Quote from: caspixel on June 09, 2011, 01:52

Where? I can't find a single one online. And my inquiring mind wants to know. And she had a stage name? So she was looking for publicity? I was wondering why all these women were suddenly coming forward. All looking for a quick buck now? That's the only reason I can think of why they would even engage in this type of thing with that guy.

/OT

Numerous models and actresses use stage names.  Are you a conspiracy nut?  Or possibly living under a rock?  This is not a new thing.  You can google either parties' name and get numerous hits. 

Quote from: SNP on June 09, 2011, 01:06


assuming this is true, it's fairly unprofessional of you to have revealed her identity here for the sake of a quick laugh. I'm amazed at the lack of professionalism admitted to by so many photographers, especially on MSG.

Are you serious?  You truly have no clue.  Photos and her stage name have been all over the media today.  I made the realization at a newsstand when I saw a full page photo identifying her in the NY Post.  I had no intention of releasing her real name, but I have every intention of getting the editorial package that I produced (photos not on IS and SS) to Renta tomorrow and making direct offers to magazines I already work with.  That, in fact, is what is known as professionalism.  

I have been creating editorial portrait and feature layouts for magazines for several years.  Doing this puts me in contact with numerous subjects.  This particular incident adds timeliness and interest to an editorial package that is already in the marketplace.  I had considered signing with Getty for the editorial library I have, but my experience with them on RM lifestyle stock does not encourage me.  This recent change in policy does not change that.

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 23:28
Seems like if George Clooney walks down my street and I can take a steady picture (doubtful), it'll be bound for Alamy since without accredition, I couldn't even send it to Getty.

The part about 'accreditation' is at least partially a ruse.  Not all celebrity/personality/event shoots are accredited.  Getty does its best to lock out all photographers except their own from a number of events.  Getty staff/contract photographers get wages, not percentages, so the more exclusive they can make an image or subject appear the better for Getty corporate--not individual photographers.  Some magazine editors I know groan when they think of dealing with Getty and actively look for alternatives.

Ironically, I realized today that the young lady caught up in the Congressman Weiner text-photos scandal is a model I shot and have up on IS already!  So I guess there ARE ways of submitting 'celebrity' stock to IS!

and somehow the IS fanboys are silent...

as they say on the streets, Oh...hell yeah!  Thanks.

Quote from: luissantos84 on May 24, 2011, 15:05
never had a random rejection at IS, actually I believe they are the most accurate agency around all, they send you sometimes a small preview regarding an issue on the picture.. and better than that, never had a "resubmitted" picture not approved

sorry, but your experience contrasts mine and that of the thread originator.

Quote from: a1bercik on May 24, 2011, 11:03
Is this only my impression or inspectors use 'reject random' button too often?

Pav

I think it is more of a 'reject at a whim' button...

Not exactly the same thing, but over the weekend I happened upon a photographer's portfolio web site which displayed their best efforts in a couple genres.  In addition there was an information page describing his headshot services and displaying two beautiful images.  However, there was something remarkably familiar about the shots.  Both are big sellers from iStockphoto by two different photographers, neither of whom are the photographer using the images on his website. 

I guess he was smart enough to put them on a separate page from his portfolio, but it does strike me as a potentially stupid mistake in the long run to put other photographer's work on your website advertising your services. It took me about 5 seconds to plug in the right keywords to make either image pop up to the first page of a best match search.

full time editorial and catalog (mostly fashion) shooter here.  can pull lifestyle images from some editorial shoots (only occasionally from catalog).  have been trying to arrange more stock/microstock targeted shoots in downtime.  resale of editorial glamour and celebrity has paid better than micro for me as I am still building a library for micro.  editorial resale and micro combined only account for a small percent of income compared to my assignment shooting, but I think of it as my babysitter (keeps me from getting in trouble).

I see that failure to sign terminates the relationship.  Hasn't done anything for me.  Seems like a great time to get out of Getty.

To new/low volume to get invited, so I decided to upload manually.  Just wondering if duplicating the keywords used for the images already uploaded to Shutterstock is an acceptable approach for Bigstock uploads?  I do see that some changes need to be made, for example Latina is acceptable on SS, but not on BS as a keyword for Hispanic Woman.  Speaking in general though, are Shutterstock keywords going to fare well within Bigstock's search engine?

