MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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

Pages: 1 ... 530 531 532 533 534 [535] 536 537 538 539 540 ... 624
13351
iStockPhoto.com / Re: When they tun off the tap?
« on: August 05, 2011, 03:40 »
Liz, I noticed the same problem with EL's not showing up on a large part of my port, even though I am opted in across the board.  In fact, I didn't so much notice it, as get a sitemail from a buyer who wanted an EL and couldn't get one!!

I called contributor support and they told me it was a known issue they are working on.  They also managed to get the image turned on so the customer could buy it.  Unfortunately, it may have been too late.  They haven't come back to buy it, even though I wrote them.  Hopefully they found it somewhere else.  Either that, or I just lost the sale to someone whose port was turned on. 
I happened to notice last night when I was really * up when uploading that the EL unticks itself if you have a braindrain, e.g. if you forget to DA a word and you have to go back in to do it or have repeated words in the title, for example I had a photo which, inter alia, had a sculpture called Sphere Within Sphere. (since that is clearly non-negotiable, you can do it by titling Sphere_within_sphere, which gets it through at iStock and the _s don't' muck up in Google). So if you have an error message and go in to correct it, EL unticks. I hadn't noticed that before, and have no idea whether it's inevitable.
However, if you go in and add a keyword, EL doesn't untick (I just tried).

13352
iStockPhoto.com / Re: When they tun off the tap?
« on: August 05, 2011, 03:32 »
"Dublin Castle" and "Port of Dublin" are in fact both sub-categories of "Dublin - Ireland (County Dublin)" - along with quite a few other places - if you enter "Dublin" when uploading, you'll get the three options of Ireland, California and Texas - click on the "+" beside Ireland and you'll get the others.
Indeed they are, but they are separate when searching.

13353
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Big Change at IS
« on: August 05, 2011, 03:30 »
Going from COO to VP kinda sounds that way. Maybe he didn't hit his growth targets and they found a role that's a better fit for him.
...
In other words, he didn't screw us as hard as he needed to to make these targets (?)

Quote
It'll be interesting to see if Rebecca tries to rebuild the destroyed contributor trust or do more of the same hacking away at contributors to boost profits. It's amazing how much has changed in a year.
If my above guess is right, she'll obviously need to screw us tighter or she'll be papped too.
Hard times for all. :-(

13354
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Big Change at IS
« on: August 04, 2011, 16:19 »
I'd hate to find I'm being forced to put stuff where I don't want it. 
That's what I took it as meaning. :-(

13355
iStockPhoto.com / Re: When they tun off the tap?
« on: August 04, 2011, 16:05 »
Strange that yours says Dublin - Ireland and more, when I did the same search it just says Dublin and I came up with 39 pages at 50 per page (1946 results). FF also by the way. So why does your Keywords box look different than mine? Did the same search with Google Chrome, same results.

Something strange going on here? Why does yours have "Dublin - Ireland (County Dublin)" whatever else in there?

Here's the page result I get "http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/dublin/source/basic#153eb223"

Might answer why you get no results and I get over 1900?


Contributor: dublinmark
If you just enter "dublin" it doesn't disambiguate, so you get "Dublin (Texas)" and "Dublin (California)" too - although in this case it doesn't appear to make any difference, as either all the pics are of Dublin (Ireland), or they all have that as a keyword, wherever they are.

ShadySue probably entered "dublin", then clciked on the "Dublin (Ireland)" option from the pull down rather than just clicking search.

But it works for me anyway, I have no idea why it failed for her.  Maybe it was just a glitch...


When I put Dublin in the search box, I get these choices:
Dublin Castle
Dublin - Texas (Erath County)
Dublin - California (Alameda County)
Dublin - Ireland (County Dublin)
dublin port ..Port Of Dublin

However, when uploading, I only get these options:
Did you mean...
   Dublin - Ireland (County Dublin)
   Dublin - California (Alameda County)
   Dublin - Texas (Erath County)
I'm not sure why Dublin Castle, which is right in the city centre, or Port of Dublin, which is within the city boundaries, about 40 mins walk from the centre, are listed separately. I'm guessing they should be children of 'Dublin'.

It presumably was a glitch, as neither Dublin not disambiguated nor Dublin - Ireland (County Dublin) gave any results at the time, and as I reported, after I'd searched on another word, then come back to search Dublin, I got the results.

