Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on December 01, 2022, 21:27

Why on Earth would you use a tilt-shift lens to take a picture at a flea market?  Any possible problems with perspective in such an image could be corrected easily in PS.  It looks like you have Canon gear.  When I go out and don't want to attract attention I use one of their pancake lenses - the 24 MM would be as good or better than your tilt-shift lens and much less likely to ignite someone's ire.  If you have a full-frame camera and can't use those then a small wide-angle lens should do.  My guess is the person thought you might be law enforcement or something like that - maybe they were selling stolen goods and didn't want anyone to provide documentation.

I was shooting for a book cover, so wanted some creative focus on the goods. Also liked the man's shadow on the right, so was aiming to include his shadow there as he could be part of the story (the man who aggressively approached me within a few seconds of taking that pic). Was shooting with a Nikon D800 with the 24mm Tilt-Shift.

Yes, he could have been selling stolen goods, I suppose that may explain his (over)reaction.

All these encounters are pushing me towards upgrading to a full-frame mirrorless and smaller lens. Or just shooting with the latest iPhone!

I'm suspecting strongly that some stupid incompetent  AI program is being employed on stockphoto sites to
accept/reject pics.
For example I submitted one video that was rejected because they didn't accept identifiable business logos or icons.
Fine with that except that my video was an animated abstract work that did not have any such thing at all.
I resubmitted it just to see if I would get the same reaction or reason for rejection.
This time it got accepted without any problems. Go figure. I can't.
I've had pics submitted on various sites only to be rejected.
Then I would submit them later on the same sites and have them accepted. Again go figure.
Once I submitted an image showing clearly a doll to one website to have it rejected.
Reason for this? No pic of identifiable person accepted without a model release form.
Since when does a Barbie doll need that in order to have it accepted?
Or does the AI have a problem discriminating the difference between doll and real person?
These type of rejections would be laughable or comical if it wasn't so annoying.
Anybody else have issues like this? I know it can't be just me.
If they are employing real humans instead then I don't know what to say.
Other than such people either have cerebral issues or vision problems. 

Two accounts and they are noticing the same images uploaded to both. You won't last long.

I think it should at least be an optout for selling images to russia when shutterstock dont seem to have any problens selling.

Or maybe all images bought in russia going directly to aid Ukraine.

Congrats on the book cover, but I'm confused: they bought your image and mostly changed it?  Other than the concept, I don't see much of your original image in the final.  New hair, new coat, new bokeh, etc.  Seems like it would have been less work for them to just shoot what they wanted rather than heavily Photoshop a stock image.

But I guess paying one Photoshop guy is cheaper than paying a model, photographer, and scouting a location.

SS is using AI to review images and has been doing so for about 3 years.

Quote from: Alamy on July 05, 2022, 08:37

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 02, 2022, 22:59

There are comments in the Alamy forum that this is a bug - an obsolete storage program that  surfaced when they made the changes for the new 20% royalty rate July 1. Several people say they reported it, but perhaps the more reports the better?

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Yes, this was a bug which has now been corrected. We don't charge submission or storage fees - this is an obsolete bit of code from many many years ago.

Apologies for any confusion this caused.

Why wasn't this "obsolete bit of code" deleted when it became obsolete, no longer in use?

What was the point to save it?

Quote from: Mimi the Cat on June 16, 2022, 00:31

Actually all this discussion of big 4 down to big 3 reminds me of those documentaries I used to see showing the waterhole on the African savannah steadily shrinking in summer and the wildlife getting more desparate as the water source slowly shrinks to a muddy puddle.

I think we can safely say we are at the muddy puddle stage and the hyenas are circling with promises of more "exciting news" 

Ah the Wild Kingdom narrator speaking in low tones, softly... describes how the big six, became the big five and now it's the big four, but Pond5 is wounded and limping, the pack will soon surround, separate, and devour the weakest.

Ah yes, we recall how iStock was the Silverback of the Microstock agencies. Oh how age and nature has taken it's toll.    Don't look at DT too close? what's a 3.4 compared to 32 or 64?

Tough economy, world and the biggest buyers, this will get worse, before it gets better. If it ever gets better?