Thank god I requested a nice payout yesterday 

Honestly I think they should realize that if they don't take care of this right away, then they might end up with a situation like this on StockXpert.

I bet they have to wade through a load of payment requests, reversing those and straightening out their books just because some IT guy screwed up.

I wish for once iStock/Getty/StockXpert would employ IT people that actually hold a degree or at least know what they are doing.

...
I see see us all with full HD video and camera options built into our contact lenses uploading continuously to our key fob mainframe.

What you aren't doing that already...? 

thank you, this was intented to be an isolation, so i made it as big as possible in a 5000X5000 pix image wich is the maximum resolution in SS, but is truth that with that BKG color i put on post should be better with more air, Is just that i didn�t wan to reduce the image as it has many detail to zoom in.

I wouldn't create an image (or base its resolution) just to fit Shutterstock's requirements. Create it as large as possible (as long as it is sharp and without noise), then scale it down for SS if you have to but everyone else will take the larger resolution without a problem. You are limiting yourself - don't fall into that trap.

Also if you add 500px of "sky" on each side then you end up with 6000x6000 without loss of any detail as you have it now - so that's no "excuse" 

Great shot. Really cool.

Quote from: markrhiggins on December 04, 2010, 17:56

...I do not understand why they would not just suspend "offending" pictures...

I don't understand either. Yesterday I got an email from SS that they had deleted one of my images. "We have removed the following images that you uploaded.... deleted because: Quality control - Removed per legal. Do not resubmit."

That happened to me as well with a car that was barely identifiable. No logos, no frontal or rear shot - and it was reason enough for SS's legal department to remove it. Image was removed - no harm done.

FD, I hope this works out for you asap. We can all just speculate at this point and I don't know how much this is helping you but also to me it sounds like that it might be a model/property release issue. Either a model didn't understand the contract when signing or someone doesn't like their property in your images (for whatever reason).

I really wish you all the best. First and foremost stay polite with SS's staff and I'm 100% sure that they will explain it to you in all detail!

There a quite a fee websites which offers free for private or commercial use pictures. Does this mean I may edit them and sell them in my changed format - or does "commercial use" not include sell in edited form?
What about pictures on Government websites, stating that they are free and without copyright?
Will appreciate your informed feedback on this.

I'm quite sure you cannot do that. While you can use those images commercially you still may have to publish the name of the copyright holder to that image although he/she is not getting compensated.

US copyright law considers derivative work as copyright infringement. So if you didn't have written consent in the first place you might be infringing the original artist's copyright.

I agree Click Click,

 I will plan on purchasing something then get side tracked for a few months and sure enough there is a better version for less money once I am ready to purchase. Hard to know when to buy and when not to for sure.

Best,
Jonathan

I was looking forward to the new D7000 to get some 1080/24fps footage, but now it looks like a toy next to a $700 Sony with 1080 at 60i...

60i 

why even buy a camera now when it's obsolete in a couple of months...

That's because your application was not approved. 7 out of the 10 have to be accepted for you to be accepted as contributor. If the reviewer gets to the 4th he would reject, he may not even look further. Conclusion - those without reason may or may not get accepted next time around.

OK, I might not be on top of this one but has this been confirmed that images without a reason have not been inspected?

Are only 4 images rejected without looking at the rest?

If so, that would be awfully complicated for new contributors to figure out what the issue is with their images in case they were never reviewed assuming they are ok.

I'm also NOT on facebook and I get the pop up every now and then - it appears to me to be random for some reason.

I don't understand why contributors need to be bothered with that - or the buyers for that matter as well...?

There are so many approaches (and none of them is "right") that it's almost impossible to deliver a satisfactory answer.

First off, you would have to figure out which 3D modeling software you are able to afford. This would quickly give you an idea what tutorials to look out for. Google's Sketchup is free.

Now you need to read up on character modeling, rigging, animating and texture mapping and creation, not to mention the art of lighting in a 3D program.

This is pretty much all you need to do. Give it a year to become proficient at it and to achieve results that iStock will approve.

At Lynda.com you will find lots of useful workshops to get started right away.

Artbeats has been around for a long time (much longer than the Micros or this forum).

They already have their place established in the footage industry.

I was under the impression that they only took exclusive stuff. Maybe I have to check again...

That's as old as the the info about your images. They launched it at the same time.
Couple years ago?

http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2007/11/26/2418.aspx
and
http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2007/12/06/2482.aspx