|
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 - Bateleur
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 35
501
« on: September 08, 2007, 03:58 »
What ... no glamour photographers included? 
502
« on: September 07, 2007, 13:57 »
I only have have Photoshop 7 too, and I use Fred Miranda's DRI Pro. It's a plug-in, works well and costs a whole lot less than Photmatix. You can see details here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/shopping/DRI
503
« on: September 07, 2007, 02:26 »
I think that to a certain extent it depends on what the image is of.
If it can be dated (fashion of clothes, computer stuff, etc.) then sales will probably decline to nothing as fashion/technology changes.
But I've found that even 'ageless' images seem to decline. A photo of mine of the first page of Genesis was getting 14-15 downloads per month when I first posted it. Now, nearly 2 years later it's down to 7 per month (though I've tweaked the keywords to try to bring it up again).
Then again ... Shutterstock is different. Newer photos sell better there because of the configuration of their search engine.
And how many to upload at a time? That's like asking 'how long is a piece of string?' As many as you can manage/want/are allowed. In general, the more you upload, the more you sell.
504
« on: September 07, 2007, 02:14 »
... I was banned from Istock several years ago because I reviewed photos for another site after I was accepted by them. They were quite rude about it ...
Wow! That seems a bit harsh! How can they ban you for reviewing at another site? What's it got to do with them? Were you exclusive?
505
« on: September 06, 2007, 14:56 »
I exhausted my egg ideas earlier in the year. Now, I never want to see another egg....
Don't you mean you eggs-hausted them ...  Seriously ... does it have to be a picture with one chicken's egg, or can it be a number of them?
506
« on: August 14, 2007, 02:18 »
... here in the U.S., as long as you don't violate a "reasonable right to privacy" an image can be sold. It's usage is what determines lawsuits in civil court. The laws aren't much different throughout Europe.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not American and don't live in the US) but isn't America one of the most litigious countries in the world? Here's an example of what can happen there if you don't have the correct model release: In January 2005, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury awarded $15.6 million to Russell Christoff, whose image appeared for years, without his permission, on Taster's Choice coffee labels. Christoff, a former model and now a Bay-area teacher, posed for the picture in 1986, but did not know his picture was used until he first saw his likeness on a Taster's Choice coffee jar in 2002.
Christoff sued Nestle USA. Reports are that Christoff declined Nestle's $100,000 settlement offer and Nestle rejected Christoff's offer to to settle for $8.5 million. The jury awarded $15.6 million -- which includes 5% percent Nestle's profit from Taster's Choice sales from 1997 to 2003. Now, it seems to me that as the guy was a professional model, and he posed willingly (we presume) for the picture in question, then his 'reasonable right to privacy' was not violated. But it still cost Nestle 15.6 million.
507
« on: August 14, 2007, 02:06 »
I'm not sure there is anything significant here.
One of the images I uploaded on 26 July (so it was approved and went on sale some time later) has already sold 7 times.
It's all ebb and flow, as they say.
508
« on: August 13, 2007, 15:20 »
The only way to avoid this happening is to catch a few of the perpetrators and slap swingeing fines on them. I think it was Getty (or maybe it was Corbis) did this a year or so ago. They used a program to trawl the net and identify images that were on their books but being used illegally. Then they send hefty demands to the people using these images. I heard of several small businesses in UK that were astonished to receive bills of several thousand pounds, completely unexpectedly. In fact, some of the businesses were not directly involved in the wrongdoing as it was their advertising agency who had stolen the images. The businesses thought it was all legitimate. But, whatever the rights and wrongs, I believe that put an immediate stop to people stealing images from Getty (or Corbis). Maybe that's why the thieves are turning to microstock now  IS and SS and all the others should clamp down hard on this, too. Unfortunately some of these examples of theft are on Yahoo and, it seems, Yahoo is so big they don't give a tinker's cuss about copyright violations.
509
« on: August 13, 2007, 01:19 »
Ever submit an image to the BBC, CNN, Fox News, or your local news station? Ever notice you are granting them a non-exclusive royalty free right to use that image - for free (so you can be an "eyewitness reporter" or a "citizen journalist")?
Same thing.
Yes ... stay away from the news agencies. They all seem to think that the 'glory' of having your photo on their pages for a day is payment enough for a photographer. Unfortunately you can't feed yourself on glory ... nor does it help keep you warm at night.
510
« on: August 13, 2007, 01:15 »
511
« on: August 11, 2007, 14:28 »
"Totally different like beef is different from the butcher" is a bit of a stretch. I think a better analogy would be going to a butcher shop versus going to walmart to get your meat.
I agree it's a bit of a stretch ... but not that much. Beef is a type of meat you can buy. The butcher's is just one place you can buy it. RF is a type of image you can buy. Microstocks are just one place you can buy them.
512
« on: August 11, 2007, 03:43 »
You're right, they are totally different ... like beef is different from the butcher.  What may have lead to the confusion is the fact that the microstocks (as far as I know) only sell RF. Other agencies sell RF, Rights-Managed, and maybe other categories too.