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 20, 2011, 16:21
Because it may cost IS more to pursue the infringement than what they would recover from it and if the image is on 10 or 20 sites the odds it was purchased from them is fairly slim. And again, in this case if they assigned a customer service rep to spend a day or even few days chasing this they would have lost money because they didn't even sell the image.

I'm not saying I agree with the level of support provided but from a business standpoint this is why I'm guessing they decided not to pursue it. Maybe IS doesn't care. Maybe Shutterstock can profitably recover infringements. Or maybe it's not profitable and Shutterstock is willing to lose money to maintain good contributor relations. Who knows...

Thanks for the acknowledgement of the misread.  And I think you are right--IS is making a judgement call, as is SS.  I reported, I think fairly, about the differences in response.  As I said earlier, I believed that there was an equal chance that it came from one site or the other.  As it turned out, this is one of the biggest publishers in the US and uses both sites--I assume extensively.  I would guess they both have customer service people assigned to the account and it would have taken at most a couple of phone calls, not days of time. 

What is apparent is that the two sites have different policies.  Personally, I thought it was important to report the difference. 

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 20, 2011, 09:27

So if I'm hearing this correctly, you were being uncooperative about the image status with IS and it ended up being a Shutterstock deal anyway. And you still wonder why they didn't shower you with support?

No, you must be hearing the voices in your head.  

At NO time did I obsfucate the image status.  I contacted the two websites that were selling the image.  I provided both the publication and the product name and manufacturer.  At the time I had no way of telling which had made the particular sale.  IS offered no further action on the situation and made no inquiries about the image.  Shutterstock asked for more information and ultimately referred the matter to their legal department.  In the meantime, I did my own research, still not knowing which site had made the particular sale.  I ultimately found the person at the publication that was in charge of creating the advertorial who indicated how the image was purchased and acknowledged that the extended rights were not purchased which was corrected.  Until that point I did not know which site made the sale.

What in that, to you, sounds uncooperative?

The point, made several times in this thread, is that IS offered no help.  The sale could have just as easily been made thru IS as the publication, I found out, uses IS more often than Shutterstock. The IS compliance officer offered no help though.  They didn't inquire if the image was available on other site.  I don't know if they offer more help to exclusive contributors, but they offered none to me.

What is the point in your accusation?  It is inaccurate and offensive.  What is your problem?

Quote from: sjlocke on March 18, 2011, 22:27
'Regarding IS-- their response to my query was that they were not interested in pursuing the matter.  I did not tell them any information regarding the exclusivity (or not) about the image.'

I'm pretty sure they know instantly if you are exclusive or not.

And I'm pretty sure they don't know instantly if an image is on one site or seven.  You apparently are too hung up  on the word exclusive. I don't think that iStock has claimed exclusive use of the definition of exclusive, but it wouldn't surprise me if they tried. I have some images that are exclusively on iStock yet I am not in their Exclusive program. 

Congratulations on missing the big picture.

Quote from: fotografer on March 18, 2011, 09:00
In defense of IS, why should they investigate when it isn't clear who sold the image?  You need to contact the people and ask them who sold them the image and then get the site concerned involved.

really?  ya think?  

I did contact both the publication and the product manufacturer.  It took a lengthy series of phone calls but I did finally get to the right person at the publisher who oversees the production of the advertorial that featured the image.  He stated that as a matter of course they secure extended rights for all images they purchase, but that this particular case was an oversight which was corrected.  The extended rights purchase was made retrospectively and appeared on my account this week.  Not the ideal way of going about it, but he did state that he was sensitive to the right of content creators and apologized for this error.  

I don't know if it was my effort or the effort of Shutterstock that prompted the extended license sale, but it was completed.

Regarding IS-- their response to my query was that they were not interested in pursuing the matter.  I did not tell them any information regarding the exclusivity (or not) about the image.  It didn't even get to that point.  It was a flat out refusal.  And this was from their Compliance Enforcement Department.  I am assuming that person has a very easy job since they do not go after license abuse when brought to their attention.   Although in this particular case the image was sold thru Shutterstock, IS refused to take action before that issue was even brought up.  

Seriously, what is a contributor supposed to do when they find a license infringement?  You have to bring it up with the companies who are potentially involved.  Shutterstock proved that they are more responsive.  It is as simple as that.

