Quote from: sjlocke on June 15, 2010, 18:49
Read what I wrote again.

Read the topic of the thread again.

Understanding that iPods/Pad/Phones are trademarked, numerous other electronics that frequently appear as props in microstock are as well.  Palms and Blackberry's are no LESS trademarked.  I've even had a shot of an iPad that is completely encases in a other-branded case so that the iPad itself is not visable subject to rejection.  The shot could have just as easily been completed (and might be in the future) done w/ a piece of cardboard inside the case.  The amount that microstocks, especially IS, are gunshy about trademarks seems over-zealous to me.

It seems like there is an unequal standard of what is trademark infringement when in comes to electronic products as props in photos when it comes to Apple as opposed to other brands.  Have anyone else experienced this?  I have been getting rejections from images with iPod, iPhone, iPads used as props when similarly trademarked electronic items used as props sail thru.  I have shot each Apple product in other brand's protective cases and removed logos and in some case buttons or distinct features.  Do microstocks believe that some trademarks carry more weight than others?  I'd like to see statute that backs up this concept.

Not sure if this is the information you were seeking, but I was applied to Getty thru the portfolio review process and was accepted into the Photographer's Choice collection in late '08.  That part of the process was quick and easy for me ( I have two professional photo web sites to show) but I admit that I hadn't researched the scope of Getty and had assumed that I was applying for the House collection.  Upon realizing that I questioned my Getty 'handler' and got this response:

"With regard to submitting to the House collections we are constantly reviewing submissions to see if they fit within the creative guidelines for the House collections and if we find over time that this is indeed the case with your imagery, we will contact you about shooting for these collections.

I understand your frustrations at being moved to the PC collections and the limitations this places on you but our clients creative needs are constantly evolving and as a result when we are reviewing potential new signers, we are looking for imagery which is concept driven and with exceptional production value.

Please dont infer from this that the door is closed to you on submitting to the House collections in the future. Once again, we are constantly reviewing submission histories but I think its best if we simply work on building your portfolio on PC for the moment and see how things work out."

That took a lot of wind out of my sails because I the Photographer's Choice set up just does not sit well with me.  It struck me as only a conditional acceptance or partial rejection.  Not sure if they offer that to just anyone who passes their contributor test or what.  Basically they 'give' you your first 10 images placed for free; each additional image placement costs $50 (though they will 'give' you one additional placement the first time any image sells--or something like that).  I had been represented by an editorial RM agency for several years some success but they were closing their lifestyle division.  Until that time, I was used to submitting likely images and having a large percentage accepted and I figured that Getty would be similar.  It may well be for photographers in the House colletion--I don't know.  I have not made submissions past the initial 10.

Since then I made my first submissions in microstock (late '09) which is the opposite sequence than what you are asking.  I'm giving it a year of regular effort before I evaluate which path I continue.

Co-incidentally, the Today show ran a feature on the portrait photographer who shoots the guest hosts of Saturday Night Live.  I'm sure there was no compensation for displaying the images.  The fact that it is the same network muddies the issue, but when a news or info-tainment program does an editorial feature on a subject, frequently that subject is not compensated.  If that subject is a photographer and the point of the feature is the work it would not be unheard of to display images without compensation.  Similarly if a photographic artist is promoting a book or gallery exhibition they are not compensated to come on a tv program to promote it. 

Quote from: Xalanx on May 15, 2010, 00:39
Actually MOST of the non-profits organisations have solid funding.

Please quote sources when making emphatic statements like above.

Quote from: sjlocke on May 14, 2010, 14:20

Quote from: danhowl on May 14, 2010, 13:43
The whole issue is not as simple as many here are trying to make it out.  I don't know the exact situation reference in the initial post, but there are situations where working for credit is an advantage--or at least it has been for and many of my peers.  First and most logically is working for non-profits.  Essentially volunteerism with a camera.  There are a few non-profits that I shoot for selectively. 

There's no reason non-profits can't pay for services like any other business.  Many have huge budgets and hide behind the "non-profit" phrase.  I've had someone from a multi-million dollar non-profit in NY contact me twice (a year apart) about doing images for their site.  Twice, I've sent back a quote with proper pricing for their size and usage, and I never here from them again.  They probably think I just want the "exposure" from their site or something.

Nowhere did I say all non-profits can expect free services, but there are many reasons that some non-profits can't afford quality photography to aid their efforts.  It does not surprise me that you choose not to participate.  I, however, have gladly worked on photo projects with the Boys & Girls Clubs in NYC and Kids In Distressed Situations (Kids fashion industry charity) because the children's fashion industry has been very good to my career over the years.

