...I posted a message on DT's forum quite a while back, asking if DT couldn't consider limiting the size of sub sales.

The thread was removed within an hour, with no warning or notice. I said nothing at all negative or derogatory, it was simply a suggestion.

That was the last post I made (or shall ever make) on their forum. 

This agency behavior (in general) will keep on going in the future - sadly.

Competition leaves less and less room for generous commission cuts for the photographers and the running costs for the agencies are just going up (more staff/reviewers/offices and disk space/servers etc. - cost probably increasing faster than their sales - if sales even grow!!!). So for them it's a necessary move to grind down any amounts they can save (moving those costs onto the contributors) to stay in the game.

While it's easier for them now to predict future costs and prepare (by adjusting prices) they can maintain their own salaries but naturally the individual contributor will make less and less. There is no way around it.

In 5 years, each of the top 3 agencies will have maybe 200.000 or 300.000 contributors pumping content to their libraries. By that time Yuri is long gone somewhere on his own yacht, only shooting custom projects and that's it. The full-time Micro-shooter will be an extinct species then.

It used to be a real good money maker but now it's going to destroy itself (for the contributors).

2007. I cannot know anyway when he joined Fotolia. I hope he can give me some reasonable answer. I always presume 'innocence' before condemning somebody, so the benefit of doubt I can still give him for a little while...

Is he total exclusive or only some images exclusive? Did you find that out?
If he is exclusive with Fotolia (or DT for that matter) and he has the same portfolio at any other site - it's beyond benefit of the doubt.

I'm using a TS lens to do the panorama. See the bottom of this article. I've got a 65mm Hartblei SuperRotator, and I'm actually shooting quite close up, attempting to get a square image at XXL or even XXXL (for istock) instead of 3:2 from my Pentax K20d. Perspective is an issue. The article says the camera should move rather than the lens when shifting right and left, which is why I'm trying to find a fairly accurate way to shift the camera. ...

Thanks, I understand now why you need to shift it.

I have a need to slide a camera in portrait position sideways to take two overlapping portrait shots and stitch to make a square image. I have a manfrotto tripod with standard tilt head (not ball head), but finding some bracket that can attach to it which has a right angle to hold the camera vertically and also allows sliding is problematic. I do have a straight sliding bracket that can fit to tripod and camera, but I need the right angle. Any suggestions would be welcome.

I just got up so maybe you have to disregard this question:

Why would you slide your camera for a stitch instead of turning it? Are you running out of background?

I tried stitching shots that I took by moving sideways. Total mess. The software I used (PTGui) couldn't handle it. You get far better results by simply rotating the camera. As long as the pivot point of the camera (or better of the sensor) is on the axis of the tripod you'll get a perfect square stitch.

Maybe you can elaborate your scenario so I can understand. It's too early.

That is fantastic! I can just dream about $2 RPD.
What types of photos do you shoot?

Kone

I'm more into illustrations - not vector though.

I really have no problem complying to their rights. I never tried to copy anything. I had my own designs and "only" used the words. If the words are trademarked or whatever, I will stop with my stuff.

Once you get the rights to something, you're entitled to it - that's how it works.

I'm just not so sure if the agencies are already aware of this, because iStock, Shutterstock , Fotolia, Dreamstime and the rest will be having a lot of trouble coming their way then using this term...

Are there really still people out there who believe that a new micro agency will take off and accumulate a library of images in the 2 to 5 million range within one or two years?

Every single new agency that was founded in the last 3 years never made it to the top 5, not even by a long shot. Where do these people get their business loans from?

 

Funny enough the term "Soccer World Cup" is in the disambiguation system of iStock. There are also tons of images on there using the term in the image description and title.

Wonder how that pans out.

I guess they registered copyright all over the place:

http://www.worldcupblog.org/world-football/world-cup-2010-for-official-sponsors-only.html

...Apparently the phrase �World Cup 2010″ is a registered trademark and can only be used by� you guessed it� official sponsors. FIFA are claiming this as a victory against �ambush marketers�. ...

Does anyone know where the opt-out checkbox on BigStock is now? I've looked around all my profile pages, etc. and I don't see it. I wanted to be sure I am opted out from partner programs with BigStock, since they are participating in this MediaBakery thing.

I'm not 100% sure but I think you can't opt out from partners at Bigstock.

Ever since SS took over I wouldn't be worried about faulty earnings reporting. I'm sure SS is having a serious eye on MediaBakery so they get their money.

I believe it usually works this way: Partner receives web resolution thumbnails for application of new watermark but once a sales happens the high res files will be downloaded from the BigStock servers. This way the original agency can easily track the transactions. I hope it works this way also in this case. I keep my fingers crossed.

I don't think you (cash my files site owner) are taking this business seriously enough.

If people can sell movie posters or the like with logos on them from "Paramount Pictures":
http://cashmyjunkfiles.com/files/medusa-.html (and check the other image in this person's portfolio).

there is something majorly wrong.

http://cashmyjunkfiles.com/files/forum-buzz-script-mrr.html (Brothersoft logo)

There is something called "intellectual property" - you may have heard of it. It grants all copyrights to the creator of the files and not any 3rd party (unlike your "contributors").

Those image collection  files you are selling look fishy too. I won't be tracking down any copyright holders but eventually you'll get word from them I'm sure.

This is a good example of how not to start an online business.

Nice stuff, a lot of people have said they wouldn't have put this sort of stuff on micro, the OP said " There's not much of this sort of work on microstock so it will be interesting to see how viable it is." has nobody thought that might be the reason why she's put it on iS!

I'm guessing she's not new in the stock industry.

I'm not saying that she is not smart to upload this to iStock but I wonder how many people need half naked models with splashing clothes to advertise their products and services...

It's her creativity and skills that make these images so special.

I have not read any cases where a miscellaneous face in a crowd visible for 3 frames was able to sue anyone in a legal case.  Perhaps you could provide an online link to such a history.

I think this is leading into a gray area as I wouldn't want to see myself for 3 frames in an ad supporting a republican party (or democratic *cough*).

What is the actual time "allowed" for an identifiable face to be displayed without having grounds for a lawsuit? I doubt that a company is "permitted" to take photos of people on public grounds and compile a time lapse without their consent just because the faces are shown for only 3 frames.

I thought, as long as the person can recognize him-/herself you need a release - period. If no release is available it will be editorial (if possible). Especially in time lapse videos it's easily possible to process the footage in a way to make the people unrecognizable - I thought that would be the requirement for RF. But obviously it's just enough to "be part of a crowd". Now let's define crowd (*getting a headache*).

I highly doubt that this is written anywhere which may be a good and a bad thing at the same time for us photographers. However, in order to be able to publish legally safe content it would be of great help if there would be official statements made by the agencies accepting such content (most likely footage).

Or shall we just upload anything hoping that the agencies will make the decisions for us?