|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ShadySue
13251
« on: August 31, 2011, 05:07 »
I'm exclusive and opted out of PP so I was thinking more in terms of the 'upstream' mirroring/moving.
If they move or mirror my files elsewhere I'm going to ask them not to do that, or else I delete the file. If bestsellers are involved, then we'll quickly get to a situation where it's best to close the account. I think iStock and Spagetty Images are playing with fire - their loss will be greater than mine. Let's just wait and see what the new file handling actually entails.
I'm guessing that it will indeed be the best sellers that get mirrored/moved upstream. Makes sense on several levels: they are already proven sellers, they'll almost certainly only be paying you 20%, they don't have to give you RCs. If they move rather than mirror, the last point could be crucial for what they'd have to pay the top sellers on iStock. My guess, and I'm usually wrong on the optimistic side  , is that they'll first move/mirror most of the blue flames, then the red flames which have a high dl/month ratio. If they indeed move rather than mirror, I know of a few people who will be particularly badly hit, as they have one or a couple of very high sellers and the rest of their port doesn't sell so fast.
13252
« on: August 30, 2011, 06:29 »
I said over a year ago that this was coming.
To me this just looks like another business decision about shuffling collcetions, nothing more. They have some low value stuff at Getty and some high value stuff at Istock. They just want to be able to move images where they make sense when they want to.
I'm not so much concerned about this move but the fact that they continue to regularly make changes. It's hard to commit to building a collection with them when at any moment they may introduce a change that's a deal breaker.
Indeed. JJ said that this is only the 'first iteration'. Who knows what's down the line. There's not one thing in that announcement which is even a 'sweetener' for contributors, apart from the 'negative positive' that in this iteration they won't compulsorily move exclusive files into the PP.
13253
« on: August 29, 2011, 20:00 »
They want to focus on their exclusive content, which is in general of higher quality and/or more popular.
I wonder what Yuri would say to that? Added: not meaning to insult other excellent independents - that was the easy hit.
13254
« on: August 29, 2011, 17:21 »
who knows what the "second iteration" may bring...
Scary all the iterations. Sounds like it will be death by a thousand cuts, with no single cut, like JJ's "no single intention" on its own being fatal.
13255
« on: August 29, 2011, 17:04 »
So, if we disagree, our istock account is closed and the portfolio deleted?
Not sure when, but for the present, once they log you out and you log in again, if you don't sign right away, you can't upload.
13256
« on: August 29, 2011, 17:03 »
I love the clause where it says that they can use your work for promotion with no royalities.
Geeze can't you even come up with $2 super tight arses
Yeah, it's a real cheek. Not that they'd want mine, but I opted out of the promotion deal with the RC bombshell in September. I guess a lot of other people must have done likewise.
13257
« on: August 29, 2011, 17:00 »
If you delete your portfolio and still have outstanding earnings, you lose that, right? So I'm better off leaving it there until I earn my next payout and then deleting my portfolio, right?
No, Lobo assures us you'll get your royalties.
13258
« on: August 29, 2011, 16:33 »
Although it won't affect me, I can't help but notice that they're going to move the best selling photos over to Jupiter etc from where they won't earn RCs on iStock. Sneaky, or what?
(Oh, the first iteration will be mirroring, which is a strong hint that later they weill be moved.)
13259
« on: August 29, 2011, 15:58 »
At least JJ has been clear, for once, that these changes are to benefit The Company, not the contributors, as if we'd imagine anything other:
I believe in these changes. They will allow us, iStockphotos Administration & iStockphoto Contributors alike, to become an extremely important hub of Creative digital media for other Getty Images properties.
Whoop de doop.
They're also upfront that they can move our images hither, thither and yonder, without let or hindrance, but we'll get a lower %age rate and no RCs.
13260
« on: August 29, 2011, 15:55 »
They also added that if images are returned for any reason then they will clawback royalties.
Haven't they always done that for refunds?
13261
« on: August 29, 2011, 15:47 »
They might have waited to see what their survey said about communication. As always, some amibiguous clauses, which will always be interpreted in their favour. Why not just write clearly and unambiguously. Ditch the obfuscation.
13262
« on: August 29, 2011, 09:15 »
Not necessarily that it must be licensed, legally? They might claim it's editorial? But I was trying to point out that copying the image, setup, clothes, pose, whatever else, is not protect because of parody allowances.
I bet they wouldn't try the 'editorial' argument with Getty. But yes, Fair use would allow parody. Are Sean and I the only ones that don't think that site is remotely funny? I've seen several references to it round the web, and they all think it's funny. I just don't get it. But People of Walmart - that's funny, if awful.
13263
« on: August 29, 2011, 08:44 »
Funny 
I agree and since it's parody, I'm not sure they have to buy a license? The concept and style of the re-shoots is perfectly legal for humor. It's a way to build traffic if nothing else. Just like some places that write totally outrageous things, so people will link to "that site that freakin dumb", all the people linking to that site that's copying stock photos and making fun of them is... driving traffic if nothing else.
Interesting point about parody being a 'fair use' and noted the point above about a sale having been made, also that they're being copied all over the web, so better to be watermarked. But I'm not sure about 'driving traffic' to the stock sites, as I can't find a link to the stock site, though I might have missed them.
13264
« on: August 28, 2011, 19:05 »
Remember, there is a pretty strong second hand market, so when you get some money together, look for a nice second hand DSLR. The big advantage is that a DSLR is a lot easier to use than a high-range digicam. But like Lisa says, keep practising composition with your current camera.
