|
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
14126
« on: February 23, 2011, 09:28 »
Sorry if my measurements don't confirm your own assumption that your work isn't selling because of the nasty best match.
Whatever made you assume I was thinking that?
14127
« on: February 23, 2011, 08:55 »
I don't see any change at all. If I view the first 100 images of my own port, sorted by best match, then about 30% are images uploaded within the last 6 months and have sales. I think the difficulty in new images gaining sales is just down to how many images there are for the buyer to choose from nowadays.
There's a difference in how best match works within our own port and how it works sitewide. Don't shoot the messenger!
14128
« on: February 23, 2011, 08:10 »
"If you get cold feet, you can cancel your Exclusive contract with 30 days notice, after providing us with a reason ("it's not you, it's me"). And we'll always take you back, with a 90 day reinstatement waiting period."
Whereas the balance of probability will be "it's not me, it's you."
14129
« on: February 22, 2011, 18:18 »
Reported via the forums. It seems that all whose images have been stolen have been contacted directly. Interesting that this theft has been done via legitimate log-ins. http://www.photoarchivenews.com
14130
« on: February 22, 2011, 14:06 »
It seems like its that time of the year where they jiggled the best match to show more older files. Ive been getting some dls on older files recently. Am i the only one noticing this? I would like to hear from others if they experienced this lately. Maybe this explains the newer files not getting views... besides all the f5 disaster.
It's been months that new files have been sinking like stones in the best match - maybe even as far back as F5, but definitely since Nov. Must be due a reshuffle soon.
14131
« on: February 22, 2011, 11:43 »
How much does it cost to hire a plane?
EDINBURGH CITYSCAPE WITH ARTHUR'S SEAT, SCOTLAND
We are looking for an image of Edinburgh cityscape over Arthur's seat (it should be in the background but with quite a prominent view).
It would be used for editorial purposes online as well as on national press (newspapers)up to a year.
Budget:
Cover, full page: UK200 (full page, cover of book, magazine or brochure)
The elevated view of Edinburgh is generally shot from the edge of Arthur's Seat. To get Arthur's Seat in the foreground, you'd need to be in a plane above the hill. How could you shoot the cityscape 'over Arthur's Seat' with AS in the background? If AS was in the background, the city would be at the front with the hill in the background, and that would be not be the cityscape 'over Arthur's Seat'.
There are a few classic views of the city 'from' Arthur's seat on iStock, and no doubt other sites.
14132
« on: February 22, 2011, 08:01 »
Mr. Barton probably thinks that more expensive photos = higher income for poor and exploited artists.
I think that more expensive photos = much more stolen photos and no income for no more exploited but even poorer artists.
Oh, I don't know. There were very many micro photos stolen over the Christmas period, no income for poor artists and goodness knows where they'll pop up.
14134
« on: February 22, 2011, 05:38 »
Thank you all.
I have written to each of these, with trepidation as to costs.
The second-last thing I need is a big insurance bill!
Update:
First reply: MorganRichardson don't offer the cover alone, i.e. without also covering your photo equipment. My gear is covered, and I don't really want to double up on costs. Holding on that one.
14135
« on: February 22, 2011, 05:15 »
One of the biggest problems with the site in my opinion is it looks like a Soviet-era apartment complex. The owner really needs to look at what he's competing against, and realize the packaging as important as what's inside, if not more so. It isn't 1995 anymore.
Indeed. Just take iStock's "cutting edge" site design and functionality as an example. 
14136
« on: February 21, 2011, 19:18 »
I could be wrong, but I don't believe that those images are photos.
If you look at the artist's portfolio, you will also find the following images that are supposedly made from water:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-26376511/stock-photo-one-letter-of-water-alphabet.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-23551471/stock-photo-one-letter-of-water-alphabet.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-28794496/stock-photo-one-letter-of-water-alphabet.html
Oh, my wiki finger is twitching at the keywords on the first of these. Didn't check out the rest. because of the poor keywording, it's impossible to know for sure, but 'ink' is one of the keywords, so it could be orignially hand-drawn, which was my first impression when the page came up. I can't see where the author claims the image is 'made from water'. She just says it's 'one letter of water alphabet', like you could draw a wooden alphabet, or an acrylic alphabet, or ...
14137
« on: February 21, 2011, 17:43 »
Any more suggestions? This is driving me nuts! 
Take out a Support Ticket: but they're at least two weeks behind.
14138
« on: February 21, 2011, 17:01 »
Hmmmm.
I got an editorial rejection for poor light. Yet again. Nothing unusual there.
What was unusual was the additional message from the inspector:
+++Staged shots are more appropriate for the royalty-free collection and should not be submitted to editorial.
This is odd on several fronts:
1. The shot was not staged.
2. Presumably if it had been staged with perfect 'istock lighting' it wouldn't have been rejected for poor light. They can't have it both ways.
2b. What about all those people who were going to do model shoots, with studio lighting, with models carrying e.g. a can of coke. That was going to be OK for editorial, to my astonishment. Is that not 'set up'?
2b2. As well as two people in the photo (one possibly /uzzy/small enough to pass, one recognisable by context), there were three recogniseable aeroplanes (one of which was the real 'point' of the photo), which I'm assuming would be easily recogniseable to anyone who knows anything about these things. Plus any number of branded items, as it was a natural, unstaged photo.
3. Worst of all, note the wording:
+++Staged shots are more appropriate for the royalty-free collection and should not be submitted to editorial.
Don't even the specialist editorial inspectors know that istock's editorial collection is being sold Royalty Free?
(I'm not scouting it. I'm not surprised at the usual 'natural light' rejection.)