513
« on: August 11, 2007, 02:00 »
It's got a different angle from the thousands of usual 'rapeseed-flowers-against-the-blue-sky' pictures which is a good point. And, every buyer has different needs. So I agree with yingyang ... it'll probably sell, not brilliantly, but moderately well. The thing with stock photography is that you never know what the buyer wants. And very often the buyer doesn't know either ... until s/he sees it.
514
« on: August 09, 2007, 16:46 »
Hi Guys,
'Chief Knowledge Officer' - check it on Wikipedia.
I checked it. The very first thing written is: This article or section appears to contain a large number of buzzwords and may require cleanup.Sorry ... couldn't resist that.  Now back to the discussion in hand ...
515
« on: August 09, 2007, 15:35 »
Hey folks ... maybe this would be a good point to cool it a bit What set everyone off (myself included) was an apparent 'puff' for a new site - a first posting from a complete newcomer, in a matey tone, extolling the virtues of a new site. "Hey guys and gals, get a load of this! I'm tellin' ya, Zymmetrical is going to be the best thing since sliced bread!" Of course, the internet being what it is, everyone was immediately suspicious and said 'This is some new microstock site creator, trying to drum up images for his/her business'. Why did we say that? Because it's not the first time this has happened. And it got up my nose ... and maybe others' too ... because I like people to be open. I mean, why not just say, "I've started this new site and I want you to join." We'd probably all check it out and join, or not, as the inclination took us. Well ... maybe George is connected with the Zymmetrical. Maybe he isn't. It's all water under the bridge now. And, okay, Zymmetrical doesn't have an awful lot of images yet. We've all got to start somewhere. And there could be copyright/model release problems with some of them. That's Zymmetrical's and the individual photog's problem. And the 'Chief Knowledge Officer' (whatever that title means) has written a contentious article on a blog somewhere. Well, we're all entitled to express our views (and have whatever job titles we're given). I've taken a look at Zymmetrical and, it seems to me they do have some interesting ideas and a fair approach. Maybe it's time to give them an even break
516
« on: August 07, 2007, 14:51 »
Wow, Paranoia runs deep here.
No ... not paranoia. It's now pretty obvious that you're somehow connected with Zymmetrical. (And, incidentally, it's pretty easy to fling the word 'paranoia' about in the hope of getting everyone to say, 'Me ... I'm not paranoid.' and back off nervously in case anyone thinks they are paranoid. Go and check the psychological symptoms of paranoia.) I don't believe anyone on this forum has any objection to individuals who own or work for stock sites posting here. In fact most people welcome it. I know I do. We have Bryan from LO and SteveOh from SX and Achilles from DT plus a number of others and even ... once I believe ... Jon from Shutterstock. It's great and very welcome. I think what most people object to is someone coming on here, pretending to be an unbiased voice and pushing a stock site as a 'great' place to sell your work without revealing their connection. And as for ... Istockphoto is full of pros that have both the time and money to make great picture. I cannot compete with that. can you ?
Yes. I can and I do. Haven't you got any ambition?
517
« on: August 07, 2007, 06:30 »
Interesting ... Someone called Gustyx joins this forum as a new member and, within 10 minutes of joining, writes a post singing the praises of a new stock site. Then we hear no more. A day later someone called Goone4 joins this forum as a new member and within 5 minutes writes a post also praising this agency, giving a comprehensive list of its positive features. Both use the same, rather characteristic style of English (For example, omitting the definite/indefinite articles ... "Zoonar is for future" "Really good agency") Hmmm ... like I said ... interesting. 
518
« on: August 07, 2007, 02:02 »
You're first and only post Gustyx, and ... pow! ... you're singing the praises of a new stock site. That immediately raises warning flags for me. Can you tell us more? Do you work for the site? Do you sell photos there? How many? What's the payout like? How long have you been with them? Which other sites are you with to enable you to make comparisons? I'm staying strictly away until I get more information. C'mon ... give us the lowdown.
519
« on: August 05, 2007, 13:47 »
520
« on: August 05, 2007, 13:43 »
Keep well away from them.
I clicked on their 'Conceptual' category to see what sort of images came up and for the very first one - a photo of a waterfall - the photographer has written:
Photo Title: Close my account
Image details: i was never paid for my uploads, this is a scam
This is a highly suspect operation and I suspect, if you send any images to them you'll lose control of those images.
522
« on: August 03, 2007, 03:33 »
Talking about professional associations (which, together with unions, we're doing in another thread), is anyone here a member of the UK's Bureau of Freelance Photographers?
Any comments about it?
523
« on: August 03, 2007, 03:04 »
Mind-altering substances?
Ooops ... what's going on? I meant to add a question mark and ended up quoting myself. As I said ... mind-altering substances?? PS ... I push the shutter button with my finger. Have you got some secret that we haven't Ian?
524
« on: August 03, 2007, 03:03 »
Mind-altering substances
525
« on: August 03, 2007, 03:01 »
5
Depending on it's aims and requirements, I'd join a professional association
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
