|
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
13376
« on: August 02, 2011, 04:36 »
OK. It may not be immoral but forbidden :-)
"You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission."
Is the person saying, "this is me"? Or is it just a photo on her profile page? Allegedly (in a magazine I just bought about social networking, since I'm so 20th century as not to participate in it yet) many people put a celeb photo on their profile. Anyway, while I don't necessarily like that use, there are many other perfectly legitimate uses for stock photos that IMO would be far worse. Therefore I have no self-portraits in my port.
13377
« on: August 02, 2011, 04:25 »
On the other hand, for example SS says:
YOU MAY NOT:
Use an Image together with pornographic, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or immoral content or in such a manner that it infringes upon any third party's trademark or intellectual property.
Fake profiles on Facebook may not be unlawful but they are definitely immoral.
Any more immoral than putting a stock photo of a girl with lovely hair on a shampoo ad implying that the hair is shiny because of the product? Etc etc etc. In some countries that would be a breach of advertising standards legislation, but it's apparently OK in others, and not a breach of stock rules. 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. :-(
13378
« on: August 02, 2011, 02:39 »
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?
If you have no reason to think that the photo was bought illegally (eg watermarked), there may be nothing you can do, i.e. it's probably a legitimate use. Check the end use t&c from the agency they bought it from. If watermarked, contact the agency concerned.
13379
« on: August 01, 2011, 13:30 »
Lisa, I agree with you! scratching my head at that one too, lol.
Me3.
13380
« on: August 01, 2011, 12:23 »
Sue, I will try to paste a link here to a shutterstock tutorial that I found real helpful and it makes the job real simple and easy.
http://www.shutterstock.com/tips-tricks/How-to-Create-a-Vector-Silhouette-in-Illustrator-421.html
When you are finished make sure you go to the image tab in photoshop and change the image to rgb so iStock will accept it.
Thanks, I'll give that a whirl for my own education - but I still think they'd be extremely unlikely to accept a test submission of three silhouettes. In photos, at least, they like to see variety in the submissions.
13381
« on: August 01, 2011, 11:26 »
(iStock exclusive). Good month. 2nd best of year for both $$ and dls. $$$ c16% down from June, which was a big spike since the previous months, but c33% up from last July. My stats seem to be a mirror image of everyone else's this year, having had a dire beginning to the year, and for the first time, my $$$ YTD is 'just' higher than in 2010. Nightmare July stats thread in the iStock forum. Ha, Warren, I was just thinking, if Lobo hadn't banned me, there would be a positive post from someone other than a newbie on that thread.  Hope those who had poor months are 'just' in the Summer Slump. 3 Alamy sales, but some posters over on their forum are reporting good months. (Newbies remember $$ quoted there are generally gross, not what the contributor got.)
13382
« on: August 01, 2011, 09:26 »
Don't see that pic on the front page now.
13383
« on: August 01, 2011, 04:44 »
Does anyone have a good word to say about istock?
Yes I have.
Every time I go to upload tho them something I have big diarrhea and some kind of green radioactive puke for few hours...
Who sad that they are non eco friendly?
I just spoke to my Doctor about the reaction you keep having and he prescribes abstinence.
Nonono, you misheard, it was absinthe he prescribed.
13384
« on: August 01, 2011, 04:38 »
Thanks, all. I have Illustrator, but don't 'do' Vectors and doubt they'd consider a test submission of three silhouettes, though I agree they'd be more useful as Vectors. I'm sure a designer would have a far better chance of being able to make the image a Vector than I would have. Problem with taking the actual photo was a totally glary white sky, meaning I have to whack in tons of shadow fill, but even worse, the purple fringing in the photos are horrendous. If they wanted to check I'd taken the original photo, I guess they could compare the camera number in the EXIF of the silhouette with those on all my submissions of the past two years. I guess the only option is Alamy - 1 person, no MR, computer manipulation, isolated. I wouldn't expect these to sell on Alamy, but you've gotta do what you've gotta do. Now to work on my isolations  Tx again.
13385
« on: July 31, 2011, 16:07 »
... It takes a fair degree of spin to characterise the OP as anything other than giving a negative connotation to IS exclusivity.....
Funny, I always thought I had a reasonable command of English....
Use of the word institutionalised is slightly tongue in cheek with the intention of getting a reaction (which it has).
How strange, to make a post 'allegedly' aimed at independents only, while at the same time "intending" to provoke a reaction form exclusives. An interesting double-think proposition.
13386
« on: July 31, 2011, 16:03 »
Cut to the chase: is a MR needed for a silhouette of a person if it's totally black against white (i.e. photoshopped to make sure)? This is a rough idea of what I mean http://www.lizworld.com/Sil.jpg. It's not finished - the edges are pretty jagged, and I haven't even checked that the black is all 100% black - but I'm not spending time on something that's a non-starter; I've probably got about 15-20 in the series. No speculation please - only if you've had silhouettes without MRs accepted or rejected at iStock. Thanks.
13387
« on: July 30, 2011, 16:10 »
BTW, does IS still accept 2MPix images? If so, that is something good to say about them. 
Minimum accepted size 1200x1600 (or equivalent product).
13388
« on: July 30, 2011, 02:49 »
Actually, the PP requirements are exempted in the recent new lypses, if I remember correctly.
Not for London, where they had the additional rule that any photos you took in London, even if you arrived a few days early or stayed a few days after the 'lypse had to go to the Getty family. Same in Tokyo. The next Milan 'lypse requires all photos taken during the lypse to go to TS; I don't know about the 'before and after' rule for Milan. They have no need to change the TS rule - they have plenty of people clamouring to go.
13389
« on: July 28, 2011, 04:13 »
I have a few images of people where I don't have a release.
One is this one (for example)
http://yaymicro.com/stock-image/arctic-expedition/1304131?referredBy=leaf
or this one
http://yaymicro.com/stock-image/snowmobile-in-svalbard/1303729?referredBy=leaf
On Alamy, if I say the image has people in it, I have to specify how many and then if I don't have a release for the people it automatically wants to submit as a Rights Managed image. Other times it is just a hand detail of a person or even less of a person where I haven't bothered to get a release. i can't say there are 0 people, but if I say there ARE people I can't submit it as RF. Anyone have a work around?
If it was just that you 'didn't bother' to get the release, could you get one now?
13391
« on: July 27, 2011, 16:48 »
It maybe depends on country, but AIUI in the UK, only certain translations e.g. the KJV/AV, are PD.
13392
« on: July 27, 2011, 10:04 »
Well - I know that now because I've been around a while, and have grown wiser. But I see my 12, 14 and 20 year old nieces getting sucked in by ads, just the same way I was at their ages.
I had NO idea about airbrushing until my then-boyfriend, now-husband told me about it. Ha, well, I was so selfconscious as a teen thinking I was a weird ugly freak, I usually covered myself up totally, so hopefully I've got less sun damage than I might have had (still too much though).
13394
« on: July 27, 2011, 09:04 »
You can watch the videos on their site where a contributor on a conference asked the same question and the CEO clearly states that it doesn't matter if the people are recognizable or not under NO circumstances they will accept pictures with people as RF if there are not released - watch it!
From the buyer's pov it makes little sense, as if they indicate when searching that they want a person, or two people (or whatever) they actually want to see the people, not some little blur way in the background. Of course, if the person is a tiny blur and you want to sell the pic RF, that's not a problem, clone them out.
13395
« on: July 27, 2011, 05:28 »
Thats. definitely the sort of thing I was thinking of although I obviously have no idea whether it will pass muster.
I think I would have said "Victorian style" TBH. And included "swing ride", "fairground" and "carousel". Partly because now or later captions might affect search or 3rd party search engines (who knows ?). Good luck. Great image.
Totally right about Victorian style, so I deleted the resubmission and submitted again from fresh, as I can't see how to resubmit a resubmission, with a note to the inspector. Yes, it does seem weird to have a caption and a description - you'd have to hope there's some sort of plan. Tx again.
13396
« on: July 27, 2011, 04:34 »
Yeah, sorry, I was thinking Shutterstock, where the submission procedure is even more demented than at iStock.
No problem, though you had me totally confused for a while! Oh, and I remember ages ago, no doubt not long after I joined iStock, so probably 2007, reading a thread in the critique forum, that fairground rides and sideshows could not be accepted because of their traditional artwork. So only now with editorial have I even thought of submitting them. But it turns out there are gazillions of photos up there in the main collection, even fairly recently accepted. H*ck, I have loads of these - absolute camera club fodder, but I'd never even thought of submitting them because of that thread. In fact, in checking out things I'm only now submitting as editorial, I'm astonished how many of the subjects are in the main collection, bearing in mind what I've read on that critique forum. Huh.
13397
« on: July 26, 2011, 18:06 »
I just submitted with this caption:
"Bray, Republic of Ireland - 12th July, 2011: People riding on a Chair-o-plane decorated with traditional Victorian artwork on a bright summer day. This sort of chair-o-plane has a tilting head, which adds a wave-like motion to the ride, giving it its alternative name 'waveswinger'.
Tx again. :-)
13398
« on: July 26, 2011, 17:42 »
Oooh, I've never heard the name waveswinger. Wonder if that's an American term? Maybe that's the name the inspector knows for that ride and hadn't heard of the term 'chairoplane'. The CV maps 'chairoplanes' to 'carousel swings' (?!) and waveswinger isn't in the CV, but I'll try adding that as an alternative in the caption and see how it goes. Thanks for the suggestion!
13399
« on: July 26, 2011, 16:40 »
OK, we'll give it a whirl: 
13400
« on: July 26, 2011, 16:30 »
no, but with these images I shouldn't 'need' a release to be sold as regular RF
Nope they're very clear that a teeny tiny person or a part of a person counts as a person. "Why you need releases for people and property To maximise the potential to sell your images for Commercial use. To sell your images Royalty Free. If a person can recognise themselves in an image. Examples when you need a model release also include, crowd scenes, team sports, and scenarios when the face is not visible such as parts of the body, or silhouettes. For a picture of two people shaking hands, where only the hands are in shot, you need two model releases." Source: http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/image-releases.asp
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