Yes, annoying

I do subscribe to a photographer's database called Adbase which lists magazines, companies and advertising agencies with their contact information, so I'll at least have a direction to start.

Given my other interaction and observation with iStockphoto, this does not surprise me.  What is surprising is that Getty would allow their lax attitude about collecting/enforcing royalties from extended licenses.

Interesting difference between Shutterstock and iStockphoto regarding this matter.  Since the image used in the advertisement is available on these two sites (and no others) I contacted both about the lack of extended license for the image.  Both responded within a week.  iStockphoto offered no help other than the suggestion that I contact the party directly and a draft of letter to send them.  And that was from their 'Compliance Enforcement' department--What exactly would that department be doing if not what I was asking for? Shutterstock had an Account Service Manager contact with further questions about the issue and a statement that they would look into it. 

Shutterstock's response is by far more of what I would expect from a company about a legitimate issue such as this.

Sorry, but I can't find any parallel to your results.  I'm on the same three sites and have had different experiences.  I have a +70% acceptance rate on iStock which came about with tighter submission groups to them than the other two.  I still get some questionable rejects from IS for things that are accepted (and sold) elsewhere which I have learned to laugh off (such as petty judgement calls over keywords which I would still debate).  I just haven't found it worth the time to Scout or resubmit  anymore. 

However, I have a +90% acceptance rate at Shutterstock and am approaching 1000 approved images now.  I submit more to Shutterstock than IS in terms of numbers because I will upload a slightly broader range of poses within a take on a subject, but they are all still coming from the same shoots.  Dreamstime has be more similar to SS than IS.  The most common rejection I get at DT is too many images on same subject which I have learned to moderate for them.   Overall, I have found SS to be the most 'liberal' in terms of acceptance--often times they are also the quickest in terms of approvals.

Wasn't invited for the bridge to Bigstock, so I figured I would just go in the old way.  Made my initial upload.  Can anyone tell me what is typical waiting time for image approval?  Thanks.

thanks, i'll follow up.

I just found one of my images in an advertisement for a branded produce in a national magazine with circulation 1,000,000+ which would seem to surpass any standard licensing usage.  I have not sold/received any extended licenses for this image.  Just so I don't jump onto any contributor relations person prematurely, what kind of licensing fee would I normally expect for that usage on iStockphoto, Shutterstock and Dreamstime?  A quick scan of my royalties does not show anything apart from standard licenses. 

Quote from: blackwaterimages on January 17, 2011, 02:28
Is this really a $600 monopod?  That's absurd.

Agreed.  I'm a firm believer in camera support and have tripods small and large thru a camera stand in studio and have invested far more than this costs, yet I do not own a monopod.  I find that I like to direct models posing with one hand while I am firing with the other which would be compromised with a monopod.  Additionally if you are working with an art director or client and you need to discuss the details of a shot either on the camera back or tethered to a computer, recomposing the exact shot when not locked down on a tripod is simply guess work.  Outside of sports arenas with long lenses (which rotate on their own), monopods are marginally useful.  Just get a tripod and ball head--far more versatile use of funds.

Quote from: nosaya on December 30, 2010, 05:58
http://pdnpulse.com/2010/12/you-thought-conde-nast-was-only-cheap-to-photographers.html

Looks like I could get a top end high fashion model for less than a normal 'day' rate on MM 

Apparently you fail to realize that they were only granted editorial release only.  There is a big step up for even no-name models for any promotional or advertising releases. 

This is NOT news for anyone who works in editorial fashion at any level.

Quote from: louoates on December 28, 2010, 15:26

1. Lens-less cameras will either be on the market or hints will be flying in the blog-o-spheres. Sorry, lens makers, get your research folks working on those logarithms now if they aren't already.

Unlikely.  A far more likely possibility will be the further adoption of hybrid still/video cameras like the RED which just started delivering the long-awaited RED Epic which shoots video at nearly 5x HD resolution and each frame can be extracted as a 14mp still image.  The modular system has various lens mounts including Canon and Nikon. It is still costly at around $30,000 but it virtually replaces 35mm cinema camera that can cost upwards of $250,000.  RED is behind on delivering the RED Scarlet which might cost as little as $10,000 which puts it in the range of a D3X and substantially less than medium format digital backs. 

Given that most microstock outlets already have a video component, it is not a stretch to believe that hybrid cameras will influence shooters vastly more than lens-less cameras in the next few years.