|
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 ... 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73 74 75 76 77 ... 624
1776
« on: April 13, 2018, 04:54 »
^^ Indeed, who decides what is 'legitimate'? The man in the Clapham omnibus?
Still, so much is legal ambiguity, like 'in the public interest'.
1777
« on: April 11, 2018, 19:10 »
If you have (or can borrow) a lighter weight camera (which would nevertheless do for your project) you could try a gorillapod. Not for a heavy dSLR, though.
1778
« on: April 11, 2018, 12:14 »
Not sure what point you were making with the cheesecake search? Ft didn't work for me via your link, but I searched for cheesecake on the ft.com site and all three (iS, SS, Ft) look much of a muchness to me.
However, switching to New on SS gives mostly tiny variations on a few images, which is presumably what you were referring to (when I clicked on your link I got 'popular' which was much more varied)
FWIW, my usual comparison search is Blue Whale. iS's CV should make a much cleaner search, but all three searches, sorted by new, are pretty bad. I have no idea why iS has women in bed sneezing into hankies in a search for Blue Whale (the answer would seem to be deliberate spam, but weird), but there you have it, standards have gone downhill rapidly.
The downside of the CV is that if you search Balaenoptera musculus (recent/new sort), you get a reasonable result on SS, a poorish result on Ft, but iS's CV has mapped 'blue whale' to Balaenoptera musculus, so even the scientific Latin gets you the flu girls, the red bus, the bowls of flowers and all the other irrelevances on iStock.
1779
« on: April 11, 2018, 05:50 »
On a legal document, "if I'm reading it right" should not be a question.
legal documents always have some sort of ambiguousness to them otherwise there would be no neverending lawsuits and lawyers couldnt line their pockets
Sigh.
Human language has ambiguity. Human interactions are complicated and have ambiguity. The lawyers that draft contracts don't make money from ambiguities and lawsuits -- quite the opposite. They are liable for them.
Alamy have apologised and are going to have that clause reworded.
1781
« on: April 10, 2018, 08:32 »
I just got the letter today, and it is dated as a contract change of 10th April 2018.
Haven't read it through, but I noticed this, which hasn't been thought through:
"Any information supplied for display with any Image, including captions, keywords, ... and does not include ... any personal details from which a living person can be identified."
I don't think that's what they mean, or else they are going to lose a lot of sales from searches relating to well-known people.
However, even if it's not what they mean, it's what they said.
Full text:
"4:11 Any information supplied for display with any Image, including captions, keywords, Pseudonyms, agency names and descriptions only includes information that is pertaining to the specific Image itself, and does not include contact details, web addresses, Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), copyright and rights management information or any personal details from which a living person can be identified."
You can't include in the EXIF or descriptions - your website, name, phone number, email, Etc... which would allow people to contact you directly? Not about famous people if I'm reading it right.
http://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor-contract-changes.asp?utm_campaign=1157400_Contract%20Change%20-%20April%202018&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alamy%20Contributors%20&dm_i=2SWW,OT20,12IO8X,2JDNC,1
Guesses about what they might have intended has no legal standing. You may well be right, but they have said nothing about EXIF, only specifically "captions, keywords, pseudonyms, agency names and descriptions". On a legal document, "if I'm reading it right" should not be a question. Contract changes in case anyone didn't get the email.
Well, yes, that's the thread title.
1782
« on: April 10, 2018, 08:07 »
I just got the letter today, and it is dated as a contract change of 10th April 2018.
Haven't read it through, but I noticed this, which hasn't been thought through:
"Any information supplied for display with any Image, including captions, keywords, ... and does not include ... any personal details from which a living person can be identified."
I don't think that's what they mean, or else they are going to lose a lot of sales from searches relating to well-known people.
However, even if it's not what they mean, it's what they said.
Full text:
"4:11 Any information supplied for display with any Image, including captions, keywords, Pseudonyms, agency names and descriptions only includes information that is pertaining to the specific Image itself, and does not include contact details, web addresses, Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), copyright and rights management information or any personal details from which a living person can be identified."
1783
« on: April 09, 2018, 11:58 »
OK. Just imagine I still want to upload some images. But they need new Keywords to have any sense at all.