13356
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Big Change at IS
« on: August 04, 2011, 16:00 »
Oh, you beat me by six minutes!
For us, however, the interesting,exciting/or scary bit is probably the as-ever ambiguous:
"Jonathan Klein wisely told us some time ago that as we hit the 5 million images mark, there would be many great images that simply would not be seen--and it's especially true as we near 10 million. We're looking at ways to resurface those images to get them selling again--even if it means moving them between sites. I'll be looking for your support as we roll out these exciting new options."

13357
iStockPhoto.com / Re: When they tun off the tap?
« on: August 04, 2011, 06:39 »
There's some sort of problem with ELs, at least within my port, that I'm trying to sort out. i.e. files going to the bottom of the search showing as ELs not available, yet when I go into them an try to tick them, the tick is already there, also in DM.
So I was just checking as a few days ago some of my very recent Dublin acceptances were near the bottom of a search on Dublin. So I searched 'Dublin' and got 0 results:

In this case, refreshing brought the images to view (which the other search I mentioned above didn't), but really, should someone know to have to 'refresh' to see results?

ADDED: I just went back and tried again and got 0 results after 5 refreshes. I guess they'd say, "Clear your cookies and cache", but honestly, should we have to do that? (More often than not, when doing that, it hasn't solved the problem.) What if we want to keep our cookies and caches for whatever reason? I don't visit the other micros often enough to know if that's a problem there, but Alamy is an image-rich site and I've never had to 'clear cookies and cache' to get search results there.
ADDED (2): the Dublin thing might be a Firefox problem - I just tried in IE, logged out, and it worked fine. Still refreshing and re-searching isn't bringing up the images in FF 5.0.1/Win7.
Added (3):  However, I searched 'horse' and got the usual gazillions of images, then searched Dublin and got pics.
Interesting best match mix. Some of my pics on the first page, one accepted so recently it wasn't in my port three hours ago is well down on page 10 (EL is ticked).

13358
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy Premium - RM as RF
« on: August 03, 2011, 17:24 »
Official reply from James West:

I'd like to clarify some facts behind a couple of reports that are out there that have caused some to comment on our (and other) forums. Someone has posted an email from one of our sales agents to a customer.

Here's the bit of the email that is causing all the trouble:

"Regarding photo rates we're working on a new package called the Alamy Premium Account, the benefits are:

* $49 (US) per image
* Unlimited repeat below the line use over 10 years, worldwide*
* Un-watermarked "try before you buy" downloads
* No print run/impression limitations
* Unrestricted file size (typically 50MB)
* 22 million images available on www.alamy.com/bespoke and growing
* No credits, subscriptions or volume commitments
* Unlimited shared access to your library of purchases
* No differentiation between Royalty-free and Rights Managed images

*definition of below the line: direct mail and collateral, email and PDF, corporate websites and intranet, presentations, public relations, event programmes, sales giveaways, annual reports, office dcor, company handbooks, training docs."

There have been some misinformed comments about this as unfortunately a number of people published it before checking with us first - and this has not been helped by someone using my name making comments that I would never have made.

This particular deal says use it for anything you like, within your industry, as often as you like, for ten years, but not for advertising (because you have to pay more for that).

This is just one example of a number of deals we are testing the market with. Some deals are priced at $49, some at $99, some at $199, some in the high thousands.

We have control over every aspect of each offer. Unwatermarked 'try before you buy' downloads, for example, are only available for customers we can trust with such a feature. We hand pick the customers who have this feature enabled and we keep a close eye on their download activity.

"No differentiation between Royalty-free and Rights Managed images" - this is salespersonspeak for the same terms apply to all the images on Alamy, regardless of their normal license designation. A Royalty Free image bought under this scheme is only useable for the terms set out in the deal.

These deals narrow the usage rights available under a traditional RF license in exchange for simplifying the purchasing experience for the customer. It is not, contrary to some reports out there, rebadging RM as RF. These are Rights Managed licenses, no different from any other kind of broad license we've been selling for years to educational publishers, to name just one example, to cover multiple editions, languages, etc.