14139
« on: February 20, 2011, 15:38 »
I used the thumbnails that I see when I browse my portfolio, then used a very simple UBB code. The syntax they are using for the thumnails is now different and caused this mess.
Oh, I think I read about the UBB change. Drives me nuts. On my blog page, I can't seem to close the spaces between my banners, which looks silly. I was back in last night fiddling about, but the spaces reappear every time.
14140
« on: February 20, 2011, 15:20 »
slainte Liz - I almost said that before but I wasn't sure if you had used your name here! great use, way to go!
My identity's not a secret. I used SoopySue on iStock because it seemed at that time that everyone had a pseudonym, and I thought it was a rule. So having use that, I chose ShadySue on here. My iStock link is up, no problem.
14142
« on: February 20, 2011, 15:00 »
Thanks Sue,
that's what i thought about Alamy. Would it be ok then to submit the same editorial image as RF in istock and RM in Alamy? I see agencies like Zoonar for example selling the images as RF or/and RM according to use.
It's up to you. I don't do it, and in fact last night I deactivated an editorial I'd just had accepted on iStock because I decided it was probably too close to one I have on to Alamy. It's difficult to make choices of what to send where to see what will work.
14143
« on: February 20, 2011, 11:40 »
I have some photos i want to upload as editorial but i'm wondering what the strategy should be on each site.
For example a picture like the one linked by Sue can be submitted on istock as editorial but can you submit the same image on Shutterstock? Or they reject anything not considered newsworthy?
Also Alamy - would they accept an image like this as RF with restrictions or should it be RM because of the people?
Any ideas? It would be nice to be able to submit an editorial image to all agencies accepting them but can it be done?
I know nothing about SS, so someone else can answer. If you submitted either of these pics to Alamy, they would have to be RM because you'd need both property releases and model releases for RF. Alamy does not sell editorial RF.
14144
« on: February 20, 2011, 07:12 »
I have thrown in my crown. As both a buyer and a contributor, I am not happy with the site from both sides.
...
The site is a quagmire and nothings seems to work...yet they keep launching new things without ever fixing the others. They fix one thing and have no idea that it that it breaks 3 others things. The inner ranks of the people that run that place are so connected, cover each others asses and half of them should have been gone long ago. an option to "exclude editorial images" in the search but cant seem to add that for vetta,
The moderators are at most times rude to the contributors and their attitudes are at times abusive and condescending. ...
Well thought out post, sadly accurate about the current state of affairs at iStock. Good luck with your new endeavours and keep us posted.
14145
« on: February 20, 2011, 05:37 »
Hey, I just got my first editorial sale, so as I cant woo-way in the forum there, I'll just woot here.
:-)
congratulations! that's exciting. I have about 30 images up for editorial so far, more in queue. It's taken some time to go through my backups for editorial images to upload. looking forward to my first editorial sale too. which image was it of yours? give us a pimp...
Well, since you asked  http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=15662150and by sheer coincidence, my long-standing Alamy pic, used on a newspaper website since 12th October, was just reported (not paid!) on Alamy yesterday, also a photo I took at Edinburgh Airport: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/8058576/British-citizens-top-list-for-visa-free-travel.htmlunder the newspaper scheme (i.e. <$8 to me). Apparently it was a web-only use. I'm surprised they buy images, even under the scheme, only to put on their free-to-view website. Good luck with your editorial. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
14146
« on: February 19, 2011, 19:34 »
Hey, I just got my first editorial sale, so as I cant woo-way in the forum there, I'll just woot here.
:-)
14147
« on: February 19, 2011, 19:32 »
I'd suggest checking out subscription sales, but the link seems to have gone from the left hand column, with everything else from that column, sometime this afternoon, UK time. Maybe someone else knows where it's gone.
14148
« on: February 19, 2011, 18:03 »
My stats say I had one sale in January and one in February that I don't see in the "My uploads" page. I checked the dollar bin sales too.
One of the sales was on Feb 7th, and I checked the files sold afterwards, checked all their tabs (partner, etc).
So, where can I find the mystery sales? I think this has happened before. 
Were they big(gish) sales? Have you checked for ELs?
14149
« on: February 19, 2011, 17:29 »
I can't see where the objection is - I think each of these El options is possible for editorial images. In some cases such as items for sale its probably less likely, but still a possibility.
Yep, there are legitimate uses for all those things for editorial.
Really?
"Advertisements in newspapers, magazine, or other printed material
Web/digital advertisements
Printed promotional projects including product packaging, catalogues, brochures, promotional greeting cards, promotional postcards and promotional posters "
It looks like a really, really slippery slope. As that's the same page as 'commercial images' ELs, with no reminders about editorial uses, it could easily be that someone could 'forget where they are'. At least if it was coloured 'istock-editorial-red and it was explained what particular kinds of adverts etc could use editorial images.
For editorial images?
The things you're quoting are only examples of where the "Unlimited reproduction/print run" license applies - its not a type of extended license in itself.
of course not, but the wording implies that it would be OK to use editorial files in these uses if an EL was purchased. It totally contradicts the warnings on the files page. 'Ignorant' or disingenuous buyers could think that wording meant if they paid more money they could use them in ads etc, because that's what it says on this page.
14150
« on: February 19, 2011, 14:39 »
Can't change your Paypal account or they refuse to pay you fail.
I changed my paypal account info and tried to request a payment last week. They form gave me an error that my paypal account wasn't "confirmed". I can't send it to the old address as Paypal has the new one. Sent a message to support asking how to fix it but all I got was the auto "Thanks for emailing us".
They seem to be swamped under at the moment. I've got an open Support ticket since 7th Feb. They do tend to 'disappear', though, so keep an eye on your open tickets list.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
