|
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 - fullvalue
76
« on: June 02, 2009, 08:08 »
Thank you all for you opinions ... I see that the mentality of micro is much different than mid and RM.
2 and 3 has generated more than 2K of income combined in those sectors
I guess the IP issue on the aircraft was not a issue with the past buyers as they were both aviation interests (one is a Cessna parter) .
A rethink on my part seems to be needed if it is worth it to me to add micro to my mix.
You're absolutely right the standards are different. RM controls how an image is used whereas RF doesn't. You should run into the IP issue with any RF vendor as they can't control how the image is used and we live in litigious times. As for the dog, I disagree with some of the others, I believe it is stock but I could also see how you would do better as a RM photo since it's greatest value is to people who cater to that breed of dog or their buyers.
77
« on: June 02, 2009, 07:51 »
At this time we regret to inform you that we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto
#1. Subject matter Interesting photo but limited commercial value, more artsy than utilitarian.
#2. Subject matter. Not unique enough to fly on initial application as it's an oversaturated market but I think it might be accepted and sell if you made it in because it's a nice pet portrait of a specific breed. Be sure to include breed information in description and keywords.
#3. Overall composition. Remove all names or identifiable marks. When in doubt, clone it out.
78
« on: June 01, 2009, 09:12 »
Please forgive me if this has been covered but I read the first 6 or so pages and then skipped to the end. 1. Why is SS doing this but other US based agencies aren't? If you're going to collect money are you going to start with the account that owes you a million or the one that owes you 10,000? Tax agencies aways go after the biggest fish first. 2. I've seen mention of a phone number for the IRS but no mention of their website. http://www.irs.gov http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc857.html Noticed that there was a new publication on this subject dated 5/17/2009. Timing might have something to do with this. 3. You might want to read the guidelines yourself or contact one of the IRS international offices. http://www.irs.gov/localcontacts/article/0,,id=101292,00.htmlI'm not a big Obama supporter and I thought it rather silly that he was appointing an Internet Czar but it they address issues like this then it might be a good thing.
79
« on: May 21, 2009, 20:25 »
Thanks for the laugh.
80
« on: May 15, 2009, 06:34 »
Try opening a new account just to reach support. I agree, it sounds like your account's been hacked. The lack of security on most of these microstock sites, excluding SS & IS, is shameful. Hopefully you didn't have much money accrued.
81
« on: May 09, 2009, 12:28 »
I've had them delete keywords that are working based on feedback from DM. But I've given up emailing "keywords @" since I never got any response. The ones I highlighted in red are the one I think are valid for the image as you described.
Human Hand (The Human Body), Police Officer, Prison, Prisoner, Trapped, Trapped, Unlocking, Arrest, Criminal, detention, Bondage, Fetishes, Law, Authority, Law, Security, Security System (Security Equipment), Security, Crime
82
« on: May 02, 2009, 16:37 »
So anyway how does the Premier Collection factor into this equation? Maybe that's the safety valve for the elite exclusives?
83
« on: May 02, 2009, 11:00 »
No.
84
« on: April 20, 2009, 12:36 »
... And on that notice, May 20th I will have a free call with Stephen Mallon. Very interesting story about copyright and how you can loose it as a photographer. Posted in the blog section of this forum.
 Nice. Now that's something microstock photographer's can sink their teeth into (besides you that is).
85
« on: April 20, 2009, 07:41 »
... I just wanna ask why IS doesn't accept images like these any more...at least doesn't accept my images that are even slightly more saturated.
You might need to go exclusive if you want stuff like that accepted ;-)
I guess you're right  Let's see what will audio exclusivity bring to me as I became an exclusive for audio there.
Istock allows exclusivity for types of files? I thought the exclusivity agreement covered everything.
86
« on: April 17, 2009, 07:17 »
Full size crops? Thumbs look pretty good up to 6400 on my monitor.
87
« on: April 14, 2009, 17:59 »
Ms. Beate Chelette, I realize that you are brilliant and accomplished in your field.
But, I don't think this is not the right market for your product. Stock/ microstock photographers already give a significant percentage of their earnings to companies to handle the marketing and sales aspects of their photography business. If this is the right market for your product, you need to do a better job communicating the benefits of your program to your potential clients.