13265
« on: August 28, 2011, 18:38 »
Your role model should be Shank_Ali, who had many rejections from iStock, but has been doing great guns since he got accepted there.
13266
« on: August 28, 2011, 16:44 »
Well maybe it is the world's poorest camera. It is a Nikon coolpix L20 and at the time I bought it didn't realize about the ISO setting but have checked for that setting long before I tried microstock and there is no setting for it. It is automatic!
Maybe someone else will know about that camera. I see it is still available for $129.99 on Amazon. I've got a much older Coolpix 5700 and have a very few old photos from it on iStock, mostly sized down to Medium. (but many more rejected for artefacts). But it takes in RAW format and I can change the ISO. I wouldn't try to submit anything above 100ISO from my Coolpix. (of course, I wouldn't take anything with it for stock nowadays. Stock is much much finickier than real life. I could print photos from my 5700 at A3+ and they were salon quality. Doesn't mean a thing in Stock land.) If your camera sets the film speed automatically, can you at least see in the EXIF data which speed the camera chose?
13267
« on: August 28, 2011, 15:05 »
Here are a couple of the pics that were rejected. Hope I do the link right.
I will say on the garden type pics I suppose for one I should have cut the pink flower out of the background, but I thought
maybe these would be good for garden centers and such but guess I was wrong.
As far as the bowl of cat food, like I said in the newbie post, found one just like it but the bowl was a different color.
Thank you for looking and your advice. Be a little easy  still licking my wound's.
http://s1201.photobucket.com/albums/bb345/JHS529/
You'll need to put full size photos up for people to check technical issues. You can watermark them. Cat food pic: why would you put cat food in a fancy bowl? Frog: seems like just a snapshot. Flower is best, IMO, but I'm not sure about the indistinct insect's bum.
13268
« on: August 28, 2011, 15:03 »
I do have my camera set at the highest quality but don't think it has an ISO setting but will check again and also
will check about disabling the zoom although I never use the zoom because I read somewhere that zooming could cause
noise. I do edit a little but am afraid to sharpen too much also read that over sharpening could cause noise and reducing
noise too much can cause blurring.
After editing I save the file as PNG. I haven't downsized the pictures so may try doing that.
One of the sights I submitted to stated that they will not be able to consider any more submissions, so now don't know
wether to keep trying or not. Some of the other sites may tell me the same thing.
I just set up a photobucket account so I will go over to the critique section and post a link.
Shadow: I'm not trying to put you down, but even my husband's really old and very basic digicam has an ISO setting. I'm afraid that either you have the world's poorest digital camera or you have a LOT of study to do before you can even consider submitting to a stock agency.
13269
« on: August 27, 2011, 13:43 »
Basically, what those above say is correct.
When I was a teacher, I used many, many Creative Commons and Public Domain images. I bought exactly one, ever, and that was because I happened to know the photo was available on iStock. So, just because a photo is useful to e.g. a teacher doesn't mean for a minute that it would be acceptable on a stock agency. (Also, e.g. Flickr images are often much more useful to a teacher as they're 'real' rather than set up in a studio) Their technical standard is way above what's needed for at least 95% of 'real world' use.
No matter how good the picture, it's no guarantee it will sell: I've a photo which did well in international salon competitions and has sold exactly once on iStock, because people looking for that subject don't search the micros.
Again, my top selling photo was taken on a p&s, but almost everything else taken with that camera was rejected, and it, and most of my early scanned slides would have no chance of being accepted nowadays, even though some of them still sell.
So yes, it's far harder now than it was when I started, and it was harder when I started than it was when iStock started. But I'm sure there will be plenty new people starting now who will do well.
13270
« on: August 27, 2011, 12:09 »
Yesterday I had twelve acceptances and four rejections. The four rejections were all for "date must be in the correct format - month date year" (ONLY), yet all 16 had the format date month, year, as all my others have, and as Sirimo said in the opening Caption thread: "Date data might be 'month date year" or "date month year" or in rare circumstances where the specific date isn't known just "month year" - so that shouldn't even be a choosable rejection reason. I haven't had any unfair caption rejections for a while, so I don't know if that means I've somehow avoided the rogue inspector for ages or if there are new editorial inspectors coming on board (and not before time, but they need to read the stickies).
And for those who care: this is more than a whine, it's a SCREAM.
13271
« on: August 27, 2011, 11:35 »
Thanks all. I wasn't really worried about taking the photos - I'm good at 'acting the tourist' - it was selling them that was giving me pause.
13272
« on: August 27, 2011, 11:27 »
http://stockingisthenewplanking.com/
"Step 1: Find a stock photo. Step 2: Imitate it. Step 3: Hilarity ensues! "
What do they mean by "We respect all kinds of artists and show our love by licensing the images we use", yet their Stock images are all watermarked?
13273
« on: August 25, 2011, 14:23 »
'Selective Inefficiency"?
13274
« on: August 25, 2011, 12:08 »
Tx. I know that France is iffy, so deliberately chose not to go to France, but somehow Italy had slipped under my radar.
13275
« on: August 25, 2011, 12:06 »
The only 'pattern' I've noticed in my own case is that the files with ELs tend to have low dl numbers, whether old or new. (Though my top sellers also have had ELs). Sometimes even old files with 0 dls, as though the buyer has particularly sought out a low seller on a search. Makes sense.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
