I'd have corrected the fringing in RAW as well although this isn't your question...

Be careful with sharpening, it can make existing noise worse. Just import the RAW file without sharpening and then if you really have to, sharpen the important areas instead of the entire image.

You could also easily get rid of these "artifacts" (or noise) with some noise reduction software.

Personally, I wouldn't have submitted an image with that amount of noise/artifacts. Hard to tell without seeing the entire image. No idea where the focal point is.

Nice, thanks!

I expect to see those royalties at iStock next year for most non-exclusives.

Race to the bottom eyh?

Regardless of size, you still put the same effort into the picture... and this is also an insult.

Wooohooooooo - great stuff. Love it.

Can't wait to do that as well.

You could technically make it HDR 3D footage.

Only with 4 cameras. They used two cameras to get 2 different exposures and not just 2 perspectives. In this case left camera would be under exposed and the right cam over exposed. Not a cool 3D effect 

...At what point is my agent responsible for the massive losses, my files were taken from them.

They're not responsible.

It's the same like buying a knife - you can't blame the knife shop if someone gets hurt.

So, iStock decides to put images like these into the highest pricing category.

Let's have a look at the keywords for the "adult woman" with laptop:


People
Enjoyment
Cushion
Horizontal
Book
Window
Laughing
One Person
Color Image
One Woman Only
Adults Only
Setting The Table

While a couple of keywords probably slipped through inspection I was surprised to look at an adult woman.

I thought this is an 8 year old girl reading a book.

Wouldn't it enhance sales by using keywords like "female" or "young adult" instead of "one woman only" and "adults only"?

One would think that iStock would pour more effort into this project rather than just dumping Vetta files into this overpriced collection.

Nice, how much?

I think you're on to something. I can imagine that the composition might have also played a role in the rejection as a part of her left eye is cut off. The lighting might not be stellar but I can see her expression going hand in hand with natural lighting.
Any hardcore pro lighting would have distracted from her facial expression.

I suggest that you either cut off half of her face or show her entire head and push the levels a little bit.

The expression on her face is believable and she is a great model I'd say.

The backrest of the chair in the background is a bit distracting though.

Re-shoot if you can. I can see more good images with this model. Keep going!

Like I said before, no mechanism will stop the infringing from happening. But I'm sure that there are ways to reduce the amount of infringement cases with simple methods that don't cost the world.

I had Zazzle pay me royalties from somebody who stole one of my images. So it is worth reporting and pursuing violators.

My suggestion to create the copyright message during upload is an addition to the terms of service that every memeber (should read and) agreed on.

Like I said whenever someone clicks on "Upload image" a new page shows up - full screen, red background with the message I mentioned before.
It's just one more step during upload and nothing really inconvenient - it's just an in-your-face reminder.

Of course the hardcore copyright violators won't care about the message but it will burn the fact in their minds that when they get caught they will jeopardize and lose all outstanding earnings.

You can't get rich over night with Zazzle and earnings have to rest in the account for at least 30 days, then you need to reach your payout limit. Additionally it's quite a bit of work to set up a decent store with a good number of products.

SOME people will re-think if it is really worth spending days and weeks building a shop with stolen pics if it can be shut down within a second.

Zazzle should definitely have a 3-strike and you're out policy. This includes already getting 50% earnings deducted with the first strike as a slap on the hand. Second time it happens 75% of earnings get deducted and the third time they're out. If three different stolen images are found in the shop - out!

Ignorance cannot be an excuse. People need to learn to read what they are signing. Maybe they need to learn the hard way by getting their first shop closed. After putting in so much work it would sure be a lesson to them.

I've seen so much ripped off art on Zazzle that I believe it's time to implement a stronger awareness "campaign" to their members.

As I've suggested before with Flickr, I'd like to see additional disclaimers when uploading images to Zazzle.

Since everyone can only upload via HTTP it shouldn't be a big issue of adding an additional step to the upload process or add a pop-up (which could be blocked...though) that requires confirmation that the uploader understands that they risk a civil suit if uploading content that they are not allowed to or better that they did not create themselves.

I get the feeling that not a lot of people on Zazzle understand the principle of copyright and/or public domain. I think it's time for Zazzle to step up and take an educating role for its members to make them aware without judging people.

...Marketing images exclusively at one agency is, to me, akin to having a regular 9-5 job with a single employer. This is the normal employment paradigm, and not many seem to have a problem with it....

I have a problem with it - I hate a 9-5 job. Many people are "lazy": Apply once, get hired and be told what to do every single day for the rest of your life. Psychologically this is like fast food for your life in general (it may not be good for you but you do it anyway because it's convenient).

You get your checks on time (supposedly), get your teeny weeny 10 days of vacations per year (maybe 15 days after slaving in the same company for 10 years) and maybe even health benefits. What else could you ask for one would ask?

Well, what the fudge happens when you get fired or laid off?

These days, if laid off at age 35 or older, you're pretty much unemployable because you have too much experience that no employer could (or wants to) pay and you will be put 2nd in line when some 18 year old youngsters apply with salary expectations 50% less than yours because they still live with their parents and never paid for car insurance before.

Now in iStock's case I feel like with their latest move they've laid off a lot of people. Not literally but psychologically on several levels. As an exclusive, I'd be walking on eggshells, not knowing what future tricks are up iStock's sleeves.

Anytime Hellman & Friedman could walk into Getty's office shouting more and radical orders to all branches of that corporation to squeeze the last bit of life out this once socially vivid center of microstock heaven.

I'm so happy not to be exclusive with any agency.

I understand that it works for some people but the disproportional split of exclusives to non-exclusives shows that it's not everyone's cup of tea.

I sent 5 sitemails on IS to artists I could find in this store:
w w w . zazzle . com/artgallery1+gifts

Hopefully it's enough to have the 15,629 products removed