"Many stock image agencies, including many of our direct competitors, already include a clause in their license that allows "sensitive uses."

Let's not forget that Shutterstock is politely asking for something that is the norm from smaller agencies and competitors and they plan to pay well, so it's yes from me and thanks for asking!

Still i don't have photos of friends or family in my port, exactly because you never know where they're going to end up.
A luxurious brothel in Germany might check to see if you agree with image use but i doubt brothels in most parts of the world would even consider buying photos or care about restrictions in use.

I've printed a photo on canvas, some black and white tree branches silhouette and it looks very nice but i wouldn't print on canvas for a gallery. Plus the tree silhouette was pure black on white background, not even grayscale so it looks like a painting, don't think standard photos look good on canvas.

For the gallery i'd say try to find a printing method and photo paper that are described as "archival" quality. Don't think galleries will accept anything less. I've seen "archival type C" (whatever that is) mounted on thick cardboard and it looks classy.

I would transfer again in case something went wrong there. Maybe the camera was low on battery during transfer.

If that doesn't work try duplicating the photo in camera in some way, there are filter options which do not delete the original but make copies with the filter, maybe this works.

For example use the trim effect which crops your image this will not crop the original but it makes a duplicate in your memory card with the cropped version.

Is there a way to change the price for all files at once?

Hi Spooner,
i use corel although i'm not submitting vectors but i made a couple and what i did was i saved from corel as illustrator format and the opened in illustrator to save as eps. Maybe you can also do the same with some freeware vector soft - you cant save the eps they want for stock directly from corel.
Hope this helps.

I'll try to explain why this photo is good and why it is worth (big) money.

Compositional Aspect: The composition becomes conceptual by the blending of the subject with the surroundings. This is a favorite subject explored by many other classical photographers. The way the skirt blends with the texture and shape of the tiles and the way the blushed face matches the color of the floor. On the contrary to what we would do in stock photography which is to try and make the subject pop-out here the key is blending in. Again there is a sort of mystery like an old film to all her work and a strong body of work is more important than a single great photo.

Artistic background: Of course she is not a random photographer and her name gives value to the work - there's no denying that. Of course the hype around the name and vanity of the collector wanting to own but usually just invest in art raises the prices. Apart from that though she is one of the names considered as an influence to what became known as "heroin-chic" during the 90s in fashion photography (actually they copied her style) and was around in the 80s to be part of the no-wave and "cinema of transgression".

Like Sharpshot said whether someone likes her work or not we should be pleased that a photographer is making this sort of money. It's hard for an artist to be starving for decades - (slapping and rubbing his face to make it blend with the floor for a selfportrait) - and few are those that are finally recognized and cash-in while alive.

About the point made that microstock photographers wouldn't get accepted in the art crowd - i must agree to this at least for all the work submitted as stock and all similar series. However for example there are musicians who do music for commercials for a living (like we do stock) and still produce their own music (art).

Edit: I just saw on the other thread that this was commissioned work for a magazine that didn't get accepted. If it had been used commercially and printed in the magazine i'm pretty sure that it wouldn't sell at this price today so this i think solidifies Badricks point about stock or commercial work being excluded or devalued in the art market.

I think some people here are exaggerating. Cindy Sherman together with Sally Mann / Mary Ellen Mark and Nan Goldin are among the few living legends of female photography. They have been around for years each doing her own thing not caring for immediate cash-in like we do (stock photographers). I'm sure that for years Cindy Sherman photographed herself and Nan Goldin her outcast friends without expecting any money. So after years of producing a consistant non-commercial body of work which evolves around the same subjects, with a personal artistic style, their work has high value - not of course to buy and use the photo commercialy on a website (like stock photos) but as a work of art - like a painting.

The work of a photographer of this class is to be viewed as a whole a single photo cannot give you the general idea of the subject etc that's why they all publish monographs which usually have a single subject each time, not just random nice photos. These women really are living legends of female photography and have influenced A LOT of photographers and because they are still living it is their time to cash-in.

One way to go is sell commercial photography and cash in immediately and another is to wait for years keep only 10% of your work and try to be an artist with a personal style and subject in your photos and maybe when you are old or if you are lucky and good enough your work will be recognized at some point and you make big money.

Also let's not forget that all this reviewing at the stock sites is not to be taken so seriously that it influences our photography in a bad way. If you want to shoot a photo that will have a lot of noise or shoot against the sun lens flare etc it might not be accepted but it doesn't mean that you as a photographer should be limited by that.

It's only fair that european sites like fotolia and dreamstime start paying in euros.

On her painting you can see various companies logos, celebrities, politicians and flags. Only LV has sued her and the lawsuit continues since 2008. So RT has a point when advising that it's probably not worth the risk for the return you expect from this image.

