|
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
15401
« on: January 07, 2010, 02:39 »
@OP:
If you think that's daft, I got a categorical assurance from an admin/inspector that if vandals grafittied my house, they wouldn't accept a photo of it if they decided it looked too 'arty' (subjective call) because of the artist's rights. Bring 'em on, I say!
I guess if they did, they and I could be 'profiting from crime'.
15402
« on: January 04, 2010, 17:50 »
Done.
Time spent is (at least for me) real time spent doing photos or uploading. It excludes hours spent watching sales and reading forums, which are much more 
Claude
That's only too true. 
15403
« on: January 04, 2010, 05:56 »
Done. Difficult to interpret the stats without giving the full info (e.g. last year's results blog). After all, a person who has an RPI of $10 might be actually earning less than someone with an RPI of $1 if their expenses (money and time) in setting up a shoot are vastly greater.
15404
« on: January 03, 2010, 14:48 »
Not to rain on the parade of these pretty piecharts, but how much use is this unless people post the size of their port at each agency, and how long they've been there?
15405
« on: January 03, 2010, 09:35 »
It is a tad ridiculous that if you're an exclusive photographer there you can't do anything you like with your raster illustrations, even if iStock wouldn't want them or they wouldn't sell well there.
You could sell them as RM.
Of course, or as prints, but that may not be what 'one' wants to do.
15406
« on: January 03, 2010, 06:56 »
This is another reason why I can't go exclusive with any one site: lack of creative freedom. As one one who produces mostly raster illustrations, I would not want to be confined to iStock's (or any other micro site's) narrow aesthetic.
It is a tad ridiculous that if you're an exclusive photographer there you can't do anything you like with your raster illustrations, even if iStock wouldn't want them or they wouldn't sell well there. Just like vectors, if you're an iStock photo exclusive.
15407
« on: December 31, 2009, 19:50 »
Happy new year. never stop shooting !
Incredible: the caption to that pic reads: "AP photographer Emilio Morenatti takes pictures as he is carried on a stretcher out of the University of Maryland Medical Center's R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center to be transferred to the Kernan Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Hospital in Baltimore, Tuesday Aug. 25, 2009. Morenatti, whose left foot was amputated after a bomb blast in Afghanistan, was transferred Tuesday to a rehabilitation hospital in Baltimore, where he will be fitted for a prosthesis." (AP Photo/Enric Marti)
15408
« on: December 31, 2009, 05:28 »
For somebody who is late for the party: where on IS can I opt out? I cannot find anything...
You should be opted out as default. It was one of the things we fought about when the scheme was introduced, when they proposed that everyone was opted in by default. However, if you go into your Control Panel (link very top right, beside language and logout), then click 'Contributer' (Left hand column), the Partner opt in/out button is right in the middle of the page.
15409
« on: December 29, 2009, 19:31 »
Anyone know a reasonable UK based insurer?
15410
« on: December 29, 2009, 06:56 »
I like the regular earnings, but what i don't like is the 25c partner program subs commission and the lack of any pay rises for Non-Exclusives.
I'm sure non-exclusives will get more downloads when exclusive prices are raised, at least in areas where exclusives and nons are competing.
15411
« on: December 28, 2009, 21:03 »
Find subjects that aren't oversaturated, develop your own style, and keep your portfolio diverse, and you won't need to "feed the beast" nearly as much as the people here are saying.
Just to refine what you wrote: find subjects which aren't oversaturated AND which buyers want. The latter being more relevant in Micros.
15412
« on: December 28, 2009, 21:01 »
I am wondering if the "feed the beast" phenomenon isn't relevant to many of the sites??
Yes, I think it's relevant. I don't notice slowdowns on IS as much if I don't upload, but most of the others I do.
It's probably the very opposite at iStock, as it seems to take a lo-o-o-o-ng time for new images to get downloaded. I've checked out a random bunch of higher sellers, and it seems to be the same for them (not that I tried them all). OTOH, I had a first and second sales of one image (25th and 26th) which was uploaded Jan 08, and a first dl today of an image which was uploaded Mach 08.
