Quote from: PixelBytes on June 03, 2015, 19:12

Quote from: JPSDK on June 03, 2015, 17:26
I dont understand this thread, and I dont have to.

I am in a position where  I dont have to find out which scam istock has now imposed.
Im free of istock.
That feels good. I dont have to read and think and think again about how Im abused.

I quit istock 2 years ago, and I have never regretted.
And do I miss my 5000 dollars per year sales?  No  I dont, because  I know I took 70.000 dollars out of their mouth.

That 5k per month would be 500/month now anyway if  my experience is anything to go by.

He didn't say anything about 5K per month. More like 400 + per month, for 5000K per year.

Good one!

These may not be stolen, but a business using this Flickr account to store images. I've seen this before with other businesses. Check the guy's website.

I voted your post down because it's whiny and silly. You're required to submit a talent release, if you find that to hard don't upload your files there.

Quote from: Karen on July 20, 2014, 14:38
Weird.
These ports are so similar as they were made by the same person.
Could be another Yuri's style special deal.

Or it could be just one person copying images from a successful portfolio.

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 16, 2014, 18:52

one more to think about:
Who is the copyrightholder of a fashionshoot with a prominent make-up, a hightower-haircut and a prominent outfit??
The coiffeur?
The make-up-artist?
the fashion-designer?
No, its the photographer.
The idea of Co-Copyright-holders is just a theory and has never ever become judged in practice.
Simplified you can say that its the person who pulls the trigger on the camera who owns the copyright
Indepentend from the number of assistents (light, make, style tec) he has

Germany law would require that you get a release from the make-up-artist and fashion-designer. I don't have the time to find a link for you but I'm sure you can find the info.

Overall a nice image, but a little over lit and the style is a bit outdated.  Check out a few food blogs for a more up to date style, here are some links.

http://hipsterfood.tumblr.com/

http://theforestfeast.com/

Acceptance of images nominated for Vetta are about the same. I think the image for this interview is one of them.

Quote from: pancaketom on November 26, 2013, 16:58
I'd like to see some more info on the graph for the specific images shown - I don't know the scales, but what happened on the 5th bar in the graph? 0 sales for one month? What was different there?

ebb & flow

Existing files are still selling well and newer stuff sells but slower than before. I've only slowed uploads because of other projects and uploading to Getty directly.

Question, are you using DM to upload files and is it the latest version?

They do have the "Sparrow" plan which is 90,00 euros for the year. That payment plan also give you sale data for all your sites.

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=939#6

"Logos & Corporate Branding

We will not accept images of protected logos and corporate branding where the logo is the sole content of the image. "

I'm guessing this maybe the problem.

2nd www.stockperformer.com

Try Urilux.

Great idea and about time.

Quote from: shudderstok on May 23, 2013, 20:24

your sense of self entitlement is truly annoying.

He's prussia 

Why didn't just delete the uploads?

"UPDATE: It appears Adobe will still offer perpetual licenses (also see video below where the Creative Cloud is touted "as an option," not the de facto way of procuring Adobe software). They're just down playing it in order to push their Creative Cloud offerings."

http://ryanholmes.me/cutcolorpost/2013/4/7/adobe-and-creative-cloud

Quote from: ShadySue on July 14, 2012, 10:13
For those in the US, I do understand that registering copyright of images in the US is cheap and easy, and you do it with a batch. In the UK, it's expensive and every photo has to be registered separately:
"The current charges for online registration are £39.00 for 5 years or £64.00 for 10 years per work. Uploads over 10MB are also subject to a fee of 3p per additional MB, but there is no limit to the amount of data you may upload within the registration."
And yes, 'per work' means per image, not per 'body of work'. So that would only be an option for the very top-selling UK togs.

"Can foreigners register their works in the United States?
Any work that is protected by U.S. copyright law can be registered. This includes many works of foreign origin. All works that are unpublished, regardless of the nationality of the author, are protected in the United States. Works that are first published in the United States or in a country with which we have a copyright treaty or that are created by a citizen or domiciliary of a country with which we have a copyright treaty are also protected and may therefore be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. See Circular 38a, International Copyright Relations of the United States, for the status of specific countries."

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

Really all depends on the models, some are great at doing their own MU. Others if we don't bring in a stylist and MUA I know we'll have only problems in the post processing.
As for how long it takes, the MUA I use gets the job done 3 - 4 models in about 1 - 1.5 hours. For most stock shoots you don't really need much makeup, just clean up the skin.
Hair is about the same, nothing over the top, nice and simply.

Been that way for years. 

BOOYA!!!! Fuckin A!

Quote from: cobalt on January 05, 2012, 17:59
If search placement is "negotioable on istock" means deals along the lines of "We promise to put x% of your files into Vetta/agency" then yes, I will believe that, because this is already being done with all that content coming in from Getty. V/A gets preferential treatment in the search. So do the exclusive files and aren´t there a few Getty artists/groups that have exclusive crowns although they are not exclusive and also sell their files elsewhere?

But for the normal collections? I do a lot of searches, really a lot on istock and I have never seen anything that would make me believe that some contributors had "special deals" to push their content to the front.

Besides, we all know the joke how if it wasn´t programmed by Sean the code wouldn´t work and mess up the site...and there is truth to that.

Outside of the Vetta/Agency files we see coming in from Getty not one of the people I talked with said anything about iStock playing that game, but I got the impression that for many of the Agencies smaller than iStock this way normal business.

Quote from: sjlocke on January 05, 2012, 16:42

Quote from: Eyedesign on January 05, 2012, 16:36
I'll confirm what Bob is saying. Search placement would seems to be something thats on the table. That is if you have a big Port with good selling power.

Are you saying IS offered you something to not go independent?

No! What I'm saying is that after talking with some top producers search placement is indeed something that is negotiable.