|
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 - Sean Locke Photography
7126
« on: February 26, 2009, 18:14 »
I can't think of a logical reason why the 3 photos submitted for initial approval should not be passed through the normal review process. The fact that IStockphoto documents this weirdness means their butts are covered if you fail to notice it. I feel so much better knowing that.
It is a system that admits in people with potential, who then are subject to full inspection standards. If you can't handle that reality, then you're better off not submitting there, like you said. Just because you don't understand the process (even when told in your acceptance), doesn't mean the process is faulty. Scout takes more than two weeks. Sorry, that's the way it is. I see we still don't have any image examples of these invisible artifacts.
7127
« on: February 26, 2009, 16:55 »
1. The photos that get you initial acceptance may not actually meet the submission criteria. Absolutely ridiculous.
No it isn't. Otherwise you wouldn't have been accepted at all. Would you like that better? Read this: http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/application-photos-were-rejected/2. No response to appeals. Can't be bothered?
What appeals? Scout? That takes a bit of time. 3. Mis-use of the term "artifact" as a catch-all rejection reason.
Post an image you had rejected for "artifacting" where you feel it doesn't apply. I think I'll try IStockphoto again, in the future. Right now it just doesn't make sense for me. I would rather spend the time taking more photos for sites that want them, rather hammering on Istockphoto for future sales that might never happen. Sounds like a plan. Although one has to wonder if getting your work accepted by a site with low standards is really a goal. To each his own.
7128
« on: February 26, 2009, 13:42 »
yecatsdoherty, the images were some of my favorites and I'm not comfortable with posting a 100% on the web, someone might snag it. May do so at some point.
Of course not. Look, put a big X over the middle and post them if you want some feedback.
7129
« on: February 26, 2009, 13:38 »
typical snotty exclusive remark.
Not really. However, nice try at inciting yet another exclusive/independent flame way. I find that most people who post about their terrible rejection rate end up posting proof of why their rate is where it should be. I'm not saying that's the case here, and I certainly don't find it necessary to convince the OP of submitting anywhere, but crying "unjustified rejection" ends up that way 95% of the time.
7130
« on: February 25, 2009, 12:17 »
Yeah, Tuesday or Wednesday.
Buyers schedule:
Monday: hungover. meetings.
Tuesday: take decisions from meetings and get to work, and buy images.
Wednesday: couldn't finish everything on Tuesday, buy more.
Thursday: buying bits and pieces for yesterday's project. starting to get tired. long lunch at Friday's.
Friday: still some buying. leave early for happy hour.
I have been at the same weekend level for the last two years. It's weird. I guess I'm just not the weekend warrior kind of portfolio.
7131
« on: February 24, 2009, 13:43 »
7132
« on: February 24, 2009, 13:26 »
An agency with exclusive images might be a draw because, as mentioned in another thread, buyers can see content that they haven't seen a dozen times over at another agency.
For instance, I looked at one of Veers promo lightboxes for business yesterday in the marketplace, and it appeared to be at least half of Yuri's images.
7133
« on: February 24, 2009, 13:02 »
Wow, those shots on his front page are gorgeous, although annonying to navigate.
7134
« on: February 23, 2009, 07:27 »
Why would you, unless there is some governmental connection with the images. Like if you put him in front of the white house or something.
7135
« on: February 21, 2009, 19:24 »
Sorry, I can't take any business with a "z" in the name seriously.
7136
« on: February 21, 2009, 16:21 »
I'm not "bullying". I'm just pointing out why "thesentinel" was under the impression you weren't going to post anymore.
Don't post on forums if you don't want people to respond to you, in a way you like or otherwise. You seem to take things very personally, when people are just responding to what you have posted (witness the suggestion exclusivity may not be for you).
7137
« on: February 21, 2009, 15:47 »
abzee - pls don't try to pull me into discussions. when I said I would not participate in the iStock forums, it was not a black and white statement. children make black and white statements.
Sounded pretty black and white to me: "I have chosen not to participate in any IS forums from now on. I just want to upload, sell my work and be left alone." http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/is-new-look-do-you-like-it/msg84832/#msg84832
7139
« on: February 21, 2009, 08:02 »
Where's the stat for "buyers who will increase their use of microstock", and "buyers who will start using microstock"?
7140
« on: February 20, 2009, 12:23 »
Well, then, will you be detailing to the buyers how you are actually protecting them?
Just correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm a contributor there, I upload an image and forge a release. The model goes to them, they sue you, you pass it on to me, since I lied. I have no money, so the buyer is screwed.
A contributor in Russia uploads a bunch of imagery that isn't his. The buyer licenses some and uses it. The buyer somehow figures out the content wasn't his to license and sues you. You pass it off to the Russian, who can't be found or sued. Buyer is screwed.
Contributor uploads image of Eiffel Tower at night. Somehow, it makes it through inspection. Buyer uses it, and gets sued by light company. You pass it off to contributor who had unknowingly uploaded it. Contributor has no money, buyer is screwed.
Contributor uploads image with model and release. Buyer uses it in big campaign. Model is upset and complains and sues buyer. Buyer sues you. You point out release, and everyone goes away.
Where does this warranty come into play?
7141
« on: February 20, 2009, 12:09 »
So you don't intend to verify the information?