The whole issue is not as simple as many here are trying to make it out.  I don't know the exact situation reference in the initial post, but there are situations where working for credit is an advantage--or at least it has been for and many of my peers.  First and most logically is working for non-profits.  Essentially volunteerism with a camera.  There are a few non-profits that I shoot for selectively.  I have actually gained resources and contacts that I have been able to take advantage of on commercial and editorial assignments.  Secondly there are boutique magazines (sadly fewer and fewer each year) that work on higher creative levels than more commercial magazines that provide photographers opportunities to stretch into new areas or work on levels they wouldn't otherwise.  Early in my career I shot numerous assignments for the NYC magazine PAPER on fashion and personality projects.  I was able to ad initial tearsheets to my portfolio and I had the opportunity to do portrait sittings with celebrities like Puffy and David Ducovney which got me into the editorial stock agency Retna and sold over and over which more than compensated for the editorial fee I could have gotten from a single magazine.

Quote from: lisafx on May 13, 2010, 20:02

How are you finding the transition between still and video?  Are you able to fit both in the same shoot, or finding it better to do one media at a time? 

I'm still on the outside looking in.  I am starting to get requests for it but on a personality/celebrity or fashion shoot, there is generally not enough time to do both without sacrificing the stills.  I haven't clicked into a good workflow for it yet which will encourage (I hope) more motion capture.

Quote from: lisafx on May 13, 2010, 00:12

Actually no.  That's why I asked.  Thanks for the response.  

As I mentioned before in this thread, I don't shoot video, so I'm completely ignorant on what's required.

For other still photographers who also don't know what HMIs are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrargyrum_medium-arc_iodide_lamp

With an average price of $3-5k per light it looks like they are quite a bit more expensive than hot lights.  Affordable for professional video studios but completely out of reach for me, and most likely quite a few other microstock submitters too:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&Ntt=hmi%20lights&Q=&N=0&A=endecaSearch

Indeed HMI's are expensive.  Their advantage is the relative balance to daylight color temperature.  They were quite the fad in fashion photography about a decade or so ago.  They are easily rentable at photo rental houses and also from grip rental across the country.  Another fad since then is Kino-flo constant lighting systems.

I don't use them myself. I picked up a Profoto tungsten head that uses most of the same light modifiers as my Profoto strobe system which is my primary lighting system.

Quote from: lisafx on May 12, 2010, 19:33

Quote from: cardmaverick on May 12, 2010, 19:13

Depends on what kind of film lights your using. I would say most photographers go for the cheaper solutions which tend to be the lower output options.

My hot lights are 1000 watt halogens.  Do they make brighter ones than that?

You have heard of HMI's right? 

Despite the nay-sayers alleged expertise, the fashion and editorial world is buzzing about video capture, at least here in NYC.  Digital techs are becoming more video savvy and a couple are even renting out their RED One kits on fashion and advertising shoots.  Esquire did a cover shoot this past year with the RED One and A/X has done the past two seasons of print/web advertising shot on RED grabbing frames for their print campaign and using the video on the web.  More than a few fashion photographers here are anxiously watching the progress of the RED Scarlet and dozens (if not hundreds) of editorial and advertising still photographers are adding video to their capabilities.  Stock video plays right into that.

Quote from: sjlocke on May 09, 2010, 13:26
I agree totally with Elena.  I hate internet video.  95% of any video is a waste of time, and you waste more time trying to find the information you were looking for.  The only thing I've watched all the way through lately, is the "B-Roll" youtube video.  Cnn news videos, anything else, loses my interest after about 5 seconds.  I'm certainly not going to waste my time watching ads.  I dvr through tv ads too.

Umm...who really cares what your personal taste or interest is?  You are not a buyer/consumer of clips are you?  The OP seemed to be asking business and market for video clips on microstock sites.  I didn't see where he was asking for your taste or approval.

I am curious about what professional buyers of clips think about microstock sites for flash splash pages, banner ads and the emerging e-magazine market.

Just uploaded batch of 10 images this mid-morning and they are already approved by mid-afternoon.  That's the fastest review time I have seen, though still pretty new to this.  Guess I'll have to get back to processing more files for upload.

Quote from: robggs on April 28, 2010, 12:16
iStock gives you the highest sales and most satisfaction IMO. Fotolia gives you the quickest feedback...

I think this is an interesting counterpoint to the microstock experts who seem offended that a newer photographer would be interested in microstock.  Learning and satisfaction comes at many levels.

Quote from: FD-amateur on April 14, 2010, 07:28
As new images are exposed prominently for a short period, you shouldn't upload a row of similars in one batch, but add some different content. This way the halo effect of your new images will be maximized over your whole portfolio.

thanks, I'll give that a try.

Quote from: lisafx on April 14, 2010, 00:57

One thing you can do at IS is lightbox images from a particular model or shoot and create links to similar images in your description field.  Sometimes that will translate to sales of multiple images from a series.

