I think Alamy has it right.  Letting the publisher take the decision seems sensible to me.

As I understand release requirements comes down to a matter of context and relies on whether an image is profiting on somebody else's property.  If a logo is totally incidental to the context, then no appropriation of property has occurred.  For instance consider an image used in an advert for a travel location showing a tourist enjoying a stroll in a holiday destination, but the image used also has a drink can incidentally shown in the background. I can't see how this could be classed as appropriating the intellectual property of the drink producter.

Many MS agencies take an overly risk averse position.  This leads to inefficiencies in production.  However the world is what it is - it's their business, their rules.

Seems to me that we need a colloquial thesaurus ie. a thesaurus that returns a result giving synonyms for common words as used in other countries, regions or cultures.   It appears that there are quite a few.  Some OK, some not so good.  Only had a brief look but one that appears to be quite useful is:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/

It returns a list of words that may match but it's also very funny in terms of descriptions of the word.  Look up "Ocean", "Football", "Cricket", and you'll see what I mean.  A very entertaining read. But I can foresee that if you use it for keywording you may be distracted from that busy task by the amusing descriptions. 

I'm confused.  Isn't "turn and burn" a major part of the problem?

As to "our art", sorry guys but, figuratively speaking, micro is producing Widgets, with some very few exceptions.

And technology is the enabler that has allowed this situation to occur.  Just as it has in almost all other industries.

I don't think there is a viable solution, except to wait until normal market forces sort it out. But I fear that is some way off yet.

Have a good read through the Alamy forum.  A lot of info there on success or otherwise, but in general it is a low turnover site for contributors but with the prospect for very high prices.  Past performance suggested an average of $100 per sale with an average of 10 downloads per1000 images per year, eg. An RPI of $1 per image online, per year, and this is Gross, net shoul be 60% of that. However, this last year contributors are reporting very steeply reduced image pricing.

Worth a read if you are considering submitting.

Quote from: pseudonymous on June 21, 2011, 08:35
Rofl, that was your mission?  You know a dead rat on the side of the road would draw my attention if I walked by it.  It doesn't mean I would find it the least bit interesting.  

If this is your mission, you need a new one, mate.  Here's one for you.  Why don't you concentrate on producing quality work, instead of widgets.  Maybe then you'll have something less to whinge about

Boy, it really has hit a nerve with you hasn't it Pseudo.  That's 2x4 stuff to my mind.
Widgets can be quality, but they are still widgets. And that's what stock is mostly about, images as commodities.

"Actually the only person I see whining in this thread was you.  Everyone else was just trying to determine if this person was using her images legally and what type of licence they would need to use it

Your approach was hardly like "a piece of 2x4".  It was more like a "mozzie" that annoys you for a while till you squash it.  Then you forget about it "


Seems to have got a lot of attention from you.  Mission accomplished.

Quote from: click_click on June 21, 2011, 01:22

Quote from: bizair on June 21, 2011, 01:12
...
I'll amend the sentence to "Likewise, I didn't suggest that we are "popping" out work.". Seems to be a slight inflection on the same point though.

I know... This thread has been ruined.

I hope so.  It seems to me that what was once a great forum for exchange of ideas and help has now degenerated into a forum full of whining about what life useful be, and asinine solutions to the woes of the stock world.  My only purpose in posting the way I did was to attempt to get people to reflect on the nonsense now abundant on the forum.  Somehow, I don't think i'll have much luck. 
I'm sorry if my approach rubs some people the wrong way.  But sometimes though things just have to be said - a bit akin to being hit over the head with a piece of 2x4, it gets attention to where it should be.

Quote from: click_click on June 20, 2011, 14:27

I never said "poop" I said "pop" as in rapidly producing images in a row.

You are correct of course, I crossed wires with the reference to excreatment comments in the following post to yours.

I'll amend the sentence to "Likewise, I didn't suggest that we are "popping" out work.". Seems to be a slight inflection on the same point though.

