For me SS had the fewest DLs in July since August of 2011.  Clip sales kept revenue from being a disaster.

I've hardly uploaded anything during the past 1.5 years so that might have something to do with it.

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on July 28, 2016, 08:25

It looks like they are equal opportunity thief - I saw watermarks from SS, DT and 123 on only a few images so there are probably many more.  This should definitely be reported to the agencies and I hope they follow up.

Reported for what?  http://corporate.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/parody-fair-use-or-copyright-infringement.html

For copyright infringement, obviously.  What they are doing would not stand up as parody.  It may be noncommercial for him but it isn't for facebook - the parody exception does not apply.

SS doesn't accept PNGs as far as I know so definitely not for them.  Adding a clipping path to your jpegs might be good though and I think is the closest you can get.

I agree with ForrestBrown.  I got my girlfriend a camera and into stock as well.  But you have to be careful - now I am often the one waiting around for her to finish.

After you have taken them ?

Definitely - pretty hard to do it beforehand.  Sorry, I couldn't resist.

My new images sell once on SS and then they seem to get lost in the sea of all the millions of images.

This answers your question. The old wisdom was maybe 4-6 months before you think they might be used, but nowadays I doubt it makes much difference.  Wildflower images aren't likely to sell much anyway - out of curiosity I just did a search at SS on the keyword "wildflower" and it turned up more than 186,000 hits.  I did sell a wildflower image myself this week but it was uploaded long ago (and has made me a dollar or two if that).  Good luck!

Anyone still make anything on DT these days? I was paid $0.35 after a three month hiatus. That was almost two weeks ago too.

They are definitely slow but I still get sales there and not too far off the usual monthly average.  The ones that have almost totally died for me are BS, CS and DP, plus Alamy - they are always variable but nothing on Alamy since February.  Compared to the others DT is hanging in there.  FT also has dropped the past couple of months and SS is really struggling so it's looking to be a very bad month overall and much worse than the usual summer slowdown.

When I am backpacking and carry a first aid kit, am I paranoid that I am going to get hurt and need to use it? No.

No, of course not - you don't think Mother Nature is out to get you.  Paranoia does not apply to nature.  Someone carrying a gun into a public place does it because they think they might need it - they think someone else might try to harm them, almost the definition of paranoid (unless of course someone actually does want to harm them, in which case wouldn't they stay home?).

I do suggest that people who carry have extra training other than at the range. There are specific intense training environments that are available to the public. Once you are in this type of situation several things kick in such as stress, need to read the situation, and heart rate through the roof. Proper training will help you prepare for this type of situation but you never know how you will react until it happens to you. Proper training will also include the mental and physiological aspect of pulling your weapon and having to use it.

Yes, I agree completely.  That is all very reasonable and exactly why we should leave it to the professionals - I suspect very few gun owners make the time to take this kind of training or take it as seriously as you do.

you have to pass the health check, background check, psych eval, test, etc. in order to get a Driver's Licence. It should be same for guns.

I agree 100%.  You also have to register your vehicle and provide proof of insurance.  It should be the same for guns.  How could anybody be opposed to that?

Interesting NY Times article - that tells a lot.

I have always thought that, with all the people carrying guns in the U.S., it was only a matter of time before someone hears a car backfire, thinks it is a gunshot, pulls out their gun, then someone else does the same and they each think the other is a criminal and start shooting at each other.  The fact that this has never happened (as fas as I know) tells me that most gun owners are sane, reasonable and responsible.  That is a good thing.

However, numerous studies have shown that owning a gun - statistically speaking - makes you more likely to be a victim of gun violence.  Cases where a citizen with a gun stopped a crime, as pointed out already, are rare and, in the case of the Orlando shooting, a security guard with a gun made no difference.  Home invasions may be a different story, but a sturdy door with a strong lock is probably a better defense than a gun.  I suspect that most of the "big, tough" guys who parade around with assault weapons are mostly small, insecure losers who need a gun to feel important and that if shooting actually started most of them would wet their pants and run away - which is pretty much what happened according to the NY Times article (minus the pant wetting part which they didn't mention one way or the other).

Getting rid of all the guns in the U.S. is not going to happen and is not being proposed by anyone.  However, we should be able to agree on some very reasonable restrictions.  Some of these could be:

1) Ban all assault weapons.  They serve no purpose other than killing lots of people and should not be possessed by anyone outside of the military.

2) Ban all high-capacity magazines.  Ditto above.  If you want a gun for self protection a few rounds should be sufficient.  If you think you need an assault weapon then maybe you should improve your aim at a shooting range or try a shotgun instead.

3) Have mandatory background checks for all gun purchases, even those at gun shows or between private individuals.  Obviously this would require some investment in infrastructure but is easily doable with a little effort.

