|
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
15026
« on: August 17, 2010, 02:01 »
Yeah, I would absolutely agree. If you are just going to shoot what there is tons of on the micro sites then you will be waiting a long time for decent returns. If you want to actually get decent sales you have to find a hole.
But also, it has to be a hole that buyers want filled. I can tell you that it's no use having the only image of something if the market has no interest in that something.
15027
« on: August 10, 2010, 06:05 »
The general advice on Alamy's forums is that you set for 'no release' and that's enough. That's what I knew. I think I even got an email from Alamy saying so when I was asking questions about the need of PR in some cases.
The problem for me is that sometimes I may not know when a PR is needed.
Yes, it's weird. I tend to tick 'yes' if it's anything other than a pure wildlife/landscape shot, even if I'm pretty sure it would be accepted by iStock. However, I am thinking about the Editorial market, so although I could be losing sales, probably not that many.
15028
« on: August 10, 2010, 05:15 »
If setting as RM, you don't need to set it editorial only, just say a release is required and that you don't have it.
Hi madelaide,
for me, that's incorrect. http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/image-licences.asp.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, when you're setting RM alamy says:
"Releases: You must have model and property releases for relevant subject matter in an image. If you dont have them you can set restrictions to licence the image for Editorial use only."
That's interesting (second part). The general advice on Alamy's forums is that you set for 'no release' and that's enough. I've unset my restrictions based on that general advice - given that a) I've asked here and elsewhere for a link to an editorial only release, and haven't had any replies b) there isn't any way that I've seen that you can indicate that a release is valid for editorial use only. It is up to the buyer to find out if their particular use is permissible (via their support team, if necessary).
15029
« on: August 10, 2010, 05:08 »
I really don't have problems in accepting images with natural light. I have only few isolations in my port, and they are old. Lately, I almost don't have rejections on IS, and those few that I have are not because of lighting.
Yebbut your images were taken in 'iStock-y' light; mine were in rainforest.
15030
« on: August 09, 2010, 15:57 »
Funny, I got my first version of this scam over the weekend:
Dear Photographer,
Pleese I will want to hire your service to be the photographer on my wedding day in London. I am sorting an america photographer because I really want to make the wedding event a wonderfull day for my fiance. I truely love her.
Terry Lorenzo
Everybody in the UK knows you can't have a wonderfull (sic) wedding event without an 'america' photographer. 
15031
« on: August 09, 2010, 08:49 »
I started reading some of the comments at the end of the site. Bad mistake. I posted a few myself, but really it is kind of pointless. But it does show the level of ignorance out there regarding intellectual property. And some posts show just plain ignorance. 
Welcome to the World Wide Web 
15032
« on: August 09, 2010, 08:34 »
Looks and sounds like a scam, though a bit more 'personalised' than usual. I do tend to distrust all unsolicited emails, though. First of all, check their email address. If they're bona fide wine retaillers, probably they have a website. That could also be fake, of course, but without that, you've got nothing to go on. If they've got a site, google it and see if you've got any references to it. (Once I saw an advert in a paper magazine which sounded far too good to be true. It didn't really matter to me, but it was so scam-like, I checked it out online and it seemed to be genuine. Subsequently, I've heard about the featured company from various other sources as genuine, so maybe I'm too cautious.) Triggers in the email you received, however are the To and from email addresses. Can't imagine a good reason why they'd be the same, and the 'where are you so that we can estimate how close' - why don't they tell you where they are to allow you to decide if you'd be willing to go out that far? They are relocating to the States on the 12th and are having a wedding anniversary celebration on the 15th with 12 family members? H*ll, they must be millionaires. In real life, wouldn't they either hold their celebration beforehand or postpone their relocation. Three days after moving country, they're having an anniversary party? Well, I guess it's possible. Anyway, would you want to work with someone who refers, to a total stranger, to their 'lovely daughter Debbie', no matter how lovely she might be?
15033
« on: August 09, 2010, 04:06 »
I seem to have to make more clicks to be able to do the things I've always done. But I'm not a buyer; hopefully that doesn't apply also to buyers' workflow.
A lot of 'search' features are either unimproved from before or worse. That will impact buyers. :-(
15034
« on: August 08, 2010, 04:02 »
In addition, Creative Network sounds more sophisticated than Friends. Many people in the former CN cannot be said as friends at all. Only a few have become friends. To think everyone in your CN is a friend is a bit pre-mature.
Agreed, 'friends' is so downmarket Facebook-like. They're probably trying to appeal to a much younger audience.
15035
« on: August 08, 2010, 03:08 »
I think that while ago I see in Stokas and other sites TOS that you can use they small watermarked image in you jabbering or blogging within any cost!!!
Wrong. the small watermarked images are so that designers can 'comp' them in a potential design to see how it would look, or to pitch to clients (however, some prefer not to pitch a watermarked image). At least that's on iStock. I haven't a clue about the others.
