MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ap
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21
426
« on: November 24, 2009, 17:01 »
i'm happy that reviewers at ss don't have long memories or maybe you just got a completely different one. i might try a similar experiment...
fotolia is completely different. only one photo was accepted out of a series of 4 similars with corresponding rejection reason. so, i sneaked one reject in a few weeks after the fact and...they remembered and rejected with 'similar' reason.
427
« on: November 22, 2009, 18:50 »
i think getty will get involved if they think it's an ironclad case, especially for their macro stuff. http://copyrightaction.com/forum/the-real-cost-of-being-sued-by-gebut since this is being funneled through so many different agencies, it's hard to even determine who's responsible. however, there's always small claims court. you should have an ironclad case there. what i don't understand is if you can sue the company when the contract they signed is with the stock agency or if you have to sue photocase directly.
428
« on: November 22, 2009, 12:19 »
Good, I have nothing but bad things to say about them. But for other new contributors DT is one that will push your images to the back of the search if you have a low acceptance rate, as far as I know no one else will do this. If you want to experiment with new ideas or go out of your comfort zone I wouldn't risk it by submitting them there.
i never knew that. how low is the acceptance rate before they start to penalize you?
429
« on: November 21, 2009, 16:33 »
thanks guys for the tip. i just did my first model released shoot this week, so i'll see if your theory pans out. The same as fotorob, people shots, and like him I rarely have anything refused at Fotolia and if I do it is mostly because I have uploaded a nature shot without people.
i had my two first ever landscapes approved by ft last week. but on closer inspection at 100%, you can actually see blobs of people.
430
« on: November 21, 2009, 15:25 »
431
« on: November 21, 2009, 04:02 »
see, you just can't game the system. istock is much nicer to me and lets me feed him/her a lot more often. but, you sure can't tell with your rank at is that you even have a problem.
can you go into more detail what your style is for us fotolia rejects? (or have you already mentioned this somewhere else?)
432
« on: November 21, 2009, 03:30 »
Shutterstocks forum is now available on the comedy channel.
433
« on: November 21, 2009, 03:28 »
I don`t agree with that. I think that feeding the beast and putting up just about everything you have is what causes the rejection. they're so subscription oriented, they're almost like ss, needing to feed the beast.
i beg to disagree but it's because nothing is getting through that i can't feed the beast.  i don't put up everything...sheesh!
434
« on: November 21, 2009, 00:53 »
it's definitely not you...i did notice that sales at ft has dried up since the beginning of october. part of it may be due to my portfolio (lacking pumpkins and people) but the difficulty of uploading new stuff has stopped views also.
they're so subscription oriented, they're almost like ss, needing to feed the beast. so, when you don't feed the beast...i was more successful at getting a higher approval rate recently and the views came back, but not the sales.
435
« on: November 21, 2009, 00:23 »
Hi All,
Yep on needing the releases but I have learned recently that there are quite a number of RM buyers buying editorial and using it in commercial applications. They seem not o concerned with the legal situation. I was surprised to here this but the source is as reliable as they come so Editorial at the big agencies can have more legs than people give it credit for. I never realized until recently.
Take care, Jonathan
i'm just as surprised as you. a bigwig at a privately owned but fairly well known co. had approached me for some photos i took for editorial. he wanted it for commercial use but i was bowled over when he wasn't at all concerned about the lack of model releases. in fact, he had already cleared a really well known trademark all on his own. for a newbie like me, i was really at a loss as to how to write a rm licence for this.
You talk like it's a good thing to use content against the license definition.
dan heller gave the perfect analysis of the situation for photographers. from a legal point of view, it's really not up to the photographer to provide any releases. it's really up to the end user to obtain it for their own protection. all a photographer is responsible for is to make it clear whether he has or hasn't a release and it's up to the end user decide how to use the photograph. dan heller explains it more in depth. http://www.danheller.com/model-release.htmlof course, from a stock agency's point of view, it may be harder to sell photographs...
436
« on: November 19, 2009, 16:22 »
it's actually not a 'new' site. i was intriqued by them and when i joined, i found i had an account there dating back to 2004! and i only joined is and ss this year.
i just find it fun and a relief from the usual stock co. requirements. the fact that people say the rpi is really high and that the selection is actually even worse than fotolia makes you hold your breath as to which photo they will take. it's a nice diversion.
