Quote from: MarcvsTvllivs on November 21, 2014, 10:27

I am sorry, but that's BS. CC is not a scam, it's been created by one of the most respected intellectual property experts of our time (Prof. Lawrence Lessig, currently of Harvard University)......

CC is indeed a scam because the way it's used in the real world by corporations like Yahoo/Flickr is nothing but a way to grab the fruits of the photographers' work giving nothing back apart ...

well said Hobo.
ironic that some dude from Harvard ( how much is his salary there? btw?)
it smells really, in the same way with universities allowing photo-copying of books,etc without any compensation to the authors,etc...
while all this is going on as "educational", and the students are charge 25 cts a page or whatever.
it fills the pocket of the University, and the respected professor(s) who claim to be protecting the rights of the common good.
intellectual double-speak or whatever they call it. 

I haven't come across a request like this before, but I do think caution is the wise choice in this situation.

Saying that the transaction (even if it were just this one) is "at no risk to you" is not the same as committing to pay for 100% of all legal expenses, hire a lawyer on your behalf, etc. should there be a lawsuit if the client didn't get the required permissions. And committing in a binding legal contract, not just an e-mail from some staffer that wouldn't commit the corporation if they later backed away.

It's not identical, but the case of the stock photograph taken over the Dancing Feet sidewalk art showed that the artist can and did go after the photographer as well as the agency and removing the item from sale didn't resolve anything (the photographer ended up settling, I think, because it got too expensive to defend).

Then when you add that they want a blanket "trust us" permission for future sales, I think you'd have to be very, very trusting to say yes. I wouldn't.

agree with jo ann on this.
there is also the contributor's agreement where it states that the contributor waive the right to hold the agency responsible, or something of words to that effect. so regardless of what others say that it is the end user's responsibility, i would not want to stretch my neck to have to retain a lawyer
in the event it comes back to haunt you.
organizations have deep pockets, and they usually retain a lawyer. i don't know too many stock photographers who could afford that. maybe Yuri Arcur or Lise Gagnon, but we will have to ask them if they would risk doing such a thing. somehow i don't think the commission is going to cover the lawyer's fee in the future event.

so ... just to remind readers that even good companies can fail miserably in a few years.

Nikon and Canon can pretty much follow the same fate if they downplay Sony.

don't forget Samsung too. we keep forgetting that there are really only a handful of lense producers and also that most of the inside of our Nik, Can,etc are really made by Sony, Samsung,etc much like the lenses are made by the Tamron, Sigma, Tokina,etc..  we only pay for carrying a camera with a Nik Can name. much like we pay 5 bucks for drinking a 50 cts coffee with the logo on a plastic cup 

status symbol make a lot of little ppl look important.
p.s.
not tryng to hijack this thread, paulie. i think it is relevant to the future of where cameras are going.

Seems like a lot of people are moving away from Canon and Nikon into Olympus, Fuji and other companies that are offering new and innovative stuff.

I like my Canon and Nikon DSLRs. But I keep going to my Sony NEX-7. I haven't bought a Sony A7R yet because of lack of lenses. But Sony just announced a 24-240mm lens. With that combo I literally would have no need for my Canon or Nikon equipment anymore. In 2015 it's looking like Sony may be my main system and the Canon and Nikon stuff will probably be sold.

What company will your system be in 2015 and is that a change from what you've been using?

ETA: I clarified the wording to say "primarily use". Many people use multiple systems. What's the system you will use most in 2015?

From the early days, going from Rolleiflex medium format to 35mm, I used only Nikon F  then switched to Oly OM2. When we turned digital it took me a long time before I bought one, it was an Oly .
I like the mirrorless Oly as well, although I use it mainly for events photography .
Nikon and Canon will still rule the market because as from days of yore, the sales people told me, Nikon and Canon advertise the most in North Am. On the other side of the world, Pentax is more the favoured name because their glasses are superior and their prices are more realistic.
I am not surprise to see Nik and Can topping the list here, or anywhere else in North Am.