The price on offer in each case depends on our analysis of the following:

The scope and range of usages the customer requires
The likelihood of those usages being used to maximum capacity
The impact of microstock in the sector the customer belongs to

In practically all cases, unless the entry-level price is already high enough, we are withholding high value advertising rights from these deals. These are usually negotiated separately or built into a high all-encompassing price.

We have found examples of large consumers of photography who are limiting themselves to mircrostock sites because a. they can't deal with the headache of policing the usage of Rights Managed images across a large distributed marketing teams and b. they are buying such large volumes of imagery (thanks to the explosion of digital platforms) that even conventionally priced royalty free imagery is deemed too expensive.

Our trials have shown that we can cannibalise microstock market share at a much higher price point. Too good to be true? It gets better - some of these customers have been upgrading their premium account purchases for expensive advertising usages.

To put the significance of this trial in perspective - we are working on dozens of news ideas at the moment but only one of them, Premium Accounts, is about pricing. Everything else we're working on is about making searching on Alamy better and faster for picture buyers. Premium Accounts make up less than 1% of our revenues.

There is no opt in/opt out available for this. You can, of course, opt out of Alamy whenever you like. We provide the marketplace and set the ground rules, but it is entirely your decision as to whether you want to participate or not.

I want to sell as many of your pictures as possible for the highest price possible. By giving us your pictures you are entrusting us to make a judgement over what price the market will bear. We have been licensing content for 10 years. We are really good at it. If you are unhappy with what we are doing and you don't like our explanation, I completely respect your judgement if you decide your pictures will do better someplace else.

For an independent view of this issue you might also want to check out the article here. Here's an extract from the author and stock industry veteran, Jim Pickerell:

'RM pricing is not a way to protect the value of images. All RM means is that the price is negotiable. It doesnt necessarily mean that the seller will receive a high price for his work. When you have a negotiable price it can be set at any level on which a willing seller and a willing buyer agree. The buyer sets the price if there is no price so low that the seller will walk away. However, if the seller takes a stand, walks away, and the majority of buyers are unwilling to pay the sellers price the seller may be quickly driven out of business.' (You'll need to pay a small fee to read the whole article but good content, as we all know, is worth paying for.)

Best wishes
James West

So definitely a wide-ranging RM licence, not RF. Glad he explained 'below the line', a term I hadn't heard.

13359
Similarly, there's a thread now in the editorial forum about a clock face being deactivated with a note that it couldn't be submitted as editorial.
The subject moved on to the Louvre Pyramid, and the bottom line was that 'photos where the Louvre Pyramid is the main subject' wouldn't be accepted as editorial.
Hmm. Search on 'Louvre Pyramid'. "Not the main subject"?

13360
iStockPhoto.com / Re: When they tun off the tap?
« on: August 03, 2011, 14:18 »
In other words, does best match make certain images disappear for a certain period of time?
I don't think it targets anyone in particular, if it is true. It may cause some seasonal images unsellable in that season, or a bad day during a high volumn weekday. Possible?
I'd surely hope it isn't deliberate. A few months back, I happened to notice that none of my six or so pics with a certain keyword weren't seen in a search on that keyword, which was in the CV. I SMd Kelvin after a couple of weeks, and he, Ducksandwich and Keywords checked it out and couldn't work out what was going wrong. They passed it on to the techie guys and after some time, I noticed they were in the search again. It wasn't so much these files, which are low demand, which worried me, but the thought that that could be happening on and off all the time, and we wouldn't know about it unless we 'happened' to look. (Sometimes I check to see if low-selling files are just low demand, or to see what more popular pics people have in that search. In that case, it was just 'low demand'.)
I'm pretty sure it's a bug rather than a policy. It wouldn't be serving anyone, especially the buyers, to rotate pics out. But what do I know?

13361
half were refused for my usual - lighting


Usual ? If you are regularly getting lighting rejections then you need to look at your work flow - also any calibration issues and / or potentially monitor quality and settings. The best starting point for that might be peer critique either here or at the iStockphoto forum.

It's just natural 'flat' light in this part of the world. I just meant it was my most common rejection reason, nothing more than that.

That is just a cop out, if you wanted to improve you could but you would rather complain ...

You really haven't a clue. "I get lighting rejections" is an 'observation', no more no less, just a conversational remark.
This is a 'complaint': http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/am-i-going-nuts-editorial-rejections.

