Quote from: FD-amateur on April 14, 2010, 01:12

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on April 13, 2010, 22:48

I thought you wanted to use something with your own web hosting.

La donna � mobile. 

hahaha, vero, molto mobile......

Sometimes I like to tease. You catched the ball well. 

It`s the same like in every other agency. You don`t gives your copyright away, you just gives us photos for selling. We are not interested to hose photographers, zoonar is a fair agency.

In that case you should adapt the English terms on site. Scripta Manent, Verba Volant. I will register anyways, since the original English phrasing apparently is a mistake.

I hate to say it but the fewer microstock photographers there are, the better my sales will be.  It's actually kind of idiotic to post things that make people want to do this job more.

Glad you finally converted to the Locke-doctrine. 

I thought you wanted to use something with your own web hosting.

La donna � mobile. 

Excellent analysis, Sharply, and well written.  Blue heart for that one.   

Yes his info was excellent in educating our competition. Very correct but missing a second essential point for Shutterstock. Very conveniently, he left the strategy out for iStock. So he obviously doesn't like to educate his own competition, only the one of independents. 

Separate issue, but I don't see anything in the model release which would allow you to describe someone as e.g. Turkish rather than Greek, English rather than Scottish, American rather than Canadian, whatever.

The photographer and the agency have the right to assign a "different ethnicity" if it suits them, as is stated in the iStock/Getty release I use now for all sites.

I acknowledge and agree that I have consented to publication of my ethnicity(ies) as indicated below, but understand that other ethnicities may be associated with me by the Photographer / Filmmaker and / or Assigns for descriptive purposes.

I wonder what rights a model would have over a photographer who assigned them wrongly. I know, it would be different in different countries, probably a lot stricter in the UK than the US, for example.

Knowing the history of Turkey (that originally was Greek, as Asia Minor) and their different invasion waves, ending up in a thorough mixing of their original genes (many Turkish look just like Europeans), it is a bit ridiculous to play the "ethnicity" argument.
There has been a similar case in Belgium 5 years ago, where a Walloon model was used on a political poster of a Flemish party. A lower court then ruled that releases don't count, and that a model has to give permission for every use of a photo. Which is lunatic of course.
In general, and this only goes for countries with Napoleontic law, a model can only claim damages when (1) the photographer/agency knowingly did something wrong, and (2) those damages are real and financial, so that the model can prove them with exact amounts and why. The burden of proof in that case lies with the model.
In the case of the OP, the model won't have any financial damages being depicted as a Turk, or he might be convicted himself for racial stereotyping and hyper-nationalism.
There can be moral damages but courts usually give fines of 1 euro for moral damages in those cases.

In countries with Anglosaxon law (the UK and the US), things might work differently. Especially the US with its ridiculous lawsuits and too many lawyers, the Greek probably could get what he wants, given he makes some lawyers rich first.

I've been looking into this for a while and the only true stock-specific software I found is Lightbox http://www.lightboxphoto.com/.

Yes, Lightboxphoto is an established commercial gallery/sales package you can install (or rather, they'll do it for you) on your own domain/hoster. You buy the package and there is no rental of bandwidth/storage elsewhere. If you are serious about selling directly, Lightboxphoto is imho the way to go. Considering the price (700$) for the pro version, it is good value for the hassles, glitches and security issues that a free/open source package would entail for a non-programmer. They are already several years on the market and now and then I'm tempted...

For 1099$, the enterprise version is a multi-photographer site, almost as good as a stock agency, but without the marketing of course. There has been much talk here lately about a photographer driven-agency. Well, Lightboxphoto is a simple solution for this. The cost can be split over participants.

Fotomind admits that they broke the contract.
"Fotomind will never share your personal information with any third party"
"Since we have partnered with iSyndica for this, we have shared our contributor usernames in order to prepare the transition."
Fotomind shared personal information the email addresses and usernames.

That was exactly my conclusion too, after I read the newspeak post.

Anyone else seeing a quick rebound to the Easter slump?

Yes: sub sales down at DT and large credit sales up. It started wednesday.

How do you SELL FREE images?

It's called subscription.

Brilliant! The best post this year.   

If I'll ever make it to Runcorn, I'll buy you a lukewarm big Ale. 

off-topic

You have to be kidding! The 24-70L is the best general purpose zoom lens that Canon make.

I read all the reviews before deciding and they gave the 24-70 a slight advantage in borderline conditions (full open etc..) and also sharpness. I was just commenting about convenience (weight) since an all round lens like that you will take around. For studio it doesn't matter that much since I assume everybody shoots by monopod by now. The 70 limitation is annoying for cropped portraits though. I plan to buy a Macro 100mm later this year so that should solve the problem.