sent to support and got automated reply. i'm assuming too early in the morning for human  reply

-

I thought I deactivated my iStock portfolio, but apparently not. will solve through support.

Quote from: Firn on October 01, 2021, 12:08
Now it hit me too.  Reason: "Image may be inappropriate for stock" 


What exactly is Dreamstime's plan here? Remove all photos in the database related to certain everyday topics so their customers have to go somewhere else if they need photos of these topics? 

I got another one today. Seems like they are doing it is batches Or maybe it was an end-of-the-month quota.

"Thank you for contacting Dreamstime.
We often perform routine reviews of the existing database and we may remove files that are already online but no longer meet criteria or have copyright issues.
I hope this clarifies why you have older files refused now.
Let me know if you have other questions or require further assistance."

Not sure exactly what they mean. There are still a dozen other files from same shoot that have totaled 35 downloads.

It's not like I really care. Dreamstime has never been a producer for me.

Today I got 8 email Image Not Selected messages on images that were uploaded and on the site for more than 4 yrs. Is this a glitch or is this a re-editing of content? 3 of the images were from set with dozens of downloads and about 30 similar images. Anyone else get these?

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 28, 2017, 07:56
Nice article and great work from the photographer.  Only thing I would dispute is where it says yuri creates "more timeless" work than this photographer. Yuri's work will date a lot quicker than this portfolio because of the other worldly nature of this work. You may have been looking for the words "more generic" but that could sound like an insult (though it really isn't in the context of micro) maybe just not compare him to yuri?

Eh...I stand by that statement. By the very definition of fashion there is an inherent time frame to those type of images. Wardrobe and makeup styles alone would lock most of the Conrado's images into a specific time span, except those which are intentionally nostalgic. I don't think timely/timeless insults either photographer. It does not specifically refer to marketability of the images.

I simply can't agree that the type of images Yuri is famous for are not intended to be timeless compared to the intricate fashion images of Conrado which have a specifically different goal.

https://fstoppers.com/originals/shoot-all-day-long-techniques-improve-daylight-photography-190422

Thought this might be of interest to newer photographers. Techniques to work with and against the sun for longer and more productive daylight photography sessions. The information goes along with topics I have covered in past photography workshops.

https://fstoppers.com/fashion/epic-fashion-and-fine-art-images-his-own-way-konrad-bak-changing-perceptions-183573

I had the pleasure of writing about an exceptionally creative photographer Konrad Bak (Conrado) for FStopper.com recently. It was great to communicate with him directly and get some insight to his process. I especially like the way that he does not let the perceptions about stock stop him from creating high-quality compelling images.

I should have posted this here earlier, but you can still take a look.

another 80 in two days, mostly Asian women and it's not like my portfolio is exclusively that. Some of the same images are downloaded multiple times. My initial burst was paid out, so I assume that it is a legit purchase on that level.

not exactly as big but I got another 20 today of same genre

Something is fishy here. After months (years?) of piddling activity on DT, I suddenly get two banner days in a row. First it was 100 downloads then followed up with 180 downloads. I am assuming that it is the same person. All of the images had the same search term (Asian) and all were beauty shots of young Asian women. How many subscription downloads can a person have on DT?

I'm worried that it is some kind of hack or scam and that they will take away all of the royalties--as low as they are. Any others have this kind of activity?

am still awaiting review on a batch uploaded 4/16. not sure why they even bother estimating time to review since they never seem to hit that mark.

Quote from: drial7m1 on September 17, 2015, 18:28
You can always search by the deactivated files option, use the file number from the e-mail sent to find out which files have been taken off, that was what I had to do.   

I looked for something like this but I did not see it. Where do I find it on the contributor page?

edit: found it. thanks

Quote from: cathyslife on September 18, 2015, 13:33

QuoteWhat is 'tasteful' or 'pornographic' in nudes is so subjective

I am honestly asking for someone to share an idea of how the OP's image in the link could be used commercially for something other than a business related to sex or porn. Maybe I am missing something.

Advertising a product or business is certainly not the only application for a stock photo. A significant amount of downloads are used for Illustrating editorial in magazines or blogs, direct sale on products like posters are all outside the definition of advertising.

In regards to this image and genre. All of the images recently (that I could identify) removed by iStock are still selling for me on Shutterstock and Dreamstime. I loosely label the genre as glamour and they perform roughly the same as several other genres of my work. Additionally, unlike many micro-stockers, I am a full-time commercial assignment photographer and have been for 20+ years. While most of my assignment work is casual and bridal fashion for manufacturers and catalogs, glamour is also a percentage of my commercial assignment work.

