I don't understand and am so very frustrated.  I keep getting EVERY image reviewed DENIED because of focus!!!!  This has never happened before.  I look at all my photos at 100%.  I just don't see it.  These are portrait pictures, headshots, etc.  Some photos of animals, where I always take care to place the focus on the eyes.  Geez!  I'm dying here, please, someone, anyone, let me know when does Atilla sleep, I need to get some photos approved!!!!???

there is a certain reviewer who will reject you for "out of focus" in images with selective focus;
"lens flare" in images for highkey; and "noise and artifact" or "damaged pixels"(lol) in images of materials like velcro, corduroy, wool.
i've had some rejections in the past with such reviewers.
i don't bother trying to appeal, as it takes more energy out of my to appeal then to simply
ignore that site, and upload those images to the other Big 6.
and yes, in many cases, they get approved by the other Big 6 because a reviewer knew better.

the only time i would "appeal" a rejection is with IS when the reviewer specifies a certain condition in my rejected image. i correct that condition, and RESUBMIT. this almost always get me an approval rather quickly.

but that's not to say there are no COI reviewers in Istock. hell, yes, there is one there too,  you can't keep away those rogue reviewers, they're everywhere, and will continue to proliferate until someone points them out.

i know Achilles is highly adamant to ensure that no rogue reviewers work for him. so  i think , at least, with DT in 2010, we can be confident the reviewers will be less inclined to abuse with conflict of interest there.

Quote from: PERSEUS on January 11, 2010, 11:54

YET ANOTHER BLATANT EXAMPLE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST and why contributors should not be reviewers .

SS reviewers are also contributors?    Do all agencies do that?

yes, and yes. 
in most cases, there is no problem of COI . but as much as we all hate to admit, or is too afraid to do so, in this case, it's obvious that we have a rogue reviewer who cannot be objective.

  It's also possible that his having uploaded the image at DeviantArt is against the site's policy (someone else's copyrighted material), unless he has chnaged the image significantly.

(catchphrase) "unless he has changed the image significantly."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
is that still not copyright infringment , though?

say, i took an Ansel Adams Moonrise Hernandez , or Richard Avedon's work of Twiggy, and CHANGED THE IMAGE SIGNIFICANTLY...
it is still stealing some IP, isn't it? 
Or else, someone could jolly well take Rembrandt Nightwatch , photoshop it over and presto, it's mine.

I remember reading somewhere that even if you did a silhouette , any proper stock agency will demand the unsilhouetted original  to prove the image was not stolen from another photographer, and you simply photoshop it into a silhouette.

unless you meant to say something else? Madelaide, please clarify.

hello,
i know there won't be too many answers here, but i do know at least 3 qualified ppl who frequent this forum to be able to answer this open ended thread.
i suppose i could PM them , but i feel this would be educational for all here.


i am not sure if this is the right category to open this discussion.
but i know that people in mid stock are more well-versed in issues of licensing as opposed to micro contributors who tend to be purely RF.

you will have to refer to another thread here regarding someone who has her images re-used by a buyer of her RF image and using it as his own in Deviant Art.  http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/need-help-with-deviation-of-my-photo-on-deviantart/msg128837/?topicseen#new

i wonder if this is due to the laxity of RF images, and the wide application of Ext Lic . also that for a few dollars you now can get a lot of use to other ppl's creation . (read as, you can get a sub for lots of images for little money and redesign them as derivatives to lose the original ownership).

lots of questions now pop up in my mind on this issue.  some even not so sure if i said it correctly, but i think you know more or less what i am trying to ask.
if not , i will clarify as this discussion moves along.

 so instead of hijacking the OP thread on this subject, i thought it better be served to make it a separate thread
so the experts here can share with us their experienced of RM
and why they would prefer RM to RF.

one thing i 've heard most time when you talk of RM is that "you have more control " of your images. "buyers have a history of where it was used",etc.

other than the fact that RM buyers pay more for this "control"...
would i be correct to say that if i have images that are unique, (read as non generic), difficult to reproduce, hard to find, niche, stylistic,etc..
i would be wiser to go RM and forget about wasting my time in RF and micro.

as i said, a wide discussion here. but key issues being RM , control of misuse or even loss of your ownership due to derivative, etc..

 please feel free to extrapolate around RM and RF to give your opinion. the floor is wide open to you.
thx

Quote from: madelaide on January 10, 2010, 15:18

The problem is that, when you contact the infractor or the site, he simply removes the image.  It's like if I steal you car, use it, then one day you catch me with it and I return the keys and leave.

Then maybe we should expose them on a list in this forum, something like the Most Wanted list you'll find in Federal government buildings, or bounce cheques you find regularly in some establishments, hey, if the sites don't take serious responsibilities for the thieves among them, why not expose the thieve name or nickname and the site that allowed it to happen, maybe then sites will take stronger meassures against those kind of people...Tyler do you think something like that would be possible and legal to do on this forum?
I'm sure no site would like to find its name on a list like that.

i am not sure if we want to give them notoriety. criminals enjoy notoriety.
examples: jack the ripper, mad bomber, etc..

it's better to inform the stock agencies, so that they have records of their identity. inevitably, they will one day want to join say DT, IS,SS,etc.. to sell "their work".
the idea is to expose them where they will never work again; not to make them famous.

 i really admire those of you who do find the time to locate thieves of your work.
even if i had the time, i don't even know how to begin to try to locate my works downloaded , never mind find a thief like that.

i think more publicity should be given BY THE STOCK SITES on exposing the thieves and /or sites that encourage such low-lives.

it's much like crime in the real world. you get caught, you get a slap in the wrist. you  get bail, you leave and you continue to do the same because the profit from crime pays more than the penalty society impedes upon criminals.

i know this is not 1st degree murder or embezzlement, but it certainly needs to me addressed by the stock agencies . 

another disadvantage of RF perharps? i am not a license expert, or any kind of expert for all that matters. maybe someone who is used to RM can tell me if this would not happen with RM?