Oh dear.
Where did I mention that photography is unskilled. Of course it is a skill, and I noted that.  I simply said that it is not as high a skill as many here seem to think. Judging by the way many of us talk about this vocation an outsider could be forgiven for assuming that many of us think it's akin to rocket science or brain surgery.  It simply is not.
And where did I state that I do not respect the work of others or myself.  We can respect the effort or work of oneself or others without needing to put it on a pedestal. Likewise, I didn't suggest that we are "pooping" out work.
The amount of effort put into analysing (what may or may not be) a rather trivial transgression of a licence beggars belief.
And as to "suing their backsides" - a silly statement if ever I heard one. Have the people who throw those terms around any idea of the risks faced in litigation? Losing litigation is sell your house stuff. To suggest suing  over such an issue is not even a consideration in risk management terms.
The intention in my comments is simply to bring a dose of reality to our endeavors. I repeat again, we are producing commodities - hence the widget analogy.

Goodness me boys and girls.  A lot of what has been said is nonsense. 
Given much of the debate one would have to think it we are holding up ourselves and our work to be overly precious.
I'll wear the flames but it has to be said.   We are not producing art here in any manner or means with, IMO, a very few exceptions.  We are simply producing   commodities.  And stock in particular is not highly skilled activity.  Photography requires skills of course, but nowhere near as much skill and imagination as many, many other trade or craft.  Yes, there are exceptions, but the vast majority of us never approach that level of achievement.
We produce our widgets so that designers can use them to achieve other aims. If one designer has found a novel way to use the widgets, provided it falls arguably within the license for that widget  then what are we worried about?

All stock images are sold into a secondary use market, eg adverts, illustration, textbooks, blogs or other online, with most changed in some way such as cropping, adding text, or otherwise changing the look of the original.  I don't see how the  paintmyphoto use is really any different.  We are selling to designers to use an image for a purpose other than image-for-image-sake use.

Looks very much like Lightroom.  Be interesting to see how it performs

Quote from: leaf on June 02, 2011, 06:36
I use camtasia.

Thanks. Looks like a great piece of S/W.  Might have to give the trial a go.

Hi Tyler.  You produce exceptional tutorials, I'm sure all will agree.  Could you please let us know the tools you use to produce those videos?

Only one word is needed to describe your contribution, Leaf.  FANTASTIC.
Thank you so much.

Quote from: etienjones on May 13, 2011, 08:51

Quote from: Perry on May 13, 2011, 08:32

Quote from: Zeus on May 12, 2011, 23:57
There has to be an easier way than riding the back of a now dead photographer.

Are you saying the photos made by the now dead photographer should be forgotten and hidden in cardboard boxes in some storage?

The problem here is that the original poster needs to know exactly when the photos were taken, I'm guessing most of them doesn't have exact year...?

I think the easiest way would be submitting these to Alamy as RM.

Absolutely right, but please, in the Description have "Photography from So and So, 186X"  . .   give due respect for the artist.

Yes indeed, in fact even if the photographer and exact date/year are unknown, a description such as "Image by unknown photographer, circa 186x" is entirely appropriate.

"There has to be an easier way than riding the back of a now dead photographer."

Good point.   So... how does this differ from images of almost anything except natural landscapes and model/property released images, ie most "Editorial" images?  Are we "riding the back" of these artists or other subjects, whether dead or not.  Examples include: statues, paintings, ice carvings, architecture, or unreleased images of people? Whether these are in public places or not is irrelevant IMO, we are still "riding the back" of other's intellectual work or, in the case of unreleased people, their likeness. Yes, I understand the journalistic view and reportage of events etc, but many, if not most, editorial images I've seen in portfolios do not fall into this category.

In respect to "There has to be an easier way..."; of course there is.  I was not suggesting that we try and live of the income of a few rejuvenated editorial only images sold for pennies.  There's lots of other photography to do.

"I think because the images are that old it's ok for you to use them however you like, even without putting any work into them.  They should be in the public domain."

In a legal sense I suspect you are correct. But I was not suggesting simply turning around other's work.  It's really about compensation for the considerable work undertaken in cleaning up and making an image useable in the public domain. 

Hi All

Could I please have some views on reproducing old images and placing them as stock for sale.