Oly is as superior, as Zuiko optics are used in scientific for ages. Same for Leica, who is now Lumix and Panasonic. But you will still find the masses going with Nik and Can, simply because the sales force are the most reliable .  Pity, because Oly and Pentax are just as good, if not better.
But no one will believe it, much like why Apple and Mac lost out to Microsoft.  The world still revolve around the hype of marketing. As always... like the terrible stuff you hear and see in music and movies, and the terrible food you see everyone eating (food that taste like paper) in the food courts of shopping center worldwide.

as i said in the other thread about using smartphone for stock, if the image is good enough, go for it. using the top of the line most expensive canon or nikon does not make u a better photographer.

the more interesting question would be... are indies making more $ with IS these days... since the change.
i do not see a connection between increase in sales at ss with IS change... because ss images by tradition have always been rejected by IStock reviewers, and vice versa...esp in terms of over-saturation and over post-processing. IStock have always preferred little or no post-processing. for this reason, i cannot see clients suddenly wanting ss images which are more post-processed.
maybe they go to fotolia...as their preference to less processing is similar to IStock.

maybe yahoo is using them. lately all their ads are noise overdrive . they can only be using flckr, as i m certain no site to the right of this page would approve anything with that much noise, ever.

Yup they are getting more picky with DOF and composition rejections

Well sod em they don't make enough moeny to worry about them at all 

they have been off my priority list for months now. but i like to see them wake up resurrected
if possible, as after all there is only them left among the old agencies that used to be competitive.
was there a change of ownership? usually the big guy there is always coming in here whenever someone says anything about the agency. now he is almost invisible, like elvis 
i ask before the CR team of carmen,etc are not there either anymore, and sales plunged after they went nuts on similars and introduced fb like.
maybe this strict review is a sign they r getting serious once again.
i hope so, as they have too in coma too long. 
p.s.
their review time is lengthy too. go figure. u think that no one is uploading there anymore since they comatose-d. wake up , dude!!!

i don't wanna sound like a cheap charlie but neither i'm impressed by the high end gear .. what you see on YOUR screen will never be the same you see in normal situations with cheap screeens.

using cheap screens has this benefit, if it looks like sh-it you can bet it will look like sh-it anywhere else

+10 hobo
i have 3 monitors and really, the best monitor makes my image look good all the time. but the only important thing to me is when i print . i use only my desktop , an ancient workstation for most computer nerds, when i print for my clients.
as you said, if it looks like crap on my old desktop, it will in fact print like crap.

i also use this old desktop to finalise my stock photos. i am only satisfied when it looks good on this dinosaur with the cheapest monitor of the three.

I haven't tested these for color calibration, but have used them:

http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34UM95-P-ultrawide-monitor

The extra-wide format is awesome for multi-tasking (having Photoshop, web pages, server directories, etc..., all side-by-side on one screen).  If you're doing a lot of heavy workflow lifting...moving files back and forth, multitasking with multiple applications and windows, etc..., it's an interesting choice.

The only issue is that they can be hard to find, but they do come up on Amazon at the normal retail price from time to time.

Best,

Scott

and while we got you here , on monitors and calibration. are all ss reviewers required to have
proper monitors?  thus, to ensure when the rejection WB off , at least we all know it is justified

Interesting that most people think an iStock exclusive will make the same or more as a nonexclusive contributor just at SS alone. 

There is strong evidence that this is not true.  The poll to the right shows exclusives make 50% more than at SS.  Sean said that last month he was at 1/2 of what he would probably be making at iStock and that is for SS, GL, Stocksy, +.  Cobalt said she was at 30-40% of what she thought she would be making as an exclusive and that includes many more sites than just SS. 

