|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
4601
« on: January 21, 2013, 23:05 »
I think the CV is a relic of an earlier age. Google does very nicely without it and I think Getty could too if they could stop thinking of this millstone around their neck as the crown jewels.
At any rate, back to Alamy. I try to keyword (I do it in Photoshop) so that the essential keywords are up front. That makes the task in Alamy a ton easier - just grab the first few words; cut, paste. Then grab the rest, cut and paste into the second box. I rarely have too many for that second box.
If I have to restructure the keywords (like some of my older iStocked ones with CV terms). I do those as a batch and then edit in the individual differences.
4602
« on: January 21, 2013, 22:50 »
I don't see this as any different from TinEye, GoogleImages, SpiderPic, etc. it's just an image database with an algorithm to match content. Nothing new really. Call it 'fingerprinting' or whatever you like.
I think you're missing the limitations in GoogleImages, TinEye and the rest. (a) PicScout claims they can handle transformations and overlays (google images and TinEye both fail with those) and (b) they can deliver the appropriate metadata to enable proper credit if you have the image but no access to that. I tried one of my images and the transformations that PicScout claims to be able to handle. Google couldn't find any of them other than the original. TinEye couldn't even find the original     I'm not going to test out Getty's stuff, but if their claims are actual - and they say they have 80million images from 300K photographers in their database - then they are very different from any of the existing image search tools
4603
« on: January 21, 2013, 21:03 »
So if I understand this, the fingerprint is read from the image but the image is not altered. Hence, contributors could get all of their images fingerprinted and put into the system, even after being submitted to the agencies. The, when a "buyer" comes looking, both the photog and Getty would be linked to the image. Does this sound right? So even if Getty (or somebody) strips the metadata and alters the image, we are still linked.
That's what I understand him to have said. He claims that cropping, flipping and overprinting text don't eliminate the ability to match up the image in use with the registered original. At some point I think their tracking would break down, but who knows where that line is. There was a recent thread here about a thief who used other people's images, blurred, cropped and sometimes flipped, as a background for a foreground of his own. I'm guessing that PicScout wouldn't find something like that. If it weren't Getty who owned the technology, I'd be a lot more excited about the possibilities 
4605
« on: January 21, 2013, 19:51 »
You're right - it is an interesting video.
Assuming that in time everyone who licenses images has "registered" their image with them. The model seems very straightforward for the honest and savvy image buyer who can easily be directed to the agency from which they can license registered content - the example the speaker gave was seeing an image in some online location that you'd like to license but you don't know where to do that.
The other side of this is people who use the image but have no intention of licensing it - is someone planning to chase them to make them license an image? Or will there be some sort of ad-revenue-sharing deal, or ? He didn't say anything at all about whether this would replace the Getty "pay up or else" letters.
It seems there is more of a story to tell about how exactly this technology will be used broadly - assuming that's what Getty has in mind.
4606
« on: January 21, 2013, 18:00 »
I shared your blog post on Facebook, with a small note. I don't have a blog, but am looking at setting one up (as part of a suite of activities in preparation for the potential of walking away from iStock).
I tweeted it too, using the hashtags #istock #googlefail and #getty. All of them are existing tags and my thinking was it might be more help to get the word out to use tags that already have "currency". Having our own hashtag would let us see how we were doing if we got masses of people involved (anyone remember #istock10 which briefly beat that doofus Justin Bieber?)
4607
« on: January 21, 2013, 16:10 »
This is somewhat OT - but relates to what Getty's thinking about uses of images online. Getty Creative just tweeted a link to a blog about the use of images in social media - growing, text is dead long live the image, a bit amped up but still perhaps the way they see the world moving
4608
« on: January 21, 2013, 13:48 »
They appear to have restarted the posting of December sales - I have some added to December 5th this morning
I wish I could see them. All I get when I try to see my stats most days, including today, is the endlessly spinning circle of dots....
Perhaps that's what you get if you made too much money and they're trying to adjust the figures before showing them to you
4609
« on: January 21, 2013, 12:56 »
I hate doing it, but I always fix their erroneous guesses.
I did once have a rejection because they wanted me to include an illustration category - on something that was photograph of some painted objects. I did and changed the description to point out that it was a photograph just so buyers weren't confused.
I appreciate them trying to make a good guess, but I'd appreciate it even more if they just did away with that altogether and used keywords to pull together groups for buyers if they want to do that. It's a pain in the butt
4610
« on: January 21, 2013, 12:53 »
They appear to have restarted the posting of December sales - I have some added to December 5th this morning. Now they've moved on to December 6th 7th
4611
« on: January 21, 2013, 00:28 »
Was sorry not to see Blend Images' name in there after the snotty response that their CEO had to Sean trying to get them involved in fighting Getty on this
What snotty response? Is it posted somewhere? It's utterly amazing to think any stock agency (besides GI) would see this as a good thing.
