fyi paypal reports your income to irs
payoneer does not

Quote from: jjneff on April 25, 2014, 17:13
The 5D II and the camcorder are a good mix for video. I use the 5D II a lot for video but it is a lot harder to use. I have clips from my Panasonic HMC150 that sell all the time and I still use it as well. I also use FCPX and love it, I know others hate it but it works well for me.
www.istockphoto.com/jjneff

Thanks john... any suggestions on software?

Well I am ready to jump into stock video and plan to start with Pond5 initially.

I have a 5DMII CANON but plan to buy Canon XA20 Professional HD Camcorder after reading some reviews and debates of DSLR vs Camcorder. For software I am thinking Final Cut Pro X for my Mac.

http://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/963139-REG/canon_8453b002_xa20_hd_professional_camcorder.html

But before I click BUY NOW buttons I thought I would run this by the MSG brain trust. You folks are the best,


Thanks
Bill

Why not just a sole proprietorship? I am closing my corporation after 32 years for a lot of reasons. Mostly to save money and simplify my life. Unless you have liability concerns, why incorporate -- and the corporate vail can be broken.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 23, 2014, 15:29

Quote from: oxman on March 22, 2014, 22:37
I just read my exclusive contract with iStock and could not find any mention (or restrictions) about selling "similar" images at other sites.

Let's say you shoot a wine glass from a variety of angles and lighting and submit some to your exclusive IS account and submit OTHER variations to Shutterstock..etc. Any problem with this?

The language hasn't changed recently, and you know, of course, what exclusivity "means" at IS.  Of course, it's understandable to look for a way around it, since many, including our high profile comrade, are "exclusive" and yet have work elsewhere.  Unfortunately, you aren't special enough to merit that kind of personal treatment, so you will have to find a way around it if you want to submit elsewhere.

The usual option is that "you" submit to IS, while your "company" submits as an independent, and "you" shoot for the company, signing copyright to the company.  MJ is talking about 2.a.1 above, which would seem to indicate this wouldn't work, but I know that some people have done it.  Another option is to license RM, where the RM is basically an RF set of terms, with a restriction, like for a certain period of time.

Whether or not you "get away" with these options depends on your relationship with IS and how much they feel like not noticing or caring about what you're doing.

We all know IS plays loosy-goosy with what their terms can mean at any point, so we have this statement:

"The Supplier wishes to appoint iStockphoto as its exclusive agent to license, sublicense and distribute Exclusive Content"

where it only discusses "exclusive content" and there is no definition of what that means aside from this:

"In this Agreement, "Exclusive Content" means, as applicable to Supplier, one or more of (i) Photo Content"

and further reading (IMO), photo content can't become "exclusive content" until it is uploaded (it can't be defined as exclusive content sitting on your hard drive because until it is uploaded, there is no intent to license it, exclusive or not):

"The Supplier will provide Exclusive Content to iStockphoto using the Upload procedures"

So, legally, I'm not sure they can get away with claiming all of your work to "belong" to them, but if you try to argue that, they will likely just boot you.

This is my point as well.

The ASA gets ambiguous with the use of the term "Exclusive Content". I could decide to shoot "Exclusive Content" on Monday and Tuesday for IS and "NON Exclusive Content" on Thursday and Friday for SS.

Of course IS would not see it that way and cancel my account if they caught me. They bend their terms and conditions to suit their needs so the ASA means what they want it to mean depending on the day, situation and submitter involved.

Quote from: EmberMike on March 23, 2014, 01:00

Wait, Simon aren't you already selling images at Stocksy? I just assumed you weren't exclusive anymore when I saw your Stocksy work back when the site launched.

I am not Simon and don't have any other active contributor accounts.

Quote from: ShadySue on March 23, 2014, 00:19
I'm not sure how much more clear they can make it:

"iStock wants to be your exclusive online, royalty-free, stock media agent. We don't want to share you ... [puff]..."

...

What does full Exclusivity require?
Once you become an exclusive artist, you can sell your images, videos and audio files on the entire Getty Images family of sites, and increase your royalties through our iStock partner programs.

Does that cover all of my files?
Exclusivity only covers your royalty-free stock files. iStock does not require Exclusivity for:
    Rights-managed files with other organizations
    Personal portfolio sites
    Work for hire/editorial work contracts
    Prints for sale

Are there other restrictions?
    Images, video or audio files may not be sold on the artist's own site (including collections, CD-ROMs, etc).
    Artist may not give away files for free, from their own or any other site.
    Rejected files may not be sold elsewhere

http://www.istockphoto.com/sell-stock-photos-exclusivity.php

Sue, Yes i have read all that but the ASA does not clearly state what they summarize in the above. 

