And instead of taking it in the manner in which it was intended, every idiot here decides to bash her..........

Let the bashing of me begin.

Cheers,  JC

Not every idiot here bashed her, I didn't and neither did the person who I quoted, of course some idiots can't read.

It's been about a week since I U/L'd to IS but all my keywords come in. I am using Photoshop CS4 (on a Mac) so I don't know if this is something that they only recognize in CS4 as compared to CS3. I would highly doubt that but you never know.

Joe

Nope, I'm using CS4 on a Mac and I have to do the old forum visit trick every time.

It happens that I knew the guy as he is in Brussels too and we started around the same time at iStock. He has a small design company that's run very well, with top software products. Apparently he has been looking for a framework that supports both Mac and Windows, with most of the code on top of it. Probably because he missed some market share as the established designer's world is still predominantly Mac. I just guess that Deepmeta (which is free) has to share his time spent on porting other products. If anyone can do it, it's certainly him. I happen to know he has small kids so he probably took some time off during the local Easter break here, which ends tomorrow. I'm sure he will produce results as soon as he is able to.

I've heard nothing but praise for deepmeta and can't wait till he gets it working on Mac's. I can use his keyword wizard which is superb, it's the painstaking uploading one by one that I'm eager to say goodbye to, and before anybody asks, yes I tried the iPhoto plugin on iStock but it messes with my internal admin set up.

I hope iStock look after this guy in some way, designing and letting people use this software for free is praise worthy indeed.

What's "LCV"?

It's what any successful stock agency needs to know in order to survive 

Quote from: RT on April 13, 2009, 05:11

I wish they'd hurry up and get the Mac version working!

"The first test version of DeepMeta for Mac OS X is now online!" : Link

Thanks Flemish although I have already seen that, unfortunately they've disabled the download of the test version. Plus to be honest I'm interested in the uploading part of deepmeta and looking at their timescales that's not going to be implemented till 05/2009 



 

i think before you go into more ambitious lighting like rembrandt, butterful,
you need first to learn to balance your lighting ratio. sort of trying to run before oyu walk is not exactly advisable. 

Batman I'd love to see what you describe as a more simplistic approach to portrait lighting - using a torch? 

For the OP, Butterfly lighting is one of the most basic portrait lighting techniques you can use, but like most things in life simple sometimes works out best, here's a link I found by searching google for basic portrait lighting techniques: http://home.earthlink.net/~terryleedawson/id11.html

The most important thing in portrait photography is the interaction between you and the subject, I think you're off to a very good start, any idiot can learn lighting techniques.

I want to ask the same question, in micro stock industry, we as photographers/contributors, We are looking in the end for getting sales and making money... So what is the problem to upload on new agencies if they are legal (not like thos scams who install nulled script and start inviting artists for nothing ).. Why are you afraid from new agency! 

regards

Because there are already a number of successful sites where we can make sales and money, you haven't discovered an untapped supply of buyers because there isn't one, all serious image buyers already know of the existing sites and most will probably have accounts with them. So my question to you is what have you got to offer that both we (contributors) and the buyers haven't already got.

Other than that uploading to a new site would just be a waste of valuable time, and any sales would have just been diluted from another site.

The one and only way to start a new successful microstock site would be to ONLY select images from the worlds top contributors on an exclusive basis, and I'm sorry but that would only work if the person who's starting the site is a well established and known 'name' in the industry, otherwise nobody would bother.

So to answer your question "What is the problem with uploading to a new agency" my answer would be - The industry doesn't need another agency just like the one's that already exist and you're not offering anything new.

No buy a white background and light it correctly!!

Green will give you 'matting' if you don't know what you're doing with the lights.

Wait and see... but maybe after one year Fotomina will be "invited only" like getty  Getty 

Getty isn't invite only, anybody can apply, you pass a quiz upload a batch for review and then they tell you whether they like them and if so what collection they want your images in.

So far I'm not overly impressed wth your replies and knowledge of the stock industry.

It is funny that these magazines use stock pics for fake stories and make up characters with them.

I wouldn't say it's funny, but it is against the license terms. Same goes for the dating site ad's you mentioned. Have you done anything about it?

Quote from: RT on April 07, 2009, 18:14

Re your other comment, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about in the USA the person that presses the shutter being the copyright holder,

Quoting from Apogee Photo Magazine:

"Under the provisions of the revised copyright law, a photographer owns all rights to his pictures at the moment of creation. That means he and he alone owns the right to sell, use, distribute, copy, publish, alter or destroy his work of art. If you are a photographer, this ownership begins the moment you click the shutter."

The article then goes on to discuss the Work For Hire exception.

The part I've highlighted is what I think confuses people, to physically press the shutter button does not make you the photographer and automatic copyright holder, if it did there'd be a lot of very rich photography assistants rushing to see a lawyer 

Have a look at this link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/photography/genius/gallery/crewdson.shtml

The guy in question even went on to explain in the programme how he never touches the camera, isn't interested in cameras and wouldn't know how to set it up if asked to, after the shoot they showed him sitting with a woman who does all the editing in photoshop for him, so he actually has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the actual physical making of the photo, he is however still the legal copyright holder because he 'made' the photo.

Quote from: RT on April 07, 2009, 16:17

... I also suggest that you read copyright law, it has no similarity to buying a product like a car or a house and to make that comparison is ridiculous.

Copyright law can also vary tremendously by country, too. In Canada, for example, it's the owner of the film/CF card who owns the copyright, while in the USA it's the person who clicked the shutter.

Quote from: RT on April 07, 2009, 14:22

There is another option albeit a bit more drastic, whether Dreamstime have a 6, 12, 18 or 24 month policy in their terms makes no difference whatsoever, you as a contributor are the copyright owner of those images, if you choose to no longer allow Dreamstime to distribute those images then send them a notice giving them 28 days to remove your images from their site ...

This also varies by country. I know of one photographer who signed an agreement with an agency such that the agency has the right to license his imagery for 20 years ! He's consulted with lawyers about getting out of the contract, but has been told it's a no-go.

Hi Sharply,

We could discuss copyright law all day, but my reference is to the OP who is the copyright holder (or at least he should be otherwise he couldn't of uploaded them in the first place) and his individual complaint about Dreamstime, as far as I'm aware he's complied with the terms he entered into with them and it's Dreamstime own policy which is in discussion here, which as I've pointed out is not something they can legally do, if deleting images causes them admin problems that is THEIR problem it does not mean they can circumnavigate the law, he is the owner of those images, he's completed the period required under the terms he entered into and now he wants them off the site, he is 100% legally entitled to make Dreamstime remove them. Of course as I pointed out later (and you noticed) Dreamstime can disable an account immediately, and of course if they can do that we all know they can delete those images as well, it is just them being pathetic and awkward that's the reason they expect people to do it one by one.

Re your other comment, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about in the USA the person that presses the shutter being the copyright holder, can't comment on Canada we never dealt with any Canadian law cases. As for your friend, that's nothing to do with the country he's in it sounds like it's more to do with the contract he signed, what do you think would happen say if another photographer claimed copyright to those images and your friend suddenly realised they weren't his in the first place.

.