I'll ask if it's OK and then I'll post here if it is - it wasn't an open forum.
4612
« on: January 21, 2013, 00:02 »
Holy Sh*t - they're busy!. Lots of Hemera, Jupiter Images. Was sorry not to see Blend Images' name in there after the snotty response that their CEO had to Sean trying to get them involved in fighting Getty on this
1 image by "Blend Images/Marc Romanelli" was added today:
http://kga.me/gds/4729/blend-images-marc-romanelli
image number=151333861
title=Librarian helping student in library
4613
« on: January 20, 2013, 23:43 »
Holy Sh*t - they're busy!. Lots of Hemera, Jupiter Images. Was sorry not to see Blend Images' name in there after the snotty response that their CEO had to Sean trying to get them involved in fighting Getty on this
4614
« on: January 20, 2013, 15:07 »
Is image exchange owned by Getty? I am interested after seeing what they do, and its free, but I dont want to end up in the claws of Getty at some point
Yes. Getty purchased PicScout. I'm not doing anything with it, but wondered why, as a Getty company, it wasn't being pitched to photographers at Getty agencies.
4615
« on: January 20, 2013, 13:18 »
I can't see how Picscout would have anything to do with this.
An experiment to track use?
So is there any way to tell if an image has been indexed into the ImageIRC platform? The reason PicScout might have something to do with this deal is if Getty planned to do post-usage billing on these images for anything outside of Google Drive. If Getty planned to keep all that revenue versus share it with the copyright owner, even small additional amounts could add up. I really don't understand where PicScout and ImageTracker are going - if you look at the case studies, it doesn't appear they've done much do date - but when this description of what it is compares it to YouTube's content ID tracking system, it says to me that Getty wants to get its technology as the platform for this type of usage tracking and payment. "With the ImageIRC Post-Usage Billing Service, photographers and content licensors can now be assured that their work is properly acknowledged on platforms which will embrace the ImageIRC Post Usage Billing solution.
In the online video world, a similar service is YouTubes Content ID. Launched in 2007, Content ID allows licensors of video and audio media shared by YouTube users to take action on their content as it is uploaded. Similar to the ImageIRC model, licensors upload the audio and video reference files they would like monitored on YouTube into Content ID. Then, the uploaded reference files are fingerprinted and stored in the Content ID system. When YouTube users uploaded audio or video content that exists in the Content ID system, the licensor has the ability to track, block or monetize the content. Like professional imagery, professional audio and video content drives significant engagement on YouTube. Since the launch of Content ID, licensors and YouTube users can benefit equally from value created by professional content."It seems to me that your big hurdle if you have a service like this is getting the major online players to use your platform. It seems to me that getting Google to use Getty technology for image IDs - the image equivalent of Content ID for video - might be the thing Getty is really after in this Google Drive deal. Our images are just the sideshow (from Getty's point of view) if this is what's actually going on. If I were Google I wouldn't want to be beholden to an outside company for something that central. But Getty might think they can do a deal. I also don't understand why, if it's free to register images with Image Exchange, more people aren't using it - is it because no one trusts Getty and figures that it'll soon cost money? Or 'cause they're lousy at getting the word out?
4616
« on: January 20, 2013, 12:14 »
Perhaps we could frame the buyer protest a little differently? Some buyers will have credits to use up and if they can't get refunds, there's no reason for them to just give that money to iStock
How about setting the last weekday before D-Day as one to use up all your credits and close your account? Make February 1st Buy-and-Bye Day (or something catchier)?
It'll be harder for corporate accounts to do something like this as decisions get made by people other than the art buyer (and often made slowly).
What does a buyer lose if they close their account? A history of what they've bought - do they have any rights to re-download something previously purchased and lost (I seem to remember that being added sometime in the last year or two)?
The lower the pain for the buyer to join in the protest, the more buyers will likely be willing to participate.
4617
« on: January 19, 2013, 17:22 »
I understand now - MicrostockRF is a separate collection and you can't access it by the popup dialog from the main page's search box. If you select the Creative radio button there you have a choice of Royalty Free or Rights Managed - neither of which includes the Fotolia images.
You have to select MicrostockRF from the top menu on the Main page to get any of those images (I'd have thought they should be in with the other creative images - as a buyer, that's where I'd expect to find them). Sort of like the discount table round the back for the cheaper images...
