My email must still be "in the post" Did everyone get one or was it just the bigger contributers/sellers? Nice thought though -for those that did get one! Regards, David.

^^ Thanks Liz! That was going to bother me. Apologies for taking it off topic. Regards, David.

Subscription is just kind of "thank you, Tyler" for me. I need no extra features at all. 25 USD is nothing compared to money I made thanks to useful info that I found on MSG.

I agree 100% with that as well. I really don't know what I would do for information (and often entertainment!) without MSG. I would also be totally happy to be seeing the ads - mostly they are relevant and targeted so I may even be missing out by not seeing them. Not seeing them certainly plays no part in my supporting the site. But, as others have said, can we not have the annoying flashing ones please (note to current sponsors).
Kind regards, David.

PS Just realised nobody mentioned the Kiva loan aspect of premium membership - nice to know we're doing some good as well.

Thanks for the quick work! That certainly helps. Regard David.

Quote from: cascoly on September 19, 2012, 18:17

and then there are sites like YAY which has started requiring model releases for editorial images too!

When did this happen?  I submitted editorials with people in it about 3 months ago without a problem.

I submit editorial images to Yay all the time and have never encountered that. Would be interested in a few more details of what happened. It's happened to me a few times at Shutterstock because the Editorial box became unchecked during the submission process (or I forgot to check it in the first place!). Regards, David.

Wow, I must be doing something wrong.  I have never shot any of those stock cliches.  Thanks to that guy for the great concept ideas for upcoming shoots

Just hope your husband likes rabbits then!

Thanks for posting that response Colette. So, if I'm understanding their answer correctly, you cannot upload directly to Alamy editorial images that are available at RF micro sites but where they do a partner deal with another agency the RF editorials are fine for inclusion (but will be sold under their RM license).
That still doesn't change what I previously posted -Yay themselves do not usually include editorial images in their partner deals (regardless of whether or not Alamy would be happy to take them). I guess Yay are the ones to answer that question, so maybe they'll jump in on this thread.
For clarity, I personally wish they would include editorial images in partner deals as they make up the majority of my portfolio there -and I have told them that.
Just to confuse things a bit more (not sure if everyone realises this) but Yay sell editorial images under a RM license anyway and not RF (or did last time I looked). Regards, David.

Yay do not normally include editorial images in their partner deals and I am presuming that this will be the same. Regarding quality control -under the ill fated Veer deal my entire (tiny) Veer port went to Alamy so I'm guessing all my Yay (non editorial) will be mirrored at Alamy, regardless of whether or not it would pass Alamy QC inspection. For me it's a win because I don't really have the time to upload my back catalogue of images directly and who knows if they would have all passed inspection? All credit to Yay for giving an individual opt out on different partner deals and for the advance notice. This deal will suit some and not others -but you can choose. Regards, David.

so it means we cant decide in SS approval stage whether we want to post a photo for RF(releases rquired) or Editorial (releases not required). Its like posting 10 images for RF only.. right ?

You are confusing license type (Royalty Free/Rights Managed) with image type (Editorial/Commercial). Virtually all microstock agencies sell under an RF license regardless of the image type. Royalty Free just means you pay once -use many times (without paying a "Royalty" -probaly better understood if you think of it as a Usage/Reproduction fee for each time the image is used).
For SS you can certainly submit editorial images for initial approval. Not sure about Istock as they were not taking editorial when I got approved (do not see why not though).
As Jens said above, editorial images do need to be "newsworthy" in some way (not just portraits that you don't have a model release for) and you must follow their caption requirements for editorial images EXACTLY. Seriously, down to dashes, semi colons, capital letters or not etc your caption must follow the correct format.
Good luck with your applications! Regards, David.

Quote from: Newsfocus1 on September 08, 2012, 06:22

Thanks for the fix! And, yes, I'd like more portfolio link options. Regards, David.

Ok.  I've added Veer, Yay, Cutcaster and PhotoDune

Thanks again for the quick work! Now what am I doing wrong with the Cutcaster link? It just takes you to the whole site and not my port. I used the 10 digit number sequence at the end of my referral code, which I assume is my UserID number there.  I only just added it a few minutes ago -does it take a while to work properly? Regards, David.

Great to have the gauges and portfolio links back. Thanks! None of the  links to 123RF seem to work -you just get a wikipedia article on Link Rot. Also, any plans to add more portfolio links like before -Veer, Cutcaster, Yay etc? Regards, David.

Ooops! Hit post instead of preview.

I didn't even know that microstock was around in 1969.  Ha.  Same here, nothing but jibberish on the site.

Off topic (sorry) but it's a bit weird because I have been recalling 1969 all day -because of the death of Neil Armstrong. We had a brilliant primary school headmaster who told us we didn't have to come to school the next day if we wanted to watch the first steps on the moon. I stayed up all night and eventually saw it live around 5.00am (UK time). That's got to be (for me) the standout historic moment of my life. It sort of puts a temporary bug at 123 into perspective. Regards, David.