This is a situation in which a professional microstock photographers organization could help.  It could validate the photographers credentials and prosecute criminals.  Legal action needs to be taken against those that steal and resell another's work.  Until that happens, these crooks will just move from ISP/name to another.

I just got my first non sub download today.  But yes, subs are about 70-80% of the downloads for me there.  I'm doing better at SS with their "on demand" feature.  Ironic.

Disorderly was just too fast.     

I've had several moved to the Dollar Bin.  Can't say I blame them for their choices.  There only one I didn't agree with.

Quote from: Perry on March 06, 2009, 12:17
I think most RF licences is one licence for each "seat". Maybe the brochure and website were designed by two different persons in the same organization, that would propably require two different licences.

Of course you're right on that count Perry.  I was tihinking in terms of small businesses whose needs are numerous but small and only have one person doing all the work.

Quote from: goldenangel on March 06, 2009, 01:32

Quote from: fullvalue on March 06, 2009, 00:57
  Which site requires that?  That defeats the whole point of RF.  License it once and use it for multiple projects.

As I understand, RF by itself doesn't give permission for unlimited use. That's why there is an option of an extended license.

Unlimited no.  Multiple yes.  A website and brochure for the same small business client would be OK under the standard license on most of the sites.

Quote from: e-person on March 05, 2009, 23:06
If one image goes on a web site, and the other on a report, by contract they do have to buy two images. They have just been honest.
I always get double downloads on IS. XS and then a bigger one. Maybe not exactly always, certainly most of the time, though.

  Which site requires that?  That defeats the whole point of RF.  License it once and use it for multiple projects.

OTH, I have downloaded the small version of a file for a project and then downloaded the large file for future uses.  If a client really likes a file, it's better to license it right away and hold onto it for future use.  You never know when someone may "sell the rights" or deactivate a file for another reason and at these prices better safe than sorry.

Doublecheck with an accountant but log mileage.  Much of it could be deductible.

Props, those little things really add up.

Models, whatever compensation you give them is deductible.

Absolutely there should be limits.  As I understand it, people have a limited time frame to report unauthorized use of their credit card. I think it's 60 days. 

This should be interesting.  Everytime Istock "wiki's" one of my files, sales on that file plummet there and increase elsewhere.  (And buyers are finding it using the deleted terms).  I don't see how the new best match will solve that.

Ironically, I actually had this happen.  Sadly, you don't even get fame because noone but you knows it's your shot.  However, since it was a model released shot and my model saw the same commercial and was thrilled, it was cool from that perspective.

Congrats Lisa!

-If they were planning to raise the commissions for exclusives, I would imagine they would have announced that to everyone.  I'm sure there would be much jumping for joy from those that are already exclusive.

-As for the acceptance standards, I don't really think that your exclusive status effects your chances of approval.

-I got the e-mail and I do have the get newsletters marketing materials option selected so probably the only criteria for getting it was to not be exclusive and have the option checked.

-My guess would be some counter to the waiting period mandated by other sites or situations such as required by a 20 year committment.  I notice a lot of peope say I would go exclusive but....   

The customer very well might have downloaded the file a second time immediately because of a deadline rather than waiting for Support to fix the problem.  In that case, you really didn't lose the sale it just seems that way. 

Also remember that stock photography isn't about the photography.  It's about the photograph's potential.

What difference does the overexposed snow make when the jumper is against a nice solid blue sky so they can be isolated easily and be jumping off the product or promotion du jour?

I never said that as a photograph it was a work of art, just that there are valid reasons why it would sell as stock. 

If it's the one I'm looking at I think it's a great shot.  Let me interpret your "negatives" a different way.

- only back of the person showing
Means the person could be anyone more versitility.  The photo could be used to reach any demographic group.

- not the most stylish jump, grandma:)
Perhaps relevant if it was for an ad targeting a very narrow market but for the broader base it works just fine.  An average winter display ad doesn't demand super stunts which will detract from the real message.