On the other hand if someone uses your image and LV has a problem they will go after the company selling this image (IS in this case). I'm sure they know what they are doing because one of their examples of what we could sell editorial was a fender guitar, so brands are obviously ok to submit and any problem will be handled by them.

Again if some magazine buys an editorial photo of a celebrity for example and makes a montage where they replace their head with a dog head (!), or uses it in advertising, then it's their use of the image that is questionable and they are the ones that will be sued, not the photographer or IS.

Art Student Nadia Plesner's Giant Louis Vuitton Copyright Suit:

http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2008/05/art_student_nadia_pelsners_gia.html

and a link to her page with the original art:

http://www.nadiaplesner.com/Website/darfurnica.php

I forgot to add the 8 most relevant keywords while submitting and when i add them now to approved files these are back on the pending queue. Are these files treated differently or might they be rejected? With the high rejection rate lately i don't want to take any chances to the few approved. Any ideas?

Thanks Sue,
that's what i thought about Alamy. Would it be ok then to submit the same editorial image as RF in istock and RM in Alamy? I see agencies like Zoonar for example selling the images as RF or/and RM according to use.

I have some photos i want to upload as editorial but i'm wondering what the strategy should be on each site.
For example a picture like the one linked by Sue can be submitted on istock as editorial but can you submit the same image on Shutterstock? Or they reject anything not considered newsworthy?

Also Alamy - would they accept an image like this as RF with restrictions or should it be RM because of the people?
Any ideas? It would be nice to be able to submit an editorial image to all agencies accepting them but can it be done?

Quote from: sharpshot on January 20, 2011, 10:26
This is sickening but it's no surprise.  I have to sell a lot more just to get back to the commission I'm unhappy with now.  Looks like microstock is going to be unsustainable for me, unless something drastic happens and we all leave the sites that pay ridiculously low commissions.  I just can't see that happening, the vast majority will continue to accept more and more commission cuts.  Now I'm even more motivated to find another way to make a living.

Maybe it's a temporary thing because of the economic crisis, things should get back to normal at some point. The last couple of days i've noticed in horror that almost every single site i upload to has some sort of problem. Be it uploads not working, be it files missing, not showing up, uploaded but not showing, no views, disappearing sales, sites down for repair, delayed earnings, etc, etc. I don't remember this sort of mess in the past.

About fotolia, the main problem is that they don't know what files they want in the collection, they only now how many they can accept each month.
This year they accept a lot of landscapes for example where in the past they were known for not accepting them. In the end the have accepted less of my files from the big4 and so they are making me less money than any of the big4. I don't think it's irrelevant.

I get a "The connection was reset" error for the last 4-5 days - can't login to the site with firefox or chrome.

thanks, i feel better i'm not alone in this!

Same problem again, files approved 28 December still not showing up today 04 January.

Nice stuff, thanks for the link. Her work is really good, reminded me a bit of Robert Frank and Diane Arbus.

I also have some nice photos i found thrown on the street. What are the rules about posting such photos to stock sites, is it possible depending on how old they are or something? Like stamps or is it out of the question for found photos?

Thanks guys for the quick response!

I understand it's not required in many agencies i was just saying that it would be nice if they urged the customers to do so. In the photocase example before or after the download there was a clear notice what the credit should be for print. Not obliging anyone just reminding of proper use.

I knew i had a book somewhere that had credit from istock and i just found it:

http://cd.pbsstatic.com/xl/07/1107/9780753821107.jpg

Clearly states in the back cover " cover photograph : (c) GlennBristol/iStockphoto - Design: Sue Michniewicz"

Maybe it's the subscription sites that don't require to credit photographers.

Can't say i like this. Agencies should at least advice customers that it would be appropriate to give credit for print use.
I recently downloaded an image from photocase and there was a notice that credit should be given to "photographer/agency".

I'm not saying that agencies should go after customers if they don't but at they should advice them what is proper for certain uses and leave it to their own judgment. I have a couple of other books from the same publishing house and they give separate credit to designer/illustrator in one book which has a painting on the cover.

I searched the forum but couldn't find an answer, are we supposed to be credited if our image is used in book covers?

Just found a new book today published in November 2010 with a detail from one of my photos on the cover, but only the designer is credited, no photographer credit. The cover design is a white box and line over my photo with the author name and book title. Should we be credited for this use?

Thanks!

You might want to read this - istock 3d standards pt1

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=813

I have to agree there's no consistency in reviews and it's not just istock.

Last night a reviewer approved 6 of my files in a row - no rejections. This morning another reviewer rejected 6 files in a row - no approvals.

Same photographer - different reviewer!