15036
« on: August 07, 2010, 03:00 »
I recently heard a buyer say that they usually bought from microstock, but they could not find the shot they wanted simply because all they could find was posed studio shots and none looked candid. They were finding it more and more difficult to find what they needed because of this. These candid shots are what microstock calls...snapshots. In some cases they are snapshots, but the microstock agencies need to realize that not all the buyers want that posed studio shot. It just doesn't look real to a lot of buyers so they shop elsewhere.
I've received a lot of rejections, Donna, just for trying to produce and provide such shots. I admit, however, it is very difficult to get the kind of "microstock lighting" in unstaged setups that most agencies (and buyers) expect.
There are requests from time to time on iStock to provide less 'posed' images, but the replies always show that it's the cheesy, 'microstock-y' shots which sell really well, and the candid-like ones get very few sales. And yes, iStock for one is really, really clamping down on natural light, even for natural history shots. I was at over 90% acceptance for about two years, and recently am down to about 50%, and there are several other references to this on different forums, even from golds and diamonds. Looks like studio lights is going to be all that they'll accept soon. (Strange decision: I know that none of my best selling shots would be accepted now (film scans with a blue/cyan cast or my BS from the G9, which subsequently got nothing but rejections), but they're still vastly outselling my recent acceptances, with no requests for refunds.)
15037
« on: August 03, 2010, 04:27 »
He said that "Palm Springs Walk of Stars" is a copyrighted name. I think you can copyright the name, why not? NIKE is also copyrighted, right?
Copyright is assigned to an original work which has been fixed in tangible form, such a painting, music, sculpture and yes photo. Note that I said Original work.
You cannot copyright a name or a title according to US Copyright law, and international treaties and conventions swing this way too. You could however, Trademark a Title or Name.
Nike is a trademark, not a copyright. It's important to understand the differences.
Can you please explain what the differences are, only relating to submitting images as RF, non-editorial stock.
15038
« on: August 02, 2010, 13:33 »
I did get a rejection of a coal power plant as "not newsworthy". I'll resubmit and see what happens.
Shows all they know. I'm running the website for a campaign against a proposed local coal power station and there are many similar campaigns in the UK at present. ( http://www.conchcampaign.org/links.html) The iStock images at the time were far too 'pretty' (taken at sunset), but I found a superbly suitable photo on Flickr to use. I'd have 'no confidence' in anyone that said that one of the biggest current environmental issues 'isn't newsworthy'.
15039
« on: August 01, 2010, 05:04 »
Dreamframer had the best reply. But here are some additional comments.
There are signs posted all over the Sistine Chapel forbidding even private photography. And, when I was there, guards making people put away even their mobile phones lest they would take a picture. I'm no expert on Vatican City law to know whether this would, in fact, be enforceable. There is a lot to suggest that statements in the UK that photos may not be used commercially have no basis in law, particularly when the image is taken from a public place. But who wants to be the guinea pig? Certainly, none of the agencies.
15040
« on: July 30, 2010, 05:44 »
What Gostwyck said, plus they said at the beginning the program was to attract new buyers. As an exclusive, the idea of 'stealing' some of SSs buyers that we wouldn't otherwise have access to was attractive. However, soon after the launch, they bulk-mailled some of the biggest iStock buyers suggesting that they might like to consider Thinkstock instead. As a business move, I can't see how that made sense (except for the wholly-owned content aspect of course), but it certainly broke my trust.
@Dook: to a great degree that's true, but only yesterday I noticed that two of my Dollar Bill files, which had never sold in the main collection, have sold 74 and 65 (or vv!) times respectively in the DB. Of course, I've got plenty files in there which haven't sold.
@Allsa: another thing to remember is that old files can sell eventually, maybe only a few times, or maybe something happens. This week I sold one of my very first uploads from the first time since Jan '07. And even at XS it was a lot more than I'd get in the PP. There have been several first time sales of files uploaded in 2007 this month, which has been an all-time low month for numbers of sales (for me). Also, I had a 'sleeping' file: uploaded in Nov '07, it got one sale in Sept 08, then a whole year until its next sale, but it is now selling a couple of times a month. Not Black Diamond status by any means, but still better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
Anyway, although I opted out after the bulk email went out, and am still out, I'm keeping a watching brief. There may come a time ... (I wish they'd allowed us to submit our 'natural light' images which were rejected for being 'too flat'.)
15041
« on: July 29, 2010, 15:28 »
...Naturally, when you put it in your website, people will think those are your own photos.
Unless he did it intentionally to deceive people, I don't see how anyone with even a little common sense would not know that is wrong. But as my sister-in-law just reminded me the other day, I do not suffer fools lightly.
I can assure you that the vast majority of people don't even question whether it's wrong, especially if you're not making any money off them (e.g. putting them on your personal website). I think many people would know it was wrong to pretend they were your own images though, but I certainly know that among many young people I come into contact with (I'm a teacher), lying and cheating (in whatever forms) don't have the same moral 'low ground' as they did when I was young.
15042
« on: July 29, 2010, 02:01 »
how about in getty and corbis..or other RM agencies, are they requesting upsized images as well? I have no idea what is the reason to upsize an image..
