|
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
15076
« on: June 28, 2010, 12:47 »
They screwed from the old Veer and broke it.
As in "they veered off course"? Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll fetch me coat.
15077
« on: June 28, 2010, 10:50 »
Mhhh did't thought about that - how do i found out if there is a IP issue with the Clothes? The Top is from Promod (something like H&M).
Probably depends on the inspector you get. Doesn't matter if its a multiple chain store which may have sold gazillions of the dress: it's pretty identifiable. I wouldn't even think about using it for RF.
15078
« on: June 27, 2010, 17:15 »
Anyway - thanks for your help (not you HOLGS you are banned to talk german in this forum forever) here is the first picture from my today's shoot.
We got more than 400 images, most of them are great and usable.
What do you think?
The dress may have IP issues, unless it was made by someone you know and has a PR.
15079
« on: June 22, 2010, 16:17 »
Again, this would be much easier if we could see the actual image, but it looks like they would need to know that you had just put in the words 'Love, Love, Love' youself, and that it isn't the name of an actual movie.
What works on Dreamstime is irrelevant to what will be accepted at iStock, and probably vice versa.
sigh. 'love, love, love' are the actual words on the marquee. i presume that's not allowed either.
Again, without seeing the actual image, it's impossible to say for sure, but I'm guessing that could be an IP issue, and that was what the note from the inspector in your OP was about. That's (potentially) a much bigger issue than the keywording issue. But we haven't seen the picture, so that's just inference.
15080
« on: June 22, 2010, 10:56 »
i appreciate your trying to help but there were no other rejection reasons other than for keywording. it's a photo of a movie marquee with the headliner, 'love, love, love' and they rejected these following keywords:
{[ Film Industry, Movie (Entertainment Event), Movie Theater (Entertainment Building), Movie (Entertainment Event), show, Romance]}
if this is the case, then they've really gone too far. why should i explain everything in the description when they won't allow it in keywords?
it's double arrrrrgh!
Again, this would be much easier if we could see the actual image, but it looks like they would need to know that you had just put in the words 'Love, Love, Love' youself, and that it isn't the name of an actual movie. Also, I think that your keywords are too loose for iStock. Depending on the actual image, 'movie theatre/cinema' might be OK, but not the others. What works on Dreamstime is irrelevant to what will be accepted at iStock, and probably vice versa.
15081
« on: June 22, 2010, 01:59 »
ok, now i've seen everything.
this is the latest rejection reason at is:
"Please provide a focused description for this file. The description should include how the file was created, its subject, location and any valuable technical information regarding the file that may be helpful to the client who may be interested in purchasing your image. Thank you."
it's like they want to limit our keywords but be as verbose as possible in the descriptions. what the?...
That's usually (always?) used if there's something in the image which might be subject to copyright, e.g. a statue, carving, fancy detail on a building, etc. The bit you quoted isn't the 'rejection reason' - that will be given in your rejection email; it's advice on how to resubmit, should you choose. Not knowing what the image is I can't be specific, but for example it could be proving that the contentious item is out of copyright.
15082
« on: June 19, 2010, 03:07 »
I doubt it will affect much at the micro level. Micro users aren't going to wait 2-7 days to pay Getty prices for content.
I wonder if Getty got backup plan? What if image cannot be licensed? Do they offer similar from their collection?
I'm quite sure. After all, what if the image the buyer wanted to buy wasn't up to Getty inspection standards? (the most requested image from my personal website was rejected 'no resubmit' at iStock because of 'flat light' [nothing new there]). Either they're going to lower their standards or they're going to offer backups. Then you've got the question of what if it's a truly unique photo (some unusual aspect of animal behaviour at night, for example). Would they say to the buyer, "No, too many artefacts, too much noise, not up to standard". Which would lead them to contact the author directly, which would have been better for the author from the outset (100%).
15083
« on: June 15, 2010, 18:52 »
Can anyone manage to be able to do a simple search without the website loading for 1 minute ?
Yup: 34823 'cat' images in about ten seconds. 
15084
« on: June 15, 2010, 18:14 »
Just got in.
Ooooh, I got a message this time saying it would be closed from 5.00 until 5.15 MST, which I'm guessing will end in about a minute!
15085
« on: June 15, 2010, 18:08 »
Wow awesome, I have 15 images a year to upload and it's today that I can't sign in Waaaaarrrggg!!
^^^^
You must have hacked someone off! But yes, I find I've been logged out and can't get logged in again. There was notice of some site maintenance, but it apparently ended two hours ago ...