4) Ban all gun sales to anyone on terrorist watch lists or with a history of mental illness.  You could file an appeal f you think you are wrongly on the list.  Could anyone really oppose this?

All of the above seem like no-brainers to me.  Of course a determined criminal will still be able to get guns but the above seems like a reasonable start and getting rid of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines should reduce the casualties from attacks and ease the job of law enforcement.  The Government should have a buy-back program to pay people fair value for the assault weapons so they can buy something else if they want - gun manufacturers might even support that.  I think most Americans would support similar measures.

IMO we ultimately will need to take it further.  I would institute mandatory registration of all guns and licensing for gun users.  You have to have registration and a license for cars, and it should be the same for guns, with mandatory safety training and refresher courses every few years.  Registration could be done through your local motor vehicles office and the NRA could be a provider of training so they should like that.  This would have to be phased in over a few years but also should be easily doable.  The other thing that should be done immediately is to lift the ban on doing research about gun violence - that is an idiotic law that was instituted by lawmakers bought off by the NRA.

Fixing issues with the police and changing the culture that glorifies guns are more difficult but doable in the long term.  Getting our politicians out of the pockets of the NRA (which is mostly financed by gun manufacturers) and passing reasonable restrictions on the most dangerous weapons should be our highest priority.  Such restrictions are supported by the vast majority of citizens and it continually amazes me that they can't get any laws through Congress.

It doesn't need to be amended, just interpreted correctly.  The exact wording of the second amendment is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".  The intention was to allow the keeping and bearing of arms to be done exclusively in the context of a well regulated militia for the security of the state.  We can know this with absolute certainly because that's what it says in plain English.  Random yahoos keeping guns in their house is not well regulated, not a militia, and not involved in the security of the State, so absolutely, 100% is NOT allowed under the second amendment!  Individuals keeping arms outside of a militia is not covered by the constitution so should be left to the states.

This amendment was added most likely because the Revolution was fresh on the minds of the framers.  In 1791, the U.S. did not have a large, professional military like now.  In the event of an external threat (like the British), the military was augmented by militias organized by the states.  Most arms, powder and shot was stored at community magazines and would be issued to the militias when needed.  In 1774 and 1775 the British raided the magazines in the Massachusetts and Virginia colonies to try to prevent armed rebellion.  I think these events in part were what stimulated the Founders to add the second amendment.

The modern equivalent of a 1790s militia would be the National Guard, and so far nobody has talked about disarming them.  That is what is protected, not individuals owning guns outside of a militia.  Firearm ownership outside of a militia is not mentioned by the Constitution, so on that issue it is silent.  In the 1790s firearms were mostly flintlock muskets, which require a powder cartridge rammed in the barrel that is ignited by a flash of gunpowder started by a spark from flint hitting steel.  Guns were made by hand, so were not easily available and quite expensive - your average citizen certainly would not have owned one unless they needed it for hunting.  Keeping a lot of gunpowder in houses that were lit and heated by open flames was not a great idea, hence the communal magazines for the militias.  The Founding Fathers were very reasonable in most of their beliefs, and I am quite certain they would be appalled at how their words have been misconstrued to facilitate the rampant killing in this country.  It is a shame that one organization has been able to buy off so many members of Congress and get like-minded numbskulls appointed to the "Supreme" court to foist this travesty on the rest of us.  We don't need to amend the constitution, just read what is written and understand its historical context.  Unfortunately, that seems impossible so maybe it is time for the people to take back the country and rewrite that amendment in a way that could not by misinterpreted.

In Australia, after a series of shootings they put restrictions on gun ownership in 1996 and problems since then have dropped to almost none.  The American people need to be as sensible as the Australians.

The police killings of course are an entirely different matter and a very difficult problem.  Obviously the police do a very difficult job and have to make life-or-death decisions in a split second.  If they hesitate they might be killed.  On the other hand, it is quite clear that the police have been literally getting away with murder probably going back thousands of years and that needs to stop.  Finding the right balance so the police can protect themselves (and us!) while making sure those who cross the line are identified and punished is more difficult.  More cameras and a mandatory review plus a thorough psych evaluation of every cop who shoots someone (to identify any potential psychopaths) would be a good first step.

I just use Excel.  I have a worksheet for submissions with every image listed, captions, keywords, etc, plus when it was submitted where and what was the result.  On another worksheet I record sales by agency each month - number of images online at each agency, number of downloads and sales.  From there it is easy to calculate RPI, RPDL or whatever else you want.  It takes a little time to set up the worksheet to automatically do the calculations but is relatively simple and costs nothing additional.

Almost exactly on the monthly average for the year (which so far is much higher than last year's average) so no complaints.

Glad that helped.  I always get to my portfolio by clicking on one of the images listed under sales, then clicking on my user name at the upper right when the image page comes up.  Just checked and that is working fine.