Other than that for IS there isn't a whole lot you can do.  The default search has more to do with whether or not you get sales than most anything else (assuming good keywords).
 

Thanks for that additional info.

Quote from: sharply_done on April 13, 2010, 20:21

Quote from: danhowl on April 13, 2010, 20:03
...  I'm sure that it will help many people.

Not really - I've written stuff like this before, only to have most people say doing things like these are a waste of time. The prevailing attitude here seems to be that time spent not planning, shooting, or processing is time ill-spent. The prevailing RPI here is also around $1 per image per month ...

"A good technique is to mix-and-match varying (but pertinent) conceptual keywords in your titles and descriptions, thereby increasing your exposure across multiple search terms."

This is particularly good information concerning Dreamstime.  Thanks for the insight.

Quote from: sharply_done on April 13, 2010, 17:05
One of the downsides to using multiple agencies is that you have to develop a unique strategy for each one. Although there are techniques they have in common, in order to maximize your exposure at any given agency you'll need to do things that are specific to it. I'm not an independent anymore, so I don't mind sharing a few pointers for some of the agencies I used to contribute to.

Thanks, this is the type of information I was hoping for.  I was not soliciting for critique of my images or the scope of things I shoot for microstock or my assignment work.  Thanks for getting to the heart of the question.  I'm sure that it will help many people.

Interesting comments considering those images about about 30% of the images on that site, but account for about 50% of the downloads I have had to date.

Something I will and do consider when setting up shoots.  Most of my recent shoots that are available for microstock have been fitness and lifestyle so I will have to wait and see about their performance.  However, most of my shooting is not available for microstock due to model release restriction.  Most of my work is on assignment for magazines and catalogs with agency models who either don't sign stock releases or do so only at prohibitive rates.  My personality or celebrity work goes straight to a macro/editorial stock agency. 

Are there any marketing tips or techniques to improve downloads or visibility to potential microstock customers?  Obviously shooting more and better images is a start, but once you have the images up there, is there anything you can do? 

Is there any advantage to uploading a shoot in small groups on different days to spread out their appearance in 'recent uploads' or should you get the images up as quickly as possible (or upload limits allow).

Are there different strategies depending on the type of images?  The majority of my images (both assignment and stock) is work with models:  http://www.shutterstock.com/g/danhowell

Quote from: cuppacoffee on April 11, 2010, 19:12
It's my guess that the millions of images already online that got through before the crackdown are at the bottom of the list of "things to do" on the sites.

I don't think this completely gets to the heart of the question.  There seems to be an inconsistency when dealing with trademark or copyrights.  As mentioned in another thread here, almost every product is subject to some kind of patent, trademark or copyright.  A blanket ban on all intellectual property influenced products would not be practical.  You would never see any model wearing shoes for example.  At some level inclusion of products in the overall composition is acceptable.  In many cases, it seems, removal of the logo is sufficient. 

I've had 3 rejections of images that included model holding an iPhone.  In each case, the rejection information stated only:

"+iphone+
This file includes content that may be subject to copyright or trademark protection. Certain use of this file creates risk of copyright/trademark infringement and we regret that it cannot be accepted, unless this content is removed from the file."

In the photos, the product was only partially shown (at most only 1/3 of product was visable) and the logo was removed.

example:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12503485/2/istockphoto_12503485-teenager-with-cell-phone.jpg)

I searched the library with the keyword smartphone and found numerous photos showing models using recognizable Blackberry and Sidekick smart phones.  In literally dozens of cases, more recognizable products than the in the photos rejected. 

I'm trying to understand how an iPhone has more copyright/trademark protection than Blackberry and Sidekick models. 

The images were accepted at Shutterstock and Dreamstime.

Quote from: ShadySue on April 08, 2010, 19:29

Going by your description only (which is all we have to go on, as we can't see the image, hint, hint)

the image was linked above:
http://www.danhowell.com/Darlene_Gallery/images/DarleneH_099.jpg

Quote from: Gannet77 on April 08, 2010, 17:47

As sjlocke says, yes, only the actual keywords are used in the search engine, as far as I am aware.

And although "yoga", "pilates" or whatever don't seem appropriate to me either for that image, there is a keyword in the CV for "yoga mat" which disambiguates to "exercise mat" and I would think that would be OK.

They also bounced 'healthy lifestyle' and 'recreational pursuit' on the same image.  To me, those are pretty broad terms which the image falls within.

This is the image I was referring to (low-res, straight from RAW w/ no retouch or adjust):
http://www.danhowell.com/Darlene_Gallery/images/DarleneH_099.jpg

However, my main question was to ask if title and description words were caught in the search engine. 

re. Gannet77 does that mean ONLY keywords work in the search engine?