4618
« on: January 19, 2013, 15:45 »
4619
« on: January 19, 2013, 15:29 »
4620
« on: January 19, 2013, 15:17 »
You're right - I am confused and thanks for the list from Veer's site. I have my images on Pocketstock.com - placed there by me with their help - and I also have images on Veer (only 800+ of my portfolio). I did a search for images that are on Veer I see only one copy, so somehow there are no duplicates - or they didn't include the "cheap" Veer stuff in the deal. I would point you to the FAQ that says we only get paid what our regular Veer royalty would be when a partner makes a sale. That's the element of their partner deals that I find so objectionable.
4621
« on: January 19, 2013, 15:05 »
I think your description under your avatar pretty much covers it - lots of architectural detail shots. As such it's a niche market with lots of competition - even if you have stellar work, there's only so much those images can be used for and thus only so much you'll be able to make.
If you want to improve sales, I'd suggest branching out your subject matter a bit
4622
« on: January 19, 2013, 14:21 »
There are clearly lots of agencies partnered with AP Images. I did a search and then looked at the copyright information under the image (if you hover over the thumbnail). (I put "Photographer" but there were specific names shown) Copyright / Photographer / Corbis / AP Images Copyright / Photographer / Corbis Image Source via AP Images PhotoAlto via AP Images OJO Images via AP Images Glow Images via AP Images Photographer / Copyright Corbis / AP Images Photographer / Copyright Photographer/Corbis/AP Images Blend Images via AP Images I didn't see any Fotolia images in the mix. On the right of any search result page you can see a list of suppliers. I scrolled through that list after doing a search for woman false eyelashes - trying to find the Fotolia image from the press release. As an aside, (a) the site was very unstable - I'd try to move through the search and got lots of "Oops. Try again later" messages and (b) check out image 111104159343, an isolated (sort of) orange. Not sure why it says additional clearance might be needed for non-editorial uses - perhaps their site hasn't really embraced creative imagery. I also think it would get rejected from all the micro agencies for lighting and LCV Does anyone who supplies AP images (via Blend or Image Source or...) know if they actually sell any creative images?
4623
« on: January 19, 2013, 11:49 »
Hope all goes well for you Michael.
Just remember to keep taking the long view - I know you have a very level head about all of this. There will be unjust rejections, bad days at one agency or another and at some point you'll wonder if you really did the right thing. I found it helpful to remember some of the key messages of a book I read once called "The Way We Never Were" - it was all about how the fond nostalgia for the past often glosses over the actual past and is more a blend of fantasy and the actual past.
I already posted that my November-December last year beat my Nov-Dec 2010 (my last full exclusive year), so the earnings will come back.
4624
« on: January 18, 2013, 20:18 »
David - Thank you once again for your input!
I have found more of my photos on Pocketstock and the numbers do begin with VE. The ones I've checked have been in the "Compass Collection" which charges more for the photos...$2.00 for Xsmall, $5.00 for small, etc. My Veer sales do not show anything that indicates they are from Pocketstock. Either they aren't going to tell us where the sales are from, they aren't paying us, or there haven't been any sales. Given the rate at which I have sales on Veer, the latter is extremely likely.
The other clue for Veer is the keywords. I should have figured that out right away except I didn't realize how many Veer adds to what I submit.
Microbius - I just clicked everything I could find to click on Veer and could not find an opt out option. If you or anyone else finds one, I'd love to know where it is.
Thanks to those who responded to my queries! I truly appreciate all the input!
Just to be clear, Pocketstock.com.mx is a Veer Partner - not pocketstock.com. Have a look at a couple of recent threads about Veer and partner sales - that you can't opt out and the train wreck of the Alamy Creativity partnership which they dropped after they were caught doing it and MSG contributors screamed loudly. Since the Alamy stuff was pulled, Veer hasn't communicated with contributors about anything, so there has been nothing more on (a) reporting of partner sales (b) consulting/offering an opt out for contributors who wish to and (c) payment rates (it seems that they want to give you the standard Veer royalty, pocketing any extra themselves, but there is very little written about this). I stopped uploading there when the Alamy incident occurred, thinking I'd wait to see what they said about partner sales. Nada As I don't want to compete with myself and collect lower royalty payments, I'm not thrilled about any of these Did you know about the thread with the list of partnerships?
4625
« on: January 18, 2013, 20:05 »
Didn't realize what was happening over at istock, am now deactivating all my images. A little over 1600 to go.
I don't know if you saw this (and I wish I had the link handy but I don't) -- but Sean made a greasemonkey script that makes the whole deactivation process go a lot faster. It's in one of the recent Google threads here too.
Here's Leaf's post with the link
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