Any idea where I request these now?
You need to go to Account Management > Contact Us Then choose My Online Content and Suggest a Keyword. Seems that the logical option of My Current Submissions doesn't give you the subcategory of Suggest a Keyword, you have to have the content accepted before you can ask for a keyword to be added. Doesn't make much sense, because if they choose not to add the keyword, you'd then have to ask for the content to be removed, if it was the actual subject. Ho-hum, can't waste time trying to work out their reasoning. BTW, you'd have found the answer on iS's forum, and sooner.
1784
« on: April 08, 2018, 11:30 »
Dear Getty,
Is kicking out one of your top producing photographers because he blew the whistle on you giving images away fair?
@jjneff: Which photographer and which event are you refering to?
Don't be disingenuous!
1785
« on: April 08, 2018, 04:16 »
It is strictly forbidden to upload sisters photos (from the same session) to agencies other than those used by THE COMPANY. In other words, if the author decides to provide THE COMPANY with a specific session where, for example, a model appears, with a specific style and a specific location, it will not be able to divide this session between different media,"
Dividing between different media: like photos and video?
... since it would not comply with the exclusivity terms imposed by the agencies with which THE COMPANY works.
[/i]
Do they only submit each series to one agency (an not have it on Addictive) to comply with their excusivity terms?
I'm not in this market as I don't do lifestyle, but I like to keep an eye on what's going on.
I'm a bit uneasy about the agencies which you can hardly get into, but suddenly if you supply Addictive (or several others) you can get in to these 'wishlist' agencies, but splitting your take (I've read on at least a couple of occasions about people who submitted directly to agencies and were rejected, but got THE SAME PHOTOS accepted via one of these distributing agencies). There must be 'stuff' going on in the background.
1786
« on: April 08, 2018, 03:14 »
You can certainly fix the CROWN.
For many years you had to indicate whether an image had been digitally altered or not, but now that option doesn't exist, at least for 'normal' uploads (haven't uploaded Live News for years, that maybe different (?).
In any case, you could remove dust spots, so why not CR.
1787
« on: April 07, 2018, 16:29 »
Remember that FAA isn't run like a stock agency; they have never made any bones about their expectation that we should bring in buyers. So if, like me, you make occasional sales while doing no marketing of your own, you can count yourself lucky. The top sellers say they actively or even aggressively market and use FAA for fulfilment.
Though I haven't looked this year, it used to be that at least some of the regular sellers had no keywords/description and bland titles, so clearly they weren't even hoping to pick up casual sales. E.g., some were photographic portraits of unnamed people just e.g. Portrait 1, no description or keywords, so presumably they are social photographers with no local printer they can trust.
Again, I haven't looked this year, but it used to be that at least 90% of reported sales were to Americans; in my own case it's probably more than that although I don't have much US content - what I'm selling is either from my US content or European images which may well be iconic to Americans USians (I don't have sales in Canada or the rest of the Americas).
1788
« on: April 06, 2018, 13:16 »
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/denver-post-publishes-photo-wrong-park-coors-field-guide-article-1.3918457
This image of Citzens Bank Park was published in the Denver Post under an article that was supposed to be a guide to Coors Field. (Michael Heiman/Getty Images)
Or does this mean the original photo from Getty was misidentified by the Denver Post? Why does the caption show Getty as the source then, with photo credits to
Michael Heiman - Senior Director, Editorial Operations at Getty Images? Kind of odd all over, because it's a Getty Photo in both cases.
Just makes me wonder where they got the misidentified photo in the first place. Like... a stock site with spammed up keywords? 
In this case, the photo is here on Getty: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/license/77189974It's correctly tagged. That tog has several images of Citizens Bank Park on Getty (and one of Coors Park). Whoever's fault it is, it doesn't seem to be Getty's this time.
1789
« on: April 06, 2018, 10:40 »
Creative cropping and a shallow depth of field can hide the identities of unreleased people, I'm pretty sure that the bloke in the brown t-shirt in the background is recogniseable enough, and the guy in focus in the foreground would surely recognise himself from context, what he's wearing (patterned t-shirt) and the bracelets of the guy with his arm round him. Surely also his t-shirt's distinctive design would need a property release and possibly also at least one of the bracelets.