Getty for sure, yes.
15043
« on: July 28, 2010, 08:45 »
I also think contributor performance should somehow be factored in. If a contributor has good sales performance it probably means they're submitting quality sellable images and should be given preference. If they have really poor sales performance over a long period of time it may indicate they're submitting crap and/or aren't learning to improve. This might help to keep poor images from the front. And will start weeding out people who are submitting stuff that isn't up to par.
They did this heavily a few months back on iStock (promoted small port/high sales ratio). It didn't work out because some of these files were very badly keyworded, so the keyword relevancy went out of the window. (on the model that if a photo of an apple was keyworded apple, pear, plum, it was appearing highly in searches for plums).
15044
« on: July 28, 2010, 07:12 »
@Suljo: If you'd ever shown a potential (albeit probably small, but steady) buyer iStock, and let them search to see how it worked, and the search result (because of poor keywording) was so bad they were calling their colleagues over for a laugh, you'd wish that everyone who spammed their keywords would have a six-month ban. Of course, that was before BM2, which has obviated some of the worst excesses. But then came Vetta, where a lot of the keywording is poor, but it dominates the search results.  PS: granted that keywording if your own language isn't one of the supported languages must be a real nightmare.
15045
« on: July 28, 2010, 02:16 »
Hi all, so if i am using a 6MP camera or my file is cropped and less than 24MB uncompressed size, does alamy still accept if i upsize them to 24MB?
Yes, subject to not being SOLD etc.
15046
« on: July 26, 2010, 14:07 »
Thanks for this posting, It's the most convincing post against iStock exclusivity I've seen. I've just had yet another two 'poor lighting' rejections and am getting seriously hacked off. If only I had more time ...
15047
« on: July 23, 2010, 03:49 »
The use of her picture with the word vampire is not nice too. You don't want your daughter or girl friend to be used in a title like Vampire Weekend.
My thinking is this.
You or anyone else may not think it's nice, but it's a perfectly acceptable use for RF images. That's why you need to be very careful that you need to explain very carefully to your model the enormous range of uses their image could be used for - whether it's your daughter/girlfriend or a complete stranger.
15048
« on: July 04, 2010, 13:21 »
Isn't what editorial? The shots are not for editorial usage only. As far as I know buyers don't have to credit the agency or the photographer.
If from iStock, the terms and conditions state that if an image is used for editorial, both must be credited. "4. Standard License Prohibitions (a) Prohibited Uses. You may not do anything with the Content that is not expressly permitted in the preceding section or permitted by an Extended License. For greater certainty, the following are Prohibited Uses and you may not: [snip 1-12] 13. use the Content for editorial purposes without including the following credit adjacent to the Content: iStockphoto.com/Artists Member Name]" If from Thinkstock: License Information 5. Credit and Intellectual Property. [snip 5.1 - 5.2] 5.3 Photo Credit. All Licensed Material used in an editorial context, must include the following credit line adjacent to the Licensed Material: "[Photographer's Name]/[Collection Name]/Thinkstock" or as otherwise shown on the Thinkstock website. If Licensee omits the credit, an additional fee in an amount up to one hundred percent (100%) of the License Fee may be payable by Licensee, at Thinkstocks sole discretion. The foregoing fee shall be in addition to any other rights or remedies that Thinkstock may have at law or in equity.
15049
« on: July 04, 2010, 10:42 »
I was reading Science online and saw this beautiful image credited to IS/TS - but shouldn't the photographer be credited as well?
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/06/scienceshot-the-brilliant-wings-.html
Probably, but here's the strange thing. TinEye shows that image as being on both iStock and Getty, which I thought was absolutely verboten. <checks>Actually, it's showing as 'no longer available' on Getty, so maybe someone else found it before me!
15050
« on: July 04, 2010, 05:33 »
Kone said everything in his post...
On Tuesday, my photos will be for maybe ONLY 25 cents to 90 000 copies of the map ....
It is time to think about all the what, where , when and how ...
My portfolio isn't big, so probably photo like this would not be sold to the macro, probably I would not have any money so far...
But, in the future we all have to think about it.... What is for micro and what for macro market...
Still, problem is in micro licensing, too wide spread of use...
You have also to think of who really reads the licenses. I get about one EL every two months. Nice. But I bet we should all get lots more, but either people hope they won't be caught, or they don't really read the terms and conditions. Example: at work, we have an 'acceptable computer use' policy. I actually read it, because I tend to hop onto istock on my breaks and wanted to be sure I wasn't going to be summarily dismissed. Anyway, I was pretty sure it said, "limited non-work use of the email facility". Well whether I had deluded myself about that, or whether the 'acceptable use' had changed and no-one told us, an employee at another base was censured for using the email system for private emails (no suggestion of 'debatable' content, and only one private email was mentioned, so hardly 'over-use'). When we were told this at a staff meeting, we were all astonished. Not one of us (c80) had noticed that on the t&c. Yet every time we log on we have to click that we have read and accepted the t&c.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
