|
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
Pages: 1 ... 615 616 617 618 619 [620] 621 622
15476
« on: August 04, 2009, 11:23 »
The local MacDonald's jobs start at 8.75 per hours with up to 29 hours. You receive a 25 cent raise after 90 days. Free food and drinks!!
8.75 per hour at 29 hours equal: $253.75 per week times 52 weeks for a total $13,195 per year.
Plus free food, drinks, and management opportunities!!!
Give up your Micro Stockings and join the Golden Arches.
Even if free, I wouldn't call it 'food', and think of the smell. 
15477
« on: July 27, 2009, 16:51 »
Not that I think the police is all innocent, but this guy simply could have shown some more cooperation and I am sure he would not have been arrested.
Are we talking Kent, UK??? In the UK, we don't have to carry ID, and I would very seldom have any on me. I don't carry my passport or driver's license (an old one, without a photo in any case) with me. Loads of people don't have a passport or drivers' licence. This is simply ludicrous, and I hope the tall guy puts in an official complaint. (So far, I've found it beneficial to be a middle-aged female, and I always try to 'make like a tourist'.)
15478
« on: July 27, 2009, 16:44 »
I only use a tripod if I'm wanting great depth of field, e.g. in a landscape or if it's a set up 'studio' type shot of an immobile object. As I don't do that often, and the latter I can't see me doing much in future (yawnsville), I have little use for a tripod. Subject movement is more of a problem for me than camera shake, even before I had IS lenses, now it's all that much easier. Yup, the light level is often low where I live, but pics taken then will get 'poor light' rejections even with a tripod.
Horses for courses. If I were doing 'still lives' all the time, I'd use a tripod all the time.
15479
« on: July 08, 2009, 07:35 »
Seems like there is a lot of conflicting info in this thread and conflicting interpretations of the exclusive contract - even from istock exclusives.
But you are right that the best way to reassure yourself that you have a complete understanding is to contact support. I would recommend via the support ticket system rather than a call, so that you have a record of your conversation for future reference, should you need to refresh your memory.
Yes, I had two very specific (to me) queries, both of which were apparently OK uses according to Support. However, although they have rewritten the exclusivity Agreement since I became exclusive, it's actually become longer and more convoluted. I really wish they'd set it out in plain, unambiguous English. Just like I wish they'd sort out the beginners manual to explain that nowadays just about any photo of a person or part of a person needs an MR. The exclusive/reject thing is apparently so that they can, if they choose, distribute the rejected images elsewhere at some time in the future. I thought they might do this with the derisory-seeming photos.com and JIU deal, but they are not going to do so, apparently. I thought at least some images rejected for 'poor light' (which in my case means the real, 'flat' light which we get 90% of the time) could go there.
15480
« on: July 07, 2009, 18:59 »
As I said many times, I like IS and thinking about becoming exclusive a lot. However, being called "Freedom", I highly dislike the IS exclusive term which provides that you cannot give away your photos to family and frieds for free. I am not clear whether or not you can sell rejected photos as RM either. So it's too bad that I still haven't made the switch.
That is not true. You can give the pics to your family and friends for personal use. What you can't is to give away them for public licensed use. It's very different,
I'm not sure what you mean by 'public licensed use'. You can certainly give your images away for public use (e.g. to a charity) so long as it isn't for RF distribution.
15481
« on: July 07, 2009, 18:57 »
You can't license your images with a royalty-free license. Period. You can sell your images as work for hire. You can donate your images under a rights managed agreement.
Sounds like this would be the appropriate work around if she decides to go exclusive. Thanks for the detailed info 
It's not a workaround. Have you read the exclusive agreement http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php? (Though for sure it has not been written in clear English, and some clauses may or may not be understandable in US/Canadian courts of law, but make little sense to me - some of it seems to be ambiguous and some seems internally contradictory.) The only thing you're not allowed to do is license your images RF anywhere else or give your images away free from a website, with no license. Other than that you can do whatever you like with your images, except for a bizarre and ambiguous clause which seems to say that if you want to license your rejected files RM, you have to get the explicit permission from support.
15482
« on: July 07, 2009, 16:40 »
15483
« on: July 07, 2009, 16:36 »
Most of my free time is taken by 11-month old now :-) For a while my travel days are over but I am still hoping to have vacations this year :-) I wonder how can I have baby carrier, tripod and camera on me at the same time :-)
Ditch the tripod, photograph the baby on the beach. Sorted. 