Several people made observations which you can consider or ignore entirely but personally I think they have some validity even if they could have been tendered with a nicer tone.
I wish you success in your venture.
88
« on: April 07, 2009, 14:30 »
And if I were Istock, I'm not sure I'd want someone who breaks a contract as a contributor. Honor the agreement, suffer through disabling the files individually, and move on. Burning bridges is never a good policy.
89
« on: April 07, 2009, 12:40 »
I'm confused. Does Istock have a disable all button?
Yes of course, although it's not a button. It's a text link at the bottom, "administration". Click on there and you can disable the picture, after entering a reason. I do it regularly when I get notified there is an image going into the dollar bin. I don't want my images there. It's easy.
I'm aware of the ability to disable individual files. I've used it myself on occasion. What I looked for, and what the OP is complaining about, is a disable all option. To the best of my knowledge, Istock doesn't have one. Would the admins disable an entire account on request? Maybe, but there's no specific policy regarding it.
90
« on: April 07, 2009, 11:46 »
I'm confused. Does Istock have a disable all button? I went and looked for it the other day. Personally, I like both IS and DT but if having a "disable all option" is a critical issue perhaps you should rethink exclusivity. Obviously, on this issue, IS is just as "stupid".
91
« on: April 07, 2009, 06:43 »
A non topic, eh. I went to a meeting of the PPSO last night. It was really nice. The classification would be commercial photography.
92
« on: April 06, 2009, 16:08 »
How many of you belong to a professional photographers association? If so, do you only shoot microstock or do you also shoot weddings, portraits, work for hire, etc. How would you categorize "stock photography" when filling out an application, commercial, industrial or other?
93
« on: April 04, 2009, 11:28 »
Leave it in context. Why isolate at all. It's nice the way it is and it looks like it would be fairly easy to isolate if that's what the designer wanted. If you do isolate though, some sites will definitely reject for too much blank space.
94
« on: April 01, 2009, 11:39 »
I'm not a big numbers person myself. But you need to start somewhere. Why not start with a topic, item, place and then think about as many applications/variations on that theme as you can come up with for stock.
95
« on: March 31, 2009, 11:16 »
Getty doesn't care. The non-exclusive "Istock" content is available through StockXpert. Either way Getty gets the coin. It would only matter if non-exclusive boycotted StockXpert as a protest to Istock's low limits and that's both unlikely and warped.
96
« on: March 31, 2009, 09:55 »
The times will change they always do.
That about says it. Also, Getty has it covered. They own StockXpert so they make money any way you slice it.
97
« on: March 25, 2009, 14:49 »
You're not changing the resolution. You're changing how those pixels are interpreted.
98
« on: March 19, 2009, 17:34 »
I was under the impression that the point was that stock photos had a uniform look and subject matter across the various suppliers, which they did. Designers exchanged photos for free because they couldn't get what they wanted from established resources.
Istock's limitations on independent and how many old style photos go into the database at one time does nothing to address the issue that as microstock photographers mature in their craft they copy the old styles and subject matter (with modernization) and increasingly the microstock collections resemble the traditional RF collections. Istock Exclusives aren't immune to the influence of previous stock photographers so the limitation issue doesn't hold merit. What happens is microstock sites end up with 10,000 pictures of people wearing headsets under an oversaturated blue sky for ecommerce sites and not one of a sewer rat in a sewer for a political commenatary site.
In Istock's favor though, I will say that Istock is the most accepting of approaches which are different. Other sites are quick to whip out the old "not suitable for stock" whereas Istock accepts the photo as long as it meet technical specifications and lets the buyer decide. Or, if it's a unique subject matter, it might get some leeway (at least it did in the old days).
99
« on: March 19, 2009, 15:22 »
Now that the major production companies are putting the same old, same old but new images into micro in great volumes, the same problem could arise there.[/i][/size][/font]
Which is nice about iStock, because they are all independent, they can't fill the queue with their entire portfolio at once.
I think you're missing the point Sean.
100
« on: March 18, 2009, 18:50 »
I faxed forms to SS.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