15413
« on: December 28, 2009, 16:54 »
If you clone things out of Editorial, you MUST mark it altered. You seem to be missing the second part about news/editorial photos. They cannot be photoshopped, heavily altered or have things pasted or removed.
Did you read what I wrote? I said I had cloned people out of photos I sent to iStock. I am perfectly aware of the need for editorial to be unaltered.
15414
« on: December 28, 2009, 16:33 »
But a recent 'lypse in Turkey was specifically to train iStockers for shooting editorial for Getty. (Sadly, I had to do my day job, APU.)
Yap that caught my attention too. As or now, iStock exclusives have no outlet at all for their RF Editorial. Some people here don't think high of Editorial (thinking it's sloppiness about asking releases) but it's a fun way to shoot. I can't get most of my Editorial into microstock, but when it happens, it's amongst my best sellers.
I've just broken my Alamy/editorial duck with two sales this month (only just noticed the second!). The first one was a very specific photo that I thought might have sold once or twice at most on iStock. It had some incidental people, which would have been marginal by iStock's standard, but I could have cloned them out if I'd throught there was any point in sending it to iStock. The second one was a specific location (landscape) with absolutely no need for any PR or MRs. So the comment that editorial is just for unreleased images makes no sense whatsoever. I can and have cloned out with the best of them - one of my iStock landscapes has 13 (unrecogniseable except maybe by context) people cloned out. (However, if I were doing it now, it would go to Alamy - a very specific travel location with little iStock interest.) I'm still learning where to make the split between what goes where.
15415
« on: December 28, 2009, 15:51 »
Is there any chance that IS would add Editorial RF?
They own the domain istockeditorial.com, but that only makes sense in case someone else took it over and traded on their reputation, by association. They have repeatedly said that editorial isn't in their immediate plans. But a recent 'lypse in Turkey was specifically to train iStockers for shooting editorial for Getty. (Sadly, I had to do my day job, APU.)
15416
« on: December 27, 2009, 17:16 »
I am confused... Can we submit editorial images elsewhere (like on Alamy) when we are exclusive at Istock ? Are we still debating this... If so, I will send a support ticket to Istock, because it's a question I need an answer on.
You can sell any Rights Managed images, editorial or commercial, anywhere. even if iStock exclusive.
15417
« on: December 27, 2009, 05:39 »
"Editorial" is no license type, it's just what people call images that they have no releases for.
Editorial should be newsworthy and/or be interesting in a cultural, educational or scientific way. That means it should depict a real situation or event, not something set up like an image of a bunch of friends making funny faces that turned out to be good. The images should also not be altered (except some contrast or luminance tweaking and/or minor cropping), or you fall into fauxtography.
That's the thing: reality. It used to annoy the h**k out of me that educational textbooks still use images from the macros - they could be so much cheaper if the images were sourced from the micros, but of course, they have no way of telling which micro images are real and which have been altered: for educational images, that's usually really important.
15418
« on: December 27, 2009, 04:21 »
That's just semantics. Actually, it is. To begin with, you haven't tho work through an agent for sellin and publishing editorial.
Well, it isn't semantics, but you lost me on whatever that second sentence is supposed to be saying.
I think he's trying to say that you don't need to sell editorial through an agent. But of course, you could also try to sell commercial/RF from your own website if you like. If you're a big enough name, you might even succeed! Just to note that editorial isn't only 'hot news', as seemed to be implied in an earlier post.
15420
« on: December 26, 2009, 13:59 »
How do you stop someone takeing a screenshot and using that? In that case it's a breach of terms if you mark your images as "totally copyrighted".
So, essentially if an exclusive were to post images on e.g. Flickr and designate them as Creative Commons for non-commercial use, that would not be RF, therefore would be OK?
15421
« on: December 26, 2009, 04:40 »
Currently, iStock has no Editorial. Could you offer Editorial then as RF, or should it be RM?
"Editorial" is no license type, it's just what people call images that they have no releases for.
iStock exclusivity means you can not sell RF licenses, no matter what image.