15086
« on: June 14, 2010, 17:29 »
here is the problem with the keywording limitations and the disambiguation process at is.
for a photo with a chocolate colored labrador (dog), you can't use the word chocolate because it's not considered a color and it's not a sweet. however i just got a maximum credit sale at dreamstime where the buyer searched specifically after 'chocolate labrador'. for people who know labradors, 'brown' just ain't gonna cut it.
these are the frustrations one face with is every time you upload and it's getting old.
So instead of using chocolate, labrador (dog), why not use "chocolate labrador"? 422 images already have the tag "chocolate labrador".
15087
« on: June 13, 2010, 07:02 »
Hi gostwyck,
never heard before. That really su..s. I seem to remember, that you can opt-out the pay-as-you go option
That would be insane (see below): However, looking at the 'how to buy stock' page, it says: Pay-as-you-go: credits as low as 95c. Subscriptions: credits as low as 24c. Corporate Accounts (PAYG, presumably): credits as low as 29c. I guess you could have got someone with an old corporate account, or like Sean suggests, it's a mistake.
15088
« on: June 12, 2010, 03:05 »
Hey,
Are successful pictures successful from the start? Is there a some kind of statistical sign, that tells you when the picture will or will not sell? Like if it doesn`t get a download in 50 viewings, it will be a failure. Or there are no such rules.
I guess you'll get different answers from everyone, so the answer is probably no link. My BS (totally unexpected!) didn't sell for three weeks after upload; my very few images which have sold off the acceptance queue haven't gone on to do well. I've got one file which is making me really curious. Taken a long time ago as a 35mm slide with a film compact camera (!!!) it sat for ten months without a download, then eleven months before its next, then it's had 18 dls in relatively quick succession, pushing it into my 'most popular files'. (Yeah, I know that some people would delete a file which had so few dls: it's all relative- as gaja says - I'm nowhere near these figures!). I have no idea why. Maybe there was a rival better photo which was deactivated?
15089
« on: June 10, 2010, 10:34 »
What if...
If you put your best seller in Exclusive +, then the customers will buy a non Exclusive + that look similar to yours. Is this true or not?
You never know. I've got two similars, one Vetta, the other not and the Vetta has outsold the non-Vetta by miles, and is in many more private lightboxes. I put my best-seller into Exc+ and left its lower selling sister image as normal exc. The Exc+ one is still outselling the other at about the same rate as when they cost the same. I've been careful not to put anything into Exc+ where there is a rival which IMO is equal to or better than mine.
15090
« on: June 05, 2010, 08:52 »
I don't get what the problem is? Is it that they are using a ThinkStock image?
Where is "big" difference for us, between my image on free site or my image under subscriptions...?
Maybe free site brings more popularity for me than the subscription site, there I am just a one drop in the Ocean...
The buyer at TS knows that for a pittance, their pics have MRs or PRs if necessary. Not usually the case if offered freely.
15091
« on: June 05, 2010, 08:50 »
BBC were using Thinkstock images from the start. I guess they've got their licence payers (including me) to think about. I can just imagine the questions at the shareholders meetings if they didn't use the cheapest legally available. Doesn't mean I'm opted in, though.
15093
« on: May 30, 2010, 06:15 »
didn't lumaxart put their whole portfolio up for sale and i thought Iofoto's gone back to doing macro only
Iofoto's had images accepted at iStock this past week.
15095
« on: May 30, 2010, 03:29 »
I had prsumed the post Sean links to had expired - all I can get is a links portal, from at least 12 hours ago. Tried clicking through and cutting and pasting.
15096
« on: May 27, 2010, 15:57 »
On a sidenote: can anyone tell me why i just had a selfportrait rejected on iS for an outdated MR? i always thought selfportraits were an exception...or did i miss something?
There have been several complaints about this: seems the inspectors aren't all reading the same hymn sheet, or maybe don't realise it's a self-portrait.It was mentioned within the past few days, but can't find it. Post on the Help forum. I've seen suggestions to write bold, red notes in the description that it's a self-portrait, and delete that after acceptance.
15097
« on: May 27, 2010, 13:58 »
I don't calibrate and I haven't a clue what a screen panel is.
Probably says it all!
15098
« on: May 27, 2010, 13:07 »
How about this one:
"The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.
{[ Agave, Agave (Succulent Plant)]}"
Definitely post this one either in the Keywords forum or refer it to Emyerson (Ethan) who works with the inspectors towards better upholding on the keywords standards. Looks like this one was human error.
15099
« on: May 26, 2010, 17:51 »
Repeat post: sorry
15100
« on: May 26, 2010, 17:02 »
I find it quite pathetic that anybody would connect your user name with racism.
Me too. Do they think the same about someone whose surname is White (or Black)? But some of my pupils have told me they had a primary school teacher who insisted on them talking about 'rainbow pencils'. Anyway, good luck with your new 'identity'.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
