I was born and raised in Manhattan, but I am not too familiar with the area that you are talking about because it is in New Jersey.

From looking at the map, it looks like that is a shipping port area.  If it is, you're probably not going to get access to it, since those are very high security areas.

The port area is in Bayonne, NJ.

Maybe someone from that part of NJ can help you a little better.

Another thing to consider is why aren't there many images with your vision already out there?  I looked at many of the stock sites and found only a few images with the Statue of Liberty and the Manhattan skyline in the background.  Many of them look like composites, a few look like they were taken from a boat, and one actually looked like it was taken from a helicopter.  The fact that there aren't many images out there for that type of shot, might tell you that it simply isn't possible (without getting special access to the port).

Hope that helps.

johngriffin:

I agree that a good watermark is essential.

Some sites have watermarks that only work well with lighter images, other watermarks only work with darker images (night).  For example, the IS watermark only works well on darker images.  Compare the following two images:





The watermark in the darker image is obvious, but the watermark on the lighter image is barely visible.

I would suggest creating a watermark that has both light areas, neutral areas, and dark areas.  This way it will work with any type of image.

I like your suggestion of putting the watermark in multiple areas.  Some watermarks are only placed in one area, and don't work with specific images.  For example, the watermark on the following image is all but useless:



One idea that I really like, is how 123RF has created a watermark that can be placed by the contributor.  This way, if the watermark doesn't cover the appropriate area, it can be moved.  But if you use watermarks in multiple areas, I don't think that would be a problem.

You are all thinking about this incorrectly.

First, if this bill takes affect, you will not own the copyright to ANY of your works UNLESS you register them.  And registering your works will cost money.  Under the current law, any created work automatically has a copyright.  Under this bill, that won't be the case anymore.

Second, when an image is purchased on one of the microstocks, it doesn't contain the IPTC info embedded within it.  This information is stripped out by the stock agencies.  (If you want to try this, go to StockXpert or 123RF and download one of your own images.)  But even if it were embedded, the purchaser could easily strip it out and place it on the Internet.  Once that happens it is now an orphan.

Third, as we are all aware, image theft already occurs.  The last few weeks has shown us that image theft is prevalent on the Internet.  And the stock agencies do very little about it.  This will just make the situation drastically worse.

I hope that you will all do your research and read the documents that are on the Internet about this very critical issue and that you will take action to prevent this from happening.

Why???

I can just see the Miz now...

Kicking back in a chair, having a nice cold beer, reading all of these replies, and smiling.

This might be the same guy with the stolen images at DT.

It makes sense, since if he purchased all of the images from SS via subscription, then he would probably want to get the most bang for his buck and submit them to all of the agencies.

I have a model release from him.  It's just signed

T

I think you got duped, because I know the real model and he goes by:

Mr. T

But seriously I can't believe that so many images are stolen.

Do you think that they actually buy the images (with a subscription possibly), or are they hijacking them somehow?

This image can't be found with the keywords "fractal christmas tree":

http://us.fotolia.com/id/4995126



This image has plain keywords.  In other words, there are no complex keywords, quotes, symbols, or anything else.

Starting today, each HD download (via subscription) will receive $13.25 and each non-HD download (via subscription) will receive $8.00.

For more info see here:

http://www.shutterstock.com/releases/051608.mhtml

"if you don't do it correctly and the solution can damage the low pass filter coating"
Not possible. The coating on the filter is on the OTHER side of the glass -  facing down.

I'm not sure about all Canon or Nikon cameras but I know that many of the cameras have the coating on the front of the filter.  There are many known cases of people scratching or accidentally removing the coating.

I really think that this will vary a lot from contributor to contributor and portfolio to portfolio.

One thing that I think that really matters is the approach one takes to microstock.  For instance, does the contributor take the shotgun approach or the sniper approach (both of those are my terms by the way).

The shotgun approach is basically going out and taking photos and then uploading most of them without any editing.  This approach hopes to make money based on quantity.

The sniper approach is basically going out and taking photos and then choosing only a few shots from a whole shoot, editing them for hours on end and then uploading those few.  This approach hopes to make money based on quality.

Of course there is plenty of middle ground between the two.

But my point is that the shotgun approach will earn less $ per image (on average), while the sniper approach will probably earn more $ per image (on average).

Another variable that will directly affect the $/image is the topic itself.  As we know, nature (usually) doesn't sell well, while model shots (usually) sell great.

Finally, luck is something that comes into play as well.  Whether an image makes it onto the first few pages of a Best Match, or is chosen as an Editor's Choice is a roll of the dice.  I have had images show up at the top of the Best Match and sell like hotcakes, while a few months later the Best Match algorithm changes and the image hardly sells at all.

One thing is for sure - this industry never has a dull moment!

Quote from: GeoPappas on April 11, 2008, 06:53

My problem with RM is that the images really need to be exclusive to the agency in order for them to be truly managed.

What is to prevent one company from licensing an RM image on one site (e.g., Alamy) and another company from licensing  the same RM image on another site (e.g., MyLoupe) for the same terms?

For example, what is to prevent a hospital from licensing an RM image of a teenager for an ad on healthy living from one agency, while a non-profit organization licenses the same RM image for an ad on AIDS?

Do the RM agencies require exclusivity?  If not, then how can they truly manage the images?

well lots of sites do require exclusivity, but the ones that don't will then have to ask you if it is possible to get an exclusive license for a certain area / usage.

I don't follow.  How would asking the artist do anything?  If the artist submits their images to sites, then they have lost control of the usage of their images (because the sites have usage control as well).

Do Alamy or MyLoupe require exclusivity?