15484
« on: July 07, 2009, 07:01 »
Much more - the time off my day job can be dedicated full time to photography - shooting, processing and studying/reading. Especially when travelling. Off on Thursday, whoopee! Barring technical problems  , my cameras will be red hot.
15485
« on: July 05, 2009, 04:54 »
This is a major difference from other industries, if I download a movie, I know I am doing something wrong!
I can assure you that many teenagers think it's OK, and further that downloading and using anything from the Internet is OK. Even when our Computing Dept made all the kids do projects to research the law on use of files from the internet, and getting them to make posters to display over the school about it, they still didn't really believe it (even those who did the research!).
15486
« on: July 03, 2009, 09:54 »
Yup, I've just had my first Vetta sale, a small for $7. Interesting, because on the three most likely searches for that image, a 'similar' of mine is very near in the best match search; in fact, they're both on the top line on 'more like this'. Intriguing.
You mean a similar non-Vetta (i.e. cheaper) image?
That would say something about price sensitivity of (at least some) customers...
Yes, the other is non-Vetta. Not the same, but pretty similar.
15487
« on: July 03, 2009, 08:35 »
To the OP: Whoo-yay!
I also had my first Vetta sale today, netting $6.20 from a small size download.
Considering that I only have four files in Vetta, I think that's pretty amazing.
Time will tell if this new venture pans out, but it does seem that buyers are willing to pay more than a few pennies for a higher quality product. Who knew 
Yup, I've just had my first Vetta sale, a small for $7. Interesting, because on the three most likely searches for that image, a 'similar' of mine is very near in the best match search; in fact, they're both on the top line on 'more like this'. Intriguing.
15488
« on: July 02, 2009, 07:07 »
He probably knows what his acceptance rate is (and was).
Yes, should anyone be criticized for commenting about his own experience?
Not if they state it as their own experience and not state it as a general fact. My experience is that my acceptance rate has shot up, but that was to do with a bad initial month when I didn't realise that USM was causing most of my rejections. After that, and before I went exclusive, my acceptance rate went up. But there's no room for complacency: after a good run of acceptances I recently had three rejections in a row, all different shoots/three different reasons (one I've sent to Scout, one I redid (an isolation) and it was accepted this morning and one I accept fully).
15489
« on: July 02, 2009, 06:59 »
I'm wondering if it's wise to trust such an unreliable site. Sign of things to come?
More likely to be a sign of having such a small portfolio. Build a large, well shot and diverse portfolio and days of zero sales will be a distant memory.
Oh well, I guess two out of three isn't too great (I guess my pics can't be well-shot): I had three 0 sales Saturdays in May. But also remember the dreaded Summer Slump, plus there is a Big American Holiday coming up.
15490
« on: July 01, 2009, 15:55 »
Just curious - why do you guys feel you need clarify with 5DII images?
I use a 5DII and L lenses and images are sharp and contrasty without any extra sharpening necessary...
my thoughts exactly, PixelBytes. If you need in camera post processing with a good camera and good lense, you are probably doing something wrong, ie. poor focusing, aperture/speed combo, not using critical aperture (sweet spot),etc.. to take advantage of the inherent quality you pay for.
I also strongly disregard the need for in camera post processing as it is final. I prefer suggesting to do it in Photoshop and shooting RAW. This way you can experiment without losing the original image.
My opinion only , of course
Who said anything about in camera processing?
15491
« on: July 01, 2009, 12:00 »
If the rejected file were any good and you were exclusive, the likelihood of it getting rejected is a lot less than if you weren't exclusive.
I see nothing from my own experience (pre and post exclusivity) which backs up that assertion.
15492
« on: June 30, 2009, 15:52 »
From most of these posts, I can tell I have a LONG way to go. after about 4 months I have anywhere from 60 to 300 images on each of the big six and my TOTAL sales is just now approaching $100. But if I extrapolate my growth in sales caused by added images and getting better (I think...hope), I believe that I can go from my current level of $1-2/day to aobut $10/day. But it may take another 12 months to get there. But at that level it should take care of some of my photo gear habit.
You have to also remember the huge number of new contributers with new images who are signing on daily. all wanting, and some getting, their share of the pie.