That image is in the commercial (ie non-editorial) section on Shutterstock.
Means nothing, they're pretty lax. They had images of the Commonwealth Games logo in the commercial section during the games four years ago, and that was a no-no.
1790
« on: April 06, 2018, 10:08 »
Very much enjoyed reading about Jay Maisel, a photographer I hadn't discovered before and now hope to find more about.
However, in the article by Heather Shimmin about making money from taking photos on holiday, she has a photo captioned, Creative cropping and a shallow depth of field can hide the identities of unreleased people, I'm pretty sure that the bloke in the brown t-shirt in the background is recogniseable enough, and the guy in focus in the foreground would surely recognise himself from context, what he's wearing (patterned t-shirt) and the bracelets of the guy with his arm round him. Surely also his t-shirt's distinctive design would need a property release and possibly also at least one of the bracelets.
1791
« on: April 06, 2018, 08:54 »
1792
« on: April 06, 2018, 06:30 »
Is this news?
About a year ago, in reponse to an admin's constant sniping to various people, "You'd get more sales if you'd follow our Briefs". I said more or less, "You could outlay hundreds of dollars and get cents in Premium Access" and this wasn't denied.
Some big-budget contributors have said they are getting more, and bigger, sales by participating, but it's taking them much longer to recoup their outlay (with no proof that they actually will recoup).
Just stick to the mantra: "Turnover is vanity; profit is sanity".
1793
« on: April 06, 2018, 06:17 »
No earner to me, so not interested regarding any news from Alamy.
However, interested enough to look at, and reply to, a post on the Alamy board. There is a way we can avoid seeing certain forums, I've done it in the past, but I can't remember how to do it. Hopefully, someone else can help.
1794
« on: April 06, 2018, 06:13 »
What's the actual difference between an agent and a licensee*?
It was looked on as negative when iS moved away from being an agent to whatever they declared themselves to be instead.
*It seems a very odd use of the word 'licensee'.
Was this info in an email? If so, I didn't get it, but the Image Options thing has been aired on Alamy's forum.
1795
« on: April 05, 2018, 10:28 »
So what did I miss? The e-mail starts "In light of recent events..." Did I miss something? What big event took place the brought this on?
The events around #MeToo, presumably.
It's particularly focussed on an ethical way of using models.
So carefully worded that most people won't even know what it means, but presumably gives them a fig leaf of cover in case of lawsuits going after their deep pockets. A masterpiece of corporate-speak.
For me it's especially hilarious that they talk about 'talent'. When I was growing up in the West of Scotland, "Ah'm gaun tae the dancin'/pub the see if there's ony talent" didn't mean, "I'm going out to look for people I can have a hands-off professional relationship with". (According to Urban Dictionary, that usage is still current, and not just here.)
1796
« on: April 04, 2018, 13:29 »
So what did I miss? The e-mail starts "In light of recent events..." Did I miss something? What big event took place the brought this on?
The events around #MeToo, presumably. It's particularly focussed on an ethical way of using models.
1797
« on: April 04, 2018, 12:43 »
Oxymoron of the year award goes to...
Seriously? Getty sends out an email lecturing about expectations of a "fair" working environment?
I'd say it's pretty much non-existent as far as contributors are concerned - pennies for images and a buck or two for video is not a fair working environment at all.
They can't even get their April Fool joke out on time  I haven't got the email.Got it, must have been in a later send-out batch, or something.
1798
« on: April 04, 2018, 06:33 »
Thinkstock was still paying a flat (but very low compared to SS) set price per download. IStock/ Getty cleverly changed their terms to be able to pay us 2c per download from their subs and is now doing away with the better paying of the two platforms.
Yup, almost certainly Getty is hoping to migrate TS buyers to premium access: they keep more, we get less. The customer may well pay about the same or less, but will have access to all of iS/Getty offerings.
1799
« on: April 03, 2018, 19:58 »
Yes, that's the only way.
1800
« on: April 03, 2018, 05:41 »
This topic has been moved to garbage bin
Pages: 1 ... 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73 74 75 76 77 ... 624
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