-bad colors clothing.
The clothes are a solid neutral color.  If the designer wants to change that it's easy enough.

-snow is overxposed
Maybe true (since I'm not looking at the full size and it's a close call when talking snow) but does it really matter?  It will blend nicely on white paper.  What's more irritating is the tree shadow that needs to be cloned out.


This is a very classic stock shot.  It has great motion to direct the viewer to the real message.  Stock photos aren't about the photography, they're about the final design.

My mother always said "Never thank your boss for your paycheck because you earned it.  And, if you didn't earn it, you better start looking for a new job."  So I do see where helix7 is coming from... if we considered Shutterstock our boss.

On the other hand, I don't really see the harm in it.  Although Shutterstock is a faceless company there are people working there who might read the thread as a "job well done"  If they are successfully marketing your images, don't they deserve a few kudos every now and then.  Don't think of it as addressed to a company think of it as addressed to the people in marketing department who wrote and placed the right ads and the people in accounting department who didn't screw up your payout. 

If you were selling your images through a gallery, and the gallery sold several of your images would you really not thank the gallery owner/employee as they handed you your check?

PS  Since you're playing MIZ.  Why do people read threads and then bitch about them?  Why not just not read them?  I haven't figured out the logic behind that.

I see 150.  At first I thought you might have the people only filter on but you don't really have many pictures of people so that wouldn't account for it even if you did. 

Anybody ele having problems uploading to Dreamstime?  The file's uploading but the submission page isn't loading properly.  Parts of it are missing.

Dreamstime should have the guts to pick the winners themselves and stop with the voting nonsense. 

Anytime the general population gets to vote a popularity vs. quality factor will enter into the equation.

The downside is a bad rating might affect buyer behavior.  Because the file is priced higher because of it's "exclusive contest status" the buyer might choose to go with a proven performer versus an expensive unknown.

Fotolia changed; they have a $50 min. now.

Shuttertock picks up the description as the title. 

Thieves like this are slipping between the cracks because the crack is so large.

Individual artists don't have the funds or the clout to pursue the matter.  They would need the cooperation of the photo agency selling the images to prove the fraud and you would probably be surprised at how disinclined the stock sites would be to get involved. 

The solution would be the formation of a professional organization to which professional stock photographer's pay dues that includes a "legal fund." for just such situations.  Until the risk/reward ratio is addressed, this will continue on a routine basis.  Now, even when someone is caught, their files are pulled but the matter ends there.

Quote from: leaf on April 11, 2008, 07:13
well i took it from here

QuoteWe're doing this in order to accommodate a new, separate Earnings Schedule page, wherein we show all the different earnings rates in an easy-to-read grid rather than in the text of the TOS itself. We hope you find this centralized schedule of rates useful and clear.

I bolded the text i wanted to highlight, text from here

seeing as they said 'all the different earnings rates' that sounds like more than 2 tiers to me.  if there was 2 I would have said both the earning rates....

By tiers I wasn't meaning different prices for different sized downloads, i was meaning different commission levels for how much you have allready earned on shutterstock.

They already have "different earnings rates"  i.e. they have a rate for EL, affiliate sales, footage, imagery (2).  Sure they could introduce more but my point is that the wording doesn't reveal anything.

I have yet to figure Fotolia out.  I get a lot of rejections from them.  Files that are accepted everywhere else?  They rejected a series of model released construction photos saying "we don't need this subject matter."  OK  Silly me.  I also get a lot of "too similar or subject matter rejections." 

I went and searched their site once to see how many of this particular subject they had. ONE!

As a designer, they're out of their mind if you think I'd take the time to change the scales.  I'd find one more suitable to my needs.

I do find that the faster they get "inspected" the faster they get "rejected".  Coincidence?

In light of Istock's sub announcment perhaps it's time to bring this to the front again.  Seems Istock figured out a way of doing even better than we suggested here.  Here's hoping that Dreamstime makes some changes to their Subscription model.