13362
iStockPhoto.com / Re: When they tun off the tap?
« on: August 03, 2011, 10:50 »

LOL, that must be the first time anyone's ever said that, even with a winky.

Apparently, Lobo doesn't like the truth being delivered in one-liners.

Last warning: At the time of the Tokyolypse, someone asked who paid for the 'lypse. That was the one where participants didn't have to pay for tickets, so I answered, "Participants pay for their own flights and accommodation/food, we pay for the rest", which was deleted. Truth hurts.
Final straw: Someone asked how you could do something (forget what) which you 'used to could' do on the site. I replied that you couldn't, it was one of the 'improvements' of F5.
Now actually that turned out not to be strictly 'true', as apparently Sean had written a script to enable that functionality, but it wasn't exactly 'untrue', as it had been stopped with the F5 change, and you couldn't do it natively inside the site.
Wow that's a bit harsh.  I've seen far worse things written without any ban!!
Apparently, it wasn't what I said, but the fact that I said them in such a 'short' manner. H*ck, usually people would have the right to complain that I rabbit on too much, so I thought that hilariously ironic.
He'd had me on his radar since years earlier when there was some sort of thread about Kew Gardens and he made some categorial statement that all photos taken in Kew Gardens would be removed. At that time there were many photos with iconic Kew Gardens buildings, many with the keyword 'Kew Gardens' in the collection. However, I did wonder how someone would know that a particular tree or plant had been taken in Kew Gardens in order to remove it and posted my 'wonder'. Lobo somehow decided I was trolling and reiterated that 'all' photos taken in Kew Gardens would be removed. True, the 'obvious' ones which were actually keyworded 'Kew Gardens' were removed about 15 months or so later.
As of now, there are 91 photos keyworded "Kew Gardens", only one of them editorial. So, who was telling the truth back then?

13363
half were refused for my usual - lighting

Usual ? If you are regularly getting lighting rejections then you need to look at your work flow - also any calibration issues and / or potentially monitor quality and settings. The best starting point for that might be peer critique either here or at the iStockphoto forum.
It's just natural 'flat' light in this part of the world. I just meant it was my most common rejection reason, nothing more than that.

13364
It now appears 'someone' has decided to deactivate existing (and high selling) files of playing cards, poker cards etc due to copyright issues on the design on the King, Queen, Jack etc and also the fonts used for Ace, 2,3,4, etc. Once again a new policy that hits contributors hard with no 'real' explanation of why files are being deactivated. I am truly amazed that anyone is staying with these bunch of clowns. I'm not affected fortunately, although believe it or not, I did as shoot only this afternoon for a client with a stack of cards based on the Queen Of Hearts theme but as it was a commissioned project I would not be uploading them to iSP anyhow. Is there any limit that iSP won't go to to totally pi** o** their contributors?

I don't think IS is doing this to totally piss off their contributors, I would guess they feel the risk of litigation is not worth it.
And to play devil's advocate, the info is in the technical wiki and there have been threads about it.
That said, what is and isn't allowed is a mystery to me. I had some pics, which had sold a few in early days, which is unusual for me, deactivated. This year, I uploaded them as editorial, and half were refused for my usual - lighting. But as I was uploading them, I noticed at least two of the same thing in the main collection, uploaded after mine. It's all to do with inspector judgement, and I certainly wouldn't like the job.

13365
H*ck, iStock's rules specifically forbid buyers to "use or display any Content that features a model or person in a manner (a) that would lead a reasonable person to think that such person uses or personally endorses any business, product, service, cause, association or other endeavour", but with many, many in-uses found which do just that, it's clear they have no interest in enforcing the rule. :-(

That's so odd. The model signs a release in order to allow their image to be used to promote products and services AND at the same can't look like they're endorsing the products or services

Normally, that's more like "Hi, I'm Bob and I use Glow-Brite Toothpaste!", not just a background image.
That seems to be fine too. Way back (2007?) there was an 'in-use' with a young girl in a car with keys in her hand and a big smile and a slogan like, "I got my first car insurance from X".
Thought it was odd that that was acceptable then, and still do.

13366
iStockPhoto.com / Re: When they tun off the tap?
« on: August 03, 2011, 07:11 »
...at night, and I'm banned, ...
You are banned?!  heck I didnt know that.
Since November. Where have you been?