"Editorial" refers to how the files can be used. They may or may not have releases (and releases may be irrelevant for the image concerned) but they're not needed. However, the main thing is that they cannot be used in adverts/commercials. They can be used in works of non-fiction, e.g. guide books, educational/instructional books, or factual articles in newspapers and magazines.
15422
« on: December 25, 2009, 05:15 »
Hmm, I met my side of the goals for iStock this year in uploading terms (grew my port by over 50%. Unfortunately, the pics I uploaded weren't what the gazillions of new buyers every month wanted so every month my sales have been well down on last year - Oct-Dec have even been down on the same period in 2007. And despite price rises and Vetta, my $$$ are also well down on '08, even though I didn't turn silver until April last year.
As I don't have models or a studio (and, realistically, virtually no chance of getting either out in the boonies), my only sensible Micro goal would be to become independent, but apart from the very serious time implications, the changed canister goalposts at iStock would make returning if it didn't work out a disappointment (I'd need to wait til 20000 before reaching gold, whereas now I'm grandfathered in at 10000. It's a consideration.)
I guess I have to sit tight, at least until I (hopefully) retire early in around eighteen month's time.
15423
« on: December 25, 2009, 04:21 »
Currently, iStock has no Editorial. Could you offer Editorial then as RF, or should it be RM?
Who knows? It seems that American/Canadian legalese is even more obfuscating than UK legalese (I know, there's no such thing, just making a generalisation): Provision of Exclusive Content "1. In this Agreement, "Exclusive Content" means, as applicable to Supplier, either or both of: (i) Still and Flash Content, and (ii) Motion Content; together in any case with (iii) descriptive and other information, documents (such as model or property releases) or software relating to such Still and Flash Content and Motion Content, as the case may be (collectively, Content) or otherwise required to enable iStockphoto to realize the commercial potential of the rights granted in the Content ("Descriptive Information"); but shall not include (1) Content that is produced as "work for hire" within the meaning of United States federal copyright legislation or is otherwise the result of a specific commission by a bona fide client of the Supplier evidenced by written agreement where the Content deliverable from such commission is for the personal use of the client and not for resale or license to any other person or entity, except to the extent Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement; (2) Content that is produced for "Editorial" purposes except to the extent the Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement, where "Editorial" means visual reporting to illustrate general interest and specialty stories for information, documentary or photojournalism (but not advertorial) purposes only; (3) Content that is "Rights Managed", which is defined as Content produced by the Supplier and licensed for a fee that is based on one or more limited uses and for which usage history is tracked; (4) Content that is of a category not currently offered for sale by iStockphoto (such as stand alone audio files); or (5) other Content specifically designated by the Supplier and agreed by iStockphoto as being non-exclusive Content. " The whole agreement is here: http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.phpNote that they haven't updated point 4 to reflect the fact that they now sell audio files.
15424
« on: December 23, 2009, 12:15 »
Because you are a "Getty Family" exclusive _artist_ . Of course they can control how you sell your rejected images royalty free, under the contract terms.
You mean control how you can not sell your rejected images, period, don't you?
I thought the contract specifically states you cannot sell rejected images ANYWHERE, even as RM?
Yes it's bizarre: "You further agree that any Exclusive Content that is not accepted by iStockphoto and does not form Accepted Exclusive Content cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to purchasers, licensees or other potential users without the prior written consent of iStockphoto. iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties" I guess you can always ask for 'prior written consent' - looks as if you couldn't even sell or give away rejected images privately. As usual, the wording of this iStock legalese is unclear and subjective, but it looks as though rejected images which 'cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to ... other potential users" shouldn't, technically be given to models. I really, really wish they'd get someone to write their legalese in Plain English. It really shouldn't be a matter for interpretation.
15425
« on: December 22, 2009, 12:23 »
It has been said that an exclusive is an employee of iStock, but it's worse. This employee can't even shoot in his free time and share his work. In fact, it's serfdom.
Actually the limitation is only for giving out royalty free licenses - either for payment or for free. There is no objection with "sharing" images, for example on Flickr, as long as you disable downloads, so nobody can use the images for free...
How do you stop someone takeing a screenshot and using that? I guess a big watermark would discourage any use by downloading or taking a screenshot.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
