I'd probably stay with IS (after having deleted my more sensitive images) but for the fact that I really want to move ahead with 3D renders and they're rejecting just about everything I send them. I've been told that other sites are a bit more accepting of 3D work, and they do sell. Seems like the tax situation is manageable - thanks for advice people. I've got a few more renders in the queue and I'm anticipating giving them notice very soon.

ETA: Done.

I know this question has come up before but I've never been able to quite get my head around how to proceed. I live in Australia. I'm a hobbyist who makes a loss on my photography and my turnover is less than $20,000. The Australian Tax Office doesn't want me claiming my hobby losses against my main income so at the moment I don't declare my stock income/losses and everyone's happy.

I'm currently an istock exclusive and they don't issue any forms, don't withhold any tax, and all is simple. However if I go indie I need to deal with SS (and others). They withhold 30% and issue forms and put me in a position I don't want (or need to be in) - dealing with tax as a business when I the ATO would rather I don't. The advice I've seen involves sending my passport off to the US or something and I really don't want to do that.

Are there any Australians here who have found a sensible solution to this state of affairs?

Does SS still take off a chunk of earnings in withholding tax? As my expenses exceed my income I don't actually make a profit (yet) and don't want to jump through hoops to keep what income I do make.

I could not find any 3D renders in your bort, I mostly saw photos, and maybe some 3 d books.

However, I also saw that you have problems in your isolations with spill light.
Black cardboard and longer lens is a solution.

I'll have a look at the spill problem, but I do tend to use a lot of fill when shooting isolated images so I'm not sure what you see as a problem. I always use a lens hood. Almost all the non-editorial images in my most recent 100 are 3D - there are 22 of them. Books, knives, jewelry, smartphones. gears, a couple of stylised figures.

Deactivated my 7 people images.

I'm currently an istock exclusive thinking of going indie. This is partly due to the current issues, but I do have other considerations. My port is approx 600 photos, but I am trying to diversify into 3D renders and I'm finding that istock rejects most of my work in this area. If you're interested you can check my work on istock. The renders are fairly recent so search by age. Question is do other agencies accept renders more readily than istock does? While I can see the reason for most photo rejects I don't get much useful out of 'the quality of this render is not good enough'. I'm at an impasse with it and want to find a way forward again.

I probably will drop the crown due to all these other issues, although I'm not convinced that other agencies are fundamentally better. I've seen some pretty severe criticism of all major agencies on this forum. Being a libran I'll take my time to make my decision. I have already deactivated a few images that I really don't want unrestricted use of out in the wild. Anyway I'm a very small player, and not really at risk with no Agency or Vettas.

I really don't see how the google deal can be described as a "traditional payment model".  It seems to be a unique deal.
And if they get rid of the "crowd sourced contributors" then they lose all of iStock and chunks of TS and Photos.com. Our work isn't theirs. They can't dump us and keep the images.

As I said earlier I'm certainly no authority, so I stand to be corrected. Didn't Getty once sell CDs full of images? Seems to me the Google deal is a somewhat updated version of that, which is what I was referring to as 'traditional payment model'. Or one of them.

My knowledge of the industry is minimal. However it appears to me that Getty has been severely impacted by the microstock model over the past decade. They are attempting to come to terms with it. Microstock actually consists of two main aspects - the micropayment online delivery bit and the crowd sourced content bit. What seems to me to be happening is that they are maintaining the micropayment business model but are getting rid of the crowd sourced contributor aspect. Also they are applying more traditional payment models (such as the Google deal) to what is currently crowd sourced content, which is where the current friction is occurring. We contributors don't have the bigger picture, we don't really know what is going on behind our backs. And I don't believe Jonathan Klein is a fool.

Quote from: heywoody on January 18, 2013, 10:23

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 18, 2013, 04:50

Listen fellas and try and understand something!  this is a formidable and courages effort to make things better but go back in history a bit, to the stoneage in fact.
This scenario has been tried before, a unanimous effort and that was back when agencies were not this powerful and STLL, it didnt have any impact at all.
Imagine then whats it like today and with powerful agencies, this and that.

For every image you deactivate there are 20 being uploaded either by new members, old members or new applicants constantly knocking at the door.
Like we have all agreed on before, its a numbers game, got nothing to do with how good you are how well known you are its just numbers. Cant beat that. Its like getting a straight-flush in stud poker. And youre loosing money at the same time.

all the best.

You know, normally I’d agree but lots of significant players are at least pledging deactivations and, if even Sean has stopped uploading, there is a possible “storming of the Bastille” on the cards here.

Slightly off topic, I’m amused at the -9 hearts – maybe someone has cried “Wolf” too often or this is just the reaction to honest opinion pointing out something unpalatable.

minus 11 actually!  who cares Im not here to score points.

Yes if ppl like Sean and in his league joins in , then and only then this might have some impact.

For many people it's not about sending a message (although that would be nice) but about protecting their property. If Getty gives yours stuff away you won't be able to sell it anywhere. Also if you've made assurances to models (perhaps family, friends) that the bespoke Google license doesn't appear to offer any protections for, then you might want to reduce their exposure to abuse.

Quote from: michaeldb on December 04, 2010, 21:39

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!

We discovered serious copyright infringement issues within your portfolio of images on Shutterstock Images, LLC.

I'm not seeing how this could be a MR or PR issue.

All my stock is studio these days. If I take my camera out the front door it's not for stock. Sadly I hardly ever take my camera out the front door any more.

I usually handle noise reduction by using blending mode options rather than masking - you could set up an action to implement it with a single click. I generally set the blurred layer to blend if the underlying layer has a white point set from about 30 to about 70 (split). Works like a charm and very easy to finesse.