HI!

What on earth did you do?  I mean you seem to be a very pleasant person ;)
LOL, that must be the first time anyone's ever said that, even with a winky.

Apparently, Lobo doesn't like the truth being delivered in one-liners.

Last warning: At the time of the Tokyolypse, someone asked who paid for the 'lypse. That was the one where participants didn't have to pay for tickets, so I answered, "Participants pay for their own flights and accommodation/food, we pay for the rest", which was deleted. Truth hurts.
Final straw: Someone asked how you could do something (forget what) which you 'used to could' do on the site. I replied that you couldn't, it was one of the 'improvements' of F5.
Now actually that turned out not to be strictly 'true', as apparently Sean had written a script to enable that functionality, but it wasn't exactly 'untrue', as it had been stopped with the F5 change, and you couldn't do it natively inside the site.

13367
iStockPhoto.com / Re: When they tun off the tap?
« on: August 03, 2011, 05:58 »
...at night, and I'm banned, ...
You are banned?!  heck I didnt know that.
Since November. Where have you been?

13368
iStockPhoto.com / Re: When they tun off the tap?
« on: August 03, 2011, 04:29 »
On Monday night I happened to think that an old slow-but-steady image hadn't sold for a while, so I wondered what supadupa photo had usurped it. So I did a search on the main keyword (the very specific location). There are two DAs, and my file is correctly keyworded with both DAs. So I chose one, and the search threw up: 0 results. Hmmm, I have a few for that search and I know of several others. So I tried the other DA: 0 results. Logged out and tried both DAs when logged out - 0 results. Fired up IE and tried again, logged out then logged in, each DA in turn: 0 results. Other random searches were throwing up the selection you would expect.
As it was late at night, and I'm banned, I wrote it on my to-do list for yesterday, and as usual didn't consult my to-do list until bedtime (!). Checked again and my file, and all the others, are showing up. I don't think there's a usurper, mine is still top by downloads, but low-ish by best match.
I wonder how often files just 'disappear', and for how long. As that is a specific location search, a buyer would obviously start looking elsewhere - there is no substitute.

13369
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy Premium - RM as RF
« on: August 02, 2011, 19:09 »
Oh and don't forget it takes 6 months to disable an image on Alamy.
You can effectively 'disable' it from being searched/bought overnight by removing the caption, keywords and location.

13370
iStockPhoto.com / iStock exclusive RF + Alamy RM
« on: August 02, 2011, 08:18 »
Any iStock exclusive who also sells RM at Alamy might be interested in a recent development at Alamy which might compromise your position. I feel it's more an Alamy issue, so posted the details there rather than here.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/alamy-com/alamy-premium-rm-as-rf/msg212264/?topicseen#new
and humbly suggest discussion, if any, should be there to keep just one thread.
Added: I now see that the proposed new license is not RF, but a very wide RM license - use within the purchasing company, 10 year time limit, no advertising. So that shouldn't impact on IS exclusivity.

13371
Alamy.com / Alamy Premium - RM as RF
« on: August 02, 2011, 08:14 »
New Alamy scheme discovered by contributor, not notified to contributors first.
I can't seem to provide links to the Alamy forums which work, but it's the Discussion Forum thread headed 'Premium Account'.
First post was about this article:
http://www.abouttheimage.com/4332/hello_alamy_what_exactly_is_a_premium_account
Followed in the thread by a lot of disbelief etc.
Alamy Sales Pitch
"Regarding photo rates were working on a new package called the Alamy Premium Account, the benefits are:
$49 (US) per image
Unlimited repeat below the line use over 10 years, worldwide*
Un-watermarked try before you buy downloads.
No print run/impression limitations.
Unrestricted file size (typically 50MB).
22 million images available on http://www.alamy.com/bespoke and growing.
No credits, subscriptions or volume commitments.
Unlimited shared access to your library of purchases.
No differentiation between Royalty-free and Rights Managed images. "