It's not for everyone, and in my observation, there are more photographers interested in this genre that are justified by the market, but the same can be said of travel and landscape photography.

Quote from: cathyslife on September 18, 2015, 04:28

Quote from: Pauws99 on September 17, 2015, 18:12
The internet is awash with porn for those who want it and Istock decide to purge tasteful nude images a recognised art form since the time of the Greeks (at least). Nice one

Explain to me in what context would a partially or fully nude woman be used as a business stock photo, except in the context of something to do with sex or porn? To me, it seems like more a badge of honor for the photographer.    [size=78%]If it is done as artistic content, then it should be on an art site, not a stock photo site, since the stock photo sites dont allow content to be used in porn. Why they ever accepted them to begin with is beyond me, when it goes against what they have in their own Agreements.[/size]

Wow. What a limited view of the scope of stock imagery and usage. I don't think it is anyone's job to explain to you what and how many different contexts that images containing nudity of various levels have market potential. If you don't want to shoot or view that content, fine, but please don't even try to deny there is a market for it.

Exactly how many more sunsets do stock libraries really need...?

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 17, 2015, 18:43
Must we see the nude photos of women in the thread? I'm not interested in seeing them one bit, really.

Are you serious? That is at the core of this topic. The content was described in the text. It was not displayed. You did not have to click on it.

Anyone else effected by evolving standards?

from Istock: "The content is not suitable for our broad Royalty Free license; the reason given was: As you may know, we periodically go through the collection to remove files that no longer meet our evolving standards. Even though Getty Images and iStock by Getty Images does accept artistic partial and full nudity in photography for royalty free photography we reserve the right to reject/deactivate any image, including images that we feel are clichéd, overtly stereotypical, too explicit, verge on the pornographic, obscene or represents gender roles in a sexist manner. We may also reject/deactivate images in these categories that we feel are not commercially viable."

I can no longer even see which images have been rejected. When I put the file number in the search the image titles briefly shows in the address bar before it is replaced by 404 message. Pardon me if I don't remember the image title of every file uploaded. Here is one image that I recognized image title which is still available on Shutterstock and Dreamstime (*mild glamour nudity in file). But other files have more generic image titles and I can only generally guess which ones they might be. Seems like the deactivation would be more purposeful if you could actually see time image.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-191760374/stock-photo-beautiful-blonde-fashion-model-posing-in-colorful-arizona-desert-garden-scene-on-sunny-day.html?src=KqikWd3dc31UMv3AkWkSgQ-8-14

Not sure which of the above mentioned standards it has violated.

I am used to seeing a $1 to $2 changes on a periodic basis with no corresponding sum in the Last DL. However, overnight I saw a $64 change with no corresponding download. I can understand not reporting affiliate sales for under $2, I guess, but having no account for sums over that seems like a flawed system. How can we trust anything they say?

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on April 08, 2015, 13:05

$100.80 equals 28% of $360. Doesn't seem all that odd, does it?

so what sale equals $360. I've bought a single image for extended usage and it wasn't that high.

 Was surprised to see a 'Single & Other' download result today for one image that indicated a fee of $100.80. I was wondering what kind of usage that would be. Seems like an odd number. Not complaining, just curious. It is actually an editorial image, not sure if that makes a difference.

I have been following this case since I first heard about it. The issues at the core of this case could potentially have ramifications on my work and many here. In support of Seth's cause I have donated to his defense fund.

Quote from: tickstock on December 10, 2014, 19:28
First she's claiming the release is not valid.  If I understand it correctly she's saying that the photographer promised that there was no way someone could get the photos to be used at adult sites and by uploading them to Shutterstock he knew someone could take them and use them at adult sites.

Yes, but how does she know that the image wasn't lifted from her Facebook posting? Again, if this succeeds in her favor we will have to re-look at every release we have signed from a model.

I think what is getting lost is that it is not the nature of the shot that is at issue. The model is not UNHAPPY with the photos. She was actively using them to represent her, though she does not, in my professional view, have any great potential in the field. It seems quite likely that the images were stolen/pirated from a free-stock site or used outside of SS TOS. I have had both happen to me (pirated and SS download exceeding TOS). Neither of which are the photographer's fault. If her suit succeeds it would have a profound chilling effect on model shots/microstock.

Has the photographer set up a defense fund? How can we help?

While I didn't write the book on it, I did shoot the cover...