15493
« on: June 29, 2009, 18:25 »
Two active agencies, iStock for RF and very recently, Alamy for RM, mostly editorial; plus a dormant account (haven't uploaded anything for 2 1/2 years) at fotoLibra (RM). No time to consider submitting anywhere else and became iStock exclusive as soon as I qualified. If I was doing this full time, I might rethink, but effectively I'm now putting my main effort into Alamy, because Editorial is where I always wanted to be! 
15494
« on: June 29, 2009, 16:51 »
Just curious - why do you guys feel you need clarify with 5DII images?
I use a 5DII and L lenses and images are sharp and contrasty without any extra sharpening necessary...
My experience is different, with the 'kit' L lens, and even more with my 100-400 IS, sadly.
15495
« on: June 29, 2009, 14:49 »
I have a question about the "Clarify" adjustment in camera raw.
Do y'll think it may cause artifacting?
I like the effect it creates and tend to use it quite a bit. But I've been wondering lately if maybe I shouldn't use it as much as I do. My monitor is not the greatest, and I have a hard time seeing the artifacts that reviewers see. I also have a hard time picking out the examples of artifacting that have been posted on this forum. Therefore I'm kinda in the dark, so to speak, on this so I'm hoping some of you can help me.
Funny thing is I hve to use it much more with the 5DMk2 than with the 40D or the 350D. So far haven't had artifacting problems, but I did wonder if it could potentially be an issue. It's my New Best Friend
15496
« on: June 29, 2009, 14:45 »
You can sell prints, from your website, or elsewhere. You can sell RM images anywhere. Basically it's your copyright and you can do just about anything with your images except sell, or allow them to be sold, RF anywhere else. That includes iStock rejects.
So can you sell rejected images on IS elsewhere as RM? [/quote] The agreement says: "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've only noticed one post, when the poster said they got permission easily. I haven't heard of anyone else trying.
15497
« on: June 29, 2009, 10:39 »
I see you have als artwork on your website. Isn't it true that you cannot sell this either once exclusive? I don't know how many sites you contribute to but maybe you can consider adding some other ones? There are now many more like Veer or Panthermedia http://www.panthermedia.net/?aff=125267
and I have no idea how Veer will work out but I am selling at Panthermedia (although not so much but sales do tend to be high and in euros).
You can sell prints, from your website, or elsewhere. You can sell RM images anywhere. Basically it's your copyright and you can do just about anything with your images except sell, or allow them to be sold, RF anywhere else. That includes iStock rejects.
15498
« on: June 21, 2009, 14:50 »
You're right, B79! So it is another instance of the stolen watermakred image from LO. Oh, well. I had a hope this was one of the legal buyers... this is one of my best-sellers.
I have emailed them on Friday, saying they can not use the image that way and asking where they purchased it from. 
This is one of the non-watermarked ones I found, it also has the Lucky Oliver on it (the L at left of the sun is the more visible):
http://youthffpc.googlepages.com/here2
Let's see what DT gets from these people.
I don't know about Lucky Oliver, but iStock always asks people not to contact the possible infringers themselves. By emailling them, you're alerting them and they might just take down the image. Mind you, iStock generally seem to just get the download money or issue a cease-and-desist as appropriate, they don't seem to take it further, but we - the 'public' - aren't told. (I'd think they'd be pleased to explain what they do, as reassurance to contributers and as a warning to possible future infringers.
15499
« on: June 12, 2009, 11:03 »
I think it's a bit weird too. I nominated two photos based solely on the number of positive reviews by people not on my CN (and whom I don't know) and low sales. TBH, I was fairly surprised when they were accepted (but then again I was astonished when Getty accepted me via the iStock silver thingy).
Since then I've had notification of four other files being slated for Premier. One 'singleton', two from a series and one from a series of two. Seems odd that buyers could get one from the 'main' collection for a lower price than a similar-ish one in the Premier collection - and the polar opposite to the 'similars' rule with Getty.
15500
« on: June 06, 2009, 07:37 »
I'm sitting on the fence just now. Since BM2, old files, even older than 2 years are getting downloads. I dont want to have the same file in both places unless I'm as sure as I can be that the customers are different, so makes sense to have them only on iStock.
I'm wavering about the ones I put into the dollar bin under JJRD's experiment: these have almost all languished without trace, and even those which were getting downloads have slowed down since the prices went up. Conspiracy theorist, moi?
Pages: 1 ... 615 616 617 618 619 [620] 621 622
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
