I think you might feel a bit less nonchalant if it was your work being ripped off....oh yeah, and it's my job to actually be proactive in these matters. 

My work is on that site which is partly why it annoys me you promoting it.

by sharing these sorts of links you potentially improve the SEO of these sites. By sharing these links in public you help to promote them.

how can you know that the image has not been licensed for this use given that it is on sale RF ?

ETA: ah - I understand ... no EL

Alexa collects data on browsing from computers which have the Alexa toolbar installed. How many of the world's computers have the toolbar. Less than half maybe?

Almost none % more likely! I think that compete.com bases its results on a small survey sample IIRC. Server stats and Google analytics are what mostly matter these days IMO. Even with respect to general trends, the rest often seem like witchcraft and hokum. Perhaps survey samples made more sense back in the days when total web use was much smaller.

I do not doubt that website traffic is down at istockphoto.com. Probably mostly as a result of reduced forum traffic

So two rules we should all be following for our email accounts if nothing else:  make your email password a long string of letters and characters -- not a word -- and not something you use anywhere else, and change it regularly. 

plus do not log in from public computers (hotels, cafes etc) and do not use public or unsecured open wifi.

Quote from: bhr on October 26, 2011, 15:36

Apps (and ebooks and music) help sell devices. It's a different model.

Having had some (profitable) experience in selling consumer-targeted apps (we called them "programs" then), I disagree etc

No big deal and perhaps me not fully grasping your argument - but I do not see how what you have written about copy protection etc undermines the case that Apps (and ebooks and music) help to sell devices and therefore these markets represent a different model vs stock photos. I totally agree with you that copy protection and the verticals currently make it much more profitable to invest in the development of Apps for the Apple platform. Especially the verticals.

My point is that the different royalty structure (independent artists vs online retailer) makes sense when you take into account that the retailers (Amazon and Apple) are also in the business of selling physical devices (iPods, iPhones, iPads, Kindles). An attractive split (especially as the market emerges) encourages content onto their platforms and helps them sell hardware. The availability of content gives consumers a reason to buy Apple and Amazon devices - and captures them to some extent. Nobody knows how the split will vary over time as these channels become more established... but who would bet much on it moving further in favour of the artists unless new models compete effectively ?

I know people think that some secret society happens at a Lypse, but it's really not like that.

I heard it was like the Bohemian Grove.

In London someone asked about rejected files going to the partner program....we were told, fairly definitely, that this would not be happening. the reason given was that during many of the server renos etc., storage of data concerning reasons for a file's rejection was not maintained...therefore they couldn't just truck over rejected files (many of which may have been rejected due to copyright issues/lack of release etc.). I believe that they have zero plans for rejected content.

I suppose that would not exclude a system applicable to new content under which they could decide that particular images / batches would be most at home at the PP sites.

Poor results after using a calibration device (weird yellow color casts etc) may sometimes be a result of using the device via an under powered USB socket. Try using it via a different USB socket and definitely not via a hub. Not all USB sockets are equally powered (certainly not on many Macs anyhow).

Unplug all other unnecessary USB devices.

After the images are uploaded you get to "process" them.

is that before the inspection, or after ?

In the Image Size dialogue in PS you can see the open (uncompressed) file size.

So - suppose you have been editing an compressed tif in PS. And you have done all your work and have then converted it to 8 bit . The Image Size dialogue will show you the file size in MB - 24MB for the sake of argument.

Then you save it as JPEG and it is much smaller on your disk. But open that JPEG again in Photoshop and look in the Image Size dialogue. The open file size should be the same size as the open tif.

As always I speak from where I am, and in the US, EVERYTHING before 1923, photos, records, books, art... is public domain now, whether renewed or not

Eg some places it is 75 years after the death of the artist. I have no idea whether the person who once reproduced on old image in a book would be considered the artist, in this context. My guess is - yes in some places. These issues are best handled by lawyers IMO.

And even if there are potentially no copyright issues - well that needs to be documented presumably. And there would still potentially be property rights issues. You have to be able to show that you had the right to photogrph the piece of property. Many places restrict this - galleries containing famous art for example. Even art which is hundreds of years old is effectively protected as property.

So, as I said - in the end it always comes back to legal documentation.

Quote from: bhr on October 13, 2011, 14:24

Quote from: sharpshot on October 13, 2011, 14:02

I don't really feel comfortable selling editorial photos on a microstock site.  I'll stick with alamy for those.  Perhaps they were right not to bother with editorial all those years?

What does Alamy do differently which makes you comfortable selling editorial images via them rather than via RF microstock ?

Editorial has lower sales volume.  I usually get a higher commission with alamy RM than I would with microstock editorial RF.  I get some information about what the photo is being used for.  The buyers usually pay a lot more for a specific use.  I don't like the idea of low sales volume and low commissions and not knowing anything about what the photo is being used for.

Okay. Thanks for the quick answer. I was misunderstanding your use of the word comfortable I thought that you meant that you had an ethical issue related to the use of the images.

Otherwise it is only down to price and where the image is most likely to find a customer.

From an ethical perspective I am most comfortable with a relatively tight and restrictive licensing model. I like and respect Alamy but am still slightly nervous of the site in some ways - because it sometimes seems rather like a free for all.

ETA: @BaldricksTrousers - I am not completely convinced that an RM image is any more or less likely than an RF image to "sit in a designer's folder for years" ... etc