That is really something to consider. I have thought about it every once in awhile and realize those images will sit on those sites forever unless the site goes out of business and if they continue to sell that income will just pile up forever and ever. And sites like Shutterstock will send you a 1099 at the end of the year to you after you're dead. I don't think the IRS would be understanding on this matter. You would have to go through a probate process to get the income put into your name and would have to show you inherited the copyright. More than likely I would assume the sites would remove your images. Depending on the country and the agency they more than likely wouldn't coraparate and if there was any large sums of money you'd proubably have to end up taking them to court and that would cost a fortune.....so the stock company would again hold on to the money so they can cushion their coffers.

the most recent comments have indeed open up this thread to dig deeper into this matter. i am glad because i remember reading somewhere that in Canada, for example, the Bank of Canada has lots of money transferred to them due the deceased persons bank account that laid dorment after the account holders demise. many of these contain lots of money because of mental failure, eg. alzheimer, senility,etc. 

the same stockpiling (arghhh, terrible pun) can apply to stock accounts  under many circumstances.
individually, we could turn a blind eye to say, "oh well, it's only a couple of dollars". but as a consortium, this could accumulate to something substantial for the stock agencies.

much like real estates that sprawl many countries where beneficiaries neglect to claim or simply ignore their inheritance, to leave the property to deteriorate into derelicts .  but in this particular case , commissions do not deteriorate if left dorment and unclaimed by the contributors or heirs.

as i said, we don't want to think about it, because it's about death.
 

-What stock site are you on that pays out at $25.00?
- if you had 10 bucks sitting in 10 different accounts waiting for the 50 dollar mark...that adds up to 100 bucks.

- i can't remember. when i first joined microstock some less than 2 yrs ago, i got madly drunk and submitted to most every site on the list.  then after getting sobre, i am now down to only a handful that i check my status and maintained regular uploads. the rest, i write off as miscarriages 

- good point. maybe i should change my payment plan with 3 d studio to PP. that could help me get back to having enough to buy a pint each month 

Something as simply as paying every month with no minimums (via paypal) just seem obvious to me but I love hearing feedback like that. Really reminds me that we are doing this the right way.

the idea of no min. payout monthly via PP is cool but not laudable.

i think most assume that a site would cheat on them and close shop before their payout point is reached.the paranoia of which i think is not justified, as we have already seen a few demises here that have also sent us our earnings after closing their doors.

still, i like the idea of being paid by cheque , so long as the payout point is realistic and practical.
realistic meaning not $100 like some site; practical being not $5 which is a bit too little to warrant the paperwork to write the cheque.  even $50 may still seem a bit unrealistic in some cases, esp when a site does not bring in the sales as often .
then again, who am i to say. i've reached payout where a site had $100 point in one, while still waiting for another to reach the lower payout point of $25.

all in all, i think really all i care is to see downloads regularly. this will at least be an indication that there is some sign of activity. 

i also like the idea of you and Matt being open to ideas provided by contributors to "improve 3d studio's potential".  it shows  goodwill to be taken seriously  .
for that you've gone up  a few notches above some of the underperforming  Big 9
sites.
mind you, the fact that one dl from 3d studio = 10-15  subs from the Big 6 is something i won't  disregard either.

 

(I love the term someone else came up with for snapvillage = craphamlet)

   or you could take that one step further to say :

their minds just SNAPped and they VEERed off course???   

thx nosaya, eyedesign.
i should have said BATTERY PAK rather than "generator".  generator would not be ideal as they're noisy and bulky in most cases, and more for big production movie studios, which i am not. i bought the ABee because of its portability, and lugging a generator sort of defeats the idea of compactness. just want something i can toss into a compact automobile.

i supposed a couple of battery pak each strobe would be ideal. i shoot with a couple of battery pak for my camera, so i gather by the time my camera's battery paks run out, so will the b pak for the strobes. or probably not, since outdoors these strobes will be on partial power working as fills rather than main light source.

is it true that you will get paid ?
i had one sale of 6 dollars , i think, can't recall, too long ago.  i was encouraged to increase my uploads then, and in fact had over 50 images waiting to be uploaded to zymm at that time, but it was plagued with design problem, being off line, etc..
that i gave up going back to see when they were actually online.

after reading this thread that they pay you even if you did not reach payout, i checked my mail but only found a closeup payout by corbis for 30 cents which i gather was from SV or something, but it is not definitely from zymm, as i don't remember corbis buying zymm.

Thanks.  I too don't understand 123rf is in there either as that's the lowest on my earnings scale.  Since SS owns big stock are they going to stay separate entities?  Once my vectors improve I might try to get accepted on IS again.

I have a lot to think about.  Thanks

Anita

with an attitude like this, i am sure you will improve.  it wouldn't even hurt to continue submitting to IS and see what their reviewers say if they reject your work.  lately, reviewers with IS have given specific reason to explain why they didn't approve your image. i think if you pay attention to what the reviewer tell you, your approval may in fact increase sooner than if you just wait till you're good enough.
i am not sure if this is the case with every IS reviewer. but so far, with what little rejections i get from IS, i have got my images accepted as soon as i amended the image to resubmit.
i don't submit to IS as many as i should. then again, i don't submit to too many sites as many as i should. 
so, maintain this objective attitude and learn from the rejections . i am sure this is the fastest way to mprove , at least with IS. i don't know about the others, as their rejection reasons are too vague.

another way is to participate in the IS forum. despite the rumours, IS exclusives are some of the most helpful in microstock when you go to the IS forum to ask for their insights and advice.