does contains this information now, but I'm fairly certain it did not a couple of years ago.

Can I add this information to my existing and already signed models releases?

Phew - working again - thx Leaf