Please extract from the ASA where it clearly states a submitter cannot shoot RF for other agencies.

Quote from: cobalt on March 23, 2014, 00:02
Why don´t you write to contributor relations or ask on the istock forums?

If istock has changed their contract and now allows exclusive images instead of artist exclusivity for RF, this would be a major revolution in the industry.

All the exclusives I know would love to be able to upload RF images elsewhere, but nobody dares to break the contract.

Good idea to contact CR.
But I am just going by the ASA and it does not state that a submitter cannot shoot for other agencies. It ONLY refers to Exclusive Content to IS. Maybe I am missing something but that is how it appears to me.

Thanks Jo Ann

From ARTIST'S SUPPLY AGREEMENT (EXCLUSIVE) iStock

Grant of Authority
The Supplier hereby appoints iStockphoto as Supplier's exclusive distributor to sell, license or sublicense Exclusive Content to third parties worldwide and to collect and remit funds in connection with those endeavours on the terms set forth in this Agreement.

So as an exclusive Supplier, I submit Exclusive Content for iStock to sell. It does not say I shall shoot ONLY FOR ISTOCK. They don't own WHO I shoot for — only that I submit Exclusive Content to them and no other distributor.

It appears (for example) I could shoot Exclusive Content for IS on Monday and shoot general (non-exclusive) RF for Shutterstock on Tuesday.

(OR) Submit "similars" of my IS shoot to Shutterstock.

I just read my exclusive contract with iStock and could not find any mention (or restrictions) about selling "similar" images at other sites.

Let's say you shoot a wine glass from a variety of angles and lighting and submit some to your exclusive IS account and submit OTHER variations to Shutterstock..etc. Any problem with this?

backlight it. make the shadows work for you

http://designtaxi.com/news/364284/Photographer-Makes-US-15-000-In-Just-One-Day-By-Selling-Prints-On-Instagram/

Interesting article. I wonder how true it is. And did he have model releases?

What amazes me about Getty's extortion scams is that they threaten to sue because of copyright violations when. in fact, Getty does not own the copyright -- the photographer does. 

And i believe that threatening to sue under false pretenses is in fact illegal.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 05, 2014, 15:08

Quote from: old crow on February 05, 2014, 15:01
""I'm still not down to eating ramen noodle soup and cans of tuna fish for dinner just yet.""

One small can of decent tuna fish is 6 shutterstock downloads  ! ! ! !

or...

Six cans of tuna fish is one decent shutterstock download.

And remember, if you take photos of the tuna fish (and your groceries in general) and upload it, you can use it as a tax deduction   

That is why i have trouble getting shoots with young kids. I tell the parents about the restricted use rights but mention that nobody can really control how they might be used.

chasing google algorithms will make you insane,,, trust me...

Quote from: shudderstok on January 29, 2014, 23:26

Quote from: oxman on January 29, 2014, 23:15
would it be in violation of an exclusive agreement with IS/Getty if you submitted to a brief?

read your contract/s and find out. or did you just sign it/them without reading it/them?

I just signed it but tried to white-out that section and now I have all these white smudges on my computer monitor 

would it be in violation of an exclusive agreement with IS/Getty if you submitted to a brief?

Quote from: sobm on January 25, 2014, 05:22
They wont get pass of the old IS inspection..reasons...lighting, over filter..bla bla bla..

not so with the "NEW" IS... 

some people just get it... shooting what she loves

Quote from: dingles on January 23, 2014, 23:14

Quote from: oxman on January 23, 2014, 22:59
PC=viruses
Mac=no viruses

Macs are just as vulnerable to viruses. Since Macs are the minority it is less of a target, but to say Macs do not get viruses is just untrue.

No matter which you get, don't bypass virus protection software

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/features/security/3418367/do-apple-macs-need-antivirus-os-x-security-explained/

PC=viruses
Mac=no viruses

Geezzz who designed that logo?? 

I thought IS was going to grandfather redeemed  credits -- nobody was going to go down... was that just for exclusives?

Quote from: Ron on January 14, 2014, 22:43
http://fstoppers.com/flash-vs-hdr-for-interiors-part-ii-mood-and-color-case-study

With flash its no longer really HDR with multiple exposures and you have a lot of other stuff to think about.

The simplest and quickest way is to shoot 5 exposures per shot, instead of constantly adjusting strobes and camera settings and what not.

But Jens' explanation might give you a better result. For 200 dollar I wouldnt make it all to complicated though. Shoot and get out.

Thanks RON for the link -- gonna read it tonight!