437
« on: November 19, 2009, 15:09 »
that's really interesting. i think there are a lot of sub .4mp photos i'd like to try out now...
thanks for the heads up!
438
« on: November 17, 2009, 16:30 »
439
« on: November 17, 2009, 14:37 »
i like your port on photocase, sint. have you considered joining getty artists? it's great to know that these more artsy photos have a good market (maybe like getty).
440
« on: November 16, 2009, 15:09 »
I was young once. May have to dig thru the film archives for my "young stuff." 
great attitude! i actually like submitting to photocase. it frees up the inner photographer in you to shoot more (or less) than stock requires. funny thing is, they actually prefer the straight photos that other stock agencies have accepted.
441
« on: November 07, 2009, 16:39 »
The commission rate is 20% for RF images and 30% for RM images. They choose which model it will be offered under - about 90% of my photos approved are RF.
thanx for sharing your experience. do they still require model releases for those that are appropriate for RM? do you submit different images than the ones you offer to the micro sites? perhaps a bit more experimental or edgy?
442
« on: November 07, 2009, 14:44 »
yes, i do see noise (sorry), but it's manageable. (whew)
the noise is usually found in the background or in the shadow areas. if you have lightroom, i use their noise reduction to deal with this or you can just isolate the noisy area in photoshop and do a surface blur.
did you shoot this at a low iso? iso 100 will help reduce a lot of noise.
443
« on: November 07, 2009, 13:58 »
Pending images countdown:[/b] I think is broken! For the last five days I have uploaded every day and the countdown started at 155 hours and it is still 145 to 150 hours for all five days! They need a new Rolex 
-Larry
the clock goes both ways. for one image starting at 121 hours, it was approved within 12 hours. go figure!
444
« on: November 07, 2009, 13:47 »
i can only envy you. i have only level one images but the rpd is well over a dollar. so, you're saying most of your sales are subs? so, it doesn't help if your images sell well and reach level 2, 3, or 4 because the buyer will be subs anyways. is there some sort of strange relationship between the popularity of an image and subs?
445
« on: November 07, 2009, 13:23 »
^Was it ever anywhere close? BTW there is a thread for all the things you dislike about DT out there http://www.microstockgroup.com/dreamstime-com/what-do-you-hate-about-dreamstime/, maybe there could be some things people like put in this thread? Maybe not though?
i'm tempted to migrate there (if i wasn't the op here), simply for the lack of sales at dt. what's happened to our favorite stock site?! should you be pimping your thread here though?
446
« on: October 31, 2009, 00:57 »
Macs are so much more elegant and simpler to use...no virus issues, no clunky Windows OS. Mac OS X is brilliant...what is not so great is Apple's software offerings...they seem lightweight compared to MS Office, Adobe etc.
i switch back and forth between mac and pc due to the above reasons. it can be frustrating to not be able to use an ap (or game) that's only available to the pc. however, the mac pro notebook is a real pleasure to use... one thing is that if you ever want to offer footage or do video/film, apple's final cut pro (which is not available to pc) is the gold standard for editing and post processing. we were even able to do a green screen shoot and stitch it together in final cut afterwards (plus numerous special effects).
447
« on: October 30, 2009, 16:06 »
One a day releases, this is funny. What next are you going to need every model release to be notarized? ps I blame lawyers, not the agencies for this kind of stupidity. Pets need releases, now buildings need releases, silhouettes need releases, pictures in the pictures need releases, what the heck?
race, i think it's all down to the photographer's comfort level. even if he has all the required paperwork, but if he still gets spooked by even just the threat of a lawsuit, he's gonna want all the notaries he can get. i have been following this photographer getting sued by her model over on ss. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=72229 even though she dotted all her i's, she's just in such a vulnerable state, as a result, she not only incorportated herself but thinking of getting out of 'glamour' stock photos. you, obviously, are made of stronger stuff.
448
« on: October 30, 2009, 00:58 »
i don't think you're wrong. i'm not sure how you did it though.
449
« on: October 30, 2009, 00:21 »
Today I just found this free host with: Check it out [urr=http://www.000webhost.com/219172.html]http://www.000webhost.com[/url]
I don't like you put your referral link here in a very sneaky way. The 000webhost lives off referrals an linkfarms. They live off clicks. I hope you got some cents in your referral account there for the clicks you harvested here.
wow, some great sleuthing there.
450
« on: October 29, 2009, 15:09 »
for me, it's either feast or famine at 123. but enjoy it while it lasts.
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|