A lot of contributor wrath, then on page 4, James West steps in:
"On the subject of Rights Management I must stress that we are not 'giving away rights for everything'. We are experimenting with giving *some* customers a broad set of rights with a time limit and a restriction on high value usages like advertising. I want to see RM images bought back into markets where they are being locked out by the combined forces of microstock pricing and customers requiring simplicity, and I want to see your images pick up those high value advertising sales when they come along.
On the subject of opt-in/opt-outs - (a.) we are always trying out new stuff and (b.) providing opt-in/opt-out for every idea we try is impossible.
My job is to make Alamy viable for producers and consumers of photography, but my company's fortunes are completely tied to those of our contributors. If our business practices were unsustainable for our contributors then the same would apply to Alamy. If Alamy revenues half, contributor revenues half. If Alamy revenues double, contributor revenues double.
If our sole motivation was profit we would raise the commission we charge contributors and raise the prices we charge customers. This would pass the cost of a reduced market share (because some customers would stop using us) onto our contributors (who will make less sales), whilst keeping Alamy's profit levels secure.
This industry has been in a tremendous state of flux over the past decade and the pace of change is accelerating. If we don't stay nimble and open-minded to new ideas, this business will wither on the vine."


Whatever you think or don't think of the scheme, it looks like people like me who sell RF exclusively on iStock and RM on Alamy will have to think again. (Remember, for a while iStock didn't sell editorial, so this was a logical choice,and still is IMO for less usual locations/images).

There is strong suggestion that if you set a restriction, the one suggested being a geographical restriction on selling to a small country with probably few buyers like Togo, that will get your images out of that scheme, but haven't seen that confirmed yet. BUT if you have a restriction on your images, you're automatically opted out of all the international distributors. http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2008/11/13/3765.aspx I'd say about 40% of my Alamy sales are distributor sales.

Not happy.  >:( :'( Although I make much more on iStock overall, I'm pretty sure I make more at Alamy on the images that sell there than I would at iStock with these images, so don't want to have to leave and move everything over to iStock. Don't actually want all my eggs in one basket either, but don't want the hassle of having to upload to all micros. At the moment, iStock RF/Alamy RM was a good balance for me.

13372
You've gotta keep your sense of humour - congrats.
This 'inconsistency' has been going on for far longer than microl.

13373
You could also contact FB, I don't think the terms of FB allows you to have a "fake" profile picture.

The nice way would to try contact the person that has uploaded the picture, explain the situation and tell them that it would be wise to remove the image.

I wouldn't threaten, just explain the situation and ask nicely. I'm sure most people would understand.
I'm sure they wouldn't; they bought a file and probably used it within the t&c, unless they actually said, "this is me" or somesuch. It might help if you refunded the full cost of the file, possibly.
What if they complain to the agency where they bought it?
What's your model going to do if her image is used to promote a service, product or cause she doesn't agree with?

13374
Dreamstime.com / Re: re-thinking the whole thing
« on: August 02, 2011, 06:01 »
I would say if you don't need the income so much go to Alamy.
I laughed out loud at that one, but it was a rueful laugh. :-\

13375
hi everyone
i recently came cross a problem, one of my model saw her photo been used by someone else on facebook as profile photo. i wonder in this case what can we do to stop it? any suggestions please?
To be honest, if that's upsetting her so much, I don't think she understood what the MR allows. It may be you didn't take care to give her 'worst case scenarios'. It may be that you'd be best to take down her photos, or at least talk her through legitimate uses. And if you can't think what these might be, take a long, hard look at some 'in use' threads, e.g. on iStock. I don't know if these exist on other sites.
For example a few years back on iStock there was an 'issue' where a model photographed in a restaurant was used to illustrate an article on high class call girls, unfortunately in the city where she lives and works as an educator. I personally don't think that was a legitimate use according to iStock's terms and conditions, at least without a 'posed by model' disclaimer; but AFAIK, no action was taken. (I did have to wonder why a professional [i.e. not a professional model] would do stock modelling, but that's none of my business, really.)
For example, if I did have a photo of me up, I can only imagine three uses:
1. As a 'before' picture for a facelift, with a photoshopped 'after' photo.
2. As a 'before' picture for a tummy tuck, with a photoshopped 'after' photo. (Actually, I can pull my tummy in to look like some existing before and after pictures. For about five seconds.)
3. "Does your wife look like this? You need Viagra!"
All of which I guess would be uses that iStock wouldn't pursue. Any models you use need to know all that and more.

Pages: 1 ... 530 531 532 533 534 [535] 536 537 538 539 540 ... 624

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors