hmm good to know that. Anyway a clipping path for isolated photos is often useless since it simplifies the edges, whereas a channel based mask can take a few minutes and be much more accurate.

Correct about the simplification. On punk hair of a model, it might be a disaster. What do you mean by channel mask exactly and care to explain your workflow? Do you mean the alpha-channel (transparency)? How do you go from isolated in cam to alpha-channel and more important, is that accepted by the sites?

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 11, 2010, 09:08

Correct. If it would be an employment contract, in a collectivist country like Belgium you would have to follow the vast social security legislation and associated red tape pertaining to hiring employees. One of the smaller consequences is that you as an employer are responsible for all accidents on the way going to and returning from "work".

You might want to check into that statement, I think you'll probably find there's a minimum specified number of hours a week an employee has to work for you before that and other considerations like sick and holiday pay become applicable.

Correct, that's what I meant by the social security and social laws' red tape. There is also a minimum wage. Perhaps the UK labour laws are more liberal after Thatcher, but a few continental countries still have very tough employment laws. You certainly don't want to hire a model there as an employee. Laws are so though that for house personnel and job students, they came up with a different arrangement. A (semi-)professional model (in Belgium) is hired, as a far as I know and by the commercial model agencies, as a free-lancer, performer, artist or consultant. The person is not employed but rather her services are paid by an all-inclusive fee, and she has to take care of her own insurance and her own taxes etc... The legal status is totally different and I checked that with a friend that runs a (professional) agency in Antwerp. Of course, laws in other countries may be totally different.

If you want to hire your models under an employer-employee contract, you will have your reasons. Perhaps that you have a much higher volume than a modest microstocker, or perhaps you work very regularly with the same models.

But a simple minimal release as required by the agencies is not a contract in the usual sense, as there are no obligations from both parties mentioned. It is just an authorization from the model, a promise that it will safeguard the photographer and his licensees from liability concerning (commercial) use and alterations, and a recognition that the photographer has the copyright. If it were a contract, the obligations of both parties would be mentioned (like to show up on time and perform as agreed) and each party would have a copy. In principle, a Release just comes in one copy: a simple release/authorization/recognition from the model to the photographer. The photographer promises nothing, not even to use the photos. Protection from slanderous use is not even required (although safer).

Whatever your compensation or contract with the model might be (TFP, free-lance with an independent model-contractor, employee), it is independent from the release itself. It's not the agent's business. I really hate to disagree with you respectfully on this one.

FTR there is no legal definition for 'model release' anywhere in the world, it is a contract between two parties. When you shoot a model they are in your employ and under your direction, if they have an accident it is you they will sue under employment law, if they damage any property belonging to a third party it would be you the employer who would be liable. Like it or not it's an employment contract.

First of all, it's not because it's not a standard thing that a release can't be valid. You can agree/allow anything as long as it's not illegal nor immoral. A Hire to Kill contract can't be used in court if the killer runs away with the money. You can also argue that our case is a cooperation between two artists/independents that work together to produce a result. A good model sometimes takes the lead in free posing or insists on some concepts to be done. In that case the photographer just follows.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess that what you warn for is that any release not intended as an employment contract can and will be deemed like that in a labour court in case an accident happens to the model. I know this happened (in Belgium and in the construction trade) in case of fake-subcontractors deemed employees of the main contractor, that wanted to avoid the high taxes on employment. A key element was the sub-ordinance of the employee vs the independence of a subcontractor. So the verdict will also depend on whether you use a model occasionally or very regularly. A clown with a daily act in a theme park will probably be deemed an employee, while a guest or occasional clown will not.

Thanks for cautioning against this.

Has anyone used a generic release (such as the Getty one? or a generic version of either of the releases available from these sites?) wit success at both sites?

Based on the English Model Release form of Getty (good for stills and video) and with a few insignificant changes in style and some fonts, and replacing the countries of jurisdiction by "(...)", I made a blank MS-Word� 1997-2003 doc format version that you change easily and download clicking this link. It has been accepted by all sites for stills, and I don't see why it wouldn't be suited for video too.

Does anybody has universal MR that is accepted on all sites...?

In Word-format (click to download form). Accepted by everybody. For video and stills. Replace red text by either a state in the US, or your own country (requirement of DT).

Its like "Waiting For Godot"

En attendant Godot, Samuel Beckett

"But that is not the question. Why are we here, that is the question.
And we are blessed in this, that we happen to know the answer.
Yes, in this immense confusion one thing alone is clear. We are waiting for Godot to come."

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 03, 2010, 10:29

He is a fantastic photographer. I know his port by heart and I wish I could reach his level now and then. This place is to learn... not to fight.

Thanks I've never had a stalker before  

I'm actually trying to steal your concepts. 

Thanks for editing that.

It took 5 minutes since I had an electricity brownout. That was Dr. Jekyll.

Are you that egocentric?

He is a fantastic photographer. I know his port by heart and I wish I could reach his level now and then. This place is to learn... not to fight.

Quote from: FD-amateur on February 28, 2010, 07:42

The time of stock is really really really over by now. Yuri Arcurs is sitting near McDonald's with a styrofoam cup, begging for cents. Really. Better get out. Nothing to see here. Move on. Really.  

speak for yourself ;-) but the time to start new in microstock seems to be gone...wouldn't want to be starting from scratch now and as sharply_done said earlier, the more invested you become, and ironically the more your income grows, the closer you keep your cards to your chest.

Sure. Very close. Really. 

Exactly.....that .65 would not possible without photoshop and the digital camera and vacation time..

My most recent EL on SS (last friday) was a shot of a house I took from my kitchen window. I figure the cost of that shoot is slightly less than what Yuri Arcurs spends.  
Of course, I only have one kitchen window, but you can shoot very salable stock just on the way. My favorites are airports and airplanes. They just cost the clicks of the cam, and they are very difficult to copy.
Everything you shoot in studio can and will be copied, if it sells, and they will steal your title and keywords too.

Like I said, nothing inherently wrong with making your money blogging about micro, just don't expect those that stand to lose out from your efforts to help you do it

Well those anonymous contributor referral hunters are quite spammy and annoying on a forum like this. It's a pyramid scheme anyways that requires always more and more contributors. The agents are to blame since contributor referring is useless now that everybody with a cam and his brother already signed up. The agents then could raise our commission with the money they waste otherwise on contributor referral hunters.

Another thing is buyer referrals, which is much more sustainable as a business model and isn't at the expense of the creator. What's more, those people would leave this site alone then and hang out at buyer's or designer forums. It's the kind of blog that Slocke has: a buyers guide.

You could even think about a viable business model just referring buyers, without being a photographer yourself, if you offer some added value to the buyer.
In the tens of millions of images online, it will cost more and more time/$$ for buyers to find the right image, so you can do their image scouting if you are familiar with the different search engines. Somebody posted here a while ago buyers at the moment spend more $$ on finding images than on buying them, because of the price collapse of images.

the thread would really make more sense if we could see the photo you are talking about. The link from the alamy forum, for me anyway, says I don't have permission to see.

Same here. I think you have to be logged in that forum to see it. I also don't see it here since I adblocked all images on the MSG since Leaf really overdid it with the blinking banners. Horrible, I get a headache from it.