The other interesting thing is that 43% of people here think that exclusives make less than the average RPI of a SS contributor and 31% think that exclusives have an RPI of nearly 1/3 the average SS contributor.

that's so true. as i said earlier, if OP said "the old IStock", it would be much lower number of images to make 10K than being indie with ss and all the single digit sites combined.

the other point i made (even stocksy cannot compare to ss because there is no history yet),
leaf took it to mean earnings today. but what i mean is it's too early to cheer for stocksy because there is no history stats yet. ie too soon to say stocksy big earning would last.
much in the same way as the exclusives of Old Istock used to make alot more than they do today.

point 1...  only Istock EXCLUSIVES  of pre-Getty ownership can match ss in earnings, or better.
point 2...  ss is more successful in the way that it is not just top-heavy. meaning, most contributors , little or big, are making money with them.
that is not so with stocksy today, i am sure.

as pixelbytes and uncle pete said correctly. Apples and Oranges and rotten bananas.  flawed and irrelevant.

Some very interesting posts and points here, but unfortunately this kind of conversation doesn't lead anywhere.
"Achieving $10,000/month" implies there is some sort of stability where there is none. Bestselllers die or are killed by search engine changes.

Does portfolio size matter if you want to grow your earnings? Well, yes it does, but more important is how many files you have on the first pages of most popular sorts, the demand for those searches where you rank high and the overall search ranking of the rest of your portfolio. People with large portfolios tend to shoot the same subjects, the same genres over and over again and therefore their files compete with one another.

I have a pretty good RPI at SS but it used to be much better. Nowadays it is much more difficult to reach the top of the first page of most popular. My bestseller was No. 1 of a very popular search for 2 years or longer and was killed with a flick of a switch.

I still upload to SS from time to time, but only cheap images that don't have much value to me + videos. I think it is time to move on and find greener pastures. The rapid growth of the SS collection makes it ...unsustainable. I learned a lot at SS and I like them but I don't see there much potential for growth in the current model and pricing scheme.

My best new work goes to Stocksy and other places where I see much better growth potential. I will continue to upload low-value stuff to SS and continue to look for new ways to earn money with my cameras.

my sentiments exactly. i bolded the points you hit the nail on the head.
but i have to stand up for ss here on your last statement re low-value stuff to ss .
as anal as i am to some , i am not an anti-SS-er. the misconception there if anyone thinks that, but really i don't give NFA if they think so.
but ss is the only earner for most if not all of us here. if not, we would see more sites in the 90s, or even +50% instead of the pathetic single digit for ages since their inception.
i don't agree that ss deserves only the low-value stuff.  ss is not giving us just 33 cts or pennies in spite of the great misconception. as pointed out, we do earn 28, 50, 80, 105 dollars as well.

as i said, i wish every site is as consistent as ss USED TO BE. they only started to be inconsistent after they went public. much like istock used to be consistent until the owner has an idea to sell it to Getty.
as for the flip of the switch re top sellers on page 1, even that could be amended
for us to cheer for ss longevity . afaik, no other site would even allow your top seller to stay on pg1 at all, unlike ss when once your seller is on pg1 u r more likely to see it remain as a perennial seller.
all it takes is for ss to stop fooling around with their switches , stop the crazy approval/rejection en masse ,etc... and we would all be back to being ss cheerleaders, me being the first one.
like it or not, no one else, not even stocksy can equal ss  just yet, as no one has earned the reputation with a history like ss,
except for the old IStock.

From my peak, I'd say about 1/6, from a more normal average, probably about 1/4.  As I've said before, a lot of that came from the Agency collection sales, which wouldn't be there now.  Add that to all the recent drops I read of though, I'm guessing I'm doing about 1/2 of what I'd currently make if still exclusive.  Who knows.

nice 2 hear u r getting back there, SLP.
it's reading things like this from SLP that makes me feel how IS eff-up bigtime. how could u screw it up when ur agency was doing so well?
like most businesses that went under, greed kills the golden goose.