We're using the same standards we applied at Getty. Perhaps you could have a word with Jonathan or Bruce and suggest the same?
Tom
Sorry, I don't know the standards applied at Getty, where there seems to be a much smaller contributor base and more experienced editors than a crowd sourced environment. Couldn't you fill us in on those standards? BTW, in contributing to Getty, I've not provided anything more than I've provided to iStock in uploading. I see no difference.
7142
« on: February 20, 2009, 11:59 »
So you don't intend to verify the information?
7143
« on: February 20, 2009, 11:44 »
We are guaranteeing that the ownership of the image and its use (so long as it's within the terms of the license we grant you) will not result in a legal problem for you. For example we guarantee that you will not get:
- Legitimate claims from photographers that the image you were using had not been licensed for resale to the image library you downloaded it from.
- Legitimate claims from property owners that the image you are using contains a protected property that cannot be depicted in an image for resale to the library that you downloaded it from.
- Legitimate claims from models that they had never granted the right to use their image to the photographer/library that licensed you the image.
If you do get a claim, we will defend you provided you notify us of the claim and permit us to handle the defense.
What are you doing to actually make sure that any of this is more true than stated at any other site? All sites require releases and such, and it is in uploading contracts that you own all imagery, etc. What about falsified releases? I don't see you as being able to warrant anything more than any other site. So when some anonymous guy from Russia steals my work and uploads it as his own, and a buyer comes to you all upset, what are you going to say to them? To put it another way, you haven't really said anything that would make me feel safer, aside from the fact that you said it. I don't work for Getty, so I don't know. Maybe they assume there is too much risk from a crowd sourced contributor base. Ah, there's that word "fear" again, whenever anyone disagrees with anyone else.
7144
« on: February 20, 2009, 11:25 »
If you can't be profitable at allowing the client access to 750 images a month, why don't you change your terms, and get rid of the "stockpiling" protection clause? Why not 500, and not worry about it? Does anyone need more than 500 images a month? You're trying to gain customers with your warranty advertising, yet you'll annoy them with your 750 a month (don't check the fine print) advertising. Speaking of warranties....
Sorry, why don't we go with the basics.
1. What is a warranty?
2. What does your warranty offer a buyer?
3. What are you backing this warranty up with?
4. If you are sued for violating this warranty, who pays?
7145
« on: February 20, 2009, 10:55 »
Let's not set hares running. Prohibiting stockpiling is fairly common. Shutterstock's prohibition is listed in clause 17. Furthermore you can't store images for longer than 6 months. I can't imagine those are things you can possibly hope to police effectively. Someone downloads 750 images. Are you going to call them up and demand project listings for all the images? How are you going to track whether or not they are using images more than six months old? Switching gears, do you like the idea of an image warranty? Would Getty offer a warranty on istock images? Do they trust their contributors enough to do that? Even if they did, do you think they would canibilize their traditional RF revenues?
I've read your discussion about image warranties before, but I'm not sure I get the sense of you doing anything different than anyone else, as far as what really protects the buyer. Maybe you could enlighten us again on what kind of relationship this really means. You're still having people attest they own the image, and have releases and such. Unless they check "We, really, really, really own it". 
7146
« on: February 20, 2009, 10:34 »
To be fair he hasn't said that clients aren't allowed to download their full quota, only that they are not allowed to stockpile images and that this is most likely what they would be doing by downloading 750 a month. We already know that his would be very rare as demonstrated by Shutterstock.
And it kinda is for the stock agency to dictate what the buyer is or isn't permitted to do with their purchase. That's how licensing works.
That doesn't make it sound any less ridiculous. If I pay to download 750, and I want to use my quota to download for future projects, then I should be able to, without having to justify myself. Their job is to dictate how I use the content (license), not how I purchase it. If they can't profitably fulfill their terms of the agreement then they should amend the terms. "750 downloads a month (btw, you can't really download 750 a month or we terminate you)" is just a come on.
7147
« on: February 20, 2009, 09:36 »
I suspect the IS reviewers are being leaned on to meet a target percentage of rejections across the board.
Any other conspiracies you'd like to pontificate on? J.F.K.'s assassination? Bermuda Triangle? Aliens?
7148
« on: February 20, 2009, 09:35 »
We really would not expect any of our customers to download their full quota - this would most likely be stockpiling, which is contrary to our terms (and in which case we would terminate the license).
This could be one of the most ridiculous things I've read on these boards. Isn't false advertising and entering into a contract knowing the terms are false, illegal in some countries? It is not up to you to determine what the buyer is or isn't doing with their purchase. Looks like just another subscription site. People, I thought you all decided subscription sites weren't really healthy for this trade group.
7149
« on: January 30, 2009, 17:02 »
People will often say here that they don't read the Shutterstock (or was it DT) forums because there is nothing but pimping threads and fawning critiques posts.
If everything was happy cheery all the time, the world wouldn't be very interesting. Everyone here has a different personality and posting style, from the cloyingly cheerful to those with a bit of an edge. I find it interesting to read all the various views. Sorry if that doesn't please you, but there's fun talk in amongst all the chitchat. And some useful information. For instance, I thought your initial post in this thread was very interesting.
7150
« on: January 30, 2009, 15:46 »
Paula, are you looking to do food photography?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