I have access to some very old images (>150 years old) which I don't believe have any copywrite issues concerning the original artist.  The images need considerable work to make them suitable for reproduction, such as tonal corrections, spotting, repairs etc.

My question is: Does the work I do to the image constitute adding enough artistic or technical effort to the resulting image to claim copyright over the "changes" such that the image can be added to a stock portfolio.  What about attaching a property release which notes that the property being released is the (considerable) work on the image and that the resulting image is a derivative of an original image that is copywrite free.

I note that there are countless examples of such images available as RF and RM on various sites (many it appears are straight scans without any additional work).

My first thought is that I can do this, provided of course that the agency accepts the image.  But I expect that the answer could be "maybe, maybe not", depending on the image and the personal work done.   However, a range of other/alternate views would be appreciated.

Regards

Just take a risk management approach. What is the probability of someone recognizing the picture - negligible. What is the probability they could take offense -negligible. What is the risk they would sue -negligible. What outcome could they achieve if successful - very little.  Therefore on all counts the risk is almost nonexistent - time to be creative.

This whole business of MR is getting to the stupid stage.

Watching this idiot OPs postings was a lot of fun.  Some people are really, REALLY DUMB!

Hi

PM has good advice on Commercial images required, but what about editorial?  Some agencies only want current event or "newsworthy" images. This leaves them exposed as most editorial around the world is not "newsworthy" or "current event" type imaging.  The vast majority of editorial images are used to illustrate (truthful) articles, text books, web pages or other types of journals.  Topics may be covered well for Europe and the US, but the world is a very big place and more non-EU/US material I'm sure will be needed increasingly in the future - the Asian region for instance is absolutely booming.  In many cases these are fairly ordinary images - they illustrate a point or topic well, but they may not be "stunners".

Has PM any comment on this?

Thanks

Deleted

You need to qualify with a "test" upload of 4 images.  My first three trys were rejected (quite rightly) and I was accepted on my 4th test upload.  After you know Alamy's requirements it's not hard.  I've since uploaded over 600 images in 65 separate uploads to Alamy over the past 6 weeks, all have been QC accepted.  Alamy takes a statistical approach to approval which in my opinion is the best way to manage quality while not going overboard as many other sites do.  In short, we are expected to be adults capable of meeting a requirement, and with a bit of trust on both sides it seems to work.  Alamy is not a micro site.  Image sales are very low compared to micros, but the average price obtained for each sale is much higher.  Alamy has a mainly RM portoflio, mostly aimed at the editorial market, although RF images are growing. Each to their own - it's just a different model.   

I've seen JustWorldPhoto mentioned on another thread  (http://www.microstockgroup.com/microstock-services/ktools-photostore/25/ ) as a good example of KTools in use.  I had a look at www.JustWorldPhoto.org and I do like the look.  They also invite photographers to contribute with an 80% return on sales.   It appears to be a site specialising in "make the world a better place theme".  Many travel images could be suitable here.

So... that raises the question - does anyone here upload to JustWorldPhoto? And if so, how have sales gone, or is it a waste of time?

Thanks

Ken 

......."iStockphoto reserves the right, at your expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you, and in such case, you agree to cooperate with iStockphoto's defense of such claim."

Not quite so benign as you may think.  The iStock extract quoted above is the real killer.  iStock can defend any action taken against them at their discretion, and they can do it without reference to you and YOU meet all iStock's costs. 

Indemnities are almost universally inserted into all serious contracts.  The clauses that lawers try to avoid or to moderate are those quoted above ie a unilateral right to defend actions without reference or agreement by the party that will be paying for that defence - in other words YOU. 

However, you also need to take a risk management approach.  By that I don't mean avoid all risk, but manage the risk.  Ask yourself, what is the probability that someting I do will result in sone legal action against me or agencies that I associate with, then ask yourself what will the likely impact be of any such action.

Provided we are diligent in regard to model/property releases, then the probability that an action will occur will be low.  And if an action does arise the cost is not likely to be high (eg a payout to a model or a property owner).  Therefore the overall risk of any litigation occurring is very low to negligible.  I would sign such an indemnity for any of my work.